But… That’s Not in the Book! 2: “The Three Musketeers”

Introduction

Like most of my categories of interest, I am pretty lop-sided when it comes to reading authors of a wide range of nationalities. Perhaps this is something that many can attest to themselves, but I feel like since I left high school (and perhaps even college if we’re going to shrink the playing field of written word down to sociological theories), I’ve been found to more likely be drawn to types of books and authors that I already know that I like, and often times that works itself out with me obsessively reading books from authors of a certain nationality, due to their unique presentation of a worldview or style of writing that I find attractive. For sure, not every author of a particular nationality writes the same way, and there are factors such as time period to consider, but I believe it would be safe to say (if anything is safe to say) that each nationality has its own taste to it. Each author may deliver that taste differently—some of them are punchier than others, some of them are more subtle—but it’s oftentimes there. As a literature nut, I can attest that this “taste” or flavor is something that we often look for we are considering a work’s value or nature and when we are comparing it to its cohort. It’s not a necessity that all should have the same taste, and certainly, we don’t need to force it in if it’s not there, but rather, knowing that they are likely to have this similar taste (considering they are coming from a similar worldview or cultural space), it presents itself like a tool of engagement, allowing us immediate context and depth as we see connection from previous books in the same cohort. Anyway, the deeper you go into a particular taste, and the more familiar you become with it, the more enjoyment seems to come with it. Deeper understanding, deeper connection, and experience draws out a deeper love. This is what I’ve come to understand for books, but it also plays out in other areas of life.

Personally, the taste of Russian and British literature is extremely familiar and intoxicating to me. The passion, the intelligence, the deep moralism that permeates the text—that is the Russian “taste” for me. The dry wittiness and contextualized speech, the formality, the relationship and environment-centered story-building, the structure—this would be how I imagine the British “taste” in literature. These cultures are who I am most connected with, as I’ve engaged with them the most, and so it’s highly safe to say that I am biased toward them. That’s not necessarily how I want to leave it, though, so it’s been important to me for a while now to attempt to read more from other cultures and from authors of differing nationalities—not just so that I can widen my own literary worldview, and therefore, find new things to love, but also so I can love and add even more depth to the worlds and tastes that I already know. 

Perhaps this is getting too philosophical, and perhaps I am not making much sense at all—I mean, isn’t this supposed to be a movie and book comparison article? Why, yes; yes, it is. And ultimately, this is me saying that I’ve not read many French authors, and after reading two of Dumas’ books now, I can say that I am glad to have engaged with his world, his culture, his experience, and taste. And at the same time, having read these books, I was all the more grateful to pick up Anna Karenina (to which may be the next analysis coming up) after the fact. Two different worlds, both extremely unique, both extremely valuable. In the same way, I feel this about literature and film. While both are telling a story, they do it differently and maintain their own taste; like two sides to a coin, they both present something that the other cannot. This is all the more seen during movie adaptations of books, I feel like. And now we have arrived full circle to the point of this article. Did you think that I would ever get there? Not going to lie, I was a bit concerned myself there. Nonetheless, here we are, so shall we begin? The Three Musketeers by Alexandre Dumas and Disney’s The Three Musketeers (1993): analysis start!

Alexandre Dumas

One of the best ways to engage in building an understanding of the context surrounding a text is to dive into its creator and their life’s story. As most authors write from a position of their own experience and worldview, it’s fair to say that learning first about the author allows you to better participate in their content. Alexandre Dumas’ The Three Musketeers is no different, and therefore, I believe that to be a highly fitting beginning to our little analytical journey. 

Alexandre Dumas (not to be confused with his son, Alexandre Dumas, fils) was named Dumas Davy de la Pailleterie at birth on July 24, 1802 in Villers-Cotterêts in France, which resides roughly 50 miles from the cultural center of Paris. His mother was Marie Louis Labouret, and his father was General Thomas-Alexandre Davy de la Pailleterie, whose history is as interesting a backstory as one of Dumas’ literary creations. Born in Haiti from a union out of wedlock between his father, the marquis de La Pailleterie, and Marie Cessette Dumas, a black slave from Santo Domingo, General Thomas-Alexandre followed his father to France and cast aside his father’s name at the time of his enlistment. The NY Times states that this was due to him not wanting to “drag… his ancient family name through the lowest ranks of the army” (Foote, 1993), and therefore, he adopted his mother’s name, Dumas. The beautiful irony of this is, of course, that her name is now the one that has endured and been splashed across history for its achievements and international success. (“Alexandre Dumas,” 2022; “Alexandre Dumas, père,” n.d.; Ellsworth, 2018)

General Thomas-Alexandre rose in the Revolutionary Army and was esteemed until a disagreement with Napoleon—allegedly brought upon by jealousy—led him to be imprisoned for two years, after which his previous health and vitality never returned. Having a rich multicultural, multiracial background composed of French aristocracy and black slaves, Dumas’ father experienced the advantages of the push for equality for all in Revolutionary France, while also being afflicted due to Napoleon’s renewal of the ancient régime, which was composed of racist policies. After his release, his son, Alexandre Dumas, was born, but Alexandre was not given much time with his famous father, as he passed away when he was only three. Yet, it seems the fierce but gentle man, who did not allow for injustice, left a steady impression on the young boy and remained his role model in life and in his work. (“Alexandre Dumas,” 2022; “Alexandre Dumas, père,” n.d.; Ellsworth, 2018)

The general’s death left the young family without much money or prospects, but Dumas made the best out of what he had, receiving education where he could but mostly enjoying his youth through the hunt: chasing after both girls and game. While hosting considerable intelligence, with his educational background being so irregular, the young man found that his one main skill—his beautiful penmanship—would be his hope for some form of financial security for himself and his family. This skill eventually led him to be able to go to Paris, where he began a job as part of the secretarial staff for the Duke d’Orléans, who would become the future King Louis-Philippe. (“Alexandre Dumas,” 2022; “Alexandre Dumas, père,” n.d.; Ellsworth, 2018)

Standing at the center of the cultural vortex, Dumas found life and passion all around him, and he was quick to become enamored by the theatre. Setting his pen to paper, he began by writing plays which, to the modern eye, may be considered “crude, brash, and melodramatic” (“Alexandre Dumas, père,” n.d.) but were eagerly consumed during his raise to fame. And while continuing his work for the theatre, Dumas began considering the historical novel, which thus takes us to our main topic for this series. Britannica phrases his work and intentions for his historical novels, saying, “Considerations of probability or historical accuracy generally were ignored, and the psychology of the characters was rudimentary. Dumas’s main interest was the creation of an exciting story set against a colourful background of history, usually the 16th or 17th century” (“Alexandre Dumas, père,” n.d.). In other words, Dumas was all about the drama, the romance, and the passion, and for anything else, he was practically unconcerned. (“Alexandre Dumas,” 2022; Ellsworth, 2018)

Dumas’ success happened rapidly and wrote his two most famous novels The Count of Monte Cristo and The Three Musketeers at an extraordinary rate through serial publications. Practically directly moving from pen to press, Dumas often composed and published so quickly that he would forget what he had previously written, thus creating an eternal struggle for editors as they debated how to resolve the countless errors in the final collected manuscripts. Dumas carried on the D’Artagnan legacy started with The Three Musketeers with Twenty Years After and then The Vicomte of Bragelonne: Ten Years Later, which hosts “The Man in the Iron Mask,” another popular story that received a well-received film adaptation. (“Alexandre Dumas,” 2022; “Alexandre Dumas, père,” n.d.; Ellsworth, 2018)

While Dumas is more known as a visceral writer than a deep thinker, his first two historical novels were not without personal meaning. The Count of Monte Cristo tells of a man imprisoned unjustly during Napoleonic times and his successful revenge on those who put him there, as well as hosting a beautiful slave who serves as the sole comfort for the protagonist. The characters of The Three Musketeers are composed of an amalgamation of traits that have been used to describe his own father: Athos’ chivalry and code of honor; Porthos’ size, strength, vitality, and wit; the perspective and humanistic D’Artagnan’s skill as a leader and a soldier. Aramis seems to have more in line with Alexandre than his father, and even within that, there is meaning and attachment. In such a way, it would seem, that Dumas has used his writing as a way of rectifying his father’s story, getting revenge through the pen on those who imprisoned him and continuing General Thomas-Alexandre’s legacy and beliefs. The Three Musketeers and its sequels, in particular, set the perfect backdrop for the opportunity to address “how to find the courage to adhere to a personal code of honor in the face of pressure from society and oppressive authority” (Ellsworth, 2018), which could ultimately be said to be the question instilled in young Dumas from the steady study of his father and his life, even after his early death. (“Alexandre Dumas,” 2022; “Alexandre Dumas, père,” n.d.)

Although Dumas received wide popularity during his living years, his more visceral approach to writing caused literary acclaim to remain out of his reach. Remaining a lover of love and ever one with vices, Dumas led an excessive life after fame took hold, eventually leading him into debt and eventually having to flee his pursuers. While historians wrap up his life’s story in a slightly pitiful tale of attempting to write unsuccessful travel books in Russia, I like to believe that his story and his love for his father carry on in the pages of his creations. Although he did not see it in his own days, his genius with character design and engaging storytelling has been recognized as time passed. In this way, he has carried his father’s legacy further than ever imagined and also provided inspiration for generations of writers and readers alike. (“Alexandre Dumas,” 2020; “Alexandre Dumas, père,” n.d.; Ellsworth, 2018)

Analysis

Now that we have some information about the creator of our favorite four musketeers, let’s consider its adaptations. There are an exceedingly large number of adaptations for Dumas’ tale, but I specifically chose Disney’s version, because one, it brings me back to my childhood, and two, it seemed like the one that I would have the most to talk about (of course I choose the one that would give me the most work). There are other reasons involved, but more than anything, it just stems from the fact that this is the one that I wanted to do (so selfish). If there is another adaptation for the book that you are interested in, let me know and perhaps I will write something up!

The difficulty of this article, though, is that Dumas’ The Musketeers is actually (looooooooosely) rooted in history, so I recognized that there should probably be some history checks involved with this comparison analysis as well. I am definitely not a historian, and while I enjoy history and enjoy the research involved in finding out about history, I rely a bit too much on the Internet as my functioning resource, so while I will do my best to remain neutral and true, if there is anything that does not seems up to snuff (what a weird phrase), please feel free to correct me. I welcome and appreciate it.

This struggle with historicity, though, is actually one of the main reasons why I find Dumas’ The Three Musketeers so fascinating. I actually hadn’t thought about it until reading the book, but I suppose it’s true that every author who writes historical fiction has a decision to make: do they remain authentic to history, or do they sacrifice authenticity for the sake of the plot? The more tightly wound a book is with its historical background, the more important this question becomes. Perhaps there are some authors who can perfectly balance it out, but I would say that those are few and far between. Diving into this book and this genre, I was given a new appreciation for its complexities, and I have to say, a new amusement at Dumas for his answer to the question posed. Fascination abounds in me at Dumas for various reasons, particularly because he writes absolutely ridiculous stories (I mean this in the best possible way), but his blending of history and fiction was absolutely fascinating. Let me tell you what I mean.

