By whitespirit26:
What do you think would happen if Louis found
out D'artagnan was his real father, before or after D'artagnan died?? If Philippe and Louis had grown up
together, what do you think they would have been like as brothers? Also, here's
something to chew on: identical twins start out as one egg in the womb. This
means that if Louis and Phillipe hadn't split into
two different embryos, they would have been born as ONE PERSON! My question is, if that was the case, what do you think that person would
have been like?? I'd really like you guys' thoughts, especially if you've been
a fan of the film for years like me!
By Chrissi2:
These are infact interessting questions.
Well, as for the first one I think Louis would have been first shocked. I don't
think that he would have been excited about the fact that D'Artagnan was his
father because that means that he is not the son of Louis XIII and so no true
king. I think we would love it if D'Artagnan and Louis had a good relationship
as father and son. But my realism tells me that it wouldn't have been good for
D'Artagnan if Louis had known the truth, just as it wasn't good for Philippe
that Louis had known about him.
I still have to think about the second question. I don't have an answer yet.
Chrissi
By whitespirit26:
Thanks! Yeah, it would have been awesome if D'artagnan and Louis had a good relationship. I think Louis
would have been shocked, but I don't think he would have hurt Dartagnan or anything. Of course, this would be if Louis
found out before Dartagnan's death; how about
afterwards? His mother visited him often when he was moved into the country;
maybe she eventually told him. They actually didn't have too bad of a
relationship before Philippe came into the picture; Dartagnan
could be honest with Louis in his advice and Louis would (sometimes) listen to
him. I think Louis respected him more than the average non-royal.
By Chrissi2:
I don't know. I wouldn't trust Louis at this
point. He imprisoned Philippe because he thought that Philippe could be a
danger for his power. Now if people would know about his real origins, that could be a danger, too. Because there could be
persons who would say that Louis is not the legitimate king. So if Louis had no
scruple to hurt his brother to save his power, why should he have scruple to
hurt his father? On the other hand D'Artagnan was his best soldier and Louis
needed him. So he would have maybe not harm him, but I
don't think he would have made the truth public.
But it is true that it would be a great difference if Louis had learned about
the truth after he had been deposed. Because then there would have been no
power anymore which he has to defend. I think he would have felt sorry, even
desperate about that he killed D'Artagnan. I'm not sure if he would have cope with such news without becoming mad (sounds a bit like
a greek tragedy to me).
Chrissi
By whitespirit26:
Oh, I'm sure Louis would not have made the news
of his parentage public! Not only could that dethrone him, but it would put his
mother's life in danger because she was guilty of treason (according to law). Anyhow,
I hope he wouldn't hurt Dartagnan. It's true that he
hurt Phillippe, but he had never met Phillippe and didn't know him like he knew Dartagnan, plus Phillippe was
more of an immediate threat. Since Louis didn't know him, he had no idea of
whether Philippe would try to steal his throne if he found out who he was, but Dartagnan had proved his loyalty to Louis and I hope if
Louis knew the truth before he was deposed, he would known better than to fear
his father. As for whether he found out afterwards..yes, that would be difficult. I think Louis had
enough of a heart to regret his actions, given time. I always wondered what
Louis was like some time after the movie ended and how he adapted to the
country and his situation.
By miriel68:
Well, it was the question I was thinking on
myself and I find it very interesting. We have to remember that Louis (movie
Louis, of course) is very much convinced about his "special" divine
status because of his being of royal blood (remember his conversation with
Christine?). Knowing that d'Artagnan is his real
father would not only shock him: it would destroy him. My bet is, it would push him definitely into madness (he is already
shown as a kind of psychopath). He would get rid of d'Artagnan
as well as of his mother, firstly because he would be eager to protect his
secret, secondly because he would not forgive them what they had
"done" to him. And he would do it in a sneaky way - poison or secret
killer - that's my guess.
By Lady-Janey:
This is a really interesting thread.
I've got to say that I agree that Louis would be absolutely mortified by the
idea of not being the son of Louis XIII. And I think that Mirie
is right, Louis would have exacted his revenge on his parents in secret.
Back to your second question whitespirit.
It's nature v nurture, right?
NURTURE (The easy bit)
I'm thinking that had the embryo stayed whole it would have turned far more
like Louis, since the child would have been raised exactly as Louis was.
I think a lot of Philippe's personality traits are due to nurture not nature. He
is vunerable because of the terrible things done to him, he has a kind heart because he understands suffering. Louis
in contrast is spoilt and egotistical due to his upbringing.
NATURE (?????)
There is the whole thing about the different interests/personalities of twins
raised together though. One of my best friends is a twin and he is so different
from his brother even though they were raised in exactly the same way. It's
weird to think of one twin getting some of the character of the embryo and the
other the rest. That would make a twin only half a person, right? That just seems bizarre to me. Still thinking...
By whitespirit26:
To your first response: Good heavens! I
certainly hope Louis wasn't as bad as that! He acted hurt when he found out
that his mother had conspired to replace him, so I think he loved her in his
way and I can't imagine him trying to kill her UNLESS he really was driven into
madness by it. He didn't even lock her up or kill her when he found out she was
in on the conspiracy against him. I never saw him as a psychopath, but more of
a proud and cunning aristocrat with a very bad temper who was cruel when
crossed.
As to the nature vs. nurture question, that IS a tough one. I tend to think
that our inborn natures ultimately run deeper than nurture. While Louis's
upbringing definetly had some effect on his
personality (the original novel even suggested that he hated the royal court
for making his childhood unhappy and that his lifestyle was a sort of revenge
on the members of it), I think his cunning and his temper were inherent. I
especially feel that Philippe's nature was inherent. If Philippe had grown up
with Louis in the palace, I have no doubt at all that he would still have been
sweet.
On the other hand, if it had been LOUIS confined in the iron mask for six years
and not Philippe, I think his reaction would have been, unlike Philippe's, to
seek revenge against those who had harmed him (if you recall, Philippe had no
wish to get revenge and would have been perfectly happy forgetting about the
whole thing and being a shepherd). I appreciate you guys' thoughts on the matter;
very interesting to read :)
By whitespirit26:
Okay, I just thought of a third question to add
to the other two: if our twins had grown up together, what would they have been
like as brothers? (I have now added that question to my original thread for
newcomers)
By Chrissi2:
Hi whitespirit!
