What would've happened if [SPOILERS]
By Scorch-El:
D'Artagnan had lived?
Well?
By BillyBatson:
I think that his guilt would be somewhat
relieved, but he would still go to see Louis; he had to die.
Don't even think about it.
By teacher tom516:
Maybe he would have done what the historical
D'Artagnan (at least one of his 'inspirations') did - Become a Marshal of
France and died at Malplaquet.
By whitespirit26:
I always wondered myself what would have
happened if D'artagnan had lived and especially what Louis would have done if
he knew??
By Pianogal-1:
Probably would have lived with his love and his
song. Perhaps marry her? I don't know, i'm not really sure what was allowed and
not back then but that would have been "The fairy tail" ending.
By miriel68:
As sad as d'Artagnan's death made me, I do think
it was absolutely necessary for the movie. I cannot see him agree to put real
Louis in the mask or even to make pass Philipp as Louis. Yes, he was trying to
help his friends to free Philippe, but there was no talk about him joining them
and making another attempt to "exchange" kings. He couldn't stand to
see Philipp suffer, but he thought only about helping him to escape. Also, he
had to die, because it is this last, obnoxious crime commited by Louis, which
legitimates Philippe's decision to put his brother into the mask - if it
weren't for this, he could seem to be just as cruel as Louis were.
By Chrissi2:
miriel68 wrote:
I cannot see him agree
to put real Louis in the mask or even to make pass Philipp as Louis. Yes, he
was trying to help his friends to free Philippe, but there was no talk about
him joining them and making another attempt to "exchange" kings.
This is a very interessting point. I have never
seen it like this. I always thought that D'Artagnan also wanted Philippe to
become king then, regardless the question what would happen with Louis then.
Also he couldn't help Philippe on the one hand and keep loyal to Louis on the
other hand. I don't think it would have been possible for him to help Philippe
to escape and then to continue serving Louis as if nothing had happened. He had
to chose one side and I believe he made his decission. The other question is,
even if D'Artagnan would have agreed to replace Louis by Philippe, would he
also have agreed to put him into the mask? Here I think that you are right. He
wouldn't have agreed. He has a good heart. I always thought that D'Artagnan
would have been a better priest than Aramis. Actually it is D'Artagnan who acts
in the movie like a priest should act.
But I have one question. D'Artagnan said to Philippe that he could give up his
king but never his son. So do you think that he had abandoned Louis at this
point or do you think that he has still some sympathy for Louis. This scene
always makes me so sad because actually Louis is his son, too - not only
Philippe.
Chrissi
By miriel68:
Hi, Chrissy,
the last part of the movie is so much complex, I love it! (and I feel so much
for d'Artagnan...). Now, you can see clearly, that he didn't intend to go with
the others: he says "don't stop until you reach the river". He is
staying. He will not serve Louis any more for the simple reason, that Louis
will be mad on discovering d'Artagnan had helped Philippe to escape and put him
in prison or even kill him - in any case, he will never forgive
him."Doesn't matter now" is his precise answer. He doesn't care, but
he still remains faithful to his oath of loyalty. He says I could give up my
king - because he did something against his principles - he disobeyed the
orders of the king. However, Louis is also his son - even dying he defends
Louis from Philippe's anger and IMO he wouldn't never go as far as to hurt him,
no matter what happens.
By Lady-Janey:
I don't think that D'Artagnan would ever
completely abandon Louis. Afterall, he has remained loyal to his son, thrughout
all the wrong things he has done. I think his statement has more to do with the
fact he thinks Louis will remain King and does not need him as Philippe does. I
agree with Miriel, he knows he has to sacrifice himself to save Philippe and
does so to ensure that both of his sons have the chance to live thier lives.
But I definately don't see him allowing the others to place Philippe in Louis's
place. After the charge, just before Louis strikes, I get the feeling that he
hopes for some change of heart from Louis, his faith in the goodness of his son
remains.
But it doesn't come....
By Chrissi2:
Thank you both for your replies. I think what
you said makes sense. At least I hope that you are right.
Chrissi
By whitespirit26:
Girls, my heart tightens just hearing about
that scene and especially your thoughts about it! So true, D'artagnan did sort
of have to die because he couldn't choose. Also a good point that Louis's
action more justified Philippe's taking his place. I couldn't really see
Philippe doing it coldly; even in the earlier scenes with they first attempt
it, Philippe only looked at Louis with curiousity instead of hatred (when he
sees him for the first time) and when Porthos put the sack over Louis's head in
the bedroom, Philippe turned away quickly like he didn't want to watch. You
know, I think Philippe was hoping for a change of heart from Louis at the end
too, right before he stabbed Dartagnan. He was just watching him, waiting to
see what he'd do. That always kills me. I love hearing your well-said thoughts
about it.
