How sad is this?

It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

While it is a pity that the story wasn't told with more visual finesse, this is trivial compared to our real-world problems. It takes a good movie to put that into perspective.

Strong acting helps the film overcome an uncertain premise and create characters that hold our attention absolutely.

The Nouvelle Vague originated from an ideology postulated in Cahiers du Cinéma in the '50s, specifically the idea that film could no longer be ruled by its narrative (which was often an adaptation of other media, particularly critically-acclaimed literary works) but should be completely dictated by the director or, as he was called when fulfilling this role, the 'auteur'. Thus the reactionary countermovement of the Nouvelle Vague proposed a sudden shift from narrative to formal and experimental factors as indicators of quality. Concerning this focus on the formal aspect was the preference of the Cahiers du Cinéma Critics for the mise-en-scène, namely the long take and deep-focus aesthetic (Cook, 2004; Gibbs, 2002).Indeed, the auteur theory or politique des auteurs continues to dominate in the discourse surrounding film, especially in journalistic circles. However, auteur theory has evolved since the Nouvelle Vague, as Kate Ince has illustrated in her analysis of François Ozon; it is no longer the aesthetical techniques in a director's body of work but recurring themes that identify an 'auteur' (2008). The change in meaning of 'auteur' is a clear index of the extent to which the 'broken thread' as Olivier Assayas called it has been reattached. In view of Ince's analysis, which uses the concepts of the Cahiers du Cinéma critics in a diametrical way, it seems that the abandonment of the 'nouvelle vague auteur' has fully disseminated in the academic discourse of film studies. The director is no longer seen as being able to dictate every aspect of the film production process, the only thing he has complete control over is the thematic content (Maule, 2008). As a consequence of the reinterpretation of the auteur theory, content analyses have become more commonplace leading to a declination in the number of formal analyses. For the purpose of complementing Ince's analysis of Ozon's work this essay will perform a close stylistic analysis of the film style in Jeune & Jolie (2013). In addition, it will provide empirical evidence to the claim that the post-nouvelle vague directors reintegrated and re-evaluated the narrative film tradition and style.Consequently, Assayas asserted that directors such as André Téchiné, Maurice Pialat, Jean Eustace and other post-nouvelle vague directors "re-attached the broken thread". In other words they reconciled with the film tradition that was rejected by the Cahier du Cinéma critics. Thus, filmmakers were no longer limited to a long take, deep-focus or, alternatively, an experimental film style. By adapting the existing stylistic tactics, which were institutionalised during the first half of the 20th century, films could once again be a medium to convey narratives.The methodology of the stylistic analysis is rooted in the cognitive film theory of David Bordwell, who proposed an empirical way of analysing the formal aspects of film in Figures Traced in Light. This essay will mainly utilise concepts from the first chapter, titled 'Staging and Style'. Firstly, Jeune & Jolie is created utilising the continuity editing of classical Hollywood, what Bordwell has postulated as the system of editing that least obstructs the viewer in his construction of the narrative while watching the film (1985). Since Ozon opts for this mode of editing it seems evident that he puts more emphasis on the narrative than on the formal aspect of his film. In the second place, Ozon utilises the traditional schemata of opening a scene with an establishing shot, followed by a recurring shot-reverse-shot scheme in which the major participants in the conversation appear alone in frame or is seen over the shoulder of another character (Bordwell, 2005). He uses the schemata for 18 scenes throughout Jeune & Jolie and therefore it constitutes the large part of all poly- and dialogues. Bordwell has noted that this schemata is one of the oldest, most institutionalised and accordingly the most understood method of showing a scene involving dialogue. Thus, once again Ozon elects to emphasize conveying the narrative instead of experimenting with the film form. Thirdly, the characters in Ozon's film dominate the frame and direct the camera, owing to the absence of any open frames; either montage or camera movement reframes the main character when he/she is about to leave the frame. This is most pronounced with the protagonist Isabelle, played by Marine Vacth. The way she is framed differs from the mood of the scene, generally falling into three major categories: BCU or CU for the emotional intense scenes, VLS or LS to show her progressing alienation from her environment and personal relationships, and lastly medium shots for neutral scenes. As a final point, Ozon incorporates not only the film style of the pre-nouvelle vague French Cinema, but also the whole of Western film tradition, dating back to the beginning of the 20th century. This is logical given the way the solution to a specific staging problem is passed on from filmmaker to filmmaker on a global scale, as western films are distributed throughout the entire Western world. Returning to the insistence of Ince that Ozon is an auteur on the basis of his content, this limited stylistic analysis has proven that he does not assert his personal mark on the aesthetic of the film. However, Ince has correctly concluded that Ozon dictates the themes in his film, leading him to be the "first mainstream queer filmmaker" (2008, p. 31). To conclude, in the contemporary French film industry an auteur is no longer determined by his style but by the recurring themes in his oeuvre. Film style has once again become a universal tool to help immerse the audience in the film and convey the narrative of the director.Bordwell, D. (1985). Narration in the fiction film: London, Routledge 1985.Bordwell, D. (2005). Staging and Style Figures traced in light : on cinematic staging (pp. 1-42). Berkeley; London: University of California Press.Cook, D. A. (2004). A history of narrative film (4th ed.). New York: W.W. Norton.Gibbs, J. (2002). Mise-en-scène : film style and interpretation. London: Wallflower.Ince, K. (2008). François Ozon's cinema of desire. In K. Ince (Ed.), Five directors : auteurism from Assayas to Ozon (pp. 157): Manchester University Press.Maule, R. (2008). The Difficult Legacy of the Nouvelle Vague: Olivier Assayas and French Film Authors at the End of Auteurism Beyond Auteurism: New Directions in Authorial Film Practices in France, Italy and Spain since the 1980s (pp. 81-105). Bristol: Intellect.

