hey do you know where i can find the differences between the book and the disney movie of the 3 musketeers???<br>thanx alot! you can email me or tell me the web site<br>thanx you very much!
Printable View
hey do you know where i can find the differences between the book and the disney movie of the 3 musketeers???<br>thanx alot! you can email me or tell me the web site<br>thanx you very much!
I haven't finished reading the book yet, but I have seen the movie (Disney's the Three Musketeers) and i know that the book is different from the movie. I have not even finished the second chapter yet but I have read plenty of other reviews, and a list of differences between the book and the movie. Which is why I must compliment whoever wrote this review. It did not have a lot of excess fluff added in. All for one. And one for all.
Hi Georges,
You should better read the book to find the differences. Maybe someone will try to tell but it will take too long because mentioned movie and Dumas's book is almost completely different.
Milady...
Book: Milady's names are -in order- Anne de Breuil, Countes de la Fere, Milady de Winter...
Movie: Milady's name is Sabine
Porthos...
Book: Porthos is a gentleman coming from a good family.
Movie: Porhos was a pirate before musketeers.
Comte de la Fere...
Book: Comte de la Fere never shows any mercy during execution of Milady.
Movie: Comte de la Fere loves Milady and bewailed after she kills herself. :flare:
Milady's death...
Book: Hangman of Bethune executes Milady with cold blood.
Movie: Milady suicides.
Monsieur de Treville...
Book: Gascon Monsieur de Treville is commander of -King's personel body guards- The Musketeers and he is very important for D'artagnan to reach his dreams as being a Musketeer...
Movie: Where is Monsieur de Treville??? :flare:
Aramis...
Book: Aramis is a temporary musketeer. He is planning to be an abbe. a holy man.
Movie: He was an old student of Cardinal Richelieu.
Rochefort...
Book: Ambitious supporter of Cardinal Richelieu. Enemy of Musketeers. But he became a friend after Cardinal's death.
Movie: Rochefort kills D'artagnan's father and D'artagnan kills Rochefort with his father's sword. (crap)
And differences goes on like this...
Read the book. :yawnb:
I agree with your anger for most of the time, but I don't agree with the no remorse part of Athos when they execute Milady...
!!!!SPOILER!!!!
In Twenty Years After Athos starts to feel guilty and that is repeated in the Vicomte. He does agree with her punishment, but does feel guilty for doing it and does not want anyone gloating about it... Sad really, but also noble from his side. He even wanted to save her son, bless him...
Part Execution in The Three Musketeers:
.......
"You are not a woman," said Athos, coldly and sternly. "You do not belong to the human species; you are a demon escaped from hell, whither we send you back again."
.......
D'Artagnan was the youngest of all these men. His heart failed him.
"Oh, I cannot behold this frightful spectacle!" said he. "I cannot consent that this woman should die thus!"
Milady heard these few words and caught at a shadow of hope.
"D'Artagnan, D'Artagnan!" cried she; "remember that I loved you!"
The young man rose and took a step toward her.
But Athos rose likewise, drew his sword, and placed himself in the way.
"If you take one step farther, D'Artagnan," said he, "we shall cross swords together."
D'Artagnan sank on his knees and prayed.
"Come," continued Athos, "executioner, do your duty."
"Willingly, monseigneur," said the executioner; "for as I am a good Catholic, I firmly believe I am acting justly in performing my functions on this woman."
"That's well."
........
Three days afterward the four Musketeers were in Paris; they had not exceeded their leave of absence, and that same evening they went to pay their customary visit to M. de Treville.
"Well, gentlemen," said the brave captain, "I hope you have been well amused during your excursion."
"Prodigiously," replied Athos in the name of himself and his comrades.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiki1982
That's why he is Athos.;) That's what makes him Athos...;) As D'artagnan called him demigod...
Do you ever think why the Comte de la Fere using the name Athos?
In Chapter Monsieur Bonacieux, when a questioner of Bastille asked his name, he replied "Athos" and then the questioner said "But that is not a man's name; that is the name of a mountain."...
Athos is the holy mountain in Aegean Sea which completely dedicated to prayer and worship of God.
This resemblance is very nice and expressive, don't you think so.
If you look properly in the same chapter you read that several times firstly 'justice' is mentioned and after that 'God's justice', which essentially frees Athos, Porthos, Aramis and d'Artagnan from any revenge whatsoever.
'Allons, continua Athos, bourreau, fais ton devoir.
