BFI Top 50: Contempt, Released in 1963, Directed by Jean-Luc Godard

What I know going in

I know the film involves the dissolution of a marriage coupled with the disastrous making of a film based on the Odyssey. The only other Godard film I have seen is Pierot Le Fou, which I appreciated intellectually more than I actually enjoyed watching. Hopefully I find Contempt a bit more engaging.

 

Immediate reaction

If you were active moviegoer during the 60’s and decided to watch Contempt based on its poster, all of which seem to feature sex kitten Brigitte Bardot suggestively wrapped in a towel, you might be expecting a fun, sexy, European exploration of marriage and the film industry. Well you, hypothetical 60’s film buff, would be mightily disappointed.

 

Contempt follows two main characters, Paul Javal (played by Michel Piccoli) and his wife Camille (Brigitte Bardot). Paul is contacted by American film producer Jeremy Prokosch (Jack Palance) to help rewrite a film version of the Odyssey directed by Fritz Lang. The main action does not concern the film being made, but instead involves the sudden decline in the marriage between Paul and Camille. Now that seems like a fine setup for a movie. You could imagine that the soulless and lascivious nature of the film industry could be used as a neat way to perturb Paul and Camille’s marriage. You could also imagine that marital spatting could be used to comment on the way men and women are treated differently not only in film, but also in society at large. Technically, Contempt accomplishes both of those things, but it does so in a very oblique and disengaging way.

 

The biggest problem I had with the film is the way Paul and Camille fight. They basically have the same argument over and over and over again. All of their arguments consist of one of them suggesting something or asking a question, and then the other passively aggressively cedes responsibility back to the first. Repeat this ad nauseam and you basically have the entire plot of the film. Now there is not anything wrong with basing a film around two unlikable or argumentative characters, and if you are making an honest film about marriage you need some of that thrown in. In fact, a great film about this very subject is referenced in Contempt. That film is Roberto Rosselini’sVoyage to Italy. A poster of it can be seen when our characters walk out of a movie theater. That film does an excellent job of adding an extra layer of weariness to its character’s relationship. Most of the fighting in it consists of legitimately painful sniping whereas the arguments in Contempt come off as extremely annoying and petulant. This causes no real stress or tension during the fights because not much is done to actually get the audience on the side of the characters. In fact, I was actually weirdly joyed when Camille died, a last minute twist that comes completely out of nowhere and has no impact.

 

Of course there is a chance that this was Godard’s intended. Maybe he was trying to make a nihilistic statement about how all relationships are completely doomed and will be stuck in a repetitive, argumentative nightmare. I also have no idea on how to connect the bits of the Odyssey thrown in to the disintegrating relationship. That is probably something that will make more sense after reading up on the film.

 

Further thoughts

You know what? Contempt is brilliant. It is a perfect takedown of the way that French New Wave sensibilities were perverted by studio heads to fit mainstream needs. Based on what I have read, the contentious production of The Odyssey within the film perfectly mirrors the troubled development of Contempt itself. In addition, almost every character not only has a counterpart within The Odyssey but also acts as a heightened version of real person. The film is also a giant fuck you to the producers involved. