“Summertime” is the film this week and it’s a David Lean “chick flick” – a melodrama of the highest order – not too far removed from a Douglas Sirk picture….and the story goes like this:

Jane Hudson is a single woman (I assume) traveling to Venice. She’s got a 16mm movie camera and some good ol’ Akron, Ohio spunk and when she lands in Venice at her hotel – after some obligatory confusion with the language and meeting other annoying tourists, she settles in from some shots of bourbon and relaxation. But, here’s the problem, she’s ALONE. She wants to party, she wants to hang out with the other young tourists who are having the time of their lives but, sadly…she’s ALONE. Golly, what’s a girl to do?

Befriending a street urchin she starts touring the city with her camera in hand. When she arrives at some big square a handsome Italian gentleman makes contact with her. Though all he does is call over a waiter she’s smitten. What’s not to like? He’s handsome, he speaks Italian, he’s, uh, handsome?

The next day (or later that day) she wanders into an antique shop and buys a red goblet. Lo and behold the owner of the shop is said Italian Handsome Guy and they do a little bargain hunting flirting: “You said it was 10,000, I’ll give you 10,000.” “No, madam, we Italians like to bargain. I give to you for 8,700.” Now you KNOW it’s love when you’re getting discounts from hot Italian antique salesmen.

Still smitten she returns to the shop the next day and ends up in the drink. She knows she’s acting foolish but, by God, she’s SMITTEN (and she’s ALONE). Eventually they start talking some more and spending time with each other and then it comes to the BIG MOMENT… When the dork tourists we meet early on show up out-of-the-blue with the very same goblets they purchased at a lesser price. He demands, though, that his are GENUINE 18TH CENTURY! And then the comparison to ravioli and sex. She wants to, God knows she wants to…but the struggle. She’s an American. He’s Italian. Okay, they go out.

Out on the town, they listen to some classical music, he buys her a flower, they walk the streets, she loses the flower. They kiss, she backs away, she kisses him, she announces her love for him and off she runs. ‘Till tomorrow! 8 p.m.!

In pure “Pretty Woman” fashion, she gets all dolled up for him and still, sadly, looks like Katherine Hepburn (she just ain’t that pretty – no doubt about it). As she waits for him he’s delayed. How do we know this? HIS SON has come to tell her that he’s delayed. That means he’s…MARRIED? OH MY GOD! NOT THAT!! She runs home to cry in her whiskey.

When he shows up a little later he admits, yes, that he’s married. But they’re estranged (or something). She fights him off for about 10 seconds and then they’re off to see fireworks and finally consummate their relationship. Shoes are dropped. Fireworks are seen. We know all we need to know (wink wink).

They spend the next few nights making love (with lines like: “You sleep all day…then you’re up all night.” ooooooooooooooooooooooooh, that means they’re having sex) and tooling around on tour boats and having a grand time.

When they return to Venice proper she, though, announces she’s leaving on the next train. Two hours and she’s gone. Back home to Akron. Back home to…well, Akron. He insists she stay. He tells her he loves her. But she won’t be swayed.

In the final scene she’s on the train. Hoping, I guess, that he’ll show up. But, alas, it’s the street urchin with flies buzzing around him. He gives her a pen. Is that it? But…NO! In pure cinematic clichéd fashion just as the train is leaving he shows up but it’s too late and he brought her a gift a…..flower….

The End

WHAT I DUG ABOUT THIS FILM:

The print was pristine, the Technicolor’s vibrant, some of the camera work is done very well. Lots of camera movement, some great angles and they use the city of Venice like it’s a picture postcard. I would be surprised if Venice didn’t PAY them to come and film there. The only downfall you see of Venice is someone dumps some waste in the water. That’s it! Other than that – the city is perfect.

The acting was “okay.” I always find Katherine Hepburn to be a bit “stiff” and she always seems to play the same character. She was right for the role, though, in the fact that she’s not some hottie Audrey Hepburn who’d have men crawling out of the canal. The part was played as someone who doesn’t get out much, so in that way Kate fit the bill. Rosano Brazzi played his part just fine as the handsome guy. Really not much to do. Stand around, look handsome, compare sex to ravioli. SIMPLE!

The film is based on a play and the creators did a great job expanding it out to the city and beyond. It did not “feel” play bound. If I didn’t know this going in – I would be surprised.

WHAT I DIDN’T DIG ABOUT THIS FILM:

Simply put, it’s the character that Katherine Hepburn plays: Jane Hudson. There is ABSOLUTELY NO BACK STORY on her character. WHO is she? WHY is she in Venice? WHAT does she do for a living? Is she getting over a heartbreak? Is she a Sunday School teacher? Is she a spy and all this “filming” is actually to find targets upon which her terrorist network can destroy? NOTHING. NADA. ZIP.

Due to the fact that she has no back story – it was very hard for me to engage in the character (and was wonderful as Kate Hepburn is in the part – she’s always hard for me to engage with). What this did was create a distance that I couldn’t cross.

If she’s there for two weeks, then the fact that she’s now fallen in love takes on added weight. If she’s there to wait for her husband to meet up with her, then the fact that she’s fallen in love adds layers of conflict. If she’s there because she can’t deal with the reality that she is an alien baby carrier and needs to be around water to give birth…well, you get what I mean. ANYTHING would have been better than to just see a lonely woman that I don’t know anything about get jiggy with some handsome Italian antique dealer.

And, again, what is it with the DUBBING!? I don’t know if it was the processing or what, but the first few minutes of the film, the over-dubbing of the dialogue was really awkward. Everything was off a split second which just made me concentrate on that – and not on what was actually being said.

Side note: She’s a “spinster” as described by Leonard Maltin. Okay, she may very well be a spinster, but early scenes of her throwing back shots of whiskey and mixing drinks and offering to buy drinks for the entire party, etc. makes me think that – she may not be having sex, but she’s a borderline spinster alcoholic.

SHOULD YOU DIG (OR NOT DIG) THIS MOVIE?

The film was okay. Good scenery. Nice picture postcard. Melodrama got a bit stretched at moments but, overall, nothing much.