I'm sorry, but I utterly despise this film. I can't comprehend why it's so popular. I understand that it was innovative for it's time, but that doesn't make it all that good in my eyes.
Truffaut is undoubtably a good director, (I absolutely adore "The 400 Blows", "Shoot the Piano Player" and "Stolen Kisses"), but this movie totally bored and frustrated me.
Can somebody explain to me why it's seen as so fantastic?
No. No I can't.
I heartily agree with your sentiments. I'm watching it right now (in film class, not that it matters), and I can't for the life of me understand what makes this movie so amazing. It makes no sense whatsoever to me. It's not that I can't relate to the characters as several people have suggested to those who don't like the film; I flat-out don't understand them. Catherine dresses up as a man. The three go out. "It's starting to rain." "Yep - that means we should go to the beach tomorrow. I'll race you accross the bridge!" What? What is that? I know it's not direct quotes, but that's how the conversation goes.
Catherine tells Jim to meet her at the cafe at 7. He gets there late, waits for nearly an hour, and leaves. Then she shows up, and because he didn't wait longer while she intentionally came late, she marries his best friend. And they all have a good laugh over Jules's recitation of French poetry.
I have no idea why characters are doing what they're doing. People are getting married, having sex, breaking up, laughing about it, and for no reason. I feel like I'm watching Closer in french with worse cinematography.
Why, oh dear God why, is this film considered so amazing?
"Let's give the boy a ride."
"No! We can't stop here! This is bat country!"
I can't either, Although I greatly disagree with your sentiments, because I really like Jules et Jim.
If you didn't like this movie, so be it. There's nothing wrong with that. I think we all have our secret "I-just-don't-get-why-anyone-would-like this-stupid-movie" even if it has been named a masterpiece by others. For instance, I dislike Citien Kane, there, I said it. I do not doubt it might be a technical masterfull achievement of some kind but that movie just bores me to death. I even gave it a second chance thinking I might have gotten it wrong the first time due to my youth and movie watching inexperience (I was 16 at the time), only to realize I still agree with my 16 year old self regarding 'Kane'.
So, if this movie doesn't "speak" to you, there's very little I, or any other person, can say to change your mind. But I'll give it a try telling you why it does speak to me.
I find the realitionship between the 3 main characters to be a disfunctional, although interesting, one. So, for starters, we have an unconventional love/frienship story, yet endearing. That Catherine was one whacky girl! A total psycho case, Freud would have loved her. The scene when Catherine dresses up like a boy is funny, fast paced and shows the playful side of her. I love period pieces. Georges Delarue's music matches perfectly with the tone of the story. I liked the tragic, unexpected ending. Some parts of hte dialogue are really good, IMO.
Cheers
I don't know. I think it's personal taste? Like, I think Seven Samuri is severely overrated. Surely it was dazzling for its time and some moments I enjoyed, but overall I was bored. So I guess nobody can say how great or not great a movie is to someone else.
shareI don't know why some people don't like certain films that I think are great. I happen to think Jules and Jim, Citizen Kane and The Seven Samurai are all great films. I have seen each of them numerous times, and they never fail to entertain me, though each is very different from the others.
Jules and Jim happens to be my third personal favorite film, after Children of Paradise and Cocteau's Beauty and the Beast. Just a coincidence that all three are French films, as they are followed on my list by Henry V (Olivier version), The Third Man, Rashomon and The Red Shoes.
I can argue the technical achievements of all these films, but that alone doesn't equal my liking them. I can marvel at the technical expertise of a film like Raging Bull, but I don't personally care for the film. I think ultimately is partly a matter of taste, as well as when, where, with whom, etc. one first experiences a particular film.
I didnt really like it.
I found the characters incredibly pretentious and hard to relate to. This was especially true for the first 30/40 mins. During the middle section (the war and house afterwards) it was better and i guess more like i was expecting - bittersweet and quite moving a couple of times. After that i wasnt really bothered although the ending was a bit of a suprise.
It'd be interesting to rewatch it some time now i know what to expect and see if i liked it more.
[deleted]
I wouldn't say that I HATED it, but I really don't think this film has aged well, especially in terms of the misogynistic undertones. I know people have claimed that element is completely absent, but in terms of the way we view modern-day relationships between men and women, it's most certainly there, regardless of whether or not it was supposed to be originally - which is one of the reasons I say I don't think it's aged well. I think watching it was a likeable enough experience, particularly in regards to the cinematography and performances, and the fact that it was once so avant garde does make it a worthwhile view for anyone that is into film. But in this day and age, I think the people that have somehow gleaned an understanding behind the motivations of the characters, have only done so by projecting previous cinema-going experiences(maybe even personal experiences?) onto a story that severely lacks character development. I understand there was symbolism at work here, but an entire film cannot rest on symbolism alone to clearly explain the motivations behind characters who behave in ways completely different to how most of the general public would react. I just don't think there was enough of a concrete foundation in place to make me think their actions were realistic, so I had trouble feeling that events were actually 'tragic', even though I had an inkling they were meant to be. To interpret the motivations behind any of the characters' actions, I think the viewer has to fill in a lot of the missing pieces themselves, and that doesn't necessarily result in a correct interpretation, just a personal interpretation with plenty of room for error, as it isn't based on what we're actually given in the film.