The Models

First off, many of our favorite characters in the book had real-life models. It is relatively agreed that Aramis was based on Henri d’Aramtiz, a musketeer and abbot who was the real-life cousin of Comte de Toisville. Porthos seems to have been composed after Isaac de Porthau, another cousin of Toisville. Athos was taken from Armand de Sillègue d’Athos d’Autevielle, who was said to be close and like brothers to d’Armatiz and de Porthau. And our dashing D’Artagnan is based off of Charles de Batz de Castelmore d’Artagnan. (“Historicity,” n.d.; Ellsworth, 2018)

With these people who are less well-known, there is more room for Dumas’ interpretation and less room for debate in regard to history vs. story. However, Dumas also borrowed characters and events, and with vicious liberties, put his own fictitious spin on their lives and emotional facilities. Characters such as Cardinal Richelieu, King Louis XIII, Queen Anne of Austria, George Villiers, 1st Duke of Buckingham, and John Felton were spoken of as if a personal acquaintance of Dumas, their inner-most motivations being splayed upon the page. What is fascinating about his is that Dumas didn’t necessarily re-write history with his works, he just exaggerated, dramatized, personalized, and romanticized it. (“Historicity,” n.d.; Ellsworth, 2018)

However, Dumas wasn’t the first to do this, and in fact, took his cues from one Gatien de Courtilz de Sandras, who would write highly-imaginative “biographies” of the famous. Taking the main events of their lives, filling in the rest, and then switching the text into a first-person narrative, thus making it as if the contents were autobiographical, Sandras very successfully wrote works on the lives of our Cardinal Richelieu and Cardinal Mazarin, Comte de Rochefort, and D’Artagnan himself.  (“Historicity,” n.d.; Ellsworth, 2018)

Within the first pages of The Three Musketeers, Dumas himself writes in his own voice about his discovery of the memoirs. When first reading this introduction, not knowing the backstory behind it, I thought this was just another part of the story; in other words, a fictitious introduction to a fictitious story. So, finding out that this prologue was actually depicting the events in Dumas’ life which lead to the creation of The Three Musketeers, I was highly intrigued. It seems that within the Gatien de Courtilz de Sandras’ memoirs, Dumas found the characters that he had been searching for, and yet, the timing lacked a little for what he was hoping to achieve. Instead of remaining true to the real-life inspirations of D’Artagnan and his fellow musketeers, who served during Cardinal Mazarin’s time (who came after Cardinal Richelieu) rather than Cardinal Richelieu, he hopscotched his way back into a time that he found more politically intriguing and fitting for his romanticism (“Historicity,” n.d.). The scholarly introduction to The Three Musketeers puts it best:

“The period of 1626-28 had the necessary tension between Louis XIII and his minister Cardinal Richelieu depicted in the Memoirs, but it had something more that Dumas, the great romantic, simply could not resist: a war between France and England seemingly driven solely by an illicit affair for the heart. The strange love triangle between English Prime Minister the Duke of Buckingham, Anne the Queen of France, and King Louis—or Cardinal Richelieu as his proxy—was catnip to Dumas, a perfect embodiment of his theory that all history is personality. And this conflict between monarchs and ministers gave him the ideal context for the romantic intrigues, moral quandaries, and exciting high-stake exploits of his four young swordsmen.”

(Ellsworth, 2018) 

Fitting for the great patchworker, while there were some characters that he directly took from Sandras’ novels, there were others that Dumas sliced and pieced together to fit his Frankensteinian creation, such as it was for Milady de Winter. While there are some who say that Milady de Winter has some historical precedent, it’s difficult to say with all the pseudo-biographies that have been used as resources for our text. It does seem that Dumas used Sandras’ work as inspiration for Milady and the idea of branding, but her role with the diamond studs may have come from the memoirs of François de La Rochefoucauld (“Historicity,” n.d.; “Milady de Winter,” 2022). Whether rooted in history or not, in my opinion, Milady presented the most unique and vibrant character of the entire story, and therefore, speaks to Dumas’ character writing skills.

So, as usual, let’s do a brief rundown of the book and the movie before getting to the comparison analysis. While in my previous comparison analysis, the summaries of the looked-upon materials were not really important (I’ll admit it), due to their ultimate likeness, the two The Musketeers are vastly different in terms of plot (which is beautiful for my job… she says now, looking anxiously at her 8-pages of notes), therefore, I would highly suggest walking with me through this.

Book Summary

Alexandre Dumas’ The Three Musketeers takes place in 17th Century France. D’Artagnan, a young, vibrant man from Gascon, travels to Paris to become a part of the musketeers, the King’s guards. Once arriving there, he meets the musketeers Aramis, Porthos, and Athos, and quickly becomes their fourth. Although he is not experienced enough yet to be a part of the musketeers, he is placed in Monsieur le Chevalier D’Essart’s company of Guards, where he is to wait until the time arrives when he can become a musketeer. As life, love, and duels abound in Paris, D’Artagnan finds himself caught up in the affairs of one Constance Bonacieux, Queen Anne’s lady-in-waiting and the wife of his landlord. Due to his growing affection for Constance, he engages himself in helping the queen in her love affair with George Villiers, Duke of Buckingham, and outmaneuvering the wiles of Cardinal Richelieu, who seems to both love and hate the Queen and is set on manipulating the King into recognizing the Queen’s betrayal.

After aiding the Queen, D’Artagnan is convinced that he will now receive love from Constance, but she is taken away from him by Richelieu’s men and it is up to D’Artagnan and his brothers-in-arms to find her. However, in the process, he slights the mysterious and deeply complicated Lady de Winter (Milady), Cardinal Richelieu’s most trusted of spies, and in the process of trying to reunite with his Constance, he is forced to evade her frightening attempts on his life while also seeking to stop her from completing Richelieu’s horrific plans for Buckingham. In this way, Dumas’ writes his novel in two sections.

Dumas sets his scene in a France that is divided into two factions: the royalists and the cardinalists. D’Artagnan and the other musketeers must navigate the environment, being king’s men but recognizing that the Cardinal works with mighty power in the background. Richelieu is shown as power-hungry and manipulative, and Louis XIII is shown as easily swayed and nearly powerless in comparison. The Queen—who is untrusted and/or hatred by many if not most in the royal residences, including her husband, due to her Spanish connections and attempts with political intrigues—is persecuted by the Cardinal due to not receiving her love in return, is constantly having those she trusts the most being banished and taken away from her, and is deeply lonely and isolated. Both Buckingham and the Cardinal want her for themselves, and they are willing to do anything for her love (or perhaps just her possession), including inducing a war between their countries of France and England. Dumas gives new meaning to history, tracing it all down to the motivations of the heart and personality. (Dumas, 1844)

Movie Summary

Disney’s The Three Musketeers (1993) is centered around D’Artagnan, who has the same ambition as in the book, to become a musketeer, like his killed father. On the way to Paris, he mistakenly jumps in to save the Queen and her lady-in-waiting, Constance, thinking that they were being chased, only to realize that the men he had just de-horsed were the Queen’s guards. Having introduced us to D’Artagnan’s love interest in the story, the movie moves on to Paris, where we find that the musketeers have been disbanded due to the back-handed orders of the Cardinal. Therefore, suddenly, there are no musketeers for D’Artagnan to join, thus creating an issue for our main protagonist. In a huff, D’Artagnan meets our three musketeers and due to a coming together to defeat the Cardinal’s men, they become friends. 

The Cardinal is ruthless, cruel, lewd, and power-hungry in the movie. Secretly, he is plotting to engage in a treaty with Buckingham in England. However, this treaty is contingent upon a show of the Cardinal’s power and ability. Therefore, the plan is simple: get the treaty signed, convince the king to have a birthday party, and then kill the king. However, D’Artagnan and his lively crew find out about this plot and seek to stop it, all the while the Cardinal’s men, including his spy Lady de Winter and faithful guard Comte de Rochefort, are working behind the scenes to move the plan forward and remove all obstacles in their way.

King Louis is quite in love with Anne, as is Anne with Louis, and yet, there is an aspect of unsureness and awkwardness between them; Anne’s loneliness is felt throughout the movie, but that is contrasted to the moments when she talks about her love for Louis with Constance or her obvious enjoyment and pride during the moments Louis stands up to the Cardinal for working behind his back. Richelieu uses this uncertainty to fully manipulate both parties and push his plan forward. (Roth et al., 1993)

Main Plot Changes

As can likely be seen, we are essentially working with two entirely different entities. The same characters and general plot line, for sure, but the differences are glaringly obvious. Of course, this isn’t necessarily a negative thing, as we are able to experience certain aspects from the movie, like the consistency of tone and clearer conflict resolution that can’t be attributed to the book. However, like it necessarily can’t be said that Dumas’ held was always authentic to history, it can’t really be said that the movie holds up in accuracy to the book.  Amusingly, this means that in some parts, the movie moves even further along the line away from historic relevance, making the book seem positively on point. We will definitely discuss details (would I be me if I didn’t?), but first, let’s talk about the large plot changes.  

The Musketeers

An easy pick would be the musketeers and their disbandment. In the book, there is no such thing. Not only our four main leads but the entire group of musketeers are talked about frequently throughout the book and maintain a certain level of background atmosphere. There are also more definitive details mentioned in the book about the Musketeers that are missed within the film. The two companies, the musketeers and the King’s guards, are not described, and their commanders, Monsieur le Chevalier D’Essart and Monsieur de Tréville, have been completely left out. While Monsieur le Chevalier D’Essart does not show up much in person in the book, D’Artagnan is famously under his care throughout the first half of the book before he becomes a musketeer. And Monsieur de Tréville? While he is absent in the movie, his presence is hugely important within the book, as he leads the musketeers, but he also serves as a type of father figure to his charges and something of an intercessor for the musketeers when they engage in unseemly behavior like dueling. His faith and loyalty in D’Artagnan and the “inseparables” epitomizes the principles the musketeers stand upon, and while the rest of the musketeers engage in all sorts of events that challenge their unity and strength, one could probably argue that Tréville alone is a pure representation of the original brave and true musketeer that Dumas had in mind. While the words “all for one, one for all” is only mentioned twice in the book (and therefore, highly overused in the movie), its themes and meaning is carried out as a central tenet for the musketeers. 

While having the musketeers be disbanded makes sense in regard to what they wanted to accomplish with the movie, many of the details of the musketeers get lost, thus losing some of the depth to the story and Dumas’ engaging and fully-composed design. 

History check: Not only does the disbanding of the musketeers take away from richness of the characters, background, and setting, it draws the story further away from history and goes reasonably close to being incomprehensible in terms of the rationale behind the writing decisions. Let me see if I can explain this alright. In the movie, the musketeers have been disbanded, and King Louis goes to Cardinal Richelieu in a huff. He demands to know why this took place without his knowledge. Richelieu greasily reminds the king that this had already been decided between the two of them due to them being needed as soldiers to defeat England, aka Buckingham, and that he was just moving the plan along. (Roth et al., 1993)

In light of my research and the contents of the book, this statement really doesn’t make much sense to me. The musketeers in 17th century France carried out missions outside of the palace and were guards to the king when the king himself was not within the residency (“Musketeers of the Guard,” 2022). The guard de corps, on the other hand, were the ones who protected the king from inside the royal residences (“Life Guards [France],” 2022). Therefore, if there were to be a war, such as the one that France was heading into with England, then the musketeers would already be the ones to be sent to battle. There would have been no need to disband them, as that would have already been in their job description.

While the musketeers were disbanded due to financial issues in the 18th century (the Cardinal’s guards broke up earlier than that), at the point in time the movie was set, this was not only a very conscious move away from historicity but also from the book itself, which remained within a reasonable level of historical accuracy in regards to the musketeers themselves. Within the book, much of the middle of the book are the musketeers preparing for their battle in La Rochelle, as would be fitting for the time, considering their king would be there as well. (“Musketeers of the Guard,” 2022)

Likewise, it is alluded to that the Cardinal’s guards were then to become the king’s guards. Once again, this is historically inaccurate. While it seems true that after the musketeers were established, a second company was specifically created for the Cardinal, to be his eyes and ears and give news to him, and therefore, there was a separation between the king’s unit and the Cardinal’s unit (“Musketeers of the Guard,” 2022). However, there is nothing to be said regarding the Cardinal’s guards becoming the king’s. The king’s men were the king’s; the Cardinal’s were the Cardinal’s. The disbandment in and of itself doesn’t fit within the structure of history, but historically, there isn’t even proof that this joining could or would happen. 