I also don't think that Louis is so bad. I absolutely agree with what you have
said about the scene where he finds out that his mother was involved in the
conspiracy. I think Louis was maybe too young to rule. He does cruel and silly
things, but I don't think he is doing it because he is a bad guy. I think he is
unsecure and afraid to loose his power. And obviously
nobody has teached him to show consideration. He is
what he is because of his environment. Actually
he is a quite tragic character.
Chrissi
By whitespirit26:
Thanks! I agree, he is
a sad figure. In fact, one of the saddest things about the movie was that I
kept seeing little seeds of decency in Louis and hoping that they would come to
fruition; I was DYING for him to be a good guy and fix things with Philippe! He
kept having a chance to do it and you could tell Philippe would have forgiven
him if he'd asked :( Oh well, at least he didn't die in the end. Since he got
the chance to live as a regular a man and not a king and since both his mother
and Philippe seemed to forgive him (Philippe let him out of the mask and his
mother visited him often), who knows what happened in his later life?
By whitespirit26:
Hey guys! Years ago I read the original novel
of this story and, as I said before, it occasionally gave the impression that
spoiled Louis had a trace of sadness around him and perhaps even a trace of
awareness of his situation. While digging through some old papers, I just found
this little piece of the original story that I copied; it's an early part of
the story that takes place after Dartagnan has an
argument with Louis and persuades him to release a man. This little piece is
Louis's reflection once Dartagnan leaves him alone
again: "Oh, human heart, director of kings!" murmured Louis, when
alone; "when shall I learn to read in your recesses, as in the leaves of a
book? No, I am not a bad king nor am I a poor king; but I am still a child."
By Chrissi2:
whitespirit26 wrote:
Oh well, at least he
didn't die in the end.
Thanks God. If Louis had died in the end, I
couldn't have stopped crying. BTW, you said exactly what
I was thinking. Thanks!
Chrissi
By Chrissi2:
whitespirit26 wrote:
"Oh, human heart,
director of kings!" murmured Louis, when alone; "when shall I learn
to read in your recesses, as in the leaves of a book? No, I am not a bad king
nor am I a poor king; but I am still a child."
Oh, what a quote! That's moving. I have also
read the novel, but this must be an earlier part which isn't in my book. I know
the book which I have doesn't include the earlier parts of the story (it starts
when adult Louis has a party at
And when I read the book, I noticed that Louis absolutely isn't the evil character
as who he is often presented in movies. I was so happy to see that. Infact I think that the Louis in the book is alot like Leo has interpreted him (I wonder if he had read
the book). I was surprised when I noticed this and my admiration for Leo's performance
in this movie grew even more.
Well, now about the question what would have happened if Louis and Philippe had
grew up together. First, I think that Louis wouldn't have sent Philippe to
prison, because everyone would have known about Philippe's existence and so it
would have made no sense to hide him. Louis would have also known the character
of his brother and noticed that he is no danger for him. Yes, I could even
imagine that they would have had a friendly relationship. On the other hand
there is a problem. Louis has been influenced alot by
his environment. How do we know that the same environment wouldn't also have
influenced Philippe's character? Maybe Philippe wouldn't have become the nice
guy if he had grown up at the palace, too. Louis was maybe more susceptile to these influences, but we can't say for sure
that Philippe would have been completly immume to them.
Chrissi
By Chrissi2:
Hey, I have just ordered the other two books
which tell the earlier parts of the story. I can't
wait to read them!
Chrissi
By whitespirit26:
Sure! :) I'm glad there's someone who sees
things the same way I do. I know most peg Louis as the bad guy and Philippe as
the good one and think only one will win, but the whole time I watched the
film, I kept hoping for them to get along instead of one beating the other.
I totally agree that maybe they could have had a good relationship if they'd
grown up together and I bet Louis would have trusted Philippe. I can kind of
imagine them together: Louis still gruff and proud, but not as bad and loving
his brother, and Philippe, sweet and calmer like we saw him and maybe even a
sort of calming influence on Louis. Sometimes even mean people have a soft spot
for someone and I thought maybe if the brothers grew up together, Louis would
feel that way for Philippe and Philippe would feel more or less the same way
toward Louis that Dartagnan did: not always
approving, but still loving him and remaining loyal.
That was a pretty nice line from the book, wasn't it? It made me think all the
more of what you said about comparing it to a Greek tragedy. That Alexander
Dumas was something! I also recommend you read an unabridged version of
"The Three musketeers." That book is awesome, easy to understand, and
even hilarious! One of the coolest things about is that Dartagnan
(who's only 19 in that book), with his quick temper and lust for women, is
actually a lot like Louis! I guess Louis took after his father somewhat after
all :) Enjoy the books when you get them!
By miriel68:
I think we have to distinguish between 3
characters: historical Louis, bookish Louis and movie Louis. They are decidedly
not the same character! The first one - ok, let's pass,
we have all serious studies about them.
Bookish one is quite a complex figure (btw. the scene from the book you are
talking about, d'Artagnan begging Louis to release a
man - not really "a man": it was Athos! Bookish Louis had him
arrested after he went to him to say that it was not honorable
to act about Louise de La Valliere thay way he did)and certainly not
a negative character - actually, he grew to be a great king he is known to be.
Movie Louis is another matter. No, he did not get his mother arrested - but it
would be a scandal and a very risky one: his precious secret could be revealed.
He knows quite well his mother will do nothing, but she could harm him by saing aloud her secret if he tried to arrest her. And there
is something very meaningful he says to her "your love has meant nothing
to either of us". If you read the first draft of the movie (you can find
it quite easly in the net) you will find out that
there he was portrayed as yet more brutal and insensible figure, telling her
mother that they had not spoken for "3 years" and that he had not
intention to see her or to listen to her ever.
Therefore it's my guess, he would get rid of her
anyway, but in discretely. And he would get rid of d'Artagnan
also (even not knowing that he was his father) because d'Artagnan
"betrayed him" in his opinion.
