User Reviews

There is no more beautiful sight on God's green earth, than a nubile young female and I make no excuses for enjoying looking at them. David Hamilton has had a terrific life photographing girls. I have seen his other work and a lot of it is to be admired, this film though, isn't very good.(At least my copy of the DVD.)It is dated 1984 but appears to be shot in the seventies, grainy and faded with bad sound. Bright sunlight is difficult to 'shoot' in but half the time I found it hard to see anything clearly. (Bilitis is also shot in sunlight yet is fine, all is sharp.)So be warned, if you wish to spend sixty minutes hoping to see sharp clear images of young girls disporting themselves on beaches, this film isn't it!

This film shows that, even with the best of backdrops, the most romantic scenery and the most beautiful girls, it is perfectly possible to make an extremely boring film. I like pretty girls as much as anybody, but this film has turned me completely off girls. In fact, I think I might try that gay thing now. For several hours after watching this absolute dog of a movie, I went limp! It just was that bad. I really imagine that even for pedophiles this is a torture to watch.

I thought this guy was supposed to be a photographer? DOESN'T HE KNOW HOW TO DEAL WITH LIGHT? In the first part of the film, (which is supposed to introduce the characters) all the shots of the girls faces are in the dark or half shade. Now, I get what he was trying to do here, harsh direct light is not as beautiful as mysterious shade. BUT YOU HAVE TO GET IT RIGHT! This was technically speaking, the worst film I've seen in a long time. Even Youtube video is better than this. There are no close ups, and the half wide shots we get of the girls' faces are all in the dark or in the shade. You never get to see the girls. In fact, the FIRST close up we get that is sharp and well-lit, is of the GUY? What is THAT?! Is Hamilton actually gay? Or what? Was he on drugs when he made this?

It is simply awful! Couldn't he have at least read ONE book about film making? A leaflet? For sure, you should have some sort of introduction of the characters, this is most effectively done with a wide-shot, half-wide shot, close-up sequence. In this way some sort of identification is possible. Here, not so much. Especially with girls that look so much a like, it's important to establish who is who and who did what, and with whom. This is completely ignored in this film.

Another commenter said that this is his best film, because of the awful dialog in Bilitis and Tendre Cousins. This is a backhanded compliment if I ever saw one. The solution to bad dialog is not NO dialog, but better dialog. Get a writer?

Okay, so films don't always need dialog, there are some very good dialog-less films made. Yet, 60 minutes completely without plot? Combined with this supermarket-music for airports? I watched this film in the morning, sitting on a straight backed hard chair in a cold apartment, drinking coffee. Yet I fell asleep 3 or 4 times, it was just that boring a movie.

And yes, yes, there are plot-less films, which are quite good. And there are bad plot-less films. And there are plot-less films, which are really BAD. And then ... there is "Un été à Saint-Tropez".

To paraphrase ol' Winston Churchill: Never has so LITTLE been accomplished with so MANY: so MANY devastatingly beautiful actresses and so MUCH breath-taking scenery. If only we had been able to see these actresses' faces properly! A body is not that interesting, the lack of face-time in this dog is what eventually seals it's fate.

And while I don't know his money situation at the time, I really do think he should have been able to afford a good light crew. And who did he think he was fooling with that fake soundtrack?

still rated five for casting.

So here's the fourth movie photographer-turned-filmmaker David Hamilton made. He was famous for taking photos of nude girls in late adolescence, with that "soft focus" style that made people think he smeared vaseline on the lens.

Regrettably, he carried that over into his filmmaking.

Anyway, Hamilton-the-director's first two movies, "Bilitis" and "Laura", were both very similar tales of young girls in a halcyon bygone era that possibly never existed, frolicking nude with other girls on the beach, bathing nude with other girls, sleeping, again most probably nude, again with other girls.

Then the plots kicked in, and the movie mostly left nudity behind, which was the only reason anyone would have ever watched these movies in the first place.

Hamilton seems to have never gotten much renown as a filmmaker. He's always known as a pervy photographer. Maybe that's because his movies mostly just feel like he took a movie camera to one of his photo shoots. The girls in his movies are all doing the kind of things you'd see in a photography book. In some shots, such as one in "Summer in Saint Tropez", they're filmed in obvious photographic poses, arrayed nude around a fruitbowl. The only reason why anybody would ever arrange themselves nude around a fruitbowl with a bunch of other nude girls is, frankly, so a photograph could be taken of them. Did Hamilton forget he was holding a movie camera, and not one that takes still shots?

