MovieChat Forums > Le mépris (1964) Discussion > The pinnacle of the French New Wave?

The pinnacle of the French New Wave?

posted 17 years ago by donovan_on_fire
14 replies | jump to latest

It seems there is a division between those who adore Contempt and those who laothe it. The division relsihes in the fact that the film veers far from Godard's more stripped down, experiemental narrtives contained in his other films during this era. Yet, in it's own absorbed way, Contempt is as true as Godard has ever been to conveying his dismantling attitude of cinematic standards. Having viewed many of Godard's prolific work during the 1960s, and those by other New Wave auteurs, I believe Contempt is the crowning achievement the French New Wave. A masterpiece of style, substance, and subtlety. It's a starkly beautiful, anarchist work of film technique. One of the great films of that by gone era when cinema was viewed equally as an art form and an investment.

The Criterion Collection is sh*t for sheeps

[–] suckerdwsp316 17 years ago

The crowning achievement of the French New Wave was Band of Outsiders imo. Everything from then on was never as great as anything before Band of Outsiders. Sure, there was Alphaville and Day for Night, but it didn't come close to Breathless, Piano Player or BOA. But thats just me.

[–] torontodog 17 years ago

Wow, I couldn't agree more. I saw Band of Outsiders first, and then Breathless and Alphaville. After those I was really expecting a lot from this hyped up "big budget" Godard movie. But I was disappointed by it. Not that I hated it but I'd put it behind several other of Godard's own movies. For me Band of Outsiders is still the best of the French New Wave, but there are a lot I haven't watched yet, so we shall see.

[–] suckerdwsp316 17 years ago

I've seen too many Godard's. His best era was in the 60s. His best movies was his first one- Breathless, and Band of Outsiders. Everything else is just good, nothing special. Truffaut is the real master, a brilliant mind cut short too soon.

Way too many foreign directors died too young, I don't get it. Its fu.ckin ridiculous.

[–] thetrojancow 17 years ago

The greatest of the new wave films was the last of them -Weekend. But Le Mepris is a highlight of his early sixties' work. I suspect Godard only started to figure how to really make films in the eighties': the greatest of his films I have seen is Je vous salue, Marie, a truly sublime commentary on the interrelation between body and spirit.

[–] Benedict_Cumberbatch 16 years ago

It's a great film, but it isn't even my Godard's favourite. From what I've seen, I'd probably pick his "Pierrot Le Fou" and "Breathless", and Truffaut's "Jules et Jim".

"I did cramps the way Meryl Streep did accents" - Calliope (Middlesex)

[–] lanceandnade 16 years ago

The crowning achievement of the French New Wave is Mon Oncle, by Jacques Tati, and Godard wrote that in Cahiers Du Cinema...

[–] Don_Farshido 16 years ago

I agree with you. For me it's this one and "Pierrot le fou", which somehow lost its popularity I feel. For me it's still Godard's craziest film of that time and next to this onehis most brillant.

After the first viewing I was very, very disappointed by Contempt. But it was a Godard, and I loved his films, so I gave him a few more trys, and ended up having one of the most profound cinematic experiences of my whole life.
I have never seen a film which gives me so many chills in scenes where actually nothing happens. Le Mépris is my personal proof that pure thought and pure emotion can be one and the same thing totally, in moments of sublime artistry and in real life.
Godard combines a personal tragedy with a completly abstract tragedy and *beep* up our minds because we haven't the slightest idea which is trivial and which is profound. The whole film is like one long moment of emotional and intellectual freedom. Disturbing, sad, but unspeakably beautiful, that it pains you to leave its world and you even refuse to after hours have passed since its ending credits.

[–] TheRepublicOfMiranda 16 years ago

"Godard combines a personal tragedy with a completly abstract tragedy and *beep* up our minds because we haven't the slightest idea which is trivial and which is profound. The whole film is like one long moment of emotional and intellectual freedom. Disturbing, sad, but unspeakably beautiful, that it pains you to leave its world and you even refuse to after hours have passed since its ending credits."

I think you people have it all wrong. This film is a masterpiece of cynicism, detachment and (small 'd') deconstruction. The music is totally overdone, the characters are presented as caricatures of the roles and functions they would normally play in a film, and the conspicuous presence of Miss Bardot makes apparent that the entire film ought to be defined by her image (as it was; everyone knows of Carlo Ponti's attempt to goad Godard into showing her ass, and the role this had in the famous scene after the opening credits-- Arguably one of the most defining moments of the film).

Anyone that does not realize the bizarre, subtle hilarity of this film is doomed. That goes twofold for anyone who falls in love with the "tragedy" of the Javals.

[–] Don_Farshido 16 years ago

I think YOU people get it wrong, because basically that is the way people see it who are not very fond of the movie, and that is EXACTLY the way I saw it when I watched it the first time.
Your mistake lies in your belief in a total division between the "cynical" and the "tragical", and by that your definition of "tragic" as something old-fashioned and naive. What you mean by tragical seems to be a kind of kitsch.
Watch "Pierrot le fou" and you'll see more openly bizarre hilarity and completley absurdist humour everywhere, the whole film seems to be mocking your expectations of great art in every second. Still it is a profoundly tragical and emotional film, and everybody who does not realize that is completely doomed I'm afraid.

