Eric Rohmer has a lot to answer for; he has probably inspired more inept would-be film directors than anyone living. The problem is that you watch a Rohmer film - and A Tale Of Springtime is a prime example -and say to yourself, Jeez, I could do that and whilst the more mature and well-balanced leave it at that far too many untalented persuade the equally ungifted in charge of doling out Lottery money that they COULD do it and we wind up with far more banjo pics than we need.
Rohmer's style - and I use the word loosely - is to cut abruptly a beat, or two or three, before a scene reaches a natural conclusion, pad out the story, when he deigns to provide one, with meaningless shots - in this case a country road viewed from the perspective of a car driver/passenger which contributes less than nothing to whatever is going on - or even better he'll have two people in a car - again as here - and one will give a direction like 'turn left at the river' and in the next shot they have, presumably, reached their destination some 35 miles away, the car is nowhere in sight, they are in a garden and we have to ASSUME the garden belongs to the cottage to which they were driving. More? Okay, how about a rambling philosophical discussion over dinner, four main actors who seem to be reacting to dialogue/situations from at least four different and unconnected films and a 'missing' necklace ultimately located in one of the most improbable and risible scenes in cinematic history.
On the other hand they'll love it in the Groves of Academe and in those Pseuds Corners otherwise known as the 'culture' programmes on television. If you like disciplined film-making, a strong story told in the 'old-fashioned' grammatical way, i.e. Master Shot, Long Shot, Mid Shot, Two-Shot, Three-Shot seamlessly interspersed with Fades, Dissolves and Cuts then this one will give you nightmares.
Rohmer's style - and I use the word loosely - is to cut abruptly a beat, or two or three, before a scene reaches a natural conclusion, pad out the story, when he deigns to provide one, with meaningless shots - in this case a country road viewed from the perspective of a car driver/passenger which contributes less than nothing to whatever is going on - or even better he'll have two people in a car - again as here - and one will give a direction like 'turn left at the river' and in the next shot they have, presumably, reached their destination some 35 miles away, the car is nowhere in sight, they are in a garden and we have to ASSUME the garden belongs to the cottage to which they were driving. More? Okay, how about a rambling philosophical discussion over dinner, four main actors who seem to be reacting to dialogue/situations from at least four different and unconnected films and a 'missing' necklace ultimately located in one of the most improbable and risible scenes in cinematic history.
On the other hand they'll love it in the Groves of Academe and in those Pseuds Corners otherwise known as the 'culture' programmes on television. If you like disciplined film-making, a strong story told in the 'old-fashioned' grammatical way, i.e. Master Shot, Long Shot, Mid Shot, Two-Shot, Three-Shot seamlessly interspersed with Fades, Dissolves and Cuts then this one will give you nightmares.