Jules og Jim
In his
third attempt (on this List at least) Francois Truffaut finally seems to have
found the formula, which is basically to tone down his own awesomeness and tell
an interesting story.
This is
very much an alternative love story, which is interesting in the sense that the
sixties was the decade of the sexual revolution. In fact it is difficult to
imagine this story told in any earlier
decade although the actual story takes place in the beginning of the century.
While the movie presents some rather sophisticated forms of relationships they
are not borne out of a desire to experiment, but out of necessity. This is to
my mind more a story of how far people are willing to go to help and stay with
loved ones with mental issues.
Jules and
Jim are best mates in Paris around the turn of the century. Jules (Oskar
Werner) is Austrian (with hardly an accent) and introvert while Jim (Henri
Serre) is native French and rather extrovert. In each other they find what they
are lacking and together they have an entire universe. Into their world steps Catherine
(Jeanne Moreau), a quite unusual woman with a dynamite character.
Catherine
is at first accepted as a third member of their group, one of the boys, but she
is undeniably a woman and at first Jules and later Jim fall in love with her.
That would be trouble enough in itself, but Catherine I suspect is suffering
from a bipolar disorder. She swings from manic joy to manic depression, she is incredibly
impulsive and she chafe at any sort of restrictions to her life. While that may
sound like a few women I could point out, Catherine is rather extreme. On hers
and Jules wedding night she takes revenge for a perceived slight that Jules
does not even recognize by having sex with another man.
Jules is
clearly out of his league with this woman. The life he has created for them in
Schwartzwald with a beautiful wooden chalet and a lovely daughter sounds like
paradise to me, but to Catherine it is a prison. Jules takes an awful lot of
crap from her in the hope that she does not leave and when Jim after the war
comes to visit and starts an affair with Catherine Jules gives them his
blessing.
Jim soon realizes
that he is not enough either and returns to Paris to his on/off girlfriend. Catherine
however is more than ever at the mercy of her own emotions and does not take no
for an answer. That of course sets the stage for tragedy, one way or the other.
It is
remarkable how open everybody in the movie are about their feelings and
intensions. Throughout the whole thing, Jules and Jim remain friends and
completely honest with each other and Catherine simply says what is one her
mind with no filter at all. Despite this honesty and openness and despite all
the creativity they apply to their relationships it is just not enough.
Although we are several years prior to Summer of Love we see sexual freedom
embraced, but even when not generating hard feelings, which usually is the backlash,
it is still unable and not flexible enough to fit these people and avert
crisis.
You could
make a case for Catherine simply being incompatible with Jules and Jim and to
some extend I would agree. Jules adores her, but he could never offer her the
life she wants. But nobody could. Catherine has appetites and needs, demands
and complaints that only a man as patient as Jules would put up with, but
nobody could meet. A century later Catherine would, I think, be diagnosed and receive
medical help and that might make things easier. Without that sort of assistance,
she is a ticking bomb.
This story
is quite spectacular and this is why this movie works for me. The narrating
style has gotten some attention, but this style was already in use in France
back in the thirties with several examples on the List. The only
cinematographical element I would consider a novelty is the openness with which
their relationships are discussed, the brutal honesty. It is refreshing and
helps making this an interesting movie. Otherwise it seems as if Truffaut is
stepping back and letting the story unfold. And that works.
I was
surprised that a movie with these themes could hold my attention, but it did.
It sucked me in. Perhaps because I can relate to Jules, but more likely because
we get so deeply under skin of these people through their honesty. An honesty,
I should note, with very little screaming, even from Catherine. Modern filmmakers
trying to make the brutally honest love drama could learn something from that.
I hate screaming.
I am not a fan. I'll offer the last paragraph of my review as the distillation of my opinion:
ReplyDelete"Suffice to say that while this film is considered a nouvelle vague masterpiece, I didn’t think much of it. Catherine was not the enchantress I was led to believe she would be, but was a vain, vindictive, selfish person with severe emotional and mental issues. Eventually, even if the sex comes gold-plated, there’s a time to move on, but Jules and Jim never get there. What a couple of clods."
I can understand that position completely. Catherine is poison. But somehow I do understand where Jim and Jules are coming from.
DeleteI have this as a 1962 film so it will be awhile before I get to it. It was one of the first foreign films I saw and I have found memories of it.
ReplyDeleteYes, there seem to be some disagreement on whether this is a 61 or 62 movie. In my (old) edition of the Book it is 61, so that is what I go with. I think it is interesting enough.
Delete