I know you, dear ladies, have a weakness for Louis, but I suppose di Caprio's charme
is to blame... there is nothing which entitles us to suppose there was some
"good" in him and if you see the logic of the movie, it leads us to
show he has no heart at all.
As for twins question - I must say I do not think we can consider it seriously
as far as Louis and Philippe are concerned. There is nothing of psychological
approach here - they must be different for the movie's tension. (Again, in the
book the difference is not so much marked).
All for one and one for all!
By whitespirit26:
Uh, no; Dicaprio's
charm has nothing to do with it, I assure you dear lady. In fact, it's
interesting that you should say that because this movie is the only one of
Leo's in which, when I see him, I don't think "oh, there's Leo!" Instead,
I think "Oh, there's Louis and/or Philippe".
The twins are almost more real to me than Leo is! The book Louis is not that
different from the movie Louis; there is the same pride, the same intolerance
for those that cross him, the same almost insane rage when he is locked away.
I actually saw Louis's cruel comment to his mother as further proof that he
loved her. Have you forgotten, he just found out she'd
been plotting to lock him away! His words were very clearly the words of a hurt
and angry person to me; his face almost crumpled when he shouted of Philippe's
betrayal. People often say the most cruel things to loved ones when they are
hurt or angry; how many children have you heard shout "I hate you!"
to their parents? How many do you think actually mean it? Furthermore, Louis's
switch of tone said a lot to me; he went from saying "You were a part of
this too, Mother?" with a shocked and hurt expression on his face, to
telling his mother that her love meant nothing to him. Clearly, it did, and he
wished to hurt her back.
Even the outtake line you mentioned, in which Louis was meaner, speaks volumes
to me. We already know that he and his mother grew apart; did it occur to you
that maybe the fact that his mother hadn't spoken for three years was a matter
of offense to Louis as well? That sounded almost like
he was telling her that the breach in their relationship was her fault and he
had no wish to fix it at that point. Maybe they took out that part because they
didn't want Louis to seem that harsh. Clearly we'll have to agree to disagree
on this matter, but please give me and Chrissi more credit than girls smitten
by Leo. I have read the novel of this film three times and made plenty of
character analysis.
By Chrissi2:
miriel68 wrote:
I know you, dear
ladies, have a weakness for Louis, but I suppose di Caprio's charme is to blame...
there is nothing which entitles us to suppose there was some "good"
in him and if you see the logic of the movie, it leads us to show he has no
heart at all.
Of course it was just Leo. The script actually
doesn't show any sign that Louis has maybe yet a good heart. It was only Leo's
performance which made us feel so. That's why I admire him so much for this
performance. He did something absolutely great. He gave this character a soul.
Chrissi
By whitespirit26:
Chrissi, I thought you said you thought it was
Louis's upbringing that had an effect on his behavior.
Leo's performance was great, of course, but I think and hope that Louis had a
heart somewhere. Leo's talent and purpose is to bring to his character what the
script intends, so if the script had intended to portray Louis without any
sense of decency or emotion, I am sure Leo would not have portrayed him thus. Louis's
hurt over his mother's actions and his seeming earnestness in winning Christine's
love were two signs of a hidden heart to me. Also, the fact that it said his
mother visited him often made me wonder as to how he might have changed; if she
visited him often, that not only gave him a chance to renew things with her,
but it made me wonder if he was more open to her. If he showed hatred towards
her and acted angry every time he saw her, I can't imagine her visiting him
that much.
By Chrissi2:
Whitespirit, I love your posts. I can only sign
what you have said about Louis. BTW, when I watch this movie, I also always
forget that this is actually one person (Leo) who plays two other persons. When
you see the scenes where Louis and Philippe are together on screen, I don't
think "Hey, that's both Leo", but that these are infact
two different persons. Okay, I can imagine that Leo is maybe not the first
actor in a double role who has managed to create this kind of illusion, but it
is yet great to see that. But I actually don't think that miriel
doesn't take us serious. I wasn't offended by his/her post.
Chrissi
By whitespirit26:
Thank you, Chrissi :) I appreciate your posts
too. I wasn't highly offended at Miriel and I don't
think she disrespects us, I just wanted to make sure
she didn't think I'm confusing Louis's character with an appreciation for Leo.
By Chrissi2:
whitespirit26 wrote:
Also, the fact that it
said his mother visited him often made me wonder as to how he might have
changed
Yeah, I think that this means that Louis has
been reformed in the end. But during the movie I don't see alot
support from the script to present Louis as someone who still has a good side. Infact they let him do absolutely cruel things like to
sentence his advisor to death for something which has actually been his fault. There
are maybe a few lines in the script which could show that Louis has feelings. For
example the part where he learns that Christine had actually only pretended to
love him. But all in all I think Leo has interpreted this character quite
different from what you would maybe expect when you read the script.
Well, now I have to go to bed. It's late here. Good night!
Chrissi
By whitespirit26:
I'm guessing that Leo saw Louis the same way I did, in the sense that, rather than not having a heart, Louis had a violent temper and was very selfish. I agree there's really not much to be said for him in the main course of the film; I'm not trying to paint him as a good guy, just to explain why I think he had a chance at goodness. If you compare him to, say, Voldemort in the Harry Potter series, I think you'd see a vast difference between someone with absolutely no heart who's cold and evil (Voldemort) and someone who's hot-tempered and selfish, but not totally without feelings (Louis). Anyhow, goodnight!
By whitespirit26:
Btw Miriel, I
recently read your description of Louis as a "gentle psychopath." I
have to say, fascinating description. Definetly
accurate in regards to his behavior sometimes. I do
hope the poor man learned in his later years.
By Chrissi2:
Yeah, I also think that "gentle
psychopath" is a very interessting description
for Louis. It looks infact a bit psychopathic to put his own brother into an iron mask. So Louis is a very
fascinating character. It's a pity that most people don't see it.
Chrissi
By Chrissi2:
whitespirit26 wrote:
If you compare him to,
say, Voldemort in the Harry Potter series, I think
you'd see a vast difference between someone with absolutely no heart who's cold
and evil (Voldemort) and someone who's hot-tempered
and selfish, but not totally without feelings (Louis).
That's true. I think you can see it in
someone's eyes if he is just an evil guy or someone who has many faults but
also a heart.
