Summer in February

Having read the book several times, to see the film was an absolute 'must'. It would have been difficult to adapt the whole story to screen, particularly into 100 minutes, the consequence of which, those who have not read the book may not easily grasp the real intricacies and make-up of some of the characters. However, it is a beautiful film, beautifully made. The music and the photography contribute in a magical but powerful way and all the actors play their characters superbly. It was obviously made with passion. It is a haunting and heartbreaking story, one that can be thought provoking. "Summer In February" is an emotional journey, but certainly one worth taking. I intend to see it again soon. Very soon.

Every movie must have a story that either invokes some sort of inspiration or realization for its viewers otherwise it is equal to reel of toilet paper. Well I wouldn't compare this to toilet paper, but it has everything except story. I don't know how related it is to the true story it is based on but I can say it feels as if something is happening in the background and the viewers are kept away. The characters are so indifferent to each other that at some point I felt like I will break the screen but then the beauty of the scenes stopped me. The actors/actresses are struggling to make sense of the dialogues and expression not knowing why they are doing so. If this movie is based on a book and as I read from other reviews that it is really beautiful then the director and the screenplay writer has to find another job. No wonder it is rated so low.

We think of Alfred Munnings as someone born old - the reactionary curmudgeon grimly rejecting everything new in art. So a romantic tale of the young Munnings joining a Cornish artists' colony in 1912 makes an appealing topic, even though the film turns out to be little more than escapist wallpaper.

The screenplay is drawn from a novel based on real events, with the future Dame Laura Knight as the moving force behind the group, played with gusto by Hattie Morahan. Her patronising of gypsy communities may be called... well, patronising, but it lends colour to this film, along with the equine theme, giving us not only a dramatic race-meeting down on the beach, but also some well-deserved exposure for Munnings' acclaimed horse-paintings.

Artists' communes are always incestuous, and the main story is a love-triangle, with Munnings and his friend Gilbert competing for the hopelessly unstable Florence Carter-Wood, played in a suitably minor key by Emily Browning. A discreet view of a local artist's model emerging naked from the sea brings out the insecurity in Florence, who stands in front of the mirror anxiously comparing her own endowments. Later, when she is shown Munnings' portrait of her, proudly displayed at the Royal Academy, she attempts suicide because his portraits of other women are also on display. By now, Munnings and Florence have married, but the non-chemistry between them is painfully obvious. Gilbert's relationship with her is far more harmonious. But he is just off to the war, as the end-titles helpfully notify us.

The producers are obviously trying to achieve a Brideshead touch, but the characters are not sharply drawn, and we are mainly just drifting in an agreeable atmosphere of rocky coves, gypsy violins against the surf, passionate poetry recitals and credible period dialogue, not without appropriate elements of coarseness.

Laura's husband, the eminent Harold Knight, is somewhat thrown away. And one of the poems ends with the words 'Summer in February', which are left hanging there as the title of the film, though their meaning is hard indeed to fathom. IMDb mentions a running-time of 100 minutes, so my HD version at 82 must be missing some scenes. It is certainly missing professional post-production - ye gods, the audio is something like two seconds out of kilter with the video!

I find it strange, that Cambridge educated Stevens chose to leave probably the most successful period TV drama of the last 20 years to star in exactly the same role in a period movie! He was very good, understated, doesn't overact - leaves that to Dominic Cooper to ham things up. But what was Matthew doing in Cornwall, and why did he feel the need to go to Nigeria? I didn't really care for the love interest either, and for a woman who was supposed to be educated and liberated a la Austen, why does she marry the most inappropriate ego-centric genius who happens to ask her.

There was a scene as she walks along the cliff where I was literally willing her to throw herself over -might have spiced things up a bit.

Having said that, I did enjoy the film, mostly for the scenery and the accuracy of the manners and costume. The story line was weak and the heroine unattractive and ineffective. The two male leads were overcast but made the whole thing work.

By the way, a shout out to Cornwall, the most beautiful coastline of anywhere in the world.

Once I got past the 'machine-knitted' hand-knits and the Mills and Boon score . . . perfectly watchable. Don't expect to be informed about artistic life or how to learn to draw and paint. I have got to say I think Emily Browning was miscast; though delightfully dinky and looking marvellous in her lace blouses and smocks . . she did not convey privileged entitlement or fragile mentality very well, not exactly wooden but leaning towards wet lettuce leaf. I feel a proper Cornish artist boho would be perfectly happy to be in love with two lovely men . . so bit of a plot hole there. The actress that played Laura Knight was perfect. Although location spotting was fun and authentic . . nothing else was. It seemed to lack real Cornishness . . a huge failing for me. Had I been directing I would have gone even more up the cheesy Mills and Boon route with it. Sorry but I was disappoint.