Is Love Ever Truly Free? Jules and Jim and the Structure of the Psyche

Article written in collaboration with @nicolamilano.psi

Introduction

Jules and Jim does not show that loving as a threesome is impossible. It shows that no pact can suspend the way the psyche desires.

François Truffaut’s film (1962), based on Henri-Pierre Roché’s semi-autobiographical novel (1953), follows for almost twenty years, from 1912 to the 1930s, the friendship between Jules and Jim and their love for Catherine, played by Jeanne Moreau. For 1960s audiences it was a manifesto of freedom: a woman who chooses, two men who give up possession, a bond that defies bourgeois marriage. Truffaut himself, however, described it as a hymn to life and death and a demonstration of the impossibility of any romantic arrangement outside the couple.

This article takes that reading seriously and discusses it through a few psychoanalytic concepts (desire, the symbolic Third, jealousy, repetition). It then tests the reading against empirical research on consensually non-monogamous relationships. The thesis is that love is “not free” not because loving freely is impossible, but because amorous freedom cannot evade the unconscious structure of desire.

The film and its context

The film is not a pamphlet on free love. It is a story that already contains, within itself, doubt about the thesis it seems to defend. Roché’s novel (1953), written late in life and inspired by real events in the author’s life, has a nostalgic and almost naïve tone: three people trying to live by a pact of loyalty and pleasure. Truffaut (1962), at his third feature after The 400 Blows and Shoot the Piano Player, keeps the voice-over and the lightness but shifts the center of gravity. The fast editing, the freeze frames, the music and the bicycle ride of the first part convey joy; the second part, after the war, turns toward mourning.

This two-part structure is already an interpretation. The freedom of the first part is made of games, bets and shared transgressions. In the second part the same gestures become repetition, blackmail, flight, and the promises do not survive the passing of the years. The characters are not united in the project either. Jules is willing to do anything to stay close to Catherine; Catherine is not satisfied with any stable position; and Jim, who repeatedly seeks an ordinary relationship with another woman, reveals a need for a more conventional form of bond than the one he preaches.

Reading the film with psychoanalytic tools therefore does not mean reducing it to a clinical case. It means recognizing that the tension between declared freedom and psychic structure is already its narrative material, and using theory to name it.

Desire is born of lack

For psychoanalysis, desire is not extinguished by satisfaction: it lives as long as a lack remains open. Lacan distinguishes need, which can be satisfied, from the demand for love, which asks for proof of presence, and from desire, which is the remainder that no answer fills (Lacan, 1966/2006). For this reason desire is always, ultimately, desire of the Other, of what the Other has, is or lacks (Lacan, 1973/1998a). Recalcati (2012) draws a clinical consequence: the object of desire is never the object possessed, but what escapes.

Literary criticism offers indirect confirmation. Girard (1961/1965) showed that desire is rarely linear: it orients itself through a mediator, a model or a rival who points to the object as desirable. Desire is therefore structurally triangular, even when a pact declares it has been made egalitarian.

Truffaut’s trio can be read in this light. Jules is willing to accept that Jim live with Catherine rather than lose her. But his very renunciation of rivalry removes part of the engine that holds the three together. Catherine, for her part, tends to invest in the man who is escaping her at that moment, and leaves him when he becomes fully available. A perfect symmetry among the three, in which no one is truly excluded and no one is truly unique, risks depriving desire of its condition: difference.

Tenderness and sensuality: the split in love

Love and desire do not coincide, and the distance between them is one of the reasons why no amorous project can be fully transparent. Freud (1912/1957b) describes two currents that development should bring together: the affectionate one, born of early care, and the sensual one, directed at the sexual object. When the fusion succeeds only in part, love life divides: affection goes to the person who is respected and desire to the one who is not, with the result, Freud writes, that where such people love they do not desire, and where they desire they cannot love. One need not accept his explanation wholesale to recognize the clinical phenomenon, which many psychotherapists encounter in long-term couples.

On the Lacanian side, the best-known formula is that to love is to give what one does not have to someone who does not want it (Lacan, 1991/2015). There is no perfect reciprocity, because each loves in the other what they lack, and the other does not possess it. Perel (2006) draws a practical indication from this: eroticism needs space between partners, while intimacy reduces it. Mitchell (2002) adds that in adult life couples try to reconcile two needs that are hard to hold together, security and passion.