By Chrissi2:
Whitespirit26 wrote:
and when Porthos put
the sack over Louis's head in the bedroom, Philippe turned away quickly like he
didn't want to watch.
I never noticed that in this scene before but
you are right. I'm only not sure if Philippe turns away because it is hard for
him to watch or because he is just not interessted. Well, I think it is
unlikely that he was just disinterested. I have the feeling that he always had
problems to look at Louis (at least untill the showdown). The question is why.
Did he maybe had a bad conscience? Or did Louis' presence made him unsecure (I
would also become unsecure when I must see the guy who had sent me to a prison
and put me into an iron mask)? That's a very interessting question.
Chrissi
By whitespirit26:
I'm guessing it may have been guilt pangs
and/or it might have given him flashbacks to his own horrific experience. In a
way, he had to forget about Louis, at least temporarily, or the switch probably
would have been harder for him. But yeah, I always watch their expressions when
they look at each other, especially Philippe's during those scenes since the
two, come to think of it, have minimal interaction.
By Lady-Janey:
I guess we should remember that they were in
essence strangers. I think that Philippe had to have some kind of hatred for
Louis - it would only be human to hate the person who locked you in an iron
mask for six years!
I think in spite of this, he feels guilty for the way he is condemning Louis to
the same fate as he endured. I think the reason he can't look at him is a
mixture of this, fear and interest.
At the end, he definately is seeking a reconciliation - his eyes are begging
Louis to come up with some solution....
By whitespirit26:
Lady-Janey wrote:
At the end, he
definately is seeking a reconciliation - his eyes are begging Louis to come up
with some solution....
I know, that kills me! Do you mean the scene in
the palace after he's caught for the first time, or the scene right before
Dartagnan dies?
By Lady-Janey:
I was thinking right at the end, but I guess
the same could be said for the scene at the palace. One thing I'm glad about in
that scene is that we don't get to see a close up of Philippe's face after
Louis's decision to send him back to the prison. I think I would just cry too
much!
By Chrissi2:
Lady-Janey wrote:
One thing I'm glad
about in that scene is that we don't get to see a close up of Philippe's face
after Louis's decision to send him back to the prison.
That's not exactly true. We see a close up of
Philippe's face right after Louis said: "Back to the prison you shall
go." But we don't see Philippe's face after Louis had ended his speech.
Chrissi
By Lady-Janey:
Chrissi2 wrote:
We see a close up of
Philippe's face right after Louis said: "Back to the prison you shall
go."
True, but it's only for a split second as he hears
Louis's words...You can't see much more than a flicker of emotion. A longer
look would have been far worse, especially as he absorbed what Louis said.
By whitespirit26:
Yeah, I didn't think about how devastated poor
Philippe's face must have looked. And yet, even after hearing Louis's
confirmation of his fate, when they were taking Philippe deeper into the prison
with the sack covering his head, he was asking where they were taking him.
Maybe he still didn't want to believe it. I thought you probably were referring
to the later scene Lady Janey, and Philippe's look was indeed really
entreating. It's amazing how expressive his eyes were; they were the only parts
of his face you could see, and yet they spoke volumes. I know Louis was angry
with him, but the fact that he overlooked Philippe's obvious desire for peace,
inspite of all that HE went through for six years..arghh!!
By Lady-Janey:
whitespirit26 wrote:
I know Louis was angry
with him, but the fact that he overlooked Philippe's obvious desire for peace,
inspite of all that HE went through for six years..arghh!!
Yeah, but Louis must have been reeling at
everything that had happened that evening. Also, its clear that he was actually
afraid of Philippe; he imprisoned him because he was afraid of losing his
throne and it almost happened. Would he really have been in any frame of mind
to read Philippe's expressions?
Philippe was supposed to be dead. Then he turns up, with the formidable
musketeers and tryies to take his throne. Then he realises that his mother has
been part of the consiracy too. And finally his own Captain of musketeers and
all his men turn on him. What a night?
In truth I think Louis could have treated Philippe much worse. But it still
doesn't change the fact that the return to the prison was heart wrenching to
watch.
