MovieChat Forums > Le mépris (1964) Discussion > Their Odysseus theory speaks volumes

Their Odysseus theory speaks volumes

posted 10 years ago by AntiArt
12 replies | jump to latest

Odysseus didn't leave Ithaca because he had been bored of Penelope. Myths regarding Odysseus' life before Iliad, state that he unsuccessfully feigned madness to avoid going to Troy. He hadn't been married for long before having to leave either, Telemachus was twenty years old when he returned after a twenty year absence. That's not enough time to become bored of Penelope. His desperate attempts to return are right in the Odyssey and there were more than one chances to stay away and live a very cosy life that he rejected.

The whole theory is completely ridiculous and essentially trying to shoehorn the Odyssey into the mindset of a modern middle-class bored couple. It's ironic that one of the quotes of the main character is that "we shouldn't change Odysseus' character" yet even though he resists a cheapening of Odysseus in the manner that an uncultured producer only interested in money would want, he cheapens it himself by bringing a legendary figure to his own small size.

It might be that Godard truly didn't know much about Odysseus. Classical education was already deemed old school by his own time. With enough hubris and self-importance, anyone could think that they have the key to understanding not just an ancient epic without really studying it but also their lives in terms of that ancient epic.

The other possibility is that this is an elaborate but very badly executed prank to show the condition of modern man and modern couples. The modern man reads his own values even into ancient texts, unable to comprehend that different eras had different mores and values. They see Odysseus as a bored husband going off to find excitement and Penelope as a sex kitten like Camille who despairs instantly at her husband's lack of jealousy. However, it's the American producer, the one portrayed as shallow that speaks the line "Homer's world doesn't exist". But that seems to be a decoy. The American producer, roundly portrayed as a barbarian, is speaking about Paul's artistic sensibilities and conscience, and on a second level about his wife's fidelity.

I can't say that I find the second possibility very plausible. There was nothing even remotely important in this film to compare it with an epic that contained most of a culture's beliefs and values. At best, it wanted to show that Odysseus and Penelope can't exist in our world and that without really studying the original material to have even a superficial discourse with them. At worst, it was Godard comparing himself to an unwise Odysseus, Karina to a failed Penelope and generally spewing trite observations about the female nature and how a woman needs to feel possessed and besieged by real men in order not to get bored soon, things that even if they might apply to some women, their level as observations is not above a drunken conversation at 2 am with my buddies. I didn't need to watch a cinematic exposition of it and it wasn't deepened at all by all the effort involved.

Finally, the sheer exploitation of Bardot's curves was irritating. There was really no point in all this nudity, no eroticism of any kind to give it any meaning or substance and if seen side by side with what kind of character Bardot was portraying, a mercurial, dishonest, sexually provocative dumb blonde, it seems it was only used for voyeuristic reasons. Sure, it's always welcome to see Bardot naked but the whole portrayal of a woman as a dumb sex object who proclaims that she "thinks" but never utters any thoughts became insulting to the female gender.

Unless of course it was Godard's longwinded lament that he's no Odysseus and that he hadn't found a Penelope. Wasted effort as I didn't need to watch a film to know that.

You are all gonna die.

[–] RaidenPLS 10 years ago

Wasn't it Prokosch who proposed that Odysseus left Ithaca because he was bored of Penelope? It's been a while since I saw the movie, but I seem to recall that this glib (mis)reading of The Odyssey clearly signals Prokosch as an intellectually-bankrupt philistine. It should be obvious that Prokosch's interpretation is unfaithful to the original text--he is vulgarizing it for a modern audience. If you want to know how Godard really feels about The Odyssey, listen to the wise Fritz Lang; he is the conscience and moral center of the film.

Interestingly, the "sheer exploitation of Bardot's curves" was imposed on the film by producers who wanted to capitalize on Bardot's status as a sex-kitten. Initially horrified by the proposal, Godard finally yielded to these demands because the cynicism accurately reflected the misplaced priorities of Prokosch within the film. But anyway, I think Bardot's smoldering sex appeal adds something to the narrative. Paul can't see beyond her beauty and is only interested in her as a status symbol. It's no coincidence that the beginning scene is only an inventory of body parts. He doesn't care about her as a person. So, in the context of the film her beauty is a curse (in the manner of a Greek tragedy). Because her beauty leads to catastrophe for herself and those around her, Camille is more like Helen of Troy than Penelope. I would also quibble that Bardot isn't really a "dumb blonde" in this film as you suggest. She is perceived as such, but constantly tries to assert herself as something more--hence the black wig. There is a lot of depth in her characterization that you seem to be overlooking in order to accuse the film of misogyny. I don't believe that particular line of criticism holds.

And you will know my name is The Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee!

[–] AntiArt 10 years ago

Wasn't it Prokosch who proposed that Odysseus left Ithaca because he was bored of Penelope? It's been a while since I saw the movie, but I seem to recall that this glib (mis)reading of The Odyssey clearly signals Prokosch as an intellectually-bankrupt philistine. It should be obvious that Prokosch's interpretation is unfaithful to the original text--he is vulgarizing it for a modern audience. If you want to know how Godard really feels about The Odyssey, listen to the wise Fritz Lang; he is the conscience and moral center of the film.

Prokosch's only theory is that Penelope was unfaithful. I believe he tells Paul that before he gives him the book with the Roman brothel frescoes. The theory that Odysseus was bored of Penelope, that he didn't want to return and that's why it takes him so long and that the Trojan War was just an excuse to leave Penelope behind is all Paul's idea. Lang doesn't seem to agree with it but he doesn't seem to strongly disagree either.

There's no reason to think that Lang's character is meant to represent what Godard truly thinks. It's well known that the film is partly autobiographical with Paul representing Godard and Camille representing Karina. If there's a character that represents Godard, it's Paul.

Lang's character never really says anything profound about the Odyssey. He says for example that the main aspect of Greek tragedy was the clash between man and his surroundings or situations which he later rephrases as the clash between man and the Gods. Odyssey isn't a tragedy however. It's an epic poem and it predates Greek drama by about 500 years. While what he says does apply to tragedy, it's completely wrong to view all ancient Greek forms of literature through a single paradigm.

He also says that Ulysses isn't a modern neurotic man, he's cunning and daring. And that the beauty of the Odyssey lies in accepting reality just as it is. The first statement isn't just obvious, it's basically the opening verse of the poem. The second statement is just plainly weird. What sort of objective reality is represented in an epic poem describing a world inhabited by Gods, monsters, witches and all sorts of near impossible occurrences? That's not it's beauty at all.

Interestingly, the "sheer exploitation of Bardot's curves" was imposed on the film by producers who wanted to capitalize on Bardot's status as a sex-kitten. Initially horrified by the proposal, Godard finally yielded to these demands because the cynicism accurately reflected the misplaced priorities of Prokosch within the film.

What does Prokosch's priorities have to do with scenes between Paul and Camille? If someone wants to make a satire of a soft core novel, he needs to make it obvious. The sex scenes will be outrageous and will go beyond a realist setting in a very clear way. Mocking a soft core novel by simply writing one that follows all the conventions isn't a satire at all. There's no visible or perceived critique of the excessive use of Bardot's buttocks in the film. It's just shown uncritically all the time. And there was nudity even in Lang's supposed Odyssey to which Prokosch starts to drool.

But anyway, I think Bardot's smoldering sex appeal adds something to the narrative. Paul can't see beyond her beauty and is only interested in her as a status symbol. It's no coincidence that the beginning scene is only an inventory of body parts. He doesn't care about her as a person.

And it's Camille who goes over the whole list of body parts and then asks the final question of whether he loves her completely. If there's someone who equals beauty and the body with love it's Camille in that scene. I don't find it so bad that someone could actually equate feeling desired with feeling loved. Insecurity does that and not all people have the same priorities. What I'm annoyed with is that Camille doesn't go beyond the completely primitive at all. It's just the usual combination of sexual attraction, jealousy, unfaithfulness, whining etc. No comparison can be made between Camille and Penelope.

So, in the context of the film her beauty is a curse (in the manner of a Greek tragedy). Because her beauty leads to catastrophe for herself and those around her, Camille is more like Helen of Troy than Penelope.

Where did you see it functioning like a curse? Attracting Prokosch isn't catastrophic, it's the mind games Camille plays with Paul that unravel their marriage and it's Paul's nerveless response to them that seals the deal. It doesn't all happen because Camille is beautiful.

I would also quibble that Bardot isn't really a "dumb blonde" in this film as you suggest. She is perceived as such, but constantly tries to assert herself as something more--hence the black wig. There is a lot of depth in her characterization that you seem to be overlooking in order to accuse the film of misogyny. I don't believe that particular line of criticism holds.

As I said in my original post, Camille is portrayed as a very immature, passive aggressive woman who throws a temper tantrum over her perceived slight of Paul not being jealous of Prokosch flirting with her. Sure, there's a tiny bit of dialogue where Camille makes a dig at Paul when he asks her why she looks so thoughtful and she responds quite passive aggressively by asking him if he's surprised she can think. There is nothing in that terrible apartment sequence to suggest that Paul is either surprised or expects that Camille doesn't think. That tiny bit of dialogue is just a simple verbal passive aggressive comeback from an irritable Camille. In fact, throughout the scene Paul keeps asking her for the reason why she doesn't love him anymore which means he expects her to be able to voice particular problems or feelings in a rational way instead of simply "feeling" or "not feeling" that would place her at the level of an animal.

Where have you seen any indication that Camille isn't just a stereotype of a character? She's childish, belligerent, dishonest, unfaithful and vindictive. She's just a very shallow, unlikeable character who walks around nude a lot. Her entire "depth" is that she's angry because Paul seems indifferent to her and doesn't become jealous with Prokosch.

You are all gonna die.

[–] RaidenPLS 10 years ago

It is probable that I have conflated Prokosch's theory with Paul's. But it really doesn't make any difference. Both men fundamentally misunderstand the text and impose modern psychologies onto the characters.

Lang's character never really says anything profound about the Odyssey. He says for example that the main aspect of Greek tragedy was the clash between man and his surroundings or situations which he later rephrases as the clash between man and the Gods. Odyssey isn't a tragedy however. It's an epic poem and it predates Greek drama by about 500 years. While what he says does apply to tragedy, it's completely wrong to view all ancient Greek forms of literature through a single paradigm.

He also says that Ulysses isn't a modern neurotic man, he's cunning and daring. And that the beauty of the Odyssey lies in accepting reality just as it is. The first statement isn't just obvious, it's basically the opening verse of the poem. The second statement is just plainly weird.

The Odyssey and the Greek tragedies both offer insights into Ancient Greek psychology, so I think your criticism here is off the mark. If we are talking about pre-Socratic (i.e. pre-Modern) psychology, Greek tragedy is informed by The Odyssey. Though the art forms certainly differ, the value system is basically identical. There isn't really a conflict here, as you suggest. Lang is simply appealing to the tragedies to gently indicate that Paul and Prokosch are completely wrong with their lurid interpretations of The Odyssey. The historical figure who really initiated the shift from ancient to modern psychology was Socrates. By placing a new emphasis on moralistic rationality at the expense of strictly practical reason, it was Socrates who marks the end of Classic Greek psychology. Always questioning reality and seeking the underlying truth, the "modern neurotic man" is the descendent of Socrates.

Regarding the quote from Lang, you're correct that the characterization of Odysseus as cunning and daring is "obvious" to those who read the first few verses of the text. The clear implication, therefore, is that Paul and Prokosch haven't even done that. You also seem to be overlooking the crucial fact that Lang is contrasting Odysseus's psychology with a "modern neurotic man." So he accurately recognizes the noble simplicity of the ancient Greek. This quote proves that Lang disagrees with Paul and Prokosch. Their theories needlessly complicate, and thereby vulgarize, the text with neurotic interpretations.

