'cause I'm having trouble finding it underneath the meta-gymnastics.
This is the sort of film a robot would make about human social relations. Providing that robot really hated humans. And suffered from indigestion.
I was about to throw Contempt in the DVD player so I checked out the IMDB comments. I dont know if I completely agree with your post, but it made me laugh.....and second guess putting Contempt on...
well done
I totally disagree.In fact I found it to be one of the most emotionally involving films I've ever seen(& I've done every Bergman).The couple's problems were recognizable to every artist.
sharei dont agree either.
the emotions of the characters seemed very real to me: the man who understands too late why his wife doesn't love him anymore, and the wife that doesnt love her husband anymore for a seemingly unimportant reason, seemed very human. I even think thats the whole point of the movie: the misinterpretation of emotions in a relationship. The way this is presented with the help of the symbolic and even straight forward references to the Odyssey is remarkable and lovable.
"I collect blondes and bottles" - The Big Sleep
I agree with number one. I gave it a chance but had to give up after 30 of the most boring minutes of my life. I can't remember a film that so thouroughly failed to engage me. The acting was mechanical and stilted, characters thinly drawn, motives too predictable, and to be honest, the compositions seemed amatuerish. I have to believe that commercial films abandoned Goddard, not the other way around. I think it was Welles that said a movie has to capture the viewer in the first 10 minutes. If not, you have to consider the work a failure. We make fun of the French for hailing Jerry Lewis as an auteur? Goddard must be France's revenge on American audiences. And believe me, I wanted to like this dreck.
shareI've gotta say, and I'm surprised by how many people don't seem to grasp this concept, BUT just because a film is unlikeable or difficult to watch (which Contempt was both of) does NOT mean it does not deserve respect. It does NOT mean that the appreciation for such film making shouldn't be present.
I understand completly that you found it difficult to watch but it is NOT a movie that deserves jokes or the word bored subscribed to it.
Sitting through it is difficult, no doubt, but it was, without a doubt, an extradorinary piece of film making.
**Vote OBAMA '08. Register Easily at Votepoke.com**
No, I did not say it's boring. Anything that inspires people to react so negatively could never be boring. It is, however, mechanical and soulless--like staring into the eyes of a chicken. There's no intention there; it's all cluck cluck cluck and pecking at food pellets.
We're not even allowed to admire the naked form of Brigitte Bardot; Godard ruins it with overly obvious points about the construction of female beauty by cinema.
Dear Jean-Luc: just because it's fake doesn't mean it's not real.
Nothing left except Clorox bottles and plastic fly swatters with red dots on them!share
It is, however, mechanical and soulless--like staring into the eyes of a chicken.The music and cinematography give it soul, if nothing else. Curiously the statues of Ulysses, Minerva and Neptune would fit your description of staring into dead eyes. I suspect chickens being sentient animansl have life in their eyes.
Never test the depth of the water with both feetshare
I think it was Welles that said a movie has to capture the viewer in the first 10 minutes.The very introductory scene (camera on dolly coming towards viewer with voiceover of the cast) did exactly that to me. share
I have just seen a newly restored print of Contemp (Le Mepris). I must confess that I would not call myself an expert on its themes but its purpose is worth solid reflection.
I point out that this film has had the greatest number of members of our local Film Club walk out of any film in the 30 years of our Film Club’s existence. Yet, despite my inadequacies in analysis, I think that to ascribe the tag of ‘Boring’ to Contempt overlooks the complex thesis that lies at its
heart.
Godard has crafted a film that seeks to pay homage to the art of film. It was very short, but our print started with a short prologue where a voice-over asserts that film is used by viewers not to present reality, but to change the world to show what fits in with our beliefs and hopes (this is the best recollection of it that I have). [It is: “The cinema substitutes for our gaze a world more in harmony with our desires.” http://www.tinymixtapes.com/Jean-Luc-Godard-Retrospective]. This is shown in the film where Fritz, the Director wants to make a film faithful to the myth of Ulysses, but the crass Producer, Jerry, has the gall to alter even this sacred text to make a film that will follow his manufactured view about the gap in the relationship between men and women. Perhaps the irony is that this artificial construct is made manifest, and comes to life, in the downward spiral of Paul, the writer, and Camille his wife. What Paul derides and scoffs at in Jerry’s new version of Ulysses actually undermines his own once-beautiful marital relationship. Perhaps Goddard is positing the duality of film’s role: is it all fiction and only that, or is the fiction presenting to us (even though perhaps we may not pick up on it) a fairly true reality of our world.