By whitespirit26:
Yeah, that's true. I certainly understand how
Louis was feeling and even sympathize, it just kills me that Philippe kept on wanting
peace and the chances for it kept being blown. Come to think of it, though,
they both kept ruining them. Louis had the upper hand a few times as king,
which was why I kept being disappointed when he, having the power to make
peace, threw it away, but in truth, Philippe sort of sealed his own fate. Even
though he was a peaceful man and would never have sought to steal his brother's
place, Louis didn't know this and locked him away out of fear. Yet, when
Philippe chose to go along with the plot to replace Louis later, even though he
was justified, he was fulfilling Louis's suspicions of him! They both fulfilled
Louis's fear, Louis himself when he locked Philippe away and Philippe later
when he agreed to replace him. Of course, the whole thing could have been
prevented if their darn "father", King Louis before them, hadn't
separated them at birth, breaking their mother's heart and setting them against
each other. Even HE fulfilled his own fear of feuding brothers by trying to
prevent it and separating them! Good grief, talk about a conundrum…
By Lady-Janey:
Whitespirit26 wrote:
the whole thing could
have been prevented if their darn "father", King Louis before them,
hadn't separated them at birth, breaking their mother's heart and setting them
against each other.
Exactly...It seems to me that Louis XIII would
have known or at least suspected that the twins were not his. That would have
given him a reason to do what he did, because in truth, had twins been born I'm
sure he would have wanted to keep them both to ensure the succession - but
probably raising the younger one like a girl to stop him aspiring to the
throne.
Just some thoughts...
By miriel68:
Lady-Janey wrote:
It seems to me that Louis
XIII would have known or at least suspected that the twins were not his.
I wonder if we aren't going a bit too far in
our suppositions. It's somewhat like famous question "how many children
had got lady Macbeth". She hadn't got any. I mean, of course we can
imagine that Wallace's version of facts is true and Louis XIII wasn't the real
father of Louis XIV (after all, his son was born after 23 years of
marriage...). However, even if movie's characters are unusually well
developped, I don't think such remote developments were even taken into
consideration or could influence the course of action as shown in the movie. So
what we really discuss here is rather director's vision hidden behind the
movie. And I have a distinct impression that his main goal about Louis was not
so much to show entangled relationship with his twin brother as to create an
image of evil. In fact, Louis makes me think about the figure of Lucipher:
charming, beautiful, dangerous, irresistible and completely heartless (not a
bad connection for a cloak-and-dagger movie, indeed!). If you consider the
movie as a whole, you can see that every single scene with him deepens this
image and adds some new manifest of his cold cruelty. (While Philippe, of
course, would be an angel in that optic - and he HAS to release Louis from the
mask not because of his good feelings, but because it is requested by the moral
contrast between those two, :). And I have to say, I do admire Wallace's
courage to go above usual schemes and to create such a complex image of the
characters.
By Chrissi2:
miriel68 wrote:
In fact, Louis makes
me think about the figure of Lucipher: charming, beautiful, dangerous,
irresistible and completely heartless (not a bad connection for a
cloak-and-dagger movie, indeed!).
LOL, that's cool that you have mentioned this,
because I already had the same thought. Well, except for the fact that Louis
like he is finally portrayed by Leo in the movie isn't heartless.
Chrissi
By miriel68:
Chrissi2 wrote:
Louis like he is finally
portrayed by Leo in the movie isn't heartless.
LOL, I'm very glad we disagree here, because it
means we can continue the discussion, and what better pleasure than talking
about a movie you love?
But please can you tell me, where does he "show" some heart in your
opionion? He is extremely emotional in the confrontation scene, I grant you,
but I'm not at all convinced his heart has something to do with it. He has been
offended in his "divine" status of the king - and the hatred is
pouring out of him. The only moment of eee... human? feeling, is IMO the
interaction between him and d'Artagnan, non the one between him and Philippe.
May be d'Artagnan is really the one and only person he does have some feeling
about. But even so, there is no exception to the rule: if you contradict me,
you are against me, if you are against me, my anger will fall on you. In the
prison scene Louis is eager to see them ALL dead and the hatred shows clearly
on his face. We won't believe his promise that he will let d'Artagnan "retire
in peace", will we?
By Chrissi2:
miriel68 wrote:
But please can you
tell me, where does he "show" some heart in your opionion?
Maybe we must first define what we mean with
"he shows some heart". Maybe we mean something different. When I say that
Louis is not heartless, then I simply mean that he has feelings and that he is
vunerable. Yes, there are not scenes in the movie where he shows that he is
actually a good guy. But there are scenes where we see that he is vunerable,
not just the confrontation scene, but also the scene where Christine tells him
that she had only pretended to love him. My theory is just that someone who is
also vunerable and not only cold and unemotional also is somewhere good at
heart, even if you can't see it.
Chrissi
By miriel68:
Chrissi2 wrote:
When I say that Louis
is not heartless, then I simply mean that he has feelings and that he is
vunerable.
