MovieChat Forums > The Man in the Iron Mask (1998) Discussion > Any others feel sorry for King Louis XIV...

Any others feel sorry for King Louis XIV?

posted 12 years ago by cesclaa
25 replies | jump to latest

I just posted this in another forum but Id like to think here would ellicit more replies:

Anyone else feel sorry for King Louis in the Man in the Iron Mask?

Really good film, but they made the film so that we should feel for the shunned brother who is put in the mask and detest the empowered brother. But i just can't support that Lol.

When the King's three musketeers betray him and hatch a plan to switch the brothers, I then began to hate them, along with the masked brother. Which of course shouldn't happen, the musketeers should be regarded as heroes. At least D'Artagnan showed some loyalty to his King. What exactly did King Louis (Rich Leo) do wrong?

When the scene when all of Louis' men turned on him and wouldn't follow his shooting orders, is so depressing. And then the switch scene at the end where the King is put into the mask... is horrific.

And the masked brother was FINE with his twin going into the mask. That's not very heroic at all!

Anyone concur?

[–] dani101 12 years ago

What exactly did King Louis (Rich Leo) do wrong?

____

Hmmm..let see..he executed House(Hugh Laurie,who is now in "House,MD":))) ) ..i mean his adviser ,after he gave him advise not to send the rotten food to the people- people rebel and since the king was not strong enough to admit his mistake, he executed him.

He send Raoul to the front to be free to lust after Raoul's girlfriend.

___
Kate:Except finding a decent barber, Gibbs can do pretty much anything he says he can.

[–] ludances 12 years ago

Feel sorry for Louis??????

He ordered people killed for his mistakes and to get them out of his way, he treated women like trash, he was arrogant and had people terrified of him for fear he would have them killed, he had his brother thrown in prison and had his face covered up by an iron mask.

Sorry, no sympathy here. My only gripe is that he got a pardon from prison.

It happened in Salem....USA

[–] Tom_Kaulitz 12 years ago

"When the scene when all of Louis' men turned on him and wouldn't follow his shooting orders, is so depressing."

His men did follow his orders. They shot at the musketeers when they were ordered to. They only gave in after they realized how strong the musketeers were for surviving all of their shots.

As for feeling sorry for Louis, I did hope that he wasn't put into the mask long term. I'd like to believe that he lived in the countryside and had the freedom to walk around etc.

[–] cesclaa 12 years ago

Yeah good points all. And yeah you're right they did adhere to Louis' orders to shoot, but after that when they wouldn't shoot when the guys were still not giving up, Louis face was just so depressing like hes totally been betrayed.

And in this film, the brother Phillipe is an *beep* He should have been portrayed as the innocent, do nothing wrong/evil saint to contrast with the supposed evil ruthless brother bu HE WAS'NT! This is a guy who was perfectly fine to conspire against his brother, steal away his protectors (musketeers) and then BE TOTALLY FINE to switch places with his brother illegally, and wrongly to live out a false life as the King and have his brother locked away in the mask for all eternity (i expect). HOW IS THIS GUY 'THE GOOD BROTHER'?

[–] whitespirit26 12 years ago

Ces, I agree about Louis, but haven't you seen the film? Phillippe was saintly, and this was shown by him allowing Louis to be set free of the mask (it mentioned this at the end). Besides, we can't forget that Louis took HIS rights first, and Philippe showed more than once a desire for peace.

[–] gyxyqocylugiwoly 12 years ago

sorry but are you a troll?

"Louis face was just so depressing". Anger and evil is clearly showing on his face. Not like if he was about to cry *facepalm*

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] whitespirit26 10 years ago

When he found his mother betrayed him: Anger yes, evil no. He was shocked and it soon turned to hurt at his mother's betrayal, then back to anger again, his way of dealing with hurt and fear.

Edit: Oh, you mean when his soldiers refused to shoot anymore. No, no hurt or shock there; just surprise, calm and then rage.

[–] Wuchakk 9 years ago

This is a guy (Phillipe) who was perfectly fine to conspire against his brother, steal away his protectors (musketeers) and then BE TOTALLY FINE to switch places with his brother illegally, and wrongly to live out a false life as the King and have his brother locked away in the mask for all eternity (i expect). HOW IS THIS GUY 'THE GOOD BROTHER'?

How is it wrong to conspire against a brother who wrongly put you into prison behind an iron mask for six years? How exactly did Phillipe "steal away the king's protectors (the musketeers)" when they were already against the king? What's wrong with teaming up with the righteous souls who bravely sprung an innocent man (yourself) from unjust imprisonment (ridiculously hampered by an iron mask, I might add)? How is taking the king's place a "false life as the king" when Phillipe is co-heir to the throne? Besides, what's wrong with exchanging places with an evil, oppressive, merciless, spoiled, greedy, selfish non-king if one's purpose is to establish a righteous government and wholly benefit the nation? Lastly, Louis wasn't "locked away in the mask for all eternity," as you say; the epilogue plainly says that he was moved to the country (after a brief prison stay) where he'd live as a non-descript commoner where he'd surely learn some much-needed humility. Keep in mind that Phillipe-masquerading-as-Louis at the end had to put on the airs of Louis to convince the people that he was, in fact, Louis (which he wasn't).

