Cyrano de Bergerac (1990)

Instant Favorite.

hyped garbage

Highly Overrated But Still Good

It is not deep, but it is fun to watch. It does have a bit more of an edge to it than other similar films.

This film is important to understand: the french culture, the french history and the french literary style. This film is original in its plot...it would be perfect for a play. But as a movie, it can be a bit boring...partly because it describes a period of time that is quite ancient therefore the action scenes have a hard time rivaling with the special effect movies of modern era. Nevertheless, women might enjoy it very much, given its romance theme and perhaps some men might be inspired to develop their seductive skills. Worth a peak.

Embarrassed by his large nose, a romantic poet/soldier (Gerard Depardieu) romances his cousin (Anne Brochet) by proxy.The story of Cyrano has been told many times, and there are a number of film adaptations. Perhaps best known is Steve Martin in "Roxanne", which is a little heavier on the comedy and much lighter on the sword fighting. Well, you know, you will have that.This version has an advantage that few have: it is French. That gives it a bit of weight. And it does not shy away from the fact Cyrano is attracted to his cousin, something that would be removed from any mainstream film (unless used for comedy, as with George Michael Bluth).

Summary : near the middle of the 17th century, Cyrano de Bergerac is the most independent-minded and talented poet, the most feared duelist, and, in the "Cadets de Gascogne" Regiment, one of the most valorous military men on the place of Paris.Yet, secretly, he feels miserable...Deeply in love for years with his cousin, the radiantly beautiful Roxanne, he never confessed it to anyone, including the beauty herself, for fear of ridicule...For this hero has a terrible flaw : his hideous, overgrown, cartilaginous nose, destroying forever his chances to live a normal life.One day however, Cyrano's routine of hiding his sorrow behind his pride is turned upside down : Roxanne wants to talk to him...Trembling with a mix of fear, hope and excitement, he goes to the rendezvous, only to learn that Roxanne is in love with a handsome young man, Christian de Neuvilette ; Christian is to incorporate the Cadets de Gascogne, and, not being a Gascon himself, she fears he may be roughed up or worse and is asking for Cyrano's protection, which he gallantly promises, accepting his defeat with secret despair.But in those days to be handsome wasn't enough and to win the heart of a "precious" meant to master the art of eloquence, and Christian, as chivalrous as he is, not only has none, but doesn't understand that it should be needed so badly when a man an a woman are already inclined to each other, risking to lose Roxanne with his directness.Cyrano decides to help Christian in wooing Roxanne, through his utmost brilliance in eloquence ; he'll be his voice at their secret rendezvous, his hand in writing his love letters...But won't he risk burning his proverbial wings getting closer and closer to what has been his personal sun for so many years? From then on you should watch the film without knowing too much, for it is a masterpiece on so many levels. The end, particularly, has drawn oceans of tears from hundreds of millions of eyes (the play book is a best-seller).But before giving my own appreciation on the film, one has to know the following facts : - There was actually a Cyrano de Bergerac, in the middle of the 17th century, and, except for the love story, he was EXACTLY what he is portrayed in the film, and perhaps even more interestingly so, in that he is considered a precursor of the enlightment and perhaps agnosticism ; he composed also incredibly touching poems about nature, yet one just needs to know that the most historically accurate fact in the film is his famous fight, and victory, against one hundred henchmen at the Porte de Buci, which was related by many written accounts of the time, to understand that he was a larger than life, extraordinary character.The french play writer Edmond Rostand, by the end of the XIX century became engrossed with this almost forgotten historical figure, and decided to revive him in a play, adding a love plot, using the historically attested, enormous but not particularly ugly, nose of Cyrano, as the catalyst for the story. The play was instantly a triumph and never ceased so, despite a curious use of the metric and some arguably convoluted verses, but the emotion is so there that no one in his mind can resist it ; this play is almost entirely respected in the film, verse for verse.Now the film in itself : first, hats off to Jean-Paul Rappeneau for his recreation of XVII th century Paris : it isn't a film played in this era, it is a film LIVED in this era ; one must watch it to believe it! it's an absolute shock, never have I felt such an immersion in time! the costumes, the streets, the houses, the light, the settings, the people, everything feels (and probably is) authentic.But especially hats off to Gérard Depardieu, who has understood the character so well, turning his frustration into bursts of pure fury, yet showing the widest palette of emotions, the deepest gallantry, the deepest sorrow, with such delicacy...If it were just for his act, one should watch the film. it's not for nothing that this is considered his career's pinnacle.I have only two negative remarks to make : First, Anne Brochet as Roxanne isn't convincing enough in my opinion, and she isn't as radiantly beautiful as I would have liked, but her role is difficult (who wouldn't be turned off eventually by such a pretentious lady nowadays?), and she acts magnificently during the end scene.Second, the fight scenes with Gérard Depardieu are more reminiscent of his role to come as Obelix, rather as to the finest fencer of his day ; now, one has to understand that the real Cyrano was only twenty when he did all his exploits, before being gravely injured on battle at twenty-two, and that good old Gégé was probably well in his thirties in the film...For the rest : a must watch, absolutely. If the end doesn't draw tears from your eyes, please contact Area 51 for you must be an Alien.