-Volontiers, Monseigneur, dit le bourreau, car aussi vrai que je suis bon catholique, je crois fermement être juste en accomplissant ma fonction sur cette femme.
-C’est bien.’
Athos fit un pas vers Milady.
‘Je vous pardonne, dit il, le mal que vous m’avez fait ; je vous pardonne mon avenir brisé, mon bonheur perdu, mon amour souillé et mon salut à jamais compromis par le désespoir où vous m’avez jeté . Mourez en paix.’
Lord de Winter s’avança à son tour.
‘Je vous pardonne, dit-il, l’empoisonnement de mon frère, l’assassinat de Sa Grâce Lord Buckingham ; je vous pardonne la mort du pauvre Felton, je vous pardonne vos tentatives sur ma personne. Mourez en paix.
-Et moi, dit d’Artagnan, pardonnez-moi, madame, d’avoir, par une fourberie indigne d’un gentilhomme, provoqué votre colère ; et, en échange, je vous pardonne le meurtre de ma pauvre amie et vos vengeances cruelles pour moi, je vous pardonne et je pleure sur vous. Mourez en paix.’
…
Alors [le bourreau] fit [Milady] entrer dans la barque, et, comme il allait y mettre le pied, Athos lui remit une somme d’argent.
‘Tenez, dit-il, voici le prix de l’exécution ; que l’on voie bien que nous agissions en juges.
-C’est bien, dit le bourreau ; et que maintenant, à son tour, cette femme sache que je n’accomplis pas mon métier, mais mon devoir.’
Et il jeta l’argent dans la rivière.
…
On vit [le bateau] aborder sur l’autre rive ; les personnages se dessinaient en noir sur l’horizon rougeâtre.
Milady, pendant le trajet, était parvenue à détacher la corde qui liait ses pieds : en arrivant sur le rivage, elle sauta légèrement à terre et prit la fuite.
Mais le sol était humide ; en arrivant au haut du talus, elle glissa et tomba sur ses genoux.
Une idée superstitieuse la frappa sans doute ; elle comprit que le Ciel lui refusait son secours et resta dans l’attitude où elle se trouvait, la tête inclinée et les mains jointes.
…
‘Laissez passer la justice de Dieu !’ cria [le bourreau] à haute voix.
…
‘Prodigieusement’ répondit Athos, les dents serrées.
‘Come, executioner, continued Athos, do your job.
-Readily, Monseigneur, said the executioner, because, although I am a good Catholic, I also firmly believe that I am just in exercising my function on this woman.
-It is well.’
Athos took a step in Milady’s direction.
‘I forgive you, he said, the evil you have done to me; I forgive you my wrecked future; my lost happiness, my sullied love, my safety forever compromised by the desperation you had me fall into. May you die in peace.’
Lord de Winter now came forward.
‘I forgive you, he said, the poisoning of my brother, the murder of His Grace Lord Buckingham; I forgive you the death of poor Felton, I forgive your killing attempts on my person. May you die in peace.
-And I, said d’Artagnan, forgive me, [I]Madame[/I, the provocation of your anger by a deceit unworthy of a gentilhomme; in turn I forgive you the murder of my poor friend and your cruel revenge on me, I forgive you and I weep upon you. May you die in peace.’
…
Then [the executioner] let [Milady] enter the boat, and, as he wanted to do the same, Athos gave him a sum of money.
‘Take this, he said, it is the price of the execution; so it may be seen that we act as judges.
-It is well, answered the executioner, that now, in her turn, this woman may know that I do not do my job, but my duty.’
And he threw the money in the river.
…
They saw the boat reach the other bank; the individuals were marked black on the reddish background of the horizon.
Milady, during the crossing, had managed to loosen the rope that bound her feet: when the boat landed, she jumped lightly on land and tried to run away.
But the earth was humid; as she reached the upper part of the bank, she slid and fell on her knees.
A superstitious idea surely must have crossed her mind; she understood that Heaven refused her help and she stayed in the same attitude she found herself, her head bent and her hands joined.
…
‘May the justice of God be accepted!’ cried the executioner in a loud voice.
…
‘Prodigiously’ answered Athos, with set teeth.
