As many former classmates will tell you, Contempt isn't exactly the most popular film of the class. In fact, many will tell you it's the one movie they didn't like. Whether you appreciate the cultural and cinematic significance of the picture or not, Contempt can be tedious and incredibly boring. However, Professor Ratekin himself says that this was a very normal reaction to the Jean-Luc Godard picture. Why do you think this film is usually so unpopular?
The main reason that Contempt is included in the syllabus remains the fact that it represents an important movement in cinematic history: the French New Wave. This movement came on the heels of World War II, when young people became disillusioned with the rudimentary and repetitive products of Hollywood and French cinema. They wanted to experiment with the way films were made, and heighten the reality of motion pictures by shooting outside and in more realistic scenarios. It also heightened the importance of the director, and some of the most influential artists in the French New Wave include Francois Truffaut, Claude Charbol, Jacque Rivette, and of course, Jean-Luc Godard. Have you seen any other films in this movement?
Godard was a highly regarded yet controversial director in the 1960s and 1970s due to his unique approach to filmmaking that emphasized style over substance. He challenged many conventional methods present in movies at that time, and also popularized the use of references to earlier films through dialogue, frame design, and shot content. His Breathless became the symbol of the French New Wave, which also introduced the use of jump cuts to add to the visual style.
Contempt directly addresses Godard's frustrations with American film studios. Jack Palance (who plays the American producer) deems the symbolic and dream-like nature of Fritz Lang's Odyssey too artsy, and the movie makes it seem that Palance is more concerned with money than actually making a good film. In addition, he also awkwardly flirts with Brigitte Bardot, making viewers feel as though he is sleazy and out of place. What do you think of Godard's feelings on American producers? Do you share his notion that they're all like Jack Palance?
The film repeatedly makes viewers aware that they are watching a film- whether through the vocal opening credits (read by Godard himself), the inappropriate color filter changes, and random musical cues. What else did you notice that was "off"?
Nevertheless, Contempt is longer and excruciatingly drawn out in comparison to most movies today. The apartment scene in particular seemingly goes on forever, despite the effects involved in the sequence. The architecture looks as strained as Paul and Camille's marriage, but its hard not to feel strained yourself watching them fight, make up, and fight yet again. Clocked at 34 minutes, this scene is not for the weak hearted. What was your reaction to the scene? What other scenes stuck out to you?
Brigitte Bardot was one of the biggest movie stars in the world at the time of Contempt's release. The production of the movie was sometimes stalled due to the paparazzi constantly hounding her, much to the annoyance of Jean-Luc Godard. The influential French New Wave director hated making Contempt in every way, much preferring to make smaller movies instead of big-budget flicks like this. He did not even get the actors he wanted - Frank Sinatra and Kim Novak turned down the lead roles.
Contempt is comparative to the Ulysses story the characters seek to make, and those of you familiar with the Greek epic will recognize many similarities. Godard's film also makes fun of the moviemaking business itself, not only as a comment on American cinema, but towards the medium in general. How do you think Contempt's perception of filmmaking compares to the more optimistic tones of Singin' in the Rain? Which do you think is more accurate? Which do you prefer?
Honestly, I strongly disliked this film. Camille and Paul's fights were extremely frustrating. It felt like they were having two separate conversations with each other when they were arguing. I was constantly annoyed with the music because it was the same piece over and over. The dramatic music made it seem like someone was having a life changing revelation, when in reality nothing was happening in the scene. I also felt that the ending was abrupt, but maybe that was the director's intention. However, I did appreciate many of Godard's shots. Especially towards the end of the film, he took advantage of the stunning background. But, I agree that this film was more about style than substance.
ReplyDeleteI absolutely did not like this movie. As it has been said, it is long and boring and completely did not hold my attention. One thing that I can commend the movie for is that the characters were somewhat realistic. During the scene of the couples fighting, I thought that it could happen in real life as bad as it was. The characters felt very real at that moment. Everything else however was really bad. There was no real plot and it just felt like everything was showing back and forth, and there was no point to get invested in the movie because it didn't even seem like the characters were invested. None of them were likeable, so I didn't want to root for any of them. The only thing that kept me watching the movie was the scenery, which was gorgeous.
