Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: This film grabbed me right from its start, where a sweet-looking teen-aged girl is shown visiting a grave alone, then Elton John's powerful song "Friends" starts playing while she's shown walking alone through the streets of Paris, carrying a suitcase, naively unaware of the car theft and prostitution going on around her. The entire film is a beautiful, dreamy, romantic collection of scenes of young love, holding hands, living in the country, wild horses running around freely, fields of wildflowers, sunsets, toasts of wine, evenings by the fireside, having fun, and general innocence, all set to romantic music by Elton John. It's magical.

Somehow I missed seeing this film when I was growing up. I'm sure it would have left a strong impression on me if I had seen it then. I remember the radio advertisement for the movie in 1971, talking about how it was a special movie with music by Elton John, and with the chorus of the theme song "Friends" playing in the ad ("Makin' friends for the world to see..."), but I never heard anything else about it in those days, and never got to see it until I rented it 35 years later from a video store. By then it had been edited, censored, and all kinds of unhappy people with angry political agendas were using all kinds of ugly words to describe the film. What can I say? The world has gone insane since then.

The story is that a 14-year-old girl is forced to move in with her cousin in Paris after both her parents die. (It was their grave she was visiting in the opening scene.) One day while visiting the zoo alone she meets a 15-year-old boy, they hit it off, and agree to meet the next day. The next day while riding together the boy accidentally drives his car into a lake in a freakish solo car accident. It was his father's car, he can't bear to go back home to face his father's wrath, so the two teenagers begin living in the French countryside together, with the mutual background that they both hated their lives at home. They settle into an unoccupied cottage, the boy takes odd jobs to support themselves, their supposed friendship turns into romance, the girl becomes pregnant, and they successfully have a baby at home. All the while the boy's father has the police attempting to locate his missing son. On the 1-year anniversary of the couple's flight together, the police finally locate the boy's employer by an in-person inquiry, and are told they can see the boy the next morning when he comes to work. The next morning the boy is shown leaving his cottage to go to work, saying a sweet farewell to his girlfriend/wife, and happily doing cartwheels as the scene freezes on his girlfriend waving goodbye. At least that's how the video version I saw ends. It's an unexpected though well-timed ending, presumably depicting the last moments of bliss before the boy is taken back to his parents' home and his happy life with his wife and baby is shattered.

As beautiful as the story and images are, the plot is awfully unrealistic and highly contrived. I think it's better just to enjoy the movie as a young person's dream-come-true fantasy and to go no further in analysis, because all logic and believability quickly fall apart when the story is examined in more depth. Why would a fully furnished and stocked cottage be left unattended with the door unlocked and unvisited for a full year? What did they plan to do when the owners returned? Why would a girl trust a car thief enough to get pregnant from him? Didn't they think it was unethical to use other people's homes and food? How could they ever hope to get needed dental care or other emergency medical attention while living outside of society? How could the boy have a car accident on a country road with no collision and no other cars around? Where are there places anywhere near civilization where wild horses run free? How is it that a teenage male would not have sex as the primary thing on his mind when he picks up a girl at a zoo? (The Elton John song lyrics just don't fit.) Why would they take off clothes when sleeping outside at night when it's about to get cold? And so on. The scenes of wild horses are contrived to appeal to girls, as is the unrealistic theme of "friendship before romance," and all the back-washing and tickling scenes with their predictable outcomes, the running through flower fields towards each other, the haze filters, the scenes shot through wildflowers in the foreground, the baby ducks, and so on. It works, but it's definitely contrived.

Still, this is a movie about youth and freedom, and that ideal hasn't changed since the 1970s. Young people today are still treated as belongings or as lost pets to be recovered by the police instead of treated as mature human beings who have the same needs of romantic love and freedom as does the adult world, and the ability to be responsible when given that freedom. Therefore the message is universal. It's clear why a sequel wouldn't work: this story is about a magical, year-long reprieve from the real world. Such a situation could never have been extended indefinitely, assuming that it could even happen in the first place, and a story about real life afterward would lack the magical appeal of such an unreal state of existence. I really hope that no teenagers took the film seriously enough to try such a foolish stunt. But I hope equally well that teenagers who were impressed by this film in the '70s learned something from it, and have since then made attempts to make such a magical world a more attainable reality for others, instead of perpetuating society's various hatreds and repressions, especially on their own children.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive