MovieChat Forums > Jules et Jim (1962) Discussion > Indictment of women?

Indictment of women?

posted 15 years ago by AfterwardDeified
7 replies | jump to latest

But this is really an awesome film, even if I couldn't understand what the hell these characters were thinking most of the time:

1) Why was Jules ok with Jim's betrayal?

2) Why did Jim betray him?

3) What did Catherine even see in Jim? The guy had zero personality.

4) Why, in God's name, did Jim go into the car with that psycho bitch? Or, rather, why did he even come to meet her in the first place? Their last encounter should have taught him a lesson to STAY AWAY.

One thing you can't deny, though: Jules and Jim were REALLY good friends. Their bromance bond was inexorable...till the end; THEIR'S was the real love story. While commendable (I think), it was also highly unrealistic. I love my best friend like a brother, but if he pulled what Jim did to Jules with me...our bromance would most definitely not survive it.

Last thing: am I the only one who thought this film, in a way, was an indictment of women? While Catherine was a strong female character for most of the film, she turns out to be rather crazy. If a man was in her place, juggling two women, there's no way he'd end up like her. Also, if Jules and Jim were, oh, Jane and Janet, do you think THEIR relationship would survive? Yeah, I didn't think so, either. It wouldn't have even gotten to that point.

Or is that what Truffaut is trying to say? That even with women's independence, and their new-found ability to start and stop relationships like some men do, that they're still women and not men. They might envy us, mimic us, but ultimately it's a dangerous game they're playing and one that'll come back to bite them in the ass.

Just my two cents :/

[–] facebookblows009 14 years ago

There is also a scene where a guy says that his girlfriend never talks. He states that the reason his girlfriend never speaks is because she is empty inside. In other words, women are empty inside.

[–] aliza_tvito 14 years ago

///There is also a scene where a guy says that his girlfriend never talks. He states that the reason his girlfriend never speaks is because she is empty inside. In other words, women are empty inside. ///

- the "guy" was an artist in love with a physical beauty, who ignored the inner world of a woman; by the way, the previous episode was about as an empty, but overly talkative woman - as a contrast.

I guess the hint is that Catherine was as empty...

///women are empty inside/// - hope it's not your notion; or you don't think that bad about Truffault.

Thank God, I'm an Atheist! - Luis Bunuel

[–] kriege10 14 years ago

You need to get out of your head and try to understand that there are other people in the world who do not see things the same as you. Classic mistake: if I wouldn't think like that or act in that way, then no one else would either and the novel or film in question is a failure.

[–] KlutzyGirl 14 years ago

I didn't see this as an indictment of women, but of how men choose women. These guys were enchanted by a statue's face, and the minute they saw a woman who looked like it they both "fell in love." Most men put looks far above everything else and months or years later wonder why their wonderful woman changed. Nothing changed. She was beautiful, but was she really wonderful? They never took the time to find out what was behind the facade.

As far as J&J's "bromance" goes (did you make that up? I love it!), remember that they both spent the war worried not that they would be killed, but that they would kill the other. They both survived and now nothing can split them up. Also Jules loves his daughter and will not risk losing her, so he will put up with C's shenanigans to make sure he has her around. Her being with Jim rather than the other guy would be a godsend! He'd never have to worry about Jim betraying him with regard to Sabine.

[–] AfterwardDeified 14 years ago

Wow, I can't believe I saw this film almost a year ago now. Haha, "bromance" is actually a slang term, KG...been around for a couple years, at least. As for as the movie itself, I'm a bit vague now, but you're probably right about them not seeing beyond her beauty; I distinctly remember her being flighty from the start. I just didn't like the almost incestuous relationship the three were engaged in. And, yeah, in hindsight I can see your point about the little girl, but, at the time, my visceral reaction was extreme annoyance. In hindsight (again!), that was probably due to being taken out of my comfort zone, cinematically; I was new to foreign films, and really wasn't prepared for the European style of filmmaking and storytelling. Now, a year into my crash course of the great Euro directors, I've learned to expect the unexpected. And I love that. I'd rather watch these classics any day of the week over most of the dreck the U.S. puts out nowadays.

p.s. my favorite Truffaut, by the way, is 'Day for Night' :)

[–] shoolaroon 14 years ago

I could be way wrong, and I don't know Truffaut's comments on this film, but to me Jules and Jim are a couple of guys who are gay but are either really unaware of it, or just unwilling to admit it, so they drag around this really horrible, insane woman to cover up their own real romance. I don't think Catherine is at all an indictment of women, she's just a lone nut who screwed up these guys' real, happy relationship. If only they'd never met her, they probably would have ended up in a nice little apartment in Paris together, perfectly happy.