Igenlode Wordsmith
Joined Nov 2001
Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see the badges, ratings breakdowns, and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Ratings1.3K
Igenlode Wordsmith's rating
Reviews402
Igenlode Wordsmith's rating
So far as I can gather this was based on a popular European novel the appeal of which revolved to a great extent around the various soft-porn illustrations in the numerous different editions; the costume of the nubile young ladies in the novel was said to consist of shoes and a turban, and nothing in between, which obviously offered plenty of licence (of the most artistic kind) in their depiction! Equally obviously this could not very well be translated onto the cinema screen, so the acres of female flesh on display are clad in what amounts to the scantiest of contemporary bathing costumes, and a large proportion of the film seems to be occupied by choreographed shots of the cast rushing around in a shouting, giggling, marching or otherwise hectically occupied crowd, in order best to show off their assembled charms. The effect is more reminiscent of a Mack Sennett 'bathing beauties' production than anything else, and once the sheer scale of the number of women involved wears off it turns out to be a lot less engaging than one might think.
I'm afraid the only character whose fate ended up by interesting me in the slightest turned out to be Taxis, the Prime Minister (played by Armand Bernard) -- and I think he was the one we were meant to hate! But he was also one of the few characters with any distinguishing features at all...
The women really are pretty much interchangeable. Confusingly, the King's daughter, Princess Aline, appeared to be pretty much exactly the same age as the Queen who was apparently supposed to be her mother -- and who, conveniently for the British censor, ended up being the one wife to whom the King was 'really' married by the end of the film!
On its original release in Britain the film had to be withdrawn from circulation after less than a week because of audience catcalls and clapping in response to the scenes on screen. (The unfortunate director was completely confounded as to why his 'harmless musical fantasy' should cause such unrest among uncultured English cinema-goers.) More recent critics have complained that it is impossibly misogynist. I'm afraid I just find it not offensive but incredibly boring.
It has no characters and no plot to speak of, the music is entirely unmemorable and the camera-work is nothing to write home about. And the prospect of watching a small fortune being dissipated on screen simply isn't enough to keep this from being a snooze-fest.
It's not *bad*. It just isn't good in any memorable way.
I'm afraid the only character whose fate ended up by interesting me in the slightest turned out to be Taxis, the Prime Minister (played by Armand Bernard) -- and I think he was the one we were meant to hate! But he was also one of the few characters with any distinguishing features at all...
The women really are pretty much interchangeable. Confusingly, the King's daughter, Princess Aline, appeared to be pretty much exactly the same age as the Queen who was apparently supposed to be her mother -- and who, conveniently for the British censor, ended up being the one wife to whom the King was 'really' married by the end of the film!
On its original release in Britain the film had to be withdrawn from circulation after less than a week because of audience catcalls and clapping in response to the scenes on screen. (The unfortunate director was completely confounded as to why his 'harmless musical fantasy' should cause such unrest among uncultured English cinema-goers.) More recent critics have complained that it is impossibly misogynist. I'm afraid I just find it not offensive but incredibly boring.
It has no characters and no plot to speak of, the music is entirely unmemorable and the camera-work is nothing to write home about. And the prospect of watching a small fortune being dissipated on screen simply isn't enough to keep this from being a snooze-fest.
It's not *bad*. It just isn't good in any memorable way.
I heard about 'the Soviet Musketeers' by accident, investigated it on YouTube as a curiosity, and ended up by absolutely loving it. I can see entirely why this has been remembered with enormous affection and passionate patriotic pride by generations of Russians since its original transmission in the 1970s, and held up as 'the most faithful adaptation ever' (debatable, but it certainly includes details from the book that I hadn't even remembered, such as Rochefort's purple suit!)
It treads a very skilful line between comedy, swashbuckling heroics, delightfully catchy songs, and moments of drama and heartbreak. Just thinking about this production makes me smile in amused affection -- it so very clearly loves the characters, loves the source material and has enormous fun with it; it is not literally accurate to the events of the original novel, but the changes it makes in the name of compression generally work very well and convey a lot of meaning. For example, d'Artagnan finds himself bidden to play a highly symbolic game of chess with the Cardinal, in which the roles of the King (weak and in need of constant oversight and protection), Queen (can be made to do whatever the player wants), pawn, and knight (the Cardinal is willing to overlook a mistake and refrain from removing him from the board) are all alluded to by the great man with very clear intent.
