3 Short Paragraphs (Or Not): Cyrano

2021, Joe Wright (Hanna) -- download

I am doing something I generally don't do, start writing the post before I finish watching the movie. This one has been in my Downloads for quite a while, a few years maybe. I generally don't ascribe to musicals but something about the songs, as presented in the trailer, worked for me. And I have always been a sucker for love unrequited. 

Alas it is proving to be not as convincing, where I can cheekily say the trailers to me were like Cyrano's words pretending to be Christian's, and the movie itself is, perhaps as my full half-way-through opinion is not formed, more true Christian? The songs are dancing, as everyone in the background dances, between the exact kind of modern pop love ballad I gravitate towards and oh-gawds-cringe-can-they-just-stop-singing.

WTF, part of this write before finishing ideal was to comment on Kent having seen it and use some of his also-not-fond-of-musicals opinions to further fuel my own thoughts. But, he has no post, not even on Letterboxd. I really need a more reliable conduit into the alternate realities where I know some of the posts have gone.

Of note, this adaptation of the original 19th century play about a guy with a big nose, is based on a 2019 off-Broadway adaptation penned/directed by Erica Schmidt, who writes the screenplay here, and it also starred Peter Dinklage. For some reason, that makes it more appealing to me. It also dawned on me, that in a world where I am constantly watching the adaptations of my favourite properties (video games, comic books, novels....) successfully and unsuccessfully, I would imagine the fans of this stage production would like to see it carried on through an extended vision? Or loathe it? That is the adaptation way...

OK, done.

Look! That's Glen Hansard! A "real" singer! I was hoping the three singing soldiers, of which he was one, were all semi-known pop/folk singers, but alas, one more is, and the other is just stock-n-trade stage actor.

Do I write about the plot? I mean, we all know the plot, basically, right? Cyrano de Bergerac (Peter Dinklage, The Station Agent) is a French soldier, a bit of a pompous wordsmith, known for his fighting ability and for being the leader of a regiment of guards. He is in love with local noble Roxanne (Haley Bennett, The Magnificent Seven), who is being pursued by a nobleman. In appears Christian (Kelvin Harrison Jr, Elvis), a penniless man who joins the ranks of Cyrano's regiment, is spied by Roxanne at a stage production, and instantly the two fall in love, classic love at first sight. Roxanne asks Cyrano, her oldest friend, who is also secretly in love with her, to help her connect with Christian. Meanwhile Christian can't put three words together with any sense, so Cyrano offers to be his voice, his words, his pen, and thus letters are written and love is expressed and a romance begun.

But I am not sure if I recall how the actual story goes after that. Tragedy, I guess? I have to admit, the primary adaptation I know is Roxanne the Steve Martin movie, "Because I was afraid of worms, Roxanne! Worms!" 

So yeah, tragedy.

As I mentioned, the music almost always didn't work for me. There were a few bits here and there that caught my heart, the way the music cut into the trailer did, but for the most part it all fell into the "interrupting a good story by breaking into song" category. But what did work for me was the setting, the Probably Not France shooting locations in Spain, the dusty, crumbling fort and streets,  the Probably Not Proper Period costuming... there is such a detail to everything even if it is not age nor location appropriate; it all looks so ... pretty. In the end, I believed Dinklage in the role, and I would have probably preferred the stage production, as at least then, I was going in for the exactly proscribed media.

3 Short Paragraphs: The F Word

2013, Michael Dowse (Goon, It's All Gone Pete Tong) -- cinema

Otherwise known as What If in the rest of the world, the Canadian title of the movie says everything you need to know. No, its not about swearing, its an affable movie about being relegated to the friendzone and the troubles and responsibilities that come with that. To the average nice guy, this is the worst thing that can happen -- meet a nice girl, fall for her but hear those dastardly words, "Can we just be friends?" But being friendzoned comes with negative connotations, a sort of responsibility laid at the feet of the female side of the relationship, and this movie wants to sidestep this. The movie is about unrequited love, not sexual politics. For the most part.

Wallace (Daniel Radcliffe) is a med school dropout, living with his sister and heartbroken about his ex. He runs into Chantry (Zoe Kazan) at a house party and the two click, in that snarky pop culture conversation sort of way. Part of me wants to rewatch some old youth movies to see if people talked this way in the pre-Buffy days. Clever, relevant and oh so intelligent, Chantry is the first woman to make Wallace think about someone other than his ex. And then she mentions her BF. But they shake hands and agree to be friends.  Allan (Adam Driver) thinks Wallace is being stupid, hiding his feelings for the sake of the gentlemanly friendship. Wallace is conflicted. But they are good as friends.

