34 reviews
Life Without The Person You Love
The second film in Eric Rohmer's Four Season series, Conte d'hiver is the story of a woman (Charlotte Very) who meets a man she falls in love with (Frederic van den Driessche) and has a daughter by (unknown to him) after they have said goodbye and she has inadvertently given him the wrong address, making it impossible for him to find her again. Five years later we find her in a strange menage a trois, attracted to, but not in love with, two different men each of whom she leaves for the other. Offering her different things, she is unable to choose between them, aware that she is still in love with the father of her child. Like its predecessor in the series, Conte de printemps, and so many other Rohmer films, this is a film replete with reflections on love and life. It is also a film about integrity, and the costs to oneself and others of emotional faithfulness to a lost love; indeed this is what gives the film its focus, as the purity of her lost love stands in counterpoint to the banal and seemingly meaningless choices that are available to her in her daily life. Charlotte Very's performance makes us care what happens to her, and the poignancy of her dilemma is brought home towards the end of the film by 'a play within a play' - a scene from a sumptuously produced version of Shakespeare's A Tale In Winter which should be required viewing for anyone who believes that Shakespeare and his contemporaries have nothing to say to a modern audience. This is a beautiful and moving film, which I would commend to anyone interested in the complexity of human emotions and responses.
Do You Believe In Fairy Tales?
Second chapter of Rohmer's Tales Of The Four Seasons (before filming Winter's Tale he made Spring's Tale). This time the french director tells us the story of Felice, a girl in the search of her soul mate. Actually she had found him in some holidays, his name was Charles, and she got pregnant, but at the end of that summer of joy and love she gave him a wrong address... so she never saw his love again and couldn't locate him either. Five years after she's living in Paris, at her mother's house, with her daughter and she's going out with two different men, although she's not in love with none of'em. She can't love anyone but Charles. Will she ever find the lost love of her life? Does she believe in miracles? That's something we'll find out as we watch this Rohmer's film.
Gene Hackman said in some movie that "watching a Rohmer's movie is just like watching a plant grow". Obviously that'll be the opinion of most of the people (especially those who enjoy themselves watching Steven Seagal or Van Damme's movies); but there's something else in cinema (and in life) as well as kicks, guns, explosions, and parties. What about feelings, reflexions, love, doubts, philosophy? That's what Eric Rohmer seems to care about, and that's what he usually talks about in his movies. Ordinary people, living ordinary lives, with their ordinary problems, and their ordinary conflicts. In some way he's such a "voyeur": he puts his camera in some corner of the room and lets the characters express themselves. How they feel, what do they expect from life, what are their dreams, their fears... I think that's why he usually works with unknown actors and actresses: that way the audience feels like they're watching a completely unknown talking or crying, or laughing. I would not work the same if he picked Gerard Depardieu or Juliette Binoche for this sort of movies. Also he uses a literary language in the dialogues (dialogues, the base of Rohmer's cinematography), though his movies show ordinary situations the people in there definitely doesn't talk like normal people. Some may say that's a handicap, that people doesn't talk about existence and the meaning of life when they're having a coffee in some coffee-shop; but when I want to hear real-life dialogues with real-life sentences, rough language, and so I just go and watch some Tarantino movie.
I wouldn't recommend Rohmer's movies to anyone; 'cause I assume that movies such as Winter's Tale may result boring for many people. So I only recommend this movie (and the rest of Tales of the Four Seasons) to those who look for something else in cinema and (again) in life apart from hollow entertainment.
