Jules and Jim (1962) User Reviews

The Power of Love...

[Xstal · 8/10 · 19 January 2023]

Two lads from different backgrounds form a bond, a French boy with dark hair, an Austrian blond, quite Bohemian in their ways, taking pleasure all their days, and then Catherine makes it three, and waves her wand. Jim is smitten with this beauty and he falls, but then war breaks out, and homeland duty calls, so they marry, relocate, intense fighting means a break, she has a child, world reconciles, and bonds remake. Jules travels to the home of his two friends, where the triangle rotates, gyrates and bends, now he's coupled with Catherine, but Jim feels no chagrin, though it's clear this isn't where the story ends.

Jeanne Moreau is always outstanding!

Truffaut's "Hymn to Life"

[marissas75 · 9/10 · 25 May 2006]

Although "Jules and Jim" was made over 40 years ago and takes place 40 to 50 years before that, the amazing thing is that it barely seems to have dated. Because it focuses on the universal human relationships between its characters, rather than the specific time in which they live, it's the rare film set in the past that doesn't feel like a "period film." And, especially in the first half of the movie, Truffaut's New Wave techniques lend a remarkable energy and freshness.

The movie explores friendship and love among three semi-bohemian types: Parisian Jim (Henri Serre), Austrian Jules (Oskar Werner), and Catherine (Jeanne Moreau), the beautiful, free-spirited woman whom they both love. She's the most vibrant character in the movie, and impossible to pin down. It's never clear who she loves—she contradicts herself repeatedly, and perhaps loves no one but herself—or whether she's diabolical or simply misunderstood. Moreau nearly steals the movie, if not for the fact that the title reminds us to focus on the relationship between the two men, and that Serre and Werner give good performances too. Even if Jim and Jules aren't as mysterious as Catherine, they're complex and interesting characters in their own right.

The story plays out rather episodically, which means "Jules and Jim" is full of wonderful little moments, often involving the crazy things Catherine does. Some of my favorites include her dressing up as a man and racing Jules and Jim across a bridge; her jumping into the Seine in frustration; and her singing the movie's charming theme song, "The Whirlpool of Life." The episodes are linked together by surprisingly unobtrusive off-screen narration, which keeps the film moving along rather than slowing it down.

"Jules and Jim" does get a little tiresome toward the end, with Catherine continually vacillating between the men in her life, Jim vacillating between Catherine and his old girlfriend Gilberte, and Jules remaining loyally devoted to Catherine despite how foolish this may seem. However, the movie is redeemed by its tragic final scenes, which poignantly contrast with the carefree gaiety of the beginning. Jules, Jim, and Catherine are caught in a destructive spiral, tossed and defeated by the whirlpool of life. Still, the tone of the movie is gentle and human, not pessimistic. Truffaut considered "Jules and Jim" a "hymn to life," and it is most memorable as a vivid celebration of friendship and youthful possibility, even as it acknowledges how those things can sour.

Whirlpool Of Days

[Cheetah-6 · 9/10 · 11 January 2002]

Those with heavy sensibilities along the lines of conventional "morality" seem to have a hard time allowing themselves to enjoy this film for what it is: A beautiful visual poem about the passing of time and the progression and growth of an unusual friendship. This friendship may be unusual but feels completely natural and true. Jules and Jim if anything, exhibit great maturity in their relationship with each other and Catherine. It's refreshing to see a film dealing with a deep love, friendship and emotional bond between two males and a mutual love for a woman, without the usual competitiveness and controlling possessiveness that is the norm. Jules and Jim come off more as an enlightened pair. It seems understood among them there is no real belonging of one human being to another. Catherine's whims of the heart are discussed between them at every stage throughout the film and they are willing to accept them and love her for who she is as well as each other.

I do feel that this film lost it's pacing toward the end and seemed to speed up to conclusion. That being it's only flaw. Visually it is stunning. Francois Truffaut was a poet with the camera and his subtle nuances are captivating. The scenes of Jules, Jim and Catherine enjoying days together seem so natural and evoke the feel of wonderful days spent together among best friends that transported me back to days gone by.

