Pages

Monday, February 08, 2021

"The Three Musketeers" (1948)

This is not my favorite movie version of The Three Musketeers.  My favorite is the 1993 version that I spent my teen years swooning over, as detailed in my review of it.  However!  This is my other favorite, and it has the bonus of being child-friendly, which the '93 isn't entirely.

To prepare for this review, I watched this movie with my kids (who are 9, 11, and 13), which was enormously fun.  This movie does NOT take itself seriously, and so I feel perfectly fine not taking it seriously either.  All three of my kids have read both an abridged version of Alexandre Dumas' book and a graphic novel retelling, so they were already familiar with the characters and basic plot, which was definitely helpful.  I've read the original myself, but that was 20 years ago, and I probably should re-read it.  Because it's been so long since I read it, I'll only be commenting in a couple places on things they changed from the book, and why I like those changes.


So, this movie starts with young d'Artagnan (Gene Kelly) taking leave of his father and going Paris to see if he can become a Musketeer, aka one of the king's personal guards.

Yes, that's Gene Kelly.  No, this isn't a musical.


His first day in Paris, d'Artagnan ends up accidentally falling afoul of three men and arranging duels with them.  The first is Athos (Van Heflin).


The second is Porthos (Gig Young).


The third is Aramis (Robert Coote).


Not knowing they're all actually Musketeers, d'Artagnan thinks he will handle three duels in one day with no problem at all.  And they all agree, he's VERY good.  He's also the most athletic d'Artagnan you've ever imagined, leaping and jumping and climbing and cavorting all over the place.


The duels get interrupted by some enemies of the Three Musketeers, and d'Artagnan helps them fight off their foes.  Obviously, they will be best buddies forever more.  Also, aren't those fantastic costumes?  Everyone in this is wildly colorful.  Not very period-correct, but extremely fun to watch.


The sets are lavish too, and this whole film is a feast for the eyes.  Here's part of the royal palace.


King Louis XIII (Frank Morgan) is very annoyed with the Musketeers for dueling and so on, but he spends most of his time scolding d'Artagnan for not having any decent clothes.


So d'Artagnan and his three friends set off to get him some decent clothes, plus a manservant named Planchet (Keenan Wynn), who is very handy to have around at all times, especially in a fight.

Now, I'm used to seeing Keenan Wynn as a scheming baddie (like in The Absent-Minded Professor) or an irascible Army officer (like in Combat! episode "The Prisoner") or a villainous old creep (like in The War Wagon).  I am not used to seeing him as a capable, albeit somewhat comic, sidekick.  It's cool, he does well, and I like it.


Of course, the next thing d'Artagnan needs is a girlfriend, so he quickly falls in love with Constance (June Allyson), the girl downstairs.  Here's something they changed from the book that I am a total fan of: in this, Constance is his landlord's daughter, not his landlord's wife.  SO MUCH BETTER, PEOPLE.  Also, because she's played by June Allyson, she is as sweet and innocent and lovable as possible.


Constance is a lady-in-waiting for Queen Anne (Angela Lansbury).  


Queen Anne is in love with the Duke of Buckingham (John Sutton), an Englishman, even though she's married to King Louis XIII.  Most of the plot revolves around Queen Anne giving the Duke of Buckingham a set of giant diamonds that King Louis had given to her, and then Richelieu scheming to disgrace her by making her reveal to the King that she gave them away.

Ahhh, yes, Richelieu (Vincent Price).  Here's another change they made that I rather like.  In the book, he's Cardinal Richelieu, head of the Roman Catholic church in France.  But in this, he's not a clergyman, he's just the king's most trusted advisor.  That means he can be totally despicable without casting slurs on the name of clergymen everywhere.  And it makes his liason with Milady de Winter slightly less... unpalatable.


Speaking of Milady de Winter (Lana Turner), here she is.  Richelieu trusts her to get at least some of those diamonds from the Duke of Buckingham to confront Queen Anne it.  It's implied that she sleeps with Buckingham to get them, but implied so obliquely that my kids never caught of a whiff of that.


Milady also catches d'Artagnan in her snares for a while, and it's also implied that they do more than kiss, given how repentant he is when he apologizes to Constance about it.  

My kids spent a lot of time discussing the way Milady's beauty mark was in a different place in different scenes, which they found both fascinating and funny.

