Cyrano mon amour

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.