The last word of Athos do not say as much as his way of saying it. Obviously Mr de Tréville cannot know about what they were doing in England, or about Athos’ past and Milady’s role in it. Athos was called ‘Athos’ because it was his nom de guerre, a practice which is still part of the French army (and also partly of the English army). The application of a nom de guerre was a practice that offered, here for the Comte de la Fère, the possibility to remain anonymous, even if he had to execute orders in his home-lands. It also offered easiness for the superiors because the nom de guerre was shorter than the soldier’s original name, and in many cases it was also the same as a nom de guerre of a predecessor. As such, the officers had less trouble of memorising names and faces. It also evoked the idea of total submissiveness to the king, a new identity, separate from the identity of gentilhomme.
Essentially, Milady is not part of Athos’ identity as Athos, but of his former identity as the Comte de la Fère. His obligation to stay anonymous, compels him to not mention the problem with Milady which is also irrelevant to his status as soldier. It is clear out of his set teeth that he does feel for it. There is a clear contrast between the word he says (prodigiously) and his facial expression.
Dumas plays with God’s justice as he did in The Count of Monte Cristo. It is clear that for Constance and Athos there needs to be a setting of scores, and that is also the idea of the reader. By Athos offering money, although he clearly states that they act as judges (paying the executioner for his job after the trial), in a certain sense the four also give the impression of ‘buying’ justice. Although the executioner under his cap is no longer a man under the law who can commit murder, who is also free from personal motives, he can be bought. When he then throws the money in the river, and proclaims that he will do his duty and not his job, he rules out the possibility of revenge for himself and our four heroes, but attributes it to God. Which Dumas then emphasises by the impossibility for Milady to flee. Nonetheless, Athos is not through with it, as his reply and expression indicate at the end.
In Twenty Years After, when Mordaunt is in the water, and the four friends have narrowly escaped death by bomb-explosion, Athos cries: ‘Oh, messieurs, soyons hommes, soyons chrétiens!... Ne me donnez pas cet horrible remords, ne me forcez pas à mourir de honte à mon tour ; mes amis, accordez-moi la vie de ce malheureux.’ (‘Oh, messieurs, let us be men, let us be Christians!... Do not give me that horrible remorse, do not force me to die of shame in my turn; my friends, leave me the life of this unhappy man.’). When he has killed him, he says: ‘Ce n’est pas moi qui l’ai tué, c’est le destin.’ (‘It is not I who has killed him, it was destiny.’). That is the essence of it: Athos believes it was justice, but still feels about his assistance. As he indicates when Mordaunt is about to drown under their eyes: he had remorse before and he does not want to have it happen again. So, now, he decides that he wants to save Mordaunt, instead of sending Porthos to strangle him (as he wants to do). Of course, the pity that induces (also with the reader), is reversed when Athos is nearly killed by him, but nonetheless, Athos does not want to be associated with revenge. In that, he did feel remorse when Milady was killed although he did agree with her punishment, but divine justice is emphasised by the failure to flee and the executioner who does not take money. Athos is a very believing man (particularly so portrayed in the Vicomte) and no doubt he felt that he did not have the right to decide on killing Milady, which notably Aramis does not have a problem with.
So, in essence, the Disney-film overdoes it a bit in having Athos lament his love, because he did not feel deeply for her as a person anymore, but was right in its feeling of regret. But they should have made it clearer that it was rather the act of killing which was wrong, and not the act of killing her. In The Count of Monte Cristo Dumas also plays with the idea of justice and God’s justice, when Monte Cristo contemplates his acts. He thought he had to take up God’s role in applying justice, because God had forgotten. To gain rest Monte Cristo has to forgive Danglars. Athos does not need to forgive Milady anymore, because that he has done, but he needs to forgive himself for having allowed Milady’s execution, although it was clear God approved. I would say he thinks back to the moment that d’Artagnan started to display regret, and he threatens him with duelling if he did something against the execution,. That same moment reoccurs in Twenty Years After with Mordaunt in the water. Yet, there, d’Artagnan, Porthos and Aramis, allow Athos who is now expressing regret, to try to recover Mordaunt. Of course the trust and Christianity or nobility In the saving of one’s enemy, is reversed as Mordaunt then tries to kill his saviour. Here Athos stabs Mordaunt and attributes it to self-defence and above all destiny, which is easier than look and wait while somebody is executed, even if God seems to agree. With Milady they did not indulge d’Artagnan’s regret, while 20 years after they did indulge Athos’ and in that Mordaunt’s death is more just than Milady’s, and more justifiable for Athos in particular. In a sense the death of Milady pursues Athos more than Mordaunt’s, because her death will be recalled by her son and also by De Wardes, while Mordaunt disappears into oblivion.
