Cyrano, My Love

Honestly, this is the first time i even heard the name Edmond Rostand in relation to his epic theatre piece Cyrano de Bergerac. Nonetheless, I can say with certainty that i've learned something new about Cyrano, his maker and the fact that french cinema can be funny too at times, because most of the time it is NOT. The French sense of humour is very much unfunny most of the time. I still think the French associate a 'good mood' with humour or comedy, instead of laughs, gags or situational comedy. Anyway, this movie was pretty good. I liked its pace, costumes and music. One has to compare it to Shakespeare In Love because the story is pretty much the same. The main difference for me was that I didn't find the main actors annoying in any way, whereas in SIL I pretty much found everyone to be annoying - for example Paltrow, Fiennes, Affleck just to name a few. 6.8/10 still not a masterpiece but very watchable.

Paris, 1897. It has been two years since the young Edmond Rostand, poet and playwright, has run out of inspiration. One day, on a whim, he offers a role to the great actor Coquelin aîné, that of Cyrano de Bergerac. The trouble is that Edmond hasn't written the beginning of a line. But a promise is a promise and, inspired by what happens in his surroundings, and carried by his gift for poetic language, he gradually produces lines in which no one believes but which will prove to be the framework of an immortal masterpiece. The initial idea, to make Edmond Rostand the hero of a play and then of its filmed adaptation, is simply wonderful. Because, if his "Cyrano de Bergerac" was staged and filmed more than often, there had been little interest in his person on the screen before this particular movie. You can see the writer as himself in Sacha Guitry's documentary, "Ceux de chez nous" (1915), as part of a gallery of great artists and writers, and that's all. He could be imagined a little stiff and pompous, which is most unlikely if you consider his linguistic agility, Alexis Michalik does not see him like that anyway : the Rostand he shows us is young, full of life but shy, inspired but overwhelmed by events. Please do not take the film literally but what it actualy is, never claiming to be historical, it is rather a fantasy full of spirit and vivacity around the figure of Edmond Rostand. And even if what happens in it is not an exact reflection of reality, "Edmond" happily explores the field of inspiration, of the gestation of a work, of the influence of the immediate environment on its content at the time of its making. It would be a mistake to be picky about such intelligent and well-paced entertainment, interpreted with contagious glee by a homogeneous troupe. As a tribute, both humorous and sensitive, to a great creator, to theater, to entertainment and to love, "Edmond" is irresistible.

Voilà un film dont on ne peut rien dire vraiment car il est parfait, tel que nous ne pouvons que le rêver de bout en bout, alors pourquoi alourdir le verdict d'une dissection décortiquante. Bien sûr que nous portons en mémoire cinq ou six versions de cette pièce que nous avons vues dans des théâtres ou au cinéma. Bien sûr que nous ne pouvons que penser à Depardieu, mais ici le rôle étant explosé entre la vie réelle et la pièce, entre l'auteur, Edmond Rostand qui crée et invente la pièce, lettre à lettre, et dieu sait s'il en écrit beaucoup, certainement plus de trois car SOT n'est pas dans notre univers, et d'autre part un de ses amis qui jouera un second rôle et qui est amoureux d'une actrice et ne sait pas lui faire la cour, ami de Cyrano dans la pièce (et la vie réelle il y a fort longtemps ?), et enfin le Cyrano dans la pièce, le Cyrano historique Constant Coquelin, bien sûr joué par un autre acteur vivant, lui. Le plus amusant est que le film n'hésite pas à citer une ou deux fois Daniel Mesguich et son éternel éphémère, et la trappe est un tour que ce Daniel Mesguich a souvent utilisé dans son inspiration farcesque de boulevard. Mais surtout quelque part nous nous y perdons dans les temps, et le seul temps qui ne se propulse pas sur scène est le temps du vrai Cyrano de Bergerac au 17ème siècle, sinon une épitaphe que nous nous devons de tous connaître. Mais il est bien sûr que Cyrano n'est que le prétexte pour parler d'Edmond Rostand qui a perdu dans la brume de ce monde son frère, le grand spécialiste qui disséquait des grenouilles, vivantes bien sûr, Jean Rostand. Mais c'était un temps troublé, la troisième république qui se finit en 1939 et qui offrit quatre années de boucherie guerrière à la fin de la vie de notre Edmond Rostand. Mais Jean Rostand devait ne pas être bien loin. Mais il est sûr que l'on nous mène en bateau sur la Seine, à la godille plus qu'à la rame, et que les lieux ne sont pas tous, loin de là, vraiment ceux que l'on vous dit. Le théâtre de la Porte Saint- Martin prend à la fin une ampleur qui ressemble plutôt à un Palais Royal. Mais qu'importe le flacon pourvu qu'on ait l'ivresse, j'entends l'absinthe. Dr. Jacques COULARDEAU

