Los tres mosqueteros

The Hollywood of the classic studio system is not known for its kindness in adapting great literary works. Often overwrought or oversimplified, cut down or bastardized, the movie versions rarely capture the essence or the form of the books they pretend to adapt.

This one is exceptional. Both the pathos and the verve of the Dumas novel (itself a roman-feuilleton - a serial- which it is rumored Dumas didn't actually write) are wonderfully captured, and Kelly is the dream D'Artagnan. Every bit of physicality and fun that he brought to his choreographies in the musicals is used beautifully to bring grace and energy to the duels. The humor of the star is used quite brilliantly. Compare the toungue-in-cheek pastiche THE DUELLING CAVALIER in SINGING IN THE RAIN with this earlier work. Look up a few of his directorial efforts (The Cheyenne Social Club) with the humor here.

Each fan of Dumas will have his favorite version of THE THREE MUSKETEERS, but we all must agree this is a noble and (overall) successful effort.

"The Three Musketeers" is an adaptation of Alexandre Dumas' novel of the same name. The film features sweeping scenes, bright costumes and classical themes. Gene Kelly does well in an energetic performance as D'Artagnan. The rest of the cast is solid as well, particularly Lana Turner and Vincent Price as the scheming villains.

The film features a number of sword fights which are well staged, but become repetitive. The filmmakers tried to balance the action scenes with the intrigue of Dumas' novel. This was welcome, but I found the film had tedious stretches and didn't completely capture the excitement of the novel.

The true test of a filmed version of a famous novel is not how close the action is to the plot of the book - it's whether it's faithful to the spirit of the original, and above all, whether it *works*. I didn't think casting Gene Kelly as a non-singing, non-dancing D'Artagnan would work: it does. I didn't think censoring the religious references to suit the US market would work - it does. I didn't think this could possibly rival the 1974 Lester/Macdonald Fraser version... well, I'm still not sure about that one, but it's an unexpectedly close call.

Without any question, the outstanding performance in this film is that of Gene Kelly. His athleticism, unsurprisingly, is marvellous, his swordplay is dazzling - but most importantly, as an actor his characterization of the impetuous, susceptible, hot-headed but good-hearted young Gascon is spot on the mark. He plays the part with a humour and charm that leave us likewise loving and laughing in his wake, and the only character with a chance of upstaging him is that truly preposterous yellow horse... a piece of type-casting if ever I saw one!

Perhaps the most disappointing performance, in contrast, is Van Heflin as Athos, the high-minded musketeer who drinks to find oblivion from a dark secret in his past. This Athos is a sullen peasant rather than a tragic nobleman, perhaps because the scriptwriters chose to demote him from Comte to Baron de la Fere. He has none of the charisma that should have been brought to the part, and it's often hard to understand why his three companions put up with him.

The fight scenes are excellently staged, as is to be expected in a precursor of 'Scaramouche', but I personally did feel that they went on for a little too long. Likewise, Anne of Austria was wonderfully imperious, but not as beautiful as the legend would have her. Constance Bonancieux, by contrast, gets a much larger part in this version than in Dumas' novel - and a somewhat less sleazy relationship with the young lodger - and makes the most of it.

The pivotal change in the plot during Milady's stay in England features Constance to a large extent, and is in my opinion actually very effective. The fact that even those of us who know the source material inside out have no idea *how* the inevitable is going to happen increases the tension enormously, and the change of emphasis to the relationship between the two women, rather than the seductive act we have seen several times before, gives both actresses a fresh chance to shine.

Richelieu, shorn of his Cardinal's title to avoid Church offence, has relatively little to do in this version, and D'Artagnan's nemesis Rochefort barely appears at all, though both actors make the most of what screen time they have. There is an effective scene at the end (again, owing nothing to Dumas) where Richelieu reminds the King of his dominion as the power behind the throne, only to save face in a graceful manoeuvre as Louis XIII temporarily asserts himself: we are quite certain that the King will soon be back under his thumb.

Overall, I was very impressed by the way in which this film captured the roistering, sometimes raucous, sometimes melodramatic spirit of its source material. Reading other people's comments about the silent version starring Douglas Fairbanks, I only wish I were likely to get the chance to see that as well!

"The Three Musketeers" is unarguably an adventure film of great physical beauty and quite a bit of narrative power. It stands just after "The Best Years of Our lives" as one of the first Technicolor "A" films that broadened the palette used by filmmakers to include richness as well as, say, western or Arabian settings in adventure movies. To director George Sidney goes much of the credit for the film's swiftness of pace and attractive visual elements. With cinematography by Robert Planck, art direction by Malcolm Brown and the great Cedric Gibbons, elaborate set decorations by Edwin B, Willis and Henry Grace, and costumes by legendary Walter Plunkett, the film moves from rustic scenes to sumptuous interiors via scenes of swordplay that are often stunning. Add makeup by Jack Dawn, hair designs by Larry Germain and Sydney Guilaroff, sound by Douglas Shearer and Herbert Stothart's original music and use of Tschaikovsy themes--and the result I suggest is a quite satisfying viewing experience. But the plot has something more, perhaps, as well. The original Alexandre Dumas's (the father) storyline as treated by Robert Ardrey's screenplay comes out as an intelligent but somewhat satirical-cynical look at life in the France of the time of Cardinal Richelieu and King Louis XIII. In adopting an objective, light-hearted tone, similar to that in "North By Northwest', the producer Pandro S. Berman and the writers gain for the film the ability to do memorable comedy as well as occasionally far-more-serious scenes. What is lost in concentrated dramatic power is made up fin such an adventure if the actors are able to invest its goings on with the seriousness of their taking it seriously, bringing it to life professionally. I suggest that in the lavish production, this level of artistry was almost everywhere achieved. The large cast features such attractive artists as Angela Lansbury as the Queen, John Sutton as Buckingham, June Allyson very-well-used as Constance, Robert Warwick as D'Artagnan's father, Keenan Wynn as Planchet the servant, Reginald Owen and Ian Keith, Patricia Medina and Richard Wyler. In featured roles, one can enjoy stellar work by Robert Coote as Aramis, Gig Young as Porthos, Frank Morgan as the King and Gene Kelly as an athletic and often lyrical D'Artagnan. But the acting honors in the film belong to actor worthies Van Helfin, who dominates in the role of the hard-drinking Athos and Vincent Price, who makes immense amounts out of what he is allowed to do as an understated Richelieu. The curious casting is that of attractive Lana Turner as Lady De Winter; she is not capable yet of classical work, but she suggests some of her part's potential depths. This famous story of the young Gascon joining the three best swordsmen in France and learning more about life than he had bargained for is here given as much power perhaps as it can handle; and rich scenes of sword battles, interpersonal misunderstandings and a sense of controlled importance makes, I suggest, the story's dark moments memorable and the fun more important than it might have been. I find this to be a masterly understatement of a truly classic adventure.

While there have been many versions of the THREE MUSKETEERS, this is my very favorite thanks to wonderful writing, acting and cinematography. I just love the incredibly vivid colors of the 1940s Technicolor and this is perhaps the best example of this type of color film that emphasized very bright primary colors--more intense than real life but perfect for showy spectacles like this.

The film begins with Gene Kelly (as D'Artagnon) heading to Paris and accidentally insulting each of the three musketeers. He is challenged to all three to a duel, but the duels are cut short by the troops of the evil Cardinal Richelieu. Then, the story takes off and the intrigue begins.

The film is a perfect example of the "full MGM treatment"--top production values, crisp writing, excellent direction and the best ensemble cast around. See it and have a ball. If you don't, you must be dead.