Turfseer In French it's called "My Girlfriend's Boyfriend" and it's set around the time the movie was made in 1987.  We meet Blanche (played with great intensity by Emmanuelle Chaulet) who lives in a new town near Paris, Cergy-Pontoise (known for its ultra-modern architecture).  She's an ordinary civil servant working in the Ministry of Cultural Affairs.  When she runs into a slightly younger college student at a computer school, Lea, they strike up a fast friendship.  Keep in mind that for those who are looking for a lot of action and sudden plot reversals, you will not find it here.  Boyfriends and Girlfriends is primarily dialogue driven as well as an intimate character study and if you are willing to put up with the glacial pacing, then you will find this film quite compelling.  We soon discover that Lea is quite different than her newly found friend, Blanche.  Lea is a 'player' and she bemoans the fact that her current boyfriend, Fabien, has "no initiative" and with him, all her games "fall flat".   She hints that maybe an older man would suit her better.  Blanche, on the other hand, has fallen for Alexandre, a slightly older guy who has a Ph.D in engineering and works for the local 'Power and Light' company. From the get go, Lea recognizes that Alexandre is not Blanche's type since he's a "ladies man" and is  "not serious minded".  Blanche, however, sticks to her adolescent infatuation and when they both run into the handsome Lothario at a local restaurant, she's tongue-tied and comes to the conclusion that she's made a fool of herself in his eyes.  Lea soon announces to Blanche that she's taking a vacation to get away from Fabien.  She reasons that perhaps there are more fish in the sea that she can catch.  Lea gives Blanche her French Open ticket, where she sits next to Fabien and a disinterested Alexandre who's with a friend, Adrienne. Later, Adrienne, a gossip, urges Blanche to go after Fabien; while her remarks are inappropriate, she still serves up the prescient remark that Fabien and Lea are "trapped".  Soon, Blanche and Fabien end up seeing each other.  They enjoy windsurfing together, a sport which Lea has no interest in.  Before you know it, Blanche and Fabien find that they like each other more and more.  Before kissing Fabien, Lea cries not because they're "tears of joy' but rather she still has some "silly girlish ideas" (her infatuation with Alexandre).  Blanche can't repress her sexual desires for Fabien so she sleeps with him but makes him promise that it's a one time deal and that he shouldn't tell Lea or anyone else about their rendezvous.  Soon we realize that Rohmer's strategy is to document the crisis for these four young people in the summer before they "commit" to one another.  Lea makes one last attempt to get back with Fabien but soon afterward at a café, reveals to Blanche that she's left him for good.  And after Alexandre joins them at the café, Blanche realizes (after listening to Alexandre's banter) that she's been deluding herself about him, all along.  Blanche actually gets physically sick and excuses herself from the table, leaving Lea and Alexandre to find out whether they're really meant for one another.In probably the best scene in the film, Lea proves that she has the mettle to go 'toe to toe' with Alexandre. Her gambit is to confirm that Alexandre has no interest in Blanche. He immediately denies that he ever displayed any interest in her ("Did I lead her on?") and then bluntly states that "she's boring". Alexandre asks Lea if she'd like to come over to his place and Lea smartly replies, "I'm too young to set up house".Lea and Alexandre's conversation is interrupted by a scene with Blanche and Adrienne. Rohmer establishes that Adrienne is the odd woman out. Unlike the two couples, she's basically a fool who's not serious about getting involved in a relationship. Adrienne mentions a "young painter—he seems sensitive" and Rohmer mocks her by utilizing a fade out to end the scene as she continues blabbing about nothing (the only time Rohmer appears to 'fade out' in the entire film).We cut back to Lea and Alexandre's extended conversation—Lea states she likes to be wooed and wonders why Alexandre never did anything "wild" months before. He snaps his fingers and humorously offers a 'wild scenario': "Let's runaway. I'll kidnap you"! Lea doesn't find this "wild" at all so Alexandre bluntly states, "come live with me". Lea concedes that "she might" but it won't be for six months. Alexandre has met his match. Lea offers a deal where they both agree not to see anyone else for six months.Meanwhile, Blanche meets Fabien and confesses that she was in "love with an image" and now realizes that Alexandre wasn't for her all along. The crisis continues for a moment when Blanche misunderstands Lea when they meet (she believes Lea has been talking about Fabien but actually was talking about Alexandre all along).Rohmer wraps things up nicely with a pleasant, happy ending. Lea and Blanche's friendship remains solid despite being sorely tested by their decision to begin new relationships. The bigger picture is that both couples are now ready to shack up for the long-term. Rohmer suggests that even the philandering Alexandre is ready to commit as he has met his match with Lea. And Blanche and Fabien, the ones who refuse to 'play act', find mutual attraction through their mutual 'sensitive' nature.Boyfriends and Girlfriends could have used a little tighter editing especially in regards to the long-winded exposition; but with its great dialogue and Rohmer's ability to chronicle each characters' inner turmoil, this is a worthwhile film for the discerning and patient film goer!

