By
ddoru 05:
I was just wondering, do you think that Louis
loved her? I mean, even though he was using women and cared more for hiw own pleasure,I
think that he might have felt something for her. After they had made love, he
kissed her cheek and commented on how beautiful she was...it could have been
some simple words, but his look seemed pretty serious. I think this was one of
those rare moments when he showed any sign of emotion'feeling...what
do you think?
On the other hand, when he sees her dead, he just says "get rid of the
body.."
What do you think? Is Louis a womanizer as he seems to be or is there more to it ?
By Chrissi2:
I think he really loved her because when she
tells him that she had only pretended to love him, he looks really hurt. BTW,
Louis shows alot of emotions and feelings in this
film. That's why I have sympathy for
him.
Chrissi
By ddoru 05:
Yeah, that's what I was thinking too...Thanks
for replying, Chrissi....I'm a big MITIM fan too!!!
By miriel68:
I think he THOUGHT he loved her. In any case,
he was never interested in her as a human being, but only in her body. As for
her loving him... now, you don't need to be a psychologist to know that if a
woman goes to bed with you just after her lover has been killed, she probably
doesn't do it for love, and Louis may be nasty but surely he isn't particularly
stupid. It's my guess he is more offended than hurt when Christine tells him
about her regrets: from his point of view she has no right to keep her private
feelings once the king did her the honour to take interest in her.
By Chrissi2:
miriel68 wrote:
It's my guess he is
more offended than hurt when Christine tells him about her regrets
I disagree. Look at his eyes and listen to his
voice. He is hurt, not offended.
miriel68 wrote:
As for her loving
him... now, you don't need to be a psychologist to know that if a woman goes to
bed with you just after her lover has been killed, she probably doesn't do it
for love
Why not? Sure, she doesn't do if for love the
first time. But actually it is not impossible to fell in love with another guy
after your first lover has died. And Christine first didn't know that Louis was
responsible for Raoul's death. So Louis could hope
that Christine would fell in love with him. First of all this would have been
wishful thinking, but it is also not completly
unrealistic. And of course Louis is not stupid, but if you really want
something, then you can also get into the impression that this
what you want is reality.
BTW, do you think Louis is capable of having deep feelings, like love or pain? Or
do you think he has only superficial feelings like being miffed or so?
Chrissi
By miriel68:
Chrissi2 wrote:
I disagree. Look at
his eyes and listen to his voice. He is hurt, not offended.
Well, it is difficult to discuss the
impressions - we just differ here. However, doesn't he seem really serious and
sincere when he makes the promise to d'Artagnan?
"Raoul will return soon. You have my word". In that very moment 1) he
plans to get rid of his rival in a very brutal way 2) he is laying to the may
be only person he is attached to - in a certain way, at least 3) he actually
gives his WORD and we have to remember in that century you didn't do such thing
lightly. Yet looking at his eyes and listening to his voice you would say he is
sincerity itself...
Chrissi2 wrote:
BTW, do you think Louis is capable of
having deep feelings, like love or pain?
You know my theory of Louis "gentle
psychopath". I'm not a psychologist by profession, I'm quite interested in
theories of personality, however, and I have some general notion of them -
Louis seems to fit ideally the main characteristics of psychotic character. Yes,
he is capable of having strong - I wouldn't use the word "deep" -
feelings, but IMO they are fed by his extreme egocentrism and further
reinforced by his being convinced of his special "divine" status as a
king. He pretends the world to be like he wants it to be and he wouldn't accept
any critic. Another typical detail: his positive feelings are considerably
weaker than his negative feelings.
By Lady-Janey:
miriel68 wrote:
However, doesn't he
seem really serious and sincere when he makes the promise to d'Artagnan?
This scene troubles me. Perhaps he wants to
believe that he can be a better person and allow Raoul to return and perhaps he
really does believe that he loves Christine. But I think he comes to realise
that Christines heart belongs to Raoul and he can see
no other choice other than to get rid of his rival.
Louis is clearly obsessed by his divine right and it influences so many of his
actions. That is why his acts, such as getting rid of Raoul, masking his twin,
asking a priest to kill the Jesuit leader don't seem all that significant to
him. He is above the laws of man in his mind.
