Conte d'hiver [A Tale of Winter] (1992)
.jpg)
Just in case it wasn't obvious from that "better than their American counterparts" gag, I liked this quite a bit. That's no huge surprise: I liked My Night at Maud's, too. I'd have to give that a rewatch before even trying to rank them, but what I think is less important than what you're likely to think. And if you're not a weirdo who's been getting obsessed with films streaming on the Criterion Channel, the key detail is that A Tale of Winter is significantly more approachable than My Night at Maud's, which moves at a comparatively glacial pace (but, again, if that isn't a dealbreaker it's still really good).
Even this one's relatively slow-paced by most standards, but the philosophical debates and literary discussions are relatively brief asides here, rather than the extended treatises in his earlier film. Interestingly, both explore parallels between Pascal's Wager and a romantic outlook. Whether the repetition here is a specific callback to his earlier Christmas film or a common idea he returns to in numerous movies is beyond my expertise (feel free to illuminate me, film studies grads).
The story centers around Félicie, a woman who had a passionate summer affair five years earlier with a man named Charles. The romance was never supposed to end - they parted with every intent to continue the relationship. But Charles lacked a stable address (he was on his way to America for work), and Félicie accidentally wrote her address incorrectly.
Jump ahead to December 14th of the present day, and she's never forgiven herself for losing the love of her life. This is doubly problematic because (surprise, surprise) she's a got a four year-old daughter.
She also has a couple boyfriends: Maxence and Loïc. Maxence is her boss at the beauty salon, and he's leaving his wife and moving to another town at the start of the movie. He asks Félicie to come with him. She impulsively agrees then breaks up with Loïc, an academically minded man she likes better as a friend than Maxence, but not as much as a romantic partner. That said, her heart still belongs to Charles, a fact both men are well aware of. They know the story, and they're aware she's still in love with the guy. But no one seriously expects it to matter, as the odds of her ever finding him seem astronomical. Even Félicie agrees, at least in principle. She knows the likelihood of seeing Charles is slim, and - even if she did - odds are he'd be married with a family of his own by this time.
She moves in with Maxence briefly before deciding she can't live with someone she's not deeply in love with, then moves back home. She then reconnects with Loïc, albeit with the expectation she only wants to be friends (though she seems to warm to him a bit). However when takes her to a production of Shakespeare's A Winter's Tale, she's moved by the ending, which rekindles her obsession with love as an absolute. The movie makes it clear this is a form of faith; essentially the only thing she truly believes in (in contrast to Loïc, who - like Rohmer - is Catholic).
Then, a few minutes before the end of the movie, Félicie and her daughter run into Charles on New Year's Eve. After a very brief misunderstanding surrounding the woman he's with (just his sister), they reconcile happily. Her dream literally just comes true. It's like a romantic comedy ending at the culmination of a grounded, dramatic character study.
If you're wondering how that doesn't seem like the biggest cop-out imaginable, there are a couple things worth keeping in mind. First, the movie doesn't portray Félicie's faith as blind. She knows how absurd she's being by most people's standards, but she views the possible stakes as grand enough to justify the wager (this is, needless to say, how Pascal's Wager is referenced). Because of this, we're not placed in a position where her losing would come across as a meaningful cautionary tale against naivety or unrealistic expectations. She's willing to lose everything, so there'd be no irony or justification for the most likely ending coming to pass. Also, there's the whole Winter's Tale thing. Even setting the title aside, the movie devotes a significant amount of time to the play, ensuring we understand its significance. And since we're all highly educated people who didn't have to skim the Wikipedia article for a Shakespearean play before writing any blog articles, we all already know the play is famous for being difficult to categorize due to it being structured like a drama but ending like a comedy. It's only natural for Rohmer to end his Tale of Winter the same way.
And that brings us to Christmas. Or New Year's, since the movie devotes far more time to the 31st than the 25th. Or maybe we should focus on the whole season, because Christmas is certainly important. This is a movie about faith, after all.
But not exactly faith in God. In fact, the concept of God is more or less dismissed by Félicie, who has no interest in religion. Loïc is the believer - or at least he believes he is. He's treated as intelligent and well meaning by the narrative and seen that way by Félicie as well. But while he expresses belief in God and Catholicism, the movie all but states outright it's Félicie who lives her life according to faith (and - unlike Loïc - is rewarded for it). The movie seems to hold that faith is more important than any religious structure or doctrine. The implication seems to be that faith in love (or perhaps anything meaningful) is preferable to devotion to the church or even to God.
Alternatively, you could read this as a sort of allegory for faith in God itself. After all, the movie does seem to endorse Pascal's Wager, and the idea that "God is love" certainly wouldn't be new. I think this reading works well enough, but I don't quite buy it. For one, the movie ends with a shot of children playing in front of a small Christmas tree and smaller nativity display, the latter is overshadowed by the tree, which in turn is behind the kids. Both the nativity and tree seem tacky and unimportant, which to me implies the movie - despite being made by a religious filmmaker - is at least acknowledging that devotion to texts and traditions is not true faith. It would be a slight stretch to call Félicie an atheist... but she's certainly closer to that than she is to Christianity.
Regardless of which interpretation you like (assuming you don't have another), the holidays play into these themes. And of course there's also the old standby of using New Year's as a moment of transition from past to future. The scenery throughout the film is bleak and cold, but as the winter solstice is a reminder of warmer days to come, the movie ends optimistically for the reunited couple. This certainly echoes American holiday movies (perhaps this is why Charles went to the US), albeit with a more grounded tone. Even the absurdly happy ending feels more down-to-Earth than you'd expect, with Félicie bringing Charles to her mother's New Year's gathering and everyone acting surprised but natural about the implausible love story unfolding in front of them.
All of which has the counterintuitive effect of elevating just how gratifying it is to see the happy-ever-after play out. Turns out, those are even more effective in fairytales that feel real. Who knew?
That's most of why this movie works as well as it does. The payoff of an unapologetic happy ending to a the sort of movie we've been conditioned to expect the opposite is something special. Even before that, the movie juggles its philosophy and characters well enough to keep your attention. Or my attention, at least. I realize this sort of thing isn't for everyone, but I suspect it's for enough people to be worth taking a leap of faith.
Comments
Post a Comment