My Rate: 8/10
Gene Hackman said in some movie that "watching a Rohmer's movie is just like watching a plant grow". Obviously that'll be the opinion of most of the people (especially those who enjoy themselves watching Steven Seagal or Van Damme's movies); but there's something else in cinema (and in life) as well as kicks, guns, explosions, and parties. What about feelings, reflexions, love, doubts, philosophy? That's what Eric Rohmer seems to care about, and that's what he usually talks about in his movies. Ordinary people, living ordinary lives, with their ordinary problems, and their ordinary conflicts. In some way he's such a "voyeur": he puts his camera in some corner of the room and lets the characters express themselves. How they feel, what do they expect from life, what are their dreams, their fears... I think that's why he usually works with unknown actors and actresses: that way the audience feels like they're watching a completely unknown talking or crying, or laughing. I would not work the same if he picked Gerard Depardieu or Juliette Binoche for this sort of movies. Also he uses a literary language in the dialogues (dialogues, the base of Rohmer's cinematography), though his movies show ordinary situations the people in there definitely doesn't talk like normal people. Some may say that's a handicap, that people doesn't talk about existence and the meaning of life when they're having a coffee in some coffee-shop; but when I want to hear real-life dialogues with real-life sentences, rough language, and so I just go and watch some Tarantino movie.
I wouldn't recommend Rohmer's movies to anyone; 'cause I assume that movies such as Winter's Tale may result boring for many people. So I only recommend this movie (and the rest of Tales of the Four Seasons) to those who look for something else in cinema and (again) in life apart from hollow entertainment.
My Rate: 8/10
- rainking_es
- Aug 7, 2004
- Permalink
Tender Tale of Hope and Coincidence
As he grew older it seemed veteran screen-writer and director Eric Rohmer grew a little more romantic and a little less cynical of life and love. His most famous work, the "Six Moral Tales" of the late 60s are expose's of human failings, pomposity and self obsession. Most of the characters are deeply flawed and many, though fascinating in their way, are distinctly hard to like or forgive. In the "Proverbs & Comedies" series of the 80s , the tales of life are a little softer, lighter, the characters more sympathetic and once the 1990's arrive and Rohmer's new "Four Seasons" series finds it feet, that trend has developed further.
The FOUR SEASONS stories carry a little more plot and rely less on the fairly heavy philosophy and religious conviction one would have encountered in MY NIGHT AT MAUD'S for example. There is hope where there had been despair.
CONTE D'HIVER is a bitter sweet tale of pretty young hairdresser Felicie and the aftermath of a brief passionate affair with the charming Charles. The result is that she bears his daughter but accidentally loses contact with him before he is aware of this. Life for Filicie is then a matter of putting up with a string of second-best lovers in the vain hope that Charles will somehow re- establish contact.
The action flits between Paris and provincial Nevers and as always the people the dialogue and the direction are wonderfully natural. The cinematography and editing are spare and unobtrusive and the acting is superb. There is one sequence, a lengthy scene in which Felicie watches , and is moved by, a stage production of a Shakespeare play that drags on far to long but otherwise this films almost skips along compared to some of the directors previous works, where the pace is always very measured and very slow. In all, a delightful film with a good cast headed by the attractive Charlotte Very, one of several excellent young actresses Rohmer cast around this time (Amanda Langlet and Emanuelle Chaulet being the others that spring to mind). Recommended
The FOUR SEASONS stories carry a little more plot and rely less on the fairly heavy philosophy and religious conviction one would have encountered in MY NIGHT AT MAUD'S for example. There is hope where there had been despair.
CONTE D'HIVER is a bitter sweet tale of pretty young hairdresser Felicie and the aftermath of a brief passionate affair with the charming Charles. The result is that she bears his daughter but accidentally loses contact with him before he is aware of this. Life for Filicie is then a matter of putting up with a string of second-best lovers in the vain hope that Charles will somehow re- establish contact.
The action flits between Paris and provincial Nevers and as always the people the dialogue and the direction are wonderfully natural. The cinematography and editing are spare and unobtrusive and the acting is superb. There is one sequence, a lengthy scene in which Felicie watches , and is moved by, a stage production of a Shakespeare play that drags on far to long but otherwise this films almost skips along compared to some of the directors previous works, where the pace is always very measured and very slow. In all, a delightful film with a good cast headed by the attractive Charlotte Very, one of several excellent young actresses Rohmer cast around this time (Amanda Langlet and Emanuelle Chaulet being the others that spring to mind). Recommended
French Romance
Felicie and Charles have a serious if whirlwind holiday romance. Due to a mix-up on addresses they lose contact, and five years later at Christmas-time Felicie is living with her mother in a cold Paris with a daughter as a reminder of that long-ago summer. For male companionship she oscillates between hairdresser Maxence and the intellectual Loic, but seems unable to commit to either as the memory of Charles and what might have been hangs over everything.
