Edmond Rostand's enduring Cyrano de Bergerac, the melodrama about veiled courtship which was hugely popular in the 1930s, 40s and 50s (most memorably in Jose Ferrer's Oscar-winning performance in the title role from the 1950 film), nowadays is largely known through a modernized Hollywood version by Steve Martin. It has now been revived by The Queens Players’ artistic director Richard Mazda. In reacting to the production which I saw on its opening night Thursday (which also marked the opening of Mazda’s new 100-seat theatre, The BIG Secret), I must quote humorist Garrison Keillor, who after seeing and disliking Edward Albee's Pulitzer Prize winning drama Three Tall Women remarked, "It is a production that after you've been there for a short while, you wonder how long this is going to take." From the start of Mr. Mazda's disappointingly sluggish (clocking in at three long hours) revival of Cyrano de Bergerac, I wondered the same thing.
Set in the mid-1600s, the show and lead characters’ appeal derives from a combination of sentimentality and flourish. Writing in 1897, Rostand nostalgically recalled the 17th-century France of swashbuckling military heroes. The title character is a soldier whose heart is as big as his gigantic nose. Cyrano (Daniel Wolfe) loves his beautiful cousin, Roxane (Sarah Bonner), but is certain that his ugliness makes romance with her impossible. Instead of wooing Roxane for himself, he does so for a handsome but tongue-tied young cadet named Christian (Anthony Martinez)—by writing letters and, in the famous balcony scene, whispering Christian’s lines to him. It is this conceit that drives the rest of the play, as Cyrano continues to love Roxane but only by pretending to be Christian. Even after the Cadets find themselves on the front lines of the war with Spain, Cyrano continues to write to Roxane as Christian to the point where, risking her own life, she actually joins them in the trenches.
.jpg?t=20120209092158)
Article comments
1 - Megan
Funny, I had a completely different experience. And so, must have the people to my left, right, in front of and behind me. Because they were laughing heartily through most of act one and when the lights came up had tears in their eyes, the same as my own.
Were the performances uneven? Yes. Was the set modest? Yes. Was it "Broadway" Quality... of course not, but that's the point!!
Take into consideration this very small, relatively new company has just opened a brand new theatre with little financial support.
The actors told the story with passion. And that is all theatre should really be about. Not huge sets and fancy costumes. It's about the story and the actors ability to color with their own voices. And Daniel Wolfe's performance was nothing short of Triumphant.
Lighten up. Give them a break.
2 - irving washington
spell check much
3 - Jamie
I agree with Megan. With it being the first show in a new theatre, that apparently was finished minutes before the house opened, and a non-broadway budget it was a good show. It is a hard debate about how to make things accessible to modern audiences. I don't want theatre dumbed down for me. I understood the story and characters, which is why I went, not for architecture and clothing. The biggest problem is that money is being given to spiderman and not real theatre. Thank you for continuing to review in Queens and the other smaller venues to bring attention to these shows, for those of us who dont want to pay 100 dollars for a ticket in Manhattan. However I think every show should be reviewed with its limitations in mind, I think the Queens Players have consistently produced quality theatre and think that they will continue to do so. I highly recommend them for a 15 dollar ticket. After having seen MacBeth and AsYou Like It, This is not going to hinder me in seeing whatever they have next. Try proposing alternatives rather than just saying that something didn't work. Also, does the lack of a "specific time and place" matter?