Wish i could say something about shoot the piano player but we haven't screened it yet, so i will discuss the film we did screen: Jules et Jim. As in The 400 Blows, Jules et Jim does not tell the audience how to feel about the characters, as viewers it seems as though we are not sure how to feel about any of them. Truffaut allows the characters to unfold in front of our eyes, while it seems the true essence of the film is not in their individual character development but in their interactions with one another. The three characters are inevitably drawn to each other and frolic about like children as they run through the woods finding various items (the camera searching the ground as they stumble upon each one). This childlike alternate reality they have created that allows them to live like a couple of three, is disrupted by realistic documentary-like footage of war. There is the reality that is taking place outside of their trio (the war that Jules and Jim fight in) and the reality they have created and come home to after the war of a family of two men and a woman. This “alternate reality” is unaccepted by society (as they say in part of the film that the towns people thought they were lunatics) and fated to doom because, as we talked about in class, monogamy is ridiculous, but any other option is impossible. Also, the film seems to follow some of the classic Hollywood styles, such as voice over narrative and dialogue that reiterates what the camera has already shown us. But, I think the new wave can be found in the fact that Truffaut gives no explanation for character’s actions or events that take place. This is what makes some of the film seem so bizarre, ridiculous and not fully cohesive. In doing this Truffaut is allowing the film and characters to be flawed and strange in the same what that we as people and our lives are. We do not always make sense and Truffaut embraces this quality.
Jules et Jim takes places before and after World War One. I found this time and place essential to the understanding of the manage a toi of the three main characters. In the beginning there was much hope and easiness with the three characters. It was carefree and full of life. Then the Great War separates the two best friends. After the war there is an attempt to reconcile and build back up what they once had. I felt that this also went along with how Europe was. The war took a great toll on the people, and they were left scarred, especially Germany and France, where Jules and Jim are from.
This kind of scarring translates to the characters. Jules is left broken and less full of life. Jim seems jaded, but he still wants Catherine. The relationship reverses, and Jim is with Catherine. Ultimately, much like Greek Tragedy, there is no doubt that this relationship regarding these three characters is doomed. It seems that there no way out. Like in the class discussion, if one relationship is impossible, one involving three is definitely impossible. In the end, tragedy falls onto the French characters. Jules is left alone and has to pick up the slack, much like how Germany was after World War One, crippled and burdened. In the latter half of the film one cans see the Second World War approaching. This time Jules will have to face it alone with his daughter.
I think there is something to the fact that after the war nothing was the same for both the world and the characters within the film. Things seemed like they would eventually fail, which they did with both the people and the world, and another war would soon begin. I’m not sure whether or not Truffaut intended for this film to be an allegory, but I think that in most French New Wave films post-war France and the effects of war are essential motifs that linger at least subconsciously. Truffaut did explore the self-destructive nature of people in relationships. From the beginning, no matter how jovial things were one couldn’t help but feel that something terrible was going to happen. The characters were doomed from the start, and there was nothing that could be build back up again.
Wow, I didn't originally think of the comparison between the relationship and the war, but I definitely agree with David that there's a metaphor in there somewhere. I thought there was also a message saying "No matter who you are or where you're from, a woman is someone you can't live with and can't live without." Along with the arts and writing, women as a hobby brought Jules and Jim together, and a woman drove (literally) them apart. I think Catherine stands as a peace that neither man can obtain. Just like in war, both sides want it, but no matter how many battles are fought, there can never ultimately be an true peace. On another note, I found that the film did a great job of not really sticking to only one character for too long (meaning a fairly omniscient viewpoint). I found myself more involved with the characters' story from this, and still being able to question a lot of what happens. There is not just one character that the audience relates with and hears a point of view from. The audience is pushed out of the relationships to solely observe and note that what is happening is just absurd. Which then brings me back to the first paragraph... war is absurd. Can neither side see the harm being done?
I think Truffaut’s rejection of “good and bad” characters might be why they are mostly ambiguous and open to interpretation. On a larger scale, the war was shown in the same way. It didn’t in any way seem like there was a good or bad side. I agree with Patrick, that since everyone was shown equally, I was more able to just observe rather than become empathetic with a character. There was no obvious protagonist or antagonist (although Catherine was obviously causing everyone problems), but much like Truffaut’s other films, the characters were left more complex and real. The relationship between the three of them also was shown as complex and dysfunctional, but I wasn't necessarily routing for either Jim or Jules.
I felt like, even though this film is based on something that really happened, it was more predictable than Truffaut’s other films. This might be because of the narration.