(As a somewhat-related aside, Aristotle said to the effect that the invented and imagined may be regarded as superior to the actual and the real when he said that poetry is superior to history: “Poetry is finer and more philosophical than history; for poetry expresses the universal, and history only the particular.” Poetics.)
Good analysis, Fish. My DVD has that voice over also; it's one of the keys to understanding the film (do some prints omit it?). I got a lot out of this film, and there's much more I didn't grasp.
But I have to agree with the original poster: the characters are very robotic and soulless. Camille could be straight out of The Stepford Wives (but with a silicon chip loose in her head), and while Paul has some emotional outbursts, he is unconvincing as a human because he suddenly switches gears back to his apathetic "Sam Spade" persona. Fritz is a mindless automaton who understands all but does nothing.
Of all the characters it's only Jerry, the antagonist, who is remotely human, because he's constantly animated, passionate and has strong, consistent emotional convictions.
I'm sure Godard planned it that way, but I haven't figured out what the significance is. I think it's really interesting, but for people who are expecting to connect with the protagonists it's probably annoying and confounding.
Here's what I think. Toward the end, Fritz makes the analogy of how Ulysses' downfall is due to his lack of conviction when dealing with his wife's suitors. First he encourages them for propriety's sake, because he's too uncommited to make a stand. Similarly, the character Paul (as well as Fritz as well as Camille) lack the backbone to stand up for what they feel. I mean, half the movie is about them deciding if they want to go to Capri or not! Like mindless robots, no character (except Jerry) will take responsibilty for any decision, no matter how trivial.
Another thing, notice how many times Jerry/Francesca ask a question and say "Yes or no?" and not once does Paul, Camille or Fritz answer with a yes or no. Indecision at its best. You just want to put them all in a line and give them a big Three Stooges slap across the face :D
I really think this was intentional, which is why I found the film so interesting.
The indecision aspect of this film was great, one of the best parts.
Truly a classic. Truly modern.
The people become a living regret because they never make a decision.
They seem afraid to fail but that’s the only way to attains wisdom, if you don't fail some of the time, you aren't trying hard enough.
These folks are barely alive, let alone, trying.
Reminds me of a quote from one of Godard’s countrymen Henri Frederic Amiel:
The man who insists upon seeing with perfect clearness before he decides, never decides. Accept life, and you must accept regret.
Life is never clear. But once you start making choices it get very clear, very fast, almost simple.
I very much agree with the OP.
Let me preface this by saying that I think this is a film most certainly worthy of respect, (and Godard has never made a "bad" film.) The attention to detail was impeccable, and it featured some of the most striking visuals I have ever seen.
But as a film, as a story, it completely fell flat with me.
I think someone used the word "meta-gymnastics", which is a very apt description of this movie. It was just so aware of itself, even down the "B.B." Brigette Bardot/Brecht alignment, and Camille's wig which was totally Anna Karina in "Vivre Sa Vie" (didn't Godard and her divorce the year this came out? Hm.)
I just didn't like how the movie handed its content on a platter to the viewer, through obscure quotations and over-the-top symbolism. The whole movie I was just thinking: "SHOW me what this means, SHOW me what this feels like, stop TELLING me." As an audience, I felt pretty alienated. But what with Godard's fascination with Brecht, I can see where that was probably his intent.
If there was less philosophizing, and more emotion to support its strong visuals, I feel I'd actually like this film as much as I just appreciate it.
And that's why the OP will never get it, but hey ho, in our age of inversion, ignorance is a virtue. The OPs pretentious attempts to gain recognition as a stand-up comedian are risibly transparent. OP ,this is a film forum for people sharing their hermeneutics of this work with other people who have something enlightening to say, and the pseudo-standup forum can be found elsewhere. Making a spectacle of your inadequacy like this is most undignified.
shareDo yourself all a favour and do not judge this film after a first viewing. Do yourself a favour and try to embrace everything which seems so unlikeable at first glance... that is the only way to broaden your horizon as film viewers. Of course, some films remain unlikeable, and I don't want to say that everybody has to love Contempt, but I'm absolutely sure a great many of the guys scoffing at it now will be able to appreciate it once.
