To be honest, when I saw these films in the theatre I didn't much like the way the second one became so dark and so serious. However I was deeply impressed by the way it all turned out, and the way it matured young D'Artagnan. These two films greatly influenced how I viewed films, particularly those adapted from famous works of literature. Thanks for posting.
The look of sadness in athos as he speaks to the executioner is brilliant fantastic Oliver Reed and the rest of this amazing cast bring so much realism to these films better than any other versions in my eyes.
This scene and this idea of executing this woman has, in recent years, become controversial. However, I think that any reader of this great tale must bear in mind what lesson Dumas, in my reading of the story, wished to impart. Milady represents a psychopathic entity. Creatures like this look human, but they are not. They cannot change their ways, and they will always, always hurt those whom they latch on to. What this scene illustrates to me is that when exposed, these things must be totally removed from your life. Had they let Milady go free, she would never have rested until she destroyed the lives of these men, and many others besides. That is the lesson for me
They want to kill her and save their lifes, she wants to kill their. What is the lesson: 4 (or 10) men are more powerful then one woman? P.S. I thiks, if milady became countess deWardes, she have rested and never recall anybode in her past.
The death penalty is controversial, and in real life there are and were ways of stopping murderers without killing them. However, Milady wasn't a real life character. She was over the top and larger than life. She was an ice-cold, intelligent she-devil, hellbent on revenge, and this made her extremely dangerous. She had already been shown as capable of escaping from prison. Prison wouldn't hold her. You have to view this scene in that context. I'm against the death penalty irl, but I don't mind the scene as at this point the viewers are convinced that death is the only thing that will stop this particular fictional character. Very few if any like her exist in real life, so it's not really applicable. I also think that this idea that you have to morally agree with something for it to be shown, is misguided. Leave the viewers to think for themselves. Plus, the execution is portrayed as slightly morally ambiguous in the movie (if not in the book). The Musketeers are not seen as all-out heroes in this version, and you do get a sense they don't really have the right to do what they are doing. Or maybe they do, formally, because of the times, but they certainly couldn't have done it today. As Milady actually rightly points out: She doesn't get a fair trial.
I don't accept her as psychopathic; Milady is fully knowledgeable that her past may catch up with her, so in the meantime she is taking whatever advantage of whatever situation avails her. This is not psychopathy, merely opportunism. Her murder of Constance is simple revenge on yet another man she sees as having wronged her. Milady never wronged those who facilitated her position, only those who got in the way of her ambitions. I don't sympathize, however; she gets her just due for her deeds.
I am something of a nut when it comes to the original "The Three Musketeers"; but this sequel gives me several problems (possibly because it was pasted together from footage shot during the making of the first film, when the cast weren't even aware that they were MAKING a second movie). Three cavils: 1. D'Artagnan has several encounters with Milady de Winter in the first film; but a good deal of the plot of the second hinges upon him not recognizing her. It's also rather odd that, when Buckingham apprehends her in England, he makes no reference to their earlier tryst, when she stole the two diamond studs; a crime which led him to refer to her at the time as a "French trollop"; 2. It doesn't say much for the sex life of the Comte de la Fere (Athos) and Milady that they had what was supposedly a passionately happy marriage, and yet he somehow never noticed a fleur-de-lis the size of a baseball burned into her shoulder, until the day she fell from her horse. (This problem also exists in the Dumas novel, as I recall); 3. The Comte is right in saying that, by the feudal laws that still governed 17th-century France, his status as a noble gave him judicial powers over those persons in his demesne (a category that would definitely include his wife). However, those powers were to be exercised within the context of a manorial court, in which he would sit as judge. Such courts had their own protocols and procedures, and DID accord the accused certain rights.(Milady is thus correct when she cries, "Take me before a court! It is my right!"). Even under the "ancien regime", a noble couldn't simply hold a kangaroo court out in the middle of nowhere, made up of unqualified people (Porthos, Aramis, and D'Artagnan aren't even nobles), and then blithely order someone's death. Even with these objections, there are some good things in this film (to begin with, you simply can't go TOO wrong with this choice cast). The final meeting between Richelieu and D'Artagnan -- Realpolitik meets moral suasion -- is a gem, and the scenes in which Milady seduces Felton -- appealing at one and the same time to his gonads, his Protestant faith, and his English patriotism -- is REALLY something. Dostoyevsky would have been proud to have written it.
