Armand
and nothing more. for the art of Depardieu to explore and use and give force to the details who defines his character. for Vincent Perez as the lover who ignores the feelings of his friend. for Anne Brochet's performance, subtle and delicate and seductive. a film who reminds old recipes and Rostand's universe. mixture of old fashion romanticism and adventures, high sensibility and profound beauty of sacrifice in name of loyalty . few admirable scenes. and grace of script for rebirth a world in its original spirit. a great Depardieu who manage emotions and vulnerability and force and touching love declamation. a film about love. in a refined style. short. a real must see. or, only, simple, a gem.
histoiredeamelie
Have you experienced watching a movie in your childhood you did not know the title of and merely remembered the actors , but was obsessed with the idea of it? Well, this movie was one of these.Until a few days ago I decided to look for it using my memories for the plot. And I found it, cannot tell you how happy I was! The idea behind this movie is outstanding! I can only quote the Little Prince: "L'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux."The world presented in this movie is different than ours. Starring actor is moved by feelings unknown in the material space we live in. His actions look like the actions of the fighter for overall justice and happiness without having the privilege to ever be awarded for that. The only award known to him is freedom and self-satisfaction.
secondtake
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.