The first act of the movie is all short choppy walking scenes, that gives the watcher a tour of the cool spots in Toronto. Wallace and Chantry, Wallace and Allan, Wallace and his sister, Chantry and her sister, Chantry and her friends. There is some weird slapstick comedy and a few out of place, otherworldly scenes of animation come to life. I felt things were far too heavy handed on the quips and clips, but it did lead eventually into the actual turmoil of the movie -- how the two do not deal with the growing mutual feelings between them. There is real emotion bubbling to the surface tangled in real life decisions as the BF moves to Ireland for work and Chantry is offered animation work in Taiwan. When it all comes together the two have to dispense with the charming dialogue and just talk to each other about how they feel. There is plenty of time for charming dialogue after they get together, and sit on a roof watching the stars.

3 Short Paragraphs (We Agree): Much Ado About Nothing

2013, Joss Whedon (The Avengers) -- cinema

When I first heard the rumours that Joss was working on a Shakespeare adaptation, it just sounded right. Why was a modern representation of Shakespeare's popular comic play just so right in the Whedon-verse? I am not sure completely but it may be connected to Whedon's love of language and a good ability to mix pathos and comedy. But dispensing with the analyses, it just felt right. Strangely enough, Shakespeare is also a rather geeky concept, having just as many frothing fanboys as superheroes and Firefly.

Alas, I am not one of the Shakespeare geeks. I have never seen a play live, never been to Stratford and it always takes me at least ten minutes to catch the cadence. Yes, in the movies. I am a rather big fan of the Kenneth Branagh adaptation, it emerging right at the height of my Branagh fascination and my Kate Beckinsale crush. That one was set in period so I was really interested in seeing how they would place a story about a Prince and his soldiers returning from war, in contemporary times.  We are not given many details, but the two Dons, Pedro and John, are likely crime bosses and have come to friend Leonato's house to escape some drama in Los Angeles. And it is in this great house party that Claudio falls for Leonato's daughter Hero and Beatrice & Benedick are setup for a hookup.

We have much of the motley crew of the Whedon-verse, some from Buffy, some from Doll House and some from Firefly as well as a few fresh faces to round out the crew as they drink through the night and next day in the house that is actually Joss's. Almost everybody is spot-on with their characters but some are downright outstanding!!  Reed Diamond just falls into the role as if this was the way he speaks everyday... he just was his character. Franz Kranz dispenses with his usual dotty act and is splendid as the besotted Claudio. I wasn't as enamoured with Nathan Fillion as Dogberry, as the rest of the world seems to be and I was as equally cool with Alexis Denisof as Benedick -- he just didn't seem invested. But I must admit, if I don't hear with him with a soft british accent, he just seems off, even though I know that is not his background.  All in all, its a great little movie but a part of me wonders why I didn't find it astoundingly wonderful. I think I might have to ask a Shakespeare guru if there was something flat about the production.

Much Ado About Nothing

d. Joss Whedon, 2012 - in theatre

Since I met my wife, my Shakespeare IQ has gone up 500%, in that I knew next to nothing about Shakespeare 7 or 8 years ago and now I might know maybe 50 things.  I obviously got exposed to the Bard in high school, as most of us do, but it was only Romeo and Juliet and a half-assed attempt at King Lear that I truly witnessed.  Beyond that Julie Taymor's fantastic Titus and... hmm... Dune?  That was Shakespeare right?

Anyway, I've been to the Stratford Festival a half dozen times (the first time was technically the first date with my future wife to see Coriolanus, I believe, starring Colm Feore), and we've watched a couple of cinematic interpretations of Shakespeare since, a lot of them full-on modernizations, or that old chestnut of keeping the dialogue pure but re-contextualizing the setting. 

What we all know about Shakespeare is that olde-English he wrote in is quite difficult to penetrate without some level of study. Like any dialect one needs to attune their ear, but even still it's a challenge as some words come off as gibberish and others don't mean the same thing anymore.  What I've discovered is that it's the performers, not the setting or the props, but the individual actors who make all the difference.  It's up to these actors, whether on stage or on screen, to intellectually understand the material and be able to convey, both through physical presence and verbal inflection, the meaning of the words, when they really don't make sense otherwise.

When Joss Whedon -- beloved nerd demi-god and creator of the geek gospel such as Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Firefly, not to mention writer-director of Marvel's The Avengers --  brought together a group of his loyal acting familiars to his home to stage a production of Much Ado About Nothing over 12 days, there was a definite cry of "whaaaa?" from both geek circles and the theatre crowd.  It's not that anyone doubted that Whedon couldn't wrangle an ensemble (it's what he excels at afterall), but as far as anyone knew, his cast were all, at best, minor TV personalities with few or no major stage credits, and little sense that they would be credible in a, what seemed to be, tossed off Shakespeare production.

