It is currently Tue Dec 12, 2017 10:15 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 177 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 22, 2005 1:06 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 6:05 pm
Location: Connecticut
Thanks guys. I look forward to watching this film and the extras next week.


Top
 Profile  
 

 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 02, 2006 3:54 pm 
grace thought I was a failure
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:42 am
Location: Rochester, NY
I just received this response from Angie Bucknell at Criterion in regards to my question about correcting the flipped images:

Quote:
Regarding Jules and Jim, we agree that it looks strange. However, this is the way the shot appears in both the archival film element that we accessed from the Cinémathèque Française and the printing negative that we used to create the Janus prints that are currently touring the country.
As it is inherent in the film elements, we do not consider it a mistake.
We have brought this to the attention of the Cinémathèque Française and they have not given us any indication that the film element is wrong.

I believe this would be definitive that no corrected re-release/edition will be coming.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 02, 2006 4:56 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 7:24 pm
Well, that certainly took a while! Maybe this is an example of Truffaut's playing around in the editing room that's mentioned in the commentary. And maybe the "corrected" versions in circulation have been "corrected" in the sense that the recent DVDs of Exterminating Angel "corrected" Bunuel's "obvious" continuity slip?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 03, 2006 12:36 am 
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2006 9:45 pm
zedz wrote:
Well, that certainly took a while! Maybe this is an example of Truffaut's playing around in the editing room that's mentioned in the commentary. And maybe the "corrected" versions in circulation have been "corrected" in the sense that the recent DVDs of Exterminating Angel "corrected" Bunuel's "obvious" continuity slip?

did they cut out the repetition of the entrance?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 03, 2006 11:03 am 
The Bastard Spawn of Hank Williams
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 7:59 pm
Location: Toledo, Ohio
Quote:
Regarding Jules and Jim, we agree that it looks strange. However, this is the way the shot appears in both the archival film element that we accessed from the Cinémathèque Française and the printing negative that we used to create the Janus prints that are currently touring the country.
As it is inherent in the film elements, we do not consider it a mistake.
We have brought this to the attention of the Cinémathèque Française and they have not given us any indication that the film element is wrong.


I'll bet a lot of people are feeling awfully silly about comments they made back in the day....

Tribe


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 03, 2006 11:30 am 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 12:58 pm
Tribe wrote:
I'll bet a lot of people are feeling awfully silly about comments they made back in the day....

Well, there's still only one person who could tell us with certainty if it was intentional or a mistake, and the last time I checked, he's not talking.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 03, 2006 11:33 am 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 9:03 pm
Matt wrote:
Well, there's still only one person who could tell us with certainty if it was intentional or a mistake, and the last time I checked, he's not talking.

Ouija Board Criterion Forum Party!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 03, 2006 11:42 am 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:52 pm
Location: www.criteriondungeon.com
Matt wrote:
Tribe wrote:
I'll bet a lot of people are feeling awfully silly about comments they made back in the day....

Well, there's still only one person who could tell us with certainty if it was intentional or a mistake, and the last time I checked, he's not talking.

I'm actually considering if we should have an e-graveyard on the dungeon for all CC directors that are no longer among us... This could be our first addition!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 03, 2006 2:28 pm 

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:37 am
Location: Down there
The flip didn´t really bother me, even subconsciously (did not feel any sudden itch in the crotch or a an acute headache or any other usual symptoms when something is not right in a movie (I consciously state)), blaablaa..OK... because I´ve seen the film earlier on a VHS tape recorded from a television broadcast in the late 80s and it has the same "error", (checked 2 hrs ago for fun). Go figure...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 24, 2007 6:49 am 

Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 2:27 pm
Location: London, UK
I accidentally caught this film on television last night and - I'm amazed to write this - thought it was absolutely triumphant. It came together as I was watching it as a grandly conceived whole and not the rushed, distanced first draft I always took it for. I suspect (or rather, I know) it finally struck a chord as I left university in the summer and, lo and behold, it's been a long, sobering process into the real world ever since; the theme of good times gone left a stinging recognition.