Anyway, there's lots and lots of derring do, many sword fights, a lot of brawling, and some cunning plotting before the movie is over, but all's mostly well that ends well.  A few characters do die, but nobody seems to be overly upset about it for more than a couple of minutes.  By the end, as you can see, everyone is very pleased with themselves, and ready for many rollicking adventures to come.


My kids got a huge kick out of this, especially my son because he's taking fencing lessons right now.  He thinks maybe he should take acrobatics too so he could incorporate a few of d'Artagnan's moves into his own fighting style, hee.

Is this movie family friendly?  Yeah, it pretty much is.  My 9-yr-old was a little upset by Milady killing a couple of people because there was one shot of a dead body with blood all over its shirt, and she had to be reassured it was all pretend.  There's quite a bit of kissing and swashbuckling violence, but it's very light-hearted overall.


Since this post is for a Period Drama Blog Party (more on that below), I will just mention a few things about costumes.  The above is my favorite outfit for d'Artagnan.


Here you see some of the Musketeer cloaks, which I love.


Most of the dresses were kind of low-cut, but then had big broaches over their, shall we say, lower décolletage?  I'm wondering if this was an actual style in the time of Louis XIII, or if the Hays Code objected to their costumes for being too low-cut, so they just stuck broaches on the front of any problematic dresses.  I rather suspect the latter possibility to be the correct on.

I did not screencap most of the dresses, I'm afraid.  Sorry.  They're very swooshy and pretty, and I'll let them be surprises for you when you see this yourself!


I wrote this specifically for the Valentine's Day Period Drama Blog Party hosted by Heidi at Along the Brandywine.  Click here for the kick-off post, tag, etc!

24 comments:

  1. Such a fun post! I must confess I've historically been rather skittish round the 3 Musketeers, but you've convinced me I definitely need to put this (and apparently the '93 on my TBW list). Huzzah indeed!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Heidi! I think this one would probably be more your style, rather than the '93. Just a guess, though. It's a fun story, but I don't love the book.

      Delete
  2. I have a vague memory of watching this as a teenager. I especially recall Vincent Price. I don't remember, though, did he have a cat? The real Cardinal adored cats and often had one perched on his desk. It was a detail I'm sorry they left out of the more recent BBC Musketeers television series (which... ain't for kids. just saying. lots and lots of ahem, implications in it).

    Costume-wise, almost all old Hollywood films are... really wrong. 17th century clothing is a weird time period of boatneck gowns, which were not low cut (often 'almost off the shoulder' and scoop-necked, but Hollywood does like eye candy...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Charity, YES! This Richelieu has a cat. One bit with the cat cracked us all up because he's sitting with it on his lap and petting it like a good, sinister Hollywood villain, and then he stands up and just absent-mindedly drops the cat onto the chair, like, "Not cat time anymore." And the cat curls up and is all, "MY CHAIR NOW." It was quite good.

      I haven't seen the BBC Musketeers because it just... looked... racier than I would like. And I have other versions I already like, anyway.

      And yeah, I don't expect great historical authenticity in costumes from anything before, like, the 1990s? TBH? These fulfilled the requirements of being very pretty, using color to help you keep characters apart when everyone has a mustache and a hat, and showing off movement during fencing scenes. They were fun.

      Delete
  3. Great review! I haven't seen this one (or the '93 version), but you've convinced me to give it a try. It looks like a good movie.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. McKayla, glad you enjoyed it! Both versions that I like are just... fun romps. Nothing serious, nothing weighty.

      Delete
  4. I watched this on TV as a teenager and I thought Gene Kelly was SO handsome AND athletic. Didn't remember that Van Heflin (of "Shane" fame) was one of the musketeers. Oh, and Vincent Price as The Villain and Lana Turner as The Lady Villain were price-less. Back then that was my "French" phase (since we have 4 official languages in Switzerland, I changed phases quite often, before I settled on non-Swiss English and Spanish as my favorite languages), so I had read all the Dumas novels in the original language. And the changes from the book made absolute sense (poor June Allyson - so sweet). I can heartily recommend this movie, even for sticklers and Alexandre Dumas fans! Very enjoyable!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Andrea, Gene Kelly is VERY handsome in this, it's true. And it's hard to recognize Van Heflin under his mustache, I have to say. Mostly it's his voice and eyes that tell me it's him.

      How awesome that you've read Dumas' novels in French! Wow. The Count of Monte Cristo is my 2nd-favorite book of all time.

      Delete
    2. Absolutely staggeringly wonderful story, "Count of Monte Cristo". I read that in French, too. Not such a big deal in Switzerland. After German, French is the 2nd most important language. I was such a Dumas fan, I ordered the virtually unknown sequel to the 3 musketeers, "Le vicomte de Bragelonne", in our then French Librairie Payot in Basel. (Unfortunately, that bookshop doesn't exist anymore...). Wanted to know the fate of the musketeers from start to finish.

      Delete
    3. Andrea, I remember reading abridged versions of several of the follow-ups to 3 Musketeers when I was a kid. Man in the Iron Mask was one, and Thirty Years Later was another. I think Dumas might have written one more too, but I can't remember for sure.

      Delete
  5. I'm sorry to say I didn't like this version, because I hated Gene Kelly as d'Artagnan. The saving grace for me was Lana Turner.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Brittaney, well, at least you enjoyed something about it :-)

      Delete
  6. "the next thing he needs in a girlfriend" *SNERK*

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's basically how it goes. "You finally have decent clothes -- let's find you a girlfriend."

      Delete
  7. I think the only version I've seen is the one that has Orlando Bloom in it, and it was horrendous.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Skye, um, yes. Even Luke Evans couldn't save that version. It was a mess.

      Delete
  8. I LOVE the two changes you mentioned. I remember watching the other version when I was young (surprised our parents let us watch that) and I was always bothered that the bad guy was a priest and I think I slightly remember that d'Artagnan was in love with a married lady, so I didn't like that either. The costumes in this one are pretty epic, gotta say.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anna & Irene, they're such nice changes. So much more family-friendly this way, which is why I could show it to my kids!

      Delete
  9. I watched this version maybe last year, maybe 2019 - I found the costume colours so distracting - I kept thinking, did they draw straws? did they arm wrestle? how did van heflin end up with the purple? did they all demand extra pay when the costumes were revealed? oh this so much technicolor is so distractingly in my face...oh no, what a green green feather...

    But um, aside from the fact that it's super colour saturated (and I'm just not a huge fan of the movies where everything is designed to just be as brightly colourful as possible like this one) it's, you know...it's okay. Actually I don't really know. I couldn't see past all the colour. Do you think there are glasses you could get, to...subdue the super-bright colours, or something? 'see unsaturated goggles' or something...

    I understand why they did it, (Look! We Big Movie, We have Colour! Your TV Does Not!)and I'm glad that since this is the way this one was made, it's been kept/and or restored to be so vivid but, yeah. Not my favourite movie style.

    But this is fun. Yes, it is a fun movie. Once you get used to squinting past all the colour...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. VT, I wish that I could see this on the big screen, because I bet the bright colors are fantastic that way, and not quite so concentrated. There are a lot of greys and browns here too, for contrast, and I think the colorfulness really serve to highlight the sort of carnival feel of the movie as a whole. But, then, I tend to love vivid, colorful movies like Adventures of Robin Hood (1938) and most classic musicals.

      You could always fiddle with your TV's color settings. I used to turn the color off when I was a teen to see what some movies would look like if they were black-and-white instead. Especially mysteries and more modern westerns.

      Delete
    2. Oh my gosh! It never occurred to me turning the colour off was an option! What a neat idea!

      Delete
    3. VT, I don't know if flatscreens can, but my old cathode-ray-tube TV does have a thing where you can adjust the color setting, and if you push it all to one end, it turns B&W.

      Delete
  10. I have to watch this again! This is one of my family's favorite Saturday night flicks...good swashbuckling fun! But you've intrigued me about checking out the 1993 version. Who could be more swoon-worthy than Gene Kelly? I always liked Robert Coote in this version but I think I remember reading someplace that he was a last-minute replacement to Alan Hale who would have also been a great musketeer. Too bad WB didn't make a version with Errol Flynn and Olivia de Havilland.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Metzinger Sisters, well, it may be that my teenage heart was swayed by the fact that Chris O'Donnell was the first d'Artagnan I ever saw... but I watched the '90s version again a couple years ago and still found him awfully yummy.

      Hmm, Alan Hale, eh? I can see that.

      Possibly the world just couldn't have handled the splendor that would have been Errol Flynn as a Musketeer.

      Delete

Agree or disagree? That is the question...

Comments on old posts are always welcome! Posts older than 7 days are on moderation to dissuade spambots, so if your comment doesn't show up right away, don't worry -- it will once I approve it.

(Rudeness and vulgar language will not be tolerated.)