Most adaptations of this sort of story end up giving the impression that they are mainly interested in it as an excuse to throw in as many big action sequences as possible. The thing is that this production isn't all about the stunts and the action scenes and delivering big showpiece sequences onscreen; it's not that they don't have action scenes, including plenty of extra ones that aren't in the book, or stunt moves. It's that those aren't the main selling point. It's not being marketed as an action movie, but a literary adaptation with friendship as its main theme, and the music and comedy is in the service of the characters. We laugh at d'Artagnan's over-enthusiasm, but we love his audacity, and we warm to the loyalty and teasing amongst the four. Despite the improbable format (a musical version made for domestic TV transmission by a cash-strapped Soviet Union?), this really does feel so much more 'right' in its coverage of the story than one would ever expect.
The depiction of the characters is brilliant (with the possible exception of Milady, with a case of deplorable 1980s curls; she is supposed to be beautiful but as a result spends much of the film looking frankly pretty awful!) The actor who plays d'Artagnan is naturally much too old to pass as the lofty age of eighteen to which his character so proudly lays claim, but it simply doesn't matter; I was strongly reminded of Douglas Fairbanks in the utter bounce, self-confidence and ridiculous zest of the performance. But it's sensitively done -- he can also portray him as convincingly distraught or appalled without losing a beat. The death of Constance (midway through the plot in this version) is played absolutely straight, and knocks a lot of the bumptiousness out of the character, as well as giving him a powerful grieving ballad.
Aramis is just perfect. It hadn't occurred to me, but of *course* musical-Aramis is going to be an elegant, deceptively angelic show-off tenor role... who is also a beautifully economical and lethal swordsman, as well as being given to soulful melodies ;-)
I think this is the first adaptation I've seen where the role of Aramis is actually in danger of overshadowing Athos, at least until the identification of Milady, at which point Athos comes into his own. But it's also the first live-action version I've seen where the portrayal of Athos actually resembles my own conception of the character: he doesn't have Aramis' obvious charm and good looks, but he is sensitive and distinguished in face and bearing, even when he is drunk. 'His' scenes are the ones in the tavern where (thanks to the compression of the plot) he relates to d'Artagnan the marital misadventures of his 'friend' the Comte de la Fère, overhears and confronts Milady, and then in true swashbuckler style saves d'Artagnan from drinking the poisoned wine by pulling the pistol from his belt with which he has just been threatening Milady, and using it to shoot the fatal glass out of his young friend's hand with unerring aim.
And that pivotal scene -- the 'ballad of Athos' -- is so beautifully done by both actors: d'Artagnan's dawning realisation and horror, Athos dishevelled and clearly haunted by the returning ghosts of his past, the recurring motif in the lyrics of the lilies that bloom in the dark pool (where, in this version, we presume Athos believed he had drowned his wife) and in the form of the fleur-de-lis on her shoulder, the moment where Athos momentarily burns himself on the candle flame and clearly has a flashback to the memory of that brand, then pulls himself together and tries to disclaim the whole story ("I tell such terrifying tales when I'm drunk") while d'Artagnan, aghast with pity, can't look away. The song itself is just that ominous little electronic motif (a repeated descending minor third?), but it's all in the delivery and the body language.
Porthos, who doesn't get a song of his own, other than a bit of occasional bass obbligato, is a bit of a caricature -- but then he always is. This version of Porthos wears a bow tied in his hair, which I'm not sure is canon but neatly evokes the book-character's tastes in showy clothing, and oddly enough doesn't look in the least feminine. He has a tendency to fight by simply picking up objects or people and ramming them together, showcasing his strength as versus Aramis' graceful economy of movement and d'Artagnan's tendency towards crazy stunts; I really liked the way that all the characters are given distinctive fighting styles.
Another thing that I was struck by was the surprising rough edges in the singing/recording compared to modern films. It's not done in a bad way; the effect, paradoxically, is to make the performance sound as if it is genuinely being sung by real people, because the performers aren't always perfectly positioned behind the microphone or producing immaculately filled-out tone. When Aramis does his show-off high tenor notes, they're very impressive, but they are also ever so slightly vulnerable and human. (Ironically, a lot of the singing, according to the vocal credits, was in fact dubbed by other performers; the cheerfully unpolished chorus in the theme song, which we see the musketeers singing as they ride through the streets, isn't being performed by the actors as an impromptu ensemble, although it sounds very much as if it is, and in a good way.)
