Jules et Jim
 |
| Catherine (Jeanne Moreau), Jim (Henri Serre), and Jules (Oskar Werner) |
*****
I try not to let what others say influence my feelings overall for anything I watch. I try to allow my own life experience and tastes try and dictate that. When I watch a film for the first time or after multiple viewings I try to let it speak to me in its own way. Because Roger Ebert or Leonard Maltin, Parisians of that era or any other afterward will experience a film for the first time or after multiple viewings and receive it one way or another in their own fashion. When I watched Jules et Jim (1962) the first time (probably 2002-ish), the film didn’t resonate with me for whatever reason as it did this evening. Its various elements reinforced a bit more eloquently, I reckon, at 40 than 23. I don’t know, but the film did get across a lot more impactfully this evening, at any rate. It wasn’t because Ebert or some renowned critic told me it was the bee’s knees. I had to see what it had for me—it’s content—myself.
You will read on Jules et Jim regarding its standing in the critical circles regarding the filmmaking process, with its indulgences and techniques not as reflective of how Hollywood had been doing for the past forty or so years. Pauses, like two I found particularly effective regarding Jules and Jim (Austrian and French guys meeting in Paris and forming a friendship that would last through war and romance) and Catherine (the woman they both fall in love) in a smiling pose (she had never been as happy as she was with these two men), or narrative soundbites where a voice dictates to us the feelings of the trio during the film. The narration isn’t anything new, necessarily, but how the voiceover tells the story without removing the characters from acting it out, taking them out of the equation, was quite a dalliance of technique Truffaut gave the audience with great skill. Like Jim and Catherine going for walks or in bed together…the voiceover tells us how they feel but the actors also communicate that to us with their performance and dialogue as well. Sure narration is a device that has never been abandoned, but to fuse that with acting and conversation between characters without one of the other dominating is quite feat. Like how actors on a stage, with props and background, all accumulating art as one without anything overriding the other, overwhelming the other, it is a delicate balance that can be quite impressive if built through the direction of a true artist. Truffaut was such an artist.
The love triangle where the two men in love with the woman never allow her to fracture their friendship is quite a lasting tribute to the story told through the work of all involved. Catherine ending it all through an act of impulsive jealousy (in these kinds of tragic dramas it typically is one guy or the other, not the woman they typically fight over), driving a car off a bridge with a man she couldn’t escape obsession over isn’t what is the expected result…and because of that the impact is greater. This happens, too, on just a normal day where the three get together for what would have been a friendly gathering years before. Catherine wants to speak with Jim in her car, and Jim sees no reason to feel threatened…but minutes before (although three months pass according to the film), Catherine attempts to shoot Jim, with the gun wrestled away and a trip out a window safely to the ground below his escape. Catherine’s deterioration is alarming considering her relations with Jim developed while still married to Jules. Jules loved her faithfully, remaining by her side despite adulteries and moving to Jim with her affections. Through it all Jules and Jim remained faithful to each other, despite Catherine’s romance with both of them. All the way to the end.
I can see why this casts a spell, as others films by French filmmakers of the era, with how characters will indulge in spontaneity and on-the-fly behavior. Playful and engaging their whimsy, the three embrace life's little pleasures. French New Wave enjoyed offering such characters, while this gives us a romance that understandably went through its ebbs and flows, as the woman so desired couldn't quite decide until the end when it was too late who she truly wanted. The dialogue between them and how the indifference and passions could be reserved and subdued was a bit unique perhaps to audiences elsewhere, ultimately produced quite a startling result: Jules left without two people he truly loved. Also involved losing them are Albert, a poet and musician, and Sabine, the daughter of Jules and Catherine. Despite having a husband and child to care for, to Catherine it wasn't enough. Jim is robbed of perhaps an enduring relationship to Gilberte. So a lot of loss based on Catherine's impulsive suicidal drive...
I try not to let what others say influence my feelings overall for anything I watch. I try to allow my own life experience and tastes try and dictate that. When I watch a film for the first time or after multiple viewings I try to let it speak to me in its own way. Because Roger Ebert or Leonard Maltin, Parisians of that era or any other afterward will experience a film for the first time or after multiple viewings and receive it one way or another in their own fashion. When I watched Jules et Jim (1962) the first time (probably 2002-ish), the film didn’t resonate with me for whatever reason as it did this evening. Its various elements reinforced a bit more eloquently, I reckon, at 40 than 23. I don’t know, but the film did get across a lot more impactfully this evening, at any rate. It wasn’t because Ebert or some renowned critic told me it was the bee’s knees. I had to see what it had for me—it’s content—myself.
You will read on Jules et Jim regarding its standing in the critical circles regarding the filmmaking process, with its indulgences and techniques not as reflective of how Hollywood had been doing for the past forty or so years. Pauses, like two I found particularly effective regarding Jules and Jim (Austrian and French guys meeting in Paris and forming a friendship that would last through war and romance) and Catherine (the woman they both fall in love) in a smiling pose (she had never been as happy as she was with these two men), or narrative soundbites where a voice dictates to us the feelings of the trio during the film. The narration isn’t anything new, necessarily, but how the voiceover tells the story without removing the characters from acting it out, taking them out of the equation, was quite a dalliance of technique Truffaut gave the audience with great skill. Like Jim and Catherine going for walks or in bed together…the voiceover tells us how they feel but the actors also communicate that to us with their performance and dialogue as well. Sure narration is a device that has never been abandoned, but to fuse that with acting and conversation between characters without one of the other dominating is quite feat. Like how actors on a stage, with props and background, all accumulating art as one without anything overriding the other, overwhelming the other, it is a delicate balance that can be quite impressive if built through the direction of a true artist. Truffaut was such an artist.
The love triangle where the two men in love with the woman never allow her to fracture their friendship is quite a lasting tribute to the story told through the work of all involved. Catherine ending it all through an act of impulsive jealousy (in these kinds of tragic dramas it typically is one guy or the other, not the woman they typically fight over), driving a car off a bridge with a man she couldn’t escape obsession over isn’t what is the expected result…and because of that the impact is greater. This happens, too, on just a normal day where the three get together for what would have been a friendly gathering years before. Catherine wants to speak with Jim in her car, and Jim sees no reason to feel threatened…but minutes before (although three months pass according to the film), Catherine attempts to shoot Jim, with the gun wrestled away and a trip out a window safely to the ground below his escape. Catherine’s deterioration is alarming considering her relations with Jim developed while still married to Jules. Jules loved her faithfully, remaining by her side despite adulteries and moving to Jim with her affections. Through it all Jules and Jim remained faithful to each other, despite Catherine’s romance with both of them. All the way to the end.
I can see why this casts a spell, as others films by French filmmakers of the era, with how characters will indulge in spontaneity and on-the-fly behavior. Playful and engaging their whimsy, the three embrace life's little pleasures. French New Wave enjoyed offering such characters, while this gives us a romance that understandably went through its ebbs and flows, as the woman so desired couldn't quite decide until the end when it was too late who she truly wanted. The dialogue between them and how the indifference and passions could be reserved and subdued was a bit unique perhaps to audiences elsewhere, ultimately produced quite a startling result: Jules left without two people he truly loved. Also involved losing them are Albert, a poet and musician, and Sabine, the daughter of Jules and Catherine. Despite having a husband and child to care for, to Catherine it wasn't enough. Jim is robbed of perhaps an enduring relationship to Gilberte. So a lot of loss based on Catherine's impulsive suicidal drive...
Comments
Post a Comment