That film is mechanical in no sense - all of the distance and the alienation improve the huge emotional depth of this film once you grasp it. Its "problem" is actually its strength - its refusal to identify itself (its conflicts, its emotions) in an emotionally easy accessible way. That doesn't mean that you have to "unlock" its meaning - the film is like an open book and does not have unnessecary secrets about its content. Knowledge is a process and emotion is a process as well. In my opinion, this film is very human. You can make the same claim about it being "mechanical" when you talk about Bresson, Dreyer or Kubrick's "Barry Lyndon" as well. Often a film's ostensible "coldness" is a shell for its extreme and nearly unbearable emotionality.
'Often a film's ostensible "coldness" is a shell for its extreme and nearly unbearable emotionality.'
Very true. And I agree fully on Barry Lyndon. That movie is hard, devastatingly hard. And I agree there is emotional depth in Le Mépris, but this movie suffers from too much french gibberish for my taste: the pretentious blaba, symbolic overkill, boring neuroticism, the walking-between-rooms. I enjoyed it, and it certainly has beauty, but I don't think it's great.
An hour into this film I finally got what it was about. I have yet to watch the last half hour, presumably when they go to Capri and Paul's marriage finally breaks up and he figures out what he did wrong. I was amazed to see a director focus most of the film on one subtle incident that happens to Bardot's character early in the film. I wondered what Paul's motivation was, was it truly just an innocent mistake, or did he really want to improve his standing with the producer by offering up his wife? He doesn't seem to care about her as he flirts with the secretary. I think this film works best if you watch it over a few days.
share
This was the thread I was looking for! I saw it as a revival at The Charles here in Baltimore, yesterday.
I appreciate the great discussion. I agree with the first poster, although the others make compelling arguments. Maybe I need to watch it again. I just couldn't get what was going on. People acting like people don't act. Paul suddenly touches Francesca's bottom for no discernible reason. Camille pleads with her eyes (twice) not to be given to Jerry, and yet Paul lets Jerry take her. Camille suddenly, with no warning, no prefiguring, just goes batsh*t and wants a divorce. I very much appreciate the comments of the film's admirers on this thread.
But I have to tell you: the scene in bed at the beginning of the movie was -- un believable. Good god! Talking about all her body parts. I was moved. She (at the age she was in 1965, and with extensive makeup and hairstyle) has the prettiest face I've ever seen -- an 11 -- and the rest ain't too bad either. I thought the movie was pretty bad, but I would never call it unwatchable.
--
GEORGE
And all's fair in love and war?
MRS. BAILEY
[primly] I don't know about war.
In answer to the initial posted question "Is there anything recognizably human in this film?", I would answer - no, nothing; it's lifeless. And I think too, regarding further comments made here, that actually the term 'boring' describes the movie perfectly. It is distinctly boring. Extremely boring. I would never bother watching it again, unless I wanted to examine further how tedium affects the human mind. I can't quite dissuade myself of the notion that the director deliberately created the single most vacuous, pretentious and tedious piece of cinema he possibly could just for a joke. Are the film's admirers absolutely sure this is not the case? Perhaps the picture of a human-hating robot with indigestion is closer to the frame of mind of the director than the films fans might be comfortable with.
shareI would have to ask you to tell me, when is it appropriate to maintain a distance and coldness in a film and when should a film seek to be emotional? What was said about the symbolism can also be said about emotion. Sometimes its better to show the contradictions and ambiguity of a relationship rather than to simply put everything right up front. Sometimes putting a bit of a wall between viewer and character is as necessary to the meaning and point of the film as laying everything bare. See pretty much any film by Michelangelo Antonioni. I can't say with certainty what exactly Godard was trying to say, and whether or not he was completely successful. I can only say that I was moved by the ambiguity and "coldness" of the film and I also responded to that as a portrayal of the indefinite and confusing aspects of a relationship. I would have to say that if you think this is the most tedious piece of cinema, then you are missing out on a lot of truly tedious cinema.
shareIn reply to mrpark3r -
Okay, you were moved by the film, fair enough. But I wasn’t. I don’t think any ambiguity and coldness in the film made it an interesting movie. It’s not the distance that made it boring for me, its the lack of anything to be distant from. The problem I have with this film is not a difficulty with the film not being emotional, with it not delivering “everything right up front” as you put it, with it showing contradictions and ambiguities instead of “everything right up front”, my problem with the film is that I don’t think it shows anything at all, let alone get near showing contradictions and ambiguities. To be able to show any such thing it would have to get at least some way along the road of showing something of substance in the first place to contradict or be ambiguous about, which in my opinion it completely fails to do. There really is nothing there. As I said in my previous post, it’s vacuous. A film-maker cannot deliver absolutely nothing at all for the audience to engage with and then expect the audience to be engaged with the film simply because it is art. The film was vacuous, which I for one found very tedious. And I really am very happy to miss out on as much tedious cinema as possible.
