JLBats
The boney king of nowhere
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2004
- Messages
- 21,949
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 31
Anybody seen it?
I blind bought it today, and I'm not going to lie, I was expecting a highly overrated, "awesome on paper but now dead on celluloid" movie, but I was EXTREMELY pleasantly surprised.
The editing and inventiveness in the visuals of this film were actually *gasp* still fresh and cool and witty and awesome.
(I had a similar experience with Fellini recently; I was sure I'd be like "Pfft. Film school relic." but it was all still fresh and the way the camera moved and the actors moved within the frame was beauty even to this cynical eye)
The shot I go back to in talking about the inventiveness of the visuals would be the one shortly after Jules, Jim and Catherine have all bought a house together and have moved in. The camera starts on Catherine in one window, pulling out and to the side to reveal Jim in the window adjacent, and then pulling out further to reveal Jules in the window above. It is not smooth, as many directors would've made it; there's a pleasant, hilarious jerkiness to the camera's motion that I found kinda kinetic and enthralling.
Normally I think the question of "Why don't they make 'em like that any more?" is kinda lame, 'cause the problem is that they ARE still making them like that, and it's lead to a general sameness aesthetic. But Jules et Jim made me wonder it authentically. Watching this makes me feel like I'm seeing something revolutionary even 40some years on, and I'm STILL waiting for all the promise and vitality and genius of this film to be expanded upon. I don't think we've yet seen the great cinematic leap forward that Jules et Jim should've heralded; for all of the supposed influence, it makes New Hollywood of the '70s look like, well, the classical period.
Why DON'T they make 'em like this anymore?
More accurately, why don't they make 'em with this kind of spunk, joi de vivre, verve, and sheer cinematic electricity in every frame anymore?
I blind bought it today, and I'm not going to lie, I was expecting a highly overrated, "awesome on paper but now dead on celluloid" movie, but I was EXTREMELY pleasantly surprised.
The editing and inventiveness in the visuals of this film were actually *gasp* still fresh and cool and witty and awesome.
(I had a similar experience with Fellini recently; I was sure I'd be like "Pfft. Film school relic." but it was all still fresh and the way the camera moved and the actors moved within the frame was beauty even to this cynical eye)
The shot I go back to in talking about the inventiveness of the visuals would be the one shortly after Jules, Jim and Catherine have all bought a house together and have moved in. The camera starts on Catherine in one window, pulling out and to the side to reveal Jim in the window adjacent, and then pulling out further to reveal Jules in the window above. It is not smooth, as many directors would've made it; there's a pleasant, hilarious jerkiness to the camera's motion that I found kinda kinetic and enthralling.
Normally I think the question of "Why don't they make 'em like that any more?" is kinda lame, 'cause the problem is that they ARE still making them like that, and it's lead to a general sameness aesthetic. But Jules et Jim made me wonder it authentically. Watching this makes me feel like I'm seeing something revolutionary even 40some years on, and I'm STILL waiting for all the promise and vitality and genius of this film to be expanded upon. I don't think we've yet seen the great cinematic leap forward that Jules et Jim should've heralded; for all of the supposed influence, it makes New Hollywood of the '70s look like, well, the classical period.
Why DON'T they make 'em like this anymore?
More accurately, why don't they make 'em with this kind of spunk, joi de vivre, verve, and sheer cinematic electricity in every frame anymore?