Chrissi
By miriel68:
Hi, dear Chrissy
& Whitespirits,
I've got an impression, we have developped, all three
of us, quite a crush on this movie. Sorry I didn't answered earlier,
in the meantime the discussion went so much forward.
First of all, of course I didn't intend being offensive by speaking about di Caprio charme.
I simply intended that he IS charming in the movie: I don't like his kind of
"beauty" generally, but I have to say that it this movie it did work,
hence my description of "gentle psychopth":
he is doing the most obnoxious things with this boyish smile on his face. It
doesn't seem that he wants to harm anyone intentionally: he just doesn't think
about it. And he wants to have his pleasure immediately,
feeling entitled to have it, which is typical for psychotic character - as well
as violent twist of feelings if they suspect themselves betrayed. It is far
more intriguing and facinating than an average black
character like Voldemort or, in fact, most villains
in the movies.
BTW I think the character of Anne was undevelopped in
the movie: she is a bit too passive. We are told she thought the twin was dead
first and then wanted to restore Philippe to his rights but could do nothing
because "already Louis was the king". Hmmm...
wouldn't it be the right thing to confide in d'Artagnan THEN and to try to find some way of making her
son escaping for the prison instead of just prying and crying?
All for one :)
By Chrissi2:
Hi miriel!
That's interessting what you say about psychotic
characters. I wonder if Leo had an intention to play Louis as someone with some
psychotic qualities or if this result has come into being by chance. I mean you
can just play a character from the heart without thinking "Oh yeah, today
I'm going to play a psychotic character" and in the end you have a result
which you haven't planned, but which has just come into being. And I often have
the feeling that Leo has not thought alot about how
he would play Louis, but that he has just played from the heart.
miriel68 wrote:
Hmmm... wouldn't
it be the right thing to confide in d'Artagnan THEN
and to try to find some way of making her son escaping for the prison instead
of just prying and crying?
Maybe this has something to do with a certain
picture of women. The woman is just quiet and passive and the men are the ones
who act.
Chrissi
By whitespirit26:
Hello Miriel! :)
Don't worry, you weren't offensive; I just wanted to make sure you knew Leo's
looks weren't clouding my judgement and I'm sorry if I got a little too
defensive. Leo's charm WAS excellent; it was him, after all, that made me
forget it was him. Talk about a crush on the film! Great way
to put it; when I first saw the film, afterwards the twins were all I
could think about. That, incidentally, was years before I discovered IMDB (I
found it just a year ago) and I relish the chance to discuss this film as I
never have before with people who appreciate it and explore the characters to
the same extent I do. I'm especially thrilled to explore this thread's
questions with fellow fans. Thanks again for you guys' thoughts! Even if we
disagree, they're fun to read. Oh, and as to the subject of Anne, I didn't
really think of that. She definetly had more of a
part than in the book, though. Poor Anne; I always feel bad for that whole
family because all four of them suffered at one point.
By Lady-Janey:
I wish I'd been around yesterday....What a
thread!
Chrissi2 wrote:
Maybe this has
something to do with a certain picture of women. The woman is just quiet and
passive and the men are the ones who act.
I don't think Anne had a lot of choice in the
matter. I sincerely doubt that Louis would have told her where he had
imprisoned his twin and so there was very little hope of ever being able to
help Philippe. As Queen Mother she was a recluse and it was unlikely that she
could have access to speak to D'Artagnan when she wanted too. It seems that
their brief meetings, as detailed in the movie, were very fleeting and
dangerous. Plus, I think that she never told D'Artagnan about Philippe because
she wanted to protect him from the pain. She knew that she was powerless to
help her son and probably feared that D'Artagnan would act rashly and get
himself killed.
Chrissi2 wrote:
I wonder if Leo had an
intention to play Louis as someone with some psychotic qualities or if this
result has come into being by chance.
I think Leo has an idea of what he wants to do,
but in interviews he has said that he often does something completely different
on the final take - and it is often this which gets into the movie. So perhaps
the psychotic nature was almost by accident...
BTW - You've convinced me to go back and read The Vicomte
de Bragleone and Louise de La Valliere
again! It's been about five years
now for me.
By miriel68:
In fact, I'm not sure Leo knew exactly who was
he going to play: I seem to remember that in his commentary Wallace keeps
repeating that "Leo didn't know what the all scene was about". He
says it especially about the crucial scene Louis confronting Philippe + d'Artagnan and his mother, lol. I've
got an impression that the movie shows us the image the director has about
musketeers and company (of course, he wrote the script also so he was able to
make the characters according to his wishes)and it's
mostly why it is no swashbuckling and why it's different from typical cloak and
dagger movie.
As for Anne - I think they simply didn't have time or possibility to think her
character more carefully. In the draft she doesn't know Philippe was in prison
and more than this, put in the iron mask, but in the movie - whatever the
danger she should at least try to do something. A mother would risk her life to
save his baby from a cruel fate and I think she would also put in danger his
lover's life (after all, he is the father!) so the argument she wanted to
protect him, is not convincing. He had already risked his life for her more
than once, and she knew how resouceful he was. No
task was impossible for the famous four musketeers!
But of course it's a movie and we cannot consider the characters as real
people, so we can only say there is a small gap in the logic of the movie. (There
would be no man in the iron mask if she had told d'Art.
earlier).
By Chrissi2:
Lady-Janey wrote:
BTW - You've convinced
me to go back and read The Vicomte de Bragleone and Louise de La Valliere
again! It's been about five years
now for me.
And soon I will read them, too. I had to order
the english versions because
they hadn't a german translation in stock and I
didn't want to wait. But that's okay for me.
Chrissi
By Chrissi2:
whitespirit26 wrote:
I'm especially
thrilled to explore this thread's questions with fellow fans. Thanks again for
you guys' thoughts!
It's also a pleasure for me. You are right. One
doesn't often meet other fans of this movie. Infact
this board was very silent and only had a few threads before Lady Janey and I
started our conversation here. But actually I like it that not so many people
visit this board. So we have almost no trolls here. That's nice.
