Printable View
Band e part in particular , Breathless(A Bout de souffle) and Le Petit Soldat in general. However, the last two were atleast more accessible. Le Mepris was typical too but more "human". It may get better on repeated viewings (with commentary perhaps) but "Jules And Jim" - :huh:. You too, Truffaut?Quote:
Originally Posted by thilak4life
neenga paathutteengala J & J? I'd like to know what you think about the characterizations, to start with (i'm not talking from a moral standpoint at all) :)
CR,
I remember liking the film thoroughly :P. Forget the shots/style of presenting, the film was a ride. Liked the characterizations, they were played a little too 'dramatically', but thats okay. :)
CR :shock: . Breathless effect-a? I personally found J&J to be one of Truffaut's finest films. It ranks along with, if not higher than, 400 Blows and Wild Child. Characters were unusual, but that's what makes the movie special and so memorable. Scenes I liked: the one where they walk along the river bank, the one where Catherine recounts her encounters with the stranger to Jim and of course the final scene. That one was totally unexpected and shook me out of my chair. As I have said before, this one is Truffaut's masterpiece and poetry on screen :D.
PS: The plot of Hazaaron Khwaishen Aisi reminds me very much of J&J
Same same..pinch pinch :) And, we know that Pulp fiction paid homage to this film through that memorable line. But, I can also see where QT's passion for the geeky bohemenian lines comes from :D[/b]Quote:
Originally Posted by kannannn
Thilak, :exactly: QT's love for New Wave is well known. In fact, I owe my love for foreign language and art house movies to his interviews. His enthusiasm is so contagious :D.
Thilak/Kannan,
:omg: :shock: :shock: :twisted:
A few kostins:
1) I understand that a film with spineless and/or totally unpredictable and contradictory characters is not necessarily bad. However, i couldn't empathize with even a single character from that movie - Catherine(!!), Jules, Jim and even Gilberta. Are they humans? Do they react like humans? Do they have basic human qualities like anger, *jealousy*, love, hatred etc?
When the fundamental is flawed, how does it matter how the film is made or what innovations were used as far as technique is concerned?
2) OK, like i said, just because a film might portray these characters doesnt mean that the film can't be a great one.
I would like to know what was great or even good about these characterizations - Will anyone we know do the things they do? - Very unlikely (yes, its autobiographical and that's all the more sickening).
It's not that the characters are *unusual* that's my crib here. It's not funny, powerful, or anything of that sort. It's like, "what is the point??"
OTOH, say a film like ACO is about utterly despicable characters mainly but it has the viewer riveted all throughout. You may hate the characters but they are real.
3) To me, a good film would make me feel, and/or "see", and/or "think". J & J did nothing.
4) I knew the last scene was inevitable and it was only a matter of time before she did it.
Well, like the cliche goes, we should agree to disagree or disagree to agree or whatever :)
Yes, HKA - 2 guys and a girl but then, KK and SA aren't "close" friends like J & J, are they? Moreover, HKA had real human beings as characters :razz:
[Sudhir Mishra-ve J&J padatha potrinaalum kutram kutrame! :) ]
I think the characters don't need our empathy. That's just the way they are. Both Jules and Jim find in Catherine the woman they were looking for, the 'perfect pair'. But Catherine is not someone who would be bogged down by 'love' as we know the term. She is free spirited, choosing to live life the way she wants - which incidentally is fine by both Jules and Jim. So there is no question of jealousy or hatred, though it is the unconditional love for Catherine that dooms both J&J.Quote:
Originally Posted by crajkumar_be
Sickening? Wow, that's a strong word for the kind of movies we watch :lol: . I thought we have come beyond that characterisation. ACO was more surrealistic. J&J is a simple story of two men's obsession with something that yearns to be free. Does that obsession have to be exclusive? IOW, does love itself have to be exclusive? What stops someone from loving more than one person? And what stops someone from sharing his object of affection with others? J&J is an attempt to answer these questions.Quote:
Originally Posted by crajkumar_be
Agreed :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by crajkumar_be
As for HKA, I think neither KK nor SA is really possesive. Theirs is as complicated a relationship as J&J have with Catherine :D.
Kannannn, CR
It's a long time since I watched this film. But, I almost relived it, looking back in a sort of introspective way as I read both your posts. Now I should watch it again :D
But, CR, I don't think new wave is all about 'neo-realism'. The unconventional characters dwelling in a reflective world (of reality) is the 'central' theme. Lets take 400 blows , it's the film which is claimed to be the most realistic of Truffaut films. It is, no doubt, but even that deals on the protagonist breaking free from 'conventionality'. New wave films also embodies the new wave itself, breaking traditions and modalities. J et J characterizations is no different. But, the beauty of NW characters is, they are not mere stereotypes. Same holds good for Kubrick's protagonists, Herzog's, etc having their own unique patterns, although the way it works, is different!
And NW films, I could connect to the what the 'character' is going through, I like the way it doesn't throw it out at our face. But, it's still effective. However, it looks like, it didn't work for you.
BTW I had already said, let's forget the way the film is presented, didn't I! :?