One more memorable musical moment, in a film that has many, is the scene where Rochefort and Milady are conscripted, somewhat to their embarrassment, to demonstrate the content of a scurrilous song about the Cardinal at the request of the latter, only to eventually get carried away and clearly start enjoying the performance a little too much...
I felt that the film did tend to fall off a bit after the climax of d'Artagnan's return with the diamond studs, but that tends to be the case with pretty much all adaptations, and I suspect the basic issue lies with Dumas and the source work. There is definitely a lot of compression and re-ordering going on, some of which works, e.g. The aforementioned combined tavern scene and the early death of Constance, and some of which results in material being retained (d'Artagnan's encounter with Kitty, the bastion at La Rochelle) which doesn't really have any purpose other than having occurred -- in some other context! -- in the original book.
This isn't a 10/10 production; it's got rough edges and not all the scenes are as good as each other. It's not even 'my period' of popular music (early-mid 20th century). But it is immensely endearing. It takes the story seriously while not taking it seriously at all, and manages to bounce with utter unselfconscious joyous excitement. The actors apparently had a great time while making the film and hung around together offscreen as well as on, and it shows.
I don't think this ever had any ambitions to be great art. It's just one of those cases where everything -- actors, script, performances, music, direction -- somehow came together right, and to heartwarming effect. I can absolutely understand why it has apparently become a cult classic, why people treasure memories of watching repeats on TV, why schoolgirls fell for Aramis en masse, and why it seems to have subsequently acquired a vigorous online fandom. I now have an entire playlist of related videos and excerpts!
It treads a very skilful line between comedy, swashbuckling heroics, delightfully catchy songs, and moments of drama and heartbreak. Just thinking about this production makes me smile in amused affection -- it so very clearly loves the characters, loves the source material and has enormous fun with it; it is not literally accurate to the events of the original novel, but the changes it makes in the name of compression generally work very well and convey a lot of meaning. For example, d'Artagnan finds himself bidden to play a highly symbolic game of chess with the Cardinal, in which the roles of the King (weak and in need of constant oversight and protection), Queen (can be made to do whatever the player wants), pawn, and knight (the Cardinal is willing to overlook a mistake and refrain from removing him from the board) are all alluded to by the great man with very clear intent.
Most adaptations of this sort of story end up giving the impression that they are mainly interested in it as an excuse to throw in as many big action sequences as possible. The thing is that this production isn't all about the stunts and the action scenes and delivering big showpiece sequences onscreen; it's not that they don't have action scenes, including plenty of extra ones that aren't in the book, or stunt moves. It's that those aren't the main selling point. It's not being marketed as an action movie, but a literary adaptation with friendship as its main theme, and the music and comedy is in the service of the characters. We laugh at d'Artagnan's over-enthusiasm, but we love his audacity, and we warm to the loyalty and teasing amongst the four. Despite the improbable format (a musical version made for domestic TV transmission by a cash-strapped Soviet Union?), this really does feel so much more 'right' in its coverage of the story than one would ever expect.
The depiction of the characters is brilliant (with the possible exception of Milady, with a case of deplorable 1980s curls; she is supposed to be beautiful but as a result spends much of the film looking frankly pretty awful!) The actor who plays d'Artagnan is naturally much too old to pass as the lofty age of eighteen to which his character so proudly lays claim, but it simply doesn't matter; I was strongly reminded of Douglas Fairbanks in the utter bounce, self-confidence and ridiculous zest of the performance. But it's sensitively done -- he can also portray him as convincingly distraught or appalled without losing a beat. The death of Constance (midway through the plot in this version) is played absolutely straight, and knocks a lot of the bumptiousness out of the character, as well as giving him a powerful grieving ballad.
