New movie version of Cyrano

The original French used “panache” as the final word, and the word has a double meaning: “plume,” and “panache” as it is meant in English. Both meanings fit in the original: He kept his plume, but also kept his panache (i.e., his flamboyant nature). This was a deliberate pun.

So it makes no sense to translate it as “white plume.” I like the Hooker translation, but he totally missed the point by not using “Panache.” Your interpretation is valid as to the meaning of the plume, but “panache” is the exact right word for the play because it not only fits that, but adds a second level of meaning.

Here’s a discussion:

Bit of trivia: Cyrano was written as a star vehicle for Sarah Bernhardt (Rostand’s lover at the time). She played Roxanne in the opening performance.

The trouble is, in English, panache only has the one meaning for most people, and I think it is more important to the story that we understand that he has kept his honor and integrity than that he has kept his flamboyant style.

“My salute shall sweep all the stars away from the blue threshold! One thing without stain, Unspotted from the world, in spite of Doom mine own!” Does that describe style, or character?

Wow. I’m of two minds on this one.

I love the play Cyrano, not just a couple of the English translations I’ve read but also the original French (and it definitely forced me to improve my French). C’est magnifique. I though the Steve Martin version of Roxanne was great, not just for striving for fidelity to the original in many ways but also for using the title Roxanne to indicate that it wasn’t quite the original.

This one… >sigh< I don’t know.

There have been some successes with translating/reinterpreting a cultural icon from one language/culture to another. Think a samurai tale re-envisioned for the American West (the Magnificent Seven as a remake of Akira Kurosawa’s Shichinin no Samurai or Seven Samurai) or Shakespeare’s Macbeth redone for feudal Japan ( Kumonosu-jō or Throne of Blood for its English title). It can be done well, but… well, it often isn’t.

Peter Dinklage is a genuinely good actor, I’d probably happily listen to him read a phone book. Unfortunately, he’s at a disadvantage for getting roles due to being a little person. This seems in part a vehicle for him to be a leading man, which is great on one level but… I’m not entirely sure the role is a good fit for him. He can certainly do serious, we’ve seen that, but the original (and most adaptions) of Cyrano de Bergerac incorporate some levity, it’s partly a comedy. Does Dinklage have the comedic chops and timing? I can’t recall him in such a part, but that may simply have been lack of opportunity and maybe he’s a comic genius. I have no idea. He can certainly do the serious and tragic parts of this.

I have no idea if I want this to succeed or fail.

Well, bravo for Dinklage taking a shot at a classic lead. I’m sure it is a challenge for him to get to do the work he would like to do. And the director, Joe Wright, is known for prestige quality work, so there is that too.

I don’t have an issue with reworking of a classic, in this case by substituting “little person” for “big nose”. I suspect the writers have found witty hooks within the change. Lots of classics become the bones for rethinking stories. (I am particularly fond of the Magoo oeuvre of classics. :grin: )

But, alas, I also think this one looks like it gets caught in the second rate Disney-esque family-friendly ghetto (anybody see the recent Cinderella, for an example?) I will probably see it, but I’m not anticipating being impressed.

I’ve only watched a handful of episode’s of Game of Thrones but I have seen Dinklage in several films. Isn’t his persona usually quite deadpan? That seems counter to Cyrano’s passion and flamboyance.

Well, yeah - but is that because that’s the only roles he could get or because he has a limited range.

Leslie Neilson used to get only serious roles until at some point he got a comedic role - then folks discovered he was good at that, and that pretty much was how he spent the rest of his career. As an example.

So maybe Dinklage can pull it off. Won’t know until he tries, I suppose.

If you want to see a movie where Dinklage does some character acting comedy, and also a nose-related plot, watch Penelope.

WARNING: this post contains some open and some blurred spoilers, not about the original play (which should be beyond spoiling after 120+ years), but about the 2022 film version and some of the changes it makes to the original.

The film opened this weekend, and I saw it this afternoon. It turns out to be based on a 2019 Off-Broadway production by Erica Schmidt that also starred Peter Dinklage. Like many posters here, I have been a lifelong fan of the story and seen many versions, but I had not heard of that production.

Joe Wright has made a visually beautiful and lush film, with remarkable settings and lovely costumes, and a few memorable scenes. For instance, Cyrano’s fight sequence against ten men is brilliantly choreographed in what appeared to be one long continuous shot. My brief foray into fencing in college, a hundred years ago, gives me no special insight into the quality of stage/screen swordfighting, but I thought the swordplay was good, if not quite at the level of The Princess Bride. I further suspect that real fencing experts would say that a little person would face extraordinary difficulties battling with opponents of greater size. But the original Cyrano’s vanquishing of 100 assailants is also rather improbable, so let’s not quibble.

A small thing I liked about this version is that it kept one of my favorite lines: after Cyrano tells Roxanne about this fight, she says, “What courage!” To which he replies, sotto voce, “I’ve done better since,” because he has just endured learning that she is in love with Christian.