"we met with a kiss/ a hit, then a miss/ and we parted/ we went our own ways/ in life's whirlpool of days/ around and around we go/ together bound/ together bound."

art isn't about "identification"

[willtato · 10/10 · 4 March 2005]

Why do so many people need to "get into the characters" "care about the characters" "identify with the characters", to enjoy or appreciate a great film? I think it's a type of selfishness, as shallow as the urge to reject an outcome one doesn't like. Examples: "I know it's good; but the ending was too down" (Lolita), or a woman I once heard criticize Unbearable Lightness of Being because one of the main characters is a womanizer who doesn't repent or have justice rendered to him. Ironically, in Jules and Jim, we see a woman who is a "manizer" whom some viewers are appalled or put off by).

Jules and Jim features three characters whose unrealism is beyond question - Truffaut himself might comment on how Catherine fascinated the other two, but I doubt very much he would claim any of the three to be "realistic". I think the whole thing is a fable, and therefore the three are more like archetypes. The beauty isn't really the story, but HOW the story unfolds, and, most importantly how it is told VISUALLY: the breeziness interrupted by dramatic outbursts (flames, jumping into the river, death by drowning), the exploration of love as a fleeing of tediousness and predictability, the hinting (yes there is a type of love between Jules and Jim, though not a homo erotic one) that friendship is always deeper than romantic love, the beautiful flowing and editing of sequences, for example: where all three go bicycling in the country.

The duty of film is to tell a story in moving images, to take advantage of the things that specifically make cinema different from drama or literature - moving the spectator about in space and time, which cannot be done in any other art form in quite the same way. But nothing about this movie is conventional, and people looking for "resolution", or a someone getting their comeuppances, or even a character learning more about himself must look elsewhere for gratification.

Truffaut's Masteriece

[oOoBarracuda · 10/10 · 12 February 2017]

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.

No -- still not getting it.

[Bobs-9 · 5 August 2002]

Whenever a commentator declares outright that a film is a complete waste of time and that nobody, BUT NOBODY, should ever watch it, I tend to peg that commentator as an opinionated ass. So I would never say that about a well-respected film like "Jules and Jim." But quite honestly, I can't warm up to it. I've watched it on more than one occasion over the years, and it never fails to put me to sleep at both ends of my anatomy. I've just viewed a DVD edition in which a film scholar clearly explains his views on the fascination of "Jules and Jim." But I still couldn't see why the relationship of these three tedious characters, discussed and analyzed in all its very tedious minutiae by those same characters and an off-screen narrator (also tedious), should interest me. It's certainly beloved by academic types (maybe for those very same characteristics?), and film critics eat it up like it has gravy on it. Like another commentator, I'm a bit puzzled by all the comments about its lyrical, lighthearted and idyllic qualities. I'm left with the impression of a rather dry, academic dissertation on the complexities of male-female relationships ca. 1961 (the 1910 setting seems to me immaterial to the script).

I can't help feeling that I'm missing something, and I'm not averse to French films, but they're usually older, pre-new-wave films, for example "Forbidden Games," "French Can-Can," or Pagnol's "Fanny" trilogy. I take it that the sentimentality of such films is one of the things new wave directors reacted against. If so, I can't jump on their bandwagon, try as I might. I've enjoyed some of Truffaut's work, but not this, I'm afraid.

To those who love and appreciate "Jules and Jim" -- have pleasure of it. I envy you for that, and maybe I'll try it again in a few years.

A breathless film about time.

[the red duchess · 10/10 · 12 July 2001]

Time and revisionist critics have tried to tarnish the gleam of Truffaut's final masterpiece - citing its apparent misogyny and apoliticism; but for some of us, 'Jules et Jim' is the unforgettable film that opened the gates to both European film, and the great masters of American cinema like Hitchcock, Hawks and Ray.

'Jules et Jim' is, along with 'Citizen Kane', THE vindication of the pleasures of cinematic form: the first half especially, in its rush of narrative registers and technical exuberance, is unparalleled in modern film. This isn't mere trickery - the use of paintings, books, plays, dreams, conversations, documentary footage, etc., as well as the different ways of telling a story through film, all point to the movie's theme - how do you represent people and the world in art without destroying them? Or is art the only to save people and life from extinction?

The foregrounding of theatricality, acting, disguises, pseudonyms, games, works-within-the-work, all point to the high modernism in which the film is set, when the old certainties about identity and place were being destroyed by the Great War. In fact the film could be considered Cubist in the way it uses film form to splice up and rearrange images, space, characters, viewpoints.