It would have been nice to see a bit more of the relationship between Louis and
D'Artagnan, maybe even get a few scenes similar to Dumas's books where the
Captain really speaks his mind to the young King.
By Chrissi2:
miriel68 wrote:
"Raoul will
return soon. You have my word". In that very moment 1) he plans to get rid
of his rival in a very brutal way 2) he is laying to the may be only person he
is attached to - in a certain way, at least 3) he actually gives his WORD and
we have to remember in that century you didn't do such thing lightly. Yet
looking at his eyes and listening to his voice you would say he is sincerity
itself...
I wonder if Randall Wallace who wrote the
script had considered what it meant at this time, when somebody gave his word. However,
this scene presents Louis as an impudent liar.
miriel68 wrote:
You know my theory of
Louis "gentle psychopath". I'm not a psychologist by profession, I'm
quite interested in theories of personality, however, and I have some general
notion of them - Louis seems to fit ideally the main characteristics of psychotic
character.
And I would agree with you at this point. However,
for the question if he has strong feelings it doesn't matter for me if he is a
psychopath or not. But I'm also more influenced by the christian conception of man and not so much by
psychological theories. So I see him as someone who has become entangled in
sin. But this makes him not completly bad as a person
(hate the sin, love the sinner). So I'm always thinking that it is not completly hopeless and there's still a chance that he could
convert (Louis also reminds me of the lost son). Well and it is very likely
that he has been reformed when he got a pardon from Philippe. So I think that
our opinions of Louis are very much influenced by our perspectives. You see it
from a more medical point of view while my point of view is more theological.
Chrissi
By miriel68:
Chrissi2 wrote:
So I think that our
opinions of Louis are very much influenced by our perspectives. You see it from
a more medical point of view while my point of view is more theological.
Yes, it's probable. However, it's always
fascinating to confront different points of view.
Chrissi2 wrote:
I wonder if Randall
Wallace who wrote the script had considered what it meant at this time
It's the same problem we have already come
across later: we tend to think about characters of the movie as if they were
real people. No, I do not think Wallace dedicated some years of study to such
questions. However, it's evident that Louis plays here - in a very shameful way
- with d'Artagnan, who obviously believes him,
because he believes in bounds of honour ("an oath is an oath")and
because he wants to believe that there IS some honour in Louis (but - alas - he
is wrong).
Chrissi2 wrote:
Well and it is very
likely that he has been reformed when he got a pardon from Philippe.
Here I could say the same thing you justly
noticed about word of honour: I do not suppose that Wallace gave much thought
to Louis and his being refomed or not: from the moral
point of view he could not have Philippe leaving his brother in the iron mask
to the end of his life. He had to add the information that Philippe released
his brother for the sake of the logic of the movie and the ideal image of the
"good brother".
By Chrissi2:
miriel68 wrote:
He had to add the
information that Philippe released his brother for the sake of the logic of the
movie and the ideal image of the "good brother".
You've mentioned the logic of the movie and
this logic is exactly the reason why I believe that Louis has been reformed in
the end. I already mentioned in another thread that the ending of the movie
wants to tell us that everything is good and everyone is happy now. However
it's a different thing how we personally felt about the ending, because I for
example was very sad and weeped over Louis (before
the narrator said that he had gotten a pardon). But despite our personal
feelings there's a message of this ending and this message is that everything
has become alright. So as I said in the other thread it would just fit this
kind of ending if Louis had been reformed.
Chrissi
By whitespirit26:
Wasn't he portrayed as being really
intelligent? I know that, emotionally, he was a bit of a mess, but don't we get
the impression he has a very sharp brain, in a calculating sense?
By Chrissi2:
whitespirit26 wrote:
Wasn't he portrayed as
being really intelligent? I know that, emotionally, he was a bit of a mess, but
don't we get the impression he has a very sharp brain, in a calculating sense?
I'm not sure. Could you give an example,
please?
Chrissi
By whitespirit26:
Just throughout the movie. He was always making
underground plans and often looked like he was sizing things up. I don't know
how else to explain it; he just seemed calculating and I often got the
impression that while Philippe was the strong angelic type, Louis was the
sneaky, crafty type. Many times when it showed him it would look as though
there was some dark intelligence in his eyes.