Cyrano de Bergerac (1990)This is Gerard Depardieu's shining moment in an up and down career. Some say the movie makes a blur of the subtle writing and emotional power of the original play by Edmond Rostand of the same title, written in 1897. And as much as the English version by Jose Ferrar (1950) is the acclaimed English language version, the play was originally French. And it's all in verse, including the subtitles, which in this case use the translation by Anthony Burgess (of Clockwork Orange fame).But the story, the story. It's all about the simple amazing plot (about which Rostand was convicted, on slim evidence, of stealing from a Chicago amateur writer). The year is something like 1680, in France. A man of great talent and fighting skill, a deep emotional life and poetic sensibility, and also with a gigantic nose, is in love with Roxane. This is poor Cyrano, who has everything but good looks. And Roxane happens to be in love with a very good looking young man who is a bit of a talentless fool. Cyrano, out of love for Roxane, steps in to help the fool by writing letters for him that succeed in wooing the beautiful Roxane.If this sounds like that crazy movie called "Roxane" starring Steve Martin, well, you've got it. That's the Cyrano story, and Martin's movie sort of kicked off the contemporary deluge of Cyrano movies in 1987 (three years before this one). Of course his is a comedy, and there are some changes from the play and this 1990 version, which tries even in its grandiose production to be true to the tightly written and scripted original.It's all pretty terrific. In a way, if you like Shakespeare, it's the play that holds the whole thing back a bit, lacking, oddly enough, complexity. An example is the funny but thin asides with the cake maker who wants to be a poet. There is no shortage of characters, there is a constant turning of events, and it does never quite ever slow down, but the main trick and drama of the situation is so central and gripping you end up waiting for it to find some kind of denouement or twist and surprise. And you do eventually get that, with great beauty and pathos (this is no comedy). But that's sort of all you get, in terms of narrative flow.And that's almost all you need, I have to admit. This production pulls out all the stops, and scene after scene is amazing in its set design and lighting, in its huge range of characters and gritty lovely evocation of 17th Century France. You could watch a bad play with such sets. And the photography is fluid, active, and formally terrific, too, which layers up the ongoing beauty of the filming. And Depardieu is terrific in his bloated, leading man way (I say this because he has detractors, those who have seen searing and cutting intensity in stage versions, but I have nothing to compare it to except Steve Martin). The two other main characters are actually a drag overall, and avoidably, I should think, with all the talent being lavishly expended. Roxane is more delighted than delightful, ornamentally pretty but also so stiff emotionally you wonder what all the fuss is about. And the foolish pretty boy is probably meant to be a bit shallow as a character, but it does leave his parts a little cardboard.Anyway, I overthink this. See the movie. If you don't like subtitles, see the American one from 1950. Don't think the Steve Martin one is enough. For one thing, the original ending is one of the most moving and memorable in all of cinema. For me, the Depardieu version of this last great scene is unmatched.