Sommer

One of Rohmer's best. Gaspard (Melvil Poupaud) takes a month long vacation to a beach in Normandy, waiting for his more or less official girlfriend, the somewhat snotty Lena (Aurelia Nolin), to come. While waiting for her, he befriends the waitress and aspiring anthropologist Margot (Rohmer regular Amanda Langlet). Eventually, a relationship between the two develops, which seems to consists almost exclusively of long talks in the beach. But this is not all, since he soon also meets the somewhat promiscuous (but "principled") Solene (Gwaenelle Simon) in a disco. When Lena finally arrives to the resort, more than halfway into the movie, he finally finds himself in the position of having to choose one of the three. Rohmer would want us to think that Margot would be the best choice, and is difficult to disagree, since she's so charming and so willing to listen to him and even put up with him. It's amazing how Rohmer (who was in his late 70s when he directed this) is able to portray realistically how young people talk and interact. The final decision by Gaspard was a bit of a disappointment, but it was probably the more realistic possibility.

Eric Rohmer's characters are mostly intellectuals, and mostly not so bright. On one hand, this is to Rohmer's credit, since it's realistic; on the other hand, the rarer characters with more penetrating intelligence (as in, especially, "My Night at Maude's") are nicer to listen to. Rohmer's characters love to yak on about ideas, art, and their feelings. The talk, on the most literal level, is generally unpersuasive, but relationships are formed through enjoyment of conversation, and character (not limited to vanity) is revealed via defensiveness and posturing.

"A Summer's Tale" follows twenty-something Gaspard during his summer vacation at a seaside resort town in Brittany. The people in the movie have fewer blind spots than most Rohmer characters, but not fewer difficulties. For a theme song, I'd suggest Weird Al Yankovic's "Good Enough For Now." The girl Gaspard had planned to meet alternately blows him off and strings him along. Another girl he meets, with whom there is palpable chemistry, has a distant boyfriend she doesn't seem very attached to. He vacillates on a third he is not crazy about but who bluntly conveys that she would take him. Gaspard is turned down twice for a romantic relationship (though not told to get lost entirely), and does the turning down once.

The interactions exhibit a believable mixture of genuine affection, indecision, and awkwardness. Rough edges are not glossed over as they might be by romanticism or in recollection. These might have been ingredients for a dull virtuous accuracy. But "A Summer's Tale" moves at a good pace, turns in the story feel natural and mostly not inevitable, and the whole is affecting and memorable.

I couldn't agree more with the previous commenter from Germany in that we are so accustomed to dialogue and plot coming from Hollywood that when something this thoughtful and pure comes along, it just blows us away. I love the way Rohmer slowly guides the audience into the film, without a need for narration, only the sights and sounds of Brittany. When the first words of dialogue begin, it is so natural, but says so much about the characters. "I don't want to plan my life around money", Gaspard tells Margot, and you see him go through a process of writing his sea shantey, a really great little piece of music if you ask me. And to see a five minutes scene with Gaspard and Solene actually singing the song was just riveting. How does rohmer make something so banal on the surface so climactic? On paper, his stories and his characters don't really seem that interesting, but he adds something to them that make them resonate so deeply in me, and I am almost awestruck when it happens.

The great thing is that I can say that for almost all of Rohmer's films, especially those that make up the "Tales of the Four Seasons" I can't say I have a favorite because things like favorite or top films just go against the grain of what Rohmer is doing. I read somewhere that Rohmer has never made a masterpiece, in fact, he's never even attempted to. and yet, each character he's given us, Jeanne, Natascha and Igor from Spring, Gaspard and Margot from Summer, Isabelle, Magali, Gerard and Rosine from Autumn, and Felicie and Charles from Winter, are drawn so vividly that I sometimes forget that they are only characters and not people I call as personal friends.

In addition, I'd like to add that Amanda Langlet's characters seem to be the only "pure" characters in any of Rohmer's films, both as Pauline and Margot, She is beautiful, kind, intelligent, honest.....whereas his other characters, though likable and sympathetic, all have certain flaws.., some tell lies, some are neurotic, some judgemental, deceitful..self-indulgent, capricious.., so forth.

A lovely little summer's love story. One guy, three girls, a stunning French coastal setting. He is in love, of course. With one of them? Two? All three? Himself?

It might not sound like much, but this movie is perfectly balanced. The illusion is flawless, with direction, photo, sound, everything so gentle that nothing intrudes on your enjoyment. And the actors are perfectly natural with the material. Excellent dialogue.

I especially like how fluid the presentation of Gaspard is. It keeps changing throughout the movie. We think we know who he is, what kind of person he is, and then we realize he's something else, different.

Also, the ending, great.

Overall, a beautiful little gem that also manages to pose a barrage of questions about love, without ever telling the audience what to think.

I need to watch more Rohmer movies.

Usually this movie is categorized as either a love story, comedy or drama. IMO it is all and none of these- for the simple reason that the plot does not really matter. What has impressed me about this movie is the realistic way the characters are portrayed. If in a Hollywood movie a character has merely two motivations acting on him this is already interpreted as a "highly complex personality". So the common movie shows characters with a 1D psyche which contradicts the many facets of Self and the elusive, fuzzy nature of personality that one usually has or experiences. On the other hand there are movies which emphasize the highly artistic side by stuffing in all kinds of metaphors, analogies, images, etc. While this might make for an interesting intellectual puzzle- to me itïs just dull because this avoids the medium's strength of portraying intense situations. Just like a book written in Latin: it can be fun deciphering it- but it certainly does not make a good read. With these extremes out of the way- back to _Conte d'ete_. It's presented in a diary-like way with the protagonist either on his own or in company of one of the girls he is in love with. There are a few group scenes but thankfully they are rare and the main focus is on dialogues between the different personalities. All of the characters appear convinced of having a static self at the time of speaking. Yet throughout the movie one can see quite rapid changes going on which, just as in real life are not completely directed at a specific goal (IMO linear character development only takes place in bad short stories). So while each character remains mostly unaware about his/her individual changes they are made obvious by the characters describing each other. The dialogues are extremely lifelike- with all the mechanisms of exaggerating, rationalizing, white lies, etc.

What makes this movie a piece of art instead of just a diary film adaption is the timelessness with which it is presented. The images and characters are somewhat blurred or softened (_not_ in a visual sense!) as a fading memory might be. There are dates inserted every few minutes giving the plot a duration of about two weeks. Had this not been done it would be hard to tell whether the time span covered is 3 days or 3 years. Despite having an elaborate personality the characters at the same time remain general (archetypical, if you will) and personally I find it very easy to identify friends with these characters- which IMO is intended.

To sum it up, I see this movie as an evocative exercise in applied psychology reflecting or focusing life towards the audience. While there are some recurring commentaries the film is for the most part free of moral judgement.

There are two points of negative critic: - the otherwise excellent acting (which does not look like acting) is limited by the somewhat uninspired gestures of the main actor (Melvil Poupaud). - the Deus Ex Machina ending which is used to finish an otherwise endless story