Great and mind bogglingly detailed post, bravo! You make me want to watch both Musketeers movies again - it's years since I've seen them. They used to appear on TV quite regularly at Christmas and Bank Holidays, as I recall. Sadly these old blockbuster films rarely get an outing on terrestrial telly anymore. Shame. I doubt there will ever be an all-star cast to match the calibre of these movies! Incidentally, you raised the bizarre true story about the sequel being a cobbled together add-on, exploiting much unused material from the first movie. Apparently the actors were in the dark about a sequel and as a result, weren't properly paid for it. Seems the powers that be tried to use the actors on a 'two-films-for-the-price-of-one' basis. But guess what - Racquel Welch was onto them, and her agent kicked up a stink and made sure that she - and following on from her triumph, the rest of the cast - were properly remunerated for the second movie. It looks suspiciously like dirty dealing by the powers that be. I wonder if Richard Lester was in on it?
Good objections. To me only the first one really bothers me when watching the movies (which I absolutely love). Can't believe they didn't pick up on it while filming. The second one - okay, although it's unlikely, I guess I can believe she made an excuse to never remove the black band around her arm (although d'Artagnan discovered it immediately when _he_ slept with her😂). The third one I don't mind at all, it just adds to the moral ambiguity. Milady was a psychopath, but the Musketeers in this version were never all-out heroes. Athos wasn't an all-out hero. That's part of what I love about these movies; Lester takes a partly critical view of these upper-class adventurers. So this is kind in character for them. The fact that Milady has a point, and that you can see d'Artagnan having moral qualms about what they are doing, only makes it more interesting to me.
@monmothma3358 Excellent points all around. Your observation about the moral ambiguity of the characters is spot-on, and is why Dumas' works are really NOVELS, not just romantic swashbucklers. The cast incarnated these complexities to perfection, nowhere more so than when Milady tells Athos that she intends to kill D'Artagnan because "he has insulted me." "In God's name, how would it be possible for anyone to insult YOU, madam?' A life -- of pain, of betrayal, of outraged honor -- is in that line.
@@tadimaggio Thanks! You know, it's been so long since I read the book that I've been thinking that the ambiguity and complexity was something these movies added. (And former/later movie versions took away.) However from yours and other posts I'm starting to realize it was already there in the novel. Not Lester and Fraser. Dumas. I may have to reread it. It's too bad you don't like the sequel movie. Do you really think it was "pasted together", almost like an afterthought? I thought that it was planned to be two movies from the start, they didn't inform the cast, which is bad of course, but they themselves knew. I don't think it's worse than the first (despite the plot holes you rightly bring up), it's just darker. Helped by a more melancholy score (I love _both_ of the scores, which is itself a miracle 😄). And perhaps reflecting d'Artagnan's character growth. I love that they manage to have such light humor in the first and part of the second, and still manage to pull off the serious and sad elements.
Milady is the most interesting character of the tale. She is so beautiful and smart that face against men in a world dominated from men and she wins. She fights and she is killed. But her charme remains in the mind of the reader more than D’Artagnan and others. She is comparable to the Cardinal like strength and presence.
You weren't alone with the issue. Pam. Also it's a shame that the clip didn't have the axeman moaning about having to row the boat over to execute her. And if my memory serves me well it was Athos (Oliver Reed) that paid him the extras. On a footnote if there's anyone Stateside who knows the motto of the United States Army Criminal Investigation Command please enlighten all.
She knew he was the only one she could look for mercy, cause he was still young (not broken yet. still believed in values like justice, mercy etc.) and of pure heart.
From what I’ve gathered, this film was made after the film was finished. It is implied that Athos shot her offscreen (the FOUR. Novelization states this resolution). But several people saw the preview and felt Milady deserved a more visible end, so they got everyone back to film this scene. I do remember a print that aired on TV in the mid 1990s omitted the scene.
Really? I never knew. I agree she needed a bigger end, with everything she had done. It's also closer to the book. I wonder how Faye felt being unexpectedly called back to be on "trial" and get "executed"..
You know of the Salkind Clause? Everyone was contracted into doing one long film. Then the Salkinds decided to split the film into two films. The cast sued: two released films means double the pay. In her autobiography, Faye mentioned being asked to film more scenes, so she was probably adamant that she get paid for it. The Salkind Clause is the obligation that any filming that will be released in two parts requires two salaries for the cast and crew.
@@agerard6297 Yes, I'm well aware of that story and the clause. I was more wondering about her reaction to the content of this specific scene, if she didn't even originally know it was going to be included.
