Jules and Jim

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.

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.

Although "Jules and Jim" was made over 40 years ago and takes place 40 to 50 years before that, the amazing thing is that it barely seems to have dated. Because it focuses on the universal human relationships between its characters, rather than the specific time in which they live, it's the rare film set in the past that doesn't feel like a "period film." And, especially in the first half of the movie, Truffaut's New Wave techniques lend a remarkable energy and freshness.

The movie explores friendship and love among three semi-bohemian types: Parisian Jim (Henri Serre), Austrian Jules (Oskar Werner), and Catherine (Jeanne Moreau), the beautiful, free-spirited woman whom they both love. She's the most vibrant character in the movie, and impossible to pin down. It's never clear who she loves—she contradicts herself repeatedly, and perhaps loves no one but herself—or whether she's diabolical or simply misunderstood. Moreau nearly steals the movie, if not for the fact that the title reminds us to focus on the relationship between the two men, and that Serre and Werner give good performances too. Even if Jim and Jules aren't as mysterious as Catherine, they're complex and interesting characters in their own right.

The story plays out rather episodically, which means "Jules and Jim" is full of wonderful little moments, often involving the crazy things Catherine does. Some of my favorites include her dressing up as a man and racing Jules and Jim across a bridge; her jumping into the Seine in frustration; and her singing the movie's charming theme song, "The Whirlpool of Life." The episodes are linked together by surprisingly unobtrusive off-screen narration, which keeps the film moving along rather than slowing it down.

"Jules and Jim" does get a little tiresome toward the end, with Catherine continually vacillating between the men in her life, Jim vacillating between Catherine and his old girlfriend Gilberte, and Jules remaining loyally devoted to Catherine despite how foolish this may seem. However, the movie is redeemed by its tragic final scenes, which poignantly contrast with the carefree gaiety of the beginning. Jules, Jim, and Catherine are caught in a destructive spiral, tossed and defeated by the whirlpool of life. Still, the tone of the movie is gentle and human, not pessimistic. Truffaut considered "Jules and Jim" a "hymn to life," and it is most memorable as a vivid celebration of friendship and youthful possibility, even as it acknowledges how those things can sour.

This is the first movie by Truffault I've ever seen, and I have to say I'm now very intrigued in his other work...

"Jules et Jim" is the story of two friends who meet a very beautiful and strange woman who turns up to be a bit unstable...

It starts with how they all meet each other and end up together... I thought the beginning was pretty fast as many things happened and you just wonder if the whole movie will be like that. Also I thought I didn't care much for any character, but of course it was too quick to judge. There is also a narrator (throughout the movie) and at first you ask yourself if its really necessary...

Still, when I decided to go grab a snack, I realized I was so hooked by the story that I couldn't. The characters behaved like no other I've seen and you find yourself wanting two different things: for it to end and for it never to end.

The movie has it's many twists for those who like, even a laugh here and there, but if you see it as a whole is a very deep description of the relationship between the three main characters.

The end is somehow beautiful, maybe because is "fair", maybe because is "real", maybe because is "surreal", you'll just have to watch and find out...

Is one of those movies when after watching it you understand both sides: those who say it's overrated and those who claim it's a masterpiece... to me it was a one in a lifetime film experience

Tonight I finally watched Jules and Jim again for the first time in many years, and it made me angry. I'm not sure why, but there's something about the romanticization of inconstancy that I find disturbing. Jeanne Moreau is, of course, riveting, mostly, and the film is beautifully made. It's just that I can't shake the feeling that what is being portrayed as a great force of nature – the essence of Moreau's character as "une vrai femme" -- is really a powerful but unsteady egotism, enormous grace and charm coupled with an inability to conceive of the reality of other people, or at least to share in mutual reality. In its place there is the lightning of desire in an oversimplified context of defiance against hypocrisy. There is something false about the whole business, as if the movie wants to celebrate the (ostensible) freedom of la belle Catherine and to do so it must attribute the human damage she causes to some grand sort of fate, not ordinary consequence, and the failure and the damage is made to seem mysteriously inevitable. Worse yet, by identifying her as an elemental power and attributing this to her absolute femininity, the film is misogynistic. That is, it implies that the ultimate nature of woman is beyond reason, beyond morality.

And yet Truffaut does it all so beautifully that it seems to undercut the negative part, the pain and waste of what happens to people. Still, smiling cruelty is cruelty. Sorry for ranting. I wanted to like the movie, and I did to a large extent, but it bothered me, too.