By miriel68:
whitespirit26 wrote:
he just seemed calculating and I often
got the impression that while Philippe was the strong angelic type, Louis was
the sneaky, crafty type.
whitespirit, I do agree with you. He is not
only nasty, he is also clever: for example, he knows immediately that d'Artagnan will try to help the other musketeers to free
Philippe (now, our dear captain is a bit naive here, isn't he?.
And he manipulates people: he manipulates Christine, helping her family, he
manipulates d'Artagnan, giving him his word of
honour, he manipulates his advisers and so on.
Chrissy, now I really know why the poor d'Artagnan had to die: if you pity Louis even after he
attempted to kill directly his brother and after he effectively killed his
father (or: the man who he in any case regarded as a kind of paternal figure),
what if it hadn't happened? "Changing places" would be unbeareable for you and probably for many other viewers.
As for the "everybody's happy" end, I have to say I don't like it
particularly: it's a bit too sweet for me. But it can be also because, even if
I enjoy very much
di Caprio's portrayal of Loius, I'm not at all emotional about the character. All
my feelings go for d'Artagnan.
By Lady-Janey:
miriel68 wrote:
I'm not at all
emotional about the character.
I used to feel like that, but Louis has grown
on me as a character. You have to think about the context of certain of his
actions. He masks Philippe when he first comes to power,
he is completely terrified when he accidently kills
D'Artagnan. He is betrayed by his mother, the man he looks at as a paternal
figure and by his own bodyguard. (lieutenant Andre.)
I think thats pretty sad,
regardless of how anyone has behaved in their life.
By miriel68:
Lady-Janey wrote:
He is betrayed by his
mother, the man he looks at as a paternal figure and by his own bodyguard. (lieutenant Andre.)
One could say: he asked for this... I think the
weakest point here is his mother - or rather her portrayal in the movie. He did
have some right to feel betrayed by her. d'Artagnan,
however, had never done so - even if Louis probably thinks he has - he tried to
help Philippe to escape, but he never intended to take any action AGAINST
Louis, remember. As for Andre... he wouldn't betray his king, if Philippe
weren't his brother (ergo, having the same right to be a king) and if Louis
hadn't surpassed every possible limit of humanity.
It is sad, yes. When I said I'm not emotional about Loius
it's because that's my usual approach to the fiction, even if I have to
confessed, I was moved by d'Artagnan's death.
By whitespirit26:
Miriel and Lady Jane,
thank you both for your comments; I agree. Miriel,
I'm glad someone else noticed the sort of sinister mastermind thing Louis
seemed to portray. Lady Jane, I also totally agree about Louis' effectiveness
as a character and his emotional reactions to the events around him. Randall
Wallace made a hell of a couple of characters! There are great characters
throughout the movie, of course, but the twins in particular are captivating
and miriel's right about Louis being an unusually ineteresting villain. I'll never forget D'artganan
either; what a tear-jerker!
By Lady-Janey:
I have a question guys, I'd like to know what
you all think.
What do you reckon would have happened if Louis had not stabbed D'Artagnan. Afterall, this scene
is pivotal around Andre's decision to support his Captain. Do you think his
final decision was just based on a need for revenge, or do you think he was
already contemplating changing sides?
By Chrissi2:
I think André decided to change sites when he
heard that Philippe was Louis' brother. I think he was already shocked about
D'Artagnan's death, but hearing the truth about Philippe's identity was the
real trigger. But I'm not sure if he had changed sites, if Louis hadn't killed
D'Artagnan. I tend to think he wouldn't have done it. However, I believe in the
movie he only decided to change sites when he learned about Philippe's real
identity, not already when D'Artagnan was stabbed.
Chrissi
By miriel68:
I agree with Chrissy,
revealing that Philippe is Louis's brother was crucial for Andre's decision. He
is a soldier and the main principle of a good soldier is to obey the orders
given from the legal authority. Therefore, when the king orders him to attack
his beloved captain, he will still do this. However, by his hideous crime Louis
"loses" his legal authority going against the most basic human rights
of justice and all what Andre needs then is another legitimate candidate for
throne. In fact, Philippe's rights are EXACTLY the same as Louis's and he has
to prove himself more worthy than his brother to gain the throne. It's a ricurrent motive of the movie: being the king doesn't mean
having the the power, it means having the duties. From
the beginning of the movies we can observe Louis compromising his rights to be
the king and then we can follow Philippe gradually growing to have this right.
