Jeanskynebu the audience applauded

SparkMore n my opinion it was a great movie with some interesting elements, even though having some plot holes and the ending probably was just too messy and crammed together, but still fun to watch and not your casual movie that is similar to all other ones.

Merolliv I really wanted to like this movie. I feel terribly cynical trashing it, and that's why I'm giving it a middling 5. Actually, I'm giving it a 5 because there were some superb performances.

Edwin The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

Charles Herold (cherold) I had never intended to watch this movie, having found Truffaut at best okay and at worst, as in Shoot the Piano Player, everything I hate about French cinema. But after my girlfriend said she had really liked this movie years ago I decided to take a look.First off, I don't like Jules and Jim. They are too utterly passionless guys who intellectualize and prattle on. I don't care about their lives.As for Catherine, she's not so much a person as a collection of enigmas strung loosely together. The goal seemed to be to portray the WOMAN AS MYSTERY, but doing a bunch of random, weird things is more likely a sign of mental illness, and Catherine is never made real enough to seem mad or sane. She's just MYSTERIOUS.After a half hour I was wondering why this movie was such a big deal, so I took a break to read some articles on it. Apparently, the way it was filmed was fairly original, with freeze frames and hand-held cameras and newsreel footage. The best moments are weird jumpy moments set during the film's unnecessary voiceovers, which unfortunately I couldn't completely enjoy because I had to read the subtitles.Which is fine, but I never felt the purpose behind it. Films like Hiroshima Mon Amour and Citizen Kane did unusual, original things, but they did them for specific purposes that propelled the story and informed the feel. Sometimes Jules et Jim uses its gimmicks to good effect, as in the race across the bridge, but often it just feels like it's just tossing in stuff with no real purpose.I started watching again, but the insufferable characters kept being insufferable and the story kept being nonexistent. Then I read a plot summary which made me decide to fast forward to the only part of the movie when anything happens. It seemed dumb, but I admit that since I skipped forward its possible I missed context.This is a very French movie, by which I mean it's incredibly talky and no one says anything interesting.