The objective of a film is to tell a story with moving images. Jules et Jim takes advantage of this by creating a love triangle between two men and a woman (Catherine). The beauty of the story is how it unfolds, as it refuses to follow the rules of reality. The two men being in love with the same woman, and eventually both having her on a romantic level and accepting it, isn't an everyday norm. The two men shared a type of brotherly love connection which was clearly stronger than the love they had for Catherine, because the love affairs never upset either guy to where they stopped being friends. Or is it because Jules was so used to Catherine's ongoing affairs, so he brushed it off? She always seem to try and keep the drama out of the situation, by trying to take the focus off the situation with her numerous outburst, such as the one when she jumped into the river. I don't know what her whole motive was for trying to establish a relationship with both men. Because her attempt to win Jim back , I think that she intentionally had her and Jim drive off the broken bridge, as to say "If she can't have him in life, she will have him in death, as long as she was with him"?!?!
Jules Et Jim seemed to tap in to a side of Truffaut that is never really discussed that much. At first it seems that the main story revolves around Catherine and how she toys with Jules and Jim, but the underlying story seems to be about Jules and Jim themselves and how they interact with each other. Truffaut puts a lot of time and focus on the two men and how they manage to keep their friendship not only intact but strong even through everything with Catherine and fighting on opposite sides of the war. The idea he seems to want to portray is that no matter what life throws at you it's good to be able to go back to those few people who really care about you.
I thought the love triangle in this film was interesting. It was very different than most love triangle that you see in films today. In this film the audience wasn't rooting for one person and there wasn’t a jealous rivalry between the two men. Normally the audience allies with one persons. Look at the shipping wars in fan communities for example. These people are completely passionate about who should be with who. In this film this isn’t there.
It was interesting how Truffaut's freeze frame was a very stylistic approach, making the final shot on the beach an unforgettable scene. Also Jules et Jim signaled a more adult and middle-of-the-road effort without losing any of the young and disruptive energy of the revolution he and his accomplices had just launched in world cinema. And, at least during this brief moment, that is exactly what happened. Jules et Jim kept alive a moment of turbulence that would never come again - a jump into the future, with love.
I truly enjoy Truffaut's ability to invite us to understand his characters through their interactions with each other and not sappy dialogue. I also noticed that he finds ways of allowing the characters Jules, Jim and Catherine the luxury to act and do freely. He doesn't judge the characters which makes it almost imopossible for us too. I also found it interesting that, Jules even though he had a sense of innocense or nieveness never "played nieve" or Jim, the more outgoing of the two friends never played "the suave friend" much like Catherine, although a bit free spirited never came off as being "tainted". I believe that their relationship and Truffaut's ability to tap into their truthfulness is what helps to make Jules et Jim work wonderfully.
Wish i could say something about shoot the piano player but we haven't screened it yet, so i will discuss the film we did screen: Jules et Jim.
ReplyDeleteAs in The 400 Blows, Jules et Jim does not tell the audience how to feel about the characters, as viewers it seems as though we are not sure how to feel about any of them. Truffaut allows the characters to unfold in front of our eyes, while it seems the true essence of the film is not in their individual character development but in their interactions with one another. The three characters are inevitably drawn to each other and frolic about like children as they run through the woods finding various items (the camera searching the ground as they stumble upon each one). This childlike alternate reality they have created that allows them to live like a couple of three, is disrupted by realistic documentary-like footage of war. There is the reality that is taking place outside of their trio (the war that Jules and Jim fight in) and the reality they have created and come home to after the war of a family of two men and a woman. This “alternate reality” is unaccepted by society (as they say in part of the film that the towns people thought they were lunatics) and fated to doom because, as we talked about in class, monogamy is ridiculous, but any other option is impossible.
Also, the film seems to follow some of the classic Hollywood styles, such as voice over narrative and dialogue that reiterates what the camera has already shown us. But, I think the new wave can be found in the fact that Truffaut gives no explanation for character’s actions or events that take place. This is what makes some of the film seem so bizarre, ridiculous and not fully cohesive. In doing this Truffaut is allowing the film and characters to be flawed and strange in the same what that we as people and our lives are. We do not always make sense and Truffaut embraces this quality.
Jules et Jim takes places before and after World War One. I found this time and place essential to the understanding of the manage a toi of the three main characters. In the beginning there was much hope and easiness with the three characters. It was carefree and full of life. Then the Great War separates the two best friends. After the war there is an attempt to reconcile and build back up what they once had. I felt that this also went along with how Europe was. The war took a great toll on the people, and they were left scarred, especially Germany and France, where Jules and Jim are from.
ReplyDeleteThis kind of scarring translates to the characters. Jules is left broken and less full of life. Jim seems jaded, but he still wants Catherine. The relationship reverses, and Jim is with Catherine. Ultimately, much like Greek Tragedy, there is no doubt that this relationship regarding these three characters is doomed. It seems that there no way out. Like in the class discussion, if one relationship is impossible, one involving three is definitely impossible. In the end, tragedy falls onto the French characters. Jules is left alone and has to pick up the slack, much like how Germany was after World War One, crippled and burdened. In the latter half of the film one cans see the Second World War approaching. This time Jules will have to face it alone with his daughter.