BTW, you said in another post that the young D'Artagnan in the books is alot like Louis concerning his lust for women. I have never
thought about this, but I think there's something true about it. On the other
hand I had the impression that the young Aramis had something in common with
Louis (I'm thinking of his love affairs and his vanity). That was kind of
ironic as it was him then who started the conspiracy against Louis.
Chrissi
By Chrissi2:
Today I was woken up by the postman who brought
me the books. Of course I have already read a bit. Just now I have passed the
part where the king meets Mary de Mancini. That was sad, made me even cry a
bit. I will continue reading soon.
Chrissi
By Lady-Janey:
Chrissi2 wrote:
Of course I have
already read a bit. Just now I have passed the part where the king meets Mary
de Mancini.
Oh yeah that bits really sad. I felt really
sorry for Louis reading Vicomte de Bragleonne.... I'm gonna start mine again soon!!!
janeyo
By miriel68:
Hi, Chrissy, if your
read French, there is a very good book by Simone Bertiere,
Le femmes du Roi-Soleil (I
do not think they translated it in English yet). A very good read of about 500
pages, even if you will not find a word about musketeers, of course. I am sure
you would enjoy it.
BTW Mary Mancini later life was kind of disaster...
By Chrissi2:
Hi miriel!
Unfortunately my french is
quite bad. I would only understand a few words. But I'm patient. I can wait untill they maybe translate it into english (or even better into german,
but english is good enough for me). Of course I would like to read this
book.
Chrissi
By Chrissi2:
I have now finished reading the passage where
Philippe appears the first time. Awww! What a cute
boy. I'm deeply affected. Leo has done a great job in the movie.
Chrissi
By Lady-Janey:
Chrissi2 wrote:
have now finished reading the passage
where Philippe appears the first time.
Philippe the twin right? In my version, he does not appear
until Louise de la valliere. But I think that scene
is so sad - the way he is just so wary and resigned.
I've started reading Vicomte de Bragelonne
again and I've got to the bit where D'Artagnan goes to Belle Isle. I'd forgotten how
good this book is!!!
By Chrissi2:
Lady-Janey wrote:
Philippe the twin right? In my version, he
does not appear until Louise de la valliere.
Yes. I should have mentioned that I have
finished reading "Vicomte de Bragelonne"
and have now started reading "Louise de la valliere".
Lady-Janey wrote:
But I think that scene
is so sad - the way he is just so wary and resigned.
Oh yes, that was very moving. I also think that
whole scene at the Bastille is maybe the only passage where Aramis shows that
he has maybe yet a heart. BTW, I was surprised that he didn't knew about
Philippe before because I thought that he had known about him the whole time.
Chrissi
By Lady-Janey:
Chrissi2 wrote:
BTW, I was surprised
that he didn't knew about Philippe before because I thought that he had known
about him the whole time.
I think I thought that, aswell!
The movies fault. I guess it a way it makes more sense that Aramis might have
been the one to take Philippe as a baby. In the book, it seems that there are a
lot of people, perhaps too many, who know about Louis's twin!
By whitespirit26:
Anyone else have any thoughts? How about you
newcomers who just now said how the movie affects you?
By emmajbowey:
Oh my God, I've loved this film since I first
saw it March 1998, and I never imagined there could be something like this!.
Firstly, on the discussion on Louis' relationship with Anne, in the novel and
in history, Louis was devoted to his mother. In the novel, he is continually
looking to her for her approval.
In the movie, I think Louis does carry some guilt over his actions. In the
script he is plagued by hallucinations of Philippe, so I think he does feel
guilty. Louis became King when he was four years old. How is a four year old
child supposed to react when he realises he has a brother?.
One thing that troubles me, the plot is hinged on the basis that Louis is
threatened by Philippe's existence. Yet succession to the throne relied on
being the first born, which he was. Surely a threat would have only come from a
civil war to replace Philippe as King, and overthrow Louis. I think, had
Philippe grown up in the Court as a Prince, Louis' behaviour would have been
very different and not that as a despot.
Another thing I didn't like in the original script, Philippe does have a bit of
his brother's nasty streak. I'm so pleased it was edited out, I prefer him as
the gentle soul that Leo portrayed him as.
By Chrissi2:
emmajbowey wrote:
Another thing I didn't
like in the original script, Philippe does have a bit of his brother's nasty
streak.
Where did you see that in the original script? I've
read it, too and I hadn't the impression that Philippe was somehow nasty. Actually
I think that he was very childlike in the original script.
Chrissi
By Lady-Janey:
I agree wth Chrissi. Philippe is very much like a child in the first draft of the script. The cut scene set in the prison, the one where his jailer dies, is so sad to read because he is like a little boy! Not at all nasty/evil.
By miriel68:
emmajbowey wrote:
How is a four year old
child supposed to react when he realises he has a brother?
That's ok, but in the movie they haven't been
faithful to the history and they say in one moment that Louis XIII died when
his son was 16 - and only then he revealed the secret to Louis (di Caprio).
By Chrissi2:
Well, even for a teenager it will be a shock if
he suddenly hears that he has a twin.
Chrissi
By whitespirit26:
Emma, thanks for your thoughts! I totally agree, Louis did have hidden guilt, often disguised by his nasty
and passionate temper. Guys, WHERE can I find the original script?? First
Philippe's got a streak of Louis's nastiness, then
he's childlike?? You're killing me here!! Where can I find it? Oh, and would
you mind giving me a few examples of what you're talking about? First, how
Philippe seemed nasty, then how he seemed childlike? Oh, and how about these
hallucinations that Louis had of Philippe? Embellish, please!! Even if I find
the script, I want your thoughts! It may be a good while before I can
read/purchase it.
In some ways, Philippe seemed childlike even in the movie, like Athos said. I'm
guessing in the original script you meant he seemed even MORE childlike?
By Chrissi2:
Whitespirit, I don't have the link to the
original script anymore. But I have it on my hard disk. So if you give me your
e-mail address, I could send you a copy. Write
me a p.m. if you are
interessted.
Chrissi
By Chrissi2:
Oh, I just saw that I can already find your
e-mail address in your profile. So I'm going to send you a mail with the
original script now. If you get a mail from "Christiane Märker" with
the reference "Original MITIM script", that's from me.
