Big Screen Peter: The Three Musketeers

 

review by Peter Lewis

“The Three Musketeers” by Alexandre Dumas has been an unparalleled cultural sensation ever since it first hit the streets of Paris back in the spring of 1844. This bold, dashing tale of high romance and high morals in the court of King Louis XIII has spawned countless imitations, incarnations, and interpretations.

Of course, not all of these iterations are created equal. The original, naturally, is in a class alone at the top, but there have been worthy touchstones over the years.

Pardon my French, but the only thing touching this latest rendition is what the Gallic folk might call merde de chien.

“The Three Musketeers” has never been a high-minded affair. It’s undoubtedly a great, great story — but that legacy is born of the thrills it offers in both romance and furious action. This appeal to base emotions has ensured the longevity of the tale. But it has also damned it to become a sort of cultural cliché.

From the moment “The Three Musketeers” opens with a scene mixing traditional Musketeer moxie with the crafty arts more readily associated with ninjas, it’s evident that it isn’t the run o’the mill re-hash. In the span of mere minutes, director Paul W.S. Anderson caterwauls his way through a melange of action muses — from the riddling mysteriousness of “National Treasure” to the time-bending moves of “The Matrix.”

It’s a cute, steampunk concept to package such a baffling array of abilities and styles into this group of noble warriors. And it could have worked. There was certainly potential for something cool. Something edgy and fresh. Glimpses were seen in the funny, timorous performance of Freddie Fox as the young King Louis XIII. And certainly the action, albeit quite preposterous in nature, was stylish and fun.

Yet the inherent possibilities never amounted to much as the movie was continually anchored by poor dialogue, melodramatic musical flourishes, and a grinding, ridiculous romance between D’Artagnan and his Constance.

In one sense, the resolute focus on love, even at the height of harried battle, is an integral part of Dumas’ tale. Yet, if we’re introducing things like airships and otherwise distorting the original, why does there need to be a slavish observance of this chivalrous love trope?

Though the portrayal certainly left something to be desired, the vision of Anderson was true to the spirit of the protagonist, D’Artagnan. This naïve, chivalrously romantic boy from Gascon is the lynchpin to the Musketeers’ tale, serving as a narrative quest within a quest.

Unfortunately, the casting of Logan Lerman as D’Artagnan proved to be misguided. Though certainly in possession of a pleasing face and quite capable of capturing D’Artagnan’s naivety, he brought little of the vivacious spirit required for the role. On top of that, Lerman appeared downright impish next to men like Matthew Macfayden (Athos) and Mads Mikkelsen (Rochefort). Seeing him as the dashing, daring D’Artagnan was only slightly less preposterous than the giant ships looming above the 17th century Paris skyline.

In creating this latest interpretation of the classic tale, Paul W.S. Anderson did more than distort the “reality” of the tale. That can be forgiven or attributed to artistic discretion, so long as the integrity of the characters remained. But even this is distorted. The aura of The Musketeers is not unlike that of Cincinnatus — noble warriors, but not unlike the regular folks of the world. Anderson created superheroes, marking the Musketeers not as the relatable men they’ve always been, but as foreign, unreachable paragons.

If you have any interest in frivolous things like science, history, French Literature, or even reality in general, you’d be wise to avoid “The Three Musketeers.”

• The Three Musketeers is playing at the Carmike 14 and the Malco Cinema 16 in Fort Smith, and the Malco Van Buren Cinema. Link here for time and ticket info.

Feedback
Feel free to contact Peter Lewis at [email protected]

You can also track Peter at his website.