I think there is something to the fact that after the war nothing was the same for both the world and the characters within the film. Things seemed like they would eventually fail, which they did with both the people and the world, and another war would soon begin. I’m not sure whether or not Truffaut intended for this film to be an allegory, but I think that in most French New Wave films post-war France and the effects of war are essential motifs that linger at least subconsciously. Truffaut did explore the self-destructive nature of people in relationships. From the beginning, no matter how jovial things were one couldn’t help but feel that something terrible was going to happen. The characters were doomed from the start, and there was nothing that could be build back up again.
Wow, I didn't originally think of the comparison between the relationship and the war, but I definitely agree with David that there's a metaphor in there somewhere. I thought there was also a message saying "No matter who you are or where you're from, a woman is someone you can't live with and can't live without." Along with the arts and writing, women as a hobby brought Jules and Jim together, and a woman drove (literally) them apart. I think Catherine stands as a peace that neither man can obtain. Just like in war, both sides want it, but no matter how many battles are fought, there can never ultimately be an true peace.
ReplyDeleteOn another note, I found that the film did a great job of not really sticking to only one character for too long (meaning a fairly omniscient viewpoint). I found myself more involved with the characters' story from this, and still being able to question a lot of what happens. There is not just one character that the audience relates with and hears a point of view from. The audience is pushed out of the relationships to solely observe and note that what is happening is just absurd. Which then brings me back to the first paragraph... war is absurd. Can neither side see the harm being done?
I think Truffaut’s rejection of “good and bad” characters might be why they are mostly ambiguous and open to interpretation. On a larger scale, the war was shown in the same way. It didn’t in any way seem like there was a good or bad side. I agree with Patrick, that since everyone was shown equally, I was more able to just observe rather than become empathetic with a character. There was no obvious protagonist or antagonist (although Catherine was obviously causing everyone problems), but much like Truffaut’s other films, the characters were left more complex and real. The relationship between the three of them also was shown as complex and dysfunctional, but I wasn't necessarily routing for either Jim or Jules.
ReplyDeleteI felt like, even though this film is based on something that really happened, it was more predictable than Truffaut’s other films. This might be because of the narration.
The objective of a film is to tell a story with moving images. Jules et Jim takes advantage of this by creating a love triangle between two men and a woman (Catherine). The beauty of the story is how it unfolds, as it refuses to follow the rules of reality. The two men being in love with the same woman, and eventually both having her on a romantic level and accepting it, isn't an everyday norm. The two men shared a type of brotherly love connection which was clearly stronger than the love they had for Catherine, because the love affairs never upset either guy to where they stopped being friends. Or is it because Jules was so used to Catherine's ongoing affairs, so he brushed it off? She always seem to try and keep the drama out of the situation, by trying to take the focus off the situation with her numerous outburst, such as the one when she jumped into the river. I don't know what her whole motive was for trying to establish a relationship with both men. Because her attempt to win Jim back , I think that she intentionally had her and Jim drive off the broken bridge, as to say "If she can't have him in life, she will have him in death, as long as she was with him"?!?!
ReplyDeleteJules Et Jim seemed to tap in to a side of Truffaut that is never really discussed that much. At first it seems that the main story revolves around Catherine and how she toys with Jules and Jim, but the underlying story seems to be about Jules and Jim themselves and how they interact with each other. Truffaut puts a lot of time and focus on the two men and how they manage to keep their friendship not only intact but strong even through everything with Catherine and fighting on opposite sides of the war. The idea he seems to want to portray is that no matter what life throws at you it's good to be able to go back to those few people who really care about you.
ReplyDeleteI thought the love triangle in this film was interesting. It was very different than most love triangle that you see in films today. In this film the audience wasn't rooting for one person and there wasn’t a jealous rivalry between the two men. Normally the audience allies with one persons. Look at the shipping wars in fan communities for example. These people are completely passionate about who should be with who. In this film this isn’t there.
ReplyDeleteIt was interesting how Truffaut's freeze frame was a very stylistic approach, making the final shot on the beach an unforgettable scene. Also Jules et Jim signaled a more adult and middle-of-the-road effort without losing any of the young and disruptive energy of the revolution he and his accomplices had just launched in world cinema. And, at least during this brief moment, that is exactly what happened. Jules et Jim kept alive a moment of turbulence that would never come again - a jump into the future, with love.
ReplyDeleteI truly enjoy Truffaut's ability to invite us to understand his characters through their interactions with each other and not sappy dialogue. I also noticed that he finds ways of allowing the characters Jules, Jim and Catherine the luxury to act and do freely. He doesn't judge the characters which makes it almost imopossible for us too. I also found it interesting that, Jules even though he had a sense of innocense or nieveness never "played nieve" or Jim, the more outgoing of the two friends never played "the suave friend" much like Catherine, although a bit free spirited never came off as being "tainted". I believe that their relationship and Truffaut's ability to tap into their truthfulness is what helps to make Jules et Jim work wonderfully.
ReplyDelete