Chrissi
By whitespirit26:
Thanks, Chrissi! You're an angel :)
By whitespirit26:
Well I read the script and many thanks to
Chrissi for sending it, though I realized as soon as I googled
it how silly I was to ask! I agree with the early comments that philippe was childlike AND had a definite nasty streak. I
really didn't like either twin in the original script: Philippe went from being
very childlike to being an angry vengeance-seeker and Louis was either arrogant
or just stupid. Both their characters were SO much
better in the present version; Louis is proud, but cunning; Philippe is
childlike, but with a deep-running steadiness and strength to him. Their
characters were perfectly balanced in the present version. The only parts of
the first draft I would have liked being in the film were the scenes with
Philippe when he finds out his keeper died (so moving!) and when Louis thought
he saw a person in the garden. Both of these added different dimensions to
them. Anyone know if these or other deleted scenes are in the DVD??
By ddoru
05:
I would love to read the original script as
well! Could you be so kind to send it to me too?
Thank you in advance.
By Chrissi2:
Hi!
You can also find the script online. Here is the link.
http://www.dailyscript.com/scripts/man_in_iron_mask_95.html
Chrissi
By ddoru
05:
Aww, thanks a bunch for the link!
*hugs*
By whitespirit26:
Ddoru, please offer some thoughts to the questions of this thread! I'd love to hear them
By kinetic kid:
Great thread, a lot of awesome viewpoints. I
would like to comment on the movie as a whole, not just the points that have
been brought up in this thread specifically, though I hope to touch on a few of
those, too. First off, I have not read the book or the original script, but
reading this thread has me thirsting for both. Since the 1998 movie is the only
point I can reference from I am going to have to stick with that (for now.)
For starters, I loved this movie. I was not a fan of Leo beforehand, in fact,
loathed him enough to avoid any movie he was in. When I first saw this movie
and his portrayal of King Louis I wasn't overly impressed at first because I
thought "Leo isn't really acting here; he's just being himself." But
it was the decisively convincing performance of Phillippe
(as spelled by D'Artagnan's note to his fellow Musketeers in the tombs) that
won me over and for the first time I had to concede that Leo is indeed an
excellent actor. The movie itself has that repetitive draw that makes you want
to watch it over and over again, and each time I watched it I became more and
more impressed with Leo's ability to play both sides of his dual role so well
that when you watch a particular scene you are completely unaware that Louie
and Phillippe are actually played by the same person.
He does that well a job of it. While I still don't consider myself a Leo
fan I no longer shy away from his movies and have enjoyed several roles he has
done since; most notably "Catch Me If You Can." Anyway, all that
aside, I would like to comment on a few ticks in the movie that I thought could
have been better instead of gushing about how great it is because that is just
a little too easy to do.
One thing that I think they could have done better was make the man in the iron
mask (Phillippe) more mysterious to the viewer. By
this I mean upon his mask being removed. The scene with Athos where he speaks
about his disillusionment is too well lit; his face should have been dirtier
with his eyes inconspicuous with the room much darker. It shouldn't have been
so obvious that he was a twin of the King. I'm not saying it was a dead
giveaway just that it should have been much more mysterious that it was. Also,
it is a little difficult to fathom that after his skin cells did not get any
direct oxygen for six years and did not get washed that he did not develop some
serious boils that would need lancing. Not to get gross here, but after a few
hours of Jesuits cleaning him up he looked just a little too clean and spiffy
considering his ordeal. The time span of the movie should have been a little
more stretched out to compensate for the medical attention his face would need
instead of just "three weeks" to get him ready for the ball. A picky
point perhaps, but they could have given him a few sores to accentuate the
lasting physical effect of his plight in prison.
I also would have liked to have known a little bit more about "Louie's
wars and the starvation that results." By more I mean a little more dialog
of the specifics than just "we meet them here and here and cut them off
there" (or such words.) This is minor, but it could have enriched the plot
to overthrow him. We get that he is evil incarnate, no question, but a little
more detail on this point would have been nice. I understand that Porthos was
the movie's comic relief and I was ok with it, but why so much on the bodily
functions? He steps in crap, gets crapped on, forcefully breaks wind and
advises the soon-to-be king to do the same. On top of all that we had to see
his ass! I liked his character and he was brilliantly portrayed, but did they
have to make him that disgusting?
Another point that had me doing some questioning was the plan the ex-Musketeers
had to replace Louie. Hiding iron masks under their ball masks was a nice touch
to psych out the King, but how was Aramis certain that it would work? After his
talk with the Queen Mother we find out that she was involved but couldn't there
have been a scene where she had a private discussion with Louie and we notice
her slipping something in his wine? Some sort of hallucinogen that would have
been enhanced by seeing the masks? We have to assume that something like that
had happened but something like this should have been clearer. Also, I know it
is only a movie, but on this note why did King Phillippe
even have to return to the ball? Couldn't he have just stayed in his
royal quarters till morning to ensure that Louie was removed from the castle
without any sign of alarm? And as king, why does he agree to accompany
D'Artagnan to the exit? It is true that he could have just left but this scene
did show his frailty in exercising his royal powers, so it didn't bother me too
much.
When D'Artagnan kneels and pleads to Louie to spare Phillepe's
life, Louie accused him of taking the side of a traitor, worst of all his own brother who was trying to dethrone him. D'Artagnan's
response of "and what have you done to him" is a little curious
seeing as he hadn't known about Phillippe's existence
or his imprisonment in the iron mask.
I'm not complaining because on the whole the movie wouldn't have been as great
without scenes like the three-on-all fight scene to escape with prisoner Louie,
or without the pivotal 'scene you love to hate' where escaping with Phillippe becomes unsuccessful and he is recaptured. There
just could have been a few little details here and there that could have sewn
these scenes together better. I repeat that I love this movie, and like all
movies that I love I have to split hairs and question parts that could have
made a great thing even greater.
By Chrissi2:
kinetic kid wrote:
After his talk with
the Queen Mother we find out that she was involved but couldn't there have been
a scene where she had a private discussion with Louie and we notice her
slipping something in his wine? Some sort of hallucinogen that would have been
enhanced by seeing the masks?
