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)?
share[deleted]
[deleted]
I don't think it is 'not telling a good story' which is being criticised here, but more the appealingness and convincingness of this film. I have just watched it for the first time and I see that it's making points about friendship and love, but ultimately I think the whole situation is so abstract and unlikely, I wonder whether those points being made are really relevant or realistic. Not many people do end up living in a menage a trois, and all three protagonists are more types than real people. And does it not cross anyone's mind to wonder why Gilberte doesn't have more self-respect? I found it painful to watch so many people trampling each other emotionally, while we're supposed to believe they basically all find it ok, really, because they have this sort of other-worldly love for one another.
I also completely agree with anyone who finds Catherine a pretty abhorrent creature, and she did appear to be a pathological control freak in her behaviour throughout, culminating in her little final stunt. I wonder if a strainedly 'free spirit' like her really has to tell us about humanity and relationships which hasn't dated considerably since Truffaut made the film.
It is realistic. Have you lived in a box your whole life?
shareNot to defend or attack spielberg or anything, but do you think truffaut would have agreed with you about Spielberg? I mean he worked with him on close encounters! Not the king of thing you would do if you found someone a "hack".
shareI agree the acting is great, and Raoul Coutard's cinematography is some of the best I've ever seen - but the story drags on a bit. I'd give it a higher score because it really is a beautiful film even though for me by the end of it I had lost a bit of interest in the absurdist story.
sharenormally I can appreciate films like Panther Panchali, or the Bicycle Thief, and understand they are great cinema, though as entertainment they are quite boring. Jules and Jim + The 400 blows are films that caught me by surprise - unlike you, I was expecting a fairly boring but excellent film, and ended up with one of my favorite movies of all time. I'm very glad 400 wasn't sentimental like a Disney film or something, where everyone ends up in a big group hug, and I thought it was a very good and fun film, a little depressing.
Jules and Jim is just...incredible. Wow. An epic well done well photographed and beautifully acted. It was tremendously powerful and touching. If you don't understand the film, well, see the final line spoken:
Catherine wanted her ashes scattered to the wind, but it was not permitted.
Get it? After what happens, that final line strikes a final blow. This is one film I spent a LONG time thinking about after seeing it.
Did you ever want to be anyone else?...I never wanted to be anyone else.
I do agree. Boring film. Truffaut's films I prefer are :
'La Mariée était en noir',
'L'Enfant sauvage',
'La Chambre verte',
and I like very much Truffaut as an actor.
Why is anybody moaning about the sound? Saying it was post synched. HELLO, 95% of dialogue in films is dubbed in post production. Anyway I think its a tremendous film, simultaneously artistic yet entertaining and highly engaging. Realisticly drawn romantic triangle too.
Last Film Seen: Umberto. D - 8/10
What difference does the sound make? Especially when you're reading *beep* subtitles!
share[deleted]
i didn't even finish pretty early on. i've seen few truffaut films but i just think his stuff is too "cute" for me i think? i don't know if that's the best way to describe it. i've definately of the opinion that godard was better ( who i've seen more films of so that's unfair to say probably) he just doesn't interest me as much. a better film involving moreau and 2 guys is blier's "going places".
shareI remember Truffaut said something like the movie is not suitable for American audience. Because he made those actors speak so fast, it is impossible for foreign audience to fininsh reading the subtitles. So if you watched this movie in theatre or in front of TV without DVR, it surely will be very "boring".
sharei have an attention span for foreign and slower films and this one just didn't interest me.
shareMaybe this movie is for certain age. Several years ago, When I first watched it, I actually fell asleep soon after the beginning and wake up until the suicide scene, :-)
But now, I think this is very enjoyable and really brilliant. Compared with Godard's films, I think this one is as great as "Contempt".
Maybe you could check the bonus DVD first, which contains some interviews with Truffaut and a talk between two american film critics or professors, it is pretty interesting and very helpful to appreciate this movie.
Actually I thought it was one of the greatest love stories ever told. Basically Truffaut is the opposite of lets say Kubrick. His films are filled with a humanity and warmth whereas Kubrick who is just as brilliant a filmmaker is oddly cold and very calculated. What particularly moved me about the film was the scene where they all venture out into the field and roll around in the grass to the sound of that music. The film also has a threat hanging over it, Catherine is the threat because although she's a character and funny she's messed up and selfish at the same time and rather quite manipulative. The two guys deserved better.
share[deleted]
That the film inspires these kinds of conversations is a testament to how great it is. I have to admit, it didnt meet my high expectations. Although it was only 100 minutes long, it seemed much longer because of the vast ammount of time the plot covered and I too didnt see what made them love Catherine. I think the back and forth nature of Jules and Jim's relationship with Catherine made me understand exactly why Jules was reliefed when Catherine drove herself and Jim into the river.
I preferred Godards Breathless by far, it was a much more exciting cinematic experience. But Jules et Jim cannot be denied as the classic it is.