Truffaut's film is a beautiful elegy about time: the historical time heading towards destruction in the shape of the Nazis, and the circular time of love, obsession and art. These times struggle in the film's structure, history zipping past years in the framing, Parisian sections, and days stretching out interminably in the central rural rondelay.

Far from being misogynistic, the film places Catherine's speech about 'grains of sand' at its philosophical heart. AND she's played by Jeanne Moreau, the most honest and human of all great actresses.

Jules et Jim embodies the beauty of French cinema

[nmoc · 10/10 · 14 October 2000]

The French have a remarkable tendency of creating free-flowing, poetic movies that transport this particular art form into subtle, poignant flights of fancy and nowhere is this more evident than in Jules et Jim, which embodies the beauty of French cinema.

I believe that Truffaut is the most poetic filmmaker in cinematic history. Jules et Jim is his finest moment and, in the ever fluctuating relationships between the Oskar Werner, Henri Serre and Jeanne Moreau characters, we are allowed to be taken along on a refreshing, beatific ride through the passionate simplicity of love and friendship.

The leisurely philosophical musings of the two men in Jules et Jim are counterbalanced by Moreau's bright, airy amorality. She brings about a radicalism and sense of unpredictability in the movie that is nonetheless charming and utterly innocent and benign. Moreau's instinctive will makes her out to be a selfish attention-seeker but without that this movie would not be so surprising and liberating. Truffaut's does not stick to a rigid narrative form, like many '50s and '60s French New Wave directors, and he allows the stream of consciousness dialogue and the ever-changing fortunes of Moreau's erratic relationships with the men to dictate the structure. Jules et Jim has a certain clarity of vision.

French love stories are often based upon dialogue that is rife with throwaway witticisms, perceptive trivial observations, and explosive utterances of love or despair, and Jules et Jim is no different. It can drift along tranquilly until a sudden unexpected change of mood occurs and everything is turned on its head. Moreau's leaping into the river after a civilised night out at the theatre is a delightfully liberating moment, utterly pointless yet still gleefully uninhibited. My finest memory is the heavenly ditty by Moreau which sums up both her and the movie's personality and atmosphere. So simple, so sublime, and always tugging away in the most sumptuous manner at the heartstrings. I don't think I have ever got that tune out of my head.

If you want to experience the sheer majesty of cinema, Jules et Jim just has to be seen. Not only is it bright and breezy but it has tragic moments of pathos as well. There is a surprise at every turn, almost always caused by the Moreau character, and such is the freedom of her spirit and the freedom of the movie's spirit, you can forgive her every action and fickle about-turns. There is no sense of permanence with her. Jules et Jim only confirms my belief that the French make cinema's greatest romances. Utterly natural, hardly ever contrived, and so cool and graceful.

Another French "masterpiece" leaves me cold.

[David-240 · 6/10 · 27 August 1999]

Why is it that so many French films that everyone acclaims as masterpieces bore me so much? "La Grande Illusion", the "Three Colour" movies and many others do not touch me or move me in any way. The persistent distancing from the characters by many French directors is probably the reason - I don't feel I ever got to know the characters in this film - so why should I care what happens to them?

The Jeanne Moreau character is so supremely selfish that I could not like her in any way - and the two men seemed stupid for constantly returning to her. I can't care for such selfish and stupid people. And how could the two men be so little affected by something as horrific as trench warfare in World War One? It was almost as if they'd just been off to summer camp.

There are moments of stylish cinematography and, despite the period setting, the whole thing is nicely sixties, but overall I thought "so what".

Forces of Nature

[rivera66_99 · 8/10 · 23 July 2003]

There is a book by Goethe mentioned in this movie, it's "Wahlverwandschaften", and its appearance is quite meaningful. Because the movie takes a look on human loves and lives that is quite similar to older Goethe's fatalistic world-view in his novel, very far from hope and idealisms. Strength (Moreau's character) and Weakness (Jim) are equal forces of nature, and both conduct us to death. The stoic attitude (Jules) is resignation and, seen this way, it is "weakness" too, but, on the other hand, it seems to be the STRONGEST way, because it means survival. JULES ET JIM, both in its content and in its aesthetics, has an air of antique tragedies, but - and this is more like the German novel - without complain, without crying. That's why it leaves you so "unsatisfied", and that's why it's still disturbing, even today.

Unconventional love story of two friends in love with a free spirit...

