There are many elements in this film that made me enjoy it in a special way. Objectively, I admire Truffaut techniques and the greatness of the script, but there are also personal circumstances that made me particularly enjoy certain aspects of the film. I will talk later about this. The first thing about this film is the noticeable evolution of Truffaut, either in his technique and in the stories he tells. I do not know if it is an evolution in his style, a step ahead or an experiment, but I see many changes from Les quatre-cents coups, which compared to Jules et Jim seems to me innocent, sweet, very different in style and intention.
In general, we could think that Truffaut has plunged into the New Wave cinema taking many elements either from Godard and Resnais (at least elements we have seen in À bout de souffle and Hiroshima, mon amour). From Godard he takes a revolutionary approach of camera. We do not see as many floating, 'ghostly', traveling between characters as in Les quatre-cents coups, but quick, broken sequences, much more in Godard's style. The scene when Catherine's dress burns is remarkable: images run into each other, overlap, throng, just as the memories of an intense personal experience. The camera also goes on crazy close-ups -like the look of a baby looking for something- or traveling: I particularly enjoyed the one following Catherine in the race over the bridge, we could feel her breathing! Truffaut even plays with us: the camera -us- searches the ground looking for objects in the countryside: a cup, a peak, cigars. There is even a hidden wink which I think is most difficult to notice: there is a scene which is shown backwards; when the narrator is saying in the countryside house that Jim had noticed something was wrong between Jules and Catherine, we might notice that something is wrong with the image too. Last things happen first. If we look into it, we see Jim and Jules playing dominoes. But they do not put the pieces on the center of the table, they take them away from it. After that, there is a traveling rightwards; we can see the girl and Catherine: but they move oddly, they nod too sharply, specially Catherine. Just as if the scene was shown from the end to the beginning. Finally, there are some other new resources that Truffaut makes use of, like stills -of a great beauty and emotiveness-, subtitles (at the end) or black fades. If technically Truffaut owes in this film to À bout de souffle, I think he takes some things from Resnais' Hiroshima mon amour as far as contents are concerned. Although not as a poetical script as Marguerite Duras', the film by Truffaut is crammed full with literary references: Shakespeare, Cervantes, Baudelaire, Goethe -Les affinités électives, a book on the topic of sharing lovers-, even Picasso or the Chinese drama. The story is not a magnificent poem like Resnais but a magnificent love saga. Indeed, it is a great love story, in which we find all elements to be found in any love story: passion, sadness, jealous, etc. But Truffaut mixes it altogether and puts it in a single love story, a love triangle with a femme fatale and two best friends. An explosive combination that will turn up in a story with hundreds of twists and turns, thanks to Catherine's instability. Truffaut makes many different love stories happen in only one, or maybe makes a life long love story happen in a single year. This dense storytelling is made agile by the great idea of the narrator, which I enjoyed most. However, it is a counterpoint to the rest of the film, it is not a poetic voice at all, but an analytical, cold, shocking one. This film is also much about translation: both characters -and Catherine too- seem to know perfectly the language of the other, and they keep challenging each other with puns and translations, indeed both of them work as translators at some time, and Truffaut remarks in their comments the difficulty and beauty of this job; this is the part I personally enjoyed as I am a translator myself.
In general, we could think that Truffaut has plunged into the New Wave cinema taking many elements either from Godard and Resnais (at least elements we have seen in À bout de souffle and Hiroshima, mon amour). From Godard he takes a revolutionary approach of camera. We do not see as many floating, 'ghostly', traveling between characters as in Les quatre-cents coups, but quick, broken sequences, much more in Godard's style. The scene when Catherine's dress burns is remarkable: images run into each other, overlap, throng, just as the memories of an intense personal experience. The camera also goes on crazy close-ups -like the look of a baby looking for something- or traveling: I particularly enjoyed the one following Catherine in the race over the bridge, we could feel her breathing! Truffaut even plays with us: the camera -us- searches the ground looking for objects in the countryside: a cup, a peak, cigars. There is even a hidden wink which I think is most difficult to notice: there is a scene which is shown backwards; when the narrator is saying in the countryside house that Jim had noticed something was wrong between Jules and Catherine, we might notice that something is wrong with the image too. Last things happen first. If we look into it, we see Jim and Jules playing dominoes. But they do not put the pieces on the center of the table, they take them away from it. After that, there is a traveling rightwards; we can see the girl and Catherine: but they move oddly, they nod too sharply, specially Catherine. Just as if the scene was shown from the end to the beginning. Finally, there are some other new resources that Truffaut makes use of, like stills -of a great beauty and emotiveness-, subtitles (at the end) or black fades. If technically Truffaut owes in this film to À bout de souffle, I think he takes some things from Resnais' Hiroshima mon amour as far as contents are concerned. Although not as a poetical script as Marguerite Duras', the film by Truffaut is crammed full with literary references: Shakespeare, Cervantes, Baudelaire, Goethe -Les affinités électives, a book on the topic of sharing lovers-, even Picasso or the Chinese drama. The story is not a magnificent poem like Resnais but a magnificent love saga. Indeed, it is a great love story, in which we find all elements to be found in any love story: passion, sadness, jealous, etc. But Truffaut mixes it altogether and puts it in a single love story, a love triangle with a femme fatale and two best friends. An explosive combination that will turn up in a story with hundreds of twists and turns, thanks to Catherine's instability. Truffaut makes many different love stories happen in only one, or maybe makes a life long love story happen in a single year. This dense storytelling is made agile by the great idea of the narrator, which I enjoyed most. However, it is a counterpoint to the rest of the film, it is not a poetic voice at all, but an analytical, cold, shocking one. This film is also much about translation: both characters -and Catherine too- seem to know perfectly the language of the other, and they keep challenging each other with puns and translations, indeed both of them work as translators at some time, and Truffaut remarks in their comments the difficulty and beauty of this job; this is the part I personally enjoyed as I am a translator myself.