MUBI

Gloriously alive and still potent after almost 50 years, François Truffaut’s third film is a love letter to the cinema and an astonishingly mature work of art (he was 29 when principal photography began in 1961). In its multilayered exploration of life, love, and doomed romance, this is truly a film where the significance of the journey exceeds the importance of the destination, which is inevitable.

Read more:

http://cinemauprising.blogspot.com/2008/12/jules-and-jim-criterion-collection.html

People might want to butcher me and cut off my head for daring to give a bad critique on this particular movie. I’m fine with that and I’m ready to live with the shame (if there’s any shame to say what you truly think about a film). My intention is non-provocative. However, if you feel provoked, that is your own problem. Personally, even though this movie has been very positively reviewed from its coming out in 1962 until today, I couldn’t stand it. I know, “Jules et Jim” is a classic, considered one of the finest movies ever made (and so on). Nonetheless, I consider it a terrible movie, one of the worst, if the not THE worst I’ve ever seen. Pretty much everything looked wrong to me. The acting was barely decent. What brought most actions or decisions of the characters was rather confusing. They were never really justified.

The personality of the two main characters, Jules and Jim, was too submissive and absent. Catherine’s personality wasn’t any better, even though it was different as she was the dominant one. She was rather confusing (more than mysterious), she appeared to be emotionally and psychologically unstable. I didn’t see the beauty of a volatile female in her as most have described. Some might say Catherine was an overpowering female, but with such weak men like Jules and Jim, not much power was really needed… Heck, you have the character of Albert (another weak and submissive male) sitting in the same room as all three main characters and he openly shows himself as Catherine’s lover. To the point where they’d be eating all together in a little restaurant, laughing and smiling and what happens after? The “femme volage” shows no shame or secrecy in ending her night with Albert, therefore ditching Jules and Jim, who again go along with it like nice little puppies. And no one sees a problem with that exactly why? At least she was kind enough to leave them the car…

At least cuckolds are not that bad. They are submissive but show at least the minimum emotions of jealousy, anger and enjoyment. Indeed, they enjoy the pain afflicted (either by themselves and/or their partners) on them by seeing and imagining their partners cheating on them. That usually ends also to be a sexual excitement and pleasure… I don’t know if it’s simply bad acting or just bad characters such as Jules and Jim to be portrayed as weak men with total lack of will. Angry or sad they each said they were, really?

It seemed to me too that the ending with Catherine killing herself with Jim was just a quick, easy and cheesy way to put an end to his no-ending-back-and-forth-voyage-between-France-and-Austria. Wait; did the word “end” come up too much? It seemed to me that the movie was never going to finish (thinking it’s a three hours movie, I don’t wonder much anymore). The story wasn’t going anywhere, just confused characters moving in circle on themselves. Oh well, Jules didn’t seem to be that saddened by the event of his cheating wife and best friend’s deaths.

Many scenes seemed to want to portrait warmth between the characters, but that warmth was barely tangible. On top of that, the sudden appearances of the narrator’s very loud and neutral voice destroyed the mood that was ABOUT to be set between the characters, every single time. Very often the scenes looked like they were cut right in middle, at inappropriate timing. The story didn’t flow smoothly from those cuts. “Wait! Where are you going?!” I had to ask too many times.

I couldn’t help myself but to shiver, grunt and groan throughout the whole movie…