[Doylenf · 6/10 · 18 June 2009]

JULES AND JIM is another film that could have benefited from some judicious cutting. It tells the trifling tale of two men who are inseparable friends (OSKAR WERNER and HENRI SERRE), both in love with the same free spirited woman (JEANNE MOREAU) who seems anxious to not only defy convention but all the laws of truth, fidelity and morality in her search for happiness. She can't make up her mind from moment to moment whether she's in or out of love with either man and goes to extremes to show her displeasure with both of them. There's obviously something pathological about her nature, but neither man seems to care about that.

The ending comes somewhat as a shock--but is telegraphed early on when she first plunges into the water without a word of explanation for her rash act. We are then expected to sympathize with her plight for the rest of the film, since the two men obviously are head over heels in love with this puzzling creature whom they fell in love with because she resembled the statue of a woman with a quiet smile. As played by JEANNE MOREAU, she is the personification of a flighty woman who cannot and will not make up her mind about anything as important as loyalty and marriage or any kind of stability in her life. Sullen at times, cheerful and playful at others, Moreau plays her role to the hilt.

If this menage-a-trois from French filmmaker Francois Truffaut is your cup of tea and you are an admirer of the French New Wave style of cinema, this is likely to be one of your favorite films. Others may find it too leisurely in the telling told in a style that is disjointed, to say the least.

The last line of the film spoken by OSKAR WERNER says something about her ashes not being scattered over the countryside because this was against the French authorities. A fitting description of the woman herself who defied every authority in her own quest to find life worth living. Some call the film a masterpiece--I'm inclined to think it is much less than that.

One of the most inspired films ever

[adrian290357 · 10/10 · 9 April 2009]

Truffaut is one of my favourite directors and Jules et Jim one of my favourite films. As Jeanne Moreau recalls in an interview re her relationship with Truffaut at the time (they were briefly in love), this was a movie no one wanted to finance, that she had to help finance herself with money she had just scored from her latest film success (even her car was used to carry sets and other filming equipment) and which depended to a large extent on conditions on the ground and inspiration on the part of all, especially Truffaut, at any given time.

Thus, creation happened as inspiration came to Truffaut, Moreau and the crew and as Moreau remarks, the whole movie feels and flows like a song (she does sing the theme song, rather well at that too!).

Jules and Jim are star crossed friends. They have similar tastes and are ready to do anything for each other but being German and French they end up on different trenches in the war. They have imagined and then seen the bust of the ideal feminine beauty and and proceed to look for her in every nook and cranny, ultimately finding her in the shape of Moreau at a function.

Moreau is luminous in her role as Catherine that would have earned her permanent recognition if she had done nothing else. She is not just beautiful or alluring - she is Woman itself in all its complexities, falling in and out of love, holding on or letting go as is her wanton. There is a moment in the film when she does not get the attention of the two men because they are playing a game and immediately she demands attention and does not stop until she gets it.

Truffaut said on more than one occasion that his relationship with his mother (a rather distant one, reportedly) had had an impact on his relationship with other women but in Jules et Jim he is able to portray the female of the species with a depth and an understanding such as I had never witnessed before or have since.

Truffaut's direction is peerless in its acuity and sensitivity, and it is greatly aided by some of the loveliest photography ever. In addition, he extracts superlative performances from all three leads. Oskar Werner's performance is deft beyond words. Henri Serre reminds me of Daniel Day-Lewis with a steely performance to match.

As art lovers, they fall in love with a bust of a woman and look for her until they find Catherine. Is this Catherine an echo of Cathy in Wuthering Heights? Serre might be the Heathcliff while Werner sounds more like an undecided Hamlet knowing he cannot hang on to his Ophelia. The passions at work in the film more than match that of the Bronte novel's characters and, of course, that of the lukewarm Dane.

As lovers of the flesh, Jim has a child by Catherine and Jules her love - but it carries a price. The ending is a subtle mix of irony, sadness, insightful observation and even a touch of the clownish with an unsuitably dressed Jim walking away with the ashes of his beloved lover and friend... much as Hamlet might have walked away with a skull or two.

There is a lyrical quality to this film that I believe has never been surpassed. Judging from Woody Allen's "Vicky Cristina Barcelona" -- which borrows shamelessly from the ideas of "Jules et Jim" -- it will take real genius and a many months of sustained inspiration to surpass it. Given the current never ending supply of mass produced flicks, I doubt it will ever be matched let alone surpassed...

