Home » Culture » Pleasure, Panache, and Paradox in Cyrano

Pleasure, Panache, and Paradox in Cyrano


***Spoiler Alert: This text comprises spoilers for the movie Cyrano and for the play on which it’s primarily based.***

 One thing’s lacking from Joe Wright’s in any other case luxurious musical movie Cyrano. No, I’m not speaking in regards to the nostril. 

Edmond Rostand’s Cyrano de Bergerac1 is my favourite play, so you’ll be able to effectively consider that I watched this new model like a hawk, alert to any and all modifications. The change within the nostril was, in fact, unimaginable to overlook. In case you too are conversant in the unique play, you already know that it was Cyrano’s huge nostril that made him too self-conscious to woo his love, Roxane. Nonetheless, in Wright’s movie, Peter Dinklage performs the lead, and his dwarfism turns into the trait that makes the character hesitant to talk up.

The lacking factor I’m speaking about is a little bit tougher to identify, until you already know to search for it. It has to do with the truth that this Cyrano doesn’t put on a hat.

It’s a major adjustment for anybody who is aware of the play effectively. However amid all the opposite adjustments on this model—including musical numbers, truncating or chopping speeches, updating the language right here and there—it turns into only one extra change and manages to work wonderful within the context.

The lacking factor I’m speaking about is a little bit tougher to identify, until you already know to search for it. It has to do with the truth that this Cyrano doesn’t put on a hat.

The white plume on Cyrano’s hat in Rostand’s play isn’t only a style assertion. It symbolizes a mind-set, an entire way of life. That plume is, for him, “one factor with out stain, unspotted from the world, despite doom mine personal.” Within the authentic French, he calls it his “panache,” and ever because the play premiered in 1897, that phrase has been used to seek advice from the sort of breezy, unflappable confidence that Rostand’s heroic warrior-poet exhibits in all issues, besides issues of the center.

This confidence stems from the character’s cussed independence and integrity, his refusal to take part within the incessant flattery and compromise that make up his 17th-century world, even when giving in just a bit would make life infinitely simpler and extra snug for him. This integrity, for me, is what makes Cyrano most adorable and memorable. It marks him as a timeless hero, standing up for his beliefs with unfailing braveness and wit, even when the associated fee appears impossibly excessive. And this integrity additionally units up the paradox on the coronary heart of the story: Regardless that Cyrano deceives Roxane—writing love letters that one other man will use to win her, in a misguided try and make her completely satisfied—we keep in mind him as a person of honor and fact.

Joe Wright and screenwriter Erica Schmidt don’t eradicate this factor solely. We get tantalizing glimpses of Cyrano’s idealism—as an example, we see him flip down a domineering nobleman’s supply to turn into his patron and present his work to the best folks, as a result of the best folks would need to tinker with that work earlier than presenting it to the general public. And we hear snippets of Cyrano’s well-known “No thanks” speech—a favourite of mine—which within the authentic play reads partially:

What would you have got me do?
Look for the patronage of some nice man,
And like a creeping vine on a tall tree
Crawl upward, the place I can’t stand alone?
No thanks! Dedicate, as others do,
Poems to pawnbrokers? Be a buffoon
Within the vile hope of teasing out a smile
On some chilly face? No thanks! Eat a toad
For breakfast each morning? Make my knees
Callous, and domesticate a supple backbone,—
Put on out my stomach grovelling within the mud?
No thanks!

However different examples of this fiery independence are downplayed or lower altogether. Even the climactic scene from the play, by which we discover that Cyrano has been bodily attacked for satirizing somebody highly effective, is altered in order that he’s affected by different causes. And apparently, as an alternative of creating a closing speech about his panache, this Cyrano laments his pleasure.

Thoughts you, he’s not flawed to take action. As Rostand acknowledges within the authentic play, panache and pleasure are two sides of the identical coin. “I’m too proud to be a parasite,” Cyrano explains within the speech I’ve cited. Cyrano’s worry and his pleasure and his independence are all inextricably certain collectively, his vices the shadow of his virtues. It’s a superb depiction of the battle in each human coronary heart, as the identical qualities that elevate us up in the future can result in our downfall the following.

I don’t suspect Wright and Schmidt of any nefarious motives of their therapy of Cyrano. It’s clear they selected to focus on romance as an alternative of exploring depths of character, and that romance they painting completely fantastically, with beautiful visuals and luxurious orchestrations and each different device at their disposal enhancing the grandeur and pathos of the love story. And maybe that is in actual fact why they ended up emphasizing pleasure over panache—as a result of it was extra related to the romance.

Panache is what retains Rostand’s Cyrano going, what lets his spirit survive and even thrive within the roughest of circumstances, however pleasure, in the end, is what retains him from the love of his life. It’s not a malicious or a malignant pleasure—it’s born of his one deep insecurity and his determined want to maintain his dignity in Roxane’s eyes—however nonetheless, as pleasure will do, it destroys his probability for happiness.

Finally, regardless of the lacking white plume and the sometimes jarring modernized language, I preferred this model of Cyrano. I wasn’t positive at first that I’d, however ultimately I couldn’t assist it. What the movie does effectively, it does extremely effectively, creating an environment so richly romantic that it merely sweeps the viewer away. And even that altered ending, although it threw me at first, was satisfying in its personal approach. I’d suggest the movie—however then I’d suggest occurring to learn the play and/or watch one of many earlier movie variations (the 1990 French model is especially good).

In any case, within the 21st century as within the 17th, we’re all tempted generally to toady, to grovel, to compromise—simply the tiniest bit!—with what we all know to be flawed. Let’s face it—most of us might use a little bit panache.

1All quotations from Cyrano de Bergerac are from the Brian Hooker translation (Bantam Traditional Version, 2004).


Leave a Reply