Since its release in 1962, Francois Truffaut’s seminal Nouvelle Vague film, Jules et Jim, has created much controversy over its diagetic/stylistic representation of gender politics. A film about trying to investigate the capabilities of human relationships from a modern perspective, the character of Catherine seems to refuse any adherence to societal norms; thus, creating a figure that without closer analyzation could easily be mistaken as a representation of female empowerment and/or liberation. Yet, Truffaut makes it clear that these were not his intentions in various written statements and interviews. Instead, he presents, from an, arguably, chauvinist perspective, Catherine as a figure that is inherently ambiguous in nature; moreover, he depicts her as goddess-like on some levels but also humanely flawed on others. Accordingly, he shows her to be motherly in some episodes and childish in others; Catherine’s character is one that is marked by a certain essential ambiguity perhaps best illustrated through the vial of acid, or shall I say ‘liquid fire’ that she carries in her purse. Indeed, this ‘liquid fire’ is an icon defined by opposing elements that are just as contradictory as the nature of Catherine herself. (Schiffman et al) Thus, it is arguable that Truffaut presents her in such a domineering, selfish, almost grotesque sort of manner in order to evoke the artist’s own perception of women, one that is more negative and critical and than empowering, certainly.
Truffaut said regarding the film: “Lots of people didn’t like the scenario for Jules et Jim. The distributors said ‘that woman is a whore,’ ‘the husband is going to seem pretty grotesque,’ etc.” (Interview, p. 8) Thus, before the problems began later down the road in the 1970s regarding the second-wave feminist interpretations of the film, people in the industry were already complaining about the film and its seemingly, amazingly distasteful presentation of the woman as this all-powerful rebelling goddess, free to float around her environment, sleeping with who she wants and going and coming as she pleases; yet, what they could not understand was that within Truffaut’s presentation of Catherine was an implicit criticism. We must remember, Catherine does die at the end of the novel as result of her inability to accept her own selfishness and egoism. Moreover, her behavior is what causes her downfall, also, her inability to conform to societal expectations of the conventional/acceptable feminine identity, perhaps best embodied by the supporting character of Gilberte, constantly floating around in the background providing a stable anchor for the sake of stylistic counterpoint. Thus, we can see in this sense that Truffaut is not then condemning all women but only those that wish to go against the social expectations of their gender and try to engage in epic endeavors such as the redefinition of love with a fundamental crippling sense of Hubris hindering any chance of success. Of course, this other type of women is embodied in the form of Catherine. It is these women then that go against the grain, so to speak, whom are being criticized by Truffaut. Therefore, he is advocating moral principles that are not feminist but instead, a bit chauvinistic in nature.
Considerably reminiscent of the popularized literary perception of women as disembodied goddess, Elaine DalMolin remarks: “Catherine’s complex psychological nature leaves her out of reach, and despite her coming into Jules and Jim’s human world, she remains and unattainable object of desire throughout the film.” (Voice, p. 238) Thus, as we have suggested, Catherine’s ambiguous nature of being represented as a goddess, yet, with human folly, a mother, yet, with childish tendencies, places her in the realm of the unattainable, this disembodied object of romantic desire. Moreover, she comes to represent the image that initially introduces us to Catherine, the statue with the “serene smile”. Throughout the film this association is emphasized not only initially, when Catherine appears and she is “visually linked to the statue since the camera makes the same excited movement around her”. (Schiffman et al) But also, in the scene in which Jules and Jim are playing dominoes and almost ignoring Catherine, causing her to come over and start making various theatrically emphasized expressions of various common emotions. This use of the freeze-frame almost metaphorically places Catherine into the same realm as the statue, both the freeze-frames and the sculpture are the artistic product of the inspiration of an individual; thus, through the usage of the stylistic device of the freeze-frame, we see a another link drawn between Catherine and the original statue of which she is associated with.
Be that as it may, another important element of the first scene in which we are introduced to Catherine is that of the slow dissolve that leads into the episode. Finishing off the scene in which Jules and Jim are showering in the boxing gym, the camera pans up to a sort of metallic surface before dissolving to the next scene; yet, what is left over more than anything or these two blurbs of glaring light that seem to last longer than the rest of the image as it eventually all fades away. The effect of this lingering brightness is that it surrounds Catherine as she walks down the stairs giving her an almost celestial or divine appearance before the camera even provides the audience with a close-up. Once again, this just provides another example of how Truffaut utilizes style to communicate and/or develop the thematic content of the film. In a later scene in which Jim and Catherine have their first kiss, one may notice that it is indeed, another instance of Truffaut’s style communicating thematic content of the film. Jim and Catherine’s face are shown against a window and the lighting is composed so as Catherine’s face is completely black. The effect, of course, is that the stylistic contribution of lighting is representative of the trope of Catherine as the unattainable, disembodied goddess perhaps evoking, on a larger scale, a chauvinistic criticism of women who desire to go against the grain of conservative gender politics in the time period. We must remember that Truffaut and for that matter, Henri-Pierre Roché (the original writer of the novel), always include Gilberte as a sort anchor, solidifying the presence of a certain counterpoint, to remind the reader that the criticism is not of all women, just of those that seek to recreate their own identities in society with too much hubris, too much revolutionary fervor, with not enough heed being paid to the long-established conventions of the past, etc.
Screenwriter of this film, Jean Grault, represents the difficulty of the misinterpretation of this film by various females as a result of the maturation of various feminist movements, years after the release of the film when he recounts the statements made a Canadian female reporter in regard to her reaction to the film, notably, she remarked the impact the film had made on her was that it allowed her to “sleep with a priest”. In another instance, he remembers being approached by an older woman who stated that after seeing Jules and Jim she realized “she could cheat on her husband”; furthermore, in her recounting of this realization she mused: “Boy, did I ever!” (Schiffman et al) He explains that it was these sort of all-encompassing, ill-investigated, pro-feminist interpretations of the film that started showing up years after the film was released began to, in their minds, mar the essence of the film. Grault was so passionate about having the work not being interpreted in such a manner that he included a dedication on Jules et Jim not just hoping that it “doesn’t inspire any evocations of feminism” but also stating quite comically, “I’ve got enough feminists already, starting with my wife and my daughter, that’s enough.” (Schiffman et al)
Long-time Truffaut collaborator and assistant. Suzanne Shiffman, basically acknowledges these claims with supporting evidence in her explanation of Truffaut’s approach to the post-release feminist interpretations of the film, she goes as far to explain that if Truffaut had been aware of the interpretations that the feminists would make out of the work, he would have never endeavored in creating the film. Specifically, she remarks: “Truffaut didn’t like the idea of a masculine movement against the feminist movement, he was not a feminist; he had nothing to do with the feminists, he had something to do with his own feelings about but not the feminists.” (Schiffman et al) Thus, although not directly in accordance with our hypothesis of a more chauvinistic tone to the thematic content of the film in terms of the representation of the deviant feminine, living outside of social constraints and attempting to redefine her identity, yet, finding herself hopelessly tied down by the manacles of hubris and therefore, not able to continue to exist without existing within the perception of others, namely, Jules and Jim. However, she does affirm our claims that Truffaut did not condone any of the emerging feminist interpretations of the novel with evidence based on personal, first-hand discussion with the artist himself. Furthermore, she remarks that he was intent on defining his own conception of the woman. The woman he presents is this disembodied, idealized, unattainable goddess who eventually finds herself unable to subsist in the environment of reality, that is, within the diagetic realm of the story.
In the final scenes of the film, we experience Jim’s metaphorical bursting of the bubble as he discontinues his relationship with Catherine; he remarks that “you wanted to invent love but pioneers should be humble without egoism”. Therefore, in attempting to redefine the concept of romantic love in order to best suit the unique demands of this disembodied, unattainable figure of the feminine being represented beyond the grasps of societal constraint has in a sense, pushed the envelope far too far, even attempting to bring a third lover into the triangle. Perhaps then, one can suggest that not only through the inclusion of the character of Gilberte, serving a sort of counter-point reminding us of the presence of this conventional women in this diagetic realm the film but also, through Catherine, that Truffaut is suggesting the problem arises comes from this sense of hubris in certain women, especially those regarded as especially beautiful or attractive by a particular culture, etc. In presenting us this woman who has no adherence to social norms, it is not this rejection of the normative behavior that is being condemned; it is more the pride of the character that not just rejects some normative behavior but all of it. It is not enough for Catherine to manipulate these two men into partaking in a romantic relationship with her at the same time, but she wants to bring somebody else into the triangle. Thus, it is not the rejection of societal norms that is being condemned here but the hubris of this character.
It is almost as if in the beginning of the film, Catherine is shown as being able to balance this role of the earthly woman and the disembodied goddess of sorts; however, being the beautiful woman she is, played by the most beautiful of New Wave actresses, Jeane Moreau, we can see embedded within the characterization of Catherine a criticism of all women blessed with the gift of striking physical beauty. Be that as it may, the last line of the film is also of chief importance because it sort of leaves the larger message of the narrative as an open-ended question. Catherine is dead and she has taken Jim along with her, the tragedy has come full circle in its culminating moments, her actions, now, seem characteristic of a figure suffering from the character flaws of hubris, of greed and pettiness. Yet, the last line of the film raises this sort of element of ambiguity: “Catherine had wanted her ashes to be scattered but this was not allowed.” Annette Insdorf quite aptly comments on this conclusion by stating that: “Once again, we get this sense of a societal prohibition that Catherine, in death, comes up against as much as she did in life.”

