Jules et Jim

Two lads from different backgrounds form a bond, a French boy with dark hair, an Austrian blond, quite Bohemian in their ways, taking pleasure all their days, and then Catherine makes it three, and waves her wand. Jim is smitten with this beauty and he falls, but then war breaks out, and homeland duty calls, so they marry, relocate, intense fighting means a break, she has a child, world reconciles, and bonds remake. Jules travels to the home of his two friends, where the triangle rotates, gyrates and bends, now he's coupled with Catherine, but Jim feels no chagrin, though it's clear this isn't where the story ends.

Jeanne Moreau is always outstanding!

Whenever a commentator declares outright that a film is a complete waste of time and that nobody, BUT NOBODY, should ever watch it, I tend to peg that commentator as an opinionated ass. So I would never say that about a well-respected film like "Jules and Jim." But quite honestly, I can't warm up to it. I've watched it on more than one occasion over the years, and it never fails to put me to sleep at both ends of my anatomy. I've just viewed a DVD edition in which a film scholar clearly explains his views on the fascination of "Jules and Jim." But I still couldn't see why the relationship of these three tedious characters, discussed and analyzed in all its very tedious minutiae by those same characters and an off-screen narrator (also tedious), should interest me. It's certainly beloved by academic types (maybe for those very same characteristics?), and film critics eat it up like it has gravy on it. Like another commentator, I'm a bit puzzled by all the comments about its lyrical, lighthearted and idyllic qualities. I'm left with the impression of a rather dry, academic dissertation on the complexities of male-female relationships ca. 1961 (the 1910 setting seems to me immaterial to the script).

I can't help feeling that I'm missing something, and I'm not averse to French films, but they're usually older, pre-new-wave films, for example "Forbidden Games," "French Can-Can," or Pagnol's "Fanny" trilogy. I take it that the sentimentality of such films is one of the things new wave directors reacted against. If so, I can't jump on their bandwagon, try as I might. I've enjoyed some of Truffaut's work, but not this, I'm afraid.

To those who love and appreciate "Jules and Jim" -- have pleasure of it. I envy you for that, and maybe I'll try it again in a few years.

Time and revisionist critics have tried to tarnish the gleam of Truffaut's final masterpiece - citing its apparent misogyny and apoliticism; but for some of us, 'Jules et Jim' is the unforgettable film that opened the gates to both European film, and the great masters of American cinema like Hitchcock, Hawks and Ray.

'Jules et Jim' is, along with 'Citizen Kane', THE vindication of the pleasures of cinematic form: the first half especially, in its rush of narrative registers and technical exuberance, is unparalleled in modern film. This isn't mere trickery - the use of paintings, books, plays, dreams, conversations, documentary footage, etc., as well as the different ways of telling a story through film, all point to the movie's theme - how do you represent people and the world in art without destroying them? Or is art the only to save people and life from extinction?

The foregrounding of theatricality, acting, disguises, pseudonyms, games, works-within-the-work, all point to the high modernism in which the film is set, when the old certainties about identity and place were being destroyed by the Great War. In fact the film could be considered Cubist in the way it uses film form to splice up and rearrange images, space, characters, viewpoints.

Truffaut's film is a beautiful elegy about time: the historical time heading towards destruction in the shape of the Nazis, and the circular time of love, obsession and art. These times struggle in the film's structure, history zipping past years in the framing, Parisian sections, and days stretching out interminably in the central rural rondelay.

Far from being misogynistic, the film places Catherine's speech about 'grains of sand' at its philosophical heart. AND she's played by Jeanne Moreau, the most honest and human of all great actresses.

There is a book by Goethe mentioned in this movie, it's "Wahlverwandschaften", and its appearance is quite meaningful. Because the movie takes a look on human loves and lives that is quite similar to older Goethe's fatalistic world-view in his novel, very far from hope and idealisms. Strength (Moreau's character) and Weakness (Jim) are equal forces of nature, and both conduct us to death. The stoic attitude (Jules) is resignation and, seen this way, it is "weakness" too, but, on the other hand, it seems to be the STRONGEST way, because it means survival. JULES ET JIM, both in its content and in its aesthetics, has an air of antique tragedies, but - and this is more like the German novel - without complain, without crying. That's why it leaves you so "unsatisfied", and that's why it's still disturbing, even today.

Jules et Jim is a difficult film, there's no question about that. I'd say the only thing that kept me watching was my love of Truffaut – his ingenuity in cinematography, dialogue and just the whole tone of the film. That he could keep such melodramatic (if not drab) stuff somewhat entertaining is a testament to his mastery of the medium. I loved the blending of historical film into the narrative; I don't know if he was the first person to do this – I highly doubt it – but he certainly did it well in this picture.

Jules et Jim is a study of capriciousness. Catherine – a woman to whom monogamy seems like a foreign concept – is, to paraphrase the film, `not particularly intelligent, beautiful or kind, but she's treated like a queen.' Why Jules and Jim love her so, I don't know. They seem like strong enough characters to be without such a difficult woman, but I guess that question is at the center of the film.

For some reason, Jules et Jim reminded me of L'Avventura by Antonioni – maybe because it was also a hard movie to enter and because the characters were so inaccessible. There are certainly elements of the neo-realism in this film, (one need look no further than the extensive use of mist and the forest scenes that closely resemble the dream sequences of Fellini, De Sica, et. al.)

Overall, I would say this picture is worthwhile, although there are certainly better, more accessible and mature Truffaut films out there.