But there's a few things going for it, first that Much Ado is perhaps Shakespeare's most accessible story (maybe second only to Romeo and Juliet), secondly that it is a comedy and Whedon has a masterful sense of comedic timing, and thirdly that Whedon has an extensive and intimate familiarity with his cast.  With the latter, that sense of ease and trust and fun all appears on screen.  The cast seems to be having a great time, and they're given the freedom from intricate sets and extensive lighting preparation and makeup and all the usual filmmaking business to explore the words and the characters, investing well within them.  Whedon dispenses with any notion of a period piece, but also scales back the modern elements, allowing for a production liberated from the modern day without ignoring it completely.  The cast explores the grounds of a seemingly palatial estate (though likely smaller than it appears through expert blocking) but the setting never overtakes the performance.

The actors all, save one or two roles, deliver outstanding performances, most notably Amy Acker as Beatrice.  Acker was a prominent figure on Whedon's Buffy spin-off Angel and Dollhouse as well as a villain on CBS's Person of Interest, and she's always appealing to watch, but she commands the screen here and owns the picture.  It's an amazing performance that had me in awe of her ability, and wanting to see more of her as the lead in a production (while I'm happy her role on Person of Interest has been expanded to series regular, she really deserves her own show).  Likewise Fran Kranz is shockingly good, sloughing off his stoner/nervous tech geek ty
pecasting as Claudio and showing an incredible depth as the enamored, then wounded Claudio. 

If there's a weak spot, it's unfortunately in the counterpart to Acker's Beatrice, and that's Angel veteran Alexis Denisof's Benedick.  Of all the actors, Benedick has the most tricky lifting to do, and fumbles it the most often.  His uneven performance doesn't go so far as to ruin the production, and quite often he delivers a bravura physical performance, but of all the cast he has the most difficult time making the language flow naturally and meaningfully.  Even still, his physicality goes a long way (if perhaps too far sometimes) in making it an excellent comedy, but the true comedic heroes are actually the intended comic relief.  Whedon stalwarts Nathan Fillion and Tom Lenk as the bumbling security team oblivious to their own nature get exactly the desired effect they're supposed to and do so without any hint of irony.  A very Mel Brooks-esque gag is pulled with Fillion's tie appearing awkwardly different in every scene.

Shot in black and white, quickly, cheaply, and largely with hand-held cameras, it's a distinctive picture to get its widest release during summer blockbuster season.  To be honest, though, I enjoyed it more than almost any other major multi-hundred-million-dollar picture this year.  It's a warm, charming, and engaging production of, naturally, a timeless comedy.

3 shrt pgrphs: The Importance of Being Earnest

1952, Anthony Asquith -- netflix

I should know better than to hold a film made in 1952, based on a play written in the 1890's, to modern standards, and yet, I find myself judging older movies against the experiences I have, the stories I've been exposed to, and, oh yes, the cliches I'm potently aware of.  I don't always have difficulty judging things in context, but sometimes, even context can't overcome a fatal flaw in storytelling.

That said this mid-20th century production of the Oscar Wilde play is actually quite delightful.  Wilde's breathlessly brisk dialogue remains sharp-tongued and captivating.  The Michaels Redgrave and Denison handle Wilde's wordiness with aplomb, creating charming if not always convincing upper-class rascals who are best friends and stark nemesis at the same time.  The set-up of the story finds Redgrave's Jack Worthing owning up Denison's Algernon Montcrieff that he has a dual life, acting as his own nonexistent brother name Earnest in the city and Jack in the country, but plans to kill off his alter ego in order to marry Algernon's cousin.  Algernon decides to throw a monkey into Jack's wrench by visiting him in the country, as Earnest, and immediately falls in love with Jack's teenaged ward. 

So both men find their true love, but under false pretenses.  Oh what a pickle, especially when they're both found out.  It's at this point that the farce comes to a head, and a step beyond, when through highly convoluted circumstances (and a dose of quasi-deus ex machina) Jack's mysterious origins as an orphan are revealed, and it turns out he's Algernon's brother, which would mean his true love is his cousin, which he doesn't seem phased by a bit, which I guess was acceptable back in the 19th century?.  It's a fun tale that gets mired in too many levels of happenstance at its forced conclusion to really make it's mark.  Obviously it lives on, and lives large, because of Wilde's great wordplay, but story-wise it's a lark then a groan-inducing let down.  This telling is filled with great over-acting from the leads, and some delightfully hammy performances from the supporting players.  The set design and costuming is vintagely busy, in effort to make up for the fact that there's only a half dozen sets in the entire picture.  It's a winning piece with a losing finish, but hey, chalk that up to a man whose been dead for 112 years.