Aramis is just perfect. It hadn't occurred to me, but of *course* musical-Aramis is going to be an elegant, deceptively angelic show-off tenor role... who is also a beautifully economical and lethal swordsman, as well as being given to soulful melodies ;-)
I think this is the first adaptation I've seen where the role of Aramis is actually in danger of overshadowing Athos, at least until the identification of Milady, at which point Athos comes into his own. But it's also the first live-action version I've seen where the portrayal of Athos actually resembles my own conception of the character: he doesn't have Aramis' obvious charm and good looks, but he is sensitive and distinguished in face and bearing, even when he is drunk. 'His' scenes are the ones in the tavern where (thanks to the compression of the plot) he relates to d'Artagnan the marital misadventures of his 'friend' the Comte de la Fère, overhears and confronts Milady, and then in true swashbuckler style saves d'Artagnan from drinking the poisoned wine by pulling the pistol from his belt with which he has just been threatening Milady, and using it to shoot the fatal glass out of his young friend's hand with unerring aim.
And that pivotal scene -- the 'ballad of Athos' -- is so beautifully done by both actors: d'Artagnan's dawning realisation and horror, Athos dishevelled and clearly haunted by the returning ghosts of his past, the recurring motif in the lyrics of the lilies that bloom in the dark pool (where, in this version, we presume Athos believed he had drowned his wife) and in the form of the fleur-de-lis on her shoulder, the moment where Athos momentarily burns himself on the candle flame and clearly has a flashback to the memory of that brand, then pulls himself together and tries to disclaim the whole story ("I tell such terrifying tales when I'm drunk") while d'Artagnan, aghast with pity, can't look away. The song itself is just that ominous little electronic motif (a repeated descending minor third?), but it's all in the delivery and the body language.
Porthos, who doesn't get a song of his own, other than a bit of occasional bass obbligato, is a bit of a caricature -- but then he always is. This version of Porthos wears a bow tied in his hair, which I'm not sure is canon but neatly evokes the book-character's tastes in showy clothing, and oddly enough doesn't look in the least feminine. He has a tendency to fight by simply picking up objects or people and ramming them together, showcasing his strength as versus Aramis' graceful economy of movement and d'Artagnan's tendency towards crazy stunts; I really liked the way that all the characters are given distinctive fighting styles.
Another thing that I was struck by was the surprising rough edges in the singing/recording compared to modern films. It's not done in a bad way; the effect, paradoxically, is to make the performance sound as if it is genuinely being sung by real people, because the performers aren't always perfectly positioned behind the microphone or producing immaculately filled-out tone. When Aramis does his show-off high tenor notes, they're very impressive, but they are also ever so slightly vulnerable and human. (Ironically, a lot of the singing, according to the vocal credits, was in fact dubbed by other performers; the cheerfully unpolished chorus in the theme song, which we see the musketeers singing as they ride through the streets, isn't being performed by the actors as an impromptu ensemble, although it sounds very much as if it is, and in a good way.)
One more memorable musical moment, in a film that has many, is the scene where Rochefort and Milady are conscripted, somewhat to their embarrassment, to demonstrate the content of a scurrilous song about the Cardinal at the request of the latter, only to eventually get carried away and clearly start enjoying the performance a little too much...
I felt that the film did tend to fall off a bit after the climax of d'Artagnan's return with the diamond studs, but that tends to be the case with pretty much all adaptations, and I suspect the basic issue lies with Dumas and the source work. There is definitely a lot of compression and re-ordering going on, some of which works, e.g. The aforementioned combined tavern scene and the early death of Constance, and some of which results in material being retained (d'Artagnan's encounter with Kitty, the bastion at La Rochelle) which doesn't really have any purpose other than having occurred -- in some other context! -- in the original book.
This isn't a 10/10 production; it's got rough edges and not all the scenes are as good as each other. It's not even 'my period' of popular music (early-mid 20th century). But it is immensely endearing. It takes the story seriously while not taking it seriously at all, and manages to bounce with utter unselfconscious joyous excitement. The actors apparently had a great time while making the film and hung around together offscreen as well as on, and it shows.
I don't think this ever had any ambitions to be great art. It's just one of those cases where everything -- actors, script, performances, music, direction -- somehow came together right, and to heartwarming effect. I can absolutely understand why it has apparently become a cult classic, why people treasure memories of watching repeats on TV, why schoolgirls fell for Aramis en masse, and why it seems to have subsequently acquired a vigorous online fandom. I now have an entire playlist of related videos and excerpts!
