Histoire de Marie et Julien

Why do certain people that go to the movies think that (their) being bored is important for the destiny of the world? Why do they keep punching us with their problems of boredom?

Can't they understand that, to share something with the others, it's important to have some ideas (just a small one, please...) about the movie itself? Do they think that when they proclaim their boredom they are giving to the world some kind of undisputed law?

Is it so difficult to understand that the Rivette work cannot be understood by the rules of mediocre entertainment? Is it so painful to address the simple idea that Rivette keeps filming the mystery of love? And that he doesn't want to bore us with the vulgar ideas of a vulgar TV-movie?

Whether one thinks it more appropriate to place the onus on a filmmaker or on the individual viewer, the truth is that any given film generally has just one chance to make a good impression. Rewatching our favorites is one thing; very rarely do we revisit something that we haven't seen for a long time, and see how it comes across many years later. More often, we'll say "maybe I should give it another chance some time," but we never do, because there are so many other titles to occupy ourselves with. Complicating matters further is that sometimes a picture rather requires one to be in a particular headspace to best appreciate it, and if one is not, the odds of that picture meeting with our especial favor are lesser still. I say all this because to whatever extent I like 'Histoire de Marie et Julien' - and I do like it, very much - I can't help but think that I've done it a disservice. To watch, let alone to read up on the history of the screenplay and the production, it's obvious that Jacques Rivette poured a tremendous amount of hard work and intelligence into the project: themes, motifs, bigger and grander ideas. Maybe it's just me (it probably is), and whether in the moment I sat to watch or perhaps more broadly maybe I'm just not on the same wavelength, but I don't know how much these come across, or how present they truly are in the end product, or indeed how important. If they're not important at all to one's appreciation of the whole, then it seems as though this movie is inherently incomplete in some esoteric way.

This much is certain: compared to what is surely Rivette's biggest claim to fame, 'La belle noiseuse,' this is far more abstruse in its artistic machinations. Here he and his co-writers blend together drama, romance, and mystery with the supernatural, a sad and ultimately kind of depressing story of love, tragedy, loss, and farewells. Unlike that picture of twelve years prior, in which four hours passed incredibly smoothly and beautifully, these two and one-half hours are most definitely felt as the narrative crawls sideways as much as forward. Down to the last few spoken lines of dialogue I don't know if everything Rivette and his collaborates intended is fully and perfectly communicated, yet be that as it may, and even with the length in mind, by and large I think this is splendidly well done. With or without the less evident intentions I think the storytelling could have been tightened, but regardless there's welcome complexity and lush detail in the writing of the characters, scene writing, and overall plot, and the dialogue tends to simply add another layer of flourish and ingenuity. Similarly, one readily discerns the utmost finesse in William Lubtchansky's cinematography, with more discrete emphasis on lighting than one customarily sees in modern cinema. Not to be counted out, the production design, art direction, costume design, and hair and makeup are all terrific, very easy on the eyes as they lend to the artful airs about the proceedings. In this instance I think the cast are a little less noteworthy than the otherwise construction, but all perform admirably, and of everyone in front of the camera Emmanuelle Béart definitely stands out most; her role requires splits between charged emotions and gratifying nuance, and she navigates that space most deftly.

As suggested, I think 'Histoire de Marie et Julien' is something I'd appreciate more if I sat for it a second time, and perhaps with a more focused mind. I recognize that there are doubtlessly subtleties here that I'm just not picking up on - or at least, I hope that's the case, because the alternative is that I'm giving Rivette too much credit. Some of my favorite movies share far more in common with this than not; this is an example that just doesn't meet with the same success for me. Even so, I did enjoy this feature, and I think it deserves a look, even if it's less than totally impeccable. Given the pointedly subdued tone this maintains, and the storytelling that's less than completely straightforward, I can understand how this won't appeal to everyone, and I'd suggest it most for those who are already receptive to the more arthouse side of the medium. Yet while the film is no great revelation by any means, I think it's well done even as I see it, and other attentive viewers will unquestionably get still more out of the experience. Temper your expectations and don't go out of your way for 'Histoire de Marie et Julien,' but if you do have the opportunity to watch, it's worth exploring.

This is the kind of film in which we are invited to indulge the director in return for the reward of fine performances/lush photography/gorgeous sets/haunting score, perm any three from four. In this case our indulgence is a tacit agreement not to wonder out loud just WHERE Julian gets the commissions to work on a series of outsize clocks in his home/workshop, or how he stumbled on the material with which he is blackmailing Madame X or indeed how anybody in the plot made the acquaintance of anyone else. Apart from Madame X and Marie he appears to have no other contact with anyone despite being middle aged and apparently well established in his large house/workshop. Trying to write a story like this must be like trying to drink from a collander so we badly need the compensation of the aforesaid fine acting, camera-work, score, etc. To some extent they are present and correct but I doubt they will be enough for the majority of viewers.

Jacques Rivette's "Histoire de Marie et Julien" is bound to confound or disappoint today's audience, but not the followers of this director's work. The film does not conform to the dominant norms of current film-making that require a solid plot with familiar or identifiable characters whose actions are socially or psychologically motivated in order to have a semblance of verisimilitude. Its characters seem to inhabit more the filmic universe than a real one and a correspondence amongst those two is not straightforward to establish. The situations explored here (blackmail, amour fou, guilt, resurrection etc) and the characters actions are elliptically presented, but they, through a meticulous and extremely precise reconstruction of the filmic reality, uncannily make perfect sense within the narrative, provided that the viewer does not try to interpret the action using concepts alien to the filmic reality.

The film requires from its audience constant participation to grasp its narrative subtleties and the patent exploration of abstract concepts such as time (cf. the last line of the film is "give me some time"; Julien is a clock meddler), the fusion of dream and reality (the first chance meeting is initially dreamt but occurs immediately afterwards; Marie's dreams command her actions when awake), guilt and redemption (the subplot involving the blackmailed woman and their sister) etc. The cyclic structure of the film with four chapter denoting different, albeit subtle, shifts in narrative perspective invite the viewer to adjust his approach according to the tonal modulations of the unfolding story. The reflexive nature of the filmic story becomes, thus, a vehicle for self-examination on behalf of the viewer of held preconceptions and ideas related to the issues unravelled within the film.

A uniquely rewarding movie for those willing to be engaged in its narrative discourse. The work of a master.

This film only works because Emmanuelle Béart is incredibly beautiful and fascinating to watch. Her acting is terrible in this movie ; the scenes in which she is supposed to be in a transe are almost cringy. Yet her magnetic presence makes it all worthwhile. The sex scenes are not exciting but the idea of sex with her (even for a straight girl) somehow is enough.

It all comes down to casting the right woman because her male counterpart, though a better actor in this, is quite repulsive. Why cast an old, overweight and ugly man as the love interest of such a dreamy woman ? You don't want her being touched by that man and you can hardly believe she would love him so passionately since nothing about his looks or personnality make him stand out in a good way. Quite the opposite actually.

As for the story, it is really weird, if not completely absurd but again, with Béart as its main subject, you cannot stop watching.

So basically, if you are not a fan of hers, just walk away.