And you say Lang's second statement is "weird" but it actually proceeds from the first. The Greek hero was a man of clever action, not deep introspection. Remember that Odysseus' patron Athena is the personification of practical reason and not philosophical wisdom. Her favorites were cunning and clever men who manipulate situations to their advantage, not philosophers who have to rationalize everything. "Accepting reality just as it is" suggests, to me, that what distinguishes ancient Greeks from modern men is that they didn't need to assign rational meanings to the universe (moral or otherwise), they simply contrived ways to negotiate what they regarded as an irrational universe. So again, Lang is dismissing Paul and Prokosch's superfluous (and modern) theories. But this second statement has an even deeper significance in the context of the film. Paul is trying to assign a meaning to Camille's contempt for him--a meaning that doesn't exist. Her psychology is like that of the ancient Greeks: simple, direct, and she places greater emphasis on action over thought. Paul betrayed her when he ignored her protests and told her to ride with Prokosch. For her, it doesn't matter why. This action changes the way she feels about him. She cannot rationally explain her emotions as Paul demands, and she doesn't need to justify her reasoning. Emotions are irrational after all. So not only does Lang's quote here have significance for the film adaptation of The Odyssey, but it also presciently summarizes Paul's problem as a "neurotic modern man." He disregards Lang's wise counsel in the context of the film production as well as his marriage, and it leads to his ruin. So the ethos of the film (and presumably Godard himself) is, in fact, embodied by Lang--not Paul. Paul almost certainly represents Godard's past mistakes, but one hopes that Godard has learned something from his errors. That Godard's proxy in the film is Paul is self-criticism, but the actual conscience of the film is Fritz Lang.

What sort of objective reality is represented in an epic poem describing a world inhabited by Gods, monsters, witches and all sorts of near impossible occurrences? That's not it's beauty at all.

This should be rather obvious, but mythological works aren't faithful representations of an objective reality at all. They are representations of a subjective cultural worldview--of a culture's psychology. The ancient Greeks perceived themselves as living in a universe of fantastic monsters and fickle gods, symbolizing the unpredictable vicissitudes of fate. Again, in contrast to modern man, they perceived the universe as inherently irrational and beyond comprehension--as something beyond human control. The most heroic and highly esteemed among them were those who were adaptable and resourceful--not those who were "rational." So what is "beautiful" about Odysseus is not that he understands his situation, but rather that he uses his cunning to turn an unfavorable situation to his advantage. In contrast, by trying to rationalize his wife's contempt for him, Paul (the "neurotic modern man") actually pushes her away. Every nagging question from him only confirms that he doesn't understand her.

What does Prokosch's priorities have to do with scenes between Paul and Camille? If someone wants to make a satire of a soft core novel, he needs to make it obvious. The sex scenes will be outrageous and will go beyond a realist setting in a very clear way. Mocking a soft core novel by simply writing one that follows all the conventions isn't a satire at all. There's no visible or perceived critique of the excessive use of Bardot's buttocks in the film. It's just shown uncritically all the time. And there was nudity even in Lang's supposed Odyssey to which Prokosch starts to drool.

For one thing, Prokosch (who you note "starts to drool" at the sight of beautiful nude starlets) is going to pursue Camille simply because of her beauty--which is cataloged and inventoried at the beginning of the film, bit by bit. Subtextually, Prokosch's "drooling" reflects that of the producers who cynically insisted upon Bardot's nudity. Nobody said the film presents a "critique" of Bardot's nudity, so I don't understand your frustration on this point. Rather than presenting a boring "critique," Godard cleverly turns his own producers' superficiality into a plot point.

And it's Camille who goes over the whole list of body parts and then asks the final question of whether he loves her completely. If there's someone who equals beauty and the body with love it's Camille in that scene. I don't find it so bad that someone could actually equate feeling desired with feeling loved. Insecurity does that and not all people have the same priorities. What I'm annoyed with is that Camille doesn't go beyond the completely primitive at all. It's just the usual combination of sexual attraction, jealousy, unfaithfulness, whining etc. No comparison can be made between Camille and Penelope.

Where did you see it functioning like a curse? Attracting Prokosch isn't catastrophic, it's the mind games Camille plays with Paul that unravel their marriage and it's Paul's nerveless response to them that seals the deal. It doesn't all happen because Camille is beautiful.

As I said, I wouldn't make a comparison between Camille and Penelope. That would be an interpretive error. Camille's proper literary analogue is Helen of Troy. And yes, Camille's beauty destroys her. For the men around her, Camille is nothing more than an object to be possessed. She catches the unwanted attention of Prokosch, eventually yields to his advances out of desperation, and dies tragically in his sports car. Because of her beauty, she becomes a reluctant causality of the high-speed life of the rich and famous. That beauty is a curse as well as a gift is a common theme of classic literature, but particularly in The Iliad, where Helen of Troy's beauty destabilizes Greek politics and leads to the Trojan War. Similarly, in this film, Camille's beauty is the catalyst for conflict.

Also, it's an oversimplification (and a revealing one) to say that Camille plays "mind games" with Paul. She tells him she doesn't want to ride with the lecherous Prokosch, but he insists. Consequently, she falls out of love with him. She keeps repeating this, but Paul cannot accept it. To him, her reaction doesn't make rational sense. But his rational argumentation cannot change how she now feels about him.

As I said in my original post, Camille is portrayed as a very immature, passive aggressive woman who throws a temper tantrum over her perceived slight of Paul not being jealous of Prokosch flirting with her. Sure, there's a tiny bit of dialogue where Camille makes a dig at Paul when he asks her why she looks so thoughtful and she responds quite passive aggressively by asking him if he's surprised she can think. There is nothing in that terrible apartment sequence to suggest that Paul is either surprised or expects that Camille doesn't think. That tiny bit of dialogue is just a simple verbal passive aggressive comeback from an irritable Camille.

This is wildly simplistic. First of all, she doesn't throw a "temper tantrum." Her anger burns slowly, and is actually intensified by Paul's pathetic line of questions. And she isn't upset that her husband wasn't sufficiently jealous, but rather that he forced her into a situation where she was uncomfortable. She clearly signaled her discomfort, but Paul vetoed her protests and put her in a car with a leech. Showing Camille off like a trophy, it was obvious that Paul was cynically using his beautiful wife to ingratiate himself to a potential employer. Her disgusted and irritable reaction was understandable and appropriate--you say it was "immature". 

In fact, throughout the scene Paul keeps asking her for the reason why she doesn't love him anymore which means he expects her to be able to voice particular problems or feelings in a rational way instead of simply "feeling" or "not feeling" that would place her at the level of an animal.

I really think you are misreading the scene, and consequently the film. That you place Camille "at the level of an animal" simply because she refuses to indulge Paul with a rational analysis of her emotions misses the point. Like the ancient Greeks, Camille is elemental. She doesn't need to analyze and justify her emotions logically because (unlike Paul) she isn't a neurotic. She doesn't need to rationalize her emotions or actions. This is the source of miscommunication in the film--not that women are "irrational" like animals. Actually, the film is suggesting that "modern men" are over-analytical; too caught up in abstractions to see what's right in front of them. Camille is very intelligent and highly perceptive. As soon as Paul suggests she get in the car with Prokosch, she immediately understands the cynicism of her husband's ostensibly innocent proposal. She doesn't need to explain herself and that Paul is unable to understand why she's upset only makes matters worse. Paul shouldn't have placed his wife in a compromising situation. End of story. For Camille, no rational argumentation he can offer will restore her love for him. He betrayed her.

Where have you seen any indication that Camille isn't just a stereotype of a character? She's childish, belligerent, dishonest, unfaithful and vindictive. She's just a very shallow, unlikeable character who walks around nude a lot. Her entire "depth" is that she's angry because Paul seems indifferent to her and doesn't become jealous with Prokosch.

I don't think Camille is any of those things. Her leaving with Prokosch was an act of desperation, not spite. She repeatedly told Paul she didn't love him anymore (that she had nothing but contempt for him), but the message simply wasn't registering to her over-analytical husband. Cheating with Prokosch was the only way Camille knew to confirm for Paul that their marriage was over. Your characterization of Camille as "childish, belligerent, dishonest, unfaithful and vincictive" is correct only if Paul is understood as a sympathetic character. This is not the case. Paul is an idiot who over-analyzes everything and pathetically tries to rationalize his own status as a sell-out hack by telling Camille that everything he did was for her sake, to buy her things she wanted.

I would say that Camille is THE most likable character in the film, and aside from Fritz Lang is the most intelligent and perceptive. Paul is ineffectual and self-thwarting, and Prokosch is a loud-mouth philistine.

And you will know my name is The Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee!

[–] AntiArt 10 years ago

It is probable that I have conflated Prokosch's theory with Paul's. But it really doesn't make any difference. Both men fundamentally misunderstand the text and impose modern psychologies onto the characters.

Who says what matters. You can't just confuse the outlook of characters and still reach the same conclusion. Originally you seemed to want to paint Prokosch as the "bad guy" and absolve every other character of their flawed viewpoints. Now both Prokosch and Paul are flawed? That's not reasonable.

The Odyssey and the Greek tragedies both offer insights into Ancient Greek psychology, so I think your criticism here is off the mark. If we are talking about pre-Socratic (i.e. pre-Modern) psychology, Greek tragedy is informed by The Odyssey. Though the art forms certainly differ, the value system is basically identical. There isn't really a conflict here, as you suggest.

No actually they don't both offer insights into Ancient Greek psychology. They are completely different forms of their literary output over the course of centuries and they were formed in completely different situations. The Odyssey was composed in the 8th century (Iron age) probably in Ionia and was an attempt to record the verbal tradition started by the bronze age Achaeans after the dark ages. Greek Tragedy on the other hand is significantly focused in 5th century democratic Athens. The Odyssey was a recited epic poem accompanied by music and the actual act of recital is obscure to us while tragedy was theatre and it had a completely different function. To say that both offer insights into the same people can only be done by ignoring different artistic forms, tribal outlooks, periods, historical change, the political and economic situation etc. It's complete nonsense. The only thing that they both offer is insight into the general cultural outlook of the same conglomeration of people called the Greeks where you can see cultural ideals that eventually evolved wildly over the centuries.

Lang is simply appealing to the tragedies to gently indicate that Paul and Prokosch are completely wrong with their lurid interpretations of The Odyssey.

I suggest you should rewatch the film rather than rationalise what "Lang" the character is saying. I think the statement on tragedy was made during the scene where they were watching dailies and it had no connection to any theory yet. It's just Godard having "Lang" spout trivialities. It's not connected to anything and neither Paul or Prokosch have any solid theories yet. I'd even say that Prokosch doesn't have any theories at all other than that "Penelope was unfaithful" and that "What the film really needs is poetry" which he says after he claims he had reread the Odyssey. He's only there to function as the suitor, his characteristics as the overbearing, barbaric producer are minimal.

The historical figure who really initiated the shift from ancient to modern psychology was Socrates. By placing a new emphasis on moralistic rationality at the expense of strictly practical reason, it was Socrates who marks the end of Classic Greek psychology. Always questioning reality and seeking the underlying truth, the "modern neurotic man" is the descendent of Socrates.