oOoBarracuda Jules (Oskar Werner), an introspective Austrian and Jim (Henri Serre) a confident Frenchman begin a friendship that defies understanding. What begins as an exchange and discourse over art develops into a bond that seems able to withstand anything, including fighting against each other in WWI. After the war has ended, the duo goes on sharing art and women with each other, until Jules falls in love with Catherine (Jeanne Moreau), a free-spirited woman with an unpredictable temperament, prone to emotional outbursts. Despite the easy-going inexperienced Jules being an odd fit for Catherine, he asks Jim not to chase Catherine, so he can have her love all to himself. Despite Jules' request, he invites Jim on many of the couple's outings and the trio spends most of their time together. Even after Catherine and Jules marry and have a child, Jim is invited to live in their home with them. Over time, an intimacy begins to develop between Jim and Catherine, which Jules is aware of. Instead of risking losing his friend or his marriage Jules allows the intimacy to blossom which creates a domino effect of emotions between the three of them. Life no longer is about what each wants individually, but rather what each other wants and expects and what kind of life they want the other to fulfill. The decision to allow the three-way relationship has enduring effects on all involved due to the complicated nature of the two men's love for Catherine, as well as their devotion to each other. Bonds will be tested, as Jules and Jim face another war, this time, off the battlefield."You said, "I love you," I said, "Wait." I was going to say, "Take me," you said, "Go away." Arguably the most memorable quote from Jules and Jim also acted as a heart-wrenching opening, conveying to the audience just how much of an emotional experience they were in for. As we are introduced to each character, Truffaut takes his deliberate time revealing what Jules and Jim mean to each other. It is Truffaut's prowess as a director that allows the audience to truly understand the depth of devotion that Jules and Jim share for each other. Without his labored efforts, the rest of the story would pass by unnoticed because this truly is a story about three people in love rather than a love triangle with each point seeking out the object of their affection. The story relies on the understanding that neither Jules, Jim, nor Catherine will seek to fulfill their own needs at the expense of each other. Technically, Truffaut showed mastery on only his third feature film. His use of freeze frames was fantastic and essential in allowing the audience to realize the profound effect on the emotional state of the men involved with Catherine, each "moved by a symbol they could not understand." Truffaut also uses the overlay technique a few times to great success, placing Catherine's face over a few scenes really driving home the idea that every thought or activity Jules and Jim ever took part in was driven by Catherine. In just three short years since his first feature, The 400 Blows--a masterpiece in its own right, Truffaut further revealed his mastery for capturing the complexity of human emotion like few others before him.Few films tackle the emotionally intense themes Jules and Jim take on. Truffaut delves into pain, the kind of pain that is caused by yearning in love. Love and lust is a theme constantly at the forefront of the film, as well, along with a precise distinction between the two. Jules, lacking the romantic experience of Jim, attempts to shield Catherine from Jim for fear that he will only lust after her. When it becomes clear that Jim actually loves Catherine, as Jules does, he relents and decides to share his love of Catherine with Jim. Jules loves Catherine and shares a devotion to Jim, so he supports a union between Jim and Catherine because he needs to be a part of each's life and wants happiness for all parties involved, and vice-versa for Catherine and Jim. Devotion, like I have never since seen replicated on screen, is the driving force behind each character's actions and thoughts. The way Truffaut managed to capture that devoted motivation shows impeccable insight to the human spirit and cements him as the purest most personal filmmaker I have ever seen. Running the gamut of emotional commentary, Truffaut also successfully illustrates loneliness, especially experienced by Catherine, and its power over life. Catherine is clearly a damaged soul, she has met and overcome many obstacles in her life, most of which, are only alluded to. There are aspects of both Jules and Jim that she depends on for her very survival, necessitating that they both remain in her life. Catherine has been unable to commit to another due to her expectation of being abandoned, as only hinted to in a couple of scenes between her and Jules. It is this damage that makes her reckless and prompts Jules and Jim to be more cautious in their interactions with her. To be able to show every unlikeable aspect of a human being, yet, still endear that person in the hearts of the audience was a skill no one in the history of cinema has been more proficient at than Francois Truffaut. By the film's conclusion, we may not have that ending that leaves each better off and happy, but what we do get is the realization that we're all in search of our statue; that one person that is perfect to us and for us despite their obvious flaws, just as Jules and Jim traversed gardens in search of their statues before they happened upon the same one, and once we find that statue, we will do whatever it takes to keep it in our view.

