Topic: Jules et Jim (1962)

[Antares]

Jules et Jim





Year: 1962
Film Studio: Les Films du Carrosse, S.E.D.I.F.
Genre: Drama, Romance
Length: 106 Min.

Director
François Truffaut (1932)

Writing
Henri-Pierre Roché (1879)...Novel
François Truffaut (1932)...Adaptation And Dialogue
Jean Gruault (1924)...Adaptation And Dialogue

Producer
Marcel Berbert
François Truffaut(1932)

Cinematographer
Raoul Coutard (1924)

Music
Georges Delerue (1925)...Composer

Stars
Jeanne Moreau (1928) as Catherine
Oskar Werner (1922) as Jules
Henri Serre (1931) as Jim
Vanna Urbino (1929) as Gilberte
Boris Bassiak (1928) as Albert
Anny Nelsen (1942) as Lucie
Sabine Haudepin (1955) as Sabine, la petite
Marie Dubois (1937) as Thérèse

Review

I love Jeanne Moreau, she's one of my favorite actresses of all time. But I've found the one film where every quality that I find alluring, is missing from her performance. I couldn't for the life of me, understand what made these two friends fall head over heels, madly in love with her character Catherine. Sure she's independent and recklessly spontaneous, but she's also borderline psychotic, and to be honest, a bit of a bitch. I could understand Jules falling for her, as he seemed to be the most emotionally weak of the two men, and Catherine's almost masculine nature might have been the tonic he needed. It was Jim's relationship with her that I found completely implausible. Early in the film, she shows him a bottle of sulfuric acid that she keeps with her to "Throw into the eyes of the man who tells her lies". Ding...ding...ding!!!! An alarm should instantly have gone off in his head, that she's has a screw loose somewhere, and she's not someone to become completely immersed with in a relationship. But that's exactly what he does, and in the end, pays a price for it.

This is my third film by Truffaut, and I've come to this conclusion...he should have been a cinematographer as opposed to a director. His films have a unique look and quality that make them fascinating and beautiful to look at, but at the expense of depth in his screenplays. I found this to be the case with The 400 Blows, as there just didn't seem to be enough exposition as to why Doinel becomes delinquent. In Jules and Jim, a bit more time spent with the three main characters in the beginning of the film may have shed some light as to why both men desire her. It's only mere moments after their first encounter with Catherine that Jules professes his desire to marry her. Up until this point, both men were engaging in all kinds of spurious and spontaneous relationships with varied woman, so why was this one different?

Getting back to the look of the film, I found many scenes breathtakingly beautiful and completely absorbing, such as the scene where Catherine is reciting her letter as Jim is racing back to their cottage in Austria. Her face is superimposed against the backdrop of the trees rolling pass the train, and it is one of the most creative moments I've ever witnessed in a film. The whole atmosphere of the film is carefree and breezy, and back in 1962, this must have been extremely refreshing, especially when you consider that Hollywood was completely immersed in bloated grand epics at that time. But I look for the complete package when I watch a film. I not only want the great framing and beautiful cinematography, but I want depth and believability in its story. And this film just doesn't fulfill my desires. The moment that pushed it over the edge for me is when Jim is in the theater watching the newsreel of the Nazis burning books and Jules and Catherine are seated a few rows behind him. This scene comes fast on the heels of a moment where Catherine pulls a gun on Jim and tries to kill him and he flees their cottage in desperation. Yet he nonchalantly joins the couple as if that bit of history never took place, and with devastating circumstances for his character. All in all, Jules and Jim is a beautiful viewing experience, but will leave an unfulfilled desire for more balance in the overall concept.

I will definitely give it a second chance and hopefully it will reveal a little bit more of what I'm looking for the next time. It took me three attempts to get through it over the last three years since I purchased it. Now that I've finally finished it, it may prove a bit easier on the second viewing... I hope.

Review Criterion
5 Stars - The pinnacle of film perfection and excellence.
4 ½ Stars - Not quite an immortal film, yet a masterpiece in its own right.
4 Stars - Historically important film, considered a classic.
3 ½ Stars - An entertaining film that’s fun or engaging to watch.
3 Stars – A good film that’s worth a Netflix venture.
2 ½ Stars - Borderline viewable.
2 Stars – A bad film that may have a moment of interest.
1 ½ Stars – Insipid, trite and sophomoric, and that's its good points.
1 Star – A film so vacuous, it will suck 2 hours from the remainder of your life.
½ Star - A gangrenous and festering pustule in the chronicles of celluloid.