Conte de printemps

It may seem strange that with all the great Rohmer films to choose from, that this would be my favorite. After all, it is a slow moving film, with a threadbare plot, even by Rohmer standards, and yet completely enchants me. Jeanne, the main character, is an ordinary, middle-class woman, at the start of her career as a teacher, at the start of a relationship with Mathieu (whom we never see) still trying to figure her life out. She recognizes her own shortcomings, she thinks too much, she's not able to confide in others and she is sometimes too accommodating to people. Yet she is a noble character, with great integrity and kindness.

There is a wonderful little scene in Natasha's apartment. Jeanne is grading papers in the dining room as Natasha comes home from school, and in the kitchen, the living and Natasha's bedroom are flowers Jeanne has bought to thank Natasha for her kindness. Natasha, in return, is so touched by Jeanne's act of kindness that she can barely contain herself. This one little scene shows so much. Jeanne's dedication as a teacher, her kindness to people, and flowers to herald in the first days of spring.

As their situations develop, and really there is no reason to speak of the plot, there is a deepening bond as the viewer spends more time with the characters, in simple things, doing simple chores, cutting potatoes, folding clothes, listening to music, and paying attention to what is said, and not said, in their conversations, and at the end of the movie, you seem to have made some very good friends. It's a wonderful thing to be touched by art, but it is more wonderful, I think, to be touched by ordinary life and ordinary people. By not attempting to, Rohmer has made a masterpiece.

Artistic tastes are entirely subjective, so I'll start by mentioning some of my favourite directors, and if they're your faves too, then read on. Otherwise, just skip my entire review.

Robert Bresson, Krzysztof Kieslowski, Akira Kurosawa, Bela Tarr, Wim Wenders. And when he's not annoying the living crap out of me, I really like Werner Herzog.

I neither liked nor disliked "Tale of Springtime" but was left feeling unfulfilled. Other reviewers have criticized this film for being "boring", "slow" and "plotless". You won't hear that from me. On the contrary, I thought the mood and pacing were perfect. The big problem: it never delivered anything worth justifying the effort of watching. And I don't mean car chases and spaceships; I mean something of philosophical value.

This movie drew me in with literary and philosophical teasers implying that the film would attack the grand questions of existence. It begins with an air of mystery (no dialogue for the first 4 minutes) and a teaser about some dark unknown truth about the main character, a philosophy professor; when she finally speaks, she muses about how an invisible person--the bearer of Plato's ring of Gyges--would probably be struggling to piece together the unusual events surrounding her life. We are repeatedly given hints of her guarded secret love-life (a lover's apartment which she is afraid to visit), her violent temper which she repeatedly warns people about, discussions of Plato, Kant, transcendentalism, anything & everything indicating that some substance would follow.

I felt totally cheated upon slowly realizing that the protagonist is absolutely average, her life uneventful, and the only grand philosophical question attacked is whether she should kiss her friend's father. Boo. Note to filmmakers: do NOT allude to Plato's ring of Gyges (several times) unless you plan to back it up! That's like opening a film with Beethoven's 7th Symphony, then turning the rest of the film into a campy scifi flick about sex in the 22nd century. Oh wait, John Boorman actually did that in "Zardoz".

I would contrast this film against Bela Tarr's "Werckmeister Harmonies" which, similarly, follows the life of a mysterious lone protagonist & forces us to unravel his life in cryptic vignettes. As in Tale of Springtime, in Werckmeister we also get teasing doses of philosophy to pique our interest. The difference being in Werckmeister the philosophy is profound, pervasive and relevant to the story and setting, and, though painfully slow at times, Werckmeister gives the audience a powerful thought to chew on after the credits roll.

This is the third Rohmer film I've seen, and I think I have to conclude that he's not for me. Elements of this film are like Kieslowski whom I adore, but this film doesn't pack the same haunting depth as, say, "Decalogue" or "Trois Couleurs". Elements of this film are like Wim Wenders whom I also adore, but here we lack the satisfying payoff and poetic closure like in "Paris, Texas", "End of Violence" or "Don't Come Knocking". In short, this film has all the style & art of Kieslowski, Wenders & the aforementioned master directors, but none of the guts.

By the way, I actually liked "Zardoz"!

To summarize, the film is basically about the beginning of a friendship between two women: a philosophy teacher and a younger pianist. The pianist wants to set up the philosopher with her father, who is already seeing someone else.

The resulting tensions play out at a summer cottage. The film is mostly dialog, and every feeling or impulse gets examined. Which makes sense, because of the bourgeois, self-involved bent of the characters.