But the rickety camerawork, the half-botched post-synching and weak foley work, the shorthand device of narration to get into the characters, didn't seem lazy or careless or amateurish but a heedless rush to get through the whole of the saga rather than making sure each moment was technically perfect. It's a film that puts its characters before any technical considerations of filmmaking, whereas before I always saw it as the other way round, clumsily tricksy and rather hollow. I attribute this partly to personal changes, but also to the subtitles; the MK2 translation made a lot more sense. The semi-abstract flourishes and proclamations were toned down a little and the the transforming effect on the characters was extraordinary; they came alive as people. I know Criterion's subtitles have been criticised before (Ikiru, La Haine and The Rules of the Game) and I do think they seem to miss the mark a little.

Anyway, it's lovely to finally see what all the fuss is about after two false starts. It's a wonderful film. I'm itching to see Anne and Muriel and Shoot the Pianist again.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: J & J on the big screen
PostPosted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 10:36 am 
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2008 7:51 am
Just wanted to let everyone know that in 2 weeks there is going to be a showing of Jules & Jim on the big screen at Ambler, Bryn Mawr, and Doylestown's Film Institutes (all of these are in southern PA), and if you live near these areas you should definitely come out!!

Also, if this is of interest to anyone, at Bryn Mawr, I'm moderating a French-language discussion after the film.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jul 20, 2008 10:39 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 1:22 pm
Location: Montreal, Quebec
I'm not sure why it took so long, but I finally saw a screening of the film today. I've read the other comments in the thread, and wanted to think a bit before posting, but I have to fall in line with the critics who now disregard the film.

While earlier in the thread it has been attributed to the dated sexual politics of the film, I don't think that's why the film doesn't work. For me, Truffaut's examination of monogamy (or lack thereof) is cerebral to a fault. The characters aren't written well enough to properly explain why the men are repeatedly drawn to Catherine. To me, she came of as extraordinarily selfish and manipulative, when she wasn't simply acting like an archetype of an "emotionally unsure" woman. As for Jules, his reasoning for wanting to stay with Catherine despite numerous infidelities isn't justified enough to my liking, nor is Jim's repeated trips to see her whenever she beckons him (particularly in the latter half of the film. His last visit to Catherine drew titters of exasperation from the audience I was with). Moreover, forgotten in all of this, is Sabine who surely would suffer some effect from the revolving door of men if not her mother's repeated absences. Also, the Gilberte character is glaringly inconsequential. I don't see any reason why she would bother sticking by Jim's side and it surprised me that she doesn't make any appearance at the end of the film, after his death, to at least confront Jules to try and get some answers.

I also found the tonal shift of the film, from pre-war to post-war to somewhat amateurish: Pre-war = "happy times", post-war "unhappy times" -- I get that Truffaut is drawing societal parallels as well, but I don't think it played well on screen, nor did I think the shift from the jaunty, more Nouvelle Vague pre-war segment to the melodramatic second half particularly work either.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jul 20, 2008 11:42 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 12:02 pm
Location: nYc
it has been years since I have seen this, but I had very similar feelings about this film. I don't really think it worked for me in terms of believability. But I still found it pretty captivating. From the direction to the cinematography. I believe I gave it an 8/10.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jul 21, 2008 3:13 am 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 1:56 pm
Location: Dublin
Germaine Greer on J ET J, reappraising it recently... Interesting piece which chimes with previous thoughts in this thread...

Quote:
Three's a crowd
When Germaine Greer first saw Truffaut's Jules et Jim in the early 60s, Jeanne Moreau's Catherine seemed a woman after her own heart, following her desires rather than the rules. Is she still such a role model?