Film critic Roger Ebert added A Tale of Winter to his Great Movies series in 2001, writing, "What pervades Rohmer's work is a faith in love--or, if not love, then in the right people finding each other for the right reasons. There is sadness in his work but not gloom." Respectfully, the film did not do for me what it did for Ebert. I loved the way it incorporated Shakespeare, which is the source of the film's title, but overall found it rather bland. A straight romance-drama tends to be bland, but that is no excuse for my boredom.
Film critic Roger Ebert added A Tale of Winter to his Great Movies series in 2001, writing, "What pervades Rohmer's work is a faith in love--or, if not love, then in the right people finding each other for the right reasons. There is sadness in his work but not gloom." Respectfully, the film did not do for me what it did for Ebert. I loved the way it incorporated Shakespeare, which is the source of the film's title, but overall found it rather bland. A straight romance-drama tends to be bland, but that is no excuse for my boredom.
superb Rohmer
I just got a chance to see this movie after seeing all other Rohmer's movies I could get my hands on. After seeing it, I must say it's a superb Rohmer, one of his best, certainly the most accomplished of his Four Seasons, highly reminiscent of My Night With Maud, which still remains my favorite film of the perpetually youthful director. Here you will also find a philosophical discussions on the nature of beauty, love, Pascal's wager (familiar item for a Rohmerian, isn't it?), discussion on personal ('intimate') vs. Catholic faith, the immortality of soul. Of course, the heavy doses of philosophy are beautifully integrated into the film, just like in Maud. These discussions seem organical, natural -- the characters really mean what they say here. Like one character said to the main heroine, "You're articulate, because you let your feelings talk" and "I love you because I can read your heart", even if the heroine seemingly has a change of heart every 5 minutes :)
I must applaud the lead actress(who's also a great beauty) for her heartfelt, genuine performance. I felt like I knew this woman somewhere before, that I could understand her every action and her every thought. The film is also bittersweet, like a many Rohmer films, yet in this film the melancholy feeling is more pronounced, somewhere on par with 'My Night with Maud'. It also reminded me of Richard Linklater's "Before Sunrise"; this film beautifully depicted what feelings Linklater's Jesse and Celine might've had during those long 9 years of separation -- the feelings of longing, of hope, of great joy they'd find in meeting each other again, of "the joy so great it'd be worth giving your life for", in the main heroine's words.
What else to say -- I loved these people, they felt real, genuine, and above all hopeful and blessed by love. I loved Felicie and her absent Charles as much as I loved Rohmer's Maud and Jean-Louis, Linklater's Jesse and Celine, David Lean's Laura and Alec -- that is to say a lot. By the end of the movie they've become my friends.
I must applaud the lead actress(who's also a great beauty) for her heartfelt, genuine performance. I felt like I knew this woman somewhere before, that I could understand her every action and her every thought. The film is also bittersweet, like a many Rohmer films, yet in this film the melancholy feeling is more pronounced, somewhere on par with 'My Night with Maud'. It also reminded me of Richard Linklater's "Before Sunrise"; this film beautifully depicted what feelings Linklater's Jesse and Celine might've had during those long 9 years of separation -- the feelings of longing, of hope, of great joy they'd find in meeting each other again, of "the joy so great it'd be worth giving your life for", in the main heroine's words.
What else to say -- I loved these people, they felt real, genuine, and above all hopeful and blessed by love. I loved Felicie and her absent Charles as much as I loved Rohmer's Maud and Jean-Louis, Linklater's Jesse and Celine, David Lean's Laura and Alec -- that is to say a lot. By the end of the movie they've become my friends.