jm10701 I must not be an Eric Rohmer fan. This is the second of his movies I've seen, after A Summer's Tale, which I disliked although I'm a big fan of Melvil Poupaud. Both movies are trite and tedious.Boyfriends & Girlfriends is a boring movie with boring, shallow people talking nonstop about themselves, which, from what I've read, is Rohmer's specialty. When I ask myself, Why would he be interested in people like that? I have no answer. Maybe he identifies with them. Maybe he finds them fascinating.I love movies in which nothing much happens except character development, but there has to be something interesting about the characters. The most interesting thing in this movie is an unnaturally clear, turquoise-colored, antiseptic lake that a couple go windsurfing on. I've never seen a lake like that in my life. These shallow people live in a sterile, artificial city that looks like a brand new shopping mall (and it's a real place, not made up for the movie), so maybe the lake is artificial too, like a gigantic swimming pool on a golf course.Everything about this movie screams emptiness and artificiality, so at least it is consistent. Maybe vacant people in a vacant city symbolize something important to Rohmer and his fans, but they just bore me. I'm very interested in lots of things, but spending almost two hours watching petulant, spoiled, shallow people irritate and bore each other isn't one of them.I'm giving it a star for consistency, which alone is enough to lift it a little way off the bottom of the barrel.

tedg Spoilers herein.The two poles of my cinematic world are Greenaway and Rohmer. At the Greenaway end, the images are lush and overloaded. The story is deeply self-reflexive. Everything is saturated with intent. The world created is special, otherworldly.And then there is Rohmer. The story here is arbitrary, one might as well tour a zoo or go on a shopping trip. The images and actor's impression is wholly unremarkable, invisible by design. The camera is as unpretentious as possible, and with study, one can see some significant effort went into this apparent effortlessness. The whole point with Greenaway is to create a skin around his work with paths into the interior. The opposite is the case with Rohmer. He places his world squarely in the ordinary one you inhabit. Everything by its unremarkable nature points outward. All the meaning in this film comes not from the film, but from the world we live in with the film providing paths from itself to us.Rohmer is all about framing -- framing in such a way that the picture is ostensibly framed, but actually everything _but_ the film is framed. So we have films that are parts of cycles, larger sets. Each set refers to something that exists beyond art and life: proverbs or seasons or such. Not love or any of the normal bumpf that is all invented for the sake of ordinary art -- instead the pure, simple ordinary stuff of life. There is no one at all with the courage to do this but Rohmer. Jarmusch does it but only for irony. Tarkovsky did it but only by beginning with dream images.This is an intelligence that transcends ideas. Anyone who thinks this story has any content -- either sweet or profound -- is missing the point.Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 4: Worth watching.

Gerry-12 Maybe I've OD'd on Rohmer, just having looked at this film, "Full Moon over Paris" and "The Aviator's Wife" (all on DVD)in a single week. The tone of this picture is light for Rohmer, but his heroine is just as indecisive about how to get her man as his others are about which man to choose. A nice comedy.