In the film this division is visible. Jules embodies devotion and tenderness and becomes Catherine’s safe harbor. Jim is the man of desire, the one with whom the relationship burns and consumes itself. Their coexistence seems to Catherine a solution: two men for two currents. But the split, instead of integrating love, multiplies it into roles that none of the three can inhabit for long. Catherine finds in neither man the completeness she seeks, and cannot find it, because completeness is precisely what the structure of desire excludes.

The symbolic Third and the risk of fusion

A relationship does not rest on absolute freedom: it requires a Third that introduces distance between the two. By “Third,” Lacanian psychoanalysis indicates a function, not a person: the law, the word, the limit that separates the subject from the object of desire and allows the subject to bear lack (Lacan, 1966/2006). Where this function falters, the relationship tends toward fusion, or toward an oscillation between fusion and rupture.

The clinical study of couple relationships confirms this too, in different language. Kernberg (1995) describes the couple as a structure with a boundary, within which intimacy, exclusion and the relationship to oedipal fantasies are regulated. Mitchell (2002) and Perel (2006) observe that security and passion tend to compete. The first asks for closeness and predictability, the second requires distance and a margin of mystery. Lacan (1975/1998b) pushes the point to its limit, asserting that between two subjects there is no relationship that makes them complementary.

In the film this Third is missing, or rather is declared abolished. The Paris of Jules and Jim is an enclave of artists who believe themselves sheltered from social rules. But when the war separates the protagonists, when a daughter is born, when they have to decide where to live, the limit returns in the form of reality. The point to stress is that the Third does not coincide with monogamy. It is a symbolic function, and it can also be performed by an explicit agreement, by negotiated rules, by a shared language. What the film lacks is precisely this.

Two “thirds” not to be confused

The symbolic Third and the flesh-and-blood third are different things, and the difference explains why a triangle is not enough to make a Third. The former is a function; the latter is a person who enters the relationship. Britton (1989) described “triangular space” as the capacity, won in development, to tolerate that the parents have a relationship from which the child is excluded, and to observe it from a third position without being annihilated by it. Those with access to this space can think about the relationship instead of merely enduring it. Those without it oscillate between fusion and persecution: either they are inside, or they are outside, and exclusion is experienced as a threat.

Systemic therapy offers a complementary perspective. Bowen (1978) described triangulation as the process by which two people, when tension between them rises, involve a third to reduce anxiety: the tension is distributed, the relationship seems to stabilize, but the underlying problem is not addressed. In this sense, the triangle can be a way of avoiding the Third rather than realizing it.

This is how Jim’s function in the relationship between Jules and Catherine can be read. His presence eases the tension of a couple that cannot hold on its own, and delays the moment when what is missing would have to be named. But an extra person does not introduce the law, the word or the limit: it introduces another object of desire and rivalry. That is why the trio, though it has three vertices, is not a triangular space in Britton’s sense. No one occupies the position from which the relationship could be observed, and each remains inside, a prisoner of their own role.

Jealousy as narcissistic wound

Jealousy is not merely a residue of the “property of feelings”: it touches an ancient narcissistic wound. Freud (1922/1955b) describes “normal” jealousy as a mixture of grief over the possible loss, narcissistic injury, hostility toward the rival and self-criticism, and traces its roots to the earliest childhood rivalries. The need to be the only one for the other refers back to primary narcissism, to the experience of having been the center of the parents’ desire (Freud, 1914/1957a).

This reading is not the only one. Evolutionary psychology, for example, interprets jealousy as an adaptive response to threats to the pair bond (Buss, 2000). The two approaches do not exclude each other: the first explains the subjective meaning of the experience, the second its prevalence. Both, however, agree on a point that is decisive for the film: jealousy is widespread and hardly dissolves by decree.

In the three protagonists, the declared renunciation of jealousy coexists with a suffering that finds no words. Jules, the most tolerant, is also the one who suffers in silence. Catherine, who claims freedom for herself, reacts violently when Jim attaches himself to other women. None of the three truly gives up the illusion of being the privileged object of the other’s desire: the psychic structure remains where the shared life project had declared it overcome.

Freedom or repetition compulsion?

What in the film appears as freedom often resembles repetition. Freud (1914/1958) observes that what cannot be remembered tends to be re-enacted, in the form of action, in present relationships. In Beyond the Pleasure Principle (Freud, 1920/1955a) repetition acquires further weight: the subject returns to painful situations without deriving pleasure from them, as if something in the psyche pressed harder than the search for well-being. Lacan (1973/1998a) takes up the theme, distinguishing repetition as automatism from the missed encounter with the real that it keeps seeking.