I first saw Jules & Jim when I was about 15 and I think it was the first of the classic foreign films I was watching at the time that left me underwhelmed. I'd seen and been charmed by 400 Blows but was expecting a giddy romantic, bittersweet film and was surprised by the unsympathetic nature of Catherine's character and the distance I often felt from what was supposed to be so "magical." I saw it again years later, was more engaged (particularly by the middle secion) and decided I actually preferred it to 400 Blows. Since then I've gone back and forth...on both films.
Today I saw it screened at Lincoln Center and have to say my ambivalence remains. It's much easier to get swept up in it on the big screen (and I hadn't realized how wide it is on video!) but this was the first time I noticed how distracting the subtitles are in a film which moves so fast and has so much dialogue. This is especially the case when the viewer literally can't see everything when just focusing on the titles at the bottom (luckily having seen it a few times, I didn't always have to focus on the text).
More than ever, I concluded that Catherine, by the end at least, is a monster. I agree with what Jim says to her, and her tiresome reliance on her own fickle emotions as the barometer of all that is true and worthy in the world does grow deeply tiresome (as I believe it's supposed to).
It's funny, but despite his reputation as one of cinema's warmest and most engaging filmmakers, I find Truffaut to be someone whose world you have to make an effort to enter (unless you're on the same wavelength as him to begin with). Unlike Godard, Welles, or Spielberg - to name 3 diverse artists - who tend to grab ahold of you and yank you into their universe, Truffaut more or less presupposes an affection for his setting and characters (similar to the New Wave's heroes Renoir & Rossellini) - and if it's not already there it's upon the viewer to do the work to see what he (and all his admirers) are on about. When I stopped thinking about its meaning and what it was SUPPOSED to be doing, and let myself go with the flow of the story, the imagery, and the worlds both 400 Blows and Jules et Jim do work for me. But I find it's almost a conscious decision I have to make (paradoxically, a conscious decision not to be too conscious) to get into his work.
Hope this was clear...anybody else agree with my sentiments?
----------
More than ever, I concluded that Catherine, by the end at least, is a monster. I agree with what Jim says to her, and her tiresome reliance on her own fickle emotions as the barometer of all that is true and worthy in the world does grow deeply tiresome (as I believe it's supposed to).
-----------
No she isn't a 'monster'. She's selfish, fiery, independent, indomitable and a tad insane but not a monster. She just doesn't want the world to change. The film really is a reflection of the era it's set in. It begins in the 'Belle Epoque', goes through World War I and ends in the 30's around the beginning of the Second World War(In the end Jim watches newsreel of Nazis burning books). It's also Truffaut's tribute to the craftsmanship of the silent era, especially in his merging of newsreel footage and it's magnificent B&W compositions. 'Jules and Jim' was basically about how the world changes and people are changed by the world and people have no choice but to change with it or fade away. The most tragic character is 'Jules and Jim' (SPOILER) is neither Jim nor Catherine but Jules. Both of them have become part of the past, they lived and died while Jules faces the future and lives with the memories of their deaths. The final shot of 'Jules and Jim' is one of the most heartbreaking moments in my life. Jules walking away and the musical version of 'Le Tourbillon' plays in the background.
-----------
Unlike Godard, Welles, or Spielberg - to name 3 diverse artists - who tend to grab ahold of you and yank you into their universe, Truffaut more or less presupposes an affection for his setting and characters (similar to the New Wave's heroes Renoir & Rossellini) - and if it's not already there it's upon the viewer to do the work to see what he (and all his admirers) are on about.
-----------
I've never had that problem with Truffaut(or Renoir for that matter). I always thought that they were highly accessible artists. Truffaut in particular was the most commercially successful and most famous of all of them in his lifetime. And 'Jules and Jim' wasn't the last great film he made either.
How much is a good nights sleep worth?
Well, perhaps I was overreacting with "monster" but let's just say highly unsympathetic. NOT throughout the whole film, and the moment when she jumps into the water is fantastic. It's just that her emotional roller coaster becomes exhausting at the end.
As for Renoir & Truffaut, I agree with you in theory, they do seem like they should be among the most accessible artists, yet I can't deny that for some reason their most celebrated films, great as they are, don't hit me on the same gut level as the work of many other directors. That said, I love The River, enjoyed Grand Illusion a great deal when I saw it (which was years ago), and on various occasions do "get into" 400 Blows and Jules & Jim. But I do think there's something to the idea that their worlds are ones you enter (they hold the door for you) while Godard, Welles, and the like grab ahold of you and yank you in, for better or worse. Hope that makes sense.
Catherine is vastly misunderstood. At this time, a woman sleeping around was shocking, she would have lived well today reather than 50 years ago. She suffers vastly from bi-polar depression which leads to the end scene.
shareI have found that the least you know about a film the more you can enjoy it. Your problem was all the hype preceding this movie before you saw it. It is a love story, yes, but is not for everyone. Catherine is difficult and unlikable and some of the situations might seem far fetched. It does not have a happy ending, etc.
My experience was a bit different since I knew very little about Jules et Jim. I only knew that it was a french film. That was it. So when I caught it on TV, I started watching without even knowing which movie it was. Was it a drama? Was it a comedy? Who knows! As the story progressed I got more and more enthralled, with absolutely no expectations, whatsoever.
Jules et Jim took me by surprise, that's why I liked it so much.