Germaine Greer
Saturday May 24, 2008

Guardian

When François Truffaut's Jules et Jim was released in 1962, it was an instant hit with girls like me, francophile, penniless and non-monogamous. In those days, when contraception was available if you were sufficiently guileful, there were a fair few sex adventuresses about, though nowhere near as many as there are now. Enough of us took Jeanne Moreau's Catherine as a role model to establish a fashion for heavy black eye-liner, pale lips, sloppy jumpers and flappy skirts. Some even went so far as to try the Jackie Coogan cap worn by Catherine when she is masquerading as Thomas. We could all whistle "Le Tourbillon de la Vie". Catherine seemed a woman after our own hearts, who followed her desires rather than the rules.
Those of us who spoke the language of the Cahiers du Cinéma rejoiced in the film's innovation, its daring introduction of still photography, the occasional fleeting freeze-frame, pans, dolly shots, wipes and masking. In retrospect, it is obvious that some of these innovations, such as using newsreel of the first world war instead of shooting new footage, were made necessary by a shortage of funds following the box-office failure of the preceding production from Les Films du Carrosse, Tirez sur le Pianiste

Cinematography has followed in the path carved out by Truffaut. The sequence in which Moreau comes freewheeling towards us on a bike, faithfully followed by her lovers, was shot by a lightweight camera mounted on a bicycle that Moreau and the men had been directed to follow, so we feel airborne along with the action. In the race across the bridge, when Catherine is disguised as a boy, the handheld camera keeps pace with her, and we feel as if we are running alongside. By such ruses Truffaut involves us in the childlike delight of the characters. It is this freedom that captivated the film's original audiences, a freedom that has now become part of the repertoire of every cinematographer.

Sex is a different matter. Sexuality is more protean than technology, and most 21st-century audiences will be puzzled by what seem to be blinkers on the plot. In its earlier life, the film was understood to be about Catherine, rather than Jules and Jim. Synopses were apt to say that it was about a woman who was a free spirit, spontaneous, playful and utterly bewitching, who loved two men. Every character was heterosexual. Men wore hats, and everybody went to bed appropriately clad, with only one person at a time, and of the opposite sex, bien entendu

From this distance, it seems two men loved Catherine, and doubtful whether Catherine ever loved anyone. When Jim visits Jules and Catherine after the war, Jules meditates on the difference between German and French gendering of basic concepts. In German, unlike in French, war and moon are masculine, while love and sun are feminine. Life, on the other hand, is neuter. Jim responds: "La vie neutre - c'est très jolie et surtout très logique."

If Truffaut was giving serious thought to the question of gender in 1962, he was ahead of his time. Jules appears short on attributes of masculinity: he is shy, sexually timid and, according to Catherine at any rate, lacks natural authority. Jules is doglike in his fidelity; Jim takes pleasure wherever he finds it. The men fall in friendship when choosing a costume for a fancy-dress ball; at the ball, they discover a deep regard for one another. Both have intellectual pretensions, give each other Picasso prints, quote Shakespeare and Baudelaire, and go to the theatre to see Strindberg's Miss Julie - but, by this time, Catherine is placing herself between them. Before Catherine, they always ate together, and took pleasure together in expensive cigars. In a more enlightened world, they would probably have married.

Moreau's performance is spectacular, but the part can hardly be described as a character. The essence of the portrayal is contradiction and inconsistency. Her behaviour is both inexplicable and unforgivable; the wonder of it is that Jules and Jim forgive it. That is the plot; Catherine's inner life has nothing to do with it. For all we know, she is both frigid and miserable, and her joie de vivre is yet another virtuoso performance. Discussions of the film too often centre on explanations of her behaviour, as if she were a case study in psychology rather than a part in a film. Catherine treats her own face as a mask, the mask of the female, in Baudelaire's words as quoted by Jules, "scarecrow, monster, enemy of art, numbskull and trollop", but adorable, n'est-ce pas

Truffaut used the cycling girl motif five years before Jules et Jim for the opening sequence of his second short film, Les Mistons. The narrator, who is one of the brats of the title, explains that the self-propelling female "marked the beginnings of our half-glimpsed dreams and secret fantasies. She brought about our awakening, kindled within us a luminous sensuality." Bertolucci later adapted the motif of the cycling female in La Luna (1979), but here she was the hero's mother and he was an infant looking up at her from the basket of her bike. Bertolucci, who was in analysis for many years, was well aware of his own ambivalence towards the figure of the overpowering female.