I don't see where you get the idea that you can simply jump from art forms to philosophy. It's a non sequitur. This looks more like an argument that Godard could make rather than anything that has any substance. The pre-Socratic philosophers espoused practical reason only? Are you serious? I also doubt very much this relation of the "modern neurotic man" to Socrates. The modern neurotic man is modern and the whole idea of him is more related to the realism school of the 19th century novel, for example Flaubert rather than Socrates. The whole obsession with psychologising characters as well.

Regarding the quote from Lang, you're correct that the characterization of Odysseus as cunning and daring is "obvious" to those who read the first few verses of the text. The clear implication, therefore, is that Paul and Prokosch haven't even done that.

I don't see it as a clear implication at all. That's the introduction to the scene where Paul talks about his theory to Lang. It comes before Paul actually starts to explain it. It's a wild conjecture to say that neither Paul or Prokosch have even read the Odyssey and it contradicts Prokosch's statement that he re-read it.

You also seem to be overlooking the crucial fact that Lang is contrasting Odysseus's psychology with a "modern neurotic man." So he accurately recognizes the noble simplicity of the ancient Greek. This quote proves that Lang disagrees with Paul and Prokosch. Their theories needlessly complicate, and thereby vulgarize, the text with neurotic interpretations.

Lang uses the phrase "a modern neurotic man" as a description, not a category like you're trying to imply. A modern, neurotic man. He's not saying that all modern men are neurotic by nature. The whole conversation is basically Paul talking about himself in terms of the Odyssey and Lang calling Paul neurotic. He's implying that Odysseus would take action rather than stay silent as events unfold. In the very same scene, the real Lang's phrase against crimes of passion comes up which eventually blocks that way of dealing with the situation. Later when Paul receives a gun from Prokosch's secretary, the implication is clear that the choice of murdering the suitor is right there and is being contemplated. Everything inside the mise-en-scene points to the allusion of Paul as Odysseus and Camille as Penelope.

There was no "noble simplicity of the ancient Greek". Where are you getting that garbage? Are you just trying to rationalise film quotes out of context to prove that Godard couldn't have made a terrible film with bad characters and rife with sexist stereotypes?

And you say Lang's second statement is "weird" but it actually proceeds from the first. The Greek hero was a man of clever action, not deep introspection. Remember that Odysseus' patron Athena is the personification of practical reason and not philosophical wisdom. Her favorites were cunning and clever men who manipulate situations to their advantage, not philosophers who have to rationalize everything.

In reality, both Homeric epics are full of constant insights into the self-doubt, fear and weakness of the characters. It's neither a picaresque novel as you're trying to assert or a van Damme film. Athena is widely known as the goddess of wisdom, not "practical reason". The aspect of the goddess who assists Greek heroes like Odysseus and Achilles was Promachos Athena, the first in battle - counsel - helper of mortals. Not Athena the patron of "practical anything". In fact even Plato calls Athena the philosopher. It's really dishonest to make up facts about a whole culture just to save Godard from himself.

"Accepting reality just as it is" suggests, to me, that what distinguishes ancient Greeks from modern men is that they didn't need to assign rational meanings to the universe (moral or otherwise), they simply contrived ways to negotiate what they regarded as an irrational universe.

The ancient Greek universe was not seen as irrational at all. What are you even talking about? That's a 1950's philosophical current, not an ancient one. Besides the materialist schools of the pre-Socratic philosophers who tried to explain nature in natural, rational terms, there were also widespread god-concepts such as the Heimarmene that was completely fatalistic. A fatalistic universe isn't irrational, it's as orderly as it gets. Besides, both epics wouldn't be so rich in mythological elements if the culture they originated in though that the universe was irrational. The mythological elements were their explanations. Divine will shaped the world purposefully.

So again, Lang is dismissing Paul and Prokosch's superfluous (and modern) theories.

Only that, unfortunately for your pet theory, Lang's statement about what the beauty of Odyssey is never contradicts Paul's theory other than in your misinformed ad hoc construction. In the film, Lang simply mentions this in passing as they leave the theatre. He doesn't say it in opposition to anything. As everywhere else, Godard has Lang utter banalities about the epic, with this one being so contextless it becomes obscure.

But this second statement has an even deeper significance in the context of the film. Paul is trying to assign a meaning to Camille's contempt for him--a meaning that doesn't exist.

Only partly true. Paul is trying to figure out the reason for Camille's contempt, he's not trying to assign philosophical meaning to a phenomenon.

Her psychology is like that of the ancient Greeks: simple, direct, and she places greater emphasis on action over thought.

Nope, that's all wrong. Neither the ancient Greeks were simple, direct and placed greater emphasis on action over thought (quote bloody ridiculous, that last bit) or Camille a thoughtless being. At least a realistic Camille shouldn't be. But you seem to agree with what I said, that Camille is a shallow character who is portrayed as thoughtless, you're just trying to spin vacuousness into something "Greek-like" and good. That's obscene.

Paul betrayed her when he ignored her protests and told her to ride with Prokosch. For her, it doesn't matter why. This action changes the way she feels about him. She cannot rationally explain her emotions as Paul demands, and she doesn't need to justify her reasoning. Emotions are irrational after all.

Camille's reaction to her perceived slight of Paul not having a problem with her riding in Prokosch's car is hugely disproportionate. He simply didn't object to her riding with someone in a car. That is all. That's not a betrayal of any kind. A normal couple would have at least some trust in each other that when either would be approached by someone with Prokosch's intentions, both would refuse the advances without the other one being either present or forcibly stopping them. The representation of a woman needing to be stopped and claimed every time a suitor appears is just what it appears to be. The image of a very abnormal, troubled person.

And excuse me, but after having mentioned the word psychology in so many places, it's very strange that you'd say that emotions are irrational. They're not irrational at all. All emotions are reactions to external stimuli that may include time disparity in the case of memories. Normal adult human beings certainly know what kind of events, actions or words have caused them to feel contempt for someone else, especially their spouses. Do you live in some sort of universe where women suddenly start hating their husbands without knowing why? People might not readily explain away their emotions to someone else but that's where a myriad things come to play like ego, saving face, pride, fear etc. If someone genuinely can't do that, it's usually taken as a sign of an underlying pathology.

So not only does Lang's quote here have significance for the film adaptation of The Odyssey, but it also presciently summarizes Paul's problem as a "neurotic modern man."

Presciently? You can't explain away that all of Lang's quotes never directly or meaningfully contradict Paul's ridiculous Odyssey theory. He never really contradicts Paul's theory on a factual basis either. A director should always be very aware of his source material and should have a complete understanding of the characters, their inner essence. If Lang is unaware of the very well known myths pertaining to Odysseus' attempt to feign madness in order to avoid going to the Trojan War, then that's even more proof to the shoddy construction of the entire film. Lang seems blissfully unaware of all these things that tear Paul's theory to shreds and he never mentions it.

Why do you believe that Godard would have any sort of serious understanding of an epic when it's really a minor aspect of the entire film anyway? I see no proof of that and making wild theories on what Lang's quotes might have meant doesn't cut it. There are very many much more interesting things to say about the Odyssey and the Homeric epics in general and I have seen none in this film. Even the film within a film which was supposed to be Lang's adaptation of the epic is simply beyond terrible. Shots of badly painted plaster cast heads of statues and symbolic, slow motion action sequences, again in incredibly kitsch colors? That's the "wisdom" and "true significance" of the Odyssey for Godard?

He disregards Lang's wise counsel in the context of the film production as well as his marriage, and it leads to his ruin. So the ethos of the film (and presumably Godard himself) is, in fact, embodied by Lang--not Paul. Paul almost certainly represents Godard's past mistakes, but one hopes that Godard has learned something from his errors. That Godard's proxy in the film is Paul is self-criticism, but the actual conscience of the film is Fritz Lang.

What counsel is that? Lang never formally counsels anyone, they just exchange views. Are you trying to say that Lang's comment that Odysseus is not some neurotic idiot is some sort of advice to Paul? What could that "wise" advice be then, to murder the suitor like Odysseus had done? But that's exactly what Paul remembers later, the real Lang's quote from the book Camille was reading, that crimes of passion always end in failure since the scorned lover will either lose his mistress forever if he kills her or again will lose his mistress if he kills her new lover because she'll hate him. There is no advice given there.

I don't see where all this certainty about who and what symbolises Godard comes from. He even kills Camille in the end. That's learning from past mistakes?

This should be rather obvious, but mythological works aren't faithful representations of an objective reality at all. They are representations of a subjective cultural worldview--of a culture's psychology. The ancient Greeks perceived themselves as living in a universe of fantastic monsters and fickle gods, symbolizing the unpredictable vicissitudes of fate. Again, in contrast to modern man, they perceived the universe as inherently irrational and beyond comprehension--as something beyond human control.

That's a contradiction. A fatalistic universe is never irrational. Fate explains everything. And no, the ancient Greeks most certainly didn't think that the universe was inherently irrational and beyond comprehension. I'm sorry but you keep inventing things just to justify your original view that Contempt isn't as terrible as it truly is.

The most heroic and highly esteemed among them were those who were adaptable and resourceful--not those who were "rational." So what is "beautiful" about Odysseus is not that he understands his situation, but rather that he uses his cunning to turn an unfavorable situation to his advantage. In contrast, by trying to rationalize his wife's contempt for him, Paul (the "neurotic modern man") actually pushes her away. Every nagging question from him only confirms that he doesn't understand her.

You should just drop all the theorycrafting about the ancient Greeks. It's not just wrong, but also hugely distracting and it serves no other purpose other than to justify Godard's directorial choices in an ad hoc manner. Of course Odysseus understands his situation, he has just as many fears and doubts as Paul (which you would know if you had any sort of access to the text) and without the constant help from Athena neither he or Telemachus would ever succeed in their quest. Besides, in the film Lang never mentions these things together. His comment about the Odyssey being about objective reality and his comment that Odysseus isn't neurotic are uttered at completely different times in the film. You're the one making the connection where there isn't an actual one.

For one thing, Prokosch (who you note "starts to drool" at the sight of beautiful nude starlets) is going to pursue Camille simply because of her beauty--which is cataloged and inventoried at the beginning of the film, bit by bit. Subtextually, Prokosch's "drooling" reflects that of the producers who cynically insisted upon Bardot's nudity. Nobody said the film presents a "critique" of Bardot's nudity, so I don't understand your frustration on this point. Rather than presenting a boring "critique," Godard cleverly turns his own producers' superficiality into a plot point.

This is rife with non sequiturs. Prokosch hits on Camille because she asked Paul if he likes her feet and her buttocks. Doesn't make any sense. Prokosch's drooling overtly symbolises the producer's obsession with nudity yes. But that doesn't have anything to do with actually using nudity in the film. If he wanted to turn it into a coherent plot point it would have to be placed somewhere in relation to Prokosch to actually give it a negative meaning. Showing Bardot's ass at every opportunity he had does not do that. Since he doesn't problematise nudity, and since it's his mise-en-scene, I'm not obligated to find ridiculous excuses related to production mythology to find it less bad than it actually is. Godard put it in his film in a certain way and that's how it should be seen. As it stands it's unjustifiable, production pressure or not.

I don't see why a critique is "boring". The film is already quite boring on its own. But then again presenting Bardot's ass in a critical way would be a problem for Godard.

As I said, I wouldn't make a comparison between Camille and Penelope. That would be an interpretive error. Camille's proper literary analogue is Helen of Troy.

Camille as Penelope is what's suggested by the film's mise-en-scene. Finding unrelated extratextual analogues is quite postmodern and therefore completely wrong. Why couldn't she be Circe? Or Calypso? Prokosch is definitely not Paris and that would have to transform Paul into something else as well.

And yes, Camille's beauty destroys her. For the men around her, Camille is nothing more than an object to be possessed. She catches the unwanted attention of Prokosch, eventually yields to his advances out of desperation, and dies tragically in his sports car.