Before anyone gets a wrong idea that I am not a fan of French cinema, I have to say that I am quite the opposite, and it is with that state of mind that I approached this film. I really wanted to like it, and was willing to forgive many small and even some bigger mistakes. But, when an entire film is based on an unbelievable premise due to lack of motivation (and clear presence of repulsion toward such!), and when everything that follows is portrayed with distinct sense of repulsion, all of it wrapped up in a poor story, and even poorer observation of characters, there is really not much to celebrate here. The only reason I give this film three stars is Marine Vatch who was absolutely superb in her understated performance. Other than that, most everything was disappointing, from start to finish. The story could have been interesting if it better written. However, as it is, there is nothing to root for, nothing to discover, nothing to gain from watching what amounts to "watching the paint dry". It is slow, bordering with boring all the time, and the worst of all - empty. Devoid of any real emotion, good or bad. It is ennui at its worst. The ending missed a great opportunity for redemption, the middle part missed a great opportunity for some introspection, and the beginning missed a decent setup - as to why is the she doing the stuff she is doing... unless, of course, all you are after is a typical middle aged men's wet fantasy of a teenage girl who loves to get in bed with them. It appears that "Jeune and Jollie" is a thinly veiled attempt at selling us some sex as "deep and understated". It is neither deep nor understated, it is simply shallow and pointless. And yes, Marine is gorgeous, dressed or naked. I prefer her dressed as those other scenes were done in such poor taste I had to look away (literally). Not recommended at all, except as an insight into how quickly French cinema is failing.

Isabelle is a 16 year-old French girl. She is indeed beautiful, like a runway model, and just as expressionless throughout the entire movie. We meet her during a family summer vacation in the coast of France. During this vacation she loses her virginity to a German tourist. She has no feelings for him and no feelings or emotions about this event. Her little brother acts like a confidant and girlfriend of sorts since she doesn't seem to have any real friends, male nor female. At some point she celebrates her 17th birthday.Summer vacation ends and we meet are again sometime in the Fall, now a full-blown prostitute! No explanation or reasons are given. She maintains appearances for the family, she goes to school, claims to do homework with friends but spends her afternoons at hotels seeing mostly old men with various sexual appetites. One of them tells her "whore for a day, whore for life." She hides all her money, and it must be a lot, and her fancy clothes and somehow the family is clueless. One night she goes with her mom and stepdad to the opera. There she runs into one of her clients who pretends not to see her. She also catches her mom getting touchy with a family friend, with whose family they went on vacation during summer. From talking with a friend at school we gather that the reason she went into prostitution is entirely for the money so she can buy fancy stuff. Whether she actually buys anything is not clear.It takes the movie 40 minutes to decide whether it wants to tell a story or whether it's just going to be a window into someone's lame life. One day one of the old geezers croaks in the middle of sex. Isabelle escapes the hotel without telling anyone. Next, the police visit her mom at work and reveal Isabelle's secret life to her. They go trough her stuff, her computer where they find her prostitute profile, her money, work clothes, etc. The mom flips out. No more computers, no more escapades, no more social life. That and therapy. Isabelle in her aloofness pretends this has nothing to do with her. She even manipulatively flirts with her stepfather and therapist. But during interrogation we learn how she got into prostitution to begin with. One day leaving school she was approached by a guy who offered her money. Presumably she accepted. That, and she likes meeting new people. We learn that her father sends her money during birthdays and Christmas but is otherwise completely absent in her life.By now it's Winter and the mom allows Isabelle to accompany a friend to a party. There she meets a guy, they make out and end up being a couple. Later she tells him it's over. While babysitting she connects online with her work SIM card and discovers a lot of messages. Then she decides to meet someone in a hotel. It's the wife of the deceased client.It takes a while for Young & Beautiful to get going. It did win me over eventually, not so much because of the uninteresting character of Isabelle or the completely uncharismatic Marine Vacth but more because of the rest of the cast and characters that do a good job of portraying normal family life. For a French movie, the story is quite superficial. Despite the therapy, it doesn't go deeper into the reasons for her career choice. It's not really money because she gets plenty from her family. By all accounts her family loves her and cares for her. There is an unrealistic emptiness in her life that isn't explained either. In that regard it reminded me of the even more empty "Blue is the Warmest Color." She has no friends, she doesn't party or fool around with friends. In the entire movie she never laughs or giggles. She smiles authentically once, when her friend takes her out to dance during the party. Again, we have to remember she's supposed to be an attractive 17 year old high school student. I don't know what the fascination is that the French have with prostitution, but the Summer episode leads you to believe this could be a good coming-of-age story. Instead the prostitution angle comes out of nowhere, and doesn't go anywhere either. The movie ends on a blank note that captures pretty much the entire movie. I think reasons and explanations could have been given that would have made this movie more meaningful, but it only barely hints at these. As long as you don't expect some enriching and profound movie, Young & Beautiful is enjoyable nonetheless.

The story goes nowhere and ends fizzling out. In the movie, juvenile prostitution is presented as an innocent passage in the life of young adolescent girls. Some sort of victimless game. The plot is very weak and the characters lack consistency. They are vague and their role is not clear.Spoiler ***Everything revolve about insane sex and heavy lies***. The scenario is not credible nor convincing. At times, the movie seems a documentary of some sort. With this production, it is obvious that François Ozon pleased himself filming young and pretty Marine Vacth from every conceivable angles. Those who don't share the enthusiasm of François Ozon for the sex-appeal of Marine will not find any interest here.