Around the World in 24 Frames 08.21.09: Jules and Jim
Posted by Len Archibald on 08.21.2009
François Truffaut's take on a love triangle kicks the French New Wave into high gear...
Good Friday, all! I'm gonna get this to you right away! The show is moving along well - I will have to re-shoot a segment, but nothing severe. It's actually good that I'm re-shooting, because it shows everyone - including myself that I will settle for nothing less than perfection.
I would like to give a shout out to Dave C., who gave a great little piece of feedback regarding Breathless in the comments section last week. It is always great to see conversation started about film and give tidbits that I would not have time to discuss or that I myself may not have known. BTW, Dave you may want to read what I have in store in a few weeks...GOD-ARD!
The Rant
I guess I'm a hippy and an idealist at heart. I'm going to apologize in advance if this is too syrupy-sweet for some of you and I don't live in "reality"
I believe that as human beings, we don't give ourselves enough credit. I believe that we've been duped into thinking that the world is teetering on the brink of annihilation at any moment and there's nothing we can do to stop it. I believe that people are good, and that the very few, truly vile humans are ruining it for everyone else. I believe pretty much everyone, regardless of creed, culture, religion, pigment, nationality, social, economic and educational status all want the same things: A stress-free life, with options to live how we want with a family that we love and that loves us. This has nothing to do with being "rich", "famous" or "powerful". If we could acquire the above without any of the three, I don't think anyone would complain.
I wonder what the world would be like, if all people who shared that belief actually stood up on September 1st at midnight and declared, in global unity, to all the governments of the world that THIS is what the people want? There are so many of us, and so few of those - who wish to keep a stranglehold of an unbalanced amount of power - and do so by keeping us in constant fear of each other to hold onto it.
I'm not advocating anything specific I guess I'm feeling a little drained from being around and hearing from people who do nothing but complain for the sake of complaining and instead of doing something about whatever situation they are in that gives them so much misery, they latch on to scapegoats that are fed by whatever media outlet they can find that agrees with their narrow point of view. We shouldn't be searching for justification for the ills of the world we should be looking to SOLVE it. I think once we can get past that hurdle, things may start to fall into place.
Oh, and I'm over the bar scene. I think I've grown into an allergic reaction to places that smell like vomit and piss, where "woo-girls", asshole drunks and illiterate wannabe "thugs" and "rednecks" (yes, wannabe rednecks DO exist) reside. If I'm going to be inebriated, I want to do it in style. At a jazz club, preferably.[/end rant]
********************
I love movies. They represent escapism, art, intellect and spirituality. Some are nothing more than popcorn flicks, designed to ease the burden of "real-life" for a couple of hours. Some bring important issues to the forefront that challenges how we perceive our surroundings. The most important thing for me if one is a serious filmgoer is to constantly expand and discover new movies. This includes experiencing stories told outside of North America.
Yes, I know: "I don't like to read while I watch movies". Well, neither do I, but I won't use that to prevent me from finding a great story within the screen. It is important, as human beings to discover other cultures and expand our perceptions of those different from us and how they see the world. There are reasons that Bergman, Kurosawa, Fellini, Ozu and Truffaut are important in the movie world They are just great at what they do.
I intend to highlight a new film every week that is considered "foreign-language"; now that definition is simple, yet broad and complex. For example, if you need subtitles to understand the events of the plot, I will discuss it. If it is a film from a primarily English-speaking nation, but is *NOT* in English (i.e. Leolo or Atanarjuat: The Fast Runner from Canada), I will discuss. If it is a film from outside the U.S. and it *is* in English, I will not discuss (sorry, Brits & Aussies) for now. My goal is to shed light on some of these gems, and help quell the insatiable appetites for those who can't live without seeing a new movie. Enjoy!
Jules et Jim: Jules & Jim (1961)
France
Dir. François Truffaut
Runtime: 105 min
"I begin a film believing it will be amusing -- and along the way I notice that only sadness can save it."
- François Truffaut
How quickly can one amass a collection of memories? What would one consider ample time to describe their life? Usually when we go to the movies to see a story that basically describes a character's lifetime, it is expected to go on for at least two and a half hours detailing every facet of events that could have possibly shaped him/her/them.
I have no doubt that if François Truffaut's masterpiece Jules et Jim was made today, it would be a three-hour long "epic". Thankfully for us (and our bottoms they get numb after a while), it was made in 1961, under the direction of a filmmaker who knew how to hurdle through a story without leaving in any unnecessary scenes. We will never have to worry about a "longer director's cut" of Jules et Jim because at its 105 minute runtime, it is perfect as it is.
