#112 - Cyrano de Bergerac

Knowing that this movie was coming up, I intentionally kept my review of Jose Ferrer's Cyrano brief. I knew I was going to be writing this review next, and I knew that I couldn't write about this Cyrano without referring to the other one. It wouldn't make any sense to not do a comparison of the two, and what's nice about it is that I get two compare two movies that are producing the same story. With the Dillinger movies, I had two different kinds of movies that only shared a main character. It wasn't like they were both going off of the same material. But in this case, both movies are derived from the same play. It becomes more like a comparison of how the two filmmakers presented the story. This may be obvious to some, but I felt it to be a noteworthy tidbit.

First of all, this is a French production with subtitles. While I am fine with that, I have a problem with being able to fully evaluate the acting. Don't get me wrong, I can tell if the actors are bad or not, and they are all pretty good in this one, but I can't fully analyze it like I want to. With Jose Ferrer, every single word was crafted and spoken with a purpose in mind. I can't analyze Gerard Depardieu on that level because I don't understand French. I don't know the words he is using and I can't comprehend his use of inflection or how he emphasizes certain words. I was bummed about that because I couldn't fully compre the two performances like I wanted to. I know that some of you out ther are saying that there is no comparison, but I would disagree. This version of Cyrano is a lot less theatrical in it's style, and therefore Depardieu's performance had to be created to fit in that world. I can only say that his performance was very well done, but I can't say how well he fit into his world compared to how Ferrer fit into his.

I can say that while the earlier Cyrano was all about Jose Ferrer, this version seemed to be more about how well the filmmakers adapted the play for film. And they did a great job with that adaptation. The performances were more natural and the scenes flowed in a way that was less scene by scene, and act by act. But I got the feeling that they wanted to show you more of the adaptation instead of letting happen naturally. What am I talking about? Well, in this case, I am referring to the art direction. A tremendous amount of care and detail was put into recreating the various sites and locales that were the period for Cyrano, whatever period that was. They were actually very well done, and with ALL of the wide angle shots, you could see so much of it. It seemed like every new set had it's own wide angle shot so that you could see how good they were at making an authentic period looking building interior. I only have a beef with it because it gave the film an epic scope for a story that is quite intimate. Even the scenes on the battlefield are intimate, but for some reason, I can't remeber very many wide shots for those scenes. I think there was one or two while the battle was taking place, but nothing like they had earlier in the movie. You have a budget, use it wisely. Don't try to wow me with pretty pictures for a story that stands up on its own.

What it all comes down to is that I woul like a mix of both movies. Personally, I like my movies to be movies, and my theatre to be theatre. I am not the biggest fan of plays on film. Adapt the screenplay to fit the medium, or stage it in a less theatrical way. Of course, if the Ferrer version was done that way, his performance would not have been the same, and I loved his performance. Give me the intimacy of the earlier one, with the natural style of the new one. Give me the english language. I only half mean that. I have no problems with subtitles. If had to make a choice, I would go with Ferrer's Cyrano, but Depardieu's version has it's merit. Both are good movies.