A film-maker cannot deliver absolutely nothing at all for the audience to engage with and then expect the audience to be engaged with the film simply because it is art.What an elitist approach to an audience.
Reading some of the comments on this thread how the characters are souless and the blanant manner in which Godard offered symbolism/beliefs, I do not see this as a bad thing as it was the whole point. The characters do not come across as human as they are not meant to, each character is a prop for Godard to instill his beliefs mostly regarding cinema and other topics.
Paul has the opinion that people in the film industry should not make films for profit symbolising the French New Wave whilst Jeremy as the producer is of the opinion that films should have commerical value and that in the film industry everyone must obey the role producers play. His character is symbolic of a dictator which shows the parallel Godard wanted to convey between the Studio System and a Regime which is a factor in Fritz Lang's apperence, to personify Godard's definance in a person who stood up to a dictatorship for the sake of his film style.
Le Mepris is not meant to be human as Godard did not nessicary want to connect with the audience rather he wanted to convey the beliefs he had in cinema via the French New Wave and the film makers they respected such as Fritz Lang.
"I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not".
"Each character is a prop for Godard".
So were the characters for Kubrick, but in addition to finding themselves in much more meaningful environments in his films than JLG´s "props" (as far as I´m concerned, anyway), they also didn´t engage in long, god-awfully inane blabberfests or frequent banal monologues. Any movie that involves a 40-minute bout of a marital verbal duel - a silly, inarticulate verbal duel, at that - is at least partly a character study of sorts. And these characters are empty shells. Props, yes. In short, I´m not particularly impressed with JLG´s usage of his cinematic pawns.
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan
Elitist? Not sure how you arrive at that conclusion, MisterGumby. Or even what 'an elitist approach to an audience' is supposed to be. Critical analysis of art and ideas about audience engagement with movies are issues most people in the movie industry address some aspects of to varying degrees simply as part of their craft; certainly all directors, producers and distributors have to engage very clearly with such issues at a fundamental level.
I think it is perfectly valid to assert that if a film-maker delivers absolutely nothing at all for the audience to engage with then the film-maker can expect the audience not to be engaged with the film. A work of art has no essential claim on our interest above and beyond its merits or lack thereof. It is the merits or faults of a work of art that determine the strength of its claims on our attention.
There's nothing elitist about identifying this point; it's simply a basic point about movie-making. Movies are made for audiences, and audience engagement is a fundamental requirement.
I have mixed feelings about this film. On one hand I found it somewhat tedious and pretentious and there were moments were I was praying for something 'recognizably human', as the OP says, to happen. On the other hand I loved the cinematography, the direction and the score. I gave it an 8, but perhaps it's more deserving of a 7. Having the reputation that it has I expected a solid 10.
It's not the years, honey, it's the mileage.
Indiana Jones, "Raiders of the Lost Ark"
You people have to understand that Godard was making a film which breaches all rules of conventional cinema, though not obviously. Story (many unresolved moments, like when he takes the gun and nothing comes out of it). Characters (Bardot is an unconvincing secretary, Palance is a cliche). Music (score ignores the drama and goes on its own). Sound (background sounds are sometimes turned off). Montage (there are series of unexplained images every now and then, which interrupt the story). Cinematography (arbitrary mixing of colors). Add to that the unusual behavior of the characters.
All this is done in order to obstruct the illusion which to Godard is in the heart of the myth. The story itself shows that myths are impossible (read: life is not a film, history is not a myth - a crucial ideological position). That is why he draws our attention to the cinematic (artificial) nature of the film and the myth itself.
Like in films by Antonioni, the bodies are the units that carry the story, not the characters, events or motivations. Godard even points directly to Antinioni with the scene where Bardot puts on a black wig, just like Monica Vitti in L'Eclisse. This notion of cinema was best described by Deleuze.
“The British cinema is made of dullness...“ - F. Truffaut
I agree with the first post. The relationship between Bardot and Piccoli seemed completly artificial as well as the acting, and the dialogue was incredibly uninteresting. But the directing and the music were good.
shareInteresting enkibilal states that Godard attempted to 'obstruct the illusion'; perhaps this explains precisely and eloquently how Godard produced such an unengaging, vacuous and tedious piece of cinema.
shareI've recently watched the extra's on the French edition of the Blu-ray and I really recommend you to watch it - there's some great footage of Godard interviews.
