This movie is a story about to men in friendship with each other, pre-WWI. One is Austrian, the other French. They meet Catherine who is mentally unstable but a lot of fun to be around. There are a lot of female stereotypes that she does not conform too and because they are not therapists and in that time period didn’t know anything about personality disorders, they looked past her eccentricities. One will end up regretting this at the end of the film.

Prior to going to war, Jules marries Catherine, as he was enthralled by her first. In fact, on one of his leaves, they create a child, Sabine and this binds them together – for a moment in time. She is unfaithful, as one would assume from a carefree thoughtless woman. She is more focused on her needs than that of others. She has no empathy, but does play hostess when people are visiting, so she seems to live up to the “wifely duties.” She might appear to be a good mother at times, but Jules mentions that she abandoned he and Sabine for six months, when he had no idea where she was. And yet, he takes her back when she returns. It is because he is always there for her, that she gives him the time of the day.

Jim comes for a visit, Jules tells him all about his marital woes. For some reason, this excites Jim even more. While he is in a relationship with Gilberte, it is not fun, she is just there and holds on but he has no passion for her. Jules gives him an open ticket to marry Catherine (no discussion with her), and Jim likes this idea. While there is no discussion, it is not as if anyone is disappointed with the arrangement, except maybe Jules. He is happy to offer his friend, in lieu of Albert, who is a constant hanger-on – because with Jim, he feels Catherine will never leave him, as long as Jim is there. With Albert, he planned on taking her and the child away. What a story! But, it is considered one of the greatest films of all time. And, it is, in a movie kind of way. No one would wish this on their family or friends.

Jim doesn’t play along like Jules and is much more detached and less emotionally involved. Catherine does not appreciate this and his lack of concern for her wonton lifestyle really annoys the heck out of her. She engages in a few psychotic episodes – shall we say. Anything for attention. What is odd though, is when she says “Jump,” both of the guys do. They are so trauma bonded with her, and in a romantic delusion that they are in charge, even though she always plays them like a puppet. It is the early 1900’s. Men felt they were in charge. They felt that a woman would always return to the child, no matter what. The comforts of home – when she tired of her wayward life. Not going to happen.

I wouldn’t dare tell you the ending because then you don’t need to watch it – though you do, as it is a really great film. In fact, I had watched this film many years ago, and rewatched it with my boyfriend last night – who had never seen it. I remembered nothing but the ending – because who couldn’t. I recalled the storyline somewhat but the ending was etched in my head, as people say today “Can’t not see it once you have.” It is not a twist, in retrospect, it appears to be predictable – to a therapist.

Men, when you are with a woman like Catherine, think sex – not relationship. Force yourself to stay far away from you need to save or protect or rescue. Think of your sanity and run after you had fun with her. Sure, she is erotic, tantalizing, unpredictable, but none of this is healthy. In today’s society, she would steal all your money. She would have her child taken away (by CPS) – if there was no Jules sticking around. She would be a revolving door that would lead you nowhere. Take heed and trust your instincts when you see a woman like her. Or, suffer the consequences.

Post-script: A movie discussion group, I am in, met last night and had quite a lot of interesting perspectives on this movie. We looked at the relationship dynamics of both men and women in this film, trends of behaviors in society at that time, fashion, drugs encountered or substances people were exposed to in this time (such as lead in crystal and the impacts of this), and alternative psychological opinions about the characters. My opinion is not the only opinion nor is it right. I use movies to open the door to this topic and because these are semi-fictional characters (in this case, it is based on an “autobiographical novel,” by Henri-Pierre Roché). The real woman was named Helen Hessel and she became a poet. In that time period we did not know a great deal about psychology as we do today.