- Nazar_Vojtovich
- Jul 3, 2006
- Permalink
Wonderful
The second of Eric Rohmer's Four Seasons. This is a beautiful movie. Low-keyed, quite, slow- but not at all too slow. Simple story with complex characters; Interesting to the end. I can't wait to see the other "seasons".
- Jonathan-18
- Feb 23, 1999
- Permalink
Some Day My Prince Will Come
The French film Conte d'hiver (1992) was shown in the U.S. with the translated title A Winter's Tale. The movie was written and directed by Éric Rohmer.
It stars Charlotte Véry as Félicie, a young woman who has met the love of her life, and then loses him because she mistakenly gave him her wrong home address. Together they have conceived a daughter, but, of course, he doesn't know that. (Remember--this was before Facebook. People could just disappear and not be found.)
I didn't find Félicie a very interesting character, and I didn't find Charlotte Véry a very compelling protagonist. So many great French actors to choose from. Why Véry?
When you hear that the director is Rohmer, you know that you'll get dialogue, and more dialogue, and then some added dialogue. The dialogue could be fascinating, as in My Night at Maud's (1969). However, in this movie the dialogue consists mainly of "Do you love him?" "Yes, but not enough to live with him."
One thing that saved the movie for me was Ava Loraschi as Elise, Félicie's daughter. In the film, we know that she's four years old. She was probably five or six when she played the part. The little girl had real dialog, and she could act! I thought she would have become the French Shirley Temple, but she didn't.
Another saving grace in the film was that one of Félicie's lovers (sort of) takes her to see the Shakespearean play A Winter's Tale. Naturally, it's strange to my ears to hear Shakespeare's dialog in French, but the actors were talented and I enjoyed what Rohmer showed us--the famous last scene. The actor playing Paulina was particularly talented. (I guess you could make a case that the two Winter's Tales had some tangential relationship. It's a stretch, but it's possible.)
The movie worked well on the small screen. It carries a solid IMDb rating of 7.3. I agreed and rated it 7.
It stars Charlotte Véry as Félicie, a young woman who has met the love of her life, and then loses him because she mistakenly gave him her wrong home address. Together they have conceived a daughter, but, of course, he doesn't know that. (Remember--this was before Facebook. People could just disappear and not be found.)
I didn't find Félicie a very interesting character, and I didn't find Charlotte Véry a very compelling protagonist. So many great French actors to choose from. Why Véry?
When you hear that the director is Rohmer, you know that you'll get dialogue, and more dialogue, and then some added dialogue. The dialogue could be fascinating, as in My Night at Maud's (1969). However, in this movie the dialogue consists mainly of "Do you love him?" "Yes, but not enough to live with him."
One thing that saved the movie for me was Ava Loraschi as Elise, Félicie's daughter. In the film, we know that she's four years old. She was probably five or six when she played the part. The little girl had real dialog, and she could act! I thought she would have become the French Shirley Temple, but she didn't.
Another saving grace in the film was that one of Félicie's lovers (sort of) takes her to see the Shakespearean play A Winter's Tale. Naturally, it's strange to my ears to hear Shakespeare's dialog in French, but the actors were talented and I enjoyed what Rohmer showed us--the famous last scene. The actor playing Paulina was particularly talented. (I guess you could make a case that the two Winter's Tales had some tangential relationship. It's a stretch, but it's possible.)
The movie worked well on the small screen. It carries a solid IMDb rating of 7.3. I agreed and rated it 7.
One of Rohmer's most engaging romances
Felicie (Charlotte Véry), another of Eric Rohmer's attractive, smart, but terminally indecisive women is still feeling the effects of the abrupt end to her summer romance five years ago. Having mistakenly given her lover Charles (Frédéric van den Driessche) the wrong address as he was leaving for the U.S., she cannot really love other men and holds onto a strong belief that Charles will one day show up and all will be right with the world. Eric Rohmer's second film in his Four Seasons series, A Tale of Winter, is one of his most engaging romances, a film that like the Shakespeare play of the same name, postulates that passion and strong intention can lead to totally unexpected results.