"Jules et Jim" is a most intelligent film and a privilege to watch. If it were down to me, it would score 11 out of 10.

"Happiness isn't easy to record and wears out without anyone noticing."

[classicsoncall · 7/10 · 28 February 2015]

I'd heard of this film over the years with an element of genius assigned to it, but as I viewed it the other day I was genuinely underwhelmed. The principal characters simply don't strike me as real people. They exist with virtually no reaction to situations that would make ordinary people respond with emotions ranging from jealousy and insecurity to outright rage and hatred. In fact, at the picture's finale I began wondering whether there was an element of mental illness in the character of Catherine (Jeanne Moreau). It's one thing to be driven to suicide by severe depression, but that didn't seem to be a factor in Catherine's make up. And if she wanted to kill herself on a whim, why commit murder at the same time by taking her lover Jim (Henri Serre) with her? It's not like he had a voice in the decision.

Leading up to that, the whole relationship among the principals seemed rather surreal. Drawn into an affair with Catherine long after he had been best friends with Jules (Oskar Werner), Jim himself seems to have a directionless life following the Great War. He's about ready to propose to his girlfriend Gilberte (Vanna Urbino) and instead is drawn into an unsatisfying relationship with Catherine, who makes no secret of having regular dalliances with other men as well. For her part Catherine leaves Jules for a period of six months, and he's left to care for himself and their young daughter in the interim.

Am I missing something here? 'Normal' people don't live this way, but then again, normal may have been redefined over the past four decades since this film came out. But there was just no warming up to these characters as the film progressed and it left me with just a perverse reaction when it was all over. I would try again, but my instincts are usually correct the first time.

Another Drama Queen Bites the Dust...

[appealing_talent · 4/10 · 4 September 2010]

Despite the radiant beauty of its hopelessly misguided leading lady and solid performances by the entire cast I'm truly stumped as to why this film gained such popularity and a cult following. The story was, in my opinion, boring and overly long. The characters, other than the tortured husband, were a bunch of worthless nitwits, who lacked any dimension or depth of feeling. Why is it that instead of finding the ending tragic I simply felt that a couple of people, who caused a great deal of pain to others, wasted their lives and my time were put out of everyone's misery? What a dismal disappointment this film, which I had looked forward to seeing, turned out to be...

You end up loving it!

[juanveliz7 · 15 February 2005]

This is the first movie by Truffault I've ever seen, and I have to say I'm now very intrigued in his other work...

"Jules et Jim" is the story of two friends who meet a very beautiful and strange woman who turns up to be a bit unstable...

It starts with how they all meet each other and end up together... I thought the beginning was pretty fast as many things happened and you just wonder if the whole movie will be like that. Also I thought I didn't care much for any character, but of course it was too quick to judge. There is also a narrator (throughout the movie) and at first you ask yourself if its really necessary...

Still, when I decided to go grab a snack, I realized I was so hooked by the story that I couldn't. The characters behaved like no other I've seen and you find yourself wanting two different things: for it to end and for it never to end.

The movie has it's many twists for those who like, even a laugh here and there, but if you see it as a whole is a very deep description of the relationship between the three main characters.

The end is somehow beautiful, maybe because is "fair", maybe because is "real", maybe because is "surreal", you'll just have to watch and find out...

Is one of those movies when after watching it you understand both sides: those who say it's overrated and those who claim it's a masterpiece... to me it was a one in a lifetime film experience

Truffaut's Classic Relationship Triangle as Idiosyncratic, Disconcerting and Mesmerizing as Ever

[EUyeshima · 9/10 · 27 May 2006]

The enduring legacy around François Truffaut's emotionally turbulent 1962 film depends primarily on how compatible the three actors are in inhabiting the triangle at the core of the story adapted from Henri-Pierre Roché semi-autobiographical novel. And in fact, Oskar Werner, Henri Serre and especially Jeanne Moreau provide superbly etched characterizations in one of the defining works of the French New Wave. Fortunately, the two-disc Criterion Collection DVD set provides an appropriately rich package for this classic, although the print transfer is frustratingly variable at times.