Ok, then I will agree with you. May be the
problem is purely linguistic, neither of us is English born, lol. Yes, Louis
does have feelings - in a sense he is not real "Lucipher" - he is
human, after all. The interesting thing is, his emotional interation with
d'Artagnan is much stronger then his relationship with his mother.
By Lady-Janey:
miriel68 wrote:
The interesting thing
is, his emotional interation with d'Artagnan is much stronger then his
relationship with his mother.
We don't really see too much interaction in the
movie between Louis and Anne though, do we? If we consider that if like the real
Louis, the character was raised by a wet-nurse, then it's quite probable that
he would have spent far more time with D'Artagnan his devoted bodyguard and
therefore feel closer to her.
By miriel68:
Lady-Janey wrote:
If we consider that if
like the real Louis, the character was raised by a wet-nurse.
Well, the real Louis had of course wet-nurse,
but in fact he had a strong relationship with his mother - much stronger than
most other royal children of that time would have: she adored his son and only
feared her husband would take him away from her and he had always have for her
most sincere love and consideration.
In the movie they chose not to go deeper into their relationship - which is a
pity, really: we are told that Louis XIII on his deathbed told Louis and Anne
about the twin (which is, of course, complete nonsence from the historical
point of view, considering he died when his son was something like 6 years old:
doesn't matter, we are talking about the movie)and that Anne wanted her other son
to be restored to his rights, but "Louis was already the king". Wow,
there would be a lot to dig up here: what did she feel? How did she react? Did
she come to hate Louis? Did she reject him in her heart? Did she TRY at least
to do anything? These are all fascinating points and it's a pity they had not
emerged in the movie even in a small degree.
By Chrissi2:
miriel68 wrote:
which is, of course,
complete nonsence from the historical point of view, considering he died when
his son was something like 6 years old
BTW, I think this wasn't a clever move from
Randall Wallace to change history at this point. According to the movie the old
king must have died when Louis (and Philippe) was 16 years old. But this means
that they have completly faded out the 'Fronde'. That's a pity because this
kind of childhood experience would have been an excellent explanation why Louis
reacts so aggressively to Philippe. At least it would be an important part of
the puzzle to explain his psyche.
Chrissi
By whitespirit26:
What was the Fronde? Would you please
elaborate, Chrissi?
By miriel68:
Chrissi2 wrote:
I think this wasn't a
clever move from Randall Wallace to change history at this point.
You are so right Chrissy, I'm not VERY pedant
about historical accuracy, but this major change was quite annoying. My guess
is that they thought it would be too complicated to explain to the audience
that Louis died when his sons were small children (he left regency to Anne of
Autriche bwt, so it would be a bit akward to explain why she did nothing THEN
to save his other son) and it was cardinal Mazarin who was the grey eminence
and the true ruler of France for many years - until his death, in fact.
Whitespirit, Fronde was a rebellion against the Queen and Mazarin - it leaded to
a civil war which lasted some years - you have all about it (ok, not a very
accurate tale but surely very well told) in "Twenty years after", the
second part of musketeers saga.
By Chrissi2:
mirie68 wrote:
you have all about it
(ok, not a very accurate tale but surely very well told) in "Twenty years
after", the second part of musketeers saga.
Hi miriel!
Is this book good? How big is the part which Louis plays in this book? Would it
be worthwhile for me to buy it?
Chrissi
By Scorch-El:
Plus also, you have to remember that both
D'artagnan and Phillipe needed something to push them over the edge. Athos
would've killed Louis in a heartbeat, but D and P were family.
So D'artagnan's sacrifice, at least in his mind, was some form of atonement,
and to Phillipe, it was the catalyst needed to make him fully embrace being the
King.
By whitespirit26:
Too true, humanscorch. Dartagnan and Philippe
were Louis's family and that fact kept Dartagnan from participating in any
scheme against Louis and Philippe from killing him, even after he killed
Dartagnan.
By miriel68:
Hi, Chrissy,
actually, Twenty years later has been always my favourite part of the trylogie.
As
a book it is certainly better than Vicomte de Bragelonne - the structure, the
plot development etc. /from that point of view Vicomte... is rather a mess/.
Also, I love musketeers who are still vigorous and full of life there /in fact,
they are of age shown in the movie: at time Louis was 22 they would be over
sixty and d'Artagnan over fifty/. However, you won't find much of Louis in
Twenty years...: he is still a child, about 10 years old and he doesn't play a
big part in the events, there are some interesting scenes with him, though. But
the relationship between Anne of Autriche and Mazarin is shown very well, and
the adventures of musketeers are fascinating - there is even the secret meeting
and the animosity and their becoming kind of enemies: IMO Wallace was quite
inspired by this book and he introduced some of its motives into the movie.
Hope that helps.