Boz
Published writer
Posts: 1,451 
|
Post by Boz on Jan 21, 2007 21:31:26 GMT
Contempt  (1963/Godard)My 2nd Godard. Great colorful imagery, simple yet compelling story, and dialogue which stood out even through the subtitles. The only real aggravating thing here was Godard's seemingly arbitrary use of the theme music, constantly cutting it in and out at random points throughout several different scenes with different tones. It just seemed sloppy. Contempt is drastically different in style from Breathless, and although both are generally about the complexity of relationships, they present varying final conclusions. Looking at both films simply for their aesthetic value alone shows how much Godard evolved as a filmmaker in just under 4 years. There's a certain sense of mystery here that was absent in the straightforwardness of Breathless. Godard seems to revel in the fact that we as viewers aren't aware of what exactly the occurrence is that is the driving force of the film. Another thing I noticed is the incredible similarity to Fellini's 8 1/2, made that same year. Both films are about frustrated members of the filmmaking world, hounded by the demands of pompous industry insiders and moody love interests. The only real difference is that 8 1/2 serves as a single person biography, while Contempt focuses more on the pivotal relationship of the film, rather than it's characters. And although both are satirical in tone, I guess you could say 8 1/2 is much more of a comedy.
|
|
Capo
Administrator 
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Dec 20, 2008 20:49:24 GMT
Le mépris
Contempt
Jean-Luc Godard 1963 France / Italy[/color]
In Italy, a French scriptwriter is hired by an American producer to doctor a faithful adaptation of The Odyssey.
A film all about relationships: that between Author and Audience, Text and Adaptation, Man and Woman, Husband and Wife, Director and Producer, Producer and Scriptwriter, Commerce and Art. They're all capitalised concepts because they might apply to Godard's vision of the world in general, and filmmaking in particular; but the film's resonance lies in the specific emotional weight attained from the narrative's own particulars. He uses the same musical motif throughout, and each time the strings come in there comes with them a heightened awareness in the characters, especially in juxtaposition of the cross-cutting of memories grasped in an instant and brought together in a moment of revelation (such as when Bardot suddenly suspects Piccoli of an affair). It's his most commercial film, perhaps his most story-driven too, but peppered with much lasting brilliance are abstract shots of the Greek Gods, stony and white but for their painted eyes, as they look down on the unfolding tragedy - a woman falling out of love.
|
|
|
|
Post by quentincompson on Jan 3, 2009 20:15:23 GMT
It's not story driven at all, the conflict and dialogue is completely superficial and has hardly anything to do with what Godard was trying to say with the film.
Take the scene at the beginning when Bardot is sayng "do you love my legs, my eyes my lips etc." It's not supposed to be taken as real human interaction, that's why Godard uses red and blue shades to remind the audience it's a film.
Later they're arguing and Godard completely cuts the sound in the theater so we can only hear Bardot and Piccoli's conversation. It's clearly not realistic.
The most brilliant aspect of it all in my view is the way Godard the artist played by Piccoli seeks to create something tragic and real at the cost of losing that connection with Karina played by Bardot. It's the problem of the artist being unable to communicate except through art and the end realization that art is fantastical and something which cannot really be held on to. So truly Piccoli's misunderstanding of Bardot is not only supposed to reference a real life relationship but the artists struggle in re-creating what he or she doesn't even have a firm grasp on in reality.
I need to see it again but I think it's brilliant and possbly his best film.
|
|
|
|
Post by Anasazie on Jan 3, 2009 22:09:33 GMT
Yes exactly! Just like in Vivre sa vie, the guilt of putting his loved one in these fantastical situations as though he can't connect with her like that in real life. Is art imitating life or does modern life have too much desire to imitate art? Godard's and a lot of artists deepest connections with the world only come from their art, just as you said. He knows it's a flaw, but it's who he is and it's all he could obviously be.
It's not commercial in the slightest! Having stars and American money does not make a film commercial, it mocks the whole commercial nature of American move making throughout! The falseness of it all, the triteness of it all. The Blue, Red, White colours of the American flag over Bardot's bum, genius piss take! Supposedly the colours of liberty and a connection between France and the States, but a comment on how separate the two countries had become in their approach, especially in relation to cinema. The colours of liberty are ironic because the cinema the American producers were wanting Godard to create was anything but liberal or open!
