It is currently Mon Oct 23, 2017 5:50 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 177 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: 281 Jules and Jim
PostPosted: Wed Feb 12, 2014 6:30 am 
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 12:20 pm
hoggle wrote:
Jules and Jim was the first film I watched by a New Wave director other than Godard, and I was very much taken aback by how Old Wave it felt. It made me wonder if the aspects I love about Godard, and which I believed to be part of the New Wave makeup -- formal experimentation, political radicalism, an intense desire to create something New -- were limited only to him.

If I watched Jules and Jim on its own terms, I might have found some sort of enjoyment in it, but as a teenager expecting more excitement out of the New Wave, it was incredibly disappointing to me. I always thought of returning to it, but after watching such flat, forgettable films as Fahrenheit 451 and Shoot the Piano Player, it's hard to see the point. From my experience, Truffaut mainly made entertainments, very little close to (pop) art, which would be fine with me if his films were more entertaining. I do like the the 400 Blows and Small Change -- it seems Truffaut worked well with children, and sympathised with them more than his fellows --, but they've been growing worse in hindsight, coloured as they are by what surrounds them.

Or maybe I just didn't care for it because love triangles don't do anything for me.



If you watch the New Wave beyond Godard (and I don't intend to denigrate the Godard films in any way), you will see a lot of different approaches to film, many of which don't fit comfortably into your definition of what the New Wave was supposed to be about. Truffaut isn't politically committed within the context of his films (and Godard only gradually becomes more politically motivated as the new wave comes to an end), but there are lots of other ways to appreciate his films beyond what you'd recommend. And the films are still New Wave, like as not; Jules et Jim and Shoot the Piano Player are quintessential New Wave films. Also New Wave-y without question are the early films of Chabrol and Rohmer and Rivette and Demy; none of whom make movies that seem too terribly much like Godard's early output. If you consider "satellite" directors like Kast, Doniol-Valcroze, Rozier, Varda or Eustache, you have a far larger perspective for what makes the films "New Wave," beyond simply political commitment, formal experimentation and pop-artiness. Certainly those are elements of Godard and Marker, and to some extent Resnais, but those aren't necessarily the goals or ambitions of Truffaut--or Demy, or Chabrol, et al. And yet, viewers when the New Wave was happening were as startled by the freshness of Truffaut movies as by those of Godard. Attitudes and ideas which made the New Wave what it was went beyond political convictions and stylistic experimentation, and they included diverse new attitudes towards sex and sexuality, production schemes, use of new film stocks, new ways of looking at Paris, a new consciousness of the history and tradition within the movies...and, like the movies of the other New Wave filmmakers, Truffaut's movies are alive with so many fresh insights, strong feelings and fervent inspirations.

But if you see films as split, binary-style, between art and entertainment--and if you're willing to dismiss Shoot the Piano Player as both "flat" and "forgettable," I can see that you might dismiss Truffaut on the whole. But to me it's a mistake to go that far. There are many Truffaut films that more than repay great interest--films released during the era of the New Wave and after--and if you can see your way to removing some of the preconceived demands you place upon the films, you might find exceptional qualities throughout. The New Wave wasn't simply a collection of shared political beliefs and stylistic experiments made in a shared spirit, bucking trend and tradition with clear-eyed, calculated affronts; it was more like breathing a different quality of air--being moved by film in a new way--and perhaps being subtly changed by what you felt. Audiences felt that movement when they saw Shoot the Piano Player, Jules et Jim--even The Soft Skin--just as they did when they saw Breathless, My Life to Live and Contempt. What's more, I would say that seeing the films as a teenager is not adequate--at that age none of us are in the position to have much context in which to gauge the sensitivity with which the films are made, or much of any appreciation for the more subtle resonances which speak from the films after they have been seen.


Top
 Profile  
 

 Post subject: Re: 281 Jules and Jim
PostPosted: Wed Feb 12, 2014 6:15 pm 

Joined: Wed Jul 24, 2013 7:05 pm
feihong wrote:
If you watch the New Wave beyond Godard (and I don't intend to denigrate the Godard films in any way), you will see a lot of different approaches to film, many of which don't fit comfortably into your definition of what the New Wave was supposed to be about. Truffaut isn't politically committed within the context of his films (and Godard only gradually becomes more politically motivated as the new wave comes to an end), but there are lots of other ways to appreciate his films beyond what you'd recommend. And the films are still New Wave, like as not; Jules et Jim and Shoot the Piano Player are quintessential New Wave films. Also New Wave-y without question are the early films of Chabrol and Rohmer and Rivette and Demy; none of whom make movies that seem too terribly much like Godard's early output. If you consider "satellite" directors like Kast, Doniol-Valcroze, Rozier, Varda or Eustache, you have a far larger perspective for what makes the films "New Wave," beyond simply political commitment, formal experimentation and pop-artiness. Certainly those are elements of Godard and Marker, and to some extent Resnais, but those aren't necessarily the goals or ambitions of Truffaut--or Demy, or Chabrol, et al. And yet, viewers when the New Wave was happening were as startled by the freshness of Truffaut movies as by those of Godard. Attitudes and ideas which made the New Wave what it was went beyond political convictions and stylistic experimentation, and they included diverse new attitudes towards sex and sexuality, production schemes, use of new film stocks, new ways of looking at Paris, a new consciousness of the history and tradition within the movies...and, like the movies of the other New Wave filmmakers, Truffaut's movies are alive with so many fresh insights, strong feelings and fervent inspirations.

But if you see films as split, binary-style, between art and entertainment--and if you're willing to dismiss Shoot the Piano Player as both "flat" and "forgettable," I can see that you might dismiss Truffaut on the whole. But to me it's a mistake to go that far. There are many Truffaut films that more than repay great interest--films released during the era of the New Wave and after--and if you can see your way to removing some of the preconceived demands you place upon the films, you might find exceptional qualities throughout. The New Wave wasn't simply a collection of shared political beliefs and stylistic experiments made in a shared spirit, bucking trend and tradition with clear-eyed, calculated affronts; it was more like breathing a different quality of air--being moved by film in a new way--and perhaps being subtly changed by what you felt. Audiences felt that movement when they saw Shoot the Piano Player, Jules et Jim--even The Soft Skin--just as they did when they saw Breathless, My Life to Live and Contempt. What's more, I would say that seeing the films as a teenager is not adequate--at that age none of us are in the position to have much context in which to gauge the sensitivity with which the films are made, or much of any appreciation for the more subtle resonances which speak from the films after they have been seen.


Ah, sorry, I was speaking on my initial experience watching Jules and Jim as a teenager. I'm way too close to 30 now, and have experienced enough New Wave films to better understand that the movement was more built around individualism -- that the desire to redefine cinema was there for everyone, but handled differently by each. Of those individuals, the only one who genuinely fascinates me is Godard, though I do at least like films by the others, especially Rohmer and (even more especially, if we can consider them) Resnais & Marker. At least I quickly discovered how much the Japanese New Wave has in common with Godard's work; in a way, the Japanese New Wave is exactly what I was hoping for from the French!

I'm sure you can understand how going from most of Godard's '60s work to Jules and Jim would be a crushing disappointment to a teenager hooked on the cool, wild, pop art anger of the former. It was like learning Santa Claus doesn't exist! I couldn't help but wonder if the Godard-flavoured aspects of a film like Shoot the Piano Player only really came about thanks to Raoul Coutard, as well as those early days of Godard and Truffaut being something resembling friends. Such are the weird thoughts that build up in my mind to explain away the aspects of Truffaut I actually enjoy.


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

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