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).
腾讯有资源居然也只有几个人标记了,这奥斯卡金球影帝也太没排face了吧,大鼻子造型有趣
剧情和简介上写的一点关系也没有,这个故事算得上这类作品的鼻祖了吧,现在反而拍不出那种酸涩的感情了
豆瓣上的剧情简介是错误的,这个故事与唐璜没有一点关系,这是个悲剧,本片应该翻译为《备胎西哈诺》,毕竟,备胎难当,当一辈子的备胎,而且只钟情于一人,更是难上加难。本片有很浓厚的舞台戏剧风格,男主表演很现演技,唯一的缺点就是摄影技术太落后了,一开始我还以为是上个世纪三十年代有声电影初期的作品。
何塞费勒演得不错,但电影是真全方位的难看和做作。
《大鼻子情圣》容易找到的最早的电影版本(1924年意大利版的没找到资源),作为黑白片很多场景实在太黑了......(豆瓣的简介怎么会搞错的,因为是情圣所以想到唐·璜了吗?)
来自1950的经典,得过奥斯卡最佳男主角的电影哦
VCD国配
第23届奥斯卡最佳男主角:何塞·费勒,其他提名:路易斯·卡尔亨【神奇的美国佬】、威廉·霍尔登【日落大道】、詹姆斯·斯图尔特【迷离世界】、斯宾塞·屈塞【岳父大人】
从剧本到故事再到制作都难以让人提起兴趣的一部电影,简单的说就是怪无聊的。本片这个三角恋故事就已经很俗套了,结果电影制作还给人一种很粗糙的感觉,话剧感太浓,战争的背景完全只是一个幌子,场景也过于黑了,大多数时候连人的脸都看不清楚。另外豆瓣的剧情简介是剑侠唐璜的,并不是大鼻子情圣的。何塞费勒的表演并没有想象中那么出色,表演有点受到影片粗糙的制作影响,不过这个表演整体表演还是挺到位的。
她吻得是我的语言,却吻得是他的双唇。
亘古不变的永恒主题,爱我的身体还是灵魂?
真心有点无聊,有些动作场面的调度如今看来也是笑点满满。出跳之处是男主的表演,富有磁性的腔调演绎这个奇侠,细节刻画的好,有种感觉是舞台剧演了好多回了。。。
三星,已看
YouTube看的,男主演技🐮
非常形象地说了爱情是灵魂的需要,很高尚。How the French invent love:1897年12月,该新剧在圣马丁之门剧场上演,二十九岁的作者Edmond Rostand因此一夜走红。只有1830年雨果的Hernami埃纳尼 首演时的盛况可与之相比。
1950年的《大鼻子情圣》。(这个简介是什么意思……?
3.5,明明是个剑侠片,中间拍的跟莎翁舞台剧一样,得亏男主角贡献了精彩的演出,和精妙的对白,让整个剧情进行的不至于那么无聊
20/6/6