O.K., I get it. The movie was trying to recapture the simplicity of life of a peasant couple and contrast it implicitly with the hubbub and complexity of modern life, imparting a degree of dignity to their mundane activities. I guess it also portrayed the unquestioning nature of their existence, which found solace and meaning in everyday repetitive chores. However, the intent is one thing, and the result something totally different. I believe the director was confusing artistic reality with verisimilitude. The whole idea of this movie could've been imparted in 10-15 minutes, and nothing would've been lost.
Also, it was quite obvious that both Jules and Felicie were occasionally self-conscious about being on camera, so this greatly diminishes the credibility of their natural responses and behavior.
I can see how this can be a valuable historical record of how French peasants from Burgundy lived in the first half of the 20th century since very little had changed in their lives in the late 60's and early 70's. But, as a valuable work of art - not so much.
Also, it was quite obvious that both Jules and Felicie were occasionally self-conscious about being on camera, so this greatly diminishes the credibility of their natural responses and behavior.
I can see how this can be a valuable historical record of how French peasants from Burgundy lived in the first half of the 20th century since very little had changed in their lives in the late 60's and early 70's. But, as a valuable work of art - not so much.