Catherine’s famous line, “You love me, I love you. We chase each other, we lose each other, we find each other again,” is usually read as the manifesto of a love without conventions. But it also describes a circular structure: approach, disappointment, separation, return. When the cycle produces no transformation, it recalls what Freud called the repetition compulsion. The ending, with the car that Catherine launches into the void with Jim beside her, is the extreme outcome of that circle and shows its price.

A methodological caution is necessary. Catherine is not a patient, and a character cannot be diagnosed. The psychoanalytic reading also risks pathologizing a female figure whom the film renders as vital, ironic, stubbornly free. It is more accurate to say that the film offers a figure of repetition: it shows how a conscious project of freedom can coexist with dynamics that the subject does not govern.

Catherine seen by two men

A psychoanalytic reading of the film must reckon with the point of view from which the film itself is told. The story is narrated through the eyes of the two friends, and Catherine reaches us mostly as the object of their desire, their admiration and their unease. Mulvey (1975) showed how narrative cinema tends to organize the spectator’s gaze around the male one, placing the female figure as an image to be looked at rather than as a subject who looks. Truffaut’s film is not a pure case of this mechanism, because it gives Catherine many scenes in which she speaks, decides, surprises. But it is not immune to it either.

This has an interpretive consequence. If we say that Catherine “repeats,” “splits,” “cannot tolerate lack,” we risk translating into clinical categories what the film presents as an enigma desired by men. The very structure we attribute to her psyche belongs, to no lesser degree, to Jules and Jim: Jules’s desire for a woman he cannot possess, Jim’s choice to stay in the game as long as the game holds. An honest reading distributes the structure across all three, and does not make it weigh on her alone.

Finally, there is a question that psychoanalysis alone does not resolve: how much did the social conditions of the time make the choice of an unconventional love life more costly for a woman? The film suggests that Catherine does not yield only to an inner destiny: she moves in a world that offers no recognized forms for her choices. Keeping this in mind does not weaken the initial thesis. It sharpens it, because it distinguishes what belongs to the structure of desire from what belongs to history and society.

Summary

The table brings together the concepts discussed, how they appear in the film, and the reference sources.

Concept	What the theory says	How it appears in the film	Sources
Desire and lack	Desire lives as long as a lack remains open; it is desire of the Other	Catherine invests in whoever escapes her and leaves whoever becomes available	Lacan (1973/1998a); Girard (1961/1965)
Split between tenderness and sensuality	Affection and desire can divide over different objects	Jules as safe harbor, Jim as the man of desire	Freud (1912/1957b); Mitchell (2002)
Symbolic Third	A function of limit and word that introduces difference	The trio’s pact declares every rule abolished	Lacan (1966/2006); Kernberg (1995)
Triangular space and triangulation	Being able to observe the relationship from a third position; avoiding drawing in a third to reduce anxiety	Jim stabilizes the couple without giving it a limit	Britton (1989); Bowen (1978)
Jealousy	A mixture of grief, narcissistic wound, hostility and self-criticism	Declared tolerance and silent suffering	Freud (1922/1955b); Buss (2000)
Repetition compulsion	What is not remembered is acted out; repetition goes beyond pleasure	The cycle of chases, separations and returns; the ending	Freud (1914/1958; 1920/1955a)

Beyond the film: what the research says

Research on consensually non-monogamous relationships does not confirm that love outside the couple is impossible. The available reviews indicate that people in this kind of relationship report, on average, levels of psychological well-being and relationship quality comparable to those of people in monogamous couples (Conley et al., 2017; Rubel & Bogaert, 2015). The limits must be stated: samples are often self-selected and the field is still young, so no definitive conclusions can be drawn.

A second element concerns the lens through which we judge these relationships. Conley et al. (2013) found that monogamous relationships are evaluated more favorably than non-monogamous ones on many dimensions (satisfaction, trust, intimacy), even when there is no information about how they actually function. This “halo effect” of monogamy is a reminder that part of the prejudice about “non-free” love arises from the fact that the couple is the culturally dominant form, not only from what the psyche requires.

These data do not contradict the psychoanalytic reading; they refine it. What the film shows is not the failure of every non-monogamous form, but the failure of a form without a Third: no explicit rules, no word naming the limits, no place where jealousy can be spoken. Unconventional relationships that work seem to do so precisely because they rebuild, in a negotiated way, a symbolic function (agreements, boundaries, shared language). Attachment theory also reminds us that adult love is not only passion: it includes the need for a secure base (Hazan & Shaver, 1987), which a structureless trio can hardly guarantee.