JoeKulik I interpret Jules And Jim (1962) as a social protest film against the traditional notions of marriage & heterosexual love. Many of the reviews on this site focus on the triangle of Jules, Jim, & Catherine. But there are other notable characters in the film such as Gilberte, Therese, & Albert. Together, all the characters portray a vision where the traditional conception of marriage & the nuclear family is missing but also portray a vision where traditional marriage & the nuclear family seem even unnecessary.From this perspective, this 1962 film must have been radical and quite discomforting for the French audiences of that era. True enough, European cinema in general & French cinema in particular has always acknowledged extramarital affairs in a matter of fact sort of way. But in other films, extramarital affairs are portrayed as being very discrete & rather secret, secret even from the marital partner being "betrayed". But extramarital sex & non-marital sex in J&J is just wide open & out there for everyone to see.Gilberte, Jim's live in lover is a case in point. She consistently expresses her love to Jim, tells him that she wants to get married to him & have kids with him. Yet, she seems perfectly OK with Jim running off to Catherine time & again. She just "understands".Albert, the artist who introduced Catherine to J&J also seems to have no problem sharing Catherine sexually with J&J.Therese spends the night with Jules at the beginning of the film & then just dumps both J&J at a café the next day seemingly in search of another tryst. When Therese encounters Jim again late in the film, she relates a sordid but adventurous tale involving several sex partners.The closest thing to a normal nuclear family in this film is Catherine, Jules, & Sabine, but Jules expresses doubts to Jim that Sabine is even really his daughter & after having Sabine, Jules & Catherine sleep in different rooms, & Jules freely admits to Jim that Catherine has had several affairs.Overall, this film seems to make the case that marriage & the nuclear family are superfluous ideas that are mere social conventions. True enough, the characters in this film are artist//writer types, intellectuals who are expected to be offbeat & eccentric to some degree, but, on the other hand, the conventional nuclear family & the conventional idea of a committed heterosexual love are not only missing in this film but we are given the impression that these social conventions are not even necessary.From this perspective, J&J is definitely a radical, ant-Establishment protest film. Although it is set in the past, this film portends a future into which society will evolve.Most prominent in this futuristic vision is the absence of male possessiveness of his female sex partner, that is, the absence of jealousy. This can be most clearly seen between J&J themselves as they both "share" Catherine to varying degrees. But female jealousy is also absent in this film too. The total lack of a stable family structure & the lack of jealousy by both sexes portrays an almost anarchist reality where love & sex & having children is a joyful free-for-all.The wild card in this anarchist sexual utopia is Catherine. In my opinion, the character Catherine is a mentally unstable, if not a downright mentally ill person. She definitely displays symptoms of erotomania & psychopathy. The degree that she craves new sexual partners is just not normal, even by anarchist, "free love" standards. Moreover, she is a psychopath that craves to manipulate others, especially men. The "magnetism" that J&J & Albert &, probably all of her other lovers feel toward her is really the slick, covert, manipulative psychopath at work. It is difficult to discern whether she craves sex more than the manipulative power that her sexual allure has over men.This is where the tragic death of Jim enters the picture. At the end, he breaks free of Catherine's psychopathic manipulation & when Catherine realizes that her manipulative power over Jim has disappeared, she attempts to reassert her manipulative power by locking the door of the bedroom & pulling a gun on Jim. You'd think that, at that point, Jim would've finally seen Catherine for the crazy person she is, but by the tragic end of the film he allows Catherine to manipulate him one last time when he gets into a car alone with her, the woman who almost killed him with a gun, & drives away with her to their death. In the end, Catherine did not allow the one man who broke away from her psychopathic manipulation to get away scot free, even if it meant ending her life too.Truly, Catherine deserves a prominent position in the "Cinema Hall Of Fame For Sick Characters".

Cosmoeticadotcom Francois Truffaut's films have never been particularly deep, and his black and white 1962 'masterpiece,' Jules And Jim, is no exception to that claim. Obviously, the quotation marks around the term declare that, no, it's not really a masterpiece, but in researching old criticism of the film it's amazing how often this term was bandied about without any support for its claim. Having said that, and given the rather fallow and overrated ground that is the Truffaut soil, I can attest that, of the handful of films of his I have seen, Jules And Jim is the best of the lot. But, had he not first gnawed his teeth at the Cahiers Du Cinema rag, thus gaining fame there, I doubt that he could have made it as anything more than a competent director of B films. I state this while having great admiration for B film directors like Jacques Tourneur, Roger Corman, Inoshiro Honda, Ed Wood, and Edgar Ulmer, among others, and realizing that, truth be told, Truffaut simply was not a better filmmaker than some of the names I quoted- Tourneur and Ulmer, especially. And Jules And Jim is simply a film that occasionally breaches into high quality, only to be sucked under by an undertow of self-indulgence and preciousness.Despite being titled after the two man male characters, Jules (Oskar Werner), an introverted Austrian writer and his French friend, the extroverted Jim (Henri Serre), the film is really about a woman, Catherine (Jeanne Moreau), who is an archetype for what is known as the artsy psycho-babe. Her filmic descendants are many, but the most famed one is her filmic namesake, that of author Catherine Trammel, played by Sharon Stone, in Basic Instinct. No, she's not as obviously blackhearted, but she's clearly off her rocker, and it's interesting that, in scanning through dozens of film reviews for Jules and Jim, I never saw a single mention that Catherine is a murderer/murderess. And that's telling, since the whole film is basically a paean to psychobitchery, deceit, and insincerity in women, yet the most heinous and self-defining thing the woman does, which is to annihilate herself and her bête noir, is almost wholly ignored, as insignificant a thing in her character vis-à-vis her supposed 'free-spiritedness,' or such.