I've never seen the film, but I have read the book. I always saw her as a good character. She is actually doing her job as a loyal agent of her country, while the musketeers are traitors. Her trial is a sham. Why? She goes on different missions serving her country, the most important being at the end: the assassination of the enemy commander Buckingham, because of her action her country wins the siege of La Rochelle and enemy reinforcements no longer arrive. Meanwhile the musketeers plot with the queen and that same Buckingham. That is aiding and abetting the enemy. In one scene in the books, a letter is found from the queen to the Spanish king asking him to invade France. The French queen is asking a foreign leader to invade France... If that's not treason, I don't know what is! Even by the standards of that period. And the musketeers side with her and an enemy of their country (even if they're not exactly enthusiastic about Buckingham, they still do it). Why is the trial a sham? The judges are her husband who already tried to kill her once, his BFFs and the executioner of Lille (a guy who also had a personal gripe against her). Not exactly an impartial jury. They do so based on a stolen document, in a territory where they don't have any authority to do this. Normally the law would be administered by the lord of the land, none of them are lord in that specific area. So it's an angry mob of traitors, with fancy clothes, lynching a loyal agent of her country.
@@Praefectus95 The poisoning is... iffy, however I don't think it's worse than what the Musketeers did and even what Constance herself has done. She also supports the Queen's affair, I get why, that she thinks she's protecting true love and she's loyal to the Queen, but she still does it. Keep in mind that this sort of thing would get you executed for treason back then (e.g. the case of Jane Boleyn, Viscountess Rochford during the reign of Henry VIII of England in 1542, executed for treason because she helped the Queen Katherine Howard have an affair). And sure, Milady's motivation in killing Constance isn't that, it's clear she's doing it for vengeance, but it's not like Constance is an innocent bystander. As for the monk, he himself chose suicide. Sure, it was cold on her part to leave him, true, she's not an angel... at all, but on the other hand she didn't kill him herself. The priest (if I recall correctly he was a priest, not a monk) could have just moved on.
I must have watched both movies at least a HUNDRED times ... I know most of the dialogues by heart ... but i DON'T KNOW this scene. Where does it come from ...? Are there different versions of these two movies, or what ...?
Oliver Reed was a very inconsistent actor, but he was brilliant as the drunken guilt-ridden Athos. His portrayal of the character hasn't been matched before or since. Richard Lester's two films set the gold standard for swashbucklers during this period.
The scene that makes every feminist suffer an catastrophic system error. For anyone else, this scene illustrates a very important lesson; the danger of mercy. Had they let this daemonic woman go free, she would have wreaked havoc in their lives and in the lives of other. People like Milady are a dangerous force of nature. They will never learn, and they will never stop what they do. Male or female, we must ever be on our guard against these creatures.
I see your point, but I think mercy is never dangerous - there is a difference between vengeance and justice. Mercy can make a difference between penalty and torture. I see Mylady as you do - as a dangerous person, with a personality disorder (in modern words). She deserves to be judged and kept locked. I, as an anti death penalty advocate, cannot see anyone deserving death, man or a woman. That said, in those times there probably was not another option of a penalty than death in her case. That is why, I think, they did not kill her themselves, but paid an executioner to do it. And she acknowledges it in the end (in the book, she says "I am lost, I must die").
I love this movie, but what about "It was a dark and stormy night" quote from Dumas at the beginning of the trial chapter? Why this sunny day that ruines all the incredible darkness of this scene?
To glamdolly20: Thank you so much for your kind comments about my post. The issues concerning the skullduggery about the fast one that the studio tried to pull concerning the making of "The Four Musketeers" are doubly striking because almost everyone in the cast was an A-list star at the time, and thus, one might have thought, too big to be taken advantage of so shamelessly. (Even Frank Finley, who played Porthos, and was probably the least-known cast member in the United States, was a prominent member of the Royal Shakespeare Company, having played Iago to Laurence Olivier's Othello. How many actors can say, not only that they co-starred with Olivier, but that they had more lines than him?) As a lifelong rabid Anglophile, may I ask: where in England do you live? I'm in York, Pennsylvania myself. (We're right across the Susquehanna River from Lancaster, so we can reenact the War of the Roses if we ever get bored).
