Would you pick anyone else? He was born to play the part. I think the play Cyrano de Bergerac should be more recognised in the UK (expecially the 1990 film). All my friends have never heard of it and i can't find it anywere on DVD. Please reply how you found out about the story and spread the joy!!!!
shareThe character Cyrano had quite a paunch for someone who was obviously so athletic. Was this intentional, or had Depardieu gained that much weight? The acting was so outstanding that it overshadowed that paunch, but it seemed out of place.
Edward
Paleolith, I think you are very close to the reason why I disliked Depardieu in this role. It's purely superficial, I know, but it's impossible to visualize Cyrano and end up with an image of Depardieu's obese, lumbering body, and somehow have that be a realization of my favorite literary hero. I just won't accept it. Can't accept it. It's an impossibility for someone that large to have the prowess and limber fighting ability that makes Cyrano Cyrano. If Cyrano was really as large as Depardieu, when he is called upon to stall De Guiche while Roxanne and Christian wed, the branch with which he descends would have snapped under his massive proportions. Don't get me wrong, Depardieu is a fine actor, but I hate him ruining the images of my favorite characters from French Literature. He already destroyed Dumas (how anyone can read Le Comte Monte Cristo and picture Depardieu in that role, I'll never know. Although he did redeem himself by playing Porthos, although his girth really lends itself to the role, but, but, the film itself was absolute garbage, so I'll take back that endorsement), so it really irked me to watch him destroy another with this. Gerard, please, stick with what you can play.
Also, another problem I had with the film is that Anne Broche is not nearly beautiful enough to play Roxane. Rostand is perfectly transparent with his character description. Roxane is supposed to be the most beautiful woman in Paris. I know these quibbles may seem petty, but come on! A fat, stocky Cyrano (although Gerard is ugly, so he fit that bill) and a plain, non-pretty Roxane made for a rather visual failure.
Interesting points. I don't think it's superficial when the actor fails to match the physical characteristics of a character whose physique is an important part of the role.
The only other film I've seen in which Depardieu has a major role (I was going to say a large role but in this context that's ambiguous) is Jean de Florette. It was made only four years earlier, so presumably his body shape was similar. But in Jean de Florette it doesn't matter, since the character is played as a large and somewhat lumbering man, and the hunchback changes the expected posture. Perhaps it's the postural difference which makes Jean look simply large but makes Cyrano look paunchy.
To me, Anne Brochet fits the part of Roxane well. When Rostand says Roxane is "the most beautiful woman in Paris", he forgets that there is no such thing as "most beautiful". Beauty is in the eye of the beholder -- perhaps not entirely but enough so that no judgment of beauty can be universal. Of course, what we see in a character is a combination of direction, acting, and the appearance of the actress, perhaps in that order. So if you disagree with the portrayal, you should blame Jean-Paul Rappeneau's direction more than Brochet's appearance. At least after allowing for a four-century (or even a fraction thereof) difference in expectations of female beauty, I found it more than believable that the Roxane portrayed would be considered the most beautiful woman in Paris, and certainly that many men would fall in love with her.
Just last week I watched the Matthew Diamond / Kevin Kline / Jennifer Garner version of Cyrano. It is of course in English. I'm sure that if I took the time to study the original, I'd much prefer it in French -- I know enough French that I could do that, but not enough to follow it without prior study, which would take me far longer than watching the movie. But the translation (by Anthony Burgess IIRC) is very good and, I think, works well for an Anglophone audience. Kline plays Cyrano much more warmly than does Depardieu -- a difference which is neither good nor bad, but gives quite a different interpretation to the character. In Kline's portrayal, it's easier to understand Cyrano as the author of love letters but harder to understand his verbal attacks on people. It's strictly a film of a stage performance, but that only emphasizes how little of the scenery in this film is really important. After seeing it, I find that this version loses focus due to taking it off the stage and out into the world.