It is a comedy set in the Paris of 1897 when the author of previous unsuccessful drama plays has the opportunity to write in a very short time a comedy about Cyrano de Bergerac (actual historic figure made of soldiery, science, poetry... incarnation of French "panache" a classy and brave way to win and lose, with perpetuatal pride). It is a comedy with the interactions of the author and the comedians, the producers, the audience... the inspiration found in a muse. A vivid comedy, an homage to theatre. Do not expect perfect faithfulness to historical events. To fully appreciate what the pkay Cyrano is you should watch the eponym brilliant 1989 movie CYRANO DE BERGERAC with Gerard DEPARDIEU in what is probably is best part, up to now.

I really was looking forward to seeing this movie and I quite enjoy it, although I had to switch my suspension of disbelief willingly at many different moments. When you know how much research Rostand put into his characters and the era that the play is set in, you can't really believe that it just came to him by accident as he stumbles on a courageous cafe owner, a mask from commedia dell'arte or a cute little theatre helper. The shortcuts to creation make for a movie with a fast pace but that has very little to do with historical reality. Still, Thomas Solivérès is charming and Olivier Gourmet steals every scene he's in, Leeb as Volny is just the right amount of cockiness and Mathilde Seigner is great too! I had a harder time believing in Lucie Boujenah's Jeanne, maybe because the quasi love story feels forced and there's no real chemistry between her and neither of the two men concerned. You can still see the movie for the pleasure of the recreation of the ambiance in a theatre troop preparing for a play that's not even written and is opening in a few weeks... but if you have to choose, you'll do much better with the Cyrano movie with Gerard Depardieu, a real masterpiece.

I'm pretty sure that this movie has only the haziest relationship to the real events and people that led to the production of the first performance of Cyrano, but it doesn't matter: this movie is a wonderful and farcical backstage comedy that does the same thing as "Shakespeare in Love" - honoring and illuminating the creative process that produced one of the great classics. The references and correspondences between the events back- and off-stage to the actual play are there (writing letters to another man's love, the balcony scene, etc.) but one can see Rostand battering this material into shape. Great performances by all, especially by the Cyrano and Roxanne (the final Roxanne, that is!). One of the many fun things in the film is knowing who will end up playing which part in the first performance; the initial miscasting in almost every role is funny, and you wait for the musical chairs to begin. Finally, the staging of the glorious final scene in the convent is a wonder - it's not obvious, but clear, that all of a sudden, the actors and the sets have changed to be the imagined reality that brings the audience into the imaginary world of the play. All of a sudden, we're not in a theater with scuzzy sets and raggy costumes any more.

Why is the title in English but the movie is in French? CC is in just English and Spanishl. Not in French? In case you are wondering, it is a spoof. There are too many things going wrong that are warped into right for me. Everybody misunderstands EVERYTHING! But every person's misunderstanding does NOT match anybody else's misunderstanding! And almost every part that an actor is playing they think it is REALLY about them rather than the person they are acting that part. Can something sensical come from nonsense? They do their best to make total nonsense out of a perfectly good French novel that makes a lot of sense. So in the end they make it so that out of Chaos comes Perfect Order.

This Film is one of the greatest Films of all times. Bravo !!!

It's pretentious, theatrical in the worst sense and the actors are like cartoons, so exaggerated that it becomes unbearable to watch. You string together lines from Cyrano, set in the making of it, and you are a "genius"? I LOVE the Theatre, imbecile people say as if there's value in adults "acting" in plays. I haven't yet seen any good play, getting free ticket's for year's. Waste of time and of course you just can't see one film nowadays without "the message". Threw up on my mouth when that scene that I dreaded finally arrived. Am I a psychic, do I have a crystal ball where I see the future? Unbelievable that people rate it so high, have all gone mad?

Some of the best, most innovative and some of worst, most narcissistic film (lr play) has been "play within a play" premise. I understand the writer of Edmond was attempting to copy the idea of "Shakespeare in Love." Ultimately though the result is not engaging, or coherent. The premise is good, the result is not. Th dialogue is nowhere near as engaging as Rostand's own work. And the structure and direction don't reflect any talent. I The cinematography and costumes are good. The actors are not without talent. But it just doesn't work