Conclusions

Jules and Jim is not a scientific demonstration, but a powerful staging of three clinically relevant ideas. Desire needs lack and difference. Every bond requires a third function that regulates its distance. Jealousy and repetition are traces of a psychic history that no manifesto erases. Amorous freedom, then, is not the absence of structure, but the possibility of recognizing it and inhabiting it with greater awareness.

References 

Bowen, M. (1978). Family therapy in clinical practice. Jason Aronson.

Britton, R. (1989). The missing link: Parental sexuality in the Oedipus complex. In J. Steiner (Ed.), The Oedipus complex today: Clinical implications (pp. 83–101). Karnac Books.

Buss, D. M. (2000). The dangerous passion: Why jealousy is as necessary as love and sex. Free Press.

Conley, T. D., Matsick, J. L., Moors, A. C., & Ziegler, A. (2017). Investigation of consensually nonmonogamous relationships: Theories, methods, and new directions. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(2), 205–232.

Conley, T. D., Moors, A. C., Matsick, J. L., & Ziegler, A. (2013). The fewer the merrier?: Assessing stigma surrounding consensually non-monogamous romantic relationships. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 13(1), 1–30.

Freud, S. (1955a). Beyond the pleasure principle. In J. Strachey (Ed. & Trans.), The standard edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud (Vol. 18, pp. 7–64). Hogarth Press. (Original work published 1920)

Freud, S. (1955b). Some neurotic mechanisms in jealousy, paranoia and homosexuality. In J. Strachey (Ed. & Trans.), The standard edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud (Vol. 18, pp. 221–232). Hogarth Press. (Original work published 1922)

Freud, S. (1957a). On narcissism: An introduction. In J. Strachey (Ed. & Trans.), The standard edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud (Vol. 14, pp. 67–102). Hogarth Press. (Original work published 1914)

Freud, S. (1957b). Contributions to the psychology of love II: The most prevalent form of degradation in erotic life. In J. Strachey (Ed. & Trans.), The standard edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud (Vol. 11, pp. 177–190). Hogarth Press. (Original work published 1912)

Freud, S. (1958). Remembering, repeating and working-through (Further recommendations on the technique of psycho-analysis II). In J. Strachey (Ed. & Trans.), The standard edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud (Vol. 12, pp. 145–156). Hogarth Press. (Original work published 1914)

Girard, R. (1965). Deceit, desire, and the novel: Self and other in literary structure (Y. Freccero, Trans.). Johns Hopkins University Press. (Original work published 1961)

Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(3), 511–524.

Kernberg, O. F. (1995). Love relations: Normality and pathology. Yale University Press.

Lacan, J. (1998a). The seminar of Jacques Lacan: Book XI. The four fundamental concepts of psychoanalysis (J.-A. Miller, Ed.; A. Sheridan, Trans.). W. W. Norton. (Original work published 1973)

Lacan, J. (1998b). The seminar of Jacques Lacan: Book XX. On feminine sexuality, the limits of love and knowledge, Encore 1972–1973 (J.-A. Miller, Ed.; B. Fink, Trans.). W. W. Norton. (Original work published 1975)

Lacan, J. (2006). Écrits: The first complete edition in English (B. Fink, Trans.). W. W. Norton. (Original work published 1966)

Lacan, J. (2015). Transference: The seminar of Jacques Lacan, Book VIII (J.-A. Miller, Ed.; B. Fink, Trans.). Polity Press. (Original work published 1991)

Mitchell, S. A. (2002). Can love last? The fate of romance over time. W. W. Norton.

Mulvey, L. (1975). Visual pleasure and narrative cinema. Screen, 16(3), 6–18.

Perel, E. (2006). Mating in captivity: Unlocking erotic intelligence. HarperCollins.

Recalcati, M. (2012). Ritratti del desiderio. Raffaello Cortina.

Roché, H.-P. (1953). Jules et Jim. Gallimard.

Rubel, A. N., & Bogaert, A. F. (2015). Consensual nonmonogamy: Psychological well-being and relationship quality correlates. The Journal of Sex Research, 52(9), 961–982.

Truffaut, F. (Director). (1962). Jules et Jim [Film]. Les Films du Carrosse; SEDIF.