The Story of Marie and Julien - Reception

Reception

Critics' responses were mixed: some found the film evocative and powerful, whereas others saw it as slow and frustrating. Guy Austin writing in Scope noted that "bodily reactions are not part of critical reactions to . In both press and online, the head governs the body in reactions to Rivette." Rivette had said before the release that "This I know in advance – whether it is good or not, some people will love it and others will hate it."

Q: "Were you hurt by the bad reception for Histoire de Marie et Julien?"
A: "You always wish there were more of a response. But often it comes five, ten years down the road. As it turns out, for Marie et Julien, I'm starting to get a sense these days of some change of heart."

It was nominated for the 2003 Prix Louis-Delluc. Senses of Cinema suggested that it is Rivette's most important work since his 1974 film Celine and Julie Go Boating and saw it as "a film about filmmaking", including it in their favourite films of 2004. DVD Verdict concluded that "it is not only intelligent, but willing to assume the same of its audience". Glenn Kenny rated it as his favourite film of the decade, and film curator Miriam Bale writing in Slant Magazine included it in her ten most enduring films of the decade. Film Comment was equally taken with the film, stating that "what's most remarkable about the film is how moving it is finally, how much is at stake after all--nothing Rivette has done before prepares you for the emotional undertow that exerts itself in The Story of Marie and Julien's final scenes." LA Weekly described the film as "elegant and unsettling"; The Age called it "quietly mysterious and haunting" and "heartrending".

Peter Bradshaw was disappointed, arguing that "All the story's power is allowed to leak away by the deliberative heaviness with which Rivette pads through his 150-minute narrative, with its exasperating lack of dramatic emphasis." Philip French noted similarities to Hitchcock's Vertigo and Jean Cocteau's Orphée, but called it "surprisingly flat and unmagical". The New York Times also found it "dry and overdetermined," and Time Out complained that it "never supplies the frissons expected of a ghost story or the emotional draw of a good love story." Film 4 compared it to The Sixth Sense and The Others, but said that "its glacially slow pace will frustrate all but the most patient". (Rivette said when promoting the film that "I like The Sixth Sense because the final twist doesn't challenge everything that went before it. You can see it again, which I did, and it's a second film that's just as logical as the first one. But the end of The Others made the rest of it meaningless.") "An intellectual exercise in metaphysical romance - Ghost for art-house audiences" was Empire's wry take. The Digital Fix argued that Rivette's direction resulted in a product that "if never exactly dull and certainly the work of a master, is ultimately an empty film that has nothing to offer but its own cleverness". Keith Uhlich of Slant Magazine found it was "a lesser Rivette offering — a watchable, ultimately unfulfilling ghost story".