I had heard that this was one of the greatest love stories ever. I was disappointed. The acting was second to none, all three leads pulled it off convincingly and it looked great. The editing was above par, but the script (and story) did let it down for me. The narration becomes annoying and Catherine's infidelity becomes a bit "Yeah, she sleeps around, so what?" after a while. 6 1/2 out of 10. Does anyone agree (with the views or the rating)?
sharethat was my first reaction when i watched it for the first time. i heard so much about it, and it became a letdown afterwards. but this happens a lot to me. it takes approximately one to two days for me to fully appreciate a recent-seen movie. it gets better with each viewing.
and i've found with a lot of french new wave films, the plots are weaks at times, but nonetheless it's terrific. it's just one of those things. the acting, cinematography, flow of the movie, etc. make up for it.
by the way, have you seen breathless (another film by françois truffaut)?
i was a little disapointed by it. i really didn't feel that jules and jim were really in love with catherine in that wonderful way that would make them put up with her. the characters seem thinly drawn out to me, i never understand catherine at all. she's a fickle control freak who likes to play with men's minds...what makes her so lovable? according to jules, it's cuz she's oridinary and flawed and therefore real.(or something to that effect) WTF? she's just selfish and hardly likeable. jules is more of a love-sick sort of guy who is easily manipulated and jim is downright indecisive. looks like catherine played with their weaknesses, not their hearts. seems like the only reason why they love her is cuz she's simply unattainable.
but what i do like about the film is its energy. especially the first 30 minutes before the war, where there is such an enthusiasm and joy for life. the middle is more somber and reflective and beautiful and the end is a downright soap opera.
btw: truffaut wrote breathless, godard directed it. i have yet to see breathless...i've heard a lot of good things about it.
[deleted]
I had the same reaction you did to Catherine. I just watched this movie on DVD, and I just posted a review over at Amazon.com. Here is what I said:
"Although I was having a little trouble at first with the self-conscious directing style, I quickly found myself involved in Jules et Jim. I was surprised at how much truth you can find in this movie about relationships, both sexual and platonic.
But I took away something very different from the Catherine character than most people apparently do. Catherine is an excellent example of somebody suffering from what we would now call Narcissistic Personality Disorder. She is seriously mentally ill. And she is monstrously selfish. She has no capacity to love, and sees the men around her only as resources she feels should always be available for her to exploit when she wants to. Every man in her life is expected to love her, to be there when she wants him, and, when she doesn't want him, to be somewhere thinking about her and wishing she did want him. She is controlling, manipulative, vindictive and sadistic. When one of the men breaks free of her, she simply refuses to tolerate it. If she cannot control him, she will kill him. She demands to always be the center of attention, and she will tolerate nothing else.
Jules, Jim, Albert, et al., have created a fantasy around her and foolishly allow her to control their own sense of self-worth. Winning her love becomes a test. Only Jim is able ultimately to escape her sick games. And that infuriates her so much she resorts to violence to prove she will always have the last word.
I think Jim's monologue towards the end shows he understands what she offers is not noble or romantic, but sick and pathetic. He recognizes the desire, which he shares, to remake the rules of love and life (he's not very nice to the women in his life, at least not until Catherine has given him a taste of his own medicine). But he tells her that such "pioneers" have to be humble and generous, and Catherine certainly is not that. In fact, I think that's about the point she pulls a gun on him.
So for me, it was a great movie which shows how two friends deal with their unfortunate infatuation with a sick and selfish woman who has no aversion to destroying everyone around her if it gets her what she thinks she needs at any given moment. Jules is the hopeless, saintly romantic - read co-dependent enabler - who only escapes when his tormenter is truly gone. Jim is stronger and more realistic, but even he ultimately falls victim to the woman's brutal selfishness. And in one of the creepiest moments in cinema, notice how Catherine gaily encourages Jules to watch as she takes Jim on his last ride.
Anyway, that's my take on it. Great movie, but not because Catherine is some sort of "enigmatic" free spirit. She is only "enigmatic" to the men who desire her and refuse to see the truth. The inconsistency between her cold reality and their romantic fantasies they choose to call an enigma. To anybody watching from the outside, I think she is completely transparent."
In t 20's and 30's there weren't many ways a woman could be a "free spirit". You might want to watch it again and try to attenuate all the pop psychobabble in your mind for a few hours so you can actually get something interesting out of it.
share"The heart has its reasons of which reason knows nothing of."
