MovieChat Forums > The Three Musketeers (1974) Discussion > why is Richelieu always so demonised?

why is Richelieu always so demonised?

posted 18 years ago by ozymandiaskingofkings
36 replies | jump to latest

I hate to burst anyones bubble here but the real Cardinal Richelieu bore no resemblance to how he is depicted in Dumas' work and the countless films derived from it. He was actually a very effective administrator of France and as pretty much the worlds first Prime Minister demonstrated a shrewdness and prudence that helped France grow strong as a nation. Not only did he help centralise French power, adding cohesion to the French nation-state, he also helped curtail the power of the Habsburg empire and though a Catholic himself promoted religious tolerance in order to create political unity. He also removed much of the Feudal power possessed by a number of the Nobility in order to decrease the risk of factional rebellion by the Barons. His greatest success though was as a War commander, with Victory at La Rochelle against Britain being a particular highlight. He was also a keen patron of the arts and education, setting up the Academie Francais and rebuilding the Sorbonne.

His negative reputation is perhaps because of the brutal and heavy tax levies he placed upon the Third Estate (though in fairness not any worse than any other ruler at the time), but he was certainly no traitor and the view he was derives almost entirely from Dumas who,as a post revolutionary thinker, turned Richelieu into a bogeyman for the First Estate, symbolic of the excess and corruption of the Ancien Regime. While the Ancien Regime was repressive, sadistic and corrupt, it is actually quite unfair that Richelieu was picked over Louis XIII, or his successor Cardinal Mazarin, as he was probably one the most progressive of the pre-1789 chief ministers; the best of a bad bunch so to speak.

In terms of his fate, Richelieu was not pushed into a lake or placed on trial for treason or anything rediculous like that as the movies show, but merely fell sick and died at home in his bed. His last words were to the King, to whom he said: "I have the consolation of leaving your kingdom in the highest degree of glory and of reputation.", and in many ways it was he that laid the foundations for what was arguably the greatest pre-revolutionary period, that of the Sun King Louis XIV.

[–] fredo70 18 years ago

Charlton Heston totally agrees with you, in his biography when he researched the role he found that Richelieu should be considered a hero. So he played the role ambigiously making Richelieu an intelligent shrewd politician with France's best interest at heart, rather than a callous villain.

If you watch the movie again you realise that the Musketeers are actually the bad guys, protecting an adulterous Queen, who is shagging the Prime Minister of England. All Richelieu want's to do is expose the Queens unfaithfulness to the King and to France.

[–] imspartacus56 18 years ago

Interesting point. I think it is as unfair to cast the Musketeers as bad guys as it is to paint Richelieu as a villan. They were all doing what they thought was right, except that Richelieu understands this, where the musketeers do not. That is why Richelieu does not just have D'Artagnan arrested and killed, even though he has the power to do so. Richelieu respects and admires D'Artagnan, and recognises him as a man of honour, a luxury that Richelieu does not have. The whole story is about honour and loyalty, and that they are positive virtues. As for the adulterous Queen bit, well D'Artagnan is having an adulterous affair with not only Mme Bonancieux, wife of M. Bonancieux lest we forget, but AT THE SAME TIME with the bigamous Milady (married to Lord Winter when still legally married to the Comte de la Fere aka Athos) and shagging the maid, Kitty on the side. Though played down in the movies, it is quite clear from the books that both Aramis and Porthos are being financially supported by their married mistresses (many each) stealing money and jewels from their husbands and giving them to their musketeer lovers. Only Athos is virtuous, and that is because he was hard done by by a scheming bitch, who cheated on him Since the King and the Cardinal both had mistresses, no one is in any position to take a high moral tone with anyone else. If the objection is that the Duke is an Englishman, (and therefore an enemy) you may have a point. Ask your self why the Cardinal wants to expose the queen's infidelity. The book hints that it was for revenge, as she spurned his own advances. In reality, Anne of Austria was a Hapsburg, and conected with both Spain and Austria, which countries were trying to control the weak French king through his Queen. Richelieu wanted to discredit her and to have the king in his debt, in order to control him and the kingdom. Pure power politics.

[–] Blueghost 10 years ago

But by "French" standards, because he was interfering in not a sexual trist, but an emotional coupling between two lovers, he then becomes the bad guy for this particular act of infidelity.

I don't recall the cardinal being executed in any of the movies.

[–] Mithrandir-Olorin33 8 years ago

One of the things I like is that their defending the Queen form being shamed for her affair. At this time it was the standard for the King to have other lovers but the Queen was expected to be monogamous.

It's a patriarchal double standard and while a message Feminist to modern standards may not have been Dumas intent in telling this story it's something I like.

"I knew it, I'm surrounded by @$$Holes"-Dark Helmet, Spaceballs

[–] blackavar-bunnie 17 years ago

I'd have to say I disagree with you as far as how Dumas represents Cardinal Richelieu. If you've read The Three Musketeers, you'll find that Dumas actually refers to M. le Cardinal with quite a surprising amount of respect, considering how he is one of the main antagonists of the plotline.

To be honest, I imagine that if Richelieu is made a complete villain in the movie, it's mostly to simplify the plotline for those who haven't read the book and don't have the stomach for the complexities of the novel. Seeing as most people who see this movie generally haven't read the book, it isn't surprising that they targeted a broader audience.