Indeed, Wallace suceeded in creating unusually deep
characters (at least for such a kind of movie). IMO opinion, it's because for
once we have a director who has followed his own inclination, instead of trying
to adaptate to audience's expectations.
Oh, poor d'Artagnan, so many reasons he HAD to be
stubbed! It's good for the director, he can murder a character when he has need to do so, in the real life it could have gone quite
differently...
By Lady-Janey:
I think I agree. It seems that D'Artagnan is so
pivotal to this movie, just like you said Miriel. It's
interesting that Andre wold choose to change sides, I
mean, he didn't actually know that Philippe was a better option; he'd only seen
him for a few minutes. I can only think that he trusts D'Artagnan's opinion of
the twins so completely and thinks that he thinks Philippe would make the
better King.
By whitespirit26:
Interesting point, Lady Janey. Andre really didn't know Philippe
or see him for any length of time. I guess he not only trusted D'artagnan, but was so pissed with Louis for killing him
that he chose to take his revenge.
By Chrissi2:
whitespirit26 wrote:
I guess he not only
trusted D'artagnan, but was so pissed with Louis for
killing him that he chose to take his revenge.
BTW, this would actually be a quite primitive
motive...
Chrissi
By Lady-Janey:
Well, I think that to some extent that was
true. Afterall, Andre has been an observer while
Louis has done some pretty terrible things. Seeing his Captain change sides,
even though he does not know the motive must be a major push. Then discovering
that it is not treason makes it even easier. Seeing his mentor stabbed, even
though Louis did not mean it is just the final straw.
I'm not saying that this plot point is completely believable,
it is conceivable to follow through Andre's change.
By miriel68:
Chrissi2 wrote:
BTW, this would
actually be a quite primitive motive...
I'm not sure I agree. After all, d'Artagnan was a kind of paternal figure to Andre' (all my
life all I ever wanted to be was him...) and he knows better than anyone that d'Artagnan was completely devoted to Louis. He is a
soldier, trained to obey, but he is also a pupil of his captain, trained to
THINK and to consider things from ethical point of view. Louis doesn't beheve like a king - he is not APT to be a king and Andre understand it.
By Chrissi2:
Well, of course it is understandable what André
does. However for me that's also like jumping on the bandwagon. But if he had
kept loyal to Louis and continued protecting him, that would have been cool. I'm
not using rationality as an argument here, I just find
this thought somehow romantic. On the other hand changing sites when everyone
would expect you doing this is quite unromantic. BTW, if I would have been a
character in the movie, I would have defended Louis untill
the end against all the others. Well, that's romantic.
Chrissi
By miriel68:
Chrissi2 wrote:
if I would have been a character in
the movie, I would have defended Louis untill the end
against all the others. Well, that's romantic.
No, that's love, :).
By Chrissi2:
miriel68 wrote:
No, that's love
*nods
her head*
Chrissi
By Lady-Janey:
LOL!
But if Andre hadn't changed sides, then Philippe, Aramis, Athos and Porthos
would have faced a terrible end! And IMHO that
would have been far worse....
By Chrissi2:
I don't care so much for the musketeers. I love
Louis and they want to harm him. So I haven't that much sympathy for them. The
only one I would really feel sorry for is Philippe. I mean actually Aramis is a
S.O.B (Why did he only freed Philippe when his own life was in danger? He is
totally egoistic). Athos motives are understandable. So I think he is the one
of the three for who I still have the most sympathy. And as for Porthos, I
always have the feeling that he just wants fun and doesn't really care on which
site he fights.
Chrissi
By whitespirit26:
Interesting character analysis,
Chrissi.
Honestly, I never thought I'd come across someone who felt just like I did; I
love Louis too!! I love both him and Philippe and always wanted the best for
them. I always pictured myself in the movie, involved in the plot of the
musketeers and terribly torn, dreading what would happen to Louis but sticking
to the plan for Philippe's sake. I also felt very close to D'artagnan;
I just wanted to protect their whole family!