Brathless was directed by Jean-Luc Goddard
shareit's godard, not truffaut
shareyup, breathless was directed by jean-luc godard...i read somewhere that truffaut gave godard the treatment and the story idea, but godard changed it around to his liking.
i liked jules and jim as a whole, but for some reason i expected catherine to be much more appealing or more special...that i-don't-know-what that would keep jules and jim so fascinated by her. i think she was in the beginning of the film when she dressed up like a man w/ the mustache and jumped into the river, but afterwards...when she got married to jules...she kinda lost me. hmm, just my opinion. i still like the film very much, though. oh, but that song she sings accompanied by the guitar was quite catchy!
Ehh. I just saw the film, so maybe i'm wrong, but beyond my disappointment with the plot, character development, voice over, et cetera, I wasn't impressed with the cinematography. For example, when so and so (i'm avoiding names in case someone who wants to see the film for themself happens by) up and decides to shoot so and so, the transition was awkward and abrupt. Poorly acted and directed. the music cuts in clumsily and the whole scene fails, in my eyes.
shareI agree, the first time I was disappointed. The second time (I'm watching it now) ... is much better. I waited maybe 2 or 2 1/2 years to see it again though.
shareI wouldn't say thay this movie was a letdown to me, but that's basically cause I didn't know what to expect. However, I don't think it's all that special, and I rated it 6/10. Judging from the two movies by Truffaut I've seen (this one and the 400 blows), I don't count him as one of the greatest.
shareI agree. Most amazing is that no one discusses the impact of the lousy sound work on the credibility. This is obviously a silent movie with sloppy dubbing and cheap sound effects, and this distracts me from the story. I mean, this is the sixties, couldn't you expect more?
shareur all idiots
share[deleted]
Well, I don't mean to be destructive, but you really are a bunch of arrogant people, not getting the point at all. There is nothing to explain in this film, but much to experience.
shareClearly, its a great film, even Quentin Tarantino reckons so. Such is the significance of the character names in Pulp Fiction:-
Samuel L. Jackson - Jules
Quentin Tarantino - Jimmy
Quentin Tarantino - 'Dont Jimmy me, Jules'
i was going to give it at first a 7.399998211 but instead after some thought went with 7.42291
Where there's smoke, there's barbecue!
" There is ... much to experience."...and feel. This is what it was all about for me. This is the earliest I've seen of all the great European films about everyday life that give me that unique feeling of intimate and true and deeply moving. And not by coincidence, I think, is each of those films also very finely crafted.
share"ur all idiots" you said it, buddy.
shareSaying, "you're idiots" makes you look more ignorant than they allegedly are. With that said, I'll give my take on what's the deal with this movie. First, I think that the combination of narration and dialogue, which means lots of subtitles, makes watching it a little tiring sometimes for one who doesn't speak French, but that, of course, is not the movie's fault. The reason that Catherine is attractive to these men is not because she is flawed and that makes her real. When Jim (or is it Jules, or Albert? I forget) says that what attracts people to her is that she is a real woman, he means that she is a woman who just does what she feels- she is true to herself. What men see in her, and what attracts them to her is that she has a lot of energy and is enigmatic. The first scene where she wears a fake moustache, and the scene where she sings, are among the few scenes where we actually see what makes her attractive to men. As a previous user said, only Jim looks at her in a reasonable way, and sees that her whimsical-ness is not always a good thing.
I didn't really figure that all out until I saw it twice. So, I agree with many people who didn't like it. It all goes by so fast, and there's so much to take in, especially if you don't speak French and have to read and think about all of the dialogue so quickly, in order to avoid missing the next subtitles. So, to many people, it probably is a movie that you can't really "get" until you see it more than once.
