MovieChat Forums > The Man in the Iron Mask (1998) Discussion > Will they ever get this story right?

Will they ever get this story right?


I have read the unabridged version of The Viscount of Bragelonne, which is hard to find in the first place. Having seen and read about some of the adaptations that have been made, I have to wonder if they will ever get the story right. A television version would be ideal, since the book is over 1000 pages. But surely you could make a 3 hour film that included more of the plot from the novel, and presented it more faithfully.

1. The James Whale film, and later the Richard Chamberlain version, at least caught on to the fact that there was a rivalry between Colbert and Fouquet.
2. The Richard Chamberlain film, however, only features d'Artagnan, and none of the other Musketeers.
3. This version includes the fact that Aramis is the leader of the Jesuits, and that the King has stolen Raoul's bride-to-be out from under him. It also shows d'Artagnan as being opposed to the plot, much more like he is in the book.
4. Though it barely features in the novel, the plot to replace Louis with his brother Phillippe is treated as the main feature, and many elements there are wrong.

A. First of all, he does not begin the story in the Iron Mask, he ends up in the mask at the end.
B. The plot to replace Louis does not succeed, and it is d'Artagnan who foils it. This is the next point might be the hardest for filmmakers to believe an audience would accept.
C. The plot to replace Louis is not a heroic attempt to replace a tyrant, and not all the Musketeers are on board with it, or even aware of it. It is in fact a rather selfish attempt by Aramis to move up the church hierarchy and into political office.
D. Though three of the musketeers are killed, they are not killed in a heroic attempt to place Phillipe on the throne. I think filmmakers must have the mentality that, if the Musketeers are to be killed, it must be while doing something heroic, and to make it worthwhile, it must also be successful.

I've seen The Three Musketeers done well. Even with the slapstick, the Richard Lester version stayed close to the plot, unlike the Disney version. I've seen Twenty Years After done passably well, as The Return of the Musketeers. But I'd love to see this one done right, and I haven't seen it yet. I'd love to see a truly complete set adapting all three books, but I doubt that will happen, unless someone takes a cue from the Musketeers TV show and decides to do it more like Game of Thrones, minus all the major deviations.

reply

"The plot to replace Louis does not succeed, and it is d'Artagnan who foils it. This is the next point might be the hardest for filmmakers to believe an audience would accept."

Why, he did the same thing in this film.

reply

Close, but not quite. d'Artagnan does put a stop to it at first, so I do have to give credit here. But he ultimately comes around, aids and abbetts his fellow Musketeers, and gives his life to successfully put Philippe on the throne.

reply

He gave his life to save Philippe's, his plan was to save his friends and son, not give up his other son.

reply

Truth to be said, the original Dumas story is very long-winded - especially if you go through the trouble of explaining about Raoul and Louise de la Valliere and how Aramis became the head Jesuit. And, as you said, the whole deal with the Man in the Iron Mask was but a short sequence that ended in misery.

I think the script-writers have done well to try to get the most exciting part of the story (the iron mask stuff) and turning it into the main feature. They have also tried to make the musketeers more likeable and friendly towards each other. Remember that the original story made Aramis pretty much the villain in how he desired power for himself at the expense of others? Also, they have clearly shied away from the tragedy of the original (Porthos' and Athos' fates were pretty darn sad) in order to make a more entertaining film.

But, yes, I agree with you that there are still things that could be done better and closer to the original.

reply

. . . something that I just don't get . . .

Why do some people feel that every movie made must follow every detail of a book PARTICULARLY when that book is a novel, fiction, and therefore also a skewed representation of a few facts the author used to write a fantastical story.

Why not just enjoy the movie as another twist on the fictitious?


reply

Are you sure that's what you want? Because it sounds like crap, even worse than this movie.

reply

Agreed. As described, that doesn't sound like a film that would be popular.

reply