Edmond

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.

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.

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

I saw the play 'Edmond' written and staged by Alexis Michalik in Paris almost two years ago. The show had received five Molieres prizes (the supreme distinctions of the French theater) and impressed me with the combination of modernism and respect for tradition, of perfectly professional acting with tasteful directorial innovations, placed in the service of the spectators and their experiences. Theatre du Palais-Royal where the performance took place was also the place where (about 120 years ago) the events in the play take place - the story of the creation and of the premiere of one of the most successful works in the history of French theater, Edmond Rostand's 'Cyrano de Bergerac'. I was looking forward to seeing the film version created by the same director, and my expectations were largely rewarded.

For the spectators who are passionate about the history of the theater and especially the history of the French theater, this film will be a delight. The sparkling dialogue, the humor based upon situations and characters, and the interpretation of the actors team made up in the good tradition of the Comedie Francaise (with a special mention for Olivier Gourmet in the role of the great actor Coquelin) seemed to me very good. Beyond the love story or story in the film's plot, Alexis Michalik's 'Edmond' is a love affair with the French theater and an affectionate tribute to theater creators 120 years ago. Another great quality of the film is the glamorous and colorful reconstruction of Paris in the last decade of the 19th century. From this point of view, 'Edmond' walks on the traces of films like 'Moulin Rouge!' directed by Baz Luhrmann or Martin Scorsese's 'Hugo', combining meticulous documentation, attention to detail and respect for authenticity, and using computer graphics techniques to enhance history and to create the landscape of an era of fascinating social diversity and artistic effervescence.

How does the film compare to the play (which originally was based on a script that could not find financing a few years ago)? The theatrical version of 'Edmond' directed by Alexis Michalik was free-flowing and dynamic, in a cinematic style. The film version of 'Edmond' directed by Alexis Michalik is largely based on a theatrical style in which the beauty of the text and the art of the actors transform the words into feelings, with focus on passion for theater. Technically, both achievements are impressive. As an impact on the public, however, I believe that the theatrical version succeeded better. The reason is, perhaps, that in theater the cinematic style has most of the positive influence, while in the film the theatrical style adds a difficult-to-avoid ballast.

In 2016, French actor Alexis Michalik premiered the play "Edmond." Written by himself, it is a comedy that loosely recreates how author Edmond Rostand (1868-1918) created his masterpiece and best-known work, "Cyrano de Bergerac," in 1897. The play was a success, also winning several theater awards, and has continued to be performed in France ever since. Two years later, Michalik decided to adapt and direct the film version with a new cast, premiering it first at festivals before finally reaching French theaters on January 9, 2019. A year and almost four months later (including a delay due to the coronavirus), it finally premiered in Spanish theaters, under the title "Cyrano, My Love".

As the play tells us, the story centers on Edmond Rostand (Thomas Solivérès), a 29-year-old young man whose theatrical career is about to end as success fails to come his way. One day, he receives a commission from the famous actor Constant Coquelin (Olivier Gourmet), who asks him for a comedy. And almost improvised, the idea for "Cyrano de Bergerac" is born. From that moment on, Coquelin, who lands the lead role, gives Edmond three weeks not only to finish the play, but also to find patrons, actors, rehearse with them, and finally premiere it. Meanwhile, Edmond, desperate for inspiration, finds inspiration by chance in the form of his friend Léo's (Tom Leeb) lover, a young woman named Jeanne d'Alcie (Lucie Boujenah). Léo, unable to reach Jeanne's heart, asks for help from Edmond, whose way of expressing himself is what truly captures Jeanne's thoughts. He will pretend to be Léo to "help" the latter win her over. Jeanne will then become his muse and obsession so he can finish his "Cyrano".

Those of you who have read the plot may immediately think of the film "Shakespeare in Love" (1998). But yes, let's admit it, it contains the same premise. A loose retelling of how one of the most famous authors of his time found inspiration to create his masterpiece. But that's just the premise. "Cyrano, My Love" is not only a love letter to "Cyrano," but also to everything surrounding it. To the theater, to the 19th century, and to all those who fell into oblivion after the premiere of "Cyrano": Rostand, Coquelin, Maria Legault, Sarah Bernhardt, Georges Feydeau, etc.

The film clearly features characters and situations that possibly never occurred, but the film is not intended at any point to be a 100% faithful recreation of history. But a comedy, part romance, part drama about an artist trying to fulfill his dreams. I completely identified with Edmond and many other characters in this story. Although I'm a film major, theater will always be the father of the latter. Yes, after watching the film again, I felt like rewatching "Shakespeare in Love" to find similarities, I couldn't help it. And yes, I found some, but I have to say, I enjoyed "Cyrano, My Love" much more.

The characters filled me much more, and the story captivated me until the very end. I even got emotional in some parts of the third act. I left that theater with a very pleasant feeling. The film also gives you hope, as some of the film's morals are the classic "If you set your mind to it, you can achieve anything" and "Never stop chasing your dreams." That's something I like to find in movies and a way to get away from the constant "The realism of life sucks" that many directors try to convey in many dramas. I know! Many of us live that film every day, and in real 3D. Why add fuel to the fire?

Aesthetically, it's also impeccable. Late 19th-century Paris was recreated in the Czech Republic. Although, as I said, the cast didn't repeat the same one from the play, the actors in this version give a lot of play and it's clear they really enjoyed these characters. Apparently, only one of the actors from the original theatrical cast reprised the role of Monsieur Honoré in the film: Jean-Michel Martial, who reprised the same role. It was sad to discover while writing this review that this actor passed away last year at the age of 67. He has one of the best characters in the film, stealing the spotlight at many moments.

I highly recommend "Cyrano, My Love". Not only for those who like comedies, but also for fans of period films, drama, romance, "Shakespeare in Love"... but above all, for those who want to unwind and have a wonderful time for almost two hours. Of course, as I say many times, don't watch the trailers in full. They only give away the first 30 seconds; after that, they spoil the best moments of the film... even the third act. I also recommend you hurry up and see it. Because it probably won't be a film that's been hyped up to the nines, and it risks going unnoticed.