The story focuses on the friendship between two writers, an Austrian named Jules and a Frenchman named Jim, kindred spirits who enjoy a decadent lifestyle in pre-WWI Paris. Inspired by a statue of a woman's face with a most enigmatic smile, they agree that they are destined to fall in love with a woman with the same smile. Enter Catherine, as seductively capricious a free-spirit as ever there was in cinema, and the two men are instantly enamored. Jules is intent on marrying her, even though it's clear from the outset that she is not one who could commit for the long term. The war intercedes, and the two friends are fighting on opposite sides. After the war, Catherine, married to Jules and raising their young daughter, is emotionally dissatisfied and embarks on an affair with Jim. With Jules' blessing, things are idyllic for a while, but Jim proves too much the alpha male to defer to Catherine's whims, and the resulting imbalance leads to increasingly dramatic consequences.

In just his third film, Truffaut's trademark style emerges with fast cuts between scenes and naturalistic camera movements (courtesy of Raoul Coutard's fluid cinematography). Moreover, George Delerue's animated music score and Michel Subor's voice-over add to the evocative photo-album memory atmosphere. At times, the storyline feels a bit disjointed, but the fulsome performances more than compensate. Werner fully captures the internal struggle within Jules in attempting to reconcile his love for Catherine with her impossible demands on him. Serre has the comparatively more objective role but convincingly shows his character surrendering to the tangled situation. After her impressive turn as an obsessed adulterer in Louie Malle's "Elevator to the Gallows", Moreau solidifies her vaunted reputation here, conveying Catherine's petulance and unyielding passion in a vividly mercurial fashion.

The DVD extras are abundant starting with two commentary tracks. The first one, a more factual account of the production, was recorded in 1992 with Truffaut collaborator Suzanne Schiffman, editor Claudine Bouche, co-screenwriter Jean Gruault, and scholar Annette Insdorf. The second, produced in 2000, is far better as it has Moreau sharing her personal recollections of the filming with Truffaut biographer Serge Toubiana. Disc One also includes a brief 1966 interview with Truffaut discussing Roché and a 1985 featurette, "The Key to Jules and Jim", which contains interviews with the author's friends as they discuss the inspirations for the characters. Disc Two takes a broader look at Truffaut with five separate interviews with the director over the span of fifteen years, as well as insightful interviews with Coutard and co-screenwriter Jean Gruault.

Le tourbillon de la vie

[luizanassif · 10/10 · 24 November 2008]

This is the greatest film about life. Jeanne Moreau plays the role of a woman that wants to live but can't fit herself in this world, in the normal forms of relationships. Between Jules and Jim she founds something that calms her down a little. The masterpiece of Truffaut, Jules and Jim was made over the book from Henri-Pierre Roche, who also wrote "deux anglaises et le continent", the book that Truffaut also filmed later. The incredible capacity of Henri-Pierre Roche of talking about life in such a accessible way was perfectly recreated by Truffaut, who arrived to make even a greater thing then the writer. This is one of those movies to see over and over. Specially the great scene where Catherine sings Tourbillon de la vie, which fits perfectly. A film about meetings, losings, and finally about the difficulties of finding yourself. It's the most beautiful and simple way of describing le tourbillon de la vie.

One of Truffaut's Masterpieces

[wavecat13 · 10/10 · 28 September 2018]

No, they don't make them like they used to - by that I mean visually stunning, romantic, emotional dramas like this one. It is one of Truffaut's masterpieces - a fascinating and moving period piece. The story focuses on two close friends, a Frenchman and a German, who meet in Paris not long before World War I. Jim is a suave bon vivant and Jules is more sensitive and quiet. Both appear to be writers. Over a period of time, they both fall in love with the same woman - the mercurial, moody, essentially female Catherine (embodied perfectly by Moreau.) After the war, they see each other again, and the psychodrama begins to escalate.

Truffaut must have had some money to make this, since it has a charming, prewar look to it, with great costumes and locations. There is a bit of distance, and comic touches in this, which was intentional. Truffaut said he wanted the film to look like an old photo album - and it does. The story behind the story is fascinating as well - Criterion includes some info on this in the DVD. Apparently Truffaut discovered the little-known novel the book is based on at a used book shop along the Seine, and decided to film it, much to author's delight. It was the first novel by a 73 year-old art collector, and it was based on incidents in his life.