HA! I'm from the Pittsburgh area, but never thought about the connection between York and Lancaster before. Perhaps for a special Renaissance Faire someday? :)
@@jedironin380 We also have two tributes to FRENCH royalty in our area. The town of Marietta, which is just across the river from me, was named after Marie Antoinette, while the county where Harrisburg is located is named Dauphin County, after the elder of Louis XVI's and Marie's two sons. Unfortunately, the poor child died of a spinal disorder at the age of eight in 1789, leaving his younger brother to become "Louis XVII" (in name only) after his father was guillotined. Both of these names were tributes to the French royal family, without whose financial and military support we would probably never have beaten the British. (Funny how few American schools ever mention that fact).
@@jedironin380 I assume you've heard the old quatrain: "Cecil B.DeMille, Much against his will, Was persuaded to leave Moses Out of the War of the Roses." Now THAT belongs at a Renaissance Faire!
I'm surprised the film didn't make more of what was in the book. I always felt the Milady character could have been more passionate in the film (for example, her appeal to D'Artagnan to save her, and his emotional conflict over it "I can't see her die like this", which is not featured here). In the book, she is strongly psychopathic and a force of nature, terrifying. Also, given her personality, I'm surprised even the book didn't feature her putting up a fight - because if, for example, there had been an opportunity between just myself and the executioner, I would have kicked the executioner's head in, tied hands or no tied hands.
@@glamdolly30 Oh yeah, risk your life to save a psychotic murderer who manipulates and puts men in a trance with her charm and beauty so she can carry on her evil crimes to others without any real remorse, as she's been faking emotions to get her way without a second thought. Are you kidding me? She had to die otherwise more innocents would be lead astray because of her and there'd be countless other murders.
@@Disneyfan82 You misunderstood what I wrote. I meant if I were Milady, being rowed across a lake to my execution, I would jump into the water - even though that would risk my drowning, because my hands were tied - rather than just let my killer take me to the place he would decapitate me! Wouldn't you? If you jumped out of the boat you might have some tiny chance of escape - but stick with the axeman and your minutes on earth are numbered!
@@marygoodnight8892 Stop acting like Milady did nothing wrong after everything evil she did to others with no remorse. It makes you sound like a naïve idiotic fool.
The menace delivered by Reed's Athos to York's D'artagnan is some of the finest acting of the 70s. Splendid genius.
To be honest, when I saw these films in the theatre I didn't much like the way the second one became so dark and so serious. However I was deeply impressed by the way it all turned out, and the way it matured young D'Artagnan. These two films greatly influenced how I viewed films, particularly those adapted from famous works of literature. Thanks for posting.
I love how these two movies begin as a comedic adventure and end on this utterly somber note.
My two favorite movies.
The look of sadness in athos as he speaks to the executioner is brilliant fantastic Oliver Reed and the rest of this amazing cast bring so much realism to these films better than any other versions in my eyes.
No other version compares. All other versions are Hollywood, this is an adaption of the book.
Absolutely there is bo comparison.
ua-cam.com/video/78HTbYpS1vQ/v-deo.html
BEST MUSKETEERS FILM EVER
truly
was there another ?
This scene and this idea of executing this woman has, in recent years, become controversial. However, I think that any reader of this great tale must bear in mind what lesson Dumas, in my reading of the story, wished to impart. Milady represents a psychopathic entity. Creatures like this look human, but they are not. They cannot change their ways, and they will always, always hurt those whom they latch on to.
What this scene illustrates to me is that when exposed, these things must be totally removed from your life. Had they let Milady go free, she would never have rested until she destroyed the lives of these men, and many others besides. That is the lesson for me
They want to kill her and save their lifes, she wants to kill their. What is the lesson: 4 (or 10) men are more powerful then one woman? P.S. I thiks, if milady became countess deWardes, she have rested and never recall anybode in her past.
The tale of the fox and the scorpion.
The death penalty is controversial, and in real life there are and were ways of stopping murderers without killing them. However, Milady wasn't a real life character. She was over the top and larger than life. She was an ice-cold, intelligent she-devil, hellbent on revenge, and this made her extremely dangerous. She had already been shown as capable of escaping from prison. Prison wouldn't hold her. You have to view this scene in that context. I'm against the death penalty irl, but I don't mind the scene as at this point the viewers are convinced that death is the only thing that will stop this particular fictional character. Very few if any like her exist in real life, so it's not really applicable.
I also think that this idea that you have to morally agree with something for it to be shown, is misguided. Leave the viewers to think for themselves.