The opening sequence shows Charles and Felicie enjoying the sun, making love, then parting at the end of their vacation. The scene then shifts to Christmas in Paris five years later. Elise (Ava Lorachi), the daughter she had with Charles is now four years old and has seen her father only through photos. Felicie has two lovers but none suit her. Maxence (Michael Voletti) is a heavy set, not too deep hairdresser who is moving from Paris to Nevers and wants Felicie to come with him. She loves being with him but is not madly in love with him. After first saying no, she agrees to go to Nevers but once there, has yet another change of heart after an epiphany about Charles during a visit to a cathedral and returns to her mother in Paris.
Felicie's other suitor, Loic (Hervé Furic), is a bookish librarian who is obviously crazy about her but whom she just wants as a friend. He is a Catholic intellectual and Felicie is more free-spirited and they engage in typical Rohmerian exchanges about Christianity, reincarnation and the nature of the soul. A new awareness opens up when she visits the theater with Loic to see Shakespeare's A Winter's Tale. When she sees King Leontes bring a statue of his wife to life after being told, ''It is required that you do awake your faith'', her own ability to "awake her faith" is evoked and leads to one of Rohmer's more upbeat and satisfying conclusions.
The opening sequence shows Charles and Felicie enjoying the sun, making love, then parting at the end of their vacation. The scene then shifts to Christmas in Paris five years later. Elise (Ava Lorachi), the daughter she had with Charles is now four years old and has seen her father only through photos. Felicie has two lovers but none suit her. Maxence (Michael Voletti) is a heavy set, not too deep hairdresser who is moving from Paris to Nevers and wants Felicie to come with him. She loves being with him but is not madly in love with him. After first saying no, she agrees to go to Nevers but once there, has yet another change of heart after an epiphany about Charles during a visit to a cathedral and returns to her mother in Paris.
Felicie's other suitor, Loic (Hervé Furic), is a bookish librarian who is obviously crazy about her but whom she just wants as a friend. He is a Catholic intellectual and Felicie is more free-spirited and they engage in typical Rohmerian exchanges about Christianity, reincarnation and the nature of the soul. A new awareness opens up when she visits the theater with Loic to see Shakespeare's A Winter's Tale. When she sees King Leontes bring a statue of his wife to life after being told, ''It is required that you do awake your faith'', her own ability to "awake her faith" is evoked and leads to one of Rohmer's more upbeat and satisfying conclusions.
- howard.schumann
- Jul 26, 2006
- Permalink
Tale of Prince Charmant
This is the second of 4-season tales of Eric Rohmer. In my opinion, it is the least realistic of all. However, storytelling is as good as other Rohmer movies. A girl has a passionate affaire with another French guy she met during a holiday in America but then loses contact with him because she gives him a wrong address by mistake. As she admits in the movie, she hates living without a man and vacillates between two different men.
I am watching Eric Rohmer movies in order to understand French viewpoint on romantic relationships. However, it came to me a bit disturbing that the girl never quits speaking of her love of life when she is with other men. And those men are too indulgent that they would almost go out with her to search for that man. I wonder how realistic is this? I would like to discuss this with a French.
Finally, I also wonder what Rohmer was thinking when he turned this movie into a Prince Charmant story?
I am watching Eric Rohmer movies in order to understand French viewpoint on romantic relationships. However, it came to me a bit disturbing that the girl never quits speaking of her love of life when she is with other men. And those men are too indulgent that they would almost go out with her to search for that man. I wonder how realistic is this? I would like to discuss this with a French.
Finally, I also wonder what Rohmer was thinking when he turned this movie into a Prince Charmant story?