Love and friendship could not be better combined in one piece

[greekhero · 10/10 · 25 June 2011]

This was my third movie by Truffaut I saw and enjoyed a great deal. He truly was a genius story-teller. And this time it is about friendship and love, the things that make us feel happy and satisfied with living. One should learn to appreciate them, cherish them, care for them and protect them from fading away. But what is friendship anyway, how do you define it, describe it, measure it and show it? I found one of the best examples in this masterpiece. Two friends always enjoyed the company of each other and never got bored of each other. What is love then? Again another best example of so called true love without being possessive and egoistic, in this case accepting no matter what the choice and attitude of beloved one.

Nothing is constant in our lives, it starts, evolves and eventually ends. Anyway, there is something magical about Truffaut's movies.

A tale of two men who fall in love with the same fickle woman but don't let it shake their friendship, told through French New Wave innovations

[crculver · 7/10 · 26 August 2017]

Francois Truffaut's 1962 French New Wave classic JULES ET JIM tells the story of two pals and the woman they both fall in love with. In 1912, Jules (Oskar Werner), an Austrian living in France, strikes up a deep friendship with Parisian writer Jim (Henri Serre). The two are the best of buddies, downright inseparable. After they have each experienced a series of attempts and fiascoes with the local ladies, Jules meets Catherine (Jeanne Moreau), a vivacious and free-spirited woman, and they move back to Austria together and marry. The outbreak of World War I separates the two friends and years pass, but after the Armistice, Jim visits Jules and Catherine and finds their marriage rocky. Catherine decides to leave Jules, and she turns her affection to Jim, but this doesn't shake the two men's firm friendship.

The bond between the two men, and the vivacity and ethereal nature of Catherine, make for a film initially so positive and heartwarming that it is easy to see why JULES ET JIM has won a very wide audience beyond many other French films of the mid-20th-century. The script lets Moreau, already one of the most legendary actresses of her age, show off all kinds of tricks she had long honed in the theatre.

But the story increasingly takes on tragic tones, for Catherine is a deeply conflicted person, desirous of the two men by turns but ultimately unable to find happiness. In a modern Hollywood film a character like Catherine would probably be written as the "Manic Pixie Dream Girl" archetype, existing purely to show the male interests how to love life and live it to the fullest, but lacking any life of her own. In Truffaut's film, however, the depths of Catherine's psyche is what ultimately draws the plot. Yet because the film is still roughly told from the point of view of the two male characters, the film does convincingly depict the sort of relationship where you love someone and must support them through their struggles, but that person still remains ultimately unknowable.

In spite of being a film of wide appeal due to its likable characters and charm, JULES ET JIM is still an exemplar of the French New Wave. It shows some relatively innovative features such as jump takes, freeze frames, and carousel-like camera work, all shot by legendary cinematographer Raoul Coutard who was also responsible for Jean-Luc Godard's films of this era. Truffaut and his peers in the French New Wave were mad about the history of film, and here we get a sort of encyclopedia of film: allusions to the silent era, use of newsreels and other archival footage, and a voice-over narrator that comes in and out.

I enjoyed watching JULES ET JIM and there were some moments that I am sure I will long remember – Marie Dubois's brief supporting role as one of Jules' early love interests is laugh-out-loud funny. Yet I must admit that I was disappointed by the pacing in the last third of the film, which feels clumsy. The film also gradually abandons its New Wave freshness as the tragic part of the story takes over, and one already sees Truffaut drifting back towards conventional filmmaking. So, I personally would not include it among my top films. Still, its classic status is easy to understand and it's worth a look for any curious viewer.

Great filmmaking by Truffaut

[gbill-74877 · 9/10 · 28 April 2016]

The basis for this movie is a love triangle between two friends (Oskar Werner as Jim and Henri Serre as Jules) and a free-spirited young woman (Jeanne Moreau as Catherine). It's a joy to watch, all three actors are fantastic, and the 'New Wave' filmmaking by Francois Truffaut is very creative,with brilliant sequences which make it clear that he had an influence on Wes Anderson. It was only his third movie, and there is a freshness about it, with several iconic scenes including the ending, but I won't spoil it. The movie captures universal truths about relationships, while at the same time highlighting the very French attitude towards affairs. Never slow, and definitely worth watching.

life takes truffaut on a journey

[ksf-2 · 7/10 · 7 March 2022]

Kind of new agey film. Catherine hangs with jules and jim, who have been best friends for years. They celebrate each other's successes, and have fun together. They work so hard, that its forced, and gets annoying after a while. With the lack of much of a plot, we just plod along, letting the action take us where it will. Catherine and jules marry, and world war one breaks out, putting a hold on the international friendship. The film ends up being about catherine, her loves, her free spirit, her infidelity, her daughter. Her ups, her downs. It ends on a very dark note. Sadly, truffault himself died early at 52, from cancer.