Sadly, there is little more I liked about the film. Schmidt’s pared-down telling of the story strips it of virtually all its humor and most of Cyrano’s clever wordplay. The acting is good, but the overall mood is glum, and Dinklage’s Cyrano never shows the brilliance, vivacity, and panache that make the character so attractive to the other characters and to us.

I was interested to see how the shift from nose to stature as Cyrano’s defining characteristic would play out, since the story is not so much about a man with a big nose, as about someone who doesn’t feel worthy of being loved. That is a sentiment we can all share, regardless of the size of our noses, and is undoubtedly one reason for the play’s enduring appeal.

Unfortunately, the change means that all of the mocking of Cyrano by other characters, and all of his devastating rejoinders – some of the play’s most delightful and character-defining scenes – had to be cut.

Decades ago it might have been possible to release a version filled with short jokes, but we have rightly moved past making fun of classes of people for their physical differences. But even today, a big-nosed Cyrano, as a class of one, can be the object of humorous derision without giving offense, all the more so because the revenge he takes on his mockers is so delightful.

It seems to me that any writer or director who had given this point serious consideration for more than a few minutes should have realized that changing the big nose to virtually any other physical trait would cut much of the heart out of the story, and would therefore not be worth attempting.

Like the OP, I was also concerned about making the story a musical, and with good reason, as it turns out. The songs are bland musically and lyrically, and IMHO add little to most scenes and positively detract from several. The worst of these is the ending, where Roxanne and Cyrano begin singing as he dies. In opera, a death aria can be made glorious by magnificent music, but this show’s music falls miles short of that ideal. Breaking into song at that moment destroyed the emotional impact of the scene for me, and would have been laughable if I hadn’t been so annoyed.

Among the film’s other flaws:

After Christian’s death on the battlefield, there is a lengthy song by three random soldiers bemoaning their imminent deaths in letters they are writing to loved ones. In a version that has cut so much, this unnecessary addition not only bogs down the story, but robs it of the opportunity to have retained some other element from the original.

The death scene is, IMHO, ruined by two things other than the music: instead of saying one of the most emotionally powerful lines in the play (if not all of literature), “I have loved only one man in my life, and have lost him twice,” this Roxanne sings, “I can’t lose you twice.”

The scene is further ruined by by Cyrano’s last line, “I have loved only my pride.” NO! He loved her, or the story is meaningless. We, the audience, can see Cyrano’s pride for what it is, but he cannot have such self-awareness at that moment. It negates the whole essence of his character.

For most posters here who clearly love the original, I would suggest you not bother to see it in the theaters, but wait to see it free or cheap at home, or just give it a miss entirely.

Of course, if there’s anyone who has seen it and has a different opinion, I’d be interested to hear it.

Bob Mondello reviewed it on NPR this morning. He seems to think there are a number of good things about this movie, the best of which is Dinklage’s acting, but that the writing and the music are not up to that level. If Dinklage picked this as an ego piece for himself, I wish he had picked something else. Let him re-make Beau Geste or something else instead.

This was my reaction exactly. I didn’t know it was a musical before we went, so that was a surprise. I like musicals, but not this one.

I was waiting for Cyrano to sing the last verse - maybe that might have saved this one, but nope. It was pretty awful.

Throughout the entire movie, I was seeing parallels to Steve Martin’s Roxanne. It kept pulling me out of the story.

On the plus side, I thought the actress playing Roxanne was well-chosen - there was something about her that captured my attention. And I still like Peter Dinklage, tho I’d love to ask him why he did this. If it hadn’t been a musical, I’m sure I’d have liked it better.

Oh, and the less said about the dancing soldiers, the better, I think.

That’s just it- he’s a character who isn’t actually disabled or deformed in any way- he’s just got a huge nose. In pretty much every other respect, he’s accomplished and very competent.

Switching Cyrano to being a little person changes that- it’s not about a superficial flaw like a big nose, it becomes about something more fundamental, and that’s why the short jokes wouldn’t fly. And also why the big nose jokes DO still work. There’s nothing really abnormal about Cyrano- HE is the one who’s conscious of the nose more than anyone else, and that’s why he feels unworthy of being loved.

But casting any sort of disabled person like a dwarf, little person, blind person, wheelchair-bound person, etc… fundamentally changes that calculus. It’s no longer about a literally superficial flaw any more, and it becomes something much more heavy and more about everyone else’s behavior w.r.t. the disability, than Cyrano’s internal conflict.

I just remembered another thing I disliked: the use of modern-day expressions like “okay” and “wait, what?” that were entirely inappropriate for a story set almost four hundred years ago. I don’t insist on medieval French, or even Shakespearean English, but those terms and a few others took me right out of the story.

In general, I would agree with the above criticisms by others (though, I haven’t read the original play so I’ll just take the comparisons given as reliable). I liked the film but it was notably underwhelming in some way. It was probably better and more serious than every other film released in the last two years so I have to give it credit for that - but, then again, in recent times all movies seem to either be superhero or adventure flicks.