shareReally? I thought the attitudes were realist. The misogynist elements are far too overt, direct, & obvious to be merely a reflection of the filmmakers attitudes to life. Often people show a deep lack of understanding when accusing Truffaut of being misogynististic, as if allowing those expression into the movie somehow automatically makes him a misogynist. By the same token you could call Hitchcock a murderer, or Tarrantino a racist (ha people do!!)
I also think that to relate to the characters requires a certain level of understanding. The crazy, fast pace, of the first half entirely represents the actions of the characters, manic, disturbed. If you haven't known anyone like that I think you are going to asking yourself "Why are they doing that?" & The answer is for the sake of weirdness, to be different. The characterisation is all there, you just have to know where to look. & if you don't want to look for it, why the hell are you watching a Truffaut film?
The element that seems most dated now is the voice-over narrator. Jules and Jim was hailed when it came as a new kind of open movie, not saying things in big type, daring viewers to think for themselves, and with much less establishing scenes and transport stretches than European 50s cinema had. That holds up today to some extent, but the voice-over narrator feels like a leftover from silent movie days. I'm really at a loss to understand why Truffaut didn't feel he could do without him.
Up to the time of Jules and Jim, there were almost no prominent women film directors yet, and Catherine who is a long way from the old femme fatale is a big accomplishment, even if it's not so obvious and easy to see now.
After the revolution everything will be different. Your password is 'Giliap'!
How can narration be a leftover from silent cinema?
However the narration was used to stay close to the book without the film lasting several hours. Using Henri Piere Roche's words to condense the novel into a movie. Truffaut had great respect for the novel & Roche, & was frightend of doing them both a diservice by editing the content.
How can narration be a leftover from silent cinema?
However the narration was used to stay close to the book without the film lasting several hours. Using Henri Piere Roche's words to condense the novel into a movie. Truffaut had great respect for the novel & Roche, & was frightend of doing them both a diservice by editing the content.
he recounts stuff like the final killing scene in shot by shot, but he's way off what it actually looks like in the film (claims that it's in the morning, that Jules is brought awake by the car running round and round in the yard, that we don't see or hear Catherine inviting Jim to get in the car etc) Possibly it's the writing of corresponding scenes in Roché's novel, which that guiy had certainly read, that slipped in through the back door into his memory.I realize your post was over a year ago, but if you do happen to read this...
In silent films, telling what was going on in between was often supplied in the "speeech boxes" slipped between the actual shots.
I don't hate this film...but I don't like it much either...I have watched a couple films like Breathless twice and they're better the second or third time around...this one, I just watched a second time and still didn't like it much...it's not "tight" in its plot...I didn't like how MANY times Catherine "changed her mind" about who she loved...maybe if she'd just went from Jules to Jim once, it'd be more realistic and a more tight storyline, but I feel like her going back and forth between Jim, Jules, and Albert so many times it was just filling space to make the movie longer...I mean, maybe I'm missing something but I enjoy a more simplistic well told story...Breathless, 400 Blows, Band of Outsiders were all much better to my taste..
share[deleted]
There's no misogyny in the film at all.
sharemaybe YOU need a shrink!
share[deleted]
OP:
Preachin to the choir. I kept waiting for them to kick her to the curb. But no...like stupid dogs, owned by even stupider people, they kept coming back for more abuse.
"Love isn't what you say or how you feel, it's what you DO". (The Last Kiss)
Didn't really think it was 'fantastic' (in the vein of, say, The 400 Blows) as this one had some notable flaws that prevented it from being truly overwhelming IMO (the extensive use of voice-overs being one of them)... but, nevertheless, there's a framework for greatness in there somewhere and the film is, at times, powerful in its contemplation of the insatiable desire and need of one care-free yet misguided spirit only now coming to the haunting realization that not everything is hers for the taking, in its contemplation of how one's obsessive desire to search for more to fill that existential void does not necessarily alleviate loneliness and that it will never be enough, in its rumination of the depth to which one will sink to for the sake of another's presence and affection and how such compromises on one's own part are the only way to be truly content, in its study of a platonic friendship that surpasses even the most turbulent of situations contrasted with a love that's one-sided and hardly as ever-lasting.
Clear eyes, full hearts, can't lose.