The (Non-Existent) Treaty

Within the movie, the Cardinal is attempting to gain more power and usurp the king by making a treaty with Buckingham. However, this is vastly different than in the book, as it could be said that the queen is actually more in cahoots with Buckingham than Richelieu is, although a different kind of cahoots, for sure. As mentioned before, the book is known to be separated into two sections “first, the ‘Get the Brooch’ Quest, and secondly the ‘Rescue Madame Bonacieux, Capture Milady’ Quest” (Chapters 21-25 Summary). This “brooch” that is mentioned is Anne’s brooch. During a tryst with Buckingham, the queen gives diamond studs—which had been a present to her from her husband, Louis—to Buckingham as a sign that she has affection for him without actually having to condemn herself by saying the words. Buckingham takes the studs back with him and wears them during a party. Richelieu, knowing that something happened between him and Anne, and once again, wanting to punish the queen for spurning him, will do anything to stop her from her continued relationship with Buckingham. He sends his spy, Lady de Winter, to cut some of the diamond studs off of his apparel, leaving him without the correct number of studs, and then tells the King that it would be oh-so-lovely to have a party and have the queen wear the studs. Recently, the king had suspected that she was having a relationship with Buckingham and that she was writing letters to him, and sent someone to search her room and her person to find any discriminating evidence. Not finding anything and recognizing that Anne was more than put out by this (not to mention finding this terribly fitting with his general dislike and distrust of her), the Cardinal suggests that the party would put her in a better mood and serve as an apology. The King falls into this trap and demands that she wear the studs. When Anne realizes that she and Buckingham are just short of being found out, she confides in Constance, who then entreats D’Artagnan for help. She asks the valiant guard to leave for England and bring the studs back in time for the party. In an adventure fit for a musketeer, D’Artagnan gets to England only to find that the diamonds had already been taken by Milady. However, Buckingham will not give up yet, and he ends up using his political power to create a naval barricade, stopping all ships from leaving or coming into England—which in the grand scheme of things, also creates the catalyst for the war with England—so that Milady does not get back to France and Richelieu. This gives Buckingham time to create identical studs, and then release the barricade so that D’Artagnan can get back to France and give the queen the studs just in time for the party. (Dumas, 1844)

So, as you can see… different. And that it is just the first half of the book. Likewise, while it feels odds to say, the first half of the book actually aligns the most with the movie. The second half is almost completely absent minus Milady’s death (spoiler alert), although that too is highly altered. But, once again, here is the main difference: while the Cardinal does do a bit of plotting in regard to Buckingham at the end of the book, it is more the queen who is heavily linked to the Duke, not Richelieu. As well, rather than dethrone the king, Richelieu’s ultimate desire was to destroy and humiliate the queen. Within this, much of the queen’s story is edited and placed lost amongst the mass amount of pages in the book, rather than giving her the time that she deserved on screen, in her full, complicated wonder. We will discuss her changes a little bit more later, but for now, I think it’s just important to recognize that Anne is not nearly as innocent as she is portrayed in the movie (or nearly as guilty as she is portrayed in the book), and that the treaty, as well as the Cardinal’s work with Buckingham, was non-existent in the book but very likely in history as well. Although the motivation behind the war is likely fiction simply made up in Dumas’ romantic mind, much of it has some form in history. 

History check: Fascinatingly enough, there is some truth behind the relationship between Anne and Buckingham, although it’s difficult to say how much of it was reciprocated and how much was it just Buckingham’s infatuation with Anne (“Anne of Austria,” n.d.). Likewise, Dumas integrated history with fiction in the fact that a naval blockade was indeed the start of a war between France and England (“Summary: Chapters 21-25,” n.d.), and it was through his dramatization that he gave romantic reason behind the political move. And in terms of the historicity of the treaty between the Cardinal and Buckingham, there does not seem to be any historic weight to the storyline. Therefore, although it’s still surprising to me, the book actually seems to fall in line more with history than the movie does in this plot change.

Characters Analysis

As is often the case with movie adaptations, it is not just the plot that hosts a plethora of changes but the characters, as well. The Three Musketeers is no exception, but once again, we have another level to consider in terms of comparison for this tale due to its historical fiction nature. Although I’ve alluded to some of the alterations when discussing the main plot changes, it would be difficult to go on (and just less fun) without naming them specifically.

Missing or Added Characters.

Let’s just briefly introduce some of the characters who either were brought to life just for the theatrical version or were mysteriously absent. Girard, who was the first character that we see interacting with our young D’Artagnan in the movie, is nowhere to be seen in the book. As I’ll talk about in more depth later, the movie relatively successfully extracts the meaning and theme behind certain events of the book and then repaints them with either different characters or different details surrounding the event. I’m thinking that Girard is one of these examples. In the book, much of D’Artagnan’s beginning is centered around a mysterious encounter with a man who is described as the Man of Meung (Meung being the place where D’Artagnan originally meets him). Ultimately, we learn that this Man of Meung is Comte de Rochefort, who works for the Cardinal and often is seen with Milady. Now, Rochefort does have a place in the movie, but his character has had some major adjustments, so I think it’s a possibility that they split up his different roles from the book into two characters. (Dumas, 1844; Roth et al., 1993)

At the beginning of the book, D’Artagnan is on his way to Paris and ends up being wounded by the Man of Meung during an altercation (there are many of these in the book). Likewise, a letter to Monsieur de Tréville, an introduction of sorts to the commander of the musketeers from his father who had been a neighbor of Tréville at a previous time, that D’Artagnan had on him gets stolen by the Man of Meung when he is unconscious, thinking that it may be some trap for the Cardinal. Throughout the entirety of the book, D’Artagnan has a major beef to settle with the Man of Meung, and often randomly runs off from the scene, when he thinks that he sees him. His duel with him and his search for him was the catalyst of his meeting with the three musketeers, and therefore, has some connections to Girard, as the movie uses Girard and his brothers as the main moving force in D’Artagnan’s meeting and duels with Aramis, Porthos, and Athos, which will be discussed later. 

Girard’s character, who is looking to “restore his sister’s honor,” however, is a pretty ridiculous and silly character and is likely just a throw-away meant to move the story along. If the character was meant to be a side of the Man of Meung, then it’s a very, very, very watered-down version.

As mentioned earlier, characters such as Monsieur le Chevalier D’Essart and Tréville are completely missing, which makes sense for their decisions in the movie, but once again, it’s a shame. (Dumas, 1844; Roth et al., 1993)

History check: Charles de Batz de Castelmore d’Artagnan, who seems to have been the inspiration for Dumas’ leading man, served Louis XIV not Louis XIII, which is portrayed in the book and the movie. However, d’Artagnan does seem to have entered into the musketeers through a connection of either his uncle or Monsieur de Tréville himself, who was a friend of his uncle’s. Once entering the guards, he was placed under the Captain des Essarts, who may be our Monsieur le Chevalier D’Essart, much like Dumas’ own D’Artagnan was. In this way, while the timing of the book is off, this attention to detail show that Dumas was not completely negligent in honoring history. (“Charles de Batz de Castelmore d’Artagnan,” 2022; Connolly, 2016)

D’Artagnan’s father, while not a leading character, is actually made out to be even more important for the backstory in the movie than in the book. D’Artagnan’s father in the book sets up the story, as he is alive and well and gives D’Artagnan the letter to give to Tréville, along with a horse and some healing balm. That’s mostly all we hear about him. We find out that he volunteered in religious wars, but that that was his only time serving the king. Through the letter, we can almost see a representation of the role of father being passed to Tréville, and D’Artagnan’s father himself says that D’Artagnan should consider Tréville and take him up as an example, as D’Artagnan’s father’s own experiences could not serve his son in his aspirations. (Dumas, 1844)

In the movie, D’Artagnan’s entire motivation for becoming a musketeer is his father, who was a musketeer and who was killed while protecting the king. The book has nothing to say even about this, but the movie takes it even a step further. D’Artagnan’s father is actually supposed to have been killed by Rochefort. As we will talk later, Rochefort’s character is quite different in the book, and while the movie is sometimes very good at taking the sequencing of the book but just changing the details, I cannot see the purpose of diverging in this plot line, besides just making it a more angsty, theatrical film. To which, I can understand, but at the same time, I’m not a huge fan of movies making up entirely different scenarios and scenes that do not hold true to the foundation of the book just for cinematic value. I mean, I’m fully okay with them amping up scenes or making what is already existing more adventure-packed (like what they do with the boat scene in the movie), but this was really pushing it, in my opinion. (Roth et al., 1993)

History check: From my research, I couldn’t find any ground for D’Artagnan’s father serving in the court at all, however, it is fact that it is impossible for him to have been a musketeer, as they were not established until 1622 by Louis XIII (Connolly, 2016). As D’Artagnan’s father was said to have served the previous king, who would have been Louis XIII’s father, Henri IV, it’s just not workable in regard to history. But then again, the book itself has taken characters from slightly later in history and made them current for this time period, so it makes some sense that the math doesn’t work out, as the movie pushes it even further out of the context of time. The real Tréville himself wasn’t even captain of the musketeers during this time period, so perhaps we could even say that the movie not mentioning him is actually more accurate than the book. 

And yet, the writers did something very interesting with this. They make a point in the movie to goad D’Artagnan by reminding him that the king had been killed, therefore, his father had actually been a failure (Roth et al., 1993). In real life, Henri IV, Louis XIII’s predecessor and father, was indeed assassinated when Louis was nine-years-old, which ushered in his reign (although he didn’t actually become of age to rule until he was thirteen). Although many of the facts surrounding it are nonsense, it is a nice nod to Louis’s father assassination and the line of royalty that came before him (“Louis XIII,” 2022; “Henry IV,” 2022). Because, indeed, the king did die on the watch of some unit of the royal guards. 

Probably the character I was most disappointed about not showing up at all in the movie was John Felton, not just because he was an amazing character but because Milady’s seduction of him was one of the most well-written parts of the entire book and because of the amazing tie to history. Now, this takes place in the second part of the book, so for those who have not read it, it would take too long to describe, and in the end, it does not correlate with the movie at all, so it would be difficult to give it much room in this article. Let’s just say this, while I understand that his role wouldn’t fit in the movie at all, his role in the book was monumental, and I missed his presence. Perhaps I will write an article just about that scene and his role someday. For now, I will just carry on (sigh). But let’s move into the main characters and how they were changed to fit the film.

All the lackeys of the four musketeers are also missing from the movie.

Richelieu.

Oh, Richelieu, Richelieu, Richelieu. You’ve had so many faces. Granted, you get an infamous and fascinating man like Cardinal Richelieu, and you are bound to have more than a few different media translations. Not only in The Three Musketeer-related materials, but Richelieu even inspired a play written by Edward Bulwer-Lytton, where the famous line “the pen is mightier than the sword” was first spoken into existence. However, as we move further from the time period when he was actually alive, it becomes more difficult to discern truth from fiction, and characters like Dumas’ Richelieu, who is a steady mix of the two, make it all the more convoluted. 