ReplyDeleteI especially didn't like the random cuts to the big statues. I know they were supposed to be some kind of symbol from the Odyssey but it was just too weird. This film was never successful because it assumed that the viewer was inside the directors mind and could understand everything that went on, which of course was false.
I did not enjoy watching this film, mainly for the plot. The fight was long-winded and borderline unrealistic, the American producer got on my nerves, and the film they were producing within this film seemed to be a child's play version of Ulysses. I appreciated the scenic shots of the film, especially the technique that the director used to make the shot look like a picturesque living shot. The color composition was also aesthetically pleasing, especially in the apartment scene where the saturated red color contrasted the white background. While pleasing to the eye, the film was not that pleasing of a script.
ReplyDeleteI actually enjoyed this film, but it does not surprise me that this film is unpopular. I think the reason is because it’s too realistic. The main reason people watch films is to be entertained, or to have an experience. Contempt almost seemed to do the opposite. I agree that at times it felt very uncomfortable to watch. For instance, throughout the film Camille was trying to give her husband subtle opportunities that would show her he still loves her. But he never took them, mostly because he failed to realize what she was doing. For me personally, I found that very upsetting especially with how the film ended. But I think also, how the film was shot and edited certainly plays a factor in its unpopularity. A good example of this is during the scene at Paul and Camille’s apartment. The 34 minutes scene unfolded as such: fight, make-up, repeat. I felt myself getting incredibly frustrated during this scene (the length of time did not bother me, but rather how it unfolded). It was SO apparent that both characters had something specific on their mind that was upsetting them, but never mentioned it. Considering the length of the scene, it was frustrating that by the end nothing was actually resolved between Paul and Camille. Again, I think this ties back into the realism of the film. I feel in most films today, or during the time period in which Contempt was filmed, if a couple fought it went like this: fight, communicate feelings, and make-up.
ReplyDeleteI think Godard has a very fair point when it comes to American producers. However, I would not agree that they are all like Jack Palance. But I think there is certainly a culture of constantly giving the audience something that pleases them, rather than one that challenges them.
Comparing “Contempt” with “Singin’ in the Rain”, I think Contempt is much more accurate. Going off the statement I mentioned previously, comparing the two accentuates Godard’s idea of American producers. Godard gives his audience the opposite of what they want; not everything is a happy ending.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI really disliked this film. It was realistic in terms of the excruciatingly long fight that went nowhere, but that didn't make it any less frustrating to watch, especially since it should have been pretty obvious that putting Camille alone in the car with the man who was hitting on her would upset her. Even after the fight in the apartment was over, it was just the same fight over and over again through the movie, and nothing new really ever happened. The scenery was gorgeous, and the style was interesting, but not nearly enough to make up for how tedious most of the movie ended up being.
ReplyDeleteI would definitely say that "Contempt" is more accurate than "Singin' in the Rain." "Singin' In the Rain" certainly offers a much more optimistic view than the realities of getting a film made. I did like "Singin' in the Rain" better overall, but I have no problem with the more realistic approach that Godard took. I do like films that take a more critical approach, like "Contempt" did, Godard just did it in a way that failed to really capture my attention after over thirty minutes of watching a single argument.
I really loved this film. I can understand why it was long and drawn out, and sometimes confusing, but it also felt like a dream sequence. I really loved how nothing felt real and even when I did not know what was actually going on plot-wise, and the music did not tell me what to think, I felt like I could understand what was happening through the cinematography and how Camille was filmed. This film felt like a dream but it was also very realistic in the sense that Camille and Paul never had any resolutions. They were fighting much the same way a real couple would. The apartment scene felt like the majority of the movie, but I felt like I was really there and became very invested in what was happening, how Camille was being treated and how she was acting in return. I would feel annoyed with Paul, then with Camille. Ultimately, I enjoyed how this film was created not for entertainment, but as art. I enjoyed how it was both surreal and ultra-realistic.
ReplyDeleteI have gone back and watched the movie again - it still is very confusing for me to understand. I did think - while interesting - did not capture my attention. I think the movie was quite the emotional roller coaster ride for the couple. For instance, the scene in the apartment just dragged on and on - a very slow movie. This is probably my least favorite movie we have watched thus far. Nevertheless, I thoroughly have enjoyed the movies we have watched overall.
ReplyDelete