Hollywood’s adaptation of Edmond Rostand’s sensational play, the then stage star José Ferrer reprised his Tony-winning titular role on the celluloid and also fortuitously bagged him an Oscar, an hors-concours accomplishment for theater thespians, which would only be followed by a selected few, Shirley Booth and Yul Brynner, respectively for COME BACK, LITTLE SHEBA (1952) and THE KING AND I (1956), are the only names that spring to this reviewer’s mind on the spot. Intimated by its bare-bones setting of a rather unglamorous Paris in the early 17th century, director Michael Gordon is tasked to make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear, diligently uses dark shades to hide the blemishes of the production’s reductive means and simultaneously adorn some chiaroscuro sheen, he, nevertheless, finds his messiah in his leading man. As the valiant, erudite swordsman-cum-poet, absurdly stigmatized by a disproportionately giant, factitiously affixed nose, Ferrer’s Cyrano de Bergerac gracefully dances his deepest self-abasement away with highfalutin elocution, which is enunciated through his sonorous pitch and undulating cadence, and sounds like a string of dulcet refrains plinking upon the surface of a cauldron of levity, ridicule, fervor and affection, while his emotional register plateaus majestically in tandem with the wreath of florid wordings, which to an anglophone’s ear, they are like molasses to a ravenous bruin. So much so that, the rest of the cast has no chance of holding a candle to him, only Mala Powers’ Roxanne occasionally glistens with her demure propriety and wide-eyed innocuousness, although that doesn’t necessarily justify Roxanne’s ill-devised antediluvian quixotism. Sometimes, the massive content of Cyrano’s incessant oratory doesn’t even seem to matter literally since the story has its inherently implausible occurrences requesting the most rigid suspension of a viewer’s disbelief, the film simply rides on the coattail of its source material’s irrepressible vitality (which is strenuously translated from French into high English by Brian Hooker), Dimitri Tiomkin’s playful and stentorian orchestral accompaniment, and its dramatis personae’s full-blown operatics, then sails safely to the finish-line where theatrics triumphs over narrative intrigues. For once, Michael Gordon’s CYRANO DE BERGERAC bracingly circumvents the media-switching snag often haunts the dicey game of theater-to-cinema transposition and expeditiously renders the former’s infectious rhetorics to soar on the latter’s deceptively modest canvas. referential entries: Max Ophüls’ LA RONDE (1950, 6.5/10); Daniel Mann’s COME BACK, LITTLE SHEBA (1952, 7.7/10).
從劇本到故事再到制作都難以讓人提起興趣的一部電影,簡(jiǎn)單的說就是怪無(wú)聊的。本片這個(gè)三角戀故事就已經(jīng)很俗套了,結(jié)果電影制作還給人一種很粗糙的感覺,話劇感太濃,戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)的背景完全只是一個(gè)幌子,場(chǎng)景也過于黑了,大多數(shù)時(shí)候連人的臉都看不清楚。另外豆瓣的劇情簡(jiǎn)介是劍俠唐璜的,并不是大鼻子情圣的。何塞費(fèi)勒的表演并沒有想象中那么出色,表演有點(diǎn)受到影片粗糙的制作影響,不過這個(gè)表演整體表演還是挺到位的。
非常形象地說了愛情是靈魂的需要,很高尚。How the French invent love:1897年12月,該新劇在圣馬丁之門劇場(chǎng)上演,二十九歲的作者Edmond Rostand因此一夜走紅。只有1830年雨果的Hernami埃納尼 首演時(shí)的盛況可與之相比。
第23屆奧斯卡最佳男主角:何塞·費(fèi)勒,其他提名:路易斯·卡爾亨【神奇的美國(guó)佬】、威廉·霍爾登【日落大道】、詹姆斯·斯圖爾特【迷離世界】、斯賓塞·屈塞【岳父大人】
YouTube看的,男主演技??
三星,已看
何塞費(fèi)勒演得不錯(cuò),但電影是真全方位的難看和做作。
亙古不變的永恒主題,愛我的身體還是靈魂?
VCD國(guó)配
她吻得是我的語(yǔ)言,卻吻得是他的雙唇。
來自1950的經(jīng)典,得過奧斯卡最佳男主角的電影哦
《大鼻子情圣》容易找到的最早的電影版本(1924年意大利版的沒找到資源),作為黑白片很多場(chǎng)景實(shí)在太黑了......(豆瓣的簡(jiǎn)介怎么會(huì)搞錯(cuò)的,因?yàn)槭乔槭ニ韵氲教啤よ藛???/p>
3.5,明明是個(gè)劍俠片,中間拍的跟莎翁舞臺(tái)劇一樣,得虧男主角貢獻(xiàn)了精彩的演出,和精妙的對(duì)白,讓整個(gè)劇情進(jìn)行的不至于那么無(wú)聊
劇情和簡(jiǎn)介上寫的一點(diǎn)關(guān)系也沒有,這個(gè)故事算得上這類作品的鼻祖了吧,現(xiàn)在反而拍不出那種酸澀的感情了
20/6/6
1950年的《大鼻子情圣》。(這個(gè)簡(jiǎn)介是什么意思……?
真心有點(diǎn)無(wú)聊,有些動(dòng)作場(chǎng)面的調(diào)度如今看來也是笑點(diǎn)滿滿。出跳之處是男主的表演,富有磁性的腔調(diào)演繹這個(gè)奇?zhèn)b,細(xì)節(jié)刻畫的好,有種感覺是舞臺(tái)劇演了好多回了。。。
騰訊有資源居然也只有幾個(gè)人標(biāo)記了,這奧斯卡金球影帝也太沒排face了吧,大鼻子造型有趣
豆瓣上的劇情簡(jiǎn)介是錯(cuò)誤的,這個(gè)故事與唐璜沒有一點(diǎn)關(guān)系,這是個(gè)悲劇,本片應(yīng)該翻譯為《備胎西哈諾》,畢竟,備胎難當(dāng),當(dāng)一輩子的備胎,而且只鐘情于一人,更是難上加難。本片有很濃厚的舞臺(tái)戲劇風(fēng)格,男主表演很現(xiàn)演技,唯一的缺點(diǎn)就是攝影技術(shù)太落后了,一開始我還以為是上個(gè)世紀(jì)三十年代有聲電影初期的作品。