The movie Hamilton made before this one, "Tender Cousins", actually showed promise. It seemed the photographer was coming into his own as a filmmaker. It was no masterpiece, but it had a believable sense of time and place, and a plot that didn't get in the way. Perhaps if he'd continued in this vein, he might have made a name for himself in the moving picture business.

I'm surprised I've been able to write so much in this review already. It is mostly because I haven't yet said anything much about the movie I'm actually supposed to be reviewing, "A Summer in Saint Tropez". You see, with this one it seems Hamilton just went back to square one. Remember I said that in his first couple of movies, plot got in the way of the nudity? Not so here, because there is no plot. Nor is there any characters. Or dialogue. It's like Hamilton just decided to bung out all that filmmaker stuff and just brought a movie camera to one of his photo shoots.

There being so little to talk about, all I can really say about the movie is to ask a question: How can something with such copious female nudity also be so boring? If you never thought looking at nude models could get old, you should watch this.

The usual rap on French director David Hamilton is that he is a "pervert". Give me a break--if every man who still felt some twinge of attraction to girls this age (16-20 years old) were to drop dead tomorrow, only the most committed homosexuals would be left to re-populate the earth. This is a French movie so many of the actresses here may not be "legal" by American standards. But if "perverts" (and by that I mean men) really want to fantasize about barely underage high school girls, they can watch an innocuous 1980's French nudie movie like this and really use their imagination to create sexual scenarios, or they can get an American-made "barely legal" hardcore porn flick where a young-looking eighteen year old in pig-tails and a school uniform gets gang-sodomized and triple-penetrated and they only have to pretend she's a year or two younger. Which do you think is more harmful to society?

But the problem I have with David Hamilton is that if it were possible to fall asleep with an erection, his movies could no doubt induce it. They are languorously slow-paced even by French standards. They are like still photography (which was Hamilton's principal career) at 24 frames a second. Unlike "Bilitis", this movies makes no effort to have a plot or drama (which might be for the best if you've seen "Bilitis"). It's basically just endless shots of a gaggle of young French nymphs sleeping (often in nude), showering, skinny-dipping, sunbathing (usually naked), fixing each others hair (in various states of undress), or having topless, slow-motion pillow fights. But it's all a lot more boring than it sounds.

I can't really fault Hamilton's photography, but he REALLY overuses the soft-focus (at times I wanted to grab his camera, wipe all the vaseline off the lens, and pull the damn focus!). I CAN definitely fault his taste in music. I had to laugh at an earlier reviewer who said this movie could be used to treat sex offenders. It IS kind of like the "ludvico technique" in "A Clockwork Orange" in that you have this footage of tantalizing naked nubiles juxtaposed with truly nausea-inducing music (although at least you don't have the banal dialogue of "Bilitis"--there's no dialogue at all actually, just a lot of giggling). Sure, this would probably work on sex offenders, but it would doubtlessly work on normal "perverts" too--not to mention guys like me, who of course only watched this disgusting filth to see the lush St. Tropez scenery--and now it's ruined forever (Damn you, David Hamilton!)

This is straight up one of David Hamilton's famous photobooks but shot as a movie. There is no story. And we don't ever get to see Saint Tropez. Pretty and slim girls frolick around in various combinations and situations, and it's sexy and esthetic. If I remember correctly, we get to see nipples, and that's it. And it's over all too soon in under one hour.

One think that always strikes me about David Hamilton is that I guess this is the way a girl or young woman would like to be presented in an erotic manner. Sexy but tastefully.

David Hamilton's earlier movies used to tell a story. I don't know why he gave it up. In 1983 he made two movies with financial backing from Germany, Un été à Saint Tropez and Premiers désirs, and both don't offer much in the way of a storyline.

Just saw this movie in Internet and I'm still under the influence of the magic Hamilton achieved here. No dialogs, no apparent plot, looking more like a looooong Playboy (or whatsoever) clip shot by a professional photographer than really a movie.

But the result... Magic! Hard not being affected by so much beautifulness. Eight lovely teenagers moving around the screen, in clothes or naked, during almost an hour feels like hitting the Heavens! Be that as it may, when you look for a Hamilton movie, you're looking for what is plenty shown on this one: young women. That's all the film is about, and is all the film has to offer you: beautiful young women. If this is what you are looking for, then this one is for you. And is the best he did, unfortunately the last one. It's a shame that this kind of work of art cannot be done anymore.

10 out of 10, because it's the last one of it's genre!

David Hamilton got it right in his last film (so far) when he omitted the plot and dialogue and focused on what he does better than anyone else - photography of scantily clad late teenage girls on the brink of womanhood. "Not a girl, not yet a woman" embodied in this film.

