Take a photo of a barcode or cover
archmageofthearchive 's review for:
Cyrano de Bergerac: An Heroic Comedy in Five Acts
by Edmond Rostand
Been wanting to read this play for a good while, and the new Peter Dinklage film reminded me that I should make it a priority. Happily, I found out that the Brian Hooker translation is fairly well-liked and the ebook was available for free, so I snatched it up and took a couple days to read it.
It was awesome! Cyrano is one of the coolest protagonists I've encountered in a while, and the story is very kinetic, always moving forward with wit and verve. Tapping into the Romance tradition of Dumas (which is transparently telegraphed with a super brief mention of D'Artagnan), Rostand's play is a spiritual adventure, not necessarily grounded in realism but just persuasive enough that we can believe in and care about the characters.
And oh, what a character Cyrano is! The first description is one of the most compelling I've encountered for a swashbuckler: "His sword is one half the shears of Fate!" And, of course, the greatest comeback line ever:
A Citizen: "Who might you be? Samson?--"
Cyrano: "Precisely. Would you kindly lend me your jawbone?"
And the thing is, when Cyrano has to perform for the audience, he pulls it off with such panache that it's totally believable. The most impressive is between Acts I and II, when we're told that he fought a group of one hundred men, convincing ninety-two of them to retreat after he's defeated the first eight. It's like in Batman the Animated Series, when you totally believe that Batman could escape certain doom simply because he's Batman!
There are two reasons, and they linked, for why I'm knocking off a star for this play. The first is the general problem that the supporting cast isn't as strong as Cyrano, and more especially the portrayal of women. Roxanne is certainly a much more compelling character than lots of other female leads (especially in the 19th century), capable of her own willful action. However, often her willfulness, while believable, comes across as silly, most especially the way she just comes out to the front lines of a war as if it's nothing.
The other issue worthy of mention is that the play does hang out on the surface of events, not truly digging into the problems with the pseudo-triangle with Cyrano, Roxanne, and Christian. We're made to sympathize with Cyrano as a self-dejecting romantic, which is presented as noble, rather than suggesting the dude either take action or move on with his life. The play requires us to suspend disbelief in significant ways, which is fine enough and I think should be done. But in the 21st century our society is trying to redress toxicity in relationships, and so it requires a greater suspension than in previous eras.
I also wonder how much my feelings about this can be swayed by watching a performance vs. just reading the text?
I would also like to read other translations, especially one that retains the poetic structure of the original. Still, Hooker's is very readable and vivid and charming as I could ask for.
It was awesome! Cyrano is one of the coolest protagonists I've encountered in a while, and the story is very kinetic, always moving forward with wit and verve. Tapping into the Romance tradition of Dumas (which is transparently telegraphed with a super brief mention of D'Artagnan), Rostand's play is a spiritual adventure, not necessarily grounded in realism but just persuasive enough that we can believe in and care about the characters.
And oh, what a character Cyrano is! The first description is one of the most compelling I've encountered for a swashbuckler: "His sword is one half the shears of Fate!" And, of course, the greatest comeback line ever:
A Citizen: "Who might you be? Samson?--"
Cyrano: "Precisely. Would you kindly lend me your jawbone?"
And the thing is, when Cyrano has to perform for the audience, he pulls it off with such panache that it's totally believable. The most impressive is between Acts I and II, when we're told that he fought a group of one hundred men, convincing ninety-two of them to retreat after he's defeated the first eight. It's like in Batman the Animated Series, when you totally believe that Batman could escape certain doom simply because he's Batman!
There are two reasons, and they linked, for why I'm knocking off a star for this play. The first is the general problem that the supporting cast isn't as strong as Cyrano, and more especially the portrayal of women. Roxanne is certainly a much more compelling character than lots of other female leads (especially in the 19th century), capable of her own willful action. However, often her willfulness, while believable, comes across as silly, most especially the way she just comes out to the front lines of a war as if it's nothing.
The other issue worthy of mention is that the play does hang out on the surface of events, not truly digging into the problems with the pseudo-triangle with Cyrano, Roxanne, and Christian. We're made to sympathize with Cyrano as a self-dejecting romantic, which is presented as noble, rather than suggesting the dude either take action or move on with his life. The play requires us to suspend disbelief in significant ways, which is fine enough and I think should be done. But in the 21st century our society is trying to redress toxicity in relationships, and so it requires a greater suspension than in previous eras.
I also wonder how much my feelings about this can be swayed by watching a performance vs. just reading the text?
I would also like to read other translations, especially one that retains the poetic structure of the original. Still, Hooker's is very readable and vivid and charming as I could ask for.