Sommersby

Directed by Jon Amiel, Sommersby is adapted from the historical account of 16th Century French peasant Martin Guerre. It was previously filmed as The Return of Martin Guerre in 1982. It stars Richard Gere, Jodie Foster and Bill Pullman. Music is by Danny Elfman and cinematography by Philippe Rousselot.

In simple terms the film is about a man (Jack Sommersby) who went off to war and was presumed dead by his wife (Laurel) and the village folk of the village where he lived. Some 9 years later he returns a changed man, back in the marital bed and a hero to the village. But then questions start to crop up and it becomes a possibility that this man may not after all be who he claims to be. Sounds bizarre for sure, yet it's a true story, and a fascinating one at that.

For this American version we get top line production values across the board, with the film propelled with grace and skill by Gere and Foster in the lead roles of Jack and Laurel Sommersby. Director Amiel rightly uses the slow burn approach, a consideration to the art of story telling. This draws the viewer firmly into the post Civil War period and lets us get to know the principal players and their surroundings.

The core narrative thrust is a moving romance, one consistently under pressure of a mystery to be proved or disproved. But there's also economic issues to hand, very much so, and the vile stench of racism still hangs in the air. There's a lot going on in Sommersby and it never sags because of it. Also refreshing that in spite of some critical grumblings in some quarters, the ending is potent and not very Hollywood at all.

It's not flawless and although it's based on a true story, some suspension of disbelief is needed as regards physical appearance of Jack and his means and motives. Yet this is a lovely film, simple in story telling structure, beautifully photographed and performed, it very much feels and plays like a classic era period piece. 8/10

There's a clever idea serving as the basis for this film: A farmer returns to his village after fighting in the American Civil War and subsequently being imprisoned for desertion, and turns out to be a much better and compassionate husband and townsman than he was before he left. What has made him change? The period elements are well done initially, and the story is told with an agreeable rhythm by director Jon Amiel (later of Copycat and Entrapment). With a big budget and stars Richard Gere and Jodie Foster trying their hand at the 1800s for the first time, there's a lot at stake for Sommersby. And it ultimately shows, because the picture plays it safer and safer as we get closer and closer to the denouement of the mystery. There's a drawn out segment from a courtroom which feels more like the 1993 version of Richard Gere explaining the plot of a period picture than the charged climax it should have been. Gere and Foster are fine in the interpersonal segments and the everyday life in the village, but they cannot help coming off as anachronistic during said trial. It's partly Amiel's fault, of course - he strips away the story's edge and pain and replaces it with a docile romance aesthetic. Based on the 1982 French film Le Retour de Martin Guerre, which in turn was based on real events from the 16th century.

"Sommersby" is an intriguing film that keeps the audience barely outside the scenes but close enough to be touched by them. The story, of Jack Sommersby (or so it appears) a changed man after returning to his wife and hometown years after being held captive in the Civil War, was borrowed from the French film "The Return of Martin Guerre." But apparently this one has some new twists.

As we watch this movie, we're not quite sure what to think. The townspeople, his friends, his dog and even his own wife aren't certain this is the man who left for the war. That, and the trial toward the end of the movie, stretches credulity a bit, my minor complaints. But after all, this is the movies, and there is a pretty good story here. A real tear-jerker, for certain.

Jodie Foster and Richard Gere carry this plot well, both putting in what I believe is some of their best work. The direction and cinematography also shine.

In the end, this movie is all about pure love of a man for a woman, in which he literally loves her more than life itself. That may seem a bit hokey, but it's a refreshing and enduring message in an movie age in which a one-night stand passes for a long-term relationship.

Released in 1993 and directed by Jon Amiel, "Sommersby" stars Richard Gere as a Confederate soldier returning to his rundown estate in Tennessee and his wife, Laurel (Jodie Foster), after a long six years absence. Curiously, Laurel discovers that the war has changed Jack for the better. Bill Pullman plays his rival for Laurel's affections while James Earl Jones appears as a judge in the final act.

This is such a well-done Civil War drama, taking place just after the war in 1866-1867. The story is contrived, but executed believably with convincing performances. Contrived or not, something like this COULD happen, if you reflect on it. I can't say more because it's best that you go into the movie without knowing the revelations of the final act. The first half is low-key, but it's just a foundation for the realistic thrills of the mid-point and the suspenseful drama of the closing act.

The film runs 114 minutes and was shot in Virginia with the opening winter scene filmed at Snowshoe Mountain Ski Resort, West Virginia.

GRADE: B+

ADDITIONAL COMMENTARY ***SPOILER ALERT***

A clueless reviewer criticized the film on the grounds that "this story fell a bit flat for me when Jack, for some reason, doesn't tell the same (true) story (that clarifies the identity confusion) to the court, that he does to his wife in the final jail scene."

This is incredible because the movie plainly reveals several reasons why Jack didn't want to tell the truth that he wasn't really Jack Sommersby: (1.) The freed blacks and others who bought & farmed parts of his land would lose it; (2.) his wife & daughter would be condemned as an adulteress and a bastard child respectively; (3.) he "buried" Horace Townsend forever when he buried the real Jack Sommersby; he wasn't willing to "resurrect" that wicked loser, even at the cost of his life.

And (4.) If jack was proved to be Horace, and was released, another court would have arrested him on the grounds that he was a liar, an impostor and a thief. That court would NOT have released him on the grounds that he had found love and done charitable things while impersonating a dead man. He would have gone to prison and possibly even died for his actual crimes.

So dying for a cause he believed in, for people who respected him, made more sense than dying without any honor or legacy whatsoever.

In events occuring before the time line in the story, Homer meets and gets to know his double, Jack Sommersby, in a Civil War prison. When Jack dies, Homer decides (for reasons barely hinted at) to impersonate Jack and take up his life where it had left off before the war six years earlier.

Viewers who have trouble accepting this story's basic premise and its subplots must not understand denial, the strongest defense mechanism of all. Laurel believes the returning soldier to be her missing husband because she wants to -- as does her son, and indeed the whole town (with a few menacing exceptions). This new guy is nicer than the other one. He is good to his wife, his kid, and his poor struggling neighbors, inspiring them all to work together to save the community at large from certain starvation if things do not change. In short, they all *need* this Jack Sommersby; therefore, he must *be* Jack Sommersby.

When folks are in denial -- does anybody not believe in mass hysteria? -- discrepancies are often overlooked, and reality is suspended. If that is hard to swallow, then consider that some folks were well aware of Homer's impersonation (if not his true identity), but chose to ignore it because it was in their best interests to do so.

The courtroom situation is another area where viewers have remarked on non-reality. But this may be chalked up to historical artifact. With today's high levels of movie/TV courtroom drama, and even genuine courtroom TV, this century's viewing audiences are far more sophisticated than the actual participants of court proceedings of the mid-19th Century, even among many lawyers and judges of the era. I had no trouble believing the courtroom of a small, largely uneducated community might have gone just the way it did in this movie... ...except for one thing, where all belief is suspended: the black judge, presiding over a southern courtroom, just after the Civil War. If there actually were any black judges in existence then, my guess would be that, like the few practicing black MD's, they were restricted to cases involving blacks, Native Americans, etc -- and not the trial of a white (and formerly rich) landowner.

Yet this plot device does not get in the way of my enjoyment of the movie over all. The judge strives mightily to be impartial, even with those townspeople who would not be so with him. Their rabid hatred of his race cries out for justice; therefore, the judge appears to provide it, with almost comic relief, precisely at a point when the tension demands it.

A haunting, well-told tale for those who appreciate depth of character over high-paced action for its own sake.