Truffaut, by contrast, would have been horrified to be told that he was in any way a misogynist. Yet all the women in Jules et Jim are grotesques. Thérèse entertains her many male partners by impersonating a steam train, blowing smoke through a lighted cigarette placed in her mouth backwards. This she does in 1912, early in the film, and 20 years later she is still doing it. The sequence in which she babbles her tawdry life story at Jim must be one of the most repulsive vignettes of a woman ever made. Jim's faithful doormat girlfriend Gilberte is probably meant simply as a foil to the fascinating Catherine, but she is no less contemptible in her abject way. Then we have the speechless Denise, "un bel objet" who is nothing but a "creux", a hole.

Truffaut is reputed to have been greatly susceptible to women's charms. He was constantly falling in love. The reason for his joining the army in 1952 is supposed to have been his despair at being rejected by a woman. In choosing a wife, he showed rather more enlightened self-interest. His first was Madeleine Morgenstern, whose father ran the distribution company Cocinor and financed the production of Les 400 Coups. She divorced him after eight years, in 1965. He is said to have had relationships with many of his actresses - with Marie Dubois, Moreau, Catherine Deneuve, Bernadette Lafont and Fanny Ardant, who had been his secretary and became his second wife.

Truffaut could be thought, like Don Juan and many another lady-killer, to be following a fantasy quest for the "ewige Weibliche", the eternal feminine. In Jules et Jim, this is emblematised in the "recently exhumed" sculpted female head of which a slide is shown to Jules and Jim by Albert, and which they travel to see at an open-air museum on the Adriatic. There they decide that, if ever they saw a woman with such a smile, they would both follow it. At this point, it would seem that the archetypal female will function as the enabler of their intimacy with each other, which they dare not act out any other way. Then they meet Catherine, decide she has the same expression as the sculpture, and woo her in tandem. Jules and Jim kick-box together; when Catherine accepts Jules's proposal of marriage, she tells Jim that Jules is going to teach her "le boxe français". In a subtler film, this could be interpreted as meaning that she will take over the role previously played by Jim, but not in Jules et Jim, which remains innocent to the point of obtuseness.

Watching Jules et Jim through the prism of the past 46 years, one wonders whether Truffaut would have done anything differently if he had been repelled by Catherine/Moreau rather than attracted to her. The camera caresses her, and she responds marvellously to it, but, viewed from this end of the telescope, Catherine seems insufferable. She will do anything to get attention. She decides on a whim to read Goethe's Elective Affinities, but her husband has lent his copy to Jim. We then witness Jules telephoning Jim asking him to bring the book back so that she can read it. Instead of telling her to sod off, Jim obediently trots back with the book. Both men understand that this is Jules handing Catherine over to Jim, who is fool enough to take her. Such abominable use of other people is justified in Catherine because both men insist on thinking of her as a queen, an apparition, a creature of another world. The ménage à trois is supposed to be blissfully happy, though Jules can hardly be enjoying overhearing his best friend and his wife making love. When Catherine decides to seduce Jules by way of light relief from Jim, she does so as noisily as possible.

Jules et Jim is a reminder of how much has changed since 1962, and how much of that change has been for the good. We no longer expect lovers of the same sex to live in denial, or to interact through the medium of a person of the other sex, nor do we expect women to achieve their own ends by manipulating the agency of men. I hope I am not wrong in thinking that most people seeing Jules et Jim for the first time will find the ending to be not an act of poetic justice, but the final atrocious extravagance of an indulged and destructive narcissist. The question is not, after all, whether a woman can love two men at once, because obviously she can. But for true love to flourish, as Jules and Jim could both tell you, the parties must be free and equal.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jul 21, 2008 9:27 am 
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Quote:
Truffaut, by contrast, would have been horrified to be told that he was in any way a misogynist. Yet all the women in Jules et Jim are grotesques. Thérèse entertains her many male partners by impersonating a steam train, blowing smoke through a lighted cigarette placed in her mouth backwards. This she does in 1912, early in the film, and 20 years later she is still doing it. The sequence in which she babbles her tawdry life story at Jim must be one of the most repulsive vignettes of a woman ever made. Jim's faithful doormat girlfriend Gilberte is probably meant simply as a foil to the fascinating Catherine, but she is no less contemptible in her abject way. Then we have the speechless Denise, "un bel objet" who is nothing but a "creux", a hole.

