A Summer's Tale

I'd say this film is an essay, regarding shyness, relations with the opposite sex, friendship and love. Being only based on the dialogues between different people, it's full of substance, and will definitely ask the viewer to think on the matter. I liked it so much because the people were real, the problem was real. Lots of people suffer problems of integration and self-achievement next to others and these have been thoroughly dealt with in the film.

Its main problems are how much is worth a summer romance next to a sincere friendship, and the importance of knowing exactly one's feelings and purposes (do I love her, or do I not ? Am I merely trying to have fun?).

In the end, we are faced with a line addressed to the main character that we can take for ourselves: "it was your own choice, think about it".

That's the main message: the director presents a problem, the dialogues delve deeply in several of its aspects but the conclusion of why things turned out as they did is left to us. In short, the viewer will certainly learn something from it, and that can even lead to deeper self-reflections on one's personal life. A valuable film, and an interesting lesson. Especially good for young people afraid of not finding that special one.

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.

A beautiful setting, good acting (Amanda Langlet is brilliant and deserves more roles than just the two Rohmer-films she was in) and a teasing simple tale of a young man who should enjoy a calm summer holiday but instead makes things difficult by not making his mind up about which girl he will choose. Had he stuck to Langlet he would have made the right choice, but then the film would be of Tweety & Sylvester-length. When he realises the girls are in charge, he leaves the stage.Conte d'été is certainly one of the best Rohmer movies.

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.

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