So many liberties were made to create the character in the book, and then, even more to create his character for film. Yet, the raw facts that we know about Cardinal Richelieu is that he was a mover and a shaker for France and a huge political influence. Louis XIII, who from the beginning of his reign, seemed to have difficulty finding his stride in court, had Richelieu, who served as a steady and powerful chief minister. Richelieu is known for his work in the centralization of power in France and foreign policy, all which seemed to support the king and the kingdom. Just reading the facts, though, it’s difficult to understanding the motivation. Some say that he was power-hungry and hateful and manipulative toward a weak king, and he was certainly depicted in a form closer to that in Dumas’ The Three Musketeers. However, others see him as a man dedicated to the work of aiding the monarchy, thus the king. While historians seem to portray a distrust and an odd indecision on Louis’ part toward Richelieu, partially due to Richelieu’s prior relationship with Louis’ revolutionary mother, it cannot be denied that he did great things for the benefit of France. 

That is basically what we are working with in terms of the actual facts. Dumas, committed to filling in the gaps with his imagination, wrote Richelieu as a powerful force orchestrating personal and political events in the background for varying motives. Largely, he named his hatred (that once was love) for Anne as his rationale behind his actions of trying to persecute her and destroy Buckingham (and thus, England). He is shown as manipulating the king in order to convince him to have the party, and thus, catch the queen in her lie, and yet, while his motives are highly personal (much like everyone else’s in the book), there is still an air of respectability within him in the book. D’Artagnan recognizes him as a powerful and influential man, and not only him but also the other musketeers seek to not get on his list of enemies. And overall, while Milady has it out for D’Artagnan and convinces the Cardinal to do something about this, and the four musketeers are trying to circumvent the plot of the Cardinal, the Cardinal is often seen as intrigued by D’Artagnan and the three inseparables. 

Movie Richelieu, however, has lost all of his respectability. He is cruel, crass, lewd and highly sexualized, and a bit of a homicidal deviant. He’s been fully cinematized, giving the audience what they expect out of a villain. And indeed, he and Rochefort are the villains of the film. They gave him all the clear characteristics of a typical big bad, and there’s no way not to see it.

While his main enemy in the book is the queen and Buckingham (due to romantic reasons), the movie has made his enemy the king (due to him wanting all the power). Likewise, it’s harder to figure out who the true villain is in the book. The mutual respect that exists between D’Artagnan and Richelieu at the end seems to pull Richelieu out of the running, and the unadulterated villainy of Milady seems to push her into the top seat. 

I can understand the logic behind the writing decisions for the movie, as it’s not supposed to be super cerebral. It’s supposed to be fun and follow the traditional pattern of fun. Now, I’m not saying that the book was a brain workout—it wasn’t. And yet, some of the unpredictability of the book and the darkness in the second half was what really drew me into the story and that had a lot to do with Milady’s character as the “villain.” Having Richelieu shoulder all the weight, and having every used villain attribute associated to him, missed the chance for some of the uniqueness and romanticism, which is ultimately what I thought made the book not just consumable pop fiction. 

Although one can’t necessarily say what Richelieu’s true motivations are, I would have to say that I highly prefer book Richelieu over movie Richelieu. And you know, not just because movie Richelieu made me all kinds of uncomfortable.   

History check: And just to throw this out there, the movie’s ridiculous and obvious usurpation of the throne has pretty much zero ground to stand upon in terms of history. It makes for an easily understood story and an easily resolved conflict that is good for film, but in terms of authenticity, I believe it safe to say that that plot does not hold up. While the motivations behind the events cannot be known, but are most likely just the romanticized imaginings of Dumas, Richelieu’s role in the war between England and the battle at La Rochelle in the book, as well as his visible persecution of the queen, seem to have some historical integrity to back it up. 

Louis XIII.

Louis XIII served as king of France from 1610 to 1643, succeeding his father who was assassinated when Louis was nine. Being too young to rule yet, his mother, Marie de Médicis, served as regent. He turned of age at thirteen, but it took three years after that until she give up her power. His mother arranged the marriage between him and Anne of Austria. It was a political marriage and the fourteen-year-old Anne married the like-aged Louis in 1615; she was frequently ignored and treated with disdain and—due to her relationship with Spain, Louis’ mother, and others involved in revolts—mistrust; the two remained without child until 1638. 

Marie de Médicis’ incessant political intrigues and poor managing of France left Louis no choice but to take up the aggressive means of the Cardinal and execute those who stood behind her in her revolts and exile her; Louis was often suspicious and showed hesitancy with his reign, conferring often with his ministers and those he trusted. Although he had moments of boldness and soundness in mind in his reign, this often faded into times of poor mental and physical health. The ever-present burden of the crown could not be held with consistency, and therefore, it can be seen that his mind on several important decisions for France were heavily influenced by Richelieu and his favorites. However, ultimately, this may have been a wise decision; for with help from this chief minister, Louis XIII’s reign is attributed to establishing France as a European power. 

Dumas’ Louis XIII is weak, easy to manipulate and throw into hysterics. He seems bored and not an active agent of his own life. There seems to be a slight distrust between him and the Cardinal but not outright animosity. As mentioned before, the Cardinal’s enemy is the queen in the book, not the king. Therefore, the king is simply a pawn for the Cardinal to use in persecuting the queen. The king himself is shown to be untrusting of Anne (although Dumas’ king is shown to not be completely unjustified in his distrust of Anne and her relationship with Buckingham) and just generally moody. He does not seem to hate her but also does not seem to know how to treat her. His words and attitude toward her are offensive and vindictive, attacking and accusing her regarding her familial ties to warring countries and relationships with rebellious women of the court (who had been her friends but were then exiled by the king), while thinking it playful of him. Overall, he’s not necessarily a character to love but just serves as evidence of historic background. Anne and the Cardinal serve as more instrumental members of the story.

The movie, once again, takes the story in an interesting, commercial way. The king is slightly unsure of himself and what to do, youthful and yet to come into his own. The movie is set as a backdrop for him to grow into his power (and grow a spine) and become a strong king of France, with his adoring wife, Anne at his side. He is shown as loving Anne but still very awkward yet at the beginning, and he is seen as the main source of the Cardinal’s animosity. Through the movie, though, he stands up to the impertinent Cardinal (and even punches him in the face—whoo-rah), showing his strength, and gains more than a few smitten looks from Anne.

History check: Once again, it’s difficult to know for sure which fictitious character (and indeed, I believe it crucial to recognize that both of them are just that—not real in the slightest) actually represents his real-life counterpart the most, particularly due to the time lapse since their reign; however, it would seem like the book holds slightly more weight in terms of authenticity. The king did seem to deal with mental instability and often relied on his advisors, and there are historians who suggest that Louis was subordinate and relatively obedient to Richelieu. The book alludes to this, while the movie punches it in the face.  

Richelieu, as well, mentions that Louis is becoming as troublesome as his father. However, the real Cardinal Richelieu did not serve under Henri IV, and therefore, if this line is supposed to make the audience think that Richelieu had something to do with the death of the king’s father or just to show a general animosity or prior conflict with Henri IV, I don’t see the research to back up where that would have taken place. Therefore, I’m reminded once again that it’s likely that the movie is working with a framework of even less adherence to historicity than Dumas. 

Also, the movie mentions that the arrangement between Anne and Louis was the Cardinal’s doing. However, historically speaking, it was Louis’ mother who arranged it, hoping to strengthen the political ties between Spain and France. And yet, the Cardinal was the principal advisor for Marie de Médicis before becoming a cardinal and the king’s principal minister, therefore you might be able to make a connection there. Buuuut, Marie de Médici was also nowhere to be found in the movie, so I’m back to square one. It’s likely that this line was to continue to show the Cardinal’s power in the movie and also a line of obligation and connection between him and Anne, but it is not factual. (“Marie de’ Medici,” 2022; “Louis XIII,” 2022)

Comte de Rochefort.

While I was unable to find any mention of whether Gatien de Courtilz de Sandras had a model for the character of the Comte de Rochefort, the character and Courtilz’s “memoirs” of the man served as more than enough fuel for Dumas’ imagination. 

In the book, Rochefort is first introduced to the audience as D’Artagnan’s Man of Meung; however, we learn more about him as time goes by. One of the Cardinal’s men, he is often seen with Milady and does some of the Cardinal’s dirty work, such as kidnapping Constance. We know him as being described as a tall, “fine-looking man” of good complexion and brown hair with a slight (emphasis on “slight”) scar on his cheek. While he pops in and out of the story, there isn’t much background that we have on him. At the end of the book, D’Artagnan and him have kept up in arms over each other, however, in the course of that time, they have built up a certain level of respect for each other and a certain friendship. With the Cardinal not being considered an innately evil character in the book, Rochefort’s personality and story is also found to be more muted and morally flexible. 

In the movie, Rochefort has all his rough edges and darkness dramatically exaggerated, much like Richelieu. He is far more sinister and is like an extension of Richelieu rather than just a man who works for him. He is even given a huge scar to prove that he is a bad guy. Because you can’t know a lackey bad guy unless he has a huge, amplified scar, right? A shiny backstory is also given to him: a musketeer who was thrown out of the unit due to poor conduct, and three musketeers mention in the movie that they stood against him and attested to his lack of honorable behavior. Likewise, he is known as the man who killed D’Artagnan’s father, who gave him his famous scar. As D’Artagnan’s father was supposed to have died while protecting the king, perhaps this means that Rochefort was in some kind of insurrection against the king (perhaps with Richelieu, as is alluded to in his comment about Louis becoming like his father?) after being thrust from the musketeers, thus leading to the king’s ultimate demise. This is all speculation, though, as it is nowhere in the book and nowhere to be found when researched. 

Anne of Austria.

History seems to be filled with tragic characters, and Queen Anne’s story is one that is a complicated mix of triumph and tragedy. Although her story is a great deal more detailed than what is presented in The Three Musketeers, to which Dumas’ partially remedies in the other D’Artagnan romances. While it seems that Anne received the most sympathy from Dumas, in terms of how she was presented, he remains true to his “fill in the blanks” mentality when it comes to history. 

Anne was the daughter of King Philip III of Spain and Margaret of Austria and married Louis XIII when she was 14 years old. Even as tensions remained taunt between Spain and France, she maintained a relationship with her brother, Philip IV, to the point of treason during certain periods of time. As Louis was disinterested in Anne, she is historically presented as lonely, and she seemed to choose her confidants poorly. Marie de Rohan-Montbazon, duchesse de Chevreuse, and Louis’ mother were two such rebellious companions who were banished by Louis due to their schemes. Her lack of children (which likely had to do with Louis’ disinterest in her), rumors of a relationship with George Villiers—which seem to be rooted in him announcing his admiration for her, and it’s not entirely known how deep the relationship went or how much was reciprocated—and her Spanish family left her not looked well upon in the courts or in France. 

Cardinal Richelieu, as well, did not trust Anne, and therefore, sought to remove any influence she might have on the king’s decisions. Anne and her mother-in-law went to the king to have Cardinal Richelieu removed from power, but in an act of boldness, he choose to stand behind his principle minister, siding with the Cardinal rather than his bride and mother. Richelieu’s distrust of Anne only grew and he had her watched; when it was found out that Anne was visiting her brother during Richelieu’s war with Spain, Richelieu used the fuel to prove that his suspicious were valid. There is much that goes on within the politics, but it’s difficult to listen to her story and not feel sympathetic for the queen who left her country for France, only to be hated, and was to be deemed a traitor for correspondence with her family. 

