Prashun Chakraborty Jules et Jim was my introduction to Truffaut and I was completely blown away by it, I can't wait to watch more by him. Stephen Hawking said this was his favorite movie and I can see why. The film revolves around two best friends Jules and Jim and the enigmatic woman who captures both their hearts, Catherine. The film follows their lives for nearly a decade and a half. In the first arc of the film, it's established that while both are attracted to Catherine, she chooses Jules and Jim is a good sport is genuinely happy for his friend. Years pass and after the great war both the friends are reunited, Jules and Catherine now have a daughter but Catherine is too headstrong and adventurous of Jules, Jules actively persuades Jim to be Catherine's lover and husband so that she does not run away from his life and they can be a big happy family together, meanwhile Jim who never really got over Catherine rekindles his flame for her and she starts falling for Jim as well. As you might have guessed this is a very sexually progressive film especially for 1961. However through all this complexities, the film maintains it's infectious energy and who better to guide the viewer through this maze of emotions than these fleshed out well written characters. I found the film quite modern and "talky" it has aged very well, relevant not even today but will be so long after we are gone.

gavin6942 Decades of a love triangle concerning two friends and an impulsive woman (Jeanne Moreau).The film is based on Henri-Pierre Roché's 1953 semi-autobiographical novel describing his relationship with young writer Franz Hessel and Helen Grund, whom Hessel married. Truffaut came across the book in the mid-1950s whilst browsing through some secondhand books at a bookseller along the Seine in Paris. Later he befriended the elderly Roché, who had published his first novel at the age of 74. The author approved of the young director's interest to adapt his work to another medium.The movie has been called "an inventive encyclopedia of the language of cinema", as Truffaut incorporated newsreel footage, photographic stills, freeze frames, panning shots, wipes, masking, dolly shots, and voice-over narration (by Michel Subor). Today, the influence continues in everything from "Goodfellas" to "Pulp Fiction" to "Life Aquatic" (three films you would not expect).

s k At the risk of over-generalizing about an entire nation, I've come to the inescapable conclusion that the French are a very strange people, to say the least. Seriously...they don't seem to find anything offensive (I think they'd find some rationalization for having sex with chimpanzees), and they seem to find everything interesting -- even one of the most boring films in cinematic history -- Jules & Jim.The one thing this film has going for it is this: I've never seen a film in which every single character suffers from an incurable mental disease. But if I want to see such extreme mental illness, I'll go visit a local state mental hospital. This film is NOT about LOVE -- it's about raging mental illness. That's what people who claim to "get it" really DON'T get. They're as delusional as the characters in this train wreck of a film if they honestly believe this movie is a great love story.

dlee2012 Jules et Jim is often venerated as one of the greatest films of the nouvelle vague movement. Sadly, this is not the case. Indeed, it is not even close to being Truffaut's best (Shoot the Piano Player, for one, was a more interesting and daring film, with deeper psychological insight.) For all of its flaws though, this film has an irrepressible energy and vitality that reflects the youthful exuberance of its three leads. Indeed, it is only at the end, when Catherine's constant vacillation between lovers becomes tiresome to the audience, does one start to lose interest.The film can be read as a story of male solidarity that not even a war between nations or the affairs of an amoral woman can undermine.Jules and Jim are both intellectual characters, from different cultural backgrounds but united in their interests. Despite their intellectual inclinations they are far from being insular academics (they are, indeed, more inclined to be writers or poets) and live exuberant lives in early twentieth century Paris, until they encounter Catherine, a rare woman who can actually match them and, indeed, out do them in their joie de vivre. Hers, though, is an amoral outlook and though she uses men in a predatory fashion they are both happy to accommodate her.She is unable to make a commitment to either and can only split their friendship by destroying herself and Jim in the film's climax. Her decision to commit murder-suicide seems as spontaneous as every other decision in her life and it is just as theatrical -she must always have an audience before her. She is potentially a cold character at heart as she is so selfish but, to Truffaut's credit he brings a great deal of warmth to this tale and that is, perhaps, its greatest achievement.The film's exuberant feel is captured in it cinematography. By using hand-held cameras on location, there is a realness and energy to this production that is mirrored in the strong acting by Moreau and the great Oskar Werner.Small scenes that are otherwise pointless to the plot, give this film a lyrical quality and emphasise Catherine's spontaneous character. These include her dive into the river, which foreshadows the film's ending and the famous scene of the race, during which the motion of the camera mirrors the movements of the actors.There is use of farcical humour as in all nouvelle vague productions and a use of what is obviously stock footage to emphasise that the film is an artificial construction by the auteur, not an illusion of real life.The film was probably set in the early twentieth century time period both to capture the turmoil of the era and to add shock value. The idea of people living such unconventional lifestyles would have been even more incongruous in the Paris of 1912 than in the Paris of 1962.Despite Truffaut's use of these radical new techniques and the shocking, unconventional nature of the love affair at the heart of the story, interest wanes towards the end. Catherine is, ultimately, a superficial character and even her exuberance cannot carry the film. As noted above, her energy wears out the audience and her inability to make a decision does not captivate as Hamlet or any post-modern hero would; it merely frustrates towards the end. Her death being the only way she can resolve her trivial dilemmas is a contrived ending and one audiences are unlikely to find either satisfactory or subversive in this modern age.In summary, this is an important nouvelle vague film and maybe even essential viewing for those of us who love European cinema but it is not a great one. It ends up being as superficial as the character being studied and all the energy, joy and lightness in the world cannot disguise that fact.