Bibliography

1. Schiffman, Suzanne, asst./collab., Grault, Jean, wrtr., Insdorf, Annette, schlr., and Bouché, Claudine, edtr. Jules et Jim. Audio Commentary. The Criterion Collection, 2005. DVD.
2. Neupert, Richard. “Where Did the Wave Begin?” A History of French New Wave Cinema. Ed. Kristin Thompson. The University of Wisconsin Press: Wisconsin. 2007.
3. Truffaut, Francois, Ronder, Paul. “Francois Truffaut: An Interview.” Film Quarterly. Vol. 17, No. 1 (1963): 3-13. Web. 03/03/2010.
4. Flitterman-Lewis, Sandy. “Fascination, Friendship, and the ‘Eternal Feminine,’ or the Discursive Production of Cinematic Desire.” The French Review. Vol. 66, No. 6 (1993): 941-946. Web. 02/20/10.
5. Grossvogel, David I. “Truffaut & Roché” Diacritics. (1973): 47-52. Web. 03/03/10.

This is a film which casts a long influential shadow (Betty Blue is one obvious example). Moreau’s character seems to me an ideal of a certain type that identifies jealously with the feminine and is consumed by that identification. Whether the character is drawn entirely from life, or whether this film has itself helped to embed a pattern of behaviour, who can say? Dated 1962, its take on female liberation seems at least timely. The two male figures seemed barely credible at the outset, but deepened and gained conviction with the reverses of the post-war period (though surely the trauma of war which would have played a vital role in the succeeding drama was skimped- just that one reminiscence about a letter from the trenches). All the same it is remarkable that Truffaut should have had the insight at 30 to plot the development of character to the extent he does. The ending comes very suddenly however and leaves one wondering how seriously one should take it as a drama or excursion into romantic psychology, charming and haunting though it is.

