MovieChat Forums > Le mépris (1964) Discussion > Contempt for Contempt?

Contempt for Contempt?

posted 15 years ago by wmaster784
8 replies | jump to latest

I saw this movie about a year ago at a theater that plays the classics, and considered walking out after the first 15 minutes. The plot was nonsensical and brooding, and while the cinematography and color are excellent, I didn't understand the enormous appeal this movie has for so many people. Reading the message boards, it is evident that many people find very complex and deep parallels in this movie, but to me all the intricacies of Contempt are so muddled and confusing that they refuse to bear any meaning at all. That's my rant. I posted this because I know how many people love this movie, and would like to hear some other points-of-view.

[–] Child_OfThe_Moon 14 years ago

I get the impression that some people just put too much pressure on themselves when watching films which they preconceive to be a) great, and b) complex or abstract. I think the film is very straightforward if you pay attention to the obvious motives and conflicts of interest between the characters. When people start looking for symbolism they tend to alienate themselves from the dialogue and action, and consequently, you get people complaining about the lack of humanity in the film. I thought it was one of the more 'real' (i.e. human) films I've seen in a long time, especially so for the fact that it's from 1963.

[–] JaneSchmo 14 years ago

I thought it was mental and "intellectual" masturbation.

I would still give it a mild thumbs up for some qualities but it's just Godard sitting at his type writer, smirking under his breath and jerking himself off.

As for the humanity, I also feel it is cold, remote, shallow, unreal and inhuman.

stopjohnofgod.blogspot.com

stopsylvia.com

[–] ARadicalAliensNoun 14 years ago

If artistic works were disqualified for the... self centered element, a lot of masterworks would be lost. And also, well, you know Woody Allen's quote about masturbation.

But let's be serious. Why do you say that? This film is among those where you do not hear the typewriter: it's really, completely engrained in the medium.

This film, even if it does show a great love and knowledge of cinema, breaks quite a few traditional rules. Those relating to rythm, cause and effect, and the gratification principle, among others. As such, it does have a certain agressivity to it. But to me, it's neither cryptic

I'll sure admit that Godard is an intellectual, but this film is also very sensual, no?

And why the quotation marks around "intellectual"? This always ticks me off.

I disagree with the last qualifier, but I kind of like this quote from your post:

"As for the humanity, I also feel it is cold, remote, shallow, unreal and inhuman."

To which my best answer woud be: Yeah, so?

[–] NiKoDay 14 years ago

what man hasn't gotten too far in on a deal (in this case an apartment he can't afford) and had to work at some awful job to try and pay his way out? what woman hasn't found the man she's with suddenly not the sweet, sensitive, strong person she fell in love with, but an insecure weakling? what man hasn't felt threatened by someone with more wealth and power than he? what woman hasn't ever wanted to know that man, even if she too found him repulsive? what man hasn't felt he was losing the most precious thing in the world to him and there was nothing he could do to stop it? what woman hasn't felt pawned off at one time or another by a man she completely trusted? what man or woman hasn't felt that their life was suddenly coming up short? what man or woman hasn't tried to deal with it, failed, tried again?

if you find these "themes" to be masturbation, no matter what world they take place in, well, you probably won't like the movie.

otherwise beautiful scenery, wild characters, original dialogue, enough references to all sorts of culture to explore or ignore for at least half a lifetime, great clothes, an incredible setting and "cinematic" images, one of the greatest scores for a film ever composed (all be it used in a way to mock H'wood films,) superb, can't take your eyes off of them acting and, of course, most of all, B.B. B.B. B.B.

so sit back, turn off your phone and computer, find something to enjoy, or don't. it's still one of the greats, even if Godard hated making it, and doesn't like it now.

[–] The_Dying_Flutchman 14 years ago

Godard is one of the most confoundig, exhilarating, nauseant, flavorful, robust, crapulous and confusing directors in the history of cinema. And all of these can usually be found crashing into each other in his films. Hurray for this Jean Luc! Truly a saint of the New Inquisition!!

Nothing is more beautiful than Oscar Homolka.

[–] skay_baltimore 13 years ago

@wallytookadive

The themes you mention are indeed a major part of this film. The question is whether or not they were dealt with artistically and/or in the most interesting possible manner. For me, this movie was just too brooding and chopped up for my tastes. I "got" the main points; I just didn't particularly care for how they were presented. If I really wanted to see an unhappy couple in action, I'd just call up my ex-wife.

The whole world is a very narrow bridge. The key is to be fearless. R' Nachman of Breslov

[–] keith48322003 11 years ago

I think Contempt was about the clash of egos and a journey from relative happiness to tragedy as people become disillusioned with ambition.

Not a very complex series of events or much activity in the film, but references to the themes are clear from the settings, the analogies between the narrative of the "Odyssey" and the relationships between the modern characters, the sunny climes and the "sculpture" and artifice which surrounds them.

[–] Geovibe 11 years ago

We just watched this in our film history class. Out of 30 students, I'd say half raised their hands to say they enjoyed it. I didn't raise my hand.

I don't have contempt for it, I just feel it was kind of weak. The 30 minute argument (or back and forth) was boring. The film should have been called "Indifference" or "Blasé". In my opinion, the 'inciting incident' was rather small and Camille's effort to exude contempt was dulled by her mixed emotional state.

I enjoyed Jack Palance (even though Ebert's review said he didn't enjoy the role) and I thought Michel Piccoli's character was a bore.