User Reviews

Nothing much happens in Bertrand Tavernier's 1984 film, A Sunday in the Country, but at the end I felt like I had attended a close family gathering and became part of the family. Based on a novel by Pierre Best, an elderly painter of still lifes and historical scenes (Louis Ducreix) invites his family to his French country estate just before World War I. The family takes walks, they talk about dinner, tell each other stories and engage in the mundane occurrences of the day. In the process, the film becomes poetic witness to the enduring strength of family. Beautifully photographed in autumn pastels, Tavernier's film looks like an impressionist painting itself. I felt bathed in soothing warmth that lingered long after the end of the film.

An atmosphere of nostalgia and melancholy soon sets in. The artist, Mr. Ladmiral, admittedly finds his son Gonzague (Michel Aumont) a disappointment and prefers his more free-spirited daughter Irene (Sabine Azema). When she shows up full of energy, Ladmiral becomes alive and openly discusses his innermost feelings. He tells Irene that he flirted with Impressionism in his early life, but instead decided to paint what he really felt. It is clear that he is disappointed that he did not follow his first inclination. In one of the most poignant scenes in the film, he tells Irene that he had been dreaming of Moses who died content after seeing the "Promised Land", then asks her, "Did I age too quickly"? As her answer, she lovingly asks him to dance with her.

In the final sequence, Ladmiral returns home after seeing his family off on the train. He looks at the still life he has been painting, removes it and replaces it with a blank canvas. It is uncertain if he is now ready to paint in the impressionistic style or has accepted his own limitations and is content with seeing the "Promised Land". The clear light shining through the window signals the latter.

This film is so mellow, in fact it is one of the mellowest I ever watched. As the title mentioned the story is about a Sunday on the countryside. Two children visit their old father, a famous painter (monsieur L'Admiral). The son (Gonzague) with his wife and three children, the daughter (Irene) unexpected and alone. Nothing really happens but from the dialogues a story unfolds. The painter is slightly disappointed by his son who also feels that he lets his father down by not following in his footsteps and become a painter himself. The daughter is everything that the painter longs to be: a free spirit. She drives a car (which must be very uncommon for a woman in those days) and is rumored to have lovers. The painter himself had received many prizes during his long career but is aware that others painted more inventive. He lived long enough to see that artists like Monet, Cezanne and van Gogh are receiving the credits for the development of the art. Irene still tries to push him to paint more from his heart in stead of the beautiful but dull paintings he made during his career.

I have a feeling that this film is somewhat autobiographical for the director. Bertrand Tavernier is a well known and respected director but doesn't have the same reputation as revolutionaries like Godard, Resnais or Rivette. It seems to me that he says here that in his career he tries to follow his colleagues of the Nouvelle Vague and New Wave of French Cinema but in the end opted to make these lovely filmed movies that will cause no uproar and neither will upset any viewer. His message is "If I would make films like Godard they wouldn't have the same power so instead I choose to make these movies with lovely scenes and these little stories". There is a good example in this film of the very conventional character of the painter. He asks Irene what she thinks about the new art of photography. As the story is situated around 1905 photography must be known to the painter all of his adult life, so it is hardly a new form of art.

There are two possible explanations for the end of the film. After his children have left Monsieur L'Admiral puts the painting of a couch he was working on away and places his easel in front of the window. It could be that after his discussions with Irene he starts a new painting but now chooses to follow his heart and emotions. It also could be a metaphor for the end of his life which will not be very far away.

For me the movie was a real pleasure to watch. Beautifully shot and with well worked-out characters. Still it's no masterpiece because it is so mellow. You watch in admiration but you're not drawn into it. The same difference between a good painting and a brilliant painting.

... would not exhaust the pleasures to be found in Tavernier's adaptation of the novel by Pierre Bost. Comparisons with Louis Malle's Milou en Mai are probably inevitable and when considered as a pair they remind us of the timelessness of French family life inasmuch as although sixty years divides the time-frames (Milou was set in 1968, this one around 1905) the country itself is eternal as are the people who inhabit it. True in Milou there is perhaps a more extended family and a sexual revolution has been and gone but essentially the two families are virtually interchangeable with their almost infinitesimal internecine rivalries, unspoken guilt feelings etc. The moment when free spirit Irene (Sabine Azema) asks her elderly father to dance with her is at once one of the most joyous and tenderest moments in film history and the ending with the ancient painter, alone for another week with his memories, replaces the canvas he is working on with a blank and sits contemplating it is masterful. One of Tavernier's best, which is saying something.