“This film makes you want to hate women.” I actually disagree with this.

First off, as a film, this is a film filled with beautiful moments, some wonderful off-beat characters, and a great deal of questions about life and the nature of love and so on…and so forth…Basically, its everything you need to be a classic.

For me, the story is lacking, but I don’t mind it so much. It won’t become one of my favorites, but I think its legacy will continue without me “becoming a fan.” So, if you haven’t seen it: you should. You’ll probably like it a lot. (Also, if you haven’t watched it you should stop reading here.)

Now, I will say that I had, at first, sirens going off in my head about Catherine. Its hard not to start wondering what is this film saying about women? BUT i took my bra away from the flames when I thought about replacing Catherine’s character with a man. This would be the same story we always see (except with nine women instead of two). I don’t think it’s a comment on women. It’s a comment on a story, that is then told. She’s a well developed villain and although she’s not likable, neither are most of the two-timing women haters who play the same part in other movies. It’s a little hypocritical for us ladies to be upset if we’re weakly represented in the movie and then also upset when we’re strong (albeit evil). At least she wasn’t over sexualized.

without any exaggeration, i’ll say that i am very lucky to have witnessed this film before i die. it is precisely like almost everybody said; one of the best and most beautiful film in the history of cinema.

what makes it so? this film has countless scenes, dialogs, and narrations that are unforgettable, elegant, adventurous, offbeat, and also rebellious.

the bizarre love triangle theme in the film is nothing like i have seen before. it’s disturbingly beautiful and elegantly rebellious. yup, it is that good.

the pace of this film is very unique. it’s more random than a well thought out pace. well after all, this is a francois truffaut’s film.

definitely a one-of-a-kind.

I think this movie might be the reason people think the French are so sexually liberal. Truffaut’s films are always beautifully paced in a way that is so seamless that he makes it look effortless, however I was taken aback at how much the tone and pace of JULES AND JIM shifts as it moves along. The first act of the film is Truffaut throwing every stylistic trick he’s thought of with camerawork and editing against a wall, and surprisingly, nearly all of it sticks as it moves along at a brisk pace. The movie makes several turns where it will slow down and speed up as the story progresses, and while it was jarring at first (especially given what I’ve come to expect from Truffaut) once I settled into it I was right at home.

JULES AND JIM is full of moments that are some of cinema’s greatest treasures. Jules and Jim racing a mustached Catherine through a covered bridge, Catherine shifting her facial expressions from statuesque indifference to a joyous smile, Jules and Catherine wrestling in bed, it’s all stuff you won’t ever forget.

I LOVE all of Truffaut’s other films. This overflows with some beautiful compositions, charming narration (that wes anderson did a good job of stealing stylistically) and delicious musicality. A classic I know….

… but I CANNOT STAND Jeanne Moreau’s character in this movie, she’s really a god awful human being. I saw it once when I was 17 and I thought I just misunderstood some sort of feminist undertone to the film; but when I saw it again recently, I realized that she was just a worthless brat.

EDIT: I thought about it some more and, on second thought, this is an anti-feminist film. This film makes you want to hate women. The war couldn’t keep the two friends apart, but Catherine succeeded in dividing them like she set out to do from almost the beginning, because she was the ultimate object of desire and eternally unattainable because of her juvenile fickleness. An awful portrait of women, but unintentionally a revealing allegory for the stupidity of people in love in an unequal society.

Truffaut’s masterful film chronicles 20 years in the lives and friendship of three people, beginning just before WWI and ending just before WWII. While the story came from an old novel, the film embodied all that was fresh, new and relevatory about the French New Wave. It is literally bursting with energy and momentum, shot in an entirely new style of whip pans, exuberant tracking shots and a wild pace. But more importantly, it’s about the innocence of youthful love crashing into the reality of adult romance. Though Jules and Jim share the title, the film is truly about Catherine, the object of their obsessive love and how the disappointment of that love unravels her.

For a movie about love and passion being the ultimate truth, Jules et Jim is strangely disengaged emotionally. The storytelling is so episodic, the narration so dominant, I found it difficult to become emotionally attached to the characters.

As a result I felt, not sympathy for Catherine, but intolerance and annoyance for what I perceived to be selfish and cruel behavior. In fact, I thought her behavior was pathological and that she was in need of good therapy or medication. Truffaut never succeeded in helping me understand Jules and Jim’s attraction to her.

Is it possible that this is one of those movies that was groundbreaking in its day, both in style and in subject matter, but which has not withstood the test of time?