What you said about Aramis and Porthos really struck me, too. Aramis obviously
did care for Philippe and felt horrible for leaving him in prison, but what
would have happened if his own life and plans hadn't been threatened? In fact,
when I first came across your fanfics, I asked about
showdowns between Louis and Philippe partly because I had an idea of one in
mind.
You know how we discussed Louis's craftiness? Well, I noticed the same thing
about Porthos and Aramis that you did and, in the confrontation I thought of, I
pictured Louis angrily telling Philippe the musketeers plotted against him for
their own selfish reasons and not for Philippe's sake. Louis's challenge would
go something like this:
"You think you are so beloved to them, brother? That they risked their
blood only for your sake? Porthos is only a follower, but the other two had
personal motives. What of Athos's taste for
vengeance? What of Aramis's need to protect himself? He
knew you were in that mask from the beginning, yet he never budged to help you
until I threatened him. What if Aramis's life had
never been threatened, Philippe? How much longer would you have languished in
that prison if Aramis had no need of you? They claim I was a terrible king and
that their actions were for the good of France, yet they never stirred a foot
to put a stop to me until they had their own personal motives: Athos his
revenge, Aramis his life, and Porthos, like a faithful dog, the command of his
two masters to follow straight into the conflict he so loved. Perhaps you
should consider this when you hold those men close to your breast as your dear
and true friends."
Okay, that lasted longer than I thought, but I did wonder about it. I still
haven't figured out what Philippe's reaction would be if Louis faced him with
that. Thanks for bringing that to my attention again, Chrissi.
By Lady-Janey:
whitespirit26 wrote:
"You think you
are so beloved to them, brother? That they risked their blood only for your
sake? Porthos is only a follower, but the other two had personal motives. What
of Athos's taste for vengeance? What of Aramis's need to protect hismelf?
He knew you were in that mask from the beginning, yet he never budged to help
you until I threatened him. What if Aramis's life had
never been threatened, Philippe? How much longer would you have languished in
that prison if Aramis had no need of you? They claim I was a terrible king and
that their actions were for the good of France, yet they never stirred a foot
to put a stop to me until they had their own personal motives: Athos his
revenge, Aramis his life, and Porthos, like a faithful dog, the command of his
two masters to follow straight into the conflict he so loved. Perhaps you
should consider this when you hold those men close to your breast as your dear
and true friends."
Wow! What a speech!!! I can just imagine Louis
saying something like that to Philippe.
I certainly agree about Aramis. I have always found his character to be dislikable, whether in movies or the books. Philippe is
just a tool to him. Like you say, he is a conveniant
way to save his own live, plus I think he is ambious
enough to covet the power that comes with being a Cardinal of France.
Porthos though, I do feel sorry for. He is so loyal to Aramis that the latter
can use him for any means, regardless of whether it puts him in mortal danger. It
is even more obviously heartbreaking in the book. SPOILER FOR BOOK - I cried
for him!
Athos motive is far more complex than just revenge, I am certain. He never knew
about Philippe as Aramis did. Would he have become involved if it had not been
for Raoul? I certainly hope that he would have. His speech at the bridge about
a worthy King is telling. It is clear that although he has obviously been
partly influenced by what happened to his son, but he also has another motive. Also,
if we look at the Athos in the books, he is the sort of person who would help
someone like Philippe, even if he had nothing personal to gain. (e.g. when he helps Charles II of
I also don't imagine Philippe to be niave as the imagine that the Musketteers
were acting just for his sake. Afterall, they talk
opening about the fact that Philippe was a better option than Civil War. I also
find it interesting that we never got to see Aramis ask for his forgiveness from
Philippe. Don't you all think that this is because Philippe see's
Aramis for who he really is? The same logic could be applied to his closeness
to Athos. Athos genuinely cares
about him, IMHO.
By Lady-Janey:
I guess it would be fun to speculate how
Philippe would respond to Louis. Let's see...
