Why did she despise him?
Was it because he left her in the car with Palance?
"The task of art today is to bring chaos into order." - Theodor Adornoshare
Basically, yes; he did not stand up for her and essentially protect her, which is what she wanted. It shows more of how Paul is a weak-minded character, passive and indecisive, that is where the contempt truly derives from.
The only truly natural things are dreams,which nature cannot touch with decay
...if that's true, then why the hell did she get with Palance at the end?
share...so she could die in the car wreck. I know that's probably the wrong answer, but we're talking Godard here. I'm guessing he took out his anger and frustrations over the difficulties in his relationship with Anna Karina on the Bardot character. On the bonus features of the Made in USA dvd, there's an interview with Karina, where she jokes about how Godard used scenes from their marriage as material in the film. She relates that the Bardot line, "Red velvet. It's that or nothing," was something she had actually said in real life.
I also think, in his mind, Camille's reaction to Paul's actions was excessive. Like: "He has complete faith in you, and you repay his trust by suddenly falling out of love with him?!" Ok, I also thought he was a tool for letting her get in Palance's car, and, later, on the boat, but the punishment did not fit the crime. But, hey, that's just one man's opinion, and I'm going by the oft-stated remarks that Godard made films to basically please himself. Even with that being the case (maybe), Contempt is a tremendous look at the universal theme of the disconnect between the sexes. Guys can be dunderheads, women are overly emotional...this is how it's been since time immemorial. Maybe, just maybe, he's trying to tell us that unless we start at least trying to understand each other, we'll all end up like the characters in this tragedy.
No matter how you slice it, though, this film is a masterpiece, and probably Godard's best.
Guys can be dunderheads, women are overly emotional...this is how it's been since time immemorial.
That's just an inane stereotype though. The problem wasn't Camille's emotional response to Paul's actions but her inability to express it effectively (of course you don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand that Paul's a spineless, sycophantic pushover). Frustration with language's inadequacy to properly convey meaning and truth is a common theme in Godard's filmography. There is no disconnect between the sexes except the one that we create, certainly not the one you describe anyhow.
-------------
Live Deliciously! http://bit.ly/2gD7xFP share
She saw those qualities in him which manifested the contemptuous nature. The whole movie Paul wanted Camille to make the choice about anything and everything. For instance, if they go to Capri and if he should write the script; she wants a man in charge, hence Prokosch's car the "Alpha Romeo." Prokosch is immature but he is the alpha male of the film ordering people around, and later becomes her romeo--or love interest.
We actually never see a true and happy connection between them. One might say the scene on their bed but if you look closely Camille is insecure about herself. Even their attempts to please or love the other is either declined or done incorrectly--Paul rejects the offer of Camille getting or her knees while Paul tries to be affectionate but to Camille he does it wrong;"Gently Paul. Not so hard." The two don't know how to love each other which in a way foreshadows their falling apart.
This is probably one of the most well-written observations of the downfall of a marriage/relationship. The constant bickering back anf forth about insignificant things. The "you dont love me anymore's" used loosely while one person waits for the other to take control of this downward spiral.
The only truly natural things are dreams,which nature cannot touch with decay
Wow. Some great analysis here. I have to agree with AfterwardDeified about the punishment not fitting the crime. Not so much "punishment," but perhaps an overreaction on Camille's part. Nothing ever seems to be good enough for these characters (I suppose that could be another one of the themes of this movie). Nothing Paul does is ever good enough for Camille. Nothing Camille tells Paul during their fight, ("it's OK," "I'm not that hurt," "let's just forget the whole thing," etc) is good enough for Paul.
Even the act of getting with Prokosch seems like an act of forlorn hope for Camille, almost as though she's resigning herself to it. She doesn't seem to like Prokosch a whole hell of a lot more than she likes Paul (albeit for different reasons), but she almost seems to be telling herself that she can't have it both ways, and if she wants a man who will be strong and dominant, who will lead, and uphold her dignity and support her as she feels a man should, then Prokosch's brash, abrasive, domineering ways are a part of the package, and she just has to accept the bargain for what it is.
...also, beyond just leaving her in the car with Prokosch, Paul is also somewhat at fault here for shamelessly hitting on the pretty brunette secretary
Yes, some great analysis of a great film.
For the record, I rated this film 8/10.
That sounds more like it, Cozgy! I'm going through all of Godard's available films on netflix now, so it's one viewing and on to the next movie. To get a better idea, I'd obviously need to see it again. But you're right, I totally forgot about Paul's overall wishy-washiness in regards to the script and Capri.
Why did she end up dying with Prokosch, though? What's the symbolism there, if any? It kinda reminded me of Jules et Jim's ending (SPOILERS), where both Catherine (was that her name, I'm going by memory) and Jim ended up dying, and Jules survived (physically, anyway). The husband's who were "cheated on," as weak as they were, lived to see another day.
An ironic ending that recalls the earlier passage Camille reads about the unfaithful wife: if he kills his wife he loses her, if he kills his wife's lover he loses her. Moral being that violence does not solve anything.
Yet really Camille wanted him to manifest some kind of violence, or at least jealousy. Wanted proof of his love for her. His passivity in the end is what drives her away, and, instead of killing his wife or her lover, Paul propels her to her lover, the two of whom die together, Paul losing Camille just the same.
Some great analyses going on here. Thanks everyone.
share@cozay012
I know that's what the film WANTS us to think, but personally, I think the answer is much more basic -- she was a nut case. Seriously. She was emotionally immature, was incapable of expressing herself regarding what she was feeling, totally went off the deep end over something that may or may not have even happened, and left the audience to either sympathize with her over her insufferable brooding, or tune her out, which is what I did.
The whole world is a very narrow bridge. The key is to be fearless. R' Nachman of Breslov