It doesn't seem like you watched the movie very closely.

My 150 (or so) favorite movies:
http://www.imdb.com/list/ls070122364/

[–] SibylleIreland 8 years ago

I realise you wrote this three years ago, but I still have to correct this misconception: The men couldn't shoot twice. In those days, you had to manually reload guns through the barrel, which took quite some time. So, they could only shoot once and then draw sabers/swords, which they half-heartedly did.

And after that, they were simply unwilling to fight the most courageous and admired men of their time, including their captain who had trained them and instilled unshakeable honour into them. They just knew that if those four stood against them, then THEY must be on the wrong side, not the older musketeers.

[–] DCompton86 8 years ago

Sorry, no sympathy here. My only gripe is that he got a pardon from prison.

I actually was okay with the pardon since it showed Phillipe's mercy. Though a small part of me hopes it took six years for him to pardon him - allow Louis to be imprisoned the same amount of time he had kept his brother in jail.

"It's better to be hated for who you are than be loved for who you aren't."

[–] Livana_Faolan 12 years ago

Did you pay any attention to this movie? I don't think you did. Because if you had paid attention, you would have realized that King Louis is completely unsympathetic. And hating Athos, Porthos, Aramis and D'Artagnan because they fought against a corrupt king? Are you kidding me?!

Louis deserved what he got.

Boo-hoo! Cry me a river.

[–] bthr 12 years ago

good movie ? it was a blah full of sighs.

all of this movie is completely unconvincing but if "good Leo" is so kind, why he would let his brother stay in a place he knows whats it like- "death is better" in his own words.

its not like "rich leo" was evil, he was like all other kings (who dont live in democratic country and actually have something to do in their life)...

anyway it doesnt really matter since louis the 14's son (or grandson not sure) was executed during the french revolution.

[–] actionmanrandell 11 years ago

louis was not like all kings.
a good majority of kings love there people and treat them not as subjects but as men and woman who deserve a life of freedom and peace

[–] Planikta 11 years ago

1. "Good Leo" didn't let "Evil Leo" stay in a place where "death is better", at the end of the movie, it's revealed he let him live free in a country house, which means "Evil Leo" is way better off than his brother was prior to the movie's events.

2. Throughout history, there were "good" kings and "bad" kings. European countries where the monarchy wasn't completely abusive towards its people still stand today (although most are now democracies where monarchs hold very little power, if any). Over-abusive monarchies, however, were deposed by revolutionaries.

3. Louis XVI (1754-1793) was Louis XIV (1638-1715)'s great-great-great-grandson.

4. Of course it doesn't matter, it's only a movie.

[–] actionmanrandell 11 years ago

lets see
king Louis was a horrible person who cared for no one. he was the type of king who would take from his people and give them nothing. he would steal(other mens woman) murder and do all sorts of evil things.

phillip was the better man who was willing to die for men who should be in his service.
not to mention phillip afforded louis(when he put him into the mask) a better life with good food. sure he had put him in the mask but that was punishment for all of louis evil

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] DCompton86 10 years ago

Then you'll be glad to know at the end of the movie we find out Louis' got an official pardon and now lives in the country house where Phillippe (sp?) did as a child. He was probably only in the mask for a few months....considering he doomed his brother into it for six years, not too bad.

"It's better to be hated for who you are than be loved for who you aren't."

[–] meetingpeople_is_easy 10 years ago

I hear ya..
Im in the middle of writing a paper on Louix XIV and he did a lot of interesting things. He was definitely larger than life and a sex hound, but there's not much evidence to support the claim that he was a 'cruel' king.
Irresponsible, sure. But not cruel.. at least not by the standards of the time

[–] Ithilfaen 10 years ago

Im in the middle of writing a paper on Louix XIV and he did a lot of interesting things. He was definitely larger than life and a sex hound, but there's not much evidence to support the claim that he was a 'cruel' king.

The only good thing he did was to crush his people so much to pay for his extravagance and opulent life style that rebellion led to revolt and democracy, and encourage the arts by throwing unimaginable sums of money to artists to satisfy his grandiose taste while people were literally starving.
He was also an egomaniac who fought wars to show his dick was bigger than that of others, (a fact he admitted to himself) and a bigot and a control freak who persecuted, and allowed (if not sought) the massacre of hundreds of thousands innocent people just because the fact they weren't Catholics irritated his absolute power.

For every lie I unlearn I learn something new - Ani Difranco

[–] Stratego (29252) 2 years ago

Hey, what you're blaming Louis for? That was his brother Phillipe!