The film opens in a black frame a somber moment, before carousel music blasts and snaps through the opening credits. Michel Subor narrates the tale of two lifelong friends, Jules (Oskar Werner), an Austrian and Jim (Henri Serre), a Frenchman. They teach each other their languages and share everything: food, poetry, a carefree life and women. This opening sequence blows by quickly, but not in a way where the audience is unable to pay attention or not understand what is going on. Truffaut is able to use specific visual cues (such as something as simple as a female ankle with a wristwatch around it) to drive home points or visual punchlines. Their friendship is just simple backstory to prepare the audience for the real story to come.
One of the tricks of Jules et Jim, the one I appreciated the most in fact is that the title is so misleading. Even though the film's story is created out from the friendship of the two men, it is in fact the woman in their life Catherine (Jeanne Moreau), that is the catalyst, star and vehicle for the movie. What a carefree performance she gives to the character that would make her an international sensation at the time. After sharing and trading girlfriends, Jules ultimately wants a girl who is his definition of perfection. He first thinks he found that girl in Therese (Marie Dubois), an anarchist. But after a while it seems not to work out since she "was both mother and daughter" to him.
The friends attend a slide show of sculptures and are awe-struck when they observe a bust of a beautiful girl. They go to the Adriatic to see the original statue and there meet Catherine, who has an uncanny resemblance to it. From there, for Jules, everything changes and he dedicates his life to her. He tells Jim " not this one, Jim", in regards to the lack of boundaries they shared with past girlfriends. Jim obliges.
From this point on, it becomes a story of Catherine doing everything she can to shock the other two and keep from being bored. In an iconic scene, she (in a painted on mustache) challenges the men to a foot race on a bridge. The opening moments of them hurdling towards the camera, as it rushes back to keep ahead of them bursts with life and energy rarely ever matched in contemporary movies. She argues with them over a Strindberg play. She leaps into the Siene river. At this moment, Jim is "struck with lightning". Both men fall in love with her; Jules marries Catherine and they move to Austria. Then World War I breaks out separating the friends and pitting them on opposite sides of the battle. They are fearful that they will accidentally shoot each other in battle.
Truffaut was smart in keeping this portion of the story down to a minimal; one of the problems of contemporary filmmakers today is being unable to keep with a genre. They figure the more ambitious and event-driven a story is, the more it will give an "epic" scope to it. While some films are capable of achieving this it is also a hindrance to the main plot of a story; as much as I enjoyed films like The Curious Case of Benjamin Button and Forrest Gump (written by the same screenwriter), there are times when the films felt disjointed simply because it's "epicness" lost track of the main story the unrequited and unconditional love that both Button and Gump had for their "soulmates". Jules et Jim does not fall into this trap; because it knows it is a love story, and plays faithful to the genre and story right up until the end with no false steps or plot contrivances.
The best films (the ones that are able to weave comedy and drama seamlessly) usually have a break in the story a moment where the characters reach a point of no return. Truffaut uses the harshness and danger of the first World War as not only a drain to the carefree lives of the two friends, but as a reflection of past vs. present: try as they might, the two best friends will never be able to live the free-spirited youth they shared in their heyday as the world is now different. They, along with Catherine cannot cope with this. As great as the first half of Jules et Jim is, it is the story after the "break" that hurdles it into timeless territory.
Oskar Werner plays Jules as a man who has decided out of necessity that he needs to grow up, but cannot. It is a wonder that the same person who opened the film with such a glowing smile and innocent shyness crumples into a man with slightly sunken eyes and an introverted demeanor. Henri Serre performs Jim as outgoing and intelligent, only to become a man full of confusion and desire. Jeanne Moreau's portrayal of Catherine was a revelation at the time; she played an extreme example of the modern woman, headstrong, intelligent, capable of adventure and bravery in regards to sexuality yet fragile and needy. The playfulness the three share is a chemistry rarely seen in any movie. I always ask myself if Catherine is more a product of madness than independence. She seems to do everything she can to push the friends' buttons, but cannot.
I remember very vividly the first time I saw Jules et Jim; I just recently discovered foreign films and wanted to grab hold of all the "essentials" this was one of the first ones suggested to me. It flew by with such a breakneck pace that I was floored. The film dashes through a quarter-century in the lives of these three individuals (and the lives of other key roles) without skipping a beat or missing an important moment. Every scene exists only to serve the purpose of the story and never plays longer or shorter than it needs to. If there is a movie that a screenwriter needs to see to understand how to polish a final draft and understand how important it is to edit their work, this is ground zero.
Jules et Jim's playfulness only deepens when one observes the various techniques Truffaut devised for the film: subtle blink-and-you-miss-it freeze frames, jump cuts, swirling camera movements, newsreel footage, wipes and tight composition (credited to cinematographer and New Wave collaborator Raoul Coutard) all contribute to the film's timeless feel. The newest in lightweight camera equipment was used to create a distinct fluid style (cameras were mounted on bicycles for some of the postwar scenes.) Georges Delerue, who provided many musical scores for the French New Wave filmmakers, composes music that is soaring, dizzying and sombre at the same time, perfectly encapsulating the quality and tumultuous relationship of the main characters.
