disappointed by the ending... - Jules et Jim (1962) Discussion

you know it pissed me off. also put spoiler for folks that aint seen the flick

reply

I quite liked the whole driving the car off the bridge was great, because if she couldn't have Jim no one else could and they would be together one way or another. I don't think that Catherine could stand loosing, I am sure it says something similar to that in the film.

reply

[–] JacquesDemy 18 years ago

I like it too. It is a very good ending. But I don't like Catherine. Though she is a lovely "real" woman, she is selfish to kill Jim, I think. But Jim didn't resist or refuse to die together. This is the most tragical part for me.

reply

[–] ljteuwissen 18 years ago

the word "ending" in the title of this post didn't give you a clue that it might have spoilers? LOL

My advice: never chekc this forum before seeing the movie, spoilers pop up everywhere.

(Dark vader is Luke's father... see?)

reply

[–] villebaillie 18 years ago

She was tying herself to Jim in the only way she truly could, by killing herself with him, they are tied in death. Jules had his tie to her through their child, but Jim had none

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Mr_Fantastic_III 17 years ago

It struck me as ridiculous too...but for a different reason. What you say makes sense, that Jim shouldn't of even gone back to her. But I can accept that, as she is with his best friend and some time has passed. What strikes me as ridiculous is how unnecessary it is for the two of them to die. The movie could just as easily have ended with the three of them going for a ride in the car. Unless I missed something, the film adopts a fairly light tone throughout, and it feels more a meditation on friendship than an intense drama- but then, in the last ten minutes, we get Catherine pulling a gun on Jim and then driving the both of them off a bridge. Why?

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] infinity8 13 years ago

It is interesting that Catherine is connected to Jules and Jim in opposite ways. Her relationship with Jules produced life (Sabine), while her relationship with Jim produced death. Is this Truffaut's commentary on the nature of the dual (generative and destructive) nature of love, or is there another sort of symbolism at work here?

reply

[–] IthacaPhan 17 years ago

I actually knew about the ending before seeing the movie, so I have a unique perspective. It was one of the things that drew me to the movie in fact. It seems that she was selfish and obviously irrational. If she couldn't have what she wanted she was willing to endanger other people and/or herself. I think the ending illustarted the dark hold she had on both of the men.

reply

[–] LoveTag 17 years ago

You guys who are criticizing the movie, what about all the stories you read of murder suicide? And crimes of passion?

I don't think the whole "if I can't have you no one can" storyline is *that* unusual. Sad to say.

Maybe it's just unique in that it's a woman being shown doing this?

reply

[–] bing148 16 years ago

If you're going to get into the French New Wave, get used to it, there's almost always a sharp twist in tone in the final minutes. Usually the twist if you really think about it actually highlights the overall themes of the film perfectly. If you think about it, you'll probably get what the ending does for the film.

reply

[–] suckerdwsp316 16 years ago

Great movie, but the ending was long, and predictable. I foresaw Catherine either killing herself, or all 3 of them at the end of the movie. And wouldn't you know it, she drove herself and poor Jim into the cold unreturnable waters. It was just so predictable and uninteresting.

For example, in Shoot the Piano Player....

Spoilers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Spoilers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

....in Shoot the Piano Player when the guy tells the story of his previous marriage and how his wife cheated on him, and hated herself for it, and so he ran out of the apartment, only to return moments later to see that she threw herself off the balcony THAT was shocking! I was stunned. STUNNED!! That was a shocking death scene that I did not see coming. Anyway, in contrast to the ending of Jules and Jim, 100 times better. But I do understand it was a novel first, and an autobiographical one as well I hear, so I guess Francois had to stick to it. Great movie overall though. It was like poetry.

reply

[–] mickyash69-1 16 years ago

Funny enough even though I liked the ending I had a strong feeling all the way through the movie that it will end in a dramatic death.

reply

[–] alexbergauer 16 years ago

I'm pretty sure Truffaut brought M. Night Shyamalan to direct those last few scenes...

reply

[–] LudwigVanGoldfish 16 years ago

That wasn't the end of the movie and as far as going off the end of the bridge the real question is:

Was that the end of Catherine?!

You can't get it unless you think outside the box, or in this case outside the urn, and outside the EARTH!!

Ask yourself this - "Why did the movie end with a cremation, and a carefully detailed inturnment of the ashes?!"

And the narrator in the end turned out to be Jules, the very same friend that moved himself from the horrific western front of the war to the hellish eastern front to avoid any possibility that one of the allied soldiers pitted against him could possibly be his pal Jim. And yet, he spoke with no emotion as he gave very specific details from start to finish - put those details together and you've got a solved puzzle.

Why did Jules make certain to entomb Catherine's ashes when he knew she would've wanted to be scattered to the sea?

Answer - He was hoping to stop her!

Go to earlier times... the statue - the narrator tells us it was her. And her expression, the one he and Jim would follow forever.

What was Jules and Jim doing in the film just before actually meeting her - taking a shower.

What was she doing when first on screen? Descending.

What was she always drawn to? Water.

What game did they play at the seashore? Searching for remnants of past civilizations.

Name of her child - Sabine.

Her view of earth - from a far-off point in space.

Who did she meet on one of her descendings (in an elevator no less!)? Napoleon.

What did Napoleon do with her? Father a child.

What did she want to do with Jim? Have beautiful children, not mother them, just have them.

Start of movie - Getting ready for a stage show. And then learning each other's language.

That's just a starter kit. There are many other things - the big hour timer that used sand, the hat, Charles Baudelaire quote on the bridge, on and on... Put those details together and now what is the picture that starts to emerge?

Look where no one else is looking and see what no one else sees.

reply

[–] boonjj 13 years ago

maybe im being dumb but what does that all add up to?

also, was Jules shown to be the narrator at the end? ive just finished watching the film, and the last lines are spoken in third person. "Jules knew catherine wanted her ashes in the wind, but that was illegal"

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] prplayer 8 years ago

it reminded me of the movie Angel Face with Gene Simmons where the same thing happens

so many movies, so little time

reply