Plus, the execution is portrayed as slightly morally ambiguous in the movie (if not in the book). The Musketeers are not seen as all-out heroes in this version, and you do get a sense they don't really have the right to do what they are doing. Or maybe they do, formally, because of the times, but they certainly couldn't have done it today. As Milady actually rightly points out: She doesn't get a fair trial.
I don't accept her as psychopathic; Milady is fully knowledgeable that her past may catch up with her, so in the meantime she is taking whatever advantage of whatever situation avails her. This is not psychopathy, merely opportunism. Her murder of Constance is simple revenge on yet another man she sees as having wronged her. Milady never wronged those who facilitated her position, only those who got in the way of her ambitions. I don't sympathize, however; she gets her just due for her deeds.
Athos gave her an opportunity to dismiss her revenge, but she was too single minded to take him seriously.
Oliver Reed was outstanding in both these movies , the whole cast were on top form . Both excellent movies
Oliver Reed was so handsome!
Great actor, too. Didn't matter who was in the scene with him - he'd steal the show. You'd only be watching him.
@@johnt7630 True.
He had me head over heals in Oliver! 😍
Saw this on TV in 1989 when Reed was at a nadir personally and professionally and thought, "Holy shit, he can really act!"
I am something of a nut when it comes to the original "The Three Musketeers"; but this sequel gives me several problems (possibly because it was pasted together from footage shot during the making of the first film, when the cast weren't even aware that they were MAKING a second movie).
Three cavils:
1. D'Artagnan has several encounters with Milady de Winter in the first film; but a good deal of the plot of the second hinges upon him not recognizing her. It's also rather odd that, when Buckingham apprehends her in England, he makes no reference to their earlier tryst, when she stole the two diamond studs; a crime which led him to refer to her at the time as a "French trollop";
2. It doesn't say much for the sex life of the Comte de la Fere (Athos) and Milady that they had what was supposedly a passionately happy marriage, and yet he somehow never noticed a fleur-de-lis the size of a baseball burned into her shoulder, until the day she fell from her horse. (This problem also exists in the Dumas novel, as I recall);
3. The Comte is right in saying that, by the feudal laws that still governed 17th-century France, his status as a noble gave him judicial powers over those persons in his demesne (a category that would definitely include his wife). However, those powers were to be exercised within the context of a manorial court, in which he would sit as judge. Such courts had their own protocols and procedures, and DID accord the accused certain rights.(Milady is thus correct when she cries, "Take me before a court! It is my right!"). Even under the "ancien regime", a noble couldn't simply hold a kangaroo court out in the middle of nowhere, made up of unqualified people (Porthos, Aramis, and D'Artagnan aren't even nobles), and then blithely order someone's death.
Even with these objections, there are some good things in this film (to begin with, you simply can't go TOO wrong with this choice cast). The final meeting between Richelieu and D'Artagnan -- Realpolitik meets moral suasion -- is a gem, and the scenes in which Milady seduces Felton -- appealing at one and the same time to his gonads, his Protestant faith, and his English patriotism -- is REALLY something. Dostoyevsky would have been proud to have written it.
Great and mind bogglingly detailed post, bravo! You make me want to watch both Musketeers movies again - it's years since I've seen them. They used to appear on TV quite regularly at Christmas and Bank Holidays, as I recall. Sadly these old blockbuster films rarely get an outing on terrestrial telly anymore. Shame. I doubt there will ever be an all-star cast to match the calibre of these movies!
Incidentally, you raised the bizarre true story about the sequel being a cobbled together add-on, exploiting much unused material from the first movie. Apparently the actors were in the dark about a sequel and as a result, weren't properly paid for it. Seems the powers that be tried to use the actors on a 'two-films-for-the-price-of-one' basis. But guess what - Racquel Welch was onto them, and her agent kicked up a stink and made sure that she - and following on from her triumph, the rest of the cast - were properly remunerated for the second movie. It looks suspiciously like dirty dealing by the powers that be. I wonder if Richard Lester was in on it?
If you read the book you'll find that the Three Musketeers and the Four Musketeers are fairly faithful to the story.
Good objections. To me only the first one really bothers me when watching the movies (which I absolutely love). Can't believe they didn't pick up on it while filming. The second one - okay, although it's unlikely, I guess I can believe she made an excuse to never remove the black band around her arm (although d'Artagnan discovered it immediately when _he_ slept with her😂). The third one I don't mind at all, it just adds to the moral ambiguity. Milady was a psychopath, but the Musketeers in this version were never all-out heroes. Athos wasn't an all-out hero. That's part of what I love about these movies; Lester takes a partly critical view of these upper-class adventurers. So this is kind in character for them. The fact that Milady has a point, and that you can see d'Artagnan having moral qualms about what they are doing, only makes it more interesting to me.
