I wonder why no one has asked this before... So, did the writer deliberately "sacrifice" his wife for the job? I think it is unintentional.
shareThe feeling I got from watching was that he didn't intentionally do it and that it was more or less the fallout from his decision. It seemed like the whole middle part of the movie built upon the fact he couldn't understand her and what she wanted and as such the wife takes the actions she does.
shareNot knowing that is somehow the whole point of the movie. We see several subjective views in the two decisive moments of both Piccoli and Bardot and the whole film ist about the tragedy of interpretation, which causes actual and real tragedy in real life. Look at how they try to reinterpret the Oddyssey, and both Paul and Camille do that in a way which fits their own ends. The question posed is, where and what exactly is the cause of what is happening, Godard achieves that by showing us only effects and interpretations. Fritz Lang advises the other characters to let go of their "modern", neurotic perceptions and see the world as it is, as an undividable whole.
Watch Rossellini's "Viaggio in Italia", a masterpiece of which this masterpiece is an uncredited remake of, and you should be confused about the causes of what's happening just as much. These two films are, maybe next to "Rear Window" and "Blue Velvet", the most fascinating (spiritual) twins of cinema history, at least in my opinion. And both films are about filmmaking just as much as about love. Incredible films.
Yeah, I noticed advertisements of Viaggio in Italia in the scene at the cinema and ofcourse immediately figured that Godard was deliberately referring to it :) Thanks for mentioning this, I might check it out someday.
-- It wants no straps (The Exorcist)
Aaah, that explains why the TV station I'm watching right now (arte) is first showing Le Mépris and directly after that (now) Viaggio in Italia....
shareI just watched the ARTE screening too. The reason what he 'sacrificed' his wife is explained much more clearly in the Alberto Moravia book (A Ghost At Noon - I think in English) which Godard's film is based on. It's actually a terrific book about the relationship between a screenwriter and a mean and greedy producer. In the book, the screenwriter has a typist who in a moment of weakness he tries to kiss and his wife witnesses this and trust breaks down between them, then it's an enormous moment when he deliberately lets her go alone in the producer's car.
shareHm. But that completely changes his character... I think we have to see the movie as an independent work, with different characters. There are women who would be angry if their partner would have not allowed them to drive with the producer... regardless if they want to or not. Thus he wanted to give her the sign that she is free to do as she pleases. We never learn how long they have been in a relationship, or how his previous relationships were. Who knows, maybe he lost his last relationship because the woman thought he didn't give her enough freedom, and thus he tries to do it better this time.
Basically I don't see any reason why he would try to "sacrifice" her to get the contract. He got the contract in the first place, he didn't have to fight for it. And he really didn't want to lose his wife, fought to get her back.
Indeed. Instead of "sacrifice" I would say "trust". He loved his wife and wanted to show that he trusted her. She was angry because he didn't know that she couldn't be trusted. She kept wanting him to take control, be a man, make the decisions, etc. It just wasn't a good match.
shareHe reveals in his interpretation of the Odyssey that he did it because he trusted Camille to be faithful, so no, it was unintentional. If he had done it intentionally, it would have been somehow suggested by his delivery, but both times when he let's her go, he does so in a very guileless way.
shareDonFarshido, I think you're right on the money. The ambiguity is the point. Sometimes we don't know consciously what we wanted, and we never will. The writer would say there's no way he meant it. The young wife would say how could he have treated her so carelessly. Dr. Freud would say...
It's about men and women and art and commerce and, of course, love, the impossibility of it in our Western world. The ambiguity of the writer's intentions and the couple's inability to really communicate with all the pressures around them is the reason for the story. This is our Odyssey.
As for the "Voyage In Italy" reference, if that truly was one of the many inspirations, and I don't doubt that on some level it probably was, then this is Rosselinni's film in reverse.
Godard rebuking his father?
I don't know why any of you would think it was "guiless" or that his intentions were "vague." If that were true, he'd have to be pretty naive - which he wasn't. The producer was a "pushy" American bull prone to taking what he wanted & treating those around him as playthings. The scene in which he waited for the secretary to stack up the trays that he had just knocked over, just to kick them over again, pretty much summed up who he was. The writer played the cuckold and his wife fell out of love with him because of it. It was that simple.
What made it slightly uninteresting to me was that the writer stayed the patsy throughout. I wish he would have turned a bit more defiant following his wife's infidelity and admonishments. Why let her off the hook so easily? He may have been a cuckold, but she wasn't forced to cheat as a response. She had a choice. That she blamed him for that shows her limitations - "to thine own self be true."
@weathered2
For me, BB's character was one of the most annoying characters in all of film history. She really had some mental problems, and frankly, if she didn't look the way she did, I think Paul would have just kicked her to the curb. Of course, then there wouldn't have been any film.
The whole world is a very narrow bridge. The key is to be fearless. R' Nachman of Breslov
You're overlooking a quite important element of the dynamic here: Paul too was being unfaithful. The tryst he had with Francesca on the way from the studio to Jack's house. Remember that?
sharedid the writer deliberately "sacrifice" his wife
No, his fault was inaction. His wife left him because he was indifferent to her. She didn't like the American, but at least he paid attention to her.
I think the ambiguity -- that we in the audience may each have a different answer to this question -- is part of the film. That said, to have her beauty used rather than loved is essential to the marriage for her, and essential, I would say, to all marriage. It's a common theme in several Godard films, this woman's point of view. As to the Oddysey, I think Lang had a better sense; they understood marriage in a different way. It was Penelope who kept her home -- and the culture -- together.
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.
share