I believe that D’Artagnan’s line in the book best summarized my feelings for her: “It is not Madame Bonacieux about whole I am anxious… but the queen, whom the king abandons, whom the cardinal persecutes, and who sees the heads of all her friends fall, one after the other.” Overall, I can completely see what attraction Dumas found for her character. In the book, Anne is deeply isolated; her husband is suspicious and jealous of her relationship with Buckingham and Richelieu’s persecution of her is rooted in unreciprocated love. He specifically calls her his enemy in the book, and yet, he thinks upon how much pleasure it would be to win over Buckingham, whom he seems to have perceived as chosen by Anne. Her one confidant is Constance Bonacieux, her lady-in-waiting, and yet, history has shown that being on the queen’s side comes at extreme risk. Madame Chevreuse is mentioned to be in hiding throughout the book—although in close contact with one of our musketeers—and Anne seems to be missing her company. Within this, there seems to be quite a bit of historic accuracy. Although her relationship with Buckingham, Richelieu, and Louis are likely exaggerated, there is some truth. While Constance does not appear to have a real-life model, her character works reasonably for the setting of history and with Anne’s story.

Movie Anne is quite a stretch. Granted, the events surrounding her have changed quite a bit from the book—Buckingham has no connection with her in the movie and the king is Richelieu’s enemy, not her—but it is her relationship with Louis that had the most adjustment. She ultimately says that it was love at first sight with Louis, but that she feels like he is so unsure about her. The glances she passes at him whenever he stands up to the Cardinal serve as decent evidence in regards to her love toward him. At the beginning, Louis does disengage from her and leave her alone in rooms suddenly, but it seems like it’s more due to him being awkward around her than being untrusting, suspicious, or just generally disinterested, which is more in line with the book and history. By the end, though, the movie seems to have set them up for ruling France together, side by side, deeply in love. While this is near perfect conflict resolution and is perhaps more kind to an audience who would hate to have our happily-ever-after go bye-bye, it is neither historically accurate or within the book. 

While Constance in the book does help Anne in her love intrigues, and so there is an air of camaraderie, it seems to be more out of love for her queen than because they are friends. There is still a separation of class between the two of them, as queen and lady-in-waiting. Constance in the movie, however, talks to Anne like they are pals, discussing her love life with her and seeking advice on the manner. Anne, as well, talks with Constance about her love for the king. While my research on court manners are not up to snuff, it would be difficult to believe that Constance would be so cavalier with her speech toward the queen. 

Several aspects, though, were well-thought-out, I thought. While the movie was not able to expand enough on Anne’s loneliness (due to their writing choices and plot changes) and watered it down to her being lonely because the king was “unsure” of her and she missed him, the thought was completely there, and the audience is able to sympathize with her. Likewise, there was a nice historic tie done with her being seen on horses and talking about riding, as Anne was considered quite the equestrian (“Anne of Austria,” 2022). Finally, while Richelieu and Anne do not interact within the book much, you do get a glimpse of his feelings for her in the movie, which were only shown through the narration in the book; however, Richelieu’s general lust throughout the film makes it lose some of its meaning and specificity toward Anne.

Constance and Milady.

Both Constance and Milady were vastly different from the book, however, their differences are best explained in context with the event analysis. Therefore, let’s move on to some of the details 

Event Analysis

D’s First Meeting with the Queen and Constance.

Within the first few scenes, the movie already sets itself aside from the book. As mentioned before, D’Artagnan believes that he is witnessing two young women being pursued by men on horseback; however, after knocking these men on their behinds, he realized that he is before the queen and her lady-in-waiting, Constance Bonacieux, and the men where their bodyguards. In the book, this scene does not play out. D’Artagnan does not meet the queen until after he helps receive the studs back from Buckingham; at that point in time, she gives him a diamond ring in gratitude. 

Likewise, while this was an interesting decision on how to introduce the main love interest for D’Artagnan in the movie, Constance was brought into the picture in a very different way in the book, and there are more than a few important details to her story that are missing: the fact that she is married, for one thing. In fact, it is her husband, Monsieur Bonacieux, who also happens to be D’Artagnan’s landlord, who comes to D’Artagnan for help, for a man (who turns out to be D’Artagnan’s Man of Meung) has kidnapped Constance. D’Artagnan attests to do something about this, but after this, Monsieur Bonacieux himself gets taken to the Cardinal, gets brainwashed into becoming a loyal spy for Richelieu, and Constance gets back home by herself (but only to find people waiting for her at home). Living in the room above, D’Artagnan hears a skirmish happening below him, and rescues Constance. He quickly falls in love with her beauty, and gives her his promise to help her in any way. Constance is not fully trusting but is lacking allies and puts a small amount of trust in the fervent young man. It seems that Buckingham, who received a fake letter from Anne (arranged by Richelieu), has arrived in France and is refusing to leave until he sees Anne. Constance asks for D’Artagnan’s help in getting in the duke unseen, and all goes smoothly… except, at the end of their meeting, Buckingham demands some kind of token from Anne, who concedes and gives him the diamond studs.

Constance finds herself in another pickle when the king announces (as per Richelieu’s plot to humiliate the queen due to receiving information that Buckingham came and received the studs) that Anne must wear the diamond studs that he had given her for the party. The queen only has Constance to rely on, but Constance herself is surrounded by enemies of the queen, as she realizes that her husband is now spying on her and reporting to Richelieu, and therefore, cannot trust him. Desperate once again, Constance relies on D’Artagnan, who is fully lovesick over her now, to go to London to get the studs from Buckingham. D’Artagnan, the man who would do anything for love, agrees and sets out on his adventure that makes up much of the first half of the book.

The Duels—All of Them.

As mentioned before, Dumas had an amazing way of taking facts and filling in the gaps with his imagination. The movie, on the other hand, had an amazing way of taking the events of the book, boiling down their main points and general tone, and then rewriting the events to make it more cinematic and humorous. This can probably be seen best during the duels.

While the Man of Meung was the main catalyst for D’Artagnan running around like a crazy person and getting into three different duels, and then yet another duel, Girard’s presence in the background was what put D’Artagnan forward in the movie.

The duel with Athos in the book played out with Athos, who had just returned from the doctor, being slammed into by D’Artagnan while leaving Monsieur de Tréville’s quarters. Brash words are exchanged, and a duel was set into place. In the movie, D’Artagnan has just found out that the musketeers have been disbanded, and he is in the musketeer headquarters. He is upset and hotheaded and gets into a verbal exchange with Athos, who was present there, thus leading into them both being offended and a duel being the only remedy.

D’Artagnan’s rush and hotheadedness is ultimately what led to the duel in both situations, so I appreciated this. Likewise, although Monsieur de Tréville is not mentioned in the movie, the fact that the setting of this little dispute happened on musketeer headquarters in the movie is a nod to Monsieur de Tréville’s position as the commander of the musketeers and the fact that they were in Tréville’s musketeers’ headquarters in the book. 

The duel with Porthos was instigated because D’Artagnan ultimately makes fun of Porthos’ baldric (which is defined as “a belt for sword or other piece of equipment, worn over one shoulder and reaching down to the opposite hip”), which he sees is gilded (decorated with gold leaf or paint) only on one side. In the movie, D’Artagnan runs into a table that Porthos is sitting at; the jarring causes some form of liquid to be spilled on Porthos’ sash, who then gets all angry and says that the sash came from “the queen of America.” D’Artagnan argues that there is no queen of America, and offenses are taken, and thus… a duel. 

Once again, the film does a really unique job of tying the book and film together, as ultimately D’Artagnan making Porthos feel offended and the sash is the cause of the fight. While book Porthos is handsome, brash, big, materialistic, and vain, they amp that up to an exaggerated degree in the movie. The movie having him receive gifts from important, non-existent women shows his vanity and popularity with women (to which is accurate to the book), but it is extremely over the top and leaves him seeming a bit sillier than even in the book.

For Aramis, in the book, in all of his running around, D’Artagnan finds a handkerchief that he believes to have seen dropped by Aramis. He seeks to hand the handkerchief back to him, but Aramis gets flustered and persistently denies that it is his. We find out that the handkerchief was given to him by Madame de Chevreuse (see above for historic context), his mistress who is currently banished from the courts, and therefore, it is of the most importance that others do not tie him with the rebellious woman, for her sake and his (and their continued relationship). In the movie, Aramis is in the middle of a tryst with a married woman; when her husband comes home, he leaps out of her room and falls directly upon D’Artagnan, who promptly gets offended… and then Aramis gets offended over the offense… and well, you get the picture. 

Similar to the other two duels, the book and movie match in the general point that a woman was the reason behind the duel. However, much like in Porthos’ case, Aramis’ vice for women (or rather, for a particular woman in the book) is blown up for the sake of humor and cinematography, and it loses some of the intricacies of the character. 

The causes of the duels rang relatively accurate to the book and the duels themselves fell in line with that, as well. However, while movie D’Artagnan was unaware that they were musketeers, book D’Artagnan already knew of their status.

While he is not named in the movie (it took me looking at the credits to realize it), Jussac showing up with the Cardinal’s guards—interrupting D’Artagnan’s fight with the three musketeers—and serving as D’Artagnan’s sparring partner is a nice tie-in to the book. Like with other scenes, though, the context behind this new fight has been adjusted. In the movie, Jussac is attempting to arrest them because the Cardinal has called for all the musketeers to cease and desist with their activities, and these three musketeers are the last to give up their positions; however, in the book, dueling is against the law and considered unseemly as per the Cardinal’s rules, and therefore, when they come upon the fight in progress, they seek to arrest them. The musketeers plus one refuse, and therefore, the fighting commences. D’Artagnan defeats Jussac, who was considered one of the Cardinal’s guards best swordsmen, and it’s considered a mighty insult to the Cardinal. The king, however, takes great pride in this and even invites D’Artagnan and the others to his residence and honors him with payment for his services. 

Certainly, much of the meaning behind the events of the movie still remains true to the book, but it would seem that one thing that was highly lacking was this sense of obsessive, romantic loyalty to the musketeers and the crown that can be found excessively throughout the book. Movie Athos is quick to throw away his hope, calling the musketeers “a dream,” and while this might be fitting for the new plot that the movie has created, it doesn’t ring true for his character and the main theme of the book. Likewise, when Aramis was working toward becoming a priest, it was said that he was under the Cardinal, which is nowhere in the book, but shows up at the end of the movie to create some nice symmetry. 

As a positive, the movie definitely did do a good job of throwing in some lines that were inspired by the book, such as D’Artagnan’s comment within these scenes that he has the heart of a musketeer and how there shall be four fighting instead of three, so I was pleased to see that. It was slightly surprising to me that they didn’t use more of the lines (considering the dialogue was as action-packed, fast-based, and swash-buckling as it comes) and that they modernized the language so much, but it wasn’t so distracting that it pulled away from the film. I just had to adjust my expectations a little bit, as it’s easy to realize that they weren’t hoping to remain accurate to the setting and time period. The American and British accents for all the French characters alone were enough to understand this.

What Happens in the Dungeon.

In the film, we find that after being defeated by Rochefort in the duels (which didn’t happen in the book), he has been taken to a dungeon of some sort. In this dungeon, we find out more about D’Artagnan’s relationship with his father and we are introduced to some of Richelieu’s more shady doings, as it seems that he has some kind of secret hidey-hole either in the dungeon or close by where he conducts his treasonous transactions. Likewise, we meet the lovely Milady de Winter, who is portrayed as a femme fatale spy of Richelieu’s. Movie Richelieu shows his lust for Milady and attempts to sexually assault her (let’s call it like it is), but she quickly pulls a knife on him to put him in his place. D’Artagnan has been able to get out of his cell, and he overhears Richelieu giving orders regarding the treaty. She is to go to Calais, travel to England by ship, and get Buckingham’s signature. D’Artagnan recognizes that this is bad news bears, but ends up getting caught and sent to the guillotine the next day. 