Helen was abducted. Camille willingly abandons Paul after a very protracted game where she tests him to see at what point will he get jealous. And Paul, following the real Lang's advice that crimes of passion are fruitless, does nothing in the end. How in the devil is her beauty to blame for her death? I didn't know only beautiful women die in sports cars.

Camille makes choices in this film. Her beauty is not a factor in her own choices.

Because of her beauty, she becomes a reluctant causality of the high-speed life of the rich and famous. That beauty is a curse as well as a gift is a common theme of classic literature, but particularly in The Iliad, where the Helen of Troy's beauty destabilizes Greek politics and leads to the Trojan War. Similarly, in this film, Camille's beauty is the catalyst for conflict.

The high-speed life of the rich and famous has nothing to do with Camille's beauty. Just because both Helen and Camille were beautiful women doesn't mean that they share anything else. Helen's abduction was the catalyst for the Illiad, not Helen's beauty. Without the abduction, no war would have happened. In this film, Camille isn't abducted by anyone. She decides to leave on her own without ever explaining what made her take that decision.

[–] RaidenPLS 10 years ago

Who says what matters. You can't just confuse the outlook of characters and still reach the same conclusion. Originally you seemed to want to paint Prokosch as the "bad guy" and absolve every other character of their flawed viewpoints. Now both Prokosch and Paul are flawed? That's not reasonable.

I never wanted to paint any character as the "bad guy." I'm not terribly interested in moralizing the way you seem to be. All I initially said was that Prokosch misreads the text. By characterizing Penelope (the paragon of marital fidelity) as unfaithful, his interpretation is lurid, sensational, and completely wrong. You rightly pointed out that Paul too imposes a grandiose (and ridiculous) re-interpretation of the text--that the Trojan War was nothing more than a pretext for Odysseus to leave Penelope. Since I originally overlooked Paul's reading, I concluded that both men vulgarize the text, in contrast to Lang, who is incredulous of all these convoluted interpretations. After all, as a literary work, the The Odyssey is pretty psychologically straightforward--but Paul and Prokosch both completely revise the original characters' motivations. Therefore, Paul and Prokosch are both flawed as interpreters of The Odyssey. How is this unreasonable on my part?

The real problem is that your original criticism assumes Paul is a mouthpiece for Godard, and you concluded from Paul's erroneous reading of The Odyssey that Godard fundamentally misunderstands ancient Greek psychology. That was the whole foundation of your critique of the film. I find this line of reasoning unpersuasive because I don't think Paul is Godard's mouthpiece in the manner you suppose. It is certainly true that the film is partly autobiographical; that the disintegration of Paul and Camille's marriage reflects Godard's relationship with Anna Karina, but I find it incredibly simplistic to regard Paul as Godard's artistic proxy even if he represents Godard's weaknesses as a romantic partner. In the context of the narrative, Paul is an ineffectual hack who completely lacks artistic integrity--why then should we assume his viewpoints reflect Godard's? I find it more reasonable to conclude that Lang, the wise and level-headed director, is the proper analogue for Godard the artist. If this is true, then your original criticism falls apart.

We can debate forever about the relation between the tragedies and The Odyssey, but I'm not entirely sure how relevant that discussion would be with regard to this film. The only reason I brought those points up was because I was trying to be charitable to Lang's view of ancient Greek psychology, whereas you were being dismissive. If my line of reasoning was ad hoc, it was only because I was following the lead of your convoluted critique. Nevertheless, I would still maintain my position on the matter. There is no deep moral philosophizing in Homer or the tragedies. This type of rationalizing about human behavior has no precedent in ancient Greek literature prior to Socrates, and it is unsurprising that Plato (a student of Socrates) re-conceptualizes Athena as the personification of philosophical (rather than practical) wisdom. This was a corruption of Athena on Plato's part, since it is inconsistent with her presentation within the Homeric tradition. The distinctly modern emphasis Socrates placed on the moral dimension of human behavior was a radical event in ancient Greek history. You seem to think I'm saying that Greeks didn't have psychological depth prior to Socrates, when all I'm pointing out is that ancient Greeks didn't typically subject their actions (or their worldview) to categorical moral scrutiny until Socrates came along. It is in this respect that we can speak of a noble Greek simplicity, and this is precisely why Socrates so befuddled the Athenians, after all. He represented a comprehensive shift away from traditional Homeric virtues that emphasized practicality. Of course, this is all irrelevant to Contempt, but it does demonstrate why Lang's attitude about ancient Greek psychology presented in the film isn't wrong, as you suggested--and why he wasn't wrong to appeal to the tragedies, which were consistent with the Homeric worldview prior to Socrates' contemporaries (Euripides and Aristophanes).

Regarding Camille, I think it remains an open question whether she is justified in her contempt for Paul. I believe she is, but you disagree--and that's fine. I'm willing to continue our debate regarding her motivations if you're interested, but I'm not convinced that we're actually getting anywhere. Whether Camille is likable or not doesn't actually impact the merit of the film, which as it stands, is a psychologically rich depiction of a marriage falling apart. I'm not saying she's morally justified, again I'm not interested in moralizing. I'm only saying she's much more than a "dumb blonde." And regarding her justification, remember that beyond the episode with Prokosch at the beginning, Camille also sees Paul make a pass at Francesca. Paul sees Camille seeing him make a pass at Francesca. His line of questioning, therefore, is nothing more than an attempt to absolve himself of guilt--an attempt at deflection which Camille will not indulge. She assumes he is emotionally intelligent enough to know why she is upset with him, and he assumes she is rationally intelligent enough to articulate her reasons--this is the source of miscommunication. By the time Paul tries to redeem himself, it's too late. Camille has fallen out of love with him. After all, love is fickle, and yes, irrational. The emotion she felt for him at the very beginning of the film is simply gone. There's really nothing more for her to say.

And you will know my name is The Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee!

[–] RaidenPLS 10 years ago

I suggest you should rewatch the film rather than rationalise what "Lang" the character is saying. I think the statement on tragedy was made during the scene where they were watching dailies and it had no connection to any theory yet. It's just Godard having "Lang" spout trivialities. It's not connected to anything and neither Paul or Prokosch have any solid theories yet. I'd even say that Prokosch doesn't have any theories at all other than that "Penelope was unfaithful" and that "What the film really needs is poetry" which he says after he claims he had reread the Odyssey. He's only there to function as the suitor, his characteristics as the overbearing, barbaric producer are minimal.

The statements by Lang are not discrete and isolated from each other. They are connected. Just because you are unable to piece together a coherent viewpoint from Lang's dialogue doesn't mean there isn't one, and I'm suggesting that contrary to all your criticism, Lang's viewpoint is coherent. Also, you're completely wrong to say that Prokosch is "only there to function as the suitor." All of these artistic disputes signify the conflicts inherent in any cinematic production, and Lang--the artist--has to successfully negotiate all of these obstacles in order to realize his artistic vision. For him, Paul and Prokosch are sort of like Scylla and Charybdis. He has to navigate his film between their monstrous assaults on his artistic integrity. Lang succeeds, by the way--at the end of the narrative, he has assumed complete artistic control of the film after all, since (predictably) Prokosch destroyed himself and Paul hesitated. Lang is the golden mean between the hot and cold temperaments of Prokosch and Paul, and the wisdom of Lang's position is demonstrated by the tragic narrative.

I don't see where you get the idea that you can simply jump from art forms to philosophy. It's a non sequitur. This looks more like an argument that Godard could make rather than anything that has any substance. The pre-Socratic philosophers espoused practical reason only? Are you serious? I also doubt very much this relation of the "modern neurotic man" to Socrates. The modern neurotic man is modern and the whole idea of him is more related to the realism school of the 19th century novel, for example Flaubert rather than Socrates. The whole obsession with psychologising characters as well.

Both philosophy and art are informed by cultural context. The Pre-Socratics were not interested in morality at all, and I never cited them as espousing practical reason. Rather, the privileging of practical reason as a cultural virtue comes from the Homeric tradition--a tradition which is displaced by Socrates. I would insist that the modern emphasis on rationality and moral activity absolutely comes from Socrates. Interestingly, both the mythological worldview and artistic traditions of ancient Greece completely collapse after Socrates. I am intrigued by your mentioning of the realism school of 19th century literature, but I would say that the artistic fruitfulness of this movement comes from the way it complicates moral reasoning and presents a morally ambiguous worldview. The psychological complexity presented in these literary works isn't exactly the neuroticism of "modern man" I was talking about, "modern man" being overly concerned with moral justification. For all its psychological complexity, the realism school (like the Greek tragedies) was completely comfortable with the moral ambiguity of human emotions and actions.

That's a contradiction. A fatalistic universe is never irrational. Fate explains everything. And no, the ancient Greeks most certainly didn't think that the universe was inherently irrational and beyond comprehension. I'm sorry but you keep inventing things just to justify your original view that Contempt isn't as terrible as it truly is.

I think your error here is that a fatalistic universe is explanatory, but not necessarily rational. Particularly in ancient Greece, where human fate was determined by the conflicting wills of the gods. A polytheistic worldview complicates the rationality of fate because, after all, the gods often disagree--a point brilliantly made by Plato (via Socrates) in Euthyphro. And it should come as no surprise that the ancient Greeks gave their gods irrational human psychologies. It explained, for them, the "unpredictability" of the universe.

Of course Odysseus understands his situation, he has just as many fears and doubts as Paul (which you would know if you had any sort of access to the text) and without the constant help from Athena neither he or Telemachus would ever succeed in their quest. Besides, in the film Lang never mentions these things together. His comment about the Odyssey being about objective reality and his comment that Odysseus isn't neurotic are uttered at completely different times in the film. You're the one making the connection where there isn't an actual one.

I don't disagree that Odysseus "has just as many fears and doubts as Paul," so I'll overlook your glib implication that I am unfamiliar with The Odyssey. What is different between Paul and Odysseus is not the complexity of their psychology but the fact that Paul is undone by moral ambiguity whereas Odysseus is not. How can we explain this difference? Paul absolutely obsesses over proving that Camille's emotions are invalid and irrational. This obsession, in my view, is a uniquely modern pathology. And, again, where does Lang suggest that The Odyssey is about an "objective" reality?

This is rife with non sequiturs. Prokosch hits on Camille because she asked Paul if he likes her feet and her buttocks. Doesn't make any sense. Prokosch's drooling overtly symbolises the producer's obsession with nudity yes. But that doesn't have anything to do with actually using nudity in the film. If he wanted to turn it into a coherent plot point it would have to be placed somewhere in relation to Prokosch to actually give it a negative meaning. Showing Bardot's ass at every opportunity he had does not do that. Since he doesn't problematise nudity, and since it's his mise-en-scene, I'm not obligated to find ridiculous excuses related to production mythology to find it less bad than it actually is. Godard put it in his film in a certain way and that's how it should be seen. As it stands it's unjustifiable, production pressure or not.

I'm not saying that Prokosch hits on Camille because she asked Paul if he loved her bit-by-bit. You're deliberately misreading what I wrote. I was pointing out that Camille's physical beauty is a salient point in the film, cataloged at the very beginning. Given that Prokosch is presented as a leech drooling over starlets, we can assume that his interest in Camille is strictly superficial. His motivation in pursuing her is her beauty, and nothing else. Because she is beautiful, she unwillingly draws Prokosch's attention. And I believe it is because Prokosch's intentions are absolutely obvious that Camille is disgusted with Paul's seemingly innocent proposal. Paul is using his beautiful wife as a career opportunity, or at the very least, Camille plausibly perceives this to be the case.