Oh, I was already angry enough that she acted
in the ballroom like she had no problem with the fact that her other son had
been kidnapped. What kind of mother is that?? I think if she had even participate in the conspiracy actively, I would have hated
her for it. BTW, good post, kinetic kid.
Chrissi
By Lady-Janey:
I'll be honest and admit I totally agree with
you Kinetic Kid. While I think that the performances in this movie are great
and the overall feeling is too, yes there are issues with the events which have
to be overlooked.
Your points about Porthos - I agree, the character was annoying after a while -
I guess he was an attempt at a little light relief for the audience. The humour
is just a bit crude, I guess when you watch the movie
several times.
By kinetic kid:
I'm sorry if I look a little too deeply into
things but that is what makes us good critics I believe. When I watch a movie
and things are just not adding up I start to go "wait, wait..." However,
I've disciplined myself to be a little more tolerant and withhold judgment
until after I've at least seen the entire film. I like to give everything a
chance to be explained. Then when it isn't I'll get out the shears. This is if
I overall do not like a movie. When I like a movie I will watch it over and
over again giving it more time in case I overlooked something initially. And it
is the movies that I DO like that I tend to be more critical of because
I expect more from them. If I don't like a film I often state why then let it go; out of sight out of mind and I don't care any further.
Chrissi, your point is dead on regarding Queen Anne. But I think she was in a
little bit of a Catch-22 and had to make a decision. We could have been exposed
a little more to her dilemma, though. She was very close to her attendant;
perhaps there could have been a small scene where she discusses it with her. By
the smile on her attendant’s face while she was walking down the path to meet
her son for the first time we sort of figure out that the Queen spoke in frank
confidence to her. As for her dilemma, she wanted to meet her long lost son and
knew that her first born was a despot that needed to be dethroned. I don't
think that she believed Aramis would have allowed Louie to have been harmed
even though it would have been Athos' desire to kill him. I think that she
trusted Aramis to do the right thing, but we really needed more insight as to
exactly what they talked about in the confessional. I know,
we the audience are in a similar dilemma because we couldn't have too much
information given away to us up front, but there should have been some sort of
aftermath discussion that explained what their intent was and where it went
wrong. It is easy for us, in other words, to play Monday morning quarterback
with the script because we wind up knowing how it turns out. But still, I
maintain that we should have known more. For instance, why couldn't Queen Anne
tell Aramis that she would take care of D'Artagnan (either sexually or
otherwise) to ensure that her sons were exchanged without any hassle since he
posed the mission's biggest threat? Ok, two reasons: one, because it is a movie
and again we cannot be deprived of the suspense element, and two, because it
would have meant admitting to Aramis that she and D'Artagnan were [once]
lovers. This would have spoiled the ending for the Musketeers as well as for
the viewers.
Alright, so I've done it again. I've analyzed this thing so much to death that
I've actually answered my own question. And I am well aware that Hollywood
cannot regularly get away with releasing three-hour plus films, but this one
could have had some substitutions; perhaps a little less about the King and
Christine and a little more tying up a few of these loose ends. -- K.K.
By whitespirit26:
kinetic kid wrote:
We get that he is evil
incarnate, no question
Oh, I don't think so. He's more complex than
that.
Excellent post, kinetic. I agree with Chrissi that it
would have been unforgivable for Anne to physically assist in removing Louis. She
couldn't have borne that, anyway. I also agree that they worked too hard to
make Porthos a dirty old man. Honestly I never even noticed all the
associations with crap! I thought his stepping in it and getting dumped on by a
pigeon were just humorous moments and not meant to further dirty his character.
(btw, don't worry, I'm sure Philippe never took his
gross advice!)
I don't think Anne would have gone to D'Artganan
anyway. D'Artagnan couldn't betray Louis, not only because of his love but
because of his guilt. He had more on his shoulders in regards to Louis than Anne
did.
By kinetic kid:
whitespirit: On the point of Louie being evil,
they did provide him with the window of opportunity for us to believe
otherwise, but in all cases he failed in my opinion. You get a sense that he
has a sensitive side when he says to D'Artagnan "I haven't met a woman
with a heart like my own until recently" when referring to Christine. When
he speaks to Christine's naked sleeping body that he has seen the beauties of
the world but none more than her we get this feeling that perhaps he is capable
of change; that maybe D'Artagnan's hopes of him were finally coming true. Perhaps
hidden beneath the exterior was indeed the heart of a King that was just too
immature for anyone to notice. He also does well for Christine's mother and
sister by sending his personal physician to tend to their respiratory ailments.
So we do get a glimpse of what Louie could have been.
But what happens the first time he gets crossed? When Christine confesses that
she still loved Raoul and only pretended to love the King, he condemns her to
hell. When he says to her "I am much more than a crown," echoing
D'Artagnan's claim, it is almost as if he wanted to prove D'Artagnan wrong when
in his heart he couldn't dispute that his affairs were empty after all. In
the end it all comes out that Louie was nothing but self-serving. We are shown
this early but when given the chance for redemption he squandered it. Everything
he did was done for his own benefit and none other: sending Raoul to war
to die, having his advisor executed for something he himself was guilty
of, and most of all, having his own brother imprisoned within an iron mask just
to protect and preserve his power. There is just nothing good about this guy
and the best scene in the movie that he is in is when Athos thrashes him to the
ground upon him getting a taste of his own medicine; he's put into the iron
mask himself.
We do get a chance to see the reciprocal of Phillippe's
character on several fronts. At first the vengeful anger after D'Artagnan is
killed when he is choking Louie. When D'Artagnan warns "he is your
brother," Phillippe comes to his senses. His
vengeance crops up again when he imprisons Louie: "You will put this
madman where no one can hear his insanity. Let him be fed by a deaf mute. Feed
him well. Let him learn the pains he has put on others." We love the
reversal, but love Phillippe even more when we find
out that Louie was ultimately given a royal pardon and was visited often by his
mother. It showed that upon serving a penance Phillippe
had a conscious and didn't have it in his heart to treat anyone harmfully.
We can debate on the proposed aftermath of the story, that is, upon being
humbled did Louie finally grow into a decent person? But based on what his
character was in the movie he was proven to have been nothing more than a
spoiled, selfish, and maniacal despot who was rooted in evil. -- K.K.