While I can’t necessarily say that the movie has been completely faithful to the book up until this point, we can see that events are steadily veering in order to fit the new plotlines. Within the book, as I mentioned before, D’Artagnan never gets knocked out by Rochefort, and therefore, never gets taken to prison. Book D’Artagnan after the fight was getting praised by the king for his valiant defeat over the Cardinal’s men. And Rochefort (as the Man of Meung) has remained as elusive as ever to D’Artagnan. 

One possible connection to the book with the dungeon scene, though, would be that after D’Artagnan begins helping Constance, the Cardinal’s men begin to look for him and arrive at his room to arrest him. D’Artagnan is out at the time, but Athos was conveniently present, and therefore, gets arrested in his stead—the guards thinking that Athos is their intended captive. Athos stays in Fort l’Eveque under D’Artagnan’s name, leaving D’Artagnan to be free to continue to help Constance and the queen. Eventually, Athos gets let out once Tréville takes it to the king (although Richelieu is huffy about it), and this leaves D’Artagnan unscathed and protected. 

As mentioned earlier when discussing the main plot changes, D’Artagnan’s father does not have as huge of a backstory in the book as he has been given in the movie. The movie D’Artagnan is meant to have his father’s sword, which Rochefort recognizes and then takes away from him. While this fits well with the new plot, none of this exists in the book. And actually, the movie draws some interesting symmetry between D’Artagnan and his father and Louis and his father, as both young men are being recognized as “like their father” and being deemed irritating to the plans of the evil because of such. Of course, there is none of this in the book, but it’s an interesting writing choice that I liked. 

The meeting between Lady de Winter and the Cardinal was just weird. Let’s be honest. Sure, there was some connection there between the book in the movie, in that Milady was one of the Cardinal’s chief agents and that she took orders from him, but the entire vibe that the movie created between them was extremely odd. Book Milady is far more fearful of the Cardinal (because he is a powerful dude, and if he found out about her being marked for execution due to previous indecencies, then she would be left for the dogs), and therefore, imagining her pulling a knife on him just seems off. Likewise, there was no sexual tension between the two of them in the book. While it is said that he held a little bit of fear toward the unpredictability of Milady, it was more a mutual unease between the two of them. As well, while it’s not really mentioned where the Cardinal is conducting his meetings, it seems highly imaginative that it was some subsection of a dungeon. That just screams Hollywood perspective rather than accurate to the book or time period. That’s just my impression, though.  

Interestingly, the movie seems to draw out more of a backstory for Milady and the Cardinal. The movie has it that the Cardinal somehow saved her from somewhere unsavory and that the death of her husband (by her hand) was “helpful to their cause.” As far as I remember, there really isn’t any story behind how Milady began working for the Cardinal, so it’s a curious writing choice, and I wouldn’t have minded it if they would have pushed it a bit more, as it’s neither mentioned in the book nor contradicting to other previously stated facts in the book.   

D’Artagnan, as well, meets the Cardinal in these scenes in the movie. While D’Artagnan does meet with the Cardinal twice within the book, both times were highly stressful for him and his usual hotheadedness thankfully having been placed outside the door. There was far more respect present between the two of them, and while the Cardinal was still trying to move his plans forward, he recognized D’Artagnan’s worth. Movie D’Artagnan is just as hotheaded in his scenes with the Cardinal as he is at the duels, so while there is some consistency there, it doesn’t really connect with the book. Then again, as mentioned before, the Cardinal was more respectable in the book, therefore, it makes more sense that D’Artagnan would respect him and his position more.

The Treaty (Again).

As mentioned several times now, the treaty between the Cardinal and Buckingham did not exist, neither in history nor in the book. But let’s talk about the possible connection between Milady and the book. While in the dungeon in the movie, the Cardinal specifically asks Milady to go to Calais, where a boat will be waiting to take her to England, where she will meet Buckingham. In the book, this seems to correlate the most with the quest for the diamond studs. 

The Cardinal arranged for a letter to come to Buckingham which was supposedly from Anne (lies). It was Milady’s first job to watch Buckingham from England to see if he would take the bait and come to France. This is how the Cardinal receives his intel that Buckingham has come and begins weaving his web to catch the queen. As we know, Buckingham meets Anne with help from D’Artagnan and Constance, and Anne gives him the studs. It then becomes Milady’s second job to cut the studs from off of Buckingham’s clothes. He arranges it so that the king expects the queen to be wearing the studs, and that once she attempts to get the studs back, some of them would be found missing. Therefore, after the queen hears of the king’s demands, it becomes D’Artagnan’s job to go to Calais, where he will find a boat to get him to England. There, he will give a real message from Anne to Buckingham, explaining the situation.

So, getting to Calais as quickly as possible with a note and catching a boat is accurate to the book, however, it has nothing to do with a treaty and everything to do with the queen’s life and honor on the line. 

The Journey to Calais.

As introduced earlier, movie D’Artagnan is led to the guillotine; however, the three musketeers are there to help him out of his pinch. The four of them get out of London and D’Artagnan lets them in on the secrets he heard in the dungeon, leading them to commit themselves to getting to Calais before the fated time. On the way to Calais, they encounter the mercenaries of the Cardinal, who have been sent to kill them, and musketeer after musketeer stays behind to fight off the next wave until it is only D’Artagnan left. However, D’Artagnan without anyone to help him keep standing while still on the road to Calais, ends up falling off his horse and passing out on the side of the road. Fortunately (or unfortunately), D’Artagnan is picked up by a passing carriage, which turns out to be none other than Milady on her way to do her work for the Cardinal. Milady takes him to a room or hotel of some kind and lets him sleep it off for a bit. When he awakes, he is in for a bit of a surprise. 

Once again, the movie actually did a fascinating job of reinterpreting the events of the book. While the entire guillotine scene and escape are pure fiction in relation to the book, this concept of the three musketeers and D’Artagnan heading to Calais on a royal mission (the book, it would be for the queen; the movie, it’s the king) and the three musketeers being left behind one after the other is actually fairly accurate to the book. In the book, D’Artagnan is requested by Constance to get Anne’s note to England so as to receive the diamond studs in time. When D’Artagnan realizes that this won’t be a short trip, he goes to Monsieur de Tréville for guidance. Without telling him the details, D’Artagnan expresses that he is on an important mission for the queen, and the fatherly and trusting Tréville provides for the youth all he needs: a leave of absence with his company, money, and a note of travel that explains that he and the other musketeers would be taking Athos, who was recently wounded, to some form of healing waters outside of Paris, thus giving an alibi for D’Artagnan’s adventures and the freedom for the other three musketeers to join him.

While on the journey to Calais, which is the port that D’Artagnan needs to get to in order to get to Buckingham, the men run up against agents of the Cardinal, seeking D’Artagnan’s life or seeking to stop him, and one by one, the three musketeers end up staying behind in different locations, leaving only D’Artagnan and his lackey to get to Calais. While the sending of the birds as a message for the mercenaries was extremely dramatic in the movie, it is fitting to the book that the Cardinal’s men were after D’Artagnan, although for a different reason than the book.

The Bath Scene and the Party.

The movie breaks away from the trip to Calais to set up the Cardinal’s plot. The Cardinal (very awkwardly) comes to the queen while she gets out of her bath (yikes) and weaves a tale that the king does not want to have his birthday party but that it would be good for the entire kingdom if he proceeded with it. Using the affection that the queen and the king have for each other, he convinces her to speak to the king regarding the party. And using this little talk as evidence, the Cardinal puts words inside Anne’s mouth by commenting to the king that Anne is looking forward to the party. Of course, this is pure manipulation at its finest, for the main reason why the Cardinal wants the party to take course is to have his perfect setting for the assassination of the king.

In the book, the party is not meant as the venue for an assassination of the king, but rather, a scene of humiliation for the queen, and the Cardinal’s manipulation tactics are working in full swing here. Richelieu mentions to the king that Buckingham has been in France and that he has intel that the queen has spent the day writing in her chambers, and this sets up a wave of jealousy and mistrust from the king. Under the gentle and malicious guidance of the Cardinal, the king then demands that they search Anne’s room and her person for any letters to Buckingham. This commences, leaving Anne distraught, for she hadn’t been writing to Buckingham, but rather, to her brother in Spain. Of course, her writing to her brother holds in itself some concerns, but it is not political treason that the king is concerned about but rather treason of the heart. Finding nothing that fit his concerns and recognizing that he had been cruel to the queen, the king is (slightly) penitent. The Cardinal, then, recognizing his opportunity, tells the king that he should hold a party, which Anne has been known to enjoy, as an apology. The king agrees to this, and Anne is excited for some pleasant relief amidst her recent horrors of persecution; however, this all comes crashing down when she realizes that the Cardinal suggested to the king that Anne wear the diamond studs and that the king was now demanding it. 

So, in the movie’s own way, there is some accuracy. The Cardinal desires the party and manipulates his way into getting what he wants. Why he wants it, of course, is different, and it was the lack of trust that Louis had in Anne that ultimately allows Richelieu to manipulate them in the book, rather than the love between them, which was shown in the movie.

In this way, the book is slightly more accurate to history, as well, because there does not seem a great deal of references to romantic feelings existing between Anne and Louis. However, there are certainly some lines about his distrust. Likewise, in the book, the king was more of a pawn and the queen was more treasonous (which is slightly more historically accurate); the movie has her as guiltless of nothing but love and loneliness, which is probably easier to sell to the audience. 

At the Tavern.

Before the three Musketeers are separated from D’Artagnan on the road to Calais, there is a bar scene. Because, why not. All three of the musketeers take turns in showing D’Artagnan how to “wench”—in other words, how to get women. It’s one of the top three awkward moments of the film, and one that I usually just jump forward to get through. Now though, it’s not just awkward for me in terms of contents but also frustrating because it makes no sense with the book. In the process of this scene, though, there is a touching moment between Athos and D’Artagnan, as Athos describes his perspective on love, telling a story about a husband and a wife. He describes that the husband foolishly loved the woman, but that one day they were riding and she was thrown from her horse and her clothes get torn. When on the ground, the husband realizes that the torn clothes had revealed a mark of death, a sentence of execution, the fleur-de-lis. Not listening to her story, he calls for an executioner. The story suggests penance on the husband’s part (who is, of course, Athos), who after reflection believes that he had done wrong by the woman. 

The wenching aspect is not in the book and is completely ridiculous on several points. For the first part, all four men (outside of Athos) at this point were highly committed to one particular mistress. While these mistresses often had husbands, and so we can’t really debate the morality of it, but I do believe it’s true that they were loyal to the women that they loved, and therefore, wouldn’t have committed to this sort of scene. Then again, none of those mistresses are present in the movie, so maybe they felt that gave enough room for the scene. But nonetheless, it wasn’t accurate to the book and it was extremely hard to watch. The other side to it, as well, is that book D’Artagnan has absolutely no problems with women. Well, that’s not correct. He has no problems getting women. Many of his problems are because of women. Therefore, his having to be taught how to love (or at least make out) is just so divergent from the book, and it’s just. so. awkward. 

However, it seems that the scene with Athos has a nice connection with the book. When D’Artagnan returns from Buckingham, he revisits the lost musketeers one by one (as they had each been detained on the way to the boat). This is at the end of the “save the queen” quest and before the “save Constance quest.” He meets Athos where he had left him, but he has locked himself in the basement of the lodge where all the alcohol and food are stored. D’Artagnan joins him and the two drink (which Athos very much likes to do) and talk (which Athos less likes to do but is looser when inebriated). Athos tells of his “friend’s” story, much like in the movie; however, we find that the scene is a little bit more grotesque and horrifying in the book. Instead of the man (Athos) sending for an executioner after seeing the fleur-de-lis, the man (Athos) hangs the woman himself. Rough stuff. Athos also seems to have no remorse on the subject, although he does seem a bit haunted by it in the way that he mentions it. D’Artagnan is pretty much horrified and pretends that he is asleep so as to skip a proper response. In the morning, Athos realizes that he might have said something, but D’Artagnan passes it off like he didn’t hear anything at all. 