@monmothma3358 Excellent points all around. Your observation about the moral ambiguity of the characters is spot-on, and is why Dumas' works are really NOVELS, not just romantic swashbucklers. The cast incarnated these complexities to perfection, nowhere more so than when Milady tells Athos that she intends to kill D'Artagnan because "he has insulted me." "In God's name, how would it be possible for anyone to insult YOU, madam?' A life -- of pain, of betrayal, of outraged honor -- is in that line.
@@tadimaggio Thanks! You know, it's been so long since I read the book that I've been thinking that the ambiguity and complexity was something these movies added. (And former/later movie versions took away.) However from yours and other posts I'm starting to realize it was already there in the novel. Not Lester and Fraser. Dumas. I may have to reread it.
It's too bad you don't like the sequel movie. Do you really think it was "pasted together", almost like an afterthought? I thought that it was planned to be two movies from the start, they didn't inform the cast, which is bad of course, but they themselves knew.
I don't think it's worse than the first (despite the plot holes you rightly bring up), it's just darker. Helped by a more melancholy score (I love _both_ of the scores, which is itself a miracle 😄). And perhaps reflecting d'Artagnan's character growth. I love that they manage to have such light humor in the first and part of the second, and still manage to pull off the serious and sad elements.
This quote stands-in memory from The Four Musketeers (1974). _"By my order and for the good of the state, the bearer has done what has been done."_
It's in the book too.
Milady is the most interesting character of the tale. She is so beautiful and smart that face against men in a world dominated from men and she wins. She fights and she is killed. But her charme remains in the mind of the reader more than D’Artagnan and others. She is comparable to the Cardinal like strength and presence.
She's interesting, as one of the coldest villains in literature, but she's not someone to be admired, just because she wins (until she loses).
It is an incredible movie with an amazing cast.
did anyone else have trouble with the sound?
You weren't alone with the issue. Pam. Also it's a shame that the clip didn't have the axeman moaning about having to row the boat over to execute her. And if my memory serves me well it was Athos (Oliver Reed) that paid him the extras. On a footnote if there's anyone Stateside who knows the motto of the United States Army Criminal Investigation Command please enlighten all.
Always Out Front
Has anyone here actually read the book? It will answer all questions and set aside conjecture.
I just finished it!!
there's an idea;-}
Poor Athos. ;(
She was absolutely gorgeous
Why should D'Artagnan try saving her now after what she did to Constance?
She was in her prime. Wicked and bad to the bone. Yet undeniably prime.
She knew he was the only one she could look for mercy, cause he was still young (not broken yet. still believed in values like justice, mercy etc.) and of pure heart.
He was in love with her.
He is comte de la Fere and he has the right of high. medium and low justice.
From what I’ve gathered, this film was made after the film was finished. It is implied that Athos shot her offscreen (the FOUR. Novelization states this resolution). But several people saw the preview and felt Milady deserved a more visible end, so they got everyone back to film this scene. I do remember a print that aired on TV in the mid 1990s omitted the scene.
Really? I never knew. I agree she needed a bigger end, with everything she had done. It's also closer to the book. I wonder how Faye felt being unexpectedly called back to be on "trial" and get "executed"..
You know of the Salkind Clause? Everyone was contracted into doing one long film. Then the Salkinds decided to split the film into two films. The cast sued: two released films means double the pay. In her autobiography, Faye mentioned being asked to film more scenes, so she was probably adamant that she get paid for it. The Salkind Clause is the obligation that any filming that will be released in two parts requires two salaries for the cast and crew.
@@agerard6297 Yes, I'm well aware of that story and the clause. I was more wondering about her reaction to the content of this specific scene, if she didn't even originally know it was going to be included.
DUnaway was great!!! and quite lovely
Brilliant films great actors
Great scene, but poor video quality.
Sorry! I made a video direct from the tv on my iPad!
Mangano75
Well, have to give you credit for doing it. Otherwise I wouldn't be able to see it, at all. Thanks.
Gift horses...