This is maybe also interesting to note: from the foreword of Twenty Years After, the Livre de Poche-edition 1989, by Simone Bertière, University of Bordeaux:
Already Milady’s death gave the conclusion of The Three Musketeers a taste of ashes. The legitimateness of it was not discussable, however: a tribunal, a sentence by vote, a decapitation according to the rules, by an executioner. Justice had been done – God’s justice, had been proclaimed by the executioner.
Athos knows very well that that is a lie. A private revenge, even if it mimes the legal criminal procedure, cannot be assimilated by human justice, nor for even better reasons, by divine justice. So a curse will pursue the six judges of Béthune in Twenty Years After. Mordaunt, for them, is more than an enemy: the instrument of destiny. Their meetings take on the value of signs. It is fatality that leads him to the bedside of the dying executioner, who is eaten up by remorse and asks to be heard his confession by the very figure of total damnation in the person of the son of Milady. The second victim will be Mordaunt’s uncle Lord de Winter. In order to interrupt the series the serpent must be eradicated. But Athos refuses to do so: one cannot atone for a crime by a crime.
Let the musketeers perish and have the monster triumph? It would be against all the rules of the genre. The solution Dumas found has the double merit of fulfilling the lover of unusual adventures and charging itself with a symbolical meaning. To a Mordaunt - whose treachery and hate have no longer anything human - is opposed Athos - who is put in danger because of his own generosity, but whose purity is a magic armour – in an undersea duel that hides from our eyes what they should not see: the fight of the demon and the archangel, arbitrated by God himself, or by destiny.
Fatality. Combat, but also mysterious solidarity of Good and Evil, who co-exist in the order of creation itself. It is not accidental that Athos the just is Milady’s husband. It is for the child of light, the young Bragelonne, that he consents to kill the son of darkness, born from deceit. But he will not be freed from Evil. And the child will not be saved: he will die in the prime of his life, and Athos will not outlive him. Justice, nor happiness are of this world. The key of our destiny is elsewhere. An elsewhere which the novel of Dumas, so critical towards the institutional Church, carefully withholds itself from specifying…
Dear Friend;Quote:
Originally Posted by kiki1982
I know those quotes you mentioned above. But I am insisting that they were not regretful for what they have done at all. It's just "ius & iustitia" as great Romans said. It's just justice.
Simply think; if those "forgiven" words came from the heart did they execute Milady after all?
I think those forgiven words are just said due to a religious tradition or something like that. I don't exactly know these kind of rituals as I'm not Christian.
As I read what you written, I understand that you're an enthusiast. And I share your opinions about our musketeers nobility, conscience and honor. They play the game with dignity and proud...
As I share all your opinions about grandiosity of our musketeers, I am again saying that they all wanted Milady's death for peace.
I do not say that they did not want Milady's death... The only thing which I think is clear is that Athos regrets, from a religious point of view (as well).
The forgiving words in my view are real (as Dumas emphasises the same issue in The Count) because in order to live without guilt one needs to forgive, not commit revenge. It does not help the healing within oneself. In that they all live on without guilt, but Athos regrets, maybe only because he let it happen despite himself. I would say, as time goes on, Athos regrets more and sees the signs more and more. Certainly at the time he sees his son unhappy. In The Vicomte it is clear that also the executioner regrets. As Bertière says destiny catches up with the musketeers, in the romantic tradition. Although only Athos gets it.
Did you notice that there was something a little different in your translation, though? The 'set teeth' bit at the end of The Three Musketeers is not there in your translation. It just occured to me.
I certainly am an enthusiast! I have loved Dumas ever since I saw a film adaptation of The Count of Monte Cristo and then read the book which was, astonishingly enough, even better. The Three Musketeers and its two sequels are just fantastic in their stories and background. I learned a little today as I was looking into it...
Dear Kiki,
It's an undeniable truth that Dumas can tell anything to anybody can read!
He played on readers affections like a pure romantic and he delineated the enviroment and circumstances of the era like a historian all in the same breath! When you're reading Dumas, you're just not only reading the book however you begin to live the book... I think that's why people admire Dumas's books and his heroes. It's safe to say that Dumas didn't create super heroes solely therewithal he told stories of ordinary people. He revealed all the weakness of human being while he continuously kept expressing core and eternal values as nobility, justice, forgiving, loyality and off course respect to women:)
That's the way he achieved to reach all of us... Turkish, German, French, English, Italian, Spanish, Russian, Arab...
Viva Dumas!
You mentioned the differences between translations. For that matter, you'd be right... :blush: Help me to find the ecaxt English translations. I decided to read all Dumas's works in English as for I only know English.
