MovieChat Forums > Le mépris (1964) Discussion > The Emperor has no clothes- inane piece ...

The Emperor has no clothes- inane piece of rubbish


This film reminds me of the story, "The Emperor has no Clothes". Everyone says it is amazing! fantastic! Art! Complicated! Deep! Groundbreaking Cinema!

However, as a movie lover I can say that the movie is an inane piece of rubbish. Ridiculous conversation, Terrible pacing, awful plot, preposterous music at the wrong times, crazy shots that go on and on for no reason, scenes that go on for no reason, actors that are there to pose, -shots of Bardots bare butt seems to be the raisson detre for the whole movie. The music makes me want to strangle someone. The dialogue in the apartment is ridiculous, and music starts to play in the middle for no reason, then stops, then starts then stops- for no reason. She wears a red towel for no reason. They talk absolute rubbish. there is no plot actually.

The emperor has no clothes. Bardot is beautiful. That's all.

reply

Uhh, another "movie lover" wheeling out the Clotheless Emperor parable as if it were such an original witticism.



"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

reply

Exactly, this movie deserves no better comparison than that.

reply

"The Emperor has no Clothes" sounds like an homage to (and perhaps an inversion of) "The Emperor's New Clothes."

For me, the new title conjures the famous images of Ghandi visiting the Lancashire cotton mills in the winter of 1931, dressed only in his usual ensemble of open sandals and a wrap of white cotton.

reply

Talk about conjuring an image. Ghandi going commando. Thanks a lot Simon.

reply

Sorry about that. Goodness knows what was wrong with me when I wrote that. It was just bizarre.

reply

I agreed with OP too, until I rewatched it. Now I see it as a credible portrait of a marriage breaking up for no obvious reason. Bardot actually does a pretty good job of changing from doting sex kitten to vindictive wife. Godard's swipes at the movie industry, as "corrupted" by Americans, are a little too sharp to be really effective.

A lot of what the OP objects to - scenes that go on for no reason; terrible pacing, etc - are obviously being done that way deliberately. Le Mepris functions very well as Godard's own metasnark of "big cinema" even as he's making a "big cinema" type film.



reply

A little mind incapable of recognizing brilliance comments as if he has standing.

Gee i wonder why Godard hated critics? A: Those who cannot, teach. Or think they can teach when they do not even understand how to teach, let alone their subject. Idiots are at their best mute.

~ Native Angeleno

reply

If he were really brilliant he would have found more good reasons to shoot Barot's derrière- he would have made better use of it if he were more "brilliant". He would have made a more logical cohesive coherent engrossing taut interesting film if he were "brilliant" , than this rambling piece of rubbish with shots of Bardot's posterior thrown in.

reply

He would have made a more logical cohesive coherent engrossing taut interesting film if he were "brilliant"


Personally, I think the movie is extremely "interesting" but you are correct, it is neither logical, cohesive, nor coherent, at times, which is what makes it so significant. Why must every movie adhere to a traditional form of narrative? The fact that you are seemingly looking for something "underneath" Godard's actual work suggests that the problem lies in your interpretation, not the film itself.

reply

Hear, hear!

reply

I share the view.
Attitude of Godard lovers toward this film reminds me of one of South Park episodes in which kids write a book that's supposed to be as disgusting as possible, but turns out to be a hit.

reply

This movie perfectly depicts all I despise about French cinema: nothing. And by "all" I mean NOTHING! Watching a French movie is sitting thru 100 minutes of nothingness.

reply

And this rather sweeping statement is meant, I suppose, to be a perfectly objective, non-xenophobic judgment of the cinematographic output of a whole country over more than a century. And, of course, Méliès did not pioneer anything, starting at the end of the XIXth century with countless innovative methods for shooting movement.

To dislike Le Mépris, that's nothing at all: there are hundreds, perhaps thousands of viewers who expressed their disarray after going to see a Bardot with shots of her cheeks mentioned in the publicity. Imagine how high the price was to pay for just having a glance at what are after all harmless views of her anatomy ! Maybe such people were expecting more skin, more Bardot cleavage (there is none to see whatsoever)? I'm kidding of course, because, sir (I presume), there is a lot more than voyeurism in your comments. And I am dead serious.

You will probably defend yourself by writing that you're an open-minded fellow and that you're the last person to be called a xenophobe or a racist. The worst culprits always do that: nobody wants to be associated with fascist ideas anymore. And yet! You owe lots of excuses to lots of people. Not only to French people working in cinema, but to the numerous French citizens who, guess what? can read English (as compared to the handful of anglophones who read French currently - everything being proportional - if we reverse the equation).

Now, past the completely moronic all-encompassing prejudice spewed against a whole nation, what take-home message are we supposed to keep from your post, buddy? Asking here is a figure of style, a simple prelude to my conclusion: that you're a raging francophobe and that like so (too) many people, you extend your own subjective feelings (to call them thoughts would be an insult to the human race) towards the way some French directors envision their films to the whole French cinema. On a public forum, you should at least balance your judgment (if that is still a theoretical possibility) by providing at least one or two examples of French films that make some sense according to your fascist views of cinema.

Sorry if you find that I'm overreacting, but nowadays, when someone so blatantly write such a sweeping predicament on a whole nation, I don't take this lightly. Such thinking is not only stupid (and that, sir, you are to the highest possible degree next to alienation), but also dangerous. Yes, I'm a francophone, but I'm not French. Nonetheless, I take this as personally as if you'd have said something like: "Me no like French Canadian cinema it stinks" because the French language is shared by hundreds of millions of people with a common sensibility, a common way to envision, name, describe and interact with things and people.

Next time, just think, if you have still a few intact neural centers in your frontal cortex.

reply

[deleted]

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Contempt-Blu-ray/8405/#Review

Blu-ray.com has a short but nicely analysed review of the movie..... So read it and all of you feel shame for yourselves.

reply

Bien dit, esti.

reply

One more ignorant to fatten my ignore list.

----------------------
http://viverdecinema.blogspot.com.br/

reply

Exactly how I feel about American mainstream cinema.

I Sympathize with Lars Von Trier.

reply

Almost against my better self, I absolutely agree. It was an interesting film, and I was certainly not bored, I just didn't think it was very good. I would watch it again though, for what that's worth.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

What would you do if I died today?


I'd die tomorrow.

reply

French, Italian or Bulgarian... it was a movie that was hard to stay awake for... I enjoyed some of her comedies from the 50's but this was boring.... sorry, my opinion....

reply

.. as to the best way to prepare possum : in a rotgut stew, or au naturel ?
BTW if you'd find it in your haert to translate "raisson detre" from Redstateish to English, please ?

reply