In this way, the revealing of the fleur-de-lis is slightly different from the book in the movie, but the remorse of movie Athos seems to play a part in what is going to happen next.

D’Artagnan, Milady, and the Fleur-de-Lis.

So, going back to before the awkwardness of the bath scene, we arrive at the awkwardness of the bedroom scene. D’Artagnan has been picked up by Milady. When he regains consciousness, Milady is awaiting him. D’Artagnan is an open book and attempts to impress the beautiful Milady by explaining that he is on a mission of the king. Milady isn’t stupid and quickly catches the drift that the kid is trouble and needs to be removed. Milady attempts to seduce the young D’Artagnan, and while he’s not great at resisting, he eventually pulls away from her embrace. And in good timing too, because he is inches away from having a knife plowed into him. D’Artagnan attempts to free himself and wrestle the knife out of her hand; however, in the heat of it, Milady’s dress is torn, revealing the fleur-de-lis, the mark of a felon sentenced to death. Not only this, but D’Artagnan recognizes from the branding that this woman is actually the assumed dead wife of Athos. After convincing Milady and her merry men that he has something under his sleeves (although not literally, because he is still quite shirtless at the time) in regard to Calais, they decide to take him with them. On their way out, Milady nearly runs into the Lord de Winter, the brother-in-law of the husband that she killed. Hoping to avoid a scene (and you know, death), they take another exit and head out to the port. 

In the book, we are working with something differently entirely, and it’s kind of hilarious how they toned it down for us. D’Artagnan originally meets Milady Clarik (one of Milady’s many names) through her brother-in-law (Lord de Winter), having saved his life in a duel. Being on reasonably warm terms with his sister-in-law (meaning she wants him dead but he’s kinda oblivious to it still) and wanting Milady to treat his savior well, Lord de Winter convinces Milady to engage in meeting D’Artagnan periodically. This works well for D’Artagnan because he believes that Milady has information about the still missing Constance Bonacieux, the woman of his heart (uh-huh). When first visiting Milady de Winter at her residence, he is shocked as her true colors and utter venom poke through when discussing her brother-in-law, who having not been killed by D’Artagnan, is still in full capacity of the de Winter money and inheritance. However, while her two-faced attitude scares him, it also fascinates him, and he finds himself falling desperately in love with her.

In Milady’s house also resides a young soubrette named Kitty. Through all of D’Artagnan’s visits, Kitty starts hosting deep affection for the young man (do you see where this is going?). Kitty realizes that D’Artagnan is in love with Milady, but that he is fully unaware that not only does she not love him but that she has another lover. Handing him a note from this said lover, D’Artagnan is hideously grieved and then angered. Seducing Kitty and manipulating her to help him (let’s call it like it is), D’Artagnan plays the game, sending Milady letters in the hand of her lovers. D’Artagnan then meets with Milady in the night as this gentleman caller. Milady hands her fake lover a sign as a symbol of affection, and D’Artagnan leaves it at that for the night, bringing the ring to show to his musketeer companions. Athos is shocked to recognize the ring as one that belongs to his family, which he had given to his wife before he hung her. Athos does not speak of it yet but suggests to D’Artagnan to stop seeing her. D’Artagnan agrees that it is becoming a bit too much, and sends Milady a letter in her lover’s hand that he will not be returning soon. Milady reads this and is furious and begins to pursue D’Artagnan in hopes that he can convince this beguiled man to kill her lover. D’Artagnan, unable to stay away, comes to Milady, and eventually commits to killing the man for her. Ecstatic, Milady begins showing more and more affection to D’Artagnan, even taking her to bed with him (with only a plank of wood separating Milady’s room from Kitty’s, so that Kitty hears all). D’Artagnan begins to believe that Milady’s love is true and commits to telling her what all had transpired. In her room, D’Artagnan bears his soul, and Milady is utterly mortified. Her true volatile nature quickly rises to the surface, and while D’Artagnan seeks to appease her, ends up tearing her nightgown and revealing the fleur-de-lis. D’Artagnan puts two and two together, and Milady flies in a rage, attempting to kill him. D’Artagnan, not clothed, escapes by means of Kitty’s room and puts on a few of the lady’s garments to be able to leave the house.

As you can see, while the movie definitely has some questionable moments, the book probably had even more of them. In terms of connection, though, it’s not a complete throwaway. The concept of D’Artagnan getting friendly with Milady and then finding the branding while trying to not get killed by her draws some parallels. The fact that he is slightly lacking in clothing as well is a nice nod to the book. However, the depth of Milady’s relationship with D’Artagnan is obviously not fully explored. In the book, although D’Artagnan’s help with the queen marked him as someone the Cardinal needed Milady to watch and be aware of, D’Artganan’s actions here made it highly personal. For the remainder of the book, Milady is found sending out poisonous wine and mercenaries to kill him to avenge her lost honor (not to mention in order to protect her secret). 

Lastly, while Lord de Winter has a much bigger part in the last half of the book than is shown here in these few moments, I was happy to see he had a part in the movie. In the last half of the book, the Cardinal seeks to end the war by either convincing Buckingham to cease his war or by assassinating him. He sends Milady to England to pull the plan together, and she is quick to comply. However, after receiving word from D’Artagnan and the other musketeers that Buckingham may be in danger, Lord de Winter stops Milady at the port and locks her up in his house, setting a guard on her (John Felton). By this point in time, it seems that he is well aware of what role she had in his brother’s death and her murderous and seductive nature, and so cautions our John Felton. However, using pure genius and guile, she is able to seduce the puritanical John Felton, get him to help her escape, procure a boat for her, and even convince him to kill Buckingham. Thinking that they would escape together, Felton is crushed to realize that Milady is long gone as soon as she knew that the job was completed and that Buckingham had been murdered. 

History check: And this is truly where Dumas’ genius can be seen, because indeed, it is historically accurate that John Felton assassinated Buckingham on August 23, 1628. Granted, there was much more political rationale attached to it, and in fact, it seems that much of England was pleased with his death, as they held him responsible for two botched military campaigns that resulted in rampant disease and the starvation of many. While Felton’s relationship with Milady and the de Winters is pure fiction, Dumas once again uses history, dresses it up with romantic bows, and makes it read like fact.

The Port in Calais.

In the movie, D’Artagnan, Milady, and her men arrive at the shipping port, only to find that their ship has been deposed of all its crew and the three musketeers that D’Artagnan had thought lost had set up shop in wait for Milady, who held the treaty. The crew fights, and the musketeers out number them. Some of Milady’s men even recognize Porthos as the infamous pirate (what?) and quickly become intimidated. Milady begins to realize that all is lost on her side, and therefore, seeks to flee; however, Athos recognizes her, calling her by the name Sabine, cementing our understanding that this is indeed the wife that he had thought already dead due to his hand. Athos looks regretfully at the woman he once loved, but recognizes that he has a duty to do, and aiming a gun at her, warns her that if she does not give over the treaty he will shoot. 

As mentioned before, the ship scene corresponds the most with D’Artagnan’s quest to get the studs back from Buckingham. Therefore, that aspect of it aligns. However, when D’Artagnan gets on the ship to London, he is alone with only his lackey, as the three musketeers are still at the designated spots where they had been previously stopped on the way to Calais. After his trip to England, he comes back to each one of these spots and checks in on his friends. So, there was no “See you in Calais” in the book as there was in the movie.

Athos’ meeting with Milady de Winter for the first time since her supposed death is a bit of an amalgamation of scenes. In the book, the three musketeers are hired under the service of the Cardinal for a night while they are currently away from Paris; the Cardinal takes them to a hotel, where he ends up meeting Milady. He visits her in her room, and the Musketeers realize that they can actually hear the Cardinal assigning Milady the role of arranging the assassination of Buckingham through the pipes. Listening in, they hear the details of the plan for Buckingham and even Milady’s request to seek the deaths of Constance (who has been released from prison by the queen and placed in a convent) and D’Artagnan, but also, that Milady demands a written pardon by the Cardinal’s own hand for anything that she does, in case that she gets caught. Thinking that this would be highly useful, once the Cardinal is gone, Athos sneaks up into her room. At this point, he has heard of her existence from D’Artagnan. The Milady de Winter (known to Athos as Charlotte Backson) recognizes her husband the Comte de la Fère (Athos’ name that he had given up at the time he became a musketeer) and is terrified at his sight, having thought him dead as well; however, Athos is cold and unfeeling. He demands that she not touch D’Artagnan, but she is not having any of it—announcing that both he and his lover must die. Placing a gun to her and knowing that the pardon is what will save her in her plots, he demands that she hand it over to him. Eventually, she does, and this paper is what ultimately saved D’Artagnan at the end of the novel. Unbeknownst to Milady, the two men that await to take her to England are in the hands of Athos, and they are assigned to take her directly to her brother-in-law in England.

The boat scene in general isn’t in the book. Porthos, as well, is well known as a musketeer but there is no mention of him as a pirate, which seems like an odd, dramatic move, used to just throw out all of the cliches for some swashbuckling action. And while the setting and events are different in the book, Athos, as well, is far more moved and emotional in his reunion with his wife. Likewise, while Milady de Winter has many names throughout the book, Sabine is not one of them, which I thought was a curious choice. However, the fact that both the movie and the book held scenes were Athos demands a piece of paper while holding a gun to her head, though, was a really nice touch.

Milady’s Redemption.

In the movie, Milady de Winter gets captured by the musketeers, and they ask her to give up the Cardinal’s secrets, realizing that Richelieu has other things planned. Even though there is great love and emotion shown between her and Athos, Milady will not give up her role as the Cardinal’s spy, and thus, she is given over to her brother-in-law and sentenced to death for killing her husband. She is led to a cliff with a view to a body of water and is given her rights; before she has her head cut off, though, Athos stops the execution and apologizes to her for wounding her in the past. Moved by this show of affection, Milady then shares her information about the Cardinal’s plans for the king, and then, as if attempting to save her honor and redeem herself, she throws herself off the cliff. Athos grieves, and Lord de Winter is satisfied. 

In the movie, Milady’s main crime is the death of her husband and her being a spy; however, in the book, she is a far greater and more maniacal villain than even Richelieu. At the end of the book and after Buckingham was assassinated, Athos finds Milady and he brings with him an entourage who have witnessed her crimes. Thus commences the tragic trial of Milady de Winter. D’Artagnan is the first to speak, as his wounds were the freshest. For, after separating herself from Felton, she found Constance in the convent and poisoned her before D’Artagnan was able to meet her. He thus accuses Milady of the death of his beloved Constance, for attempting to poison him, and for demanding of him to kill her lover. Lord de Winter then steps forward, accusing her of the assassination of Buckingham, the corruption of John Felton, and the murder of his brother, her husband, Baron Sheffield. It was then Athos’ turn, who attested to her branding. Milady de Winter is convinced that no one can serve as a witness to her crimes which had led to the branding, but Athos reveals another visitor to her: her executioner, the executioner of Lille. The executioner of Lille then tells her story, how she was beautiful as a young girl and a nun. Wanting power, she seduced the priest and convinced him to run away with her. In order to leave the country, though, money was needed. Therefore, she had the priest steal holy vessels from the church and sell them. However, they were arrested and found guilty, and yet, her guiles did not cease there. From within the jail, she seduced the son of the jailor, who released her. Her priest accomplice was sentenced to ten years in jail and branding, and we find out that this executioner—who was on duty during this time, and therefore, had to be the one to brand the priest—was his very brother. Guilt-ridden, the executioner sought after the girl, and once finding her, branded her himself. He returned to Lille, only to find that his brother had escaped. Thinking that he had aided in his break out, the executioner was prisoned in his brother’s stead. Not knowing what had happened, the priest then found the girl, and having her pose as his sister, began working as a curate. This is the point when Athos, then the Comte de la Fère, fell in love with the woman and made her his wife. Due to this list of crimes, they sentence her to death; all of the men put her on a boat and watch as the executioner takes her across the water to a patch of land and then beheads her. Dark stuff, man. It’s tough to remember that this story starts out with so much love, so much friendship, so much unity. But that is the way of the romantic, and not many would deem Dumas otherwise. 