This is exactly the point I made the other night on the way home from seeing a 35mm print of this film. I can certainly see its stylistic charm, but it is just so unbelievably anti-women, and completely ignorant as to what the concept of women's liberation actually means that it's very hard to enjoy.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jul 21, 2008 10:08 am 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 5:57 am
ellipsis7 wrote:
Germaine Greer on J ET J, reappraising it recently... Interesting piece which chimes with previous thoughts in this thread...

Watching Jules et Jim through the prism of the past 46 years, one wonders whether Truffaut would have done anything differently if he had been repelled by Catherine/Moreau rather than attracted to her.

Truffaut was repelled by Catherine and was horrified when she became a "feminist" role model. Greer's article is a complete misreading of the film and especially Truffaut's intentions.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 281 Jules and Jim
PostPosted: Wed Apr 22, 2009 9:33 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 9:22 am
Location: Atlanta-ish
I finally got around to watching this, and I loved it. I liked and respected 400 Blows and Shoot the Piano Player, but J&J was simply exhilarating! Given how close this film's relase was to that of Band of Outsiders along with the similarity of the love triangle, I couldn't help comparing the two, and Truffaut's film, IMHO, is simply far more affecting than Godard's. Moreover, the photography was dazzling

I'm still processing the film, and will watch it again before sending it back to netflix, but the sexual politics of the film weren't problematic at all; having read some 1920s British and French modernism, it seems fully consistent with the era, and rather than view Catherine as a feminist, I thought of her as closer in spirit to Hedda Gabler, esp. in her reasons for rejecting Jules.

Finally, I saw that a couple of posts about three pages back mentioned J&J references in Vanilla Sky, and it's clearly an influence on that film. Doesn't Jason Lee's character say something to the effect of "not this one" to Tom Cruise's character? I haven't seen Crowe's film since it was in theaters, but may revisit this weekend.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 281 Jules and Jim
PostPosted: Tue Jan 05, 2010 7:23 am 
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 16, 2009 10:32 am
Location: New York, NY
Rewatched Truffaut's Jules and Jim (saw it for the first time about a year ago and it blew my mind) with my father and stepmom while on vacation at their home. Spent a couple of weeks there "expanding" their concepts of what a movie could be (i.e. not your typical Hollywood comedy/drama/action/etc. vehicle) with high-def new-to-them stuff like "Baraka," Kubrick's "2001: A Space Odyssey" and "Full Metal Jacket," "The Descent" (the visiting 15 year-old grandkid liked horror and they wanted to come across as 'cool' grandpas), "Snow White," etc. Truffaut's "400 Blows" went over well (my father could relate to it given his childhood) so I gambled a few days later and put "J&J" in the HD-DVD player after we finished "Full Metal Jacket." "J&J" is the only DVD we watched while I was there besides the MST3K experiment "Santa Clauss Conquers the Martians" (don't ask! :roll: ). After the first 20 or so minutes left my folks dizzy and confused (especially a handful of subtitles that went by way too fast) Jeanne Moreau jumped into the river and their attention became riveted. 90 minutes later they were dazzled and said they'd never seen anything like this in their entire lives (they're over 60 each). 'Le Toubleron' is now permanently etched in their minds, just like Constantine's "The 400 Blows" piano theme was after they saw that Truffaut flick. We were still talking about it the next day and they told me by e-mail they found local libraries where they can borrow a copy (I took mine back home :?) because they say they want to see it again.

