Storia di Marie e 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?

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.

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.

The French movie Histoire de Marie et Julien was shown in the U.S. with the translated title, The Story of Marie and Julien (2003). It was directed by Jacques Rivette.

Rivette was the first great proponent of what became known as the French New Wave. His contemporaries like Godard and Truffaut respected him, and followed in his path. (Incidentally, Rivette died in January 2016.)

As the title tells us, this film is a story--actually a love story--about Marie and Julien. Julien, played by the excellent actor Jerzy Radziwilowicz, repairs large clocks that are placed in bell towers. He lives a quiet life with his cat, Nevermore, until he chances to meet Marie. (Marie is portrayed by Emmanuelle Béart.)

Also, as we learn when the movie begins, Julien is a blackmailer. He has found some incriminating material about a woman we only know as Madame X (Anne Brochet). She is willing to pay his price, and the blackmailing proceeds, in stages, throughout the film. No one seems to notice or care that Julien is a blackmailer. Apparently, this is just a small quirk.

For the record, Anne Borchet is a beautiful woman. Rivette loved to direct beautiful women. These included many of the most famous women actors of the era--his muse, Bulle Ogier, Sandrine Bonnaire, and Anna Karina. However, none of them can compare to the chemistry that Rivette shared with Béart.

Emmanuelle Béart was extraordinarily beautiful. We know it, she knows it, and director Rivette knows it. The part of Marie requires someone truly beautiful, because she is the true protagonist of the movie. There are long takes where only Marie is on screen. We see her wandering around Julien's house, touching things, looking into cabinets, arranging a room. If Marie weren't beautiful, we wouldn't really care about how interesting she is, how unusual she is, or how mysterious she is. With Béart in the role, we care.

When the film was produced, Béart was 40. She had lost the ingenue qualities we had seen in Manon of the Spring and La Belle Noiseuse. However, she had lost none of her beauty, and Rivette utilized it every time he presented her to us. She made the movie work.

Special note should be given to Julien's cat, Nevermore, played by Gaspard. Gaspard is everywhere when we are in Julien's home, and although he doesn't have a speaking role, the other actors all talk to him. (At one point Marie tells him, "Stop spying on me. Mind your own business.") Nevermore wears a bell, so when you don't see him, you hear him. (It's true that, when they are hunting, cats are so agile that they keep the bell from ringing. Nevermore doesn't care if the bell rings. It's his theme song.)

We saw this film on DVD, and it worked very well. Naturally, Rivette crafted it for a movie theater audience, but the small screen was fine.

This is a slow film, with many long quiet moments. If you want action and excitement, it's the wrong movie for you. However, if you want to see a thoughtful, unusual movie, find Marie and Julien and watch it.

The thing that has always been interesting about Rivette is the different sense of time that he creates through a more slowly developed story, spanning 2-4 hours on screen. Then when a real development comes along, it's such a surprise and pleasure (dare I say "as in real life?"). MARIE AND JULIEN has a mysterious story, but it's not suspenseful--you can guess what's going on fairly early into the film. Pleasure lies in getting to know the characters, watching Marie arrange a room, watching Julien take a clock apart and put it back together--and having your suspicions about the story verified. It's all perhaps more like reading a novel than watching a normal Hollywood film characterized by a tightly formulaic, time-bound 90-minute plot. And it's no accident that Julien is a clock repairman: that big clock he dismantles seems to stand for the very method and structure, and sense of duration, of this wonderful movie. A clock's ticking is supposed to be even, "in beat," but it's interesting too when the ticking is uneven!