The only character that Dumas really portrays as downright evil is Milady de Winter. Whether or not she existed and whether or not she conspired with the Cardinal at any point in history I can't honestly say, but I can assure you that, at least in the Pevear translation, Dumas treats the Cardinal with quite a large amount of respect and if that isn't carried over in this movie, I'm going to be moderately disappointed.

[–] liscarkat (18388) 2 months ago

The Cardinal isn't made a complete villain in this movie. The script and Charlton Heston make him an ambiguous and somewhat likeable character. He was much more of a villain in the 1948 version with Vincent Price.

[–] rwsmith29456 17 years ago

Thanks for giving us the accurate portrayal. Richelieu was a favorite topic of several papers I have written. The people that saw him as villainous were most likely enemies of France.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Colkitto 17 years ago

My impression, not just of Heston's performance but of Fraser's script, was that these movies DID, unlike any other Musketeer film I've seen, adequately convey both Richelieu's virtues and Dumas's respect for him.

pushed into a lake or placed on trial for treason or anything rediculous like that as the movies show

Go take that up with the Disney movie. There's nothing of that kind shown in this film or its sequel.

____________________________
"An inglorious peace is better than a dishonourable war" ~ John Adams

[–] rwsmith29456 16 years ago

In short, you are right. If you look up Richleau in the dictionary the definition would be 'France'.

[–] davidwoodall 16 years ago

Not so much in this film - where his motives are left fairly ambiguous - but in 'The Four Musketeers', Richlieu does (to me at least) come across as a man who is genuinely trying to act in the best interests of France. Certainly some of his methods are morally dubious by modern standards, but I doubt that any ruler or great statesman of the age would shy away from fighting dirty where necessary.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] marcleroi 16 years ago

During the Thirty Years' War, Richelieu (a Catholic cardinal, remember), conspired with the Lutheran Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden to massacre the land and people of the Catholic Duchy of Lorraine. Much of the land, especially what today is Moselle in eastern Lorraine, lay in waste for 30 years afterwards, with the majority of the population having been decimated. The horror and devastation wrought by Richelieu would today qualify as ethnic cleansing or genocide. In one area covering several small towns, only 12 people were left alive. This history is little known today, and I write as a descendant of some of the survivors as well as of those who came to repopulate the region in the latter half of the 17th century.

Here is just one small sample among the widespread destruction as noted on the French version of Wikipedia (entry on "Niderviller," retrieved 5/30/2008):

"La guerre de Trente Ans permet à la France de Louis XIII et de Richelieu d'occuper la Lorraine, directement, ou en soutenant les Suédois. À partir de 1633, les armées françaises, suédoises, impériales, lorraines parcourent la région, pillant, tuant, apportant partout la désolation, les épidémies, les famines (ainsi que le montrent les gravures de Jacques Callot de Nancy : Les Misères de la guerre).

En 1636, les Suédois de Bernard de Saxe-Weimar, stipendiés par Richelieu, assiègent et rançonnent Sarrebourg, et ravagent les environs. Plus de 80 villages sont complètement rasés; certains comme Oberviller disparaissent définitivement. Alors qu'on y dénombrait 39 « feux » en 1585, Niderviller restera vide d'habitants pendant des décennies (comme d'ailleurs les villages voisins : Buhl, Brouderdorff…)."

-Marc LeRoi

[–] jesn-4 15 years ago

Richelieu was a great statesman.

[–] vaughaballaugh 16 years ago

With an adventure such as these brilliant versions of the musketeer story,there has to be a definable villain,Richelieu was chosen probably because of his real life position as Chief Minister to the King but he is not as demonised as much in this film as in some of the laughable modern hollywood versions of the story.
In this film i would say he is more of a adamant rival of the musketeers in serving the King & France.
Remember D'Artagnan's Father's advice to him "Not to accept insults from anyone save the King,for you are a King's man,& Richelieu,for he rules France throught the king"

[–] A_Fistful_of_Pennies 15 years ago

I think Richelieu's portrayal in this particular version is much more effective than elsewhere. He is not a very nice man, but he truly believes everything he is doing is for the good of France. He tries to expose the Queen's affair...which is that really evil, because she really is having an affair!?

Also, he does not approve of Milady's methods of murder and such. He just allows her to do her work for the betterment of France. And at the end he doesn't get murdered or beaten up or anything like that. He is simply bested by the Musketeers, and in part 2 he is overshadowed as Milady becomes the true villain, who becomes out of the Cardinal's control.

[–] grendelkhan 15 years ago

Richelieu is like any statesman who made a great impact. He had great positive accomplishments, but achieved many of his goals through ruthless means. Villainy and valor are often two sides of the same coin.

[–] rwsmith29456 14 years ago

The historical Richelieu. He had a great deal of influence with the king and wielded a lot of power. He mostly concerned himself with international matters. He had France in mind above the king or even himself. He probably wasn't Mr. Nice Guy but he was very loyal and patriotic and France flourished during his time as chief adviser to the king. He didn't have much use for protestants, though.

[–] danhanegan 13 years ago

Richelieu had plenty of use for Protestants. His policies made France the primary financial backer of the protestant side in the Thirty Years War. He saw these foreign protestants as useful tools to thwart the Hapsburgs, who supported the Catholic side. At home, though, protestant rebels simply weakened France, and Richelieu crushed them without mercy.

[–] rwsmith29456 14 years ago

Oh, let me add that your summary is very full, thorough and accurate.