Jules And Jim - A Social Protest Against Marriage !!!

[JoeKulik · 10/10 · 18 May 2015]

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".

Three Friends and a Bottle of Acid

[disinterested_spectator · 6/10 · 24 November 2014]

Jules and Jim are friends. The meet a woman named Catherine, whom they both love. She carries a bottle of sulfuric acid around with her to throw in the eyes of men who lie to her.

Stop right there. There is no need to go any further. You now know everything there is to know about Catherine. She is psycho! Long after I have forgotten the rest of what happens in this movie, long after I have forgotten who starred in it, and long after I have forgotten the very title of this movie, I will remember that. And yet, strangely enough, it appears to be the one thing that everyone else has forgotten. I have searched through the reviews of professional critics, and I have searched through the reviews published here, but this all-important fact about Catherine hardly ever gets mentioned. The question is, Why do so many people who watch this movie seem to think that this business with the acid is too unimportant to mention?

Had I been Jim, as soon as I found out about that bottle of acid, I would have walked right out the door and never had anything to do with her again. In fact, for the next six months, I would have been peeking out of my apartment window to see if she was lurking about with that bottle of hers, just in case she was holding a grudge for my refusing to have anything to do with her again. Instead, Jim simply talks her into getting rid of it, figuring that will make everything all right. But that is like thinking that if you take the butcher knife away from Norman Bates in "Psycho," there is nothing to worry about anymore. Speaking of "Psycho," the premise of a man-hating woman who carries around a bottle of sulfuric acid to splash into the eyes of any man who lies to her could be the basis of a pretty good horror movie, and maybe even become a cult film like "Ms. 45," but that is not what we have here. In any event, with regret, saying, "I was really counting on using this bottle," Catherine pours the acid into the sink. She does not bother to turn on the water so that the acid will be flushed out of the system, so we see the vapors rising as the acid eats into the sink as she and Jim walk out the door.

As I was saying, Jim is not worried, and Jules even marries her. In all fairness to Jules, he may not have known anything about that bottle of acid, because Jim seemed so unconcerned that he may not have bothered to tell him about it. Catherine cuckolds Jules again and again, but fortunately for her, he is a doormat, and not the kind of guy who would throw sulfuric acid in a woman's eyes for cheating on him. Since she is having sex with other men, she naturally stops having sex with Jules, but the only thing he worries about is that she might leave him. In fact, he is so afraid of losing Catherine that he encourages Jim to have sex with her on condition that Jim will let Jules see her once in a while. Better than that, Jim moves right into their home and starts sleeping with her, so now Jules can see her all the time.

Catherine wants to leave Jules and marry Jim, but Jim gets fed up with her nonsense and refuses to marry her, so she pulls out a pistol and tries to shoot him. He manages to get away, but he still has not learned his lesson, which is to stay away from that nutcase, because when Catherine and Jules run into Jim some time later, all has been forgotten, and they are all best friends again. Catherine talks Jim into getting in a car with her, and then she purposely drives off a bridge and kills them both. Poor Jules, he probably feels all left out.

To return to my question as to why so many people seem to discount the bottle of acid, I think that it has something to do with the mindset of people who know they are watching a foreign film. In a Hollywood movie, something like that could never be ignored, and the audience would be horrified. But when it comes to watching a foreign film, people tend to think of everything as being symbolic, or as having some kind of deep, philosophical meaning, and so things like that are not really taken as having literal significance.

Rambling Drivel

[kenjha · 3/10 · 7 August 2011]

Catherine marries Jules, but leaves him for Jim except that she has this thing for Albert, but she really loves Jules, although she misses Jim... This is basically a soap opera without rhyme or reason and it runs out of steam long before the ridiculous finale. It has no plot or point except to wallow in its Frenchness...easy women, effeminate men, free love, pretentious conversation. Moreau's Catherine is an annoying diva, although she is supposed to be so irresistible that her husband and lovers are willing to share her rather than risk losing her. The narration is pompous and superfluous. This unbearable drivel presents Truffaut at his indulgent worst. It's all style and no substance.