On DVD: What the '70s-Era Musketeers Can Teach Us About Action, Bromance and Fun

musketeers_dvd.jpgFor all of our CGI-ed Johnny Depp blockbusters, we've forgotten how to properly buckle a swash, as it were -- costume-action films are now either 99 percent digital hootenanny or buttoned-down Classics Illustrated adaptations. We forget that readers and theatergoers in the 19th century loved their life-or-death mano-a-mano and mad-dash escapes and preposterous physical feats just as we do, which is why pioneering pulp like Alexandre Dumas has never been out of print. Of course, in the '70s, when the Richard Lester made the best Dumas movies back-to-back, stunts were performed by real people -- even, sometimes, the movie stars themselves. And when action involves actual humans, it's not just merely visceral thrill, but story.

We'll see if the newly announced versions of The Three Musketeers will err on the side of flesh or pixel, and if it retains the elan the story requires. It's difficult to imagine beating Lester at his game -- he was essentially a comic filmmaker, and he did turn bouncy pop songs into iconic comedy in A Hard Day's Night, managing in the process to make a film about friendship. The Three Musketeers (1973) and The Four Musketeers (1974) are, at bottom, one big four-way bromance as well, but they're also a top-grade costume-adventure blast, and a standard of their genre. (The last time anyone this ground broached significantly occurred in 1998's DiCaprio-as-boy-king version of The Man in the Iron Mask, in which the middle-aged Musketeers were reduced to a battle of Megadeth-like wigs and astounding noses: Gabriel Byrne's axe-like extension, Jeremy Irons's aquiline member, John Malkovich's puttyish honker, all dwarfed by Depardieu's penis-shaped schnoz.)

In Lester's two-part epic, the emphasis is on boys-will-be-boys esprit, a sense of raw, rebellious Errol Flynn-ish fun that was an integral part of popular culture for centuries but seems to be utterly missing today. The story, stretched out from Dumas' original gout of court intrigue and double betrayals, is primarily a battle against Cardinal Richelieu (Charlton Heston), but the party begins with the boys: Oliver Reed (Athos), Richard Chamberlain (Aramis), Frank Finlay (Porthos, played as the Keith Moon of the group), and the over-earnest Michael York (D'Artagnan), all of whom (but especially Reed) manage to make plumed chapeaus and satin breeches look super-cool.

The casting coups continue with Faye Dunaway, in her redoubtable prime, as Milady de Winter, Christopher Lee as the scalawag Rochefort, and the ridiculously hot Raquel Welch, in what could be called her career apex, as Constance, a lady-in-waiting in love with D'Artagnan but as chronically clumsy as a fourth Stooge, constantly subject to head knocks and pratfalls.

Sure, the upshot of Lester's diptych is a bit old-fashioned today, and chilled at times by outrageous overdubbing. And there're no computer-game impossibilities or swooshings. But the humor is affectionate, the joie de vivre is infectious, and the historical details, which Lester clearly loves, are transporting. If you can't have fun with this stuff, you're too used to having your entertainment media do everything for you but tell you when to turn the xBox off.



Comments

  • Usherette says:

    Michael, you're right on with this. Loved these as a kid. Definitely a high point of Christopher Lee's career (yes, better'n LOTR by far). And speaking of stunts, you almost mention Roy Kinnear...

  • David Davies says:

    Roy Kinnear is the true star performer in these movies.......

  • J. says:

    Your last paragraph is genius. Sums up many of my own personal complaints about films and filmgoers in general today. Imagination on the part of the audience is not required, historical inaccuracy is commonplace and the physically impossible is considered de rigueur (a film like "Crouching Tiger" was fascinating in its novelty, but now I suspect the A-Team will be flying from tree to tree brandishing swords and Biel's perky bosom won't bounce a millimeter as it happens). I bow to your retro stance, sir.

  • Furious D says:

    The superiority of the pre-CGI movies in swashbuckling adventure is that the audience was expecting human limitations on their heroes. You were actually worried if the hero (or stuntman) was going to successfully leap onto the out of control carriage and save the damsel, or was he going to fall, get trampled, and die.
    Nowadays the audience sits there going, okay, this is where the computer effects will kick in and make him do something impossible that has no real grounding in physics or physiology. It's all ho-hum now.
    It's the same thing with gunfights in movies. In the commentary for Magnum Force John Milius says that he misses the use of revolvers in action movies, because it meant that every bullet had to count for something, and added a level of suspense. Nowadays it's all massive waves of gunfire that never seem to hit the hero as he runs around in slo-mo, never missing the bad guys with his own seemingly infinite supply of ammo.
    But then again, I tend to crank. 😉

  • Maximum Bob says:

    These two movies were important in another way too. They were the first historical films that had a realistic look to them. Previously films set in the past tended to be glossy and super-clean looking. The look of these two reflected the sometimes grimy, sweaty, filthy reality of the 17th century. Lester's later film 'Robin and Marian', although not a great film by any means, was even better in this respect.