Visually, the film was pretty good. Musically, it was pretty decent but not mindblowing. Probably the closest that they got to bringing a tear to my eye was the three soldiers, readying to go into battle, …but it didn’t. Storywise, it was passable but, indeed, came across like Beauty and the Beast or another Disney production that was scared to be so serious as Les Miserables.

In general, it felt too much like they were cutting things short in the interest of time. With the songs, there just wasn’t time for dialogue and character development.

Dinklage starts as a pretty gravelly, one-tone singer. By the end, they seem to have gotten him to be able to sing quite reasonably but he’s not great. The man is a good actor, and that’s probably the greatest shame. The movie seems primarily to exist as a vehicle for him to be a leading man and maybe bring the crew to the Oscars…and then they go and make him sing passably and barely give him any acting material to work with. They shot themselves in the foot.

You’ve also got the issue that Dinklage is what, 40? 50 years old? I’m not sure what age the character is meant to have been in the play but it feels like he should be starting as a 16-18 year old and ending up no older than 30 by the end. Here, we’ve got an over-the-hill ass kicker acting like he’s got tween hormones rendering him silly in passionate love for what looks like a 16 year old girl. We’re told that they met when she was a child and he’s been smitten with passion for her since then. This is the story of Lewis Caroll?

If you’re going to change the story from a nose to diminutive stature, so that it can star Peter Dinklage, why can’t you change it to be age appropriate?

I still enjoyed the film but I mostly came out of it thinking that I’d like to watch Roxanne again. I feel like it’s a better film.

The guy beats up ten other guys and is the sole survivor of a suicide attack. So far as the movie is concerned, his body shape is as relevant to his health and capabilities as a big nose.

But I would agree that they effectively neutered themselves by largely ignoring his height. He mentions the word “midget” once in the film and, I think, Christian points it out once. For the most part, the movie treats him like he’s a strong, handsome man that any woman should love - even before getting to the point that he’s a poetic genius and swordfighter.

No, he’s probably supposed to be in his 30s (he’s one of the “old men” of the regiment) and Roxanne is supposed to be maybe ten years younger. He’s an experienced and accomplished swordsman, poet, and philosopher, not a callow teenager. And she’s no teenager either, but a grown woman. They may not have exactly been contemporaries as children, but he’s not robbing the cradle.

Do yourself a favor and read the play or watch one of the films. The Jose Ferrer version is probably most accessible, in both senses of the word.

If you speak French, the Depardieu version is magnificent, and even if you don’t, the captions are excellent, but lots of people don’t care to read captions in foreign films.

Really? No expert on the source material I but still …The substitution of height for nose makes sense to me exactly because those with extremely short stature conditions are in fact so often the subject of such poor treatment … and expected by some to take that mistreatment in good humor. To rely on the knowledge of the reality of the mistreatment but then ignore its existence in the film? To not show the angry brilliant man confidently use the weapons of both his sword and his fast wit to cut down those who other him, even while he nevertheless tragically internalizes the othering?

Doesn’t that effectively remove from the character of that which makes him Cyrano?

Part of the positive is that character is extremely short and NOT disabled. He is just different. Shorter. Smarter. Deadlier. A better swordsman. A better wordsmith. Funnier. The short jokes would have to be ones that fall flat and mark the tellers of them as a fools, fools who are humiliated by Cyrano’s responses.

I would, as someone pointed out earlier, gladly pay to hear Peter Dinklage read the telephone book, and was looking forward to seeing how he handled the part of Cyrano. Unfortunately, based on the descriptions I’ve just read, it sounds like one of my favorite scenes from the original has most likely been cut or, at best, gutted. I’m talking about when someone attempts to insult Cyrano by saying something like “Your nose, sir, is rather large,” which leads to Cyrano reeling off a litany of more creative comments which he could have made “had he a trace of wit”.

This.

Aside: I had a bone to pick with Gene Siskel’s review of it. As I recall, he whined said that Christian and Roxanne were not worthy of Cyrano’s great love and loyalty. But that was the point! Cyrano’s loving and loyal heart was as immense as his nose, and did not depend on the “worthiness” of those on whom he poured out his regard. Before I could write this to Siskel, he died. God rest his soul.

If you are disagreeing with me, I’m not sure I understand what you’re saying, but if you’re not familiar with the play, you may not be understanding what I was saying. Because I think you’re making the same point I was.

Sorry that I am unclear. The part I disagree with is only the position that those scenes “had to be cut”.

Oh maybe you specifically mean having Cyrano tell the short jokes as the means of humiliating his insulter? Rather than the attempt to insult him with them.

Yes I understand hesitation to do that. Hard for that not to offensive and even harder for it be funny. But a failed attempt to insult him with the result leaving his putative bully mercilessly destroyed by Cyrano’s wit? That seems like it’s essential.