You ridiculously say that Camille's nudity is "unjustifiable." I don't know what this means. It isn't problematic to show a beautiful women on screen in all her glory unless you're a prude. Nudity doesn't need to be "problematized" in order to be morally justified. That, to me, is an absolutely Puritan stance.

I don't see why a critique is "boring". The film is already quite boring on its own. But then again presenting Bardot's ass in a critical way would be a problem for Godard.

A critique is boring because this is a film, not a piece of political agitprop. There are sufficient details in the film's narrative for thoughtful members of the audience to think about the critical meaning of Bardot's nudity *if* they are so inclined. But for Godard to underline these meanings would be strictly polemical and therefore artistically problematic--precisely what is wrong with the excessive politicization of later Godard films.

Camille as Penelope is what's suggested by the film's mise-en-scene. Finding unrelated extratextual analogues is quite postmodern and therefore completely wrong. Why couldn't she be Circe? Or Calypso? Prokosch is definitely not Paris and that would have to transform Paul into something else as well.

In no way is Camille presented as Penelope by the film's mise-en-scene. If anything, the film draws a series of contrasts between Penelope's simple fidelity and Camille's emotional movement away from her husband. I was only proposing Helen of Troy as a *more suitable* analogue than Penelope. Camille couldn't be Circe or Calypso because there are no relevent similarities in their characterizations, unless I missed scenes where Camille turned men into swine (Circe), or detained them as infantile sex slaves with promises of immortality (Calypso).

Helen was abducted. Camille willingly abandons Paul after a very protracted game where she tests him to see at what point will he get jealous. And Paul, following the real Lang's advice that crimes of passion are fruitless, does nothing in the end. How in the devil is her beauty to blame for her death? I didn't know only beautiful women die in sports cars. Camille makes choices in this film. Her beauty is not a factor in her own choices.

Right. But Camille only draws Prokosch's attention because she is beautiful. He isn't interested in her for any other reason. And it is because of Camille's beauty (and Prokosch's interest in it) that Paul cynically puts her in the car with Prokosch. You're being disingenuous to suggest that I'm implying "only beautiful women die in sports cars," a statement which is obviously wrong. Camille's beauty pulls her into Prokosch's orbit, and with that the high-speed recklessness of his hedonistic lifestyle. And because of her beauty (as well as her choices) she dies tragically. You can't abstract her beauty away from her choices in the context of the film. Her beauty shapes her situation.

The high-speed life of the rich and famous has nothing to do with Camille's beauty. Just because both Helen and Camille were beautiful women doesn't mean that they share anything else. Helen's abduction was the catalyst for the Illiad, not Helen's beauty. Without the abduction, no war would have happened. In this film, Camille isn't abducted by anyone. She decides to leave on her own without ever explaining what made her take that decision.

It has everything to do with Camille's beauty, since her beauty gives her access to that high-speed life which is fraught with danger. And that Helen and Camille are both women whose beauty destabilizes their respective narratives is a salient connection. I'm not saying that these women are morally implicated by their beauty, but their beauty does *cause* external conflict (rightly or wrongly is another question entirely). Regarding Helen, you rightly note that without her abduction, no war would have happened. But what motivated her abduction? Because Helen was the most beautiful woman in the world, she was given to Paris by Aphrodite... Her beauty was the *cause* of her abduction, and in The Iliad, her abduction was divinely sanctioned. It's not some irrelevant factoid that Helen was beautiful. Her beauty is intrinsic to her literary significance.

And you will know my name is The Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee!

[–] AntiArt 10 years ago

I never wanted to paint any character as the "bad guy." I'm not terribly interested in moralizing the way you seem to be.

Really? You easily dismissed the flawed Odyssey theory of the film by ascribing it to Prokosch and then explained it away as the product of a philistine pseudointellectual. The fact that you had to ascribe it to Prokosch to explain it away means that you can't believe a flawed theory is so near the core of this film and that it must come from the film's flawed antagonist.

All I initially said was that Prokosch misreads the text. By characterizing Penelope (the paragon of marital fidelity) as unfaithful, his interpretation is lurid, sensational, and completely wrong.

Is this some sort of textual gymnastics? This isn't the theory you originally ascribed to Prokosch. You ascribed Paul's theory to him. Yes, obviously both of them are wrong. In fact everyone is wrong about the Odyssey in this crappy film. But just because Prokosch's own theory happens to be wrong doesn't mean that you can retroactively go back and claim you were talking about that and not Paul's.

You rightly pointed out that Paul too imposes a grandiose (and ridiculous) re-interpretation of the text--that the Trojan War was nothing more than a pretext for Odysseus to leave Penelope. Since I originally overlooked Paul's reading, I concluded that both men vulgarize the text, in contrast to Lang, who is incredulous of all these convoluted interpretations. After all, as a literary work, the The Odyssey is pretty psychologically straightforward--but Paul and Prokosch both completely revise the original characters' motivations. Therefore, Paul and Prokosch are both flawed as interpreters of The Odyssey. How is this unreasonable on my part?

Isn't it simple? Just because the general conclusion is relatively similar doesn't mean that mixing up the premises that lead up to it is correct. Five plus five equals ten and three plus seven equals ten but five doesn't equal three or seven.

Your original thesis was that this theory is Godard's obvious attempt to show Prokosch as an intellectually-bankrupt philistine who attempts to vulgarize the epic for a modern audience. It would actually fit if it was true, from what's known about Prokosch' character it wouldn't be bellow him if he showed that he cared for that kind of thing.. But when you were informed that Paul is the originator of this nonsense, you tried to tear Paul down in the same way. You'll have to face the fact that this flawed theory permeates the film and it isn't some clever flag designed by Godard to signify the film's idiot.

Prokosch is the antagonist. Paul is the protagonist. The significance of this theory is completely different in relation to the whole film depending on who expounds on it and at which point.

The real problem is that your original criticism assumes Paul is a mouthpiece for Godard, and you concluded from Paul's erroneous reading of The Odyssey that Godard fundamentally misunderstands ancient Greek psychology. That was the whole foundation of your critique of the film. I find this line of reasoning unpersuasive because I don't think Paul is Godard's mouthpiece in the manner you suppose. It is certainly true that the film is partly autobiographical; that the disintegration Paul and Camille's marriage reflects Godard's relationship with Anna Karina, but I find it incredibly simplistic to regard Paul as Godard's artistic proxy even if he represents Godard's weaknesses as a romantic partner. In the context of the narrative, Paul is an ineffectual hack who completely lacks artistic integrity--why then should we assume his viewpoints reflect Godard's? I find it more reasonable to conclude that Lang, the wise and level-headed director, is the proper analogue for Godard the artist. If this is true, then your original criticism falls apart.

So what you're saying is that you can see Paul is a ridiculous, flawed character but you can't accept Godard identifies with him because Godard must not be a ridiculous, flawed artist or human? What sort of assumption is that? Godard is perfectly capable of being flawed, everyone is. Godard was the Tarantino of his generation, widely renowned for being a jerk to his associates and his various lovers. Ever heard why Lubtchansky never worked with him again? It's an interesting and revealing story.

In any case, regardless of whether you believe Godard is a villain, a saint or a fool, this kind of assumption shouldn't get mixed up with judging how well a film is constructed. If all the faults of a film can be rationalised away as the indecipherable workings of a genius, then you don't even need to watch a film. You can just assume that even if he filmed a wall for five hours it would be a masterpiece that only idiots would not "get". Not true in any case.

I don't have to wonder if Godard understands or does not understand the Odyssey and its sociocultural framing. I don't care. If he did, I expect to see it expressed in the film. And what I can see in the film is nothing of the sort. I see three people having completely different interpretations of the epic, each reflecting their own sensibilities and all of them being wrong. Prokosch needs more sex and action -even if he claims that he hasn't hired Paul just to write more sex scenes-, Lang has some sort of dead, abstract, academic vision of the text that doesn't go beyond the very basics which is also plainly reflected in the film-within-a-film and Paul is lost somewhere in the supposed middle, floating between the two extremes but seeing Odysseus subjectively as well. Prokosch doubts Penelope's fidelity because he either had already managed or was sure that he would eventually manage to sleep with Camille, Lang barely has a personal investment in what he's doing seeing the whole thing as work to be done and Paul identifies with Odysseus lacking a true Penelope.

Why is Paul Godard's point of view? Because the camera always tracks him. There are many instances where we don't get to see what Prokosch, Lang, Prokosch' secretary or even Camille are doing but Paul is in every single shot. We know what he knows and we wonder about the things he wonders about. The subjectivity of the film is Paul's subjectivity and that places the film's general point of view with Paul. Not Lang.

Besides, you are wrong to think that Paul lacks artistic integrity. He does break off the contract with Prokosch citing artistic sensibilities and he states it clearly that he's doing it for the extra money needed to support his wife. Camille pressures him into continuing his association with Prokosch. The whole thing is framed as a noble deed. I don't completely agree but then again, there is nothing wrong in taking up work that is less than "pure art" when you have to support a family. The whole starving artist myth especially when people depend on you for their subsistence is complete bollocks.

We can debate forever about the relation between the tragedies and The Odyssey, but I'm not entirely sure how relevant that discussion would be with regard to this film. The only reason I brought those points up was because I was trying to be charitable to Lang's view of ancient Greek psychology, whereas you were being dismissive. If my line of reasoning was ad hoc, it was only because I was following the lead of your convoluted critique.

It's not terribly relevant and you wouldn't be able to add much to the conversation. If you can't grasp the fact that epics and ancient drama have completely different social functions in different historical settings, it becomes obvious you don't know much about either. The quote by Lang is something repeated in almost every introductory text to ancient Greek drama and its the most common answer to where their chief dramatic element lies. The battle of humans with concrete, stark fate and how their virtues or lack of them are revealed in the process. Did you see Lang saying anything like that? He shoves that into the interpretation of the Odyssey as if the Odyssey was a tragedy. The epics can not be understood within the framework of tragedy/comedy/satiric drama. They have different sensibilities, dramatic elements, construction and final aims. They are performed differently, there is a completely different system and emphasis on how characters are defined. The epics are far closer to novels than to drama. Where Hecuba can wail for two hours locked into a singular incident, in the Odyssey we can see how Odysseus reacts over the period of months and get extensive glimpses into his past. It more or less disregards the Aristotelian maxim of unity of space, time and circumstance so the dramatic element isn't found in just a singular incident but in many of different types. Calling an epic a tragedy or comparing it with one is as wrong as comparing a novel with a film or in the case of Contempt, calling it one.

What is so convoluted about my critique? Saying that Lang is spouting trivialities about a specialist subject? Or is your pathetic attempt to justify everything he says with theories based on assumptions you make on things you know little about far more convoluted than my original assessment?

Nevertheless, I would still maintain my position on the matter. There is no deep moral philosophizing in Homer or the tragedies.

And here is a great example of you doing exactly that. Do I need to go over all the passages from the epics that clearly speak of departures from the divinely inspired ethics that invariably lead to ruin? Or should I start to quote and name drop tragedies where things like hubris, vanity, rage etc. are castigated? There are even examples of tragic characters that never lose their morality in opposition to their cruel fates. What deep moral philosophizing do you need? The whole genre of ancient drama is so deeply linked with morality that the word actor in ancient Greek is actually constituted by the words ethos and maker.

This type of rationalizing about human behavior has no precedent in ancient Greek literature prior to Socrates, and it is unsurprising that Plato (a student of Socrates) re-conceptualizes Athena as the personification of philosophical (rather than practical) wisdom. This was a corruption of Athena on Plato's part, since it is inconsistent with her presentation within the Homeric tradition.