By Chrissi2:
kinetic kid wrote:
But what happens the
first time he gets crossed? When Christine confesses that she still loved Raoul
and only pretended to love the King, he condemns her to hell.
Such a reaction is only human. How would you
react, if you would learn that your friend has always just pretended to love
you? I don't say that Louis was a nice guy, I only say
that he had feelings. BTW, maybe this was exactly Louis' problem, that he has
never been really loved. (That's only my speculation of course.) Christine
didn't love him and his other mistresses also didn't seem to love him. Everyone
served and flattered him, but nobody loved him. Except maybe for his mother,
but she didn't make a very good job to show him that. He has been educated by
his environment to be a selfish person, but it seems like nobody showed him
what love is. We see
the result in his character.
Chrissi
By langolieron:
I agree with Chrissi2. Louis shows signs that
he has a heart, not necessarily that he has a good heart. I think that he
probably shot himself in the foot when it came to Christine. His love for her
seemed genuine to me, and I think that in loving her he might have grown to be
a better man in an effort to please her. Consider that after she rejected him
he did not have her cast out of the palace. Perhaps even if he had not been
deposed he would have still become a good king. Though I am sure it would have
taken much longer. Perhaps I am too optimistic. I enjoy seeing villains redeem
themselves.
Edit: I meant to add...
Louis was a horrible person when he feel in love with
Christine and he did a horrible in order to have her. When Christine found out
about this any hope she had of loving him was lost and so too, probably, was
any hope for Louis' redemption. It's late here so I'm not sure if I'm making
any sense, but what I mean to say is that Christine may have been the only hope
for Louis to change. However in getting close to her he ensured that could
never happen.
By kinetic kid:
You both make good points, and sure, I was
rooting for Louis to be a good king. D'Artagnan spent his life praying that he
would. And even though he may have had genuine feelings for Christine and could
have changed, the fact remains that some people are good and some people are
bad. Generally speaking, people who are bad are not aware that they are bad. They
just think they are normal and everybody else is wrong because they don't agree
with them. I don't think Louie really knew the difference. A telltale scene was
when his chief advisor (Hugh Laurie) warned that the food that Louie ordered to
be distributed to the people of
By whitespirit26:
Kinetic, what we see throughout the movie are
seeds of potential goodness in Louis. Of course he didn't bring them to
fruition in the film; if he had, he would have become a good character and the
roles of villian and hero would have been confused. You
rather mispoke Louis's reaction to Christine; when
she confessed she didn't love him, she not only shattered his image of a woman
finally loving him but told him, in essence, that she'd used him. She then
said, "I'll burn in hell and so will you". He reciprocated by saying,
"No, YOU will burn in hell" and stalked out of the room. Of course
his words were harsh, but she'd just stabbed what heart and soul he did
possess. He didn't damn her to hell out of the blue, but contradicted her own
words of hell. I think Louis took D'artagnan's words
about empty affairs to heart and thus told Christine he was more than a crown:
because he actually wanted an affair of love. When Christine rejected him, his
heart hardened; when he set out to kill Philippe and the musketeers, he was
utterly blinded by a red hot rage which was fueld
further by shock, hurt, and frusteration.
I do think he had seeds of goodness and that these seeds eventually came to
fruition after his exile, especially with his mother visiting him often.
By whitespirit26:
kinetic kid wrote:
Everybody feared their
king and therefore he never was able to learn right from wrong.
Exactly, which is why I think he's not the same
as utterly evil villains. Certainly he was bad, and intelligent enough to know
what's right and what's wrong, but his environment was not favorable.
This, I think, is further proof that he redeemed upon living in the country:
once he overcame the shock of dethronement, he finally learned that there are
consequences for our actions.
kinetic kid wrote:
the fact remains that some people are
good and some people are bad.
Yes, but when you compare Louis to villains like Voldemort, you find he has more complexities in regards to good and bad. Louis's character was just brilliantly done: he was unmistakeably bad, yet had seeds of potential redemption, though never too many to confuse his role as villian! Just wonderful writing.
By Chrissi2:
@Whitespirit: I
couldn't have said it better.
Chrissi
By kinetic kid:
whitespirit26 wrote:
Exactly, which is why
I think he's not the same as utterly evil villains. Certainly he was bad, and
intelligent enough to know what's right and what's wrong, but his environment
was not favorable. This, I think, is further proof
that he redeemed upon living in the country: once he overcame the shock of
dethronement, he finally learned that there are consequences for our actions.
I think that we are all in agreement here. Louis
had the opportunity to be good and certainly had good around him; D'Artagnan,
his mother, the most loyal Musketeers, etc. But he was bad because he was
selfish. His thirst for power marred his every judgment. He actually thought
that he was more of a god. Like I said, we see that he had feelings for
Christine, as he mentioned to D'Artagnan. We saw in that discussion that
perhaps Athos was wrong when he said "for a woman who will mean nothing to
him once he has had her he would put my son's life in danger?" Not just
Louie's claims to D'Artagnan, but his words and actions while with Christine;
first at the palace during the pig chase then later after Raoul's
death, we get a glimpse that perhaps this person is capable of good. Was he a
villain? I don't think I can concur with those who would consider King Louie to
be a villain for one main reason; he was King. He already had it all.
Most villains want to cause mayhem and destruction because there is an empty
void in their lives that never seems to get filled. Louie was all about himself.
His whole world revolved around his own interests, and he would stop at nothing
to achieve/maintain whatever he wanted/had. So, can I call him a villain? No.
Can I call him evil? You betchya.
As I mentioned in my last post, we can debate over whatever might have happened
to Louie upon being humbled by residing in the country. We can only hope that
after being pardoned by Phillippe he learned the
lesson of forgiveness and through repeated maternal visitations he came to
realize that a kingdom was much more responsibility than just simply serving
oneself; it is a loyalty to one's people. Of course none of us will ever know
but it is healthy to believe that once cataclysmic change was brought to him he
in turn was able to make the transformation and change himself into a good
person.
But for what we were shown in the film I agree with what you both have said (whitespirit and Chrissi): the seeds for good were
there. They just never
grew. -- K.K.
By whitespirit26:
Thanks, Chrissi :)