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.

One of the best films we've seen in many years. Excellent casting, well paced, captivating plot, well-structured flow, excellent lighting and processing... the craft and effects are top notch. An overall excellent film in all aspects!

A great homage to French writer Edmond Rostand, the author of "Cyrano de Bergerac", a work that would become a legend, the play was played uninterrupted from 1897 until today, plus being screened many times, with many famous casts, in many films, the most famous being the one with Gérard Depardieu. All the actors are excellent and Alexis Michalik's direction is truly revolutionary.

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.

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.