The topic you are hinting at, a cynical deformation of the tragical, is not something which arises actually from watching the film but is IN the film itself, the film deals with this topic extensively and stands above mere cynicism. It shows how the modern neurotics are mocking greek tragedy by giving it a psychological dimension which can finally only satirize its real content and its truth. Basically, if you wish, that film is mocking your perception of it extensively. Watch it again and look out for its humanity between all its hilarity, be ready to be disturbed and moved and only then you will ever be able to truly appreciate Godard's art, whose capability of capturing the human condition and whose humanism (which for me belongs to every great art) have been overlooked much too often.

[–] Clearlylosingit 16 years ago

My dislike for this film is the fact that I feel that Godard's comtempt for overcame the subjects kept took all his energy and he was too exhausted to focus on making a great film. There's no breathing room. It's all bitterness. But a cold slick bitterness. It that doesn't come off as contempt as much as it does wily annoyance. There's no passion. It's cold.

Then again, I probably should not indulge this conversation being that "My Life To Live" is the only Godard film I have any true affection for.

Pie Ho fo life!

[–] TheRepublicOfMiranda 16 years ago

"My dislike for this film is the fact that I feel that Godard's comtempt for overcame the subjects kept took all his energy and he was too exhausted to focus on making a great film. There's no breathing room. It's all bitterness. But a cold slick bitterness. It that doesn't come off as contempt as much as it does wily annoyance. There's no passion. It's cold."

If you crudely equate "passion" with "great film" then you clearly don't have the slightest idea what Godard is up to. Great works can be cold. In fact, at times, it is absolutely necessary that they be cold for a writer to remain true to his or her desires. What the world needs is a special, cultural holocaust for petty dullards like you, for those who can't handle the demand of a text without invective, who require "breathing room" amid the clockwork of its unfolding layers, even as they are justified through honesty and intimacy.

[–] Clearlylosingit 16 years ago

There's nothing wrong with cold, but I think Godard uses these techniques to keep the audience at a distance, instead of drawing them into his world, which can be fustrating. There is a point where an art film can be too "arty." From the camera angles and movements to the cinematography, it was all very distracting. I think that's what Godard's post "My Life..." films became. There are people who love his films since. I'm just not one of them.

As a sidenote, You don't have to be an a-hole just because someone disagrees with you. I know people feel strongly about the movies they love, I know I do, and this is the internet- where a-holes seem to dominate, but let's keep it civil. Don't go all Bernard Berkman.

Pie Ho fo life!

[–] TheRepublicOfMiranda 16 years ago

"The topic you are hinting at, a cynical deformation of the tragical, is not something which arises actually from watching the film but is IN the film itself, the film deals with this topic extensively and stands above mere cynicism."

I apologize if you misread my post (perhaps you were a bit emotional, having experienced the profound humanity of its explicit ambivalence)-- I fully agree with you that there is a kind of ambiguous marriage going on, wrought into the form of the film. Obviously this is not a mere epiphenomenon.

I am moved by Le Mepris, and I absolutely agree with your concluding remark on Godard's capacity for capturing the human condition. But the idea of being "moved" ought first and foremost to suggest an intellectual movement. Naturally, this is where your humanism fails you. Watch it again and keep an eye out for the agency of forces that are purely narrative in function. Stop trying to evade its textuality. Get a feel for the abstract conversation going on between Godard's automatons and their Homeric predecessors. Then you will be able to truly appreciate the work of Godard.

[–] Felonious-Punk 16 years ago

...ended up having one of the most profound cinematic experiences of my whole life.
I have never seen a film which gives me so many chills in scenes where actually nothing happens. Le Mépris is my personal proof that pure thought and pure emotion can be one and the same thing totally, in moments of sublime artistry and in real life.
Godard combines a personal tragedy with a completly abstract tragedy and *beep* up our minds because we haven't the slightest idea which is trivial and which is profound. The whole film is like one long moment of emotional and intellectual freedom. Disturbing, sad, but unspeakably beautiful...

I couldn't have put it better Don Farshido!

The only thing I can think to add is that I feel a separation between this work and the rest of Godard's body of work. I mean thematically he has been told the same story in all his works, boy loves girl, girl loves boy, but they have to fight the fates to stay together.
This movie however, is the most lovely I have seen of Godard's (I've only also seen Breathless, AWomanIsAWoman, BandOfOutsiders, MasculinFeminin). Everything else seems to hide so much emotion in codes and tricks and humor. And in not really funny humor, in more of a kind of humor that employs gimmicks, albeit rather cool gimmicks. But gimmicks are more like pretty icing and garnish instead of a meal. To me, Le Mepris is the movie of his that is the most honest, the most baring of his soul, and striving to communicate clearly with the world audience. It is a love story, not only in theme but in delivery to us, the audience. Unclouded by cool winks and posturing.

I think that the French New Wave was over by the time Le Mepris came out, but it is the greatest movie between the 2 directors (Godard/Truffaut).

So as far as the "pinnacle off the French New Wave" goes, and its intention to develop a new language free of standard cinematic styles, in an effort to communicate more directly, more honestly to the audience.
The "pinnacle" I see is the trio: 400 Blows-Breathless-Jules & Jim. These are the ones I see as most radical in breaking with tradition, but still maintaining beauty.
(Besides these 2 directors, I don't know who else belongs in this movement.)