Now I don’t think calling people idiots because they have a different opinion then you is really fair to say. I don’t think anyone really said this was a terrible movie but that they simply thought it might be better. I myself thought it was entertaining but the last 20 minutes or go seemed to drag and was not as good as the rest of the film. After a while I got sick of the back and forth emotions Catherine had. There is no way though that this is a bad movie by any means.
shareI absolutely agree with your take on Catherine's appeal. And I agree with whoever said that Jim was the only one who really saw her for what and who she was; hence the ending. The ONLY thing I had difficulty swallowing was the ending, but then I think it was purposeful so I can't complain that much. And I do appreciate Jules comment at the end about being "relieved." That seemed very true to me.
shareI agree with Pez44. Most of you didn't understand the film and the femme!!! Il ne faut pas le voir plusierus fois, c'est pas un problem de quantite... Supongo ke es cuestion de amplitud de mira. Desole per vous! Cuideu-vos.
shareI think you have to remember that they were using those arriflex cameras. So they traded off camera mobility for live sound. It means they had to dub but they got a totally fluid camera out of it. It's like Breathless and the 400 Blows same thing.
shareActually it was shot with a French made Eclair Cameflex 35 camera. But you have the gist of it right, all the sound and dialogue has to be post-synched because the camera is so loud it would be picked up on a live recording.
shareThis is a French New Wave film, and as such, its main intention is to never let the viewer forget that he or she is watching a film. Truffaut & c. saw film as an artistic medium and they wanted the viewer to respond to it in that way, so they made many attempts to prevent escapism.
You said it exactly: "This is obviously a silent movie with sloppy dubbing and cheap sound effects, and this distracts me from the story." That was intended. A major element of New Wave cinema is direct sound recording -- recording diaglogue and sound effects later, rather than at the time of filming, in order that lighter hand-held cameras could be used for shooting. This also lends itself to the New Wave intentions. It makes the viewer feel awkward, and prevents him or her from fully entering the story. The viewer is constantly aware that he or she is watching a film, and is forced to react to more than just the story.
i didn't really expect anything from it. my sister recommended it to me telling me that she loved it. i know that my sister and i don't always have the same taste so i sat down to watch it expecting nothing. i had seen "the 400 blows," truffaut's debut film, and loved it (it's on my to 10 list) so i did expect the film making to be amazing. i think it's a matter of whether or not you really cared for the characters and the kind of story their relationships could tell. i personally loved it and found the dialogue and script to be incredible. you're right, the acting is "above par." i don't know, i enjoyed it but you can't always expect all the praised movies to be great or even good. i give it an 8/10.
share[deleted]
[deleted]
The whole theme of this film is that friendship is eternal (and between Jules et Jim stronger than the love of a perfect woman) whereas love is ephemorous or unattainable.
The two men watch a slideshow with Albert, where-upon they see one with a perfect face and smile, then they go to see this statue 'in the flesh' so to speak and regard it for two hours.
When they first see Catherine their minds hearken her back to the statue, and they fall for her, never really looking past the face.
We all through the film see Catherine going between the two men, but because de leur amitie, it prevails over love. Consequently in le dernier metro this painful unattainable love theme seeps through it. Also in the film being a love triangle (not as evident) but with Catherine, Bernard and Lucas. Truffaut was as you guys know, of the Nouvelle Vague and le cinema d'autuer where the new directors seem to carry their themes and ideals throughout all their films.
Well i've garbled for long enough, hoped thats helped maybe provided an insight.
(If you are thinking of doing French A-level, u might study Truffaut so go for it)
Thunder Maker
I see what you are saying, but I disagree. After finding THE 400 BLOWS spectacularly dull, I was dreading watching JULES AND JIM. However, the fantastic first 30 minutes really drew me into the film and created an emotional bond between myself and the central three characters to the point in which I really cared about what happened to them. I so wanted them to be happy, despite there being no realistic chance of them living 'happily ever after'. Some of the scenes were brilliantly acted with a heartbreaking muiscal score. My main criticism would be that it went in circles towards the end with Jim returning to Paris, then back to the country, then back to Paris etc. So I would give it an 8.5/10.
As a side note; Gilberte gets a raw deal and there is no way that I would have been as friendly to Albert when he stopped by with his guitar. Seriously, this is your wife's lover - kick his a$$!
400 Blows may be dull but that was the point...it had heavy influence from italian neorealism, with capture it as it would happen on camera, "truth", and has no plot. It was emulating life...if there was a film about you, do you think a more traditional plot driven story would leave in shots of you going to the store to pick up groceries, or fill up your car with gas and not contribute in any way to drive a story? Also I believe someone else said it best in here when they described the French New Wave movement (jules and jim), by stating that the Director wants you to be aware throughout the movie that you are indeed watching a movie. Godard uses jarred editing, akwardly loud music, and filming on location with hidden cameras to smack the watcher in the face as if to say "Hey, it's just a movie, I can do whatever the *beep* I want!" And having read many interviews of his I would say that this is very encompassing of Godard IRL too.
share