The main thing I don't like there is Diamond/Garner's portrayal of Roxane. The character comes off as more of a stupid git than the "lover of words and beauty". Later in the performance she is played more as I'd expect from the character. I can't say whether this is more the fault of Garner or of the director -- I've never seen Garner in anything else, though her filmography is not inspiring. To me, she is the Roxane who really does not look the part of "the most beautiful woman in Paris". She looks coarse and unsophisticated.
Edward
Was it just I that pictured Cyrano as rather limber and not nearly as grotesque as he believed himself to be? I've always felt that it was merely Cryano's nose that lent itself to his overall image perception of ugliness and not the rest of his visage or his body. He's so clearly shown to be an expert swordsman, so, by extension, should be in excellent shape. Gerard, on the other hand, is rather unattractive throughout, with a rather large nose that, in my opinion, did not necessarily need a prosthetic to make grotesque.
You're absolutely right. I personally found her unattractive, but I should not extend my idiosyncratic notion of "beauty" to all viewers. I had no distinct qualms with her acting, but, it was difficult to lend credence to her character, since I found it grossly unbelievable that the men of Paris would fall head over heels in love with her. Also, I don't know if it's a fair assertion to state that I cannot impose my contemporary notions of beauty upon an almost 300 year old character. The film itself is a contemporary piece, not one that is meant to be historically accurate. It's true that standards of beauty have changed extravagantly since the days of Rostand, but in my contemporary eyes, she was just too homely for her character to endear itself to me.
I myself have not seen that performance. I myself possess only an elementary level of French knowledge (which I coincidentally gained with the intention of reading Cyrano in it's original entirety). It feels far more organic and the prose flows rather better in French. I've read two translations, Burgess' and Lowell Blair's and I quite prefer the Blair translation over Burgess'. I feel as if Burgess stretched the language of the original in an attempt to replicate the rhyming scale and meter of the original, which made it feel a tad strange while I read it. Blair's just seems a little more fluid and less forced, albeit at the cost of losing the rhyme. However, I digress. Oh, so the taped version is not worth watching? I shall still try to find it if I can, as I do love comparing versions. Although I still haven't found a Cyrano that I have truly loved thus far. Ferrer's Cyrano seemed far too grave, but I prefer it to Depardieu. Honestly, my favorite Cyrano might be Steve Martin's C.D. Bates from Roxanne, although I'm not sure if that counts. I have tried to find Pierre Fresnay's version, but to no avail. I've loved him after watching him in La Grande Illusion years ago. I have a feeling that he might be my favorite Cyrano, if I could only find it!
Thanks for the response,
k.
Was it just I that pictured Cyrano as rather limber
I totally agree. Both Steve Martin and Kevin Kline play him as limber and good-looking despite the nose. They make it much clearer that Cyrano's sense of inadequacy is self-imposed. And yes, I absolutely think that CD Bates counts. Except for the happy ending, it's exactly the same story. That it's set in the late 20th century doesn't matter -- after all, though Rostand nominally set the piece in the 16th century, dramatically it is more at home in the 19th and 20th.
Oh, so the taped version is not worth watching? I shall still try to find it if I can
On the contrary, it absolutely is worth watching. Though I find fault with the portrayal of Roxane, Kline is a top-notch actor, and plays Cyrano with the limber vitality that the character deserves. Most of the other parts are very well played too. Christian is much more obviously just a dumb cluck with a pretty face. I think that some of the intended absurdity comes through better on the stage -- the whole thing seems more transparent. Etc. No, it's not perfect, but I'd rather see it than the Depardieu version. And who knows ... I liked Anne Brochet better than you did, but perhaps you'll like Jennifer Garner better than I did. That kind of thing happens a lot.
Edward
I read the play earlier today, and decided to check out the film. He embodied my vision of Cyrano from start to finish. Cyrano's Gazette scene was the best part. He deserved an Oscar for this.
share
by driscolldoll (Sat Mar 18 2006 04:36:51)
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
Would you pick anyone else? He was born to play the part. I think the play Cyrano de Bergerac should be more recognised in the UK (expecially the 1990 film). All my friends have never heard of it and i can't find it anywere on DVD. Please reply how you found out about the story and spread the joy!!!!
Wonderfully well cast!
share