Therefore, in the movie, Milady is presented much more as the victim than the villain, much more as the abused than the abuser. That’s not to say that she did not have wrong done to her or that she deserved to go out like that, but the movie had her in the “misunderstood” role rather than the pure “evil” role like Dumas wrote her to be. The death is far more acceptable, and the movie gives her a chance for redemption, where there is none in book for Milady. She fights until the very end for her life, attempts to seduce and protest clear up until the end. As it is the end, she has nothing to offer as recompense or as bait. There is nothing that she can sell or wager for her life. She is surrounded by her enemies, and there is nothing to save her. If she did have some dirt on the Cardinal and she did speak on it, it would merely have been said so as to save her life, not due to a heart change where she genuinely felt badly about her crimes. There is an entire dialogue that could happen on which one of these endings I preferred, but to be honest, I appreciated them both for what they were. The movie gave Milady a chance to willingly pay for her crimes by giving up information on the Cardinal and gave her a chance for autonomy by making the choice to kill herself (although that in itself has so many different facets that could be explored).

For sure, by making these types of choices, they made the movie more socially acceptable, less offensive, and less controversial. They also made the tone of the movie far more consistent than in the book, which goes from some high-highs to very low-lows. This, however, works for literature; and while I can’t say that Dumas’ book’s main intended audience was the intellectual, through the dark turn of the book, there is a great deal that he allows us to think about and consider. The movie, however, remains easily consumable and high-action and doesn’t really dip into those huge emotional potholes without quickly giving us something to rejoice about. In the book, this is pretty much the end; they just wrap it up talking with a “life goes on” epilogue. In the movie, however, the real action is just getting started.

The Ending.

Alright, here we are. We’re reaching the end of the journey. Let’s go out with a bang. In the movie, the boys all arrive in time before Louis is assassinated. D’Artagnan is on the roof with the shooter and is able to catch him off guard, making him miss the shot aimed at the king. All of the disbanded musketeers have joined together for the final battle in front of the royal residences. The Cardinal pegs it all on the musketeers, calling out that it is them who are trying to kill the king. He takes him and the queen to “safe ground,” but the king isn’t having any of it and knows that it’s all Richelieu behind this. Richelieu takes off his proverbial mask and shares with the royal couple his plan and even extends an open seat by his side to Anne. 

The three musketeers are hot on Richelieu’s trail and go after him. Aramis seeks to take down his once teacher (see, symmetry), but ends up getting shot (just for a bit). D’Artagnan is deep in a fight with Rochefort, and Richelieu takes the king and queen down into his dungeon-type hidey-hole that is equipped with a moat and a boat perfect for escaping. Porthos gets into a big fight with a dungeon beast and bests him, and Athos tries to get to Anne and Louis. While he doesn’t make it in time, we find out that Aramis was actually okay and is actually in the boat with Richelieu, Anne, and Louis. Aramis is about to punch Richelieu in the face (so dramatic), but Louis stops him, as he wants to do it themselves. Anne practically swoons in admiration over her dreamboat Louis.

We find that D’Artagnan is having a little difficulty with Rochefort, but after hearing that Rochefort was his father’s killer and with a little help from a sneaky Constance, he ends up spearing Rochefort. Constance and D’Artagnan hold hands, and all is well in the world. This cuts to D’Artagnan getting his heart’s desire by being knighted, I mean, “musketeer-ed,” and then plants a big kiss on Constance in front of the king and all of the musketeers. Once that scene is over, we are outside, and we wrap it up by bringing Girard back, except now D’Artagnan has a little help from his friends, and ALL OF THE MUSKETEERS chase after him in a heartfelt, happily-ever-after ending. 

This movie just cracks me up, but I really do enjoy it, guys, and I enjoy it all the more due to the writing choices that diverge so heavily away from the book. In the book, after Milady’s execution and all of the musketeers return to Rochelle, D’Artagnan is taken to the Cardinal by the Comte de Rochefort, D’Artagnan finally being about to see his Man of Meung again. The three musketeers demand that they come along, but it is only D’Artagnan who is able to see the Cardinal. D’Artagnan tells the Cardinal of Milady’s death but with the pardon that Athos had taken from Milady, D’Artagnan is without punishment, and in fact, the Cardinal is impressed. Tearing up the pardon, and in its stead, Richelieu presents an open commission to become a lieutenant in the musketeers. He tells D’Artagnan that he wants D’Artagnan himself to write his name and take up the spot, but that he would leave it up to D’Artagnan as to who would take the position (D’Artagnan having become a musketeer somewhere around the middle of the book during his service in the siege of La Rochelle). D’Artagnan offers the role to all three of the other musketeers, but they decline for various reasons. D’Artagnan, then, decides to take it up himself. The epilogue has the four musketeers separated and living their own lives. D’Artagnan is a lieutenant in the musketeers; Porthos has married his mistress after the death of her husband; Aramis has entered into the church; and Athos remained under D’Artagnan in the Musketeers for a while, but then he himself quit the service. Thus, the inseparables parted ways, and life went on in France. 

As the threat to Louis never happened, it’s safe to say that most of the ending of the movie didn’t happen in the book. No threat to Louis life; no call for the musketeers; no fight between Aramis and the Cardinal; no big scary dude in a random, nondescript dungeon; no big punch in the face for Richelieu or a happy love for the king and queen; no random group of musketeers charging at a lone civilian; no Constance to help out D’Artagnan or kiss him at the end. D’Artagnan and Rochefort do eventually fight, but as I mentioned before, D’Artagnan does not kill Rochefort within this book but instead becomes friends with him. And as was discussed before, Constance was secretly put into prison by the Cardinal due to her aiding the queen but then the queen secretly got her out. Yet, Milady still found her; meaning that D’Artagnan actually only got to spend several hours over the course of his and her life, and yet, she remained his dearest love in this book.  

While the movie itself was very different from the book, I do believe I would consider it a decent interpretation of the text to fit modern watchers. It has a pretty standard, easy-to-expect-what’s-coming-next feel to it. There is a happy ending and wonderful conflict resolution, which often makes for a happy audience. Everyone who had a girl got the girl, all the loose ties were wrapped up, and D’Artagnan got to be an uncomplicated hero at the end. The book had a far more bittersweet ending—particularly with Constance’s and Milady’s death and the splitting of the four musketeers—some potential loose ends, and while Dumas gave an ending to everyone, I can imagine some people have issues with some of those endings. The movie employed a very mass-media, popular approach to a film; it’s mindless entertainment, and ultimately, I believe that that was what Dumas was looking for in his books as well. Although, he did it in a more literary, romantic style and in many more pages. And while he did offer up some unique, deeper thoughts through the second half of the book, I believe that was what it was at its essence.

History check: The model for D’Artagnan was actually a lieutenant in the musketeers. 

Conclusion

In the end, I would have to say that the book actually aligned with history far more than in the movie, but then again, it didn’t seem like the movie was all that interested in historicity and Dumas at least had some respect for the history he was playing with. Particularly in relation to Anne and Louis’ relationship, the connection with Buckingham, and Richelieu’s animosity toward Anne rather than Louis, historicity frayed quite a bit within the film. And while Dumas definitely played around with motivations, introducing the human heart as the catalyst for political events, it’s a fascinating read. 

What can I say, though, besides the general themes and vague references to events, the movie didn’t align with the book much either. However, as I said before, I do believe that the essence of the book was honored. The movie over-exaggerated characters and events, but I wouldn’t expect anything less from something like this. Those exaggerations were not exactly my cup of tea and lost some of the complexities of the characters, but ultimately, the bigger and more exaggerated a character is, the easier they are to understand. And I think this was supposed to be a very easy, escapist film with not a whole lot of thinking involved. Who knows whether Dumas would have liked it or not, but I would say that I enjoyed both forms of The Three Musketeers thoroughly… although, I’ll say it… I liked the book better. 

I definitely had areas that I had issues with for both, but in the end, they were both great fun, and I will leave it at that. I hope that you guys enjoyed this heavy analysis of Dumas’ The Three Musketeers and Disney’s (1993) The Three Musketeers. I certainly had far too much fun (over-)analyzing everything. Amazingly, there are far more things that happen in the book than even I discussed (I promise, I didn’t re-write the whole book, even if the length of the article suggests it), so try and give it a go yourself. As always, I would love comments and thoughts, and if you have a book and movie in mind that you want ripped to analytical shreds, I’m your girl. Peace to you all, and peace out. 

References

• Alexandre Dumas. (2022, Nov. 21). In Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandre_Dumas
• Alexandre Dumas, père. (n.d.). In Britannica. Retrieved from https://www.britannica.com/biography/Alexandre-Dumas-pere
• Anne of Austria. (2022, Nov. 17). In Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_of_Austria
• Anne of Austra. (n.d.). In Britannica. Retrieved from https://www.britannica.com/biography/Anne-of-Austria
• Charles de Batz de Castelmore d’Artagnan. (2022, Sept. 19). In Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_de_Batz_de_Castelmore_d%27Artagnan
• Connolly, S. B. (2016, Dec. 30). The real D’Artagnan. History: The interesting bits. https://historytheinterestingbits.com/2016/12/30/the-real-dartagnan/
• Dumas, A. (1844). The Three Musketeers. 
• Ellsworth, L. (2018). Introduction. In The Three Musketeers. Pegasus Books.
• Foote, B. (1993). Dumas family history is marked by drama. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/1993/11/28/opinion/l-dumas-family-history-is-marked-by-drama-684393.html
• Henry IV of France. (2022, Oct. 25). In Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_IV_of_France
• Holmes, H. (2020, Aug. 28). Alexandre Dumas’ real life was as fascinating as his fiction. Observer. https://observer.com/2020/08/alexandre-dumas-honored-google-doodle/
• Life Guards (France). (2022, April 20). In Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_Guards_(France)
• Louis XIII. (2022, Nov. 21). In Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_XIII
• Marie de’ Medici. (2022, Nov. 2). In Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_de%27_Medici
• Milady de Winter. (2022, Sep. 19). In Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milady_de_Winter
• Musketeers of the Guard. (2022, Feb. 26). In Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musketeers_of_the_Guard
• Roth, J., & Birnbaum, R. (Producers), & Herek, S. (Director). (1993). The Three Musketeers [Motion Picture]. Retrieved from amazon.com.
• Summary Chapters 21-25. (n.d.). SparkNotes. https://www.sparknotes.com/lit/3musk/section6/
• Summary: Historicity. (n.d.). SparkNotes. https://www.sparknotes.com/lit/3musk/section15/#:~:text=As%20a%20historical%20novel%2C%20The,they%20do%20in%20the%20novel.