Although the theme carries the film, the apparently detached scenes have a fitting conclusion in the end.

The film is clearly a photographer's work. Whether we are treated with a picture of fields in early morning mist, a girl washing her hair or just her sleeping, these are professionally set-up compositions to look like a photograph. Hamilton uses soft focus everywhere, (the film is not meant to be an example of high definition cinema at all, although I'm sure the film print I saw was much better than the previous reviewer's experience) creating a hazy, dreamy look on everything and the color contrasts between the more or less tanned girls, their clothes and surroundings accentuate the sensuality of the girls and the situations between them. Many times the camera and subjects are still for long periods of time or the camera pans slowly through the scene, reminding me in some weird way of some of the works of Andrei Tarkovsky..! Hamilton even uses still photos a couple of times for no reason at all, being somewhat of a letdown for me.

The sound quality was fine and the simple piano/synth music was MOST of the time unobtrusive and supported the action on screen.

The subject is not only a male fantasy, but also a very innocent look into a girls' fantasy world as well: a worry-free perpetual Indian summer filled with sunny days and gentle breezes, flower garlands, auburn sunsets, skinny dipping without a hint of self-consciousness, ballet training and horseback riding, a touch of clumsy boys and playful sensuality (not sexuality!) amongst the girls - all done in a very tasteful manner and utmost respect at the subjects without exploiting them.

Hamilton has done a fine job directing the girls to behave in their natural feminine way without much pretense. The girls are highly photogenic when they appear to gaze into nothingness, apparently deep in their thoughts.

I cannot imagine anyone doing films like these anymore.

...for three reasons. One is that the girls involved seem a year or so older than usual, with the result that their bodies are more curved, and the film seems less like "child porn". Second, he uses the south of France for good advantage in this one.

Finally, and most importantly, this is a dialog-less, almost plotless film. So one can gaze at the young, sun-lit European bodies without ever once being subjected to the howlingly awful lines that afflicted "Tendres Cousins" and "Bilitis" from opening titles to final credits.

Still photographer and occasional film director David Hamilton ventures into the homevideo realm with a Japanese-French production "A Summer in St. Tropez", a dreamy, impressionistic film of young girls' daily life at the famed resort. Sans narration and with minimal dialog or action, pic is an okay mood piece for fanciers of Hamilton's soft-focus photography. Aside from home tv use, it could play theatrically as a short subject if trimmed by about half.

Using back-lighting and diffused light photography (pic is visually reminiscent of Hamilton's "Bilitis" feature right down to the casting of numerous svelte young femmes), "St. Tropez" features surprisingly little nudity in its languorous visuals of young women at play. Episodic treatment is ultimately a bore as we observe the girls at mealtime, swimming at sunset, out picnicking and dancing, winding up with an authentic-looking wedding processional.

Absence of dialog is a plus, alleviating the need to dub or subtitle, but there's little to rivet one's attention. Hamilton's most stylish segment, a still photo-montage suddenly cutting to live action as the lead actress wakes up everyone in the "dorm" was done better originally by Chris Marker in his classic sci-fi short "La Jetee". Film is aided in sustaining its mood by Benoit Widemann's dreamy keyboard and strings musical score.

My review was written in September 1983 after watching the film on a Thorn-EMI videocassette.

I'm not going to bother with introducing David Hamilton and explaining the controversial nature of his work, if you don't know about him a wikipedia search should . I do think some of his photography is rather good, and artful enough that it doesn't feel sleazy at all, and remember enjoying both "Tendres cousines" (which has found its way into modern pop culture due to being referenced several times by "Arrested Development") and "Premiers désirs" (starring a young Emmanuelle Beart), although I haven't seen either film in a while and don't remember them, except for the former being somewhat alarmingly close to justifying the accusations against Hamilton for being a 'child pornographer'. "Un été à Saint-Tropez" is inconceivably awful and laughable as a film, however. I'd rather sit through the somewhat lame yuk-yuk lines in "Tendres cousines" than this thing ever again. Awful use of slow-motion, including one five-minute long pillow-fight scene, no dialogue, no plot, this one truly does expose Hamilton as someone who gets off on seeing nude teenage girls and doesn't particularly care about anything else. Still, it's not all that creepy, as most of these girls appear to be between 16-18, maybe a little older even, and a couple of them really are gorgeous. As soft porn the movie will probably work for desperate ephebophiles, but it's too lunk-headed and awfully-made to work as a film, and Hamilton's soft-focus photography is occasionally nice to look at, but wasted on a pointless piece of crap.