MovieChat Forums > The Four Musketeers (1975) Discussion > Cardinal Richelieu inaccurately portraye...

Cardinal Richelieu inaccurately portrayed

posted 13 years ago by jeffyoung1
8 replies | jump to latest

Cardinal Richelieu is portrayed inaccurately in THE THE MUSKETEERS and THE FOUR MUSKETEERS as an ambitious ruthless man. Yes, the cardinal was ambitious and ruthless, but for advancing the glory and success of France as a preeminent European power. In this the cardinal proved successful, for as long as he lived.

Cardinal Richelieu was already a successful man in his vocatiion. He achieved the status and rank of cardinal. The only higher place he could go was to be the Pope. But this is not what Richelieu wanted.

Cardinal Richelieu was essentially France's de facto prime minister/grand vizier/chancellor/grand foreign minister, basically an official, second-in-command but who wields the real authority because the highest authority - the king - lets him do so. King Louis XIV may not have been the dunce as portrayed in the movies, but he wasn't a strong king. King Louis may have even been grateful for someone like Richelieu, who could not overthrow him, being an official cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church, but could serve as the king's backbone and grand master strategist and master diplomat. In other words, King Louis had found the PERFECT man to effectively wield the king's power in his name, but would not pose a political threat to the throne.

Richelieu's only downfall was that he was but a mortal man and so eventually he knew he must die. If Richelieu made any serious mistake, it was a miscalculation in selecting his successor. Cardinal Richelieu did in fact find a younger priest, a capable Italian named Marazin, to succeed him. Richelieu trained and mentored Marazin to succeed him. Historians agree that Marazin was indeed a capable man and might have succeeded. But Richelieu had not counted on French ethnic bigotry. While the powerful cardinal frenchman Richelieu lived, it seemed that everyone around would accept his designated successor without question. But then Richelieu eventually passed away and as planned, Marazin became his successor at the French royal court. But Marazin was a foreigner, an Italian, and this worked against him at court and amidst the deep political intrigues around the court. Marazin's political connections that Richelieu had prepared for him did not prove as reliable and enduring. In short, Marazin, according to history, proved only partially successful and in the ultimate end was slowly pushed aside at court. The death of Richelieu and the partial success of Marazin was not a monumental disaster for France but the loss of Cardinal Richelieu, his steel trap mind, and cunning diplomatic powers did handicap France in Europe.

Cardinal Richelieu was brilliant, cunning, capable, and ruthless. I have no doubt he did things that were bad. But the man was not personally corrupt and history does not show that he coveted after things like wealth, women, luxury, food, or other material things. No doubt the man enjoyed his position of status as Roman Catholic cardinal and prime political player at the top tier of French royal politics, all in the name of promoting the glory and power of France.

[–] angmc43 13 years ago

I never got the impression that the Richelieu portrayed in the Lester movies was an evil big bad. He is working for France's interests. Sure, he plots against the Queen, but she's in cahoots with the enemy. He has no enemies, save for those of France (a historical quote by the way). Even though the Musketeers beat him in the first movie, he refuses to take revenge, even considering using D'Artagnan in his services. When he does feel like convicting the Musketeers after the death of his two agents, he accepts the carte blanche letter and makes D'Artagnan a Lieutenant. A more ruthless man would have disregarded the letter.
Sure he tortures people, but as you say, the historical Richelieu also did bad too. Name one aspect in this adaptation that differs from the historical persona. At any rate, the Lester Richelieu is MILES away from the Queen-lusting, conspiracy-driven Tim Curry in the 1993 version.

[–] will_k_williams 13 years ago

Jeff, I don't generally reply to messages on IMDb anymore but you seem to be getting particularly agitated by some of the inaccuracies and anachronisms in this film.

The characters in these stories that are based on historical figures are fictional versions used with a large degree of artistic license. It gives the stories a sense of time and place to use actual people as a basis for the characters but it is still a work of fiction. Historical fiction is a fairly popular genre and is not generally noted for its stunning accuracy. Look at the work of authors like James Ellroy, Robert Graves, Bernard Cornwell and even Shakespeare and you can find fictionalised representations of real people. They're not always portrayed in the most accurate or flattering light.

Outside the realms of literature, films have been misrepresenting historical facts for decades. It's always a little grating if it's a subject you happen to know well but it is a work of fiction, filmed as entertainment. Sometimes these films inspire people to look further into the actual history, that's great; more often, however, they don't and people are content with the fiction.

This isn't a greatly accurate film, it's not one for gritty realism. It's a romantic, swashbuckling tale full of Englishmen and Americans pretending to be French that doesn't dwell heavily on the actual societal problems of the time.

While I don't wish to belittle your argument, the name was Mazarin, not Marazin. For someone so keen to point out inaccuracy you just spelt it wrongly eight times in one paragraph. Dumas also used a fictional version of him as an antagonist in the later Musketeer novels.

[–] tfilm78 13 years ago

Much of what the OP says about the historical Richelieu is correct. But I fail to see where this film is inaccurate about him, especially compared to the Disney film.

Reading the book recently, I was struck by how important his actions were to the best interests of the state. The Queen is being unfaithful, he knows it, and wants to prove it to his King. This makes him the bad guy, how, exactly?

In fact, I couldn't help noticing that, while much of what the Musketeers do might be flattering to the Queen, if they succeeded, it would have been disastrous for France. They help the Queen conceal her infidelity from the King they serve--an infidelity that ultimately leads to a war. And they do this why? Because of d'Artagnan's crush on his married landlady. Richelieu determines the war can be brought to an end by depriving the Heugenots of their aid from Buckingham--which can be brought about either by humiliating Anne, or killing Buckingham. Much to the benefit of the Monarchy, he chooses the latter. Yet the Musketeers intervene on the Duke's behalf. About the only justifiable thing they really did in the whole novel was having Milady executed--something that should have been done long before she entered the Cardinal's service. But the second movie is not about Richelieu's vengeance. As posted above, he takes nothing personally--but the same is not true of Milady, whom I can't help but think Richelieu is a little glad to be rid of, as she wanted authorization from him for her own personal vendetta.

Charlton Heston did a great deal of research on him and did his best to portray him accurately--gaining a great deal of respect for the man in the process.

[–] bengt-ove 13 years ago

Ever since I first saw these movies in the mid 70s, I was struck by Hestons powerful performance as Richelieau. He exudes power, menace and charm. The Tim Curry Richelieay is a poor cartoon version in comparison.

[–] Captain_Augustus_McCrae 12 years ago

Remember that when the cardinal is asked if it isn't awful to have so many enemies? Heston, as the cardinal replies, "I have no enemies. FRANCE has enemies". This was a real quote from Richelieu which Heston lobbied to have included in the film. Worked very well.

"It ain't dying I'm talking about, it's LIVING!"
Captain Augustus McCrae

[–] Prismark10 11 years ago

These are characters based on a fictional book!

Its that man again!!

[–] Blueghost 11 years ago

From what I've heard the only inaccuracy of the portrayal was that the real cardinal was a short man. He was otherwise just as the film portrayed him; going after the enemies of France.

[–] SuperDevilDoctor 10 years ago

Yes, I believe Heston was almost a foot taller than the real man.

Perhaps that's why he plays the role with a slightly hunched posture.

On the other hand, Heston also portrayed Gen. Charles "Chinese" Gordon (in KHARTOUM) -- another very short historical figure -- and played it ramrod straight. (Probably because Gordon was a soldier.)

"Send her to the snakes!"