"You don't think I'm aware of Aramis's true
motives, Louis? Believe me, I spent six years trying
to survive in that mask, every minute hating him for what he did to me. And
yes, I would still be rotting there if I had not been convenient. That's all I
was to him, a convience and means to stop you trying
to kill him and so much more. He saw me as weak and pathetic and he realised it
would be easy to gain power through me. Cardinal Aramis? Perhaps even Pope. But
it hasn't happened, has it Louis? And it won't, because of Athos.
Yes he hated you for what happened to Louis. Yes he wanted you to suffer
because of it. But has he abandoned me now he has got what he wanted? No! He
has become my father Louis. He has gradually taken a terrified prisoner and
turned him into a King. He wanted much more than just revenge, he wanted a
worthy King and now I live to be just that. A worthy
King."
By whitespirit26:
Thank you! :) I did think a great deal about
the speech and I could perfectly imagine Louis saying something like that. Great
response speech, Lady Janey! I actually pictured Philippe being a little
stumped at first; he was no fool, but I wouldn't be surprised if Louis's words
and persuasive manner cast some doubt in his mind. After he considered things
for a while, though, that's exactly the kind of speech I can imagine him giving
in response.
The thing is, I think Aramis meant what he said about
asking for Philippe's forgiveness; they may simply not have shown him asking
for it, or after everything was said and done, it was understood that all was
forgiven after what they went through to save Philippe. After all, after
Philippe was captured, there was more risk in them returning for him than
fleeing for their lives and even then, Aramis led them. Plus, his face when he
first put Philippe in the mask was full of guilt and he looked overcome when he
first saw Philippe in the mask years afterward. I don't know if Philippe would
have hated him in prison because I don't think he knew enough or even who
Aramis was.
The reason I thought Louis's words may have given him pause was, for one thing,
Louis's persuasive manner and, for another, even though Philippe seemed fully
aware of the musketeer's reasons for being there, his speech at the end calling
them his "royal counsel and truest friends" indicated he was then
convinced of their loyalty and love for him. And of course, I'm sure he was
right, but after Louis's challenge I wouldn't be surprised if he forced
Philippe to question, however briefly, if he really did mean more to the
musketeers than he originally might have.
By miriel68:
Lol and lol! I'm not
sure I'm able to discuss with ladies in love! Well, for sure, I'm in love too,
but my idol being d'Artagnan, I probably see the
events in different perspective.
There is much truth in the things you told about musketeers. In any case, they
are far more decent persons than in the book, especially Aramis. In the book
Athos has no part in the plot at all, and Aramis is all ambition. In the movie,
we could indeed suppose that he decided to act, because his life was in danger,
but I do not think it was director's intention. I fully agree with whitespirit observations and furthermore, the very FIRST
scene we meet Aramis in the movie, he is praying for forgivness.
In fact, Aramis undergoes the same transformation, as Andre, only it's shown in
more detailed manner: he agreed to imprison Philippe pro publico
bono, for the sake of the kingdom and of the king. Louis's order to kill the
general of jezuits is for him just what the death of d'Artagnan is for Andre: he loses the faith that Louis
would ever become the king "we always wished him to be". It's not for
Philippe himself that he frees him from the prison - he tries to find a better
candidate for the throne - he doesn't hide his purpose.
The same change regards Athos: it is not simply the vengeance for the death of
his son: he is deeply convinced that "this king", because of his
actions, is not fit to be a king.
Porthos, well... he is a follower that's all, but I suppose they couldn't
invent something for everyone.
d'Artagnan is the only
person who doesn't want to see that Louis is a "helpless" case: he
wants to believe that Louis might yet become etc. (did you notice how many
times this frase is repetead
thorough the movie? It's really crucial)and we know
why it is so: he has his own, very personal reasons for this believe and he is
not able to be an objective judge.
However, even he is forced to recognise his error ("for one moment I
believed..."). He still won't betray Louis, but only because he is his
son: even he is forced to "give up" his king, who is not worthy to be
a king.
By Mon Mothma:
miriel68 wrote:
Louis seems to fit
ideally the main characteristics of psychotic character.
Yes but psychoPATHIC,
not psychotic.
Being psychotic means being delusional. "Gone into a psychosis". It's a state.
Being psychopathic means having the personality disorder you were talking
about. Like you said, he was a psychopath.
A lot of people mix this up
By whitespirit26:
Thanks, Miriel :)
Great points and observations