And again one more ridiculous example. Plato does not "re-conceptualise" Athena. The Goddess had already been seen as the Goddess of wisdom due to her agency over all sciences and knowledge and further more due to her punishment of cruelty and mindless slaughter. Even though she was also a war goddess, born fully armored, she was born from the head of Zeus, after Zeus had swallowed her pregnant mother Metis. Metis was the wisest Titan, and her name actually means wise. Zeus acquires the epithet Metieta (all-wise) after that. So, Zeus swallows Wisdom and then Athena is born from his head. Should I make it any more clearer for you?

The myth predates Homer since the epithet metieta is already in use in the epics. When several of the Achaean Trojan War heroes go beyond mere warfare and descend into savagery Athena punishes their cruelty on their return home by denying it to them and killing them all even though she was one of the few immortals that supported the Greeks during the siege. That signifies the precedence that the mind should have over brute force and action. It doesn't signify "practical reasoning" as you are ignorantly claiming. There is nothing practical in not butchering your enemies but there is wisdom in it.

These things are already contained within the Odyssey, while in the Iliad Athena manages to beat Ares in combat, again showing that she is probably far more powerful that the primary God of War. On a higher level, Athena is the God of civilised humans, that have already gone through the stages of mere bloodlust (Ares, who Homer even has Zeus become annoyed at his constant warmongering and joy in bloodshed) and the early civilisations based on personal power of the ruler (Zeus, who had to fight to establish the Olympian dominance). Civilised humans are distinguished from their ancestors through the arts, crafts, established cities, legislature, sciences, philosophy and organised rule-based warfare. All of the traditional domains of Athena.

Do you want the exact quote from Timaeus to see if Plato is re-conceptualising anything? But there's this other detail, where you say it's unsurprising that Plato would "re-conceptualise" Athena since he was Socrates' student after all. Why? Because according to the old and tired notion, Socrates was the first "true philosopher"? That seems to be the source of all your off-base theories. More after the break.

The distinctly modern emphasis Socrates placed on the moral dimension of human behavior was a radical event in ancient Greek history. You seem to think I'm saying that Greeks didn't have psychological depth prior to Socrates, when all I'm pointing out is that ancient Greeks didn't typically subject their actions (or their worldview) to categorical moral scrutiny until Socrates came along. It is in this respect that we can speak of a noble Greek simplicity, and this is precisely why Socrates so befuddled the Athenians, after all. He represented a comprehensive shift away from traditional Homeric virtues that emphasized practicality.

It seems you know little if anything about the pre-Socratics. I've tried to be polite previously but continuing to claim that the virtues of Iron Age Greeks were simply of a "practical nature" is complete bollocks. The Delphic Maxims pre-date Socrates and they are attributed to the seven sages of Greece. You know, those damn pre-Socratics. Pythagoras who was a mystic had also developed his own moral system. There are plenty of fragments on works of ethics by the materialists but nothing substantial remains and that's to be expected.

Socrates was the first exclusive moralist, not the first -or even nearly the best- philosopher to deal with morality. He focused on morality but of a very odious kind. The guy and his school became such a darling because the medieval Christians could use and adapt him far more easily. He obeyed the commands of his "daemon" (he was either insane or an atheist in secret like others of that time) that had nothing to do with the Olympians, he was a supporter of oligarchy versus democracy (just like Plato), his school hated progressive institutions like the theatre. His main contributions -other than Plato- were some forms of dialectics that are doubtful that were truly his.

He didn't befuddle anyone with his moralism. He was an enemy of democracy and an admirer of the Spartans, and his school worked in opposition to more collective forms of morality worked elsewhere at the same time. Exclusive moralism was a radical shift but closely related to the surviving aristocratic elements within Athenian society who frequently threatened the democratic state. It got far less contemporary acceptance than you think and in the end Socrates himself got what he deserved.

It's very tiresome to go on tangents just to provide the correct context to your ignorant theories than you only base on assumptions. If you think that mysticist mages like Pythagoras, the schools of the atomists and Heraclitus' theory of flux have anything to do with "practicality" then really, this isn't a subject you can discuss at length.

Of course, this is all irrelevant to Contempt, but it does demonstrate why Lang's attitude about ancient Greek psychology presented in the film isn't wrong, as you suggested--and why he wasn't wrong to appeal to the tragedies, which were consistent with the Homeric worldview prior to Socrates' contemporaries (Euripides and Aristophanes).

The only thing it demonstrates are the lengths you will go unsupported by any actual knowledge, to justify a few sentences uttered by a Godard character to prove that he is indeed a genius. You're the one who stretches one simple remark that's merely a rewording of the opening line of Odyssey into a whole shoddy ontological theory of the psychology of the Ancient Greeks. Lang was talking about Odysseus being cunning, not neurotic. He wasn't talking about the Ancient Greeks as a whole, their entire culture across centuries or Socrates. These are all your contributions that are not related to anything within the film. Just because you are able to make random associations between such remarks as "Odysseus is cunning and not neurotic" and "Greek Tragedy is the fight of man against nature/Gods", doesn't mean that they're linked in any sort of way in the film or even in objective reality.

I understand your desperate need to grasp at any straws available to save Contempt but what Lang offers you will not work because he's simply not the "hidden" locus of Godard's secret genius within the film.

Regarding Camille, I think it remains an open question whether she is justified in her contempt for Paul. I believe she is, but you disagree--and that's fine. I'm willing to continue our debate regarding her motivations if you're interested, but I'm not convinced that we're actually getting anywhere. Whether Camille is likable or not doesn't actually impact the merit of the film, which as it stands, is a psychologically rich depiction of a marriage falling apart. I'm not saying she's morally justified, again I'm not interested in moralizing.

I said that Camille is acting completely irrationally and like no regular woman would. The representation of a woman guided only by her emotions, unable to explain them is a sexist one. You seem to agree but you think that's not bad. So I'll ask again in a different way. Have you ever met any real women without deep psychological issues that acted like Camille in your life?

I'm only saying she's much more than a "dumb blonde."

And again, where did you see any indication that she isn't? I've seen far more of her buttocks -which I do appreciate despite what you think- than her thoughts.

And regarding her justification, remember that beyond the episode with Prokosch at the beginning, Camille also sees Paul make a pass at Francesca. Paul sees Camille seeing him make a pass at Francesca. His line of questioning, therefore, is nothing more than an attempt to absolve himself of guilt--an attempt at deflection which Camille will not indulge. She assumes he is emotionally intelligent enough to know why she is upset with him, and he assumes she is rationally intelligent enough to articulate her reasons--this is the source of miscommunication. By the time Paul tries to redeem himself, it's too late. Camille has fallen out of love with him. After all, love is fickle, and yes, irrational. The emotion she felt for him at the very beginning of the film is simply gone. There's really nothing more for her to say.

It's funny how you make out love to be as fickle as a sneeze that just happens and it's over instantly. For me, the whole interaction of Camille and Prokosch, Paul and the secretary was an obvious game, a mind game as I called it, between Paul and Camille. It looks as if Paul is hitting on the secretary but not as shamelessly as Prokosch (if he's actually hitting on her at all, it's very vague and ambivalent). And that happens only after he arrives at Prokosch's house and finds Camille already angry and in a very strange mood. She doesn't answer his questions on whether Prokosch flirted with her. I believe that's Paul's vindictive reaction which Camille takes as more indifference.

Are you sure you're not moralising after all?

[–] AntiArt 10 years ago

The statements by Lang are not discrete and isolated from each other. They are connected. Just because you are unable to piece together a coherent viewpoint from Lang's dialogue doesn't mean there isn't one, and I'm suggesting that contrary to all your criticism, Lang's viewpoint is coherent.

How are they connected? Metaphysically? The only connection you could find was a long-winded erroneous theory on the morality of Iron Age Greeks versus Socratic morals that supposedly stopped them from being "all practical" and turned them into philosophers. Of course I'm not able to piece together a coherent viewpoint and you should be under no illusion that your vain attempt to connect unrelated statements has any coherence at all.

If Lang on the other hand were to sit down and talk about what he wants to do with the Odyssey -which remains a complete riddle for the entire film besides the dailies- then there would be something. But there's no Socrates, lectures on ancient morality or anything of the sort in the film. The (film) text is never going to speak to you on your own terms and refer to things that you necessarily know already. That's pretty damn basic for interpreting any sort of art.

Also, you're completely wrong to say that Prokosch is "only there to function as the suitor." All of these artistic disputes signify the conflicts inherent in any cinematic production, and Lang--the artist--has to successfully negotiate all of these obstacles in order to realize his artistic vision. For him, Paul and Prokosch are sort of like Scylla and Charybdis.

The artistic dispute is the plot device to bring Paul into the plotline or rather the device to bring the film industry to Paul. The main plot is about how Paul and Camille break up. Don't you understand that if Lang was the "artist who is meant to successfully navigate between obstacles" he would be the protagonist? But the protagonist and point of view of the film is Paul. So maybe Lang and Prokosch are the Scylla and Charybdis for Paul, with Prokosch representing vile commercialism and Lang signifying navel-gazing art?

He has to navigate his film between their monstrous assaults on his artistic integrity. Lang succeeds, by the way--at the end of the narrative, he has assumed complete artistic control of the film after all, since (predictably) Prokosch destroyed himself and Paul hesitated. Lang is the golden mean between the hot and cold temperaments of Prokosch and Paul, and the wisdom of Lang's position is demonstrated by the tragic narrative.

What do you mean predictably? I don't think it's predictable at all that Prokosch would die in the end. Unless of course you are meant to draw the parallel between the suitors and him. Which I do and you don't. See the contradiction? Neither Poseidon -who many think Prokosch symbolises- or Charybdis dies. Just the suitors.

I also wouldn't say that Lang succeeds. He can't finish the film without the producer that was being shot in his own villa. Unless he decides to finance it himself.

Both philosophy and art are informed by cultural context. The Pre-Socratics were not interested in morality at all, and I never cited them as espousing practical reason.

As I already said in detail earlier, you are wrong about the pre-Socratics so there's no need to revisit that subject.

Rather, the privileging of practical reason as a cultural virtue comes from the Homeric tradition--a tradition which is displaced by Socrates. I would insist that the modern emphasis on rationality and moral activity absolutely comes from Socrates.

I don't know where you got the notion that Homeric morality is singularly about practical reason or about practical reason at all but it's completely bogus. That is if you did get it somewhere else and you didn't just invent it for the sake of this argument as I suspect. Your other claim, that modern anything "absolutely" comes from Socrates is familiar. First of all, if you need the basis of "rationality" you need to go to the pre-Socratic materialists and natural philosophers, not to Socrates. And if you need to find the basis for the modern notions of absolute moral authority in philosophical terms you need to go to those who made such a fuss about Socrates, the Christians. But the whole argument that something modern owes its existence completely to some obscure ancient philosopher is hogwash. Just like the Frankfurt school wanted to show that the Holocaust was the logical outcome of Western Civilisation and its roots in ancient Greek culture and philosophy, so is your argument trying to link the modern paradigm to Socrates. Here's the fly in the ointment. Between Socrates, who I'm no fan of in any way, and today there are about 25 centuries of history at least 15 of which under a very barbaric form of theocracy based on Jewish theology.

If you think that some ancient Greek guy who heard voices is more important in the modern evolution of philosophy than the two and a half millennia that came after him, it seems you need to revisit the fundamentals of the relationship between cause and effect. Especially if you want to talk about the absolute type of morality that Socrates espoused. Rationality is rooted in the Age of Reason that mostly had to redevelop the tools to reach the state of the pre-Socratics, which is materialist natural philosophy and atheism.