The best of seasons
It has been a pleasure catching up with the eminently civilised cinema of Eric Rohmer recently. He is a director who needs the re-see treatment every so often as many of his works tend to blur into one because of their similarity. Of course the beach ones look different from the urban ones but it is sometimes difficult to distinguish one group of characters talking around a table from another doing the same thing unless one knows the films really well. Although there is no denying that Rohmer is the master observer of the minutiae of middle class French everyday living, I find my response to his works differs considerably from film to film, always according to the degree with which he interests me in his characters. In one important sense however all his films are worth watching and that is the skill with which he evokes the most marvellous naturalistic acting from his actors, particularly from young women. Even a film as tiresome as "The Aviator's Wife" is redeemed by the the masterly performance by the young girl the hero meets in a Paris park. For anyone wishing to embark on an exploration of Rohmer, the tetralogy of films of the four seasons made during the late 'eighties and 'nineties will provide a particularly fertile experience. The characters in "Spring" and "Autumn" are admittedly the least interesting and I find the viticulturist and her matchmaking friend in "Autumn" rather tiresome. The young man holidaying in "Summer" has dilemmas in his relationships with three girls about which one really does not care, but the film is most agreeable to watch. If these three films represent Rohmer at this more mundane, "Un Conte d'hiver" is a different matter altogether. There is nothing discursive in a work in which the director seems to have balanced form and content perfectly. It is like a sonata form movement in music with a long central development bordered by a short exposition and recapitulation. In the opening, young man meets young woman on holiday. It is the passion of a lifetime that ends with the misadventure of a confused address. Unable to find her child's father the woman resigns herself to trying to find love in other men. She vacillates between a hairdresser and a librarian, nice enough people but we know as she does deep down that there can be no substitute for that idyllic holiday encounter. Our self identification with the dilemma of the young woman, marvellously played by Charlotte Very, is so acute that the resolution when it eventually arrives literally made me shout and cry for joy. In "Conte d'Hiver" Rohmer has given us one of cinema's great feel-good factor films to stand alongside "It's a Wonderful Life" and "The Quiet Man".
- jandesimpson
- Mar 24, 2002
- Permalink
Pascal's wager, resurrected
Rohmer's 1969 film 'Ma nuit chez Maud' had explored at great length about "Pascal's wager", which came down to the fact that people willing to bet against enormous odds to attain their life affirming gain (sorry I never read Pascal). This movie is basically a human story built around this Paradox. It did mentioned Pascal once.
I find the character of Felicie is well developed and evoke empathy from me. I was a little disappointed at the ending because it doesn't really answer my question, "... but what if I lose?"
But I guess like Checkov said the artist duty is "the correct way of putting the question". The question is well put in this film and I can't ask too much.
Very intelligent film. Since I don't speak French, at times I feel like reading a book (subtitle) rather than watching a film. But overall I highly recommend it.
I find the character of Felicie is well developed and evoke empathy from me. I was a little disappointed at the ending because it doesn't really answer my question, "... but what if I lose?"
But I guess like Checkov said the artist duty is "the correct way of putting the question". The question is well put in this film and I can't ask too much.
Very intelligent film. Since I don't speak French, at times I feel like reading a book (subtitle) rather than watching a film. But overall I highly recommend it.
Awful
A Tale of Faith in the Cold
This second in Rohmer's Tales of the Four Seasons begins with a rapid montage that shows the amazingly romantic beach vacation romance of Felicie and Charles. The two appear to be quite in love but continuation of their relationship is hindered by Felicie foolishly giving him the wrong address. Cut to 5 years later and Felicie is living with that mistake and Charles's daughter. Her subsequent relationships with men have not been successful and in fact around half of the film shows the two major ones in their late stages.
As I watched Felicie and her attempts to get along with her two suitors I couldn't quite decide how to interpret her actions. Clearly both men cared for her but she was unable or unwilling to care for them to the same degree. I wasn't sure whether to view her actions cynically and assume she was just using the missing man as a larger than life figure which other men couldn't hope to measure up to or to view them more generously and assume that Charles was actually her true love. The beauty of the film is that ultimately it could be seen either way.
Regardless of her true motivations it was quite clear that she really had faith in her love for Charles. In fact, it seems to be in her nature to take things on faith. She relies on intuition rather than logic to make decisions; this often makes her actions seem unintelligent but to simplify her this way would be a mistake. In a conversation about reincarnation she makes arguments that her friend recognizes as being similar to the philosophies of Pascal and Plato, two writers she hasn't read.