Me? The WWI montage caught my eye in a different way (since we had just seen Kubrick's Vietnam war movie) and couldn't help but laugh at the 'heaven/heaven rescended' aerial montage. But I was only half-watching the flick because I was looking at my folks' eyes glued to the screen, something not even "Baraka" and "2001" could accomplish (they kept talking while those flicks unfolded). I'd never seen mainstream eyes like those of my parents' so fixated into something so foreign to them (intellectual European artsy types falling in and out of love), yet the movie never lost or confused them despite its free-wheeling mix of styles and rhythms. This ability for open-minded viewers to relate to a 60's movie set in the early 1900's featuring such eccentric characters is itself part of its appeal. Whatever lightning Truffaut caught in this bottle must be potent because I fully expected my stepmother (a lifelong Republican who loves "24" and "The Biggest Loser") to say it was OK to be nice to me, but she seemed genuinely moved by it. And I can spot a phony complement a mile away. :o


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 281 Jules and Jim
PostPosted: Fri Nov 15, 2013 5:55 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 12:58 pm
Dual-format release announced for February 4, 2014.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 281 Jules and Jim
PostPosted: Fri Nov 15, 2013 6:13 pm 

Joined: Sat May 12, 2012 4:44 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Has 'Truffaut on Roche' dropped off, or is that what the "interview with Truffaut" refers to on the dual-format release?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 281 Jules and Jim
PostPosted: Fri Nov 15, 2013 6:24 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 4:22 am
Location: NYC
I hope they fixed the flipped images (assuming they were actually flipped - does anyone have a definitive answer to this?)

EDIT: Ahhhh, just saw this a few posts up:


Regarding Jules and Jim, we agree that it looks strange. However, this is the way the shot appears in both the archival film element that we accessed from the Cinémathèque Française and the printing negative that we used to create the Janus prints that are currently touring the country.
As it is inherent in the film elements, we do not consider it a mistake.
We have brought this to the attention of the Cinémathèque Française and they have not given us any indication that the film element is wrong.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 281 Jules and Jim
PostPosted: Sat Nov 16, 2013 7:32 am 
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 12:20 pm
Of course, I just got the MK2 blu-ray of this film. It'll be nice to upgrade to an English-friendly version, but the timing is teeth-grinding.

The Greer write-up is really odd. It's hard for me to see Jules and Jim as gay partners (it seems such a flat, simplistic reading of this enormously sensitive friendship--surely, attraction exists between them, but one that they would feel driven to act upon? I don't see their characters being inspired to do that). Catherine's motivation in the film never seemed so oblique to me; she wants to be idolized, and she is never precisely satisfied in this sense because Jules and Jim idolize one another just as much as they do her. Catherine is in a sense the villain of the film; a work of art in men's eyes but a careless destroyer in the flesh. It's telling that both Jules and Jim have creative urges that reach out of their conclave and into the exterior world; Catherine doesn't really have this drive. She wants to rule Jules and Jim, and when they remain friends, essentially true to each other, she ultimately wants to drive a wedge between them. It always seemed to me such an honest reading of a real character type. I can think of several people in my own life who have been driven by motivations similar to Katherine's, and I can recall several friendships in which I felt some of the intimacy which Jules and Jim felt with one another. Some people I've known consider this movie too "precious" or even antiquated, but I've always been moved by it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 281 Jules and Jim
PostPosted: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:24 pm 

Joined: Wed Jul 24, 2013 12:59 am
Just saw Jules and Jim for the very first time. While I can appreciate that the style & tone of the film was innovative for the time period, overall I was left quite...underwhelmed. I found both of the male leads to be foolish, clueless, & somewhat spineless, and Catherine to be extremely selfish.

[Reveal] Spoiler:
Jim was especially clueless: After Catherine pulls a gun on him and he barely escapes from her, he later renews the friendship with her and Jules; and then he gets into a car with her, alone, after he knew she had suicidal tendencies & had attacked him?! It's almost as if he was asking for what happened....what a dumb sh&!...


Conversely, I was extremely impressed by Truffaut's The 400 Blows, one of my all-time favorite foreign (i.e., non-US) films.


Last edited by LavaLamp on Wed Dec 11, 2013 10:44 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 281 Jules and Jim
PostPosted: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:32 pm 
Dot Com Dom
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm
LavaLamp wrote:
I found both of the male leads to be foolish, clueless, & somewhat spineless, and Catherine to be extremely selfish.

I think you'll find that fans of the film agree with you...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 281 Jules and Jim
PostPosted: Wed Jan 22, 2014 6:25 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 15, 2013 8:28 pm
Location: Greenwich Village
Beaver


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 177 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group




This site is not affiliated with The Criterion Collection