I've never seen the film, but I have read the book. I always saw her as a good character. She is actually doing her job as a loyal agent of her country, while the musketeers are traitors. Her trial is a sham. Why? She goes on different missions serving her country, the most important being at the end: the assassination of the enemy commander Buckingham, because of her action her country wins the siege of La Rochelle and enemy reinforcements no longer arrive. Meanwhile the musketeers plot with the queen and that same Buckingham. That is aiding and abetting the enemy. In one scene in the books, a letter is found from the queen to the Spanish king asking him to invade France. The French queen is asking a foreign leader to invade France... If that's not treason, I don't know what is! Even by the standards of that period. And the musketeers side with her and an enemy of their country (even if they're not exactly enthusiastic about Buckingham, they still do it).
Why is the trial a sham? The judges are her husband who already tried to kill her once, his BFFs and the executioner of Lille (a guy who also had a personal gripe against her). Not exactly an impartial jury. They do so based on a stolen document, in a territory where they don't have any authority to do this. Normally the law would be administered by the lord of the land, none of them are lord in that specific area. So it's an angry mob of traitors, with fancy clothes, lynching a loyal agent of her country.
That's why her execution has only happened in fiction. As only few knows, she was a real historical person...
Longlive to milady:)
Wait, how did you view her poisoning Constance and abandoning the monk to kill himself?
@@Praefectus95 The poisoning is... iffy, however I don't think it's worse than what the Musketeers did and even what Constance herself has done. She also supports the Queen's affair, I get why, that she thinks she's protecting true love and she's loyal to the Queen, but she still does it. Keep in mind that this sort of thing would get you executed for treason back then (e.g. the case of Jane Boleyn, Viscountess Rochford during the reign of Henry VIII of England in 1542, executed for treason because she helped the Queen Katherine Howard have an affair). And sure, Milady's motivation in killing Constance isn't that, it's clear she's doing it for vengeance, but it's not like Constance is an innocent bystander.
As for the monk, he himself chose suicide. Sure, it was cold on her part to leave him, true, she's not an angel... at all, but on the other hand she didn't kill him herself. The priest (if I recall correctly he was a priest, not a monk) could have just moved on.
Dumas wrote some amazing stories.
I must have watched both movies at least a HUNDRED times ... I know most of the dialogues by heart ... but i DON'T KNOW this scene. Where does it come from ...? Are there different versions of these two movies, or what ...?
Not really. The german version just doesn't include this scene. I guess they judged it too dark considering the tone they went for at dubbing.
Oliver Reed was a very inconsistent actor, but he was brilliant as the drunken
guilt-ridden Athos. His portrayal of the character hasn't been matched before
or since.
Richard Lester's two films set the gold standard for swashbucklers during
this period.
Rob Jones I disagree but Kiefer Sutherland will never get the credit he deserves for his Athos because its a Disney movie so people mock it
Oh yes, I loved him even as a young teenager when the movie first came out. Kiefer Sutherland is well cast in the 1993 version, I like this movie more
@@aprilgosa5779 also for his acting in 24, but without the costume
Inconsisten in the choice of films, for sure, but always commanding and impeccable in his acting. Even in the crappiest film, he is a force of nature
Beautiful film...l love richard chamberlain..💝💝💝💝💝💝💝💝💝💝💝💝💝💝💝💝💝💝💝💝💝💝
The scene that makes every feminist suffer an catastrophic system error.
For anyone else, this scene illustrates a very important lesson; the danger of mercy. Had they let this daemonic woman go free, she would have wreaked havoc in their lives and in the lives of other. People like Milady are a dangerous force of nature. They will never learn, and they will never stop what they do. Male or female, we must ever be on our guard against these creatures.
I see your point, but I think mercy is never dangerous - there is a difference between vengeance and justice. Mercy can make a difference between penalty and torture. I see Mylady as you do - as a dangerous person, with a personality disorder (in modern words). She deserves to be judged and kept locked. I, as an anti death penalty advocate, cannot see anyone deserving death, man or a woman.
That said, in those times there probably was not another option of a penalty than death in her case. That is why, I think, they did not kill her themselves, but paid an executioner to do it. And she acknowledges it in the end (in the book, she says "I am lost, I must die").
I love this movie, but what about "It was a dark and stormy night" quote from Dumas at the beginning of the trial chapter? Why this sunny day that ruines all the incredible darkness of this scene?