Although the plot of this film is more conventional (i.e. it has something like a resolution) than most Rohmer films it still manages to be quite effective and emotionally resonant. The cinematography is quite good, especially in the opening montage and the urban night scenes. Also, once again Rohmer does an incredible job of capturing the essence of a complex character. One of the best Rohmer films I've seen
As I watched Felicie and her attempts to get along with her two suitors I couldn't quite decide how to interpret her actions. Clearly both men cared for her but she was unable or unwilling to care for them to the same degree. I wasn't sure whether to view her actions cynically and assume she was just using the missing man as a larger than life figure which other men couldn't hope to measure up to or to view them more generously and assume that Charles was actually her true love. The beauty of the film is that ultimately it could be seen either way.
Regardless of her true motivations it was quite clear that she really had faith in her love for Charles. In fact, it seems to be in her nature to take things on faith. She relies on intuition rather than logic to make decisions; this often makes her actions seem unintelligent but to simplify her this way would be a mistake. In a conversation about reincarnation she makes arguments that her friend recognizes as being similar to the philosophies of Pascal and Plato, two writers she hasn't read.
Although the plot of this film is more conventional (i.e. it has something like a resolution) than most Rohmer films it still manages to be quite effective and emotionally resonant. The cinematography is quite good, especially in the opening montage and the urban night scenes. Also, once again Rohmer does an incredible job of capturing the essence of a complex character. One of the best Rohmer films I've seen
For those who believe in the power of love, now witness the power of Rohmer.
A most brilliant, brilliant movie. Rohmer here exhibits nothing but true mastery in this most insightful work on the power of love over all else. This is a movie for romantics, dreamers and those who have known what it is to live for love.
Being "a Rohmer", the movie is by no means fast paced but as each minute passes you lose track of time as you become ever more consumed in the story; and it's a story whose tension almost effortlessly builds as the movie progresses; fulfilled in part by Rohmer's brilliant direction but also by the exceptional performance of Charlotte Very. Her acting in this movie is so brilliant that it's sometimes difficult to recall that you are actually watching a fictional movie and not a fly on the wall treatise on the nature of love that never dies. The question one must repeatedly wonder concerns the nature of love and more particularly whether one can ever love other persons the same way you loved your first? Whether your views change or not from watching this movie, it would be difficult not to be moved by its tale. All I can say is that by the film's ending I really was hungry for more - which rarely happens to me when watching movies! That being said, this is definitely not a movie for everyone: If your "top ten" includes Transformers, 300, Fight Club then you should steer well clear of Conte D'Hiver. The action in this movie is only of the psychological sort. Rohmer fans will (needless to say) be instant converts. But if you enjoyed movies as diverse as Before Sunrise, or even Casablanca you'll certainly not want to miss Conte D'Hiver/A Winter's Tale. Without a moment's hesitation, I give it 9/10. And so should you! Please watch it & see why...
Being "a Rohmer", the movie is by no means fast paced but as each minute passes you lose track of time as you become ever more consumed in the story; and it's a story whose tension almost effortlessly builds as the movie progresses; fulfilled in part by Rohmer's brilliant direction but also by the exceptional performance of Charlotte Very. Her acting in this movie is so brilliant that it's sometimes difficult to recall that you are actually watching a fictional movie and not a fly on the wall treatise on the nature of love that never dies. The question one must repeatedly wonder concerns the nature of love and more particularly whether one can ever love other persons the same way you loved your first? Whether your views change or not from watching this movie, it would be difficult not to be moved by its tale. All I can say is that by the film's ending I really was hungry for more - which rarely happens to me when watching movies! That being said, this is definitely not a movie for everyone: If your "top ten" includes Transformers, 300, Fight Club then you should steer well clear of Conte D'Hiver. The action in this movie is only of the psychological sort. Rohmer fans will (needless to say) be instant converts. But if you enjoyed movies as diverse as Before Sunrise, or even Casablanca you'll certainly not want to miss Conte D'Hiver/A Winter's Tale. Without a moment's hesitation, I give it 9/10. And so should you! Please watch it & see why...