I think the greatest point of action is when a dish gets nearly dropped (but it's saved and the characters then argue over who was to blame).

Although it has some pleasing insights, I wouldn't recommend the film to most people because it's simply too ponderous. Frankly it could use some comic relief. The fine country setting mitigates the over-intellectualizing somewhat, but Rohmer has made other films that are better.

Jeanne, a charming woman in her thirties, meets Natasha, a college student at a party and they strike up an unlikely friendship Bored with the party, they return to Natasha's apartment in Paris where her father's frequent absence allows her to invite Jeanne to stay for a week. While some thoughts may run to deviance or intrigue, A Tale of Springtime is Eric Rohmer territory and that means sparkling conversation, complex characters, and a slowly unfolding plot in which everyone discovers something new about themselves. Springtime is the first of Rohmer's Four Seasons series and, while we may not always be sure where we are going, we are always sure that there is an artist in firm control.

Both Jeanne and Natasha are smart and well spoken but each seems vaguely dissatisfied with their life. Jeanne (Anne Teyssedre), a philosophy teacher in high school, has lent her apartment to her cousin but refuses to stay at her boyfriend's place because of his inclination toward disorder and cannot quite come to terms with the question of whether or not she is in love with him. Natasha (Florence Darel) is a very talented pianist with romance and matchmaking on her mind; however, she is resentful of her divorced father's girlfriend Eve (Eloise Bennett), and has some serious thoughts about lining her father Igor (Hugues Quester) up with Jeanne.

Outwardly sweet but inwardly manipulative, Natasha suspects that Eve has stolen a family necklace that her father promised to her and tells the story to Jeanne, hoping to turn the teacher against her father's lover. When Igor shows up for a rare family dinner, all four participate in a philosophical conversation that leads to a clash of personalities. Each tries to impress the other with their knowledge and engage in some banter about Kantian philosophy, and it is easy to get lost among all the priori's and the posteriori's. The scene, however, is not really about philosophy but about how each character is revealed through their reactions and responses. Igor and Jeanne are attracted to each other but are leery of being manipulated. They cannot really be with each other because of that little voice chattering away in the back of their minds telling them to be cautious. As Jeanne says, "I spend too much time thinking about thought".

Unlike most Rohmer works, music is very much a part of this film, and the use of Beethoven's lilting Spring Sonata provides just the right touch. Though not on the top rung of Rohmer's films, A Tale of Springtime is a wonderfully entertaining way to spend two hours. It stands as a perfect example of how our considerations can sometimes get in the way of our aliveness and true self-interest. Characteristic of Rohmer, while each character is flawed and a bit lacking in self-awareness, they are very human and we identify their foibles as our own. By the end of the film, they have become a part of our lives.

The French movie Conte de printemps (1990) was shown in the U.S. with the translated title, A Tale of Springtime. It was written and directed by Éric Rohmer. (It was the first of Rohmer's Tales of Four Seasons. Appropriately, the movie bursts with color--grass, flowers, trees.)

Anne Teyssèdre portrays Jeanne, who teaches philosophy at a lycée in Paris. (I learned that philosophy is a required course in the senior year in a lycée.) Florence Darel plays Natacha, an 18-year-old student of piano at the conservatory.

For complicated reasons, Jeanne can't stay in her own apartment or in her boyfriend's apartment. That means she stays with Natacha, and then visits Natacha's vacation estate. Natacha tries to make her father and Anne lovers, and that's the basic plot of the film.

One of my cinema buff friends pointed out to me that John Sayles never makes the same movie twice. I have to agree--I just reviewed Matewan and The Secret of Roan Inish. Worlds apart--literally and figuratively.

Not so with Rohmer. He has a style, and he sticks to it. His characters don't take dramatic action. In fact, the most active thing they do is to open a book and settle down to read it. What Rohmer's characters do is talk. When they're done talking, they talk some more. It's not gossip. In one long scene there's a discussion about the finer points of Existentialism. The reason I respect Rohmer as a director is that when his characters talk, it's interesting to hear what they have to say.

Anne Teyssèdre and Florence Darel are both well known actors in France, but neither made the decision to work outside France. (However, Florence Darel got close enough to Hollywood to be propositioned by Harvey Weinstein.) Both women are fine actors.

It's a pleasure to see a film with women in both lead roles. (Not common in 1990, and still not common 30 years later.)

I enjoyed this movie and recommend it. It has a strong IMDb rating of 7.3. I thought it was even better than that, and rated it 9.