The "meta-gymnastics" (nice expression!), as the OP called it, is certainly a big part of the film. This is the first time Godard has in a sense bowed into associating himself with international producers and casting THE star of the period - giving him access to a largest budget he ever had for a film. At the same time, he uses the film to make a mockery of the film industry (and maybe even of its audience) - or to put it more gently, he clearly emphasises that the best times of cinema are probably behind us ("un film crepusculaire sur le cinéma" - Godard's interviewer sums it up very well). The glorious times are represented by Fritz Lang. The fact that Fritz Lang was already sidelined by the big studios at the time of production of the film was a clear sign to Godard that it was the end of an era likely never to be found again. So the great thing about "Le Mépris" and its "meta-gymnastics" is that the whole production, story and background for the film is in a way found in the film plot itself - in one word, the film and the meta-film are intertwined!
Now for those who want to leave the meta-layer aside, I think it is still a human film if you just concentrate on the topic of "contempt". By understanding or grasping the milisecond during which a relationship can switch from love mode to contempt mode is something which everyone can reflect on. The extra's clearly explain the 4 times the couple abandons each other (car, appartment, boat & death) and according to my interpretation the switch was already made in Camille's head the instant Paul let her step into Prokosch's car and drive away with him.
I don't think you should mistake the coldness of the film with the lack of humanity - it IS a film about "contempt", meaning that it's about two people in love that are drifting apart stepwise, while Godard equally says goodbye to an era of great cinema.
Best regards, Matthias
This is a brilliant analysis. Apart from the meta-layer and the relationship, we also have the parallels of life and philosophies in Greek Mythology and in the modern world. The film ends in a tragedy for a reason.
shareChaaarles, and that's why you will never make it as the film critic you so evidently want to be. Why would anyone listen to your perfunctory remarks when they could actually learn from someone who has rigorously analysed the film, you pretentious twit?
shareIn response to rhowells2000 -
Firstly, let me point out I do not want to be a film critic. Thus, the fact you say that I 'evidently' do want to be one indicates you see what you want to see rather than simply what is there. Just because I enjoy discussing movies does not mean I want to be a film critic; you merely presume to know more about me than you do.
Secondly, from your various comments on this thread you come across as vitriolic, dishing out insults such as 'a spectacle of your inadequacy', 'pretentious twit' 'solipsistic little tyrant!' etc. But insulting people who disagree with your opinion about a movie is a bit heavy handed isn't it? Being nasty about it doesn't make your opinions more convincing to others; it just makes you come over as an unpleasant sort of person.
Thirdly, if someone wants to dismiss my view about the film, that's fine, no problem to me, but these forums are here for the purpose of discussing these movies and I am just as entitled as the next person to offer my views. If you disagree, fair enough, make whatever argument you want to make, but resorting to insult is not the same thing as presenting a well reasoned point.
My point was lucid and reasonable if you think about it. If Godard attempted to 'obstruct the illusion' and cinema is an artform of illusion, then is it any wonder if the result is not great cinema? Theorising about cinema is not the same thing being able to make great movies. I happen to think Godard's approach to cinema was fundamentally flawed; he seems to espouse a basic contempt for its intrinsic characteristics, and those of narrative art more generally. It might perhaps be interesting as abstracted intellectual treatise, but I find, certainly in the case of Le Mepris, that it makes for bad movies. And this does not mean that I am, as many of the film's admirers like to portray its detractors, either stupid or only capable of appreciating the most child-like fairy-tale Disneyesque fantasy.
Although fairy-tale fantasy can make terrific movies (ie Star Wars) and I enjoy some of them sometimes, I also like many other styles, genres and kinds of films, some of them quite unusual in structure and intent. I just happen to not like this film. It's a polemical tract which I feel has failed as a movie.
In my opinion, Godard's movies are nearly always telegraphed and blockheaded. They just stare back and you and dare you not to be irritated for having given your time to them. Jokes don't work because the tone never settles anywhere. Characters don't act realistically due to some 'point' being made. Lead female characters have 'cool' hairdos that are apparently worthy of being heavily photographed. Lead male characters chain smoke, which is also apparently worthy of being heavily photographed. I would say 'nobody cares!', but apparently lots of people do.
Some people say he broke rules, but he clearly was just in some medium other than film. I'd call his stuff "video installations". Like when Andy Warhol photographed the Empire State Building for hours and called it art.