Bring all those together, democratic beliefs, atomic theory, materialist natural philosophy, atheism, theory of flux i.e. dialectical change versus eternal stasis. Does all that ring any bells yet? But even with all those constituent parts I would never dare to say that the actual father of Marxism is Heraclitus or the democratic Sophists or that they're absolutely responsible for our current age of rationalism and materialist science. By the way, since all those theories were on one side and Socrates on the other, do you understand what his position really was in relation to his own epoch?

Interestingly, both the mythological worldview and artistic traditions of ancient Greece completely collapse after Socrates.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Socrates was a symptom of his age as I already said, not the cause. And I wouldn't call what came after as a complete collapse. The relative intellectual and overall decadence of the Hellenistic world had a lot to do with the weakening of the city states due to the constant warfare among them and the clashes between the superpowers. Democratic and oligarchic factions, even in philosophy played their part as the ideological apparatus of distinctive elements within Greek society and it wasn't some sort of "history of invasions" in the abstract field of knowledge. Enough with philosophy though.

I am intrigued by your mentioning of the realism school of 19th century literature, but I would say that the artistic fruitfulness of this movement comes from the way it complicates moral reasoning and presents a morally ambiguous worldview. The psychological complexity presented in these literary works isn't exactly the neuroticism of "modern man" I was talking about, "modern man" being overly concerned with moral justification. For all its psychological complexity, the realism school (like the Greek tragedies) was completely comfortable with the moral ambiguity of human emotions and actions.

I already disagreed on the phrase "modern neurotic man" as a category. I don't believe in crap like that. I'm aware though of the various theories on the "modern condition" ranging from the existentialist anguish over the absurdity of life of Camus (who funnily enough ends up with the conclusion of the pre-Socratic materialists of relative morality shaped collectively) and the various postmodern "theories" with the supposed collapse of the grand narratives. I mentioned realism because it was a child of that period of time starting with the quattrocento movements and early Enlightenment and culminated with the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. The whole drive towards materialism and understanding natural processes rather than idealistic, metaphysical ones evolves right before it and leads into it. There is plenty of connective tissue between Flaubert and Zola as the extreme, Balzac and Stendhal all the way to the weak chamber dramas that were shattered by Ibsen.

Obviously there are huge differences between all of them in countless respects but the paradigm of understanding the inner qualities of humans on a natural basis is right there. Which is why plays and works that harken back to ancient Greek themes and forms not only stand out but are very difficult to create. Greek tragedy had stark definitions of opposing forces that never appear like that in our age and I wouldn't call them ambiguous at all. A well known example is Synge's Riders to the Sea, which exactly because it reflects a way of life in direct opposition to primordial forces like the elements can be very hard to grasp by modern audiences unless the direction and acting are top notch. And why making wild pronouncements on ancient anything is dangerous and futile without good knowledge of the social context.

I think your error here is that a fatalistic universe is explanatory, but not necessarily rational. Particularly in ancient Greece, where human fate was determined by the conflicting wills of the gods. A polytheistic worldview complicates the rationality of fate because, after all, the gods often disagree--a point brilliantly made by Plato (via Socrates) in Euthyphro. And it should come as no surprise that the ancient Greeks gave their gods irrational human psychologies. It explained, for them, the "unpredictability" of the universe.

You're talking about absurdism here. There is no absurdism if there is any sort of will behind events. Absurdism rises out of the disappearance of the divine, for those who want to see it that way. As long as there is a divine will, there is no irrationality of events even if some of them are incomprehensible to mortals. The Lord works in mysterious ways and crap like that. But ancient Greek fate even bound the Gods themselves and that's a very ancient concept. Zeus was afraid of Nyx and her son Moros, the fatalistic doom bringer in the same way that Prometheus was seen as an opponent because of his gift of foresight (his name). Fate governed everything and was shaped by odd primordial entities that were eternal and probably invulnerable. It was a deterministic universe. Besides, you're saying yourself that they used specific concepts that explained the universe. If it did explain the universe, then we're not talking about an irrational universe at all even if it seems irrational to you to ascribe events to a divine will. It made perfect sense for them and actually most of the current population of earth.

But since you mention Socrates again, he started out as a natural philosopher examining natural phenomena (see the Clouds by Aristophanes to see why I'm saying that) who then abandoned that path in favor of the moralistic "divinely ordained" one to moralise the Athenians. There's more evidence to support that he had remained an atheist because of those materialist teachings he had absorbed rather than that he was utterly insane but it remains a problem. However, those arguments were common among the pre-Socratics materialists and not exclusive to Socrates. In turns both the very radical atheist materialists like Anaxagoras and Eurypides were excluded from society as were the radical proponents of tyranny like Socrates. That Socrates was both an atheist and an antidemocrat seems like an aberration and it might be if compared to Plato's rabid idealism but on the other hand, the Olympic religion had huge significance for the democratic states due to the structure of power among the Gods which wasn't exactly an absolute monarchy, Athena as protector of cities and democracy and so on. Contrasted with Socrates' "One" daemonic absolute moral principle, it's obvious that it had far more sinister antidemocratic purposes.

I don't disagree that Odysseus "has just as many fears and doubts as Paul," so I'll overlook your glib implication that I am unfamiliar with The Odyssey. What is different between Paul and Odysseus is not the complexity of their psychology but the fact that Paul is undone by moral ambiguity whereas Odysseus is not. How can we explain this difference? Paul absolutely obsesses over proving that Camille's emotions are invalid and irrational. This obsession, in my view, is a uniquely modern pathology. And, again, where does Lang suggest that The Odyssey is about an "objective" reality?

First of all, why glib? There is no shame in being only vaguely familiar with a work that's inherently complex and rooted in a foreign, alien culture. I am vaguely familiar with the Kalevala and the Mahabharata and I think it's terrible I haven't studied them properly yet but I don't have any problems admitting that my relation to these texts is severely limited. There is only shame in pretending to be familiar with it when you're not.

Secondly, what moral ambiguity does Paul face that makes him "neurotic"? Whether or not to murder Prokosch? I'd say that it's perfectly natural to be at the very least conflicted over a choice like that. Or is he neurotic because he's trying to understand his wife's sudden loss of love? Do you think he would not be neurotic if he just accepted the fact that his marriage is over instantly? Without any explanation from his wife?

It isn't Paul who says that Camille is irrational, it's me as the viewer of how her character is developed through the film. And again it's not Paul who believes her feelings are irrational, that's one of your statements to which I actually disagreed. I don't think Paul ever implies or says that Camille's feelings are "invalid" either, he's just seeking to understand what happened. Why so much confusion over who says what again?

The only one who uses the word neurotic in the film is Lang and that's to describe Odysseus through antithesis. He's not talking directly about Paul but probably about Paul's theory. We can't be sure because we never see how the conversation starts. I'll have to watch the film one more time since you're so caught up in miniscule details. One rather large thing you are missing though is that in Ghost at Noon, the German director is trying to approach the Odyssey through psychoanalysis, hence the word "neurotic". I haven't read the novel so I can't comment om the details but Godard's adaption very plainly sucks. What's meant to be an exposition of the events that led to the dissolution of a marriage over several months is reduced to a week or less by Godard. The book would reveal what part Lang is supposed to play and what he's trying to do with the Odyssey but since Lang is a seperate character and Godard didn't give a toss about the book, this connection even though in favor of my theory can't be made.

I think Lang says that about objective reality as they exit the theatre.

I'm not saying that Prokosch hits on Camille because she asked Paul if he loved her bit-by-bit. You're deliberately misreading what I wrote. I was pointing out that Camille's physical beauty is a salient point in the film, cataloged at the very beginning. Given that Prokosch is presented as a leech drooling over starlets, we can assume that his interest in Camille is strictly superficial. His motivation in pursuing her is her beauty, and nothing else. Because she is beautiful, she unwillingly draws Prokosch's attention. And I believe it is because Prokosch's intentions are absolutely obvious that Camille is disgusted with Paul's seemingly innocent proposal. Paul is using his beautiful wife as a career opportunity, or at the very least, Camille plausibly perceives this to be the case.

You were trying to connect the overabundance of Camille's nudity with Prokosch hitting on her. We don't need to see Bardot's buttocks on multiple occasions to understand that she's beautiful. The scene that you speak of does not "prove" she's beautiful in any way. Her husband likes several of her body parts. Most husbands would say the same things to their wives, not just the ones who happened to marry B.B or someone of equal beauty.

The mise-en-scene of that scene is one of different dynamics. Camille is completely naked and under self-examination while Paul is dressed and gazing at her body. She connects love to an appreciation of her physical beauty only. It's as if it's suggested that her beauty is her only worth, which as it turns out is strongly affirmed by the rest of the film. I still don't see how this has any connection to any of the major plot points of the film and how it would be necessary to them.

You ridiculously say that Camille's nudity is "unjustifiable." I don't know what this means. It isn't problematic to show a beautiful women on screen in all her glory unless you're a prude. Nudity doesn't need to be "problematized" in order to be morally justified. That, to me, is an absolutely Puritan stance.

Then maybe Godard should have added some hardcore action somewhere in between. How about Prokosch and Camille? Surely, there's no shame in sex, since it's completely natural. Who would want to be called a prude on IMDB anyway?

Nudity doesn't fit everywhere. It needs to have a function in the plot in order to not be exploitative. Do you understand what exploitation is? In this case it's inserting unneeded shots of nude or barely dressed females to attract male audiences or vice versa. It's using an actor's body rather than his or her talent to make more money. And in this film, it didn't fit anywhere so it was tacked on in the most random places. There was hardly any eroticism in the first scene which was just plain awkward to watch, no eroticism when B.B. bared her ass in the apartment sequence or any eroticism in those random cuts again in the apartment sequence with B.B. completely naked on a white rug. They were unnecessary and largely unrelated to the plot, only meant to appease the viewers who wanted to see B.B's curves.

Want to see curves despite the plot not calling for them? All the glory? The full monty? Watch softcore films or porn. That's where the actors are paid to use their physical appearance instead of any acting talent and the whole purpose of the films are to show nudity and sex acts. Or you can watch all those exploitative films that go out of their way to add some T'n'A randomly or random abs and asses like Twilight and True Blood. At least there is equality in the market place.

Anyway, I said that the nudity hadn't been problematized because you insisted Godard was pressured into using those shots by the production. So where do you see him subverting it's use? He doesn't. Which means that the "pressure" he received might have been more related to who gets to have final cut rather than any objections to exploitation.

[–] AntiArt 10 years ago

A critique is boring because this is a film, not a piece of political agitprop. There are sufficient details in the film's narrative for thoughtful members of the audience to think about the critical meaning of Bardot's nudity *if* they are so inclined. But for Godard to underline these meanings would be strictly polemical and therefore artistically problematic--precisely what is wrong with the excessive politicization of later Godard films.

Since when are political films necessarily boring or "artistically problematic"? You're talking bollocks again. A critique, especially in the realist genre where this film belongs is meant to show why you are dealing with the story you're dealing. It's not always obvious so it needs to be framed. If you're going to make a film about why murder is bad and you take the murderer's POV, then you have to frame the film accordingly because you might end up accidentally glorifying your subject. That's what a "boring" critique does in film. It's the bloody essence of doing films. You don't just take out a camera and capture "stuff" and then randomly assemble them in the cutting room without knowing what you're doing. The creator's viewpoint needs to be apparent through the construction and framing of the entire film.

