The Story of Marie and 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?

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.

This is a very "French" film, meaning realism tinged with poetry and romanticism. Yeah, it's too bad that a subtle, intricate and beautifully acted film such as this will be a challenge for most people for ADD. Actually, I think it's more like people who just don't have the knack for anything else other than football and beer (I actually have some major ADD). But this movie is so engaging from the start, the moment Emmanuelle Beart's uncanny, cold frozen eyes stares into the camera.

I got to admit, some parts of the movie is a bit slow, but over all it is a delightfully intriguing film with a surprise ending that has substantial payoff beyond typical clichés.

For all those romantics who are sick of When Harry Met Sally stories, check out Story of Marie and Julien.