The use of Fritz Lang in that is superb as he was a European artistic genius that ended up restricting himself in Hollywood and it's as though Godard was saying......this is bullshit, that's what'll happen to me if i do what they say.
That's what i love about his films, they're working on so many different levels, so many different interpretations! You have the Tarantino surface interpretations and those weirdos that claim his career ended with Weekend and then you have those that see the amazing possibilities beneath all of that deliberately "quirky" surface.
I'd say it's close to his best, probably 2nd!
|
|
|
|
Post by quentincompson on Jan 3, 2009 23:58:40 GMT
Yep I like Vivre sa vie the best at the moment but I haven't seen Contempt in quite a while and most of the opinions I've formed on it came from understanding his other films and then applying those thoughts to my memory of Contempt, so I'll watch it again at some point.
I think after Weekend most of his films went away from that Hawks,Truffautesque surface charm and as such didn't win over all the people who weren't really understanding the purpose behind his best work in the first place. Kind of like what's happened with Ferrara.
|
|
|
|
Post by Anasazie on Jan 4, 2009 0:09:33 GMT
I haven't seen either for way too long!
Definitely! It's sad!
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Jan 5, 2009 1:00:48 GMT
Commercial's the wrong word. I meant accessible.
I still think it's his most narratively strong.
|
|
|
|
Post by quentincompson on Jan 5, 2009 3:23:08 GMT
Accesible in terms of the average filmgoer trying to get some enjoyment out of a Godard film Yes.
But as me and Anasazie have stated Godard is essentially mocking that type of film, and I was just trying to point out it's one of his most complex films under the surface, so in terms of comprehending the meaning I would say No, it's not really accesible in relation to the rest of his work, although none of his work is really that clearcut.
It may indeed be the strongest in terms of narrative but that's hardly what his films are about.
|
|
|
|
Post by Anasazie on Jan 5, 2009 3:44:38 GMT
In terms of traditional narrative and accessibility, i'd actually claim A Band Apart wins on both those fronts. I'd actually even claim that in terms of seeing all the layers of one of his films, Le Mepris is among the least "accessible"!
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Jan 8, 2009 21:32:45 GMT
Good points.
What do you guys make of his 80s work? I find it (what I've seen) incredibly dense and underrated; hilarious, too. Love his obstinate, cluttered frames and soundtracks. I'm actually excited about revisiting him; it's been too long.
|
|
|
|
Post by Anasazie on Jan 9, 2009 0:36:44 GMT
I think his 80s work is his most inconsistent, but anything by the guy is always interesting! Passion and Detective are my least favourite for instance as i just found that both really static, very experimental and like nothing else, but just not as involving or as deep as most of his other stuff. I do love Slow Motion completely though and really feel it was a major come back film for him, have you seen that one Capo? Would love too find King Lear somewhere too!
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Jan 9, 2009 20:45:04 GMT
I like Detective, Prénom Carmen, and Passion. Not so sure about Slow Motion - I've seen it once and rank it alongside 2 or 3 Things... as one of his most unendurable.
I have King Lear downloaded.
|
|
|
|
Post by Anasazie on Jan 9, 2009 22:42:03 GMT
mmmmmmmm, 2 or 3 Things is one of the few films i give a 10 rating!
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Jan 9, 2009 23:28:58 GMT
I found it a bit of a self-defeating joke; as if Godard was trying to make a dull film about a dull life.
|
|
|
|
Post by Anasazie on Jan 9, 2009 23:36:50 GMT
I think most people's lives are extremely dull if you want to look at it that way, but this film has much wider reaching social and political implications than just that. Godard's stuff is to be read on more than one level, more than just the surface as me and QC have been trying to say.
But regardless, if you want to read just the surface and claim it's a film about a dull life, how else would you make it but in a dull way (not that i subsribe to this perspective at all)? I didn't think you'd be one for claiming cinema should trump up dull moments and make them more dramatic in order to keep you interested. Again, not that i think it's a film about a dull life.
I love Carmen and don't mind Passion, but i think that despite it's endearing cheakiness, Detective is by far and away his most simplistic and obvious film, if ever he made a dull and extremely static film both literally and in post-film analysis, Detective is it!
|
|
