D:

So, yes, I watched Jules et Jim (1962) and Masculin Feminin (1966), and I can't say that I liked either of them, but I did enjoy watching them.

What I found to be the biggest difference in these two directors is that Truffaut seems to use every camera technique to discover new ways of storytelling, whereas Godard broke all the rules in order to do the same thing. As Wandile told me earlier, Truffaut tries to extend his films off previously-established conventions, and Godard does everything you're not supposed to do.

In Jules et Jim, Truffaut takes advantage of everything: montages, narration, newsreel footage, different angles, narration, odd transitions, narration. One thing I remember in particular is when Jules is speaking to Jim, and the text of the words he says--"Not this one, Jim"--come out of his mouth (0:12:30); it was really bizarre, but I liked it a lot.

The story of this film was a bit whack, and I'm not sure what it all meant. After being unable to come up with anything myself, I read several interpretations on the internet and found two that I thought were interesting. The first has to do with an obscure theory called homosociology; I looked for reliable references on it but didn't find anything. According to this theory, every man is bisexual to some extent, but due to societal views, men are forced to express this love for other men in forms other than physical relationships. And that's where Catherine comes in. Jules and Jim actually love each other, but whether they are aware or unaware of it does not matter. They just express their love for each other through their love for Catherine. This interpretation would explain why neither of them are particularly jealous when Catherine runs off with other men; they are simply with Catherine so that they have an excuse to remain such close friends.

The interpretation I find more convincing, however, is that they, like the rest of the world, lost their innocence during the war, and that afterward they try to ressurect the youthful lives they once lived to tragic ends. Although Jim and Jules accept the adult things they need to do, Catherine continues to act like a child, always trying to catch someone's attention, even if it means she has to drive herself and someone else into a goddamned river.

I didn't develop those two interpretations very much, but that's as far as I've gotten so far.

And Godard, he does all the wrong things in the right way. Some notable examples from Masculin Feminin: Paul and the freckle girl have a conversation in a cafe, and an inconsequential extra sitting in the seat next to Paul is in the shot and is shown leaving with his beer several minutes later; Madeleine has a conversation with one of the guys, but because of the camera's position, the guy's face is completely covered by a cabinet. In fact, most of the conversations in this film are shot showing only one of the people speaking, and sometimes, the sound completely disappears for a couple seconds. If I had filmed all that, I would be yelled at, but Godard does it in a way that you don't really notice that it's "bad" filmmaking.

As George mentioned, the film touches on a lot of subjects--war, love, murder-- but I'm having trouble piecing together a general theme, if there is any. What I've got so far is that Paul's life represents the Vietnam war. It's no coincidence that Paul is witness or subject to four deaths during the course of the film. Like the soldiers in Nam, Paul sees random death happening everywhere: people killing in order to save children (i.e. woman shooting her husband), murders due to racism (lady and black men in the train), suicide to escape from the horror (guy with the knife at the arcade), and the ultimate death of the soldier himself. Madeleine won't let him sleep with her just as he wouldn't be able to if he were actually fighting; instead, he is trying to hold on to her like the soldiers writing their love letters. The entire time, Paul wishes for peace from the war and in his life, painting antiwar messages on federal cars and trying to keep the girl he loves. However, I haven't quite worked out what Madeleine and Paul mean to each other and what their relationship means to the film. Actually, I really want to figure out why masculine (made up of "mask" and "ass") and feminine (which in the end became "fin") are important!

I wasn't going to even attempt writing this blog, but I'm glad I did because I've come to understand the films a little better. And I agree with George: These films must be watched more than once. Thinking back, I realize how much I missed on first viewing, and more viewings would probably make these films clearer.