With the exception of Kevin Kline, the cast acts as though they just graduated from high school drama club. Jennifer Garner is particularly painful to watch; she shouts her lines and obviously has no idea what to physically do on stage without a camera to play to. Her facial expressions are very disconcerting as well, and don't have anything to do with the accompanying dialogue or action. The rest of the cast seems to have been selected to accommodate the present day requirement for diversity uber alles, not because they fit their roles. And the scenery- chewing performances by some do not help.But perhaps I am being too harsh on the cast. They do have an awful translation of this play to work with. Cyrano comes across as a petty, mean bully with no noble qualities at all. Roxane is not a beautiful and sensitive intellectual, but a screechy Girl Power coed. And, frankly, the actor portraying Christian doesn't display any personality whatsoever. So, if you want to see a movie version of Cyrano, rent or stream the 1950 version with Jose Ferrar. If you want to see the stage play, check your local stages. Or, get the Brian Hooker translation of the play (if you don't read French) and get to know the real Cyrano.

This is an emotionally empty star-driven production where a remarkably handsome actor slaps on a fake nose and expects us to be moved at his lamentations over how ugly he is, despite being one of the best-looking people on the stage while he is doing it. Kline - who too often plays for laughs when delicate pathos is called for - is completely lacking in the panache, poetic depths of feeling, or soldierly muscle that made Gérard Depardieu and José Ferrer so memorable in the role. Instead, the impression Kline makes is of a vain, self-satisfied ham who fails to move the audience in any way. Particularly disappointing is the famous balcony scene where Cyrano is finally able to express his love for Roxanne, which the actors play as a broad farce so that there is no emotional foundation for the dark scenes that follow.But even Kline's unsatisfying performance is vastly superior to the vulgar, amateurish display put on by Jennifer Garner as Roxanne, whose behavior is so crude and lacking in subtlety that she seems a far better match for the oafish Christian than the eloquent Cyrano. The rest of the cast ranges from bland to self-indulgently hammy, with the forgettable Daniel Sunjata in the unfortunate position of being a Christian who is less physically attractive than Cyrano.The production is richly designed and pretty to look at, but the result seems the antithesis of the theme of the play, where physical beauty is transcended by emotional depth. In this case, the depth is alarmingly lacking.

My first response to the character of Cyrano de Bergerac in this version of the play was, "what a jerk." He just seems like a terrible bully. This wasn't my response to the Jose Ferrer movie, but it's my response now, although I'm not sure how much of that has to do with Kline's performance and how much has to do with how my attitudes have changed since I was in college.I'll get back to Kline, but first I have to speak of Jennifer Garner's off kilter performance.I understand the temptation to put a more modern spin on an old play, and turn demur heroines into feisty fireballs, but Garner's performance feels far more appropriate to a production of Annie Get Your Gun than to Cyrano. The problem is that Garner's Roxanne is so brash and brassy that she seems neither like someone who would be admired by every courtly man she met nor like someone who would prize elegant prose; she seems more like someone who would judge a man's appeal by his skills in shootin' and wrastlin'.It is ideal for the audience to fall in love with Roxanne; I never even liked her much.As for Kline, his performance lacks the grand sweep of Ferrer's. He is a very low key Cyrano, and while once again it is understandable to want to play with a character's traditional representation, it just doesn't work. I think this is why he seems like such a bully at the beginning. By underplaying the part, he doesn't sweep you up in his grandiosity and wit. Cyrano needs to be so much bigger than life that he seems justifiably unbound by convention.I think ultimately Cyrano de Bergerac is not a play that lends itself to revisionist performances. You can play Shakespearean characters many different ways because there is always an ambiguity to the characters; you can endlessly debate purpose and motive. Rostand's play is very straightforward - it's little more than an excuse for a lot of clever dialog - and the characters are not deeply drawn enough to warrant trying to make them anything other than their surface appearance. And a production of the play in which Roxanne is a stronger, more masculine force than Cyrano simply cannot work.That being said, it's still a well written play with a lot of of witty dialog and an engaging story, so it is still reasonably enjoyable. And for all my objections, the ending was quite touching. But this could have been so much better.