- supadude2004
- Apr 12, 2008
- Permalink
OH MY GAWD!
I have seen a lot of Rohmer, but this is the best of the lot. As opposed to the way hollywood would have made this film, where the outcome would be more obvious as time passed, this gets more uncertain throughout. the interminable wanderings and sulkings of the lead character create an almost unbearable emotional tension, which makes the impact of the end even more astonishing. watch this film as soon as possible, and then compel your mates to see it. if they arnt touched, they live in an emotional vacuum.
Why shouldn't one be happy?
Rohmer turns philosophy's head around in this film from the last leg of his productive life. In his earlier films such as Signe de lion and the Collector we see the love triangles as weapons of mass destruction a la Schoenburg and Nietzsche. But in Conte d'hiver Rohmer brings fantasy into the possible though questionably improbable coincidences of life.
Ava Loraschi, as the child, is particularly delightful as Rohmer directs her in a naturalistic, cinema verite style showing his Nouvelle Vague roots.
- propos-86965
- Jan 17, 2021
- Permalink
Waiting for Prince Charming....
- planktonrules
- May 17, 2016
- Permalink
Faith
Rohmer, Shakespeare, Pascal & Coincidence
- ilpohirvonen
- Jun 23, 2010
- Permalink
"What a fool honesty is." ― William Shakespeare, The Winter's Tale
Eric Rohmer (1920 – 2010) was a genius, a director who was able to make combustible films that leave traces on our minds like the romances in this particular film. A TALE OF WINTER is one of the four seasons quadrant of films that hold him in very high esteem among cinema buffs. Thanks to the efforts of Big World Pictures it is now available on DVD.
Felicie (Charlotte Véry) and Charles (Frédéric van den Driessche) have a serious if whirlwind holiday romance. Due to a mix-up on addresses they lose contact, and five years later at Christmas-time Felicie is a hairdresser living with her mother in a cold Paris with a daughter (from Charles) as a reminder of that long-ago summer. For male companionship she oscillates between hairdresser Maxence (Michel Voletti) and the intellectual Loic (Hervé Furic), but seems unable to commit to either as the memory of Charles and what might have been hangs over everything. The plot centers on Félicie's shifting allegiances to the three men in her life, with an abortive move to another city, a strange experience in the cathedral of Nevers, and a performance of Shakespeare's 'The Winter's Tale' among the stations on a roundabout journey that finally brings her face to face with the most basic issues of destiny and faith.
Rohmer gently guides us through the portals of love in all its forms and few can match his gifts. Making this film widely available is a true gift.
Felicie (Charlotte Véry) and Charles (Frédéric van den Driessche) have a serious if whirlwind holiday romance. Due to a mix-up on addresses they lose contact, and five years later at Christmas-time Felicie is a hairdresser living with her mother in a cold Paris with a daughter (from Charles) as a reminder of that long-ago summer. For male companionship she oscillates between hairdresser Maxence (Michel Voletti) and the intellectual Loic (Hervé Furic), but seems unable to commit to either as the memory of Charles and what might have been hangs over everything. The plot centers on Félicie's shifting allegiances to the three men in her life, with an abortive move to another city, a strange experience in the cathedral of Nevers, and a performance of Shakespeare's 'The Winter's Tale' among the stations on a roundabout journey that finally brings her face to face with the most basic issues of destiny and faith.
Rohmer gently guides us through the portals of love in all its forms and few can match his gifts. Making this film widely available is a true gift.
Good effort by Rohmer, with happy (but improbable) ending
Rohmer Confuses "Mental Illness" With "Love" !!!
Rohmer's supremacy; such a tasteful movie!
- Cristi_Ciopron
- Oct 13, 2008
- Permalink
A Rohmer gem
So moving!
- jlpk-17295
- Apr 23, 2024
- Permalink