To glamdolly20: Thank you so much for your kind comments about my post. The issues concerning the skullduggery about the fast one that the studio tried to pull concerning the making of "The Four Musketeers" are doubly striking because almost everyone in the cast was an A-list star at the time, and thus, one might have thought, too big to be taken advantage of so shamelessly. (Even Frank Finley, who played Porthos, and was probably the least-known cast member in the United States, was a prominent member of the Royal Shakespeare Company, having played Iago to Laurence Olivier's Othello. How many actors can say, not only that they co-starred with Olivier, but that they had more lines than him?)
As a lifelong rabid Anglophile, may I ask: where in England do you live? I'm in York, Pennsylvania myself. (We're right across the Susquehanna River from Lancaster, so we can reenact the War of the Roses if we ever get bored).
HA! I'm from the Pittsburgh area, but never thought about the connection between York and Lancaster before. Perhaps for a special Renaissance Faire someday? :)
@@jedironin380
We also have two tributes to FRENCH royalty in our area. The town of Marietta, which is just across the river from me, was named after Marie Antoinette, while the county where Harrisburg is located is named Dauphin County, after the elder of Louis XVI's and Marie's two sons. Unfortunately, the poor child died of a spinal disorder at the age of eight in 1789, leaving his younger brother to become "Louis XVII" (in name only) after his father was guillotined. Both of these names were tributes to the French royal family, without whose financial and military support we would probably never have beaten the British. (Funny how few American schools ever mention that fact).
@@jedironin380
I assume you've heard the old quatrain:
"Cecil B.DeMille,
Much against his will,
Was persuaded to leave Moses
Out of the War of the Roses."
Now THAT belongs at a Renaissance Faire!
Stop filming from your own TV and get the real stuff uploaded.
He probably filmed it this way due to copyright issues
Sunday suspense brought me here😌
I'm surprised the film didn't make more of what was in the book. I always felt the Milady character could have been more passionate in the film (for example, her appeal to D'Artagnan to save her, and his emotional conflict over it "I can't see her die like this", which is not featured here). In the book, she is strongly psychopathic and a force of nature, terrifying.
Also, given her personality, I'm surprised even the book didn't feature her putting up a fight - because if, for example, there had been an opportunity between just myself and the executioner, I would have kicked the executioner's head in, tied hands or no tied hands.
I'd have jumped in the lake halfway across, even risking drowning as her hands were tied, rather than meekly accompany an axeman to my execution!
@@glamdolly30 Oh yeah, risk your life to save a psychotic murderer who manipulates and puts men in a trance with her charm and beauty so she can carry on her evil crimes to others without any real remorse, as she's been faking emotions to get her way without a second thought. Are you kidding me? She had to die otherwise more innocents would be lead astray because of her and there'd be countless other murders.
@@Disneyfan82 You misunderstood what I wrote. I meant if I were Milady, being rowed across a lake to my execution, I would jump into the water - even though that would risk my drowning, because my hands were tied - rather than just let my killer take me to the place he would decapitate me! Wouldn't you? If you jumped out of the boat you might have some tiny chance of escape - but stick with the axeman and your minutes on earth are numbered!
@@Disneyfan82 And the Musketeers didn't murder anyone? Oh no, I misunderstood - they would have just "killed" someone.
@@marygoodnight8892 Stop acting like Milady did nothing wrong after everything evil she did to others with no remorse. It makes you sound like a naïve idiotic fool.
Wow, I never knew that Darth Vader had a beard! Or maybe it was just crummy sound . . ?
They omitted a great line.....by the executioner....after rowing back and getting paid...he wanted more $$.."I'm a headsman, not a sailor"
Does anyone know where was the execution scene shot?
I recall the film was shot in Spain.
1975?
4
After what happened to Constance, how could D’Artagnon even think of helping the Countess de Winter?
Because he is good person. They are executing her without any trial.
OK, question, why did he take her over to the other side of water in order to whack her?
Scott Grimes
Perhaps so the filmmaker didn't have to show to detailed what happened. They stabb a lot in this movie, but you don't see blood !
Because it’s in the book.
Thank God that half of this is fiction, and Milady never got executed in the real story, i mean history and not the book
The headsmen, known by everyone present, he needed a mask, like a stop-signal a rabbit!
she had it coming!
Pobre Milady, simplemente era mala 😖
Terrible sound...
They would prevent all the deaths if D'Artanian killed her back when he discovered the lilly on her arm...
Just saying...
She was prettier in 13 at Dinner
I cant see clearly. Is she be headed or what ?
Sound of ax falling in background...
is de Winter really killed? I imagine her offering her body to her executioner, and money, too.
The porthos character was too small and whimpish.
Comic relief