Les amours d'Astrée et de Céladon

I saw you kiss her. Get out of my sight. I shall kill myself. Come back! How shallow can two people be? This is basically the opening of this film, which is beautiful in it's setting, but weak in story.

Enter some nymphs to rescue him. Nymphs? The chief nymph Galathée (Véronique Reymond) wants to keep him for herself. Meanwhile Astrée (Stéphanie Crayencour) is wallowing in self pity, believing Céladon (Andy Gillet) dead.

The nymph Léonide (Cécile Cassel) dresses Céladon as a girl to sneak away. But efforts to get him to return to Astrée prove futile until a Druid convinces him to dress as a girl and be near her. She discovers his ruse after they engage in passionate kissing. A closeted lesbian perhaps? It was a gorgeous film, as I said, but the story was a little silly.

Canadians are too polite to boo but the audience at the Toronto Film Festival left the theater muttering that they would rate this film 0 or 1 on their voting sheets. The premise is that a modern filmmaker is interpreting a 17th century fable about the loves of shepherds and shepherdesses set in the distant past when Druids were the spiritual leaders. Working in three epochs presents many opportunities to introduce anachronisms including silly and impractical clothing and peculiar spiritual rites that involve really bad poetry. Lovers are divided by jealousy and their rigid adherence to idiotic codes of conduct from which cross-dressing and assorted farcical situations arise. The film could have been hilarious as a Monty Python piece, which it too closely resembles, but Rohmer's effort falls very flat. The audience laughed at the sight jokes but otherwise bemoaned the slow pace. The ending comes all in a rush and is truly awful. This is a trivial film and a waste of your movie going time.

French film "Les Amours D'Astrée Et De Céladon" is absolutely Rohmerian in essence but still relatively easy to follow.It is probably one of the simplest films made by French new wave master Eric Rohmer.Apart from entertaining die hard art cinema admirers,this is a film which would be of great use to students of French language and literature as it makes effective use of simple French language for its lively dialogs full of charm and wit.Eric Rohmer has also created a marvelous feast for eyes as the portrayal of ancient times is artistic,innovative and remarkably honest.One has to appreciate that Rohmer's choice of young actors is brilliant especially Andy Gillet and Stéphanie Crayencour who add an endearing touch to their magnanimous depiction of truthful lovers Céladon and Astrée.Although there is no hint of any kind of inherent eroticism,those who can read between the lines can decipher that this ancient love story is erotic purely out of its own accord. Les amours d'Astrée et de Céladon/The loves of Astrée and of Celadon is a true love story which must be seen by anyone who has ever fallen in love.

Rohmer has made great films so if he makes a strange or apparently bad film it's wiser to check if it's our expectations that are at fault, not the film. Celadon & Astrae is an odd film and I don't think it's a great film, but I don't think it's a bad one. It has conventions- as all films do- but they aren't conventional conventions so it takes time to adjust to them but it is worth adjusting and accepting the preposterous plot, the formal archaic language and the absurd psychology. There's actually a very Rohmeric film here with beautiful fluid filming and a Rohmeric concern with morality and the actors aren't trapped by the conventions they must act in: Astrea and Celadon's sorrows and joys may be conventional and absurd objectively but they are still moving and the debates are absurd in form but relevant in subject.

I was aware of Rohmer's admiration for the late works of the ones he considered like great cineasts, and that normal spectators generally considered as artistic failures (as Renoir's or Chaplin's very last movies ; yes, the "politique des auteurs" also has its dark side). But with "Les amours d'Astrée et de Céladon", it's as if Rohmer himself wanted, for what may be his last movie, to perpetuate this tradition of great directors, who made a last senile movie, by adapting Urfé's "L'astrée", with ridiculous aesthetic codes, witch just look like a parody of Rosselini's last movies (the ones he made for TV from Descartes or Marx's lives).

In his version of "Perceval", Rohmer refused to film real landscapes in order to give a re-transcription of what may have been a middle age classical representation of things. The director apparently changed his mind when the XVII century is involved, and films actors, dressed like 1600's peasants reciting their antic text surrounded by contemporary trees and landscapes. But the all thing looks even more ridiculous than Luchini and its fake trees. It's not that the story itself is stupid, but the way Rohmer mixes naturalism with artifices seems so childish and amateurism that it rapidly becomes involuntarily funny (and I'm not even talking about the irritating pronunciation of the actors, the annoying and sad humorist tries by Rodolphe Pauly, the ridiculous soft-erotic tone, the poor musical tentatives, or the strange fascination for trasvestisment!).

The radical aesthetic of the film ultimately makes it looks like a joke, which mixes a soft-erotic movie made for TV with theological scholastic discussions (sic !). At the beginning of the movie, Rohmer teaches us that the original french region of the story is now disfigured by modernity, and that's why he had to film "L'Astrée" in other parts of the country. However, I'm sure the movie would have look more modern and interesting, if Rohmer would have actually still filmed the same story in a modern area with same narrative codes and artistically decisions. This film may interest a few historians, but most of the cinephiles may laugh at this last and sad Rohmer's movie.