What is your definition of those "thoughtful members of the audience" exactly anyway? Snobs tripping on peer pressure, having wild games of free association in order to glorify a hack like Godard just because most critics portray him as a "genius"? Novice film reviewers who want to fit in and end up copying the worst clichés from the people paying lip service to people like Godard? Wannabe directors who barely understand the medium and want to be just like Him? And not that there are any elements in the film to show the exploitative use of nudity as a problem, but even if there were lots of them, you seriously think that it's up to the viewer to choose which ones he'll end up using to make sense of the film?

In no way is Camille presented as Penelope by the film's mise-en-scene. If anything, the film draws a series of contrasts between Penelope's simple fidelity and Camille's emotional movement away from her husband. I was only proposing Helen of Troy as a *more suitable* analogue than Penelope. Camille couldn't be Circe or Calypso because there are no relevent similarities in their characterizations, unless I missed scenes where Camille turned men into swine (Circe), or detained them as infantile sex slaves with promises of immortality (Calypso).

I originally said that the film suggests Camille as a failed Penelope, either because no real Penelopes exist or because Camille in particular is rotten. I never said that Camille is a perfect analogue of Penelope. And there is no more suitable analogue than Penelope because it's the protagonist who draws parallels between Camille and Penelope since he sees himself as Odysseus.

Right. But Camille only draws Prokosch's attention because she is beautiful. He isn't interested in her for any other reason. And it is because of Camille's beauty (and Prokosch's interest in it) that Paul cynically puts her in the car with Prokosch. You're being disingenuous to suggest that I'm implying "only beautiful women die in sports cars," a statement which is obviously wrong. Camille's beauty pulls her into Prokosch's orbit, and with that the high-speed recklessness of his hedonistic lifestyle. And because of her beauty (as well as her choices) she dies tragically. You can't abstract her beauty away from her choices in the context of the film. Her beauty shapes her situation.

First of all I don't get all the contradictions. First, you say that you are not interested in moralizing, then you call me a prude for being against exploitation but at the same time you accuse Prokosch for being hedonistic throughout your replies. What's wrong with hedonism? Don't say that it's immoral.

It's not Camille's beauty that pulls her into Prokosch's orbit as you say. It's Camille's choice to run off with him, after being pushed away (at least in her subjective experience) by Paul. Camille has agency whereas Helen had none. She was the gift Aphrodite promised to Paris if he chose her to be the recipient of the Apple of Discord. Helen became a plaything for the Gods in which she made no choices of her own. Camille's tragedy is that Paul won't choose for her what she would like herself. But that's always up to her and only her.

Of course I can subtract her beauty from her character. Physical beauty isn't a personality trait and plotwise it only serves to show why Prokosch is attracted to her and not much else. In any other case, every single female character that's described as beautiful in a tragic situation that involves males attracted to her would be either an analogue or an anticipation of Helen.

It has everything to do with Camille's beauty, since her beauty gives her access to that high-speed life which is fraught with danger. And that Helen and Camille are both women whose beauty destabilizes their respective narratives is a salient connection. I'm not saying that these women are morally implicated by their beauty, but their beauty does *cause* external conflict (rightly or wrongly is another question entirely). Regarding Helen, you rightly note that without her abduction, no war would have happened. But what motivated her abduction? Because Helen was the most beautiful woman in the world, she was given to Paris by Aphrodite... Her beauty was the *cause* of her abduction, and in The Iliad, her abduction was divinely sanctioned. It's not some irrelevant factoid that Helen was beautiful. Her beauty is intrinsic to her literary significance.

Again, Helen is treated as an object whereas Camille makes choices. How does her beauty destabilise her narrative? Does she look herself in the mirror and realise that she deserves a richer husband than Paul because she's too beautiful for him? Was she driven mad in some sort of narcissistic fit? Do the Gods choose her to be a gift to Prokosch for adapting the Odyssey? How is it related beyond the basic sexual attraction she causes unwittingly to Prokosch?

The whole argument is completely off base. This is like saying that since Prokosch can see Camille through his eyes and appraise her beauty, then his gift of sight is what leads him to disaster. Yes, if Prokosch was blind he wouldn't had seen Camille's beauty and he wouldn't have been driving the car that killed him. Therefore is Prokosch lead to disaster because he could see? That's nonsense.

You are all gonna die.

[–] AntiArt 10 years ago

Also, it's an oversimplification (and a revealing one) to say that Camille plays "mind games" with Paul. She tells him she doesn't want to ride with the lecherous Prokosch, but he insists. Consequently, she falls out of love with him. She keeps repeating this, but Paul cannot accept it. To him, her reaction doesn't make rational sense. But his rational argumentation cannot change how she now feels about him.

How is not refusing his wife a ride with Prokosch a valid reason to fall out of love and break up a marriage? Camille herself denies that this is what causes her contempt. She pretends that everything is alright but then starts calling Paul a donkey until he slaps her. She lies to him that she had dinner with her mother while the truth is that she didn't and she never mentions what she was really doing at that time. In fact, she threatens Paul with divorce when he asks her mother if they had dinner together, very obviously displeased with his jealousy. Earlier at Prokosch's house, Camille seems incredibly jealous that Paul was alone talking to Prokosch's secretary.

Of course it's completely irrational that a woman would suddenly start behaving that way unless the whole episode (the film) comes at the end of a tired relationship where a single event becomes the tipping point. If that is true then Godard utterly failed to adapt the novel in any useful way because as it is, Camille is a terrible character without any real depth or aim.

This is wildly simplistic. First of all, she doesn't throw a "temper tantrum." Her anger burns slowly, and is actually intensified by Paul's pathetic line of questions. And she isn't upset that her husband wasn't sufficiently jealous, but rather that he forced her into a situation where she was uncomfortable. She clearly signaled her discomfort, but Paul vetoed her protests and put her in a car with a leech. Showing Camille off like a trophy, it was obvious that Paul was cynically using his beautiful wife to ingratiate himself to a potential employer. Her disgusted and irritable reaction was understandable and appropriate--you say it was "immature".

I don't see anything complicated in your explanation. Camille isn't throwing a temper tantrum, she's just slow to anger. Actually, Camille is already angry at Prokosch's house, is again angry back at the apartment, she calms down and pretends everything is alright, becomes angry again and then just stays angry. Camille never says what the reason for her anger is. Your entire description of the scene is distorted. Prokosch doesn't ask Paul for permission to take Camille back to his house, he asks Camille. Camille instead of shutting down Prokosch on her own, asks Paul who simply does not refuse that. Paul later implies that this was simply because of excessive politeness and not because he was trying to throw Camille at Prokosch to win a favour. It's not Paul who forces her into anything. Paul didn't shut down Prokosch in the same manner Camille herself didn't but he doesn't command her into the car. It's two people trying to test each other's loyalty by waiting to see who will intervene first. The first time it happens it's Camille's game but the second one, on the boat, it's very clearly Paul's.

Of course it's immature to throw a temper tantrum after that. She also appears angry that Paul arrived late at Prokosch's villa even though he explained that the taxi he was riding in had a car accident to which Camille seems completely indifferent.

I really think you are misreading the scene, and consequently the film. That you place Camille "at the level of an animal" simply because she refuses to indulge Paul with a rational analysis of her emotions misses the point. Like the ancient Greeks, Camille is elemental.

I didn't place Camille at the level of an animal. Godard did. And simply restating it as being "elemental" doesn't justify it. It still means that she's unrealistically irrational. Again though, the ancient Greeks were anything but "elemental".

She doesn't need to analyze and justify her emotions logically because (unlike Paul) she isn't a neurotic.

That's very novel. So it's only neurotic people who have an understanding of their emotions and what causes them? Never heard of that before. It's usually the opposite that's considered a sign of pathology.

She doesn't need to rationalize her emotions or actions. This is the source of miscommunication in the film--not that women are "irrational" like animals.

Camille is the woman of the film. Camille is irrational. I didn't say that Godard implies all women are like Camille but that this specific character of a woman is a terrible example of character development and what a woman (or any human) is like.

Actually, the film is suggesting that "modern men" are over-analytical; too caught up in abstractions to see what's right in front of them.

And all that comes from Lang's unrelated comment about Odysseus not being neurotic just because your a priori hypothesis was that Godard couldn't have been pretentious enough to not have solid knowledge of the Odyssey and therefore couldn't have had used ridiculous misreadings in the film text. Amazing. So according to you, Camille behaves very naturally but it's Paul who asks what the hell happened in a day to bring such a sudden change the neurotic one?

Camille is very intelligent and highly perceptive.

I asked before for any occurrences where this becomes apparent in the film. It seems that Contempt and the film you are talking about are two largely different films.

As soon as Paul suggests she get in the car with Prokosch, she immediately understands the cynicism of her husband's ostensibly innocent proposal. She doesn't need to explain herself and that Paul is unable to understand why she's upset only makes matters worse. Paul shouldn't have placed his wife in a compromising situation. End of story. For Camille, no rational argumentation he can offer will restore her love for him. He betrayed her.

Paul does not pimp out Camille to Prokosch. He doesn't even originally suggest it. It's Prokosch who says that Paul won't be too comfortable in the car along Camille in an obvious attempt to get rid of him and it's Paul who suggests that he'll take a taxi instead. How is Paul the sole person responsible for this when Camille could have clearly refused to ride with Prokosch not just in the first place but at any point during the exchange? The same kind of reasoning that can be used to blame Paul can also be applied to Camille. Why does Camille feel it's alright to leave the responsibility of riding in a car with a stranger to her husband?

I don't think Camille is any of those things. Her leaving with Prokosch was an act of desperation, not spite. She repeatedly told Paul she didn't love him anymore (that she had nothing but contempt for him), but the message simply wasn't registering to her over-analytical husband. Cheating with Prokosch was the only way Camille knew to confirm for Paul that their marriage was over.

Have you even watched the apartment sequence? It's implied that Camille has either cheated on Paul the first time she met Prokosch before Paul arrived at his house or she's pretending to be unfaithful. And really, I didn't knew that instead of filing for divorce someone needs to cheat and belittle their spouse in order to end a marriage. I guess Godard is a fan of the hard way of doing things.

Your characterization of Camille as "childish, belligerent, dishonest, unfaithful and vincictive" are correct only if Paul is understood as a sympathetic character. This is not the case. Paul is an idiot who over-analyzes everything and pathetically tries to rationalize his own status as a sell-out hack by telling Camille that everything he did was for her sake, to buy her things she wanted.

Why do you think that someone being childish, belligerent, dishonest, unfaithful and vindictive are relational to other characters? Even if Paul was a complete monster, that wouldn't make Camille any less of a liar and a cheat, or any less childish in her reactions to him. You seem to forget that Paul actually breaks off the partnership with Prokosch after he sees them kiss, which only makes Camille even angrier.

The film has no sympathetic characters. The most sympathetic one and only because of his unpretentiousness and honesty is Prokosch. It seems Godard was trying to present him as a caricature but he ended up being far more likeable and defined than his other characters.

You are all gonna die.

[–] Gus-69 10 years ago

You do your nickname justice.

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

[–] AntiArt 10 years ago

Hurr durr ima Goddurd fanboy and ima insult your nickname cause i didn reed anything you rote and im too clueless to kno what dada was derp

Alright, poor conception and execution on your trolling attempt. But I have to say this. I don't have the time or energy to waste on continuing to argue with all sorts of pseudointellectual hipsters over the worth of Le Mépris. Want to be a consumer and have no standards of your own other than those you "borrow" from "experts"? Go ahead. But don't reply to my threads and say nothing just to satisfy some childish hurt ego or something. That's just poor form even for IMDB wannabe auters.

That's all I'm going to say on the subject. Either let the thread die or play with your feces all by yourself.

You are all gonna die.