MovieChat Forums > Le mépris (1964) Discussion > Is there anything recognizably human in ...

Is there anything recognizably human in this film?


'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.

reply

Actually, I have to agree with the OP as well (and must say it is a quite funny description of the movie): I'm a huge Godard fan, but this seemed like a throw-away concept, an attempt of a relationship sketch with some movie references in between, but it all falls flat and it has actually very little to say.


But it did happen

reply

"It actually has very little to say."

No it's you who clearly has very little to say, actually. Don't you realise just how fatuous you must look to some people saying that a film made by a man who wrote for perhaps the greatest and most influential magazine on film criticism and theory, at the zenith of it's power, has nothing to say? As one user allude too already, film is about subjective interpretation, so next time you might want to express yourself with an evident knowledge of the relativity of truth, rather than just using adverbs like some solipsistic little tyrant!

To recapitulate, by all means say that you don't like it, but saying that it doesn't have anything to say when it obviously speaks to many passionate cinephiles rebounds embarassingly on yourself.

reply

Haven't seen it, but I can tell you that I had the same reactions to Godard movies I have seen.

He BLOWS.

Thanks.

Michael Scully

reply

Wow, you're an amazing critic. Really, your thoughts on cinema are so intelligent and illuminating. I wish my arguments were so compelling.

reply

Godard really does reek as one of the more pretentiously overrated directors heavily cited by the frothing fanboys. This movie was seriously bad, with horribly conscious self-referencing, aimless, direly inert dialog, and disastrously bombastic scoring amongst other things makes this an example of the quintessential artsy French egotistical bloat to avoid.

reply

I absolutely despise 9/10s of most of Godard's films, the 1/10 extra are the somewhat interesting moments, like reconstructing the bridge in Sarajevo in Notre Musique, the different color across her face in a Woman is a Woman, the switch between black and white and blown out color in In Praise of Love, the matchstick Vietnam in Perriot le Fou, the effect the choppy use of music has on your perception of his films, the intrusion of city noises into cinema-and also the use of logos. His films are just collections of ideas without much coherence, probably because they have no story to string you along for the entire length.

reply

Fanboys, Let us enjoy Msr. Godard's masterworks & the rest of you go off for a nice Saturday night with a bag o' skittles @Transformers IV in your local mall.

reply

[deleted]

Agreed!

Every single character is shallow, uninteresting and uninvolving.

Why make a movie about any cipher like that, let along a movie about *two* of them having *a marriage*?

Their marriage has nothing in it that would involve anyone- even the two of them.

stopjohnofgod.blogspot.com

stopsylvia.com

reply

Every single character is shallow, uninteresting and uninvolving.

Actually I agree with you, even though I liked the film. Watching Le Mepris has the effect of eavesdropping on a couple arguing back and forth in public. You do have to be a little perverse to enjoy it.

I know I will never be happy but I know I can be gay!
-Marilyn Monroe

reply

An interesting comment.

It is true that the fact that the main characters in a work of art are unlikable isn't necessarily a criticism of the work of art itself.

When The Picture of Dorian Gray was published, a reviewer who disliked the book complained in his review that all three of the main characters were immature jerks (the word he used was "puppies"). Oscar Wilde wrote back to say "Well, OF COURSE they are puppies!". He knew they were idiots. He intended for them to be idiots. That was the whole point. He wrote that he found puppies much more fascinating to write about than virtuous people and asked if the works of Thackeray were any less great because all of his characters were puppies.


stopjohnofgod.blogspot.com

stopsylvia.com

reply

[deleted]

"Probably" is a bit strong jimbo! It's great but overrated.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]