The pitch-perfect screenplay, co-written by Truffaut and Henri-Pierre Roché was based on Roché's book of the same name. It is said Truffaut found the book in a discount bin store and befriended the author, whose story reflects that of a real life menage-a-trois he experienced in his early days. The "original" Catherine of the story (poet Helen Hessel) was alive when the film premiered, attended it (under a disguise) and ultimately confessed that she was " the girl who leaped into the Seine out of spite, who married his dear, generous Jules, and who, yes, shot Jim." Jim was never shot in the film, but had a deeper, more devastating tragedy waiting for him.
François Truffaut was arguably the "leader" or at least the main face of the "French New Wave" movement that began in the late 1950's. Filmmakers such as he, Jean-Luc Godard, Louis Malle, Éric Rohmer, Claude Chabrol, Jacques Rivette, Alain Resnais, Agnès Varda and Jacques Demy exploded onto the movie scene with stories that pushed the limits of narrative structure, style, movement and characterization into modern times. Breathless, penned by Truffaut and directed by Godard is considered the "father" of this movement. This was Truffaut's third film, after his debut, The 400 Blows and sophomoric tour-de-force Shoot the Piano Player. There have been very few filmmakers to amass great films in their resume, much less do it in their FIRST THREE attempts - but Truffaut was no ordinary filmmaker: A member and critic of the infamous French magazine Cahiers du cinema, he and the above filmmakers (along with Co-founder and theorist André Bazin who he dedicated The 400 Blows to) created what is commonly known amongst filmmakers as "The Auteur Theory" (aka "La politique des auteurs", translated as "The policy of authors").
The theory concludes that the director is the "author" of his/her movies, with a personal signature visible from film to film. They praised movies by Jean Renoir and Jean Vigo, and made (now proven) cases for the artistic distinction on behalf of John Ford and Alfred Hitchcock. The beginning of the New Wave was an exercise by the Cahiers writers to apply this philosophy by directing movies themselves. It is a theory that has been both a blessing (by way of Tarantino, Herzog, Spielberg, Scorsese) and a curse some filmmakers have used this theory as a scapegoat to explain away ideas of their most depraved inner thoughts to take over the screen.
There is no such feeling from watching Jules et Jim, perhaps Truffauts most popular, and most influential film. There is both a joy and melancholy that washes over the audience. This was released at the beginning of the 1960's: "flower power" and Beatlemania was about to blossom in the United States. I'm sure when these audiences witnessed the first half of the film, they were whisked away into a comforting ideal of the world they wanted to shape and live in. "Yes," they could have expressed, "this is what love and life could be like!" unfortunately unaware that just around the corner was Dallas, Memphis, Vietnam and The Alamont.
As a human being with basic human needs, all I want from a movie sometimes is to be thrown into a world unlike my own and be entertained for a few hours. Some explosions can do that a hearty laugh-a-minute romp can do the same. There are films, though that can take me away into a deeper place...Ones that allow me to examine where I am in my life and show me how to better myself by not falling into the traps that I've seen the characters on screen do. Some take over three hours to reach that place. Some take over three hours and I couldn't tell you what the film was about. For me, Jules et Jim is that rare bird; a film that once its over feels epic in scope, but when experiencing it in the moment, moves with a speed that puts some action films to shame. And then there's Catherine, never allowing us to move on with our lives.
Trailer for Jules et Jim
{Film Passport Stamped}
Coming Attractions: Jean-Luc Godard shows us, literally - what it would be like to follow the life of a character in a movie.
Questions or comments? Email me at aa24frames@aol.com!!!
I love Truffaut, but I hate Jules and Jim. I think it's a bloated and bourgeosie period piece.
Now Shoot the Piano Player or Stolen Kisses are genius, I look forward to your take on those.
Posted By: jrpaper (Guest) on August 21, 2009 at 03:24 AM
Looking forward to next week.
I think the problem I had with this film (or rather the second half) is that the characters (especially Jules), perhaps as a result of the war, became kind of "blah" in their attitude. He's okay to give up his wife and just kind of mope around. Jim likewise is repeatedly let down by Catherine, but keeps coming back. At this point, the vitality, the life she showed early in the film is only a memory. Maybe that's what the characters are trying to retain, that memory on past life. Im not sure. But as I try to always think forward, and have kind of left dry a few sour relationships, the inactivity, indecisiveness of the main characters, maybe there weakness, does not resonate well with me. Oh well.
Posted By: Dave C (Guest) on August 22, 2009 at 04:05 PM