In Turkish, we have only one exact translation of The Three Musketeers and Twenty Years After (as a matter of fact that's the assertion of the publisher) and after I read both translated copies, I promise to myself I'll learn French -if I would have enough money and time someday- to read Dumas deservedly... Translations were awful... :bawling: You can't even guess...
PS: Thanks for your kindness and explanations and long sufferance.
I think I might have a friend here.
A translation is a chance-hit, I find. There are good ones and there are crap ones.
To be honest, I don't know how the translation you read could forget the teeth of Athos... But anyway, if you don't know the original you can't really know and look at key passages to see whether it is good... I can't recommend any translations because I never read any, but look in a few other and older threads. There are bound to be some suggestions on there...
By all means, learn French. Dumas is probably one of the first writers you can enjoy, because he is not that difficult. I would say, start with Monte Cristo, because it is that slight bit easier than The Three Musketeers. I have the impression Dumas 'outdated' his language a little just to make it more of its time (the 17th century) than when it was written in the 19th. Twenty Years After and The Vicomte de Bragelonne though, are back to his usual flowy 'contemporary' style.
I started to learn French when I was 11, being Belgian (a country with three different official languages, the biggest two being Dutch and French, the third being German but only spoken by 100000 people). I couldn't speak a word when I was 18 but had a lot of vocab and a lot of French-speaking colleagues who gladly would listen to my abominable French. To gain a little more feeling I decided to start on my copy of Monte Cristo and I have never stopped since. :)
I suppose you are a muslim (just by the fact you are Turkish)? And you intimated in the post about Mylady that 'your religion tells you people are responsible for their own actions'. Is it so that people can determine their own fate/destiny? You have to remember that Dumas was a Catholic or at least drew on that set of ideas. In Christianity and Catholicism in particular, people still have a free will (so responsible for their own actions), but are 'predestined' by God to end at a certain time in their lives. When one does something 'not allowed' (like killing Milady), one is punished for it. If one does something good, good will come one's way. (karma in the Hindoo-tradition). So in a sense Athos fails to throw away his own life (as he intends to do by bringing it in peril, for example in La Rochelle), because that is something that uniquely belongs to God, but in his courtesy towards d'Artagnan and because of it he gains a (real) son, as if by miracle. Sadly the goodness of Athos is overshadowed by that one mistake (he is indeed responsible for, like you say, because out of free will he chose to kill Milady, or have her killed), which he will never be able to atone for. The only thing he can hope is that God has mercy. Who knows maybe God did have mercy and let Bragelonne choose, but he turns out the same as his father. The point is that God did not intend Athos to succeed in dying because of recklessness, but he failed to get out of that out of his own free will and thus stayed on the road he chose, instead of taking another side-road. At the time Athos’ wife turns out to be a fraud, he came to a split on his road of life: he could reproach himself for it and grow unhappy, or he could forgive her and himself, and grow happy again… He decided to gamble, drink and be reckless. Does he have the right to throw his life away? No. He makes it difficult for himself. The same happens in The Vicomte. He redeems himself a little when he has a son, but only because he loves the other so much that he forgets himself. As soon as the other is gone, his aim in life ceases to be and that is a big mistake. I order to be able to love, one must love himself. Athos is never capable of hate and he does not hate Milady, but when she ceases to be in his life, he is aimless. He should have loved himself, mourned and then carried on, taken another wife and grown happy. Everything depends on others for him, not on himself and that is his big downfall. That is also obviously why he becomes a musketeer: servitude is his only safeguard. As a musketeer he is not only responsible for his own life, but also for the ones of others. In that, he has an aim that is different from his own and he can lay down his life for another, not for himself. In duels he wants to lay down his life for his honour (as in the first duel with d’Artagnan he was going to conduct with only one arm…). A real deeply religious person would say that he was unable to love God, because he was unable to truly love himself. But I won’t go into that. The point is that between birth and death, there is a lot of road, which people can choose to spend in whichever manner they like, only the choices you make can make your life shorter (a shortcut) or longer (winding road).
I think there was a lot of truth in the foreword by Bertière. An epic fight of Good against Evil. Possibly that is what makes the story(ies) so unbelievably interesting and timeless. I didn’t think about it until yesterday, so I thank you for inducing me to look at it…
The Richard Pevear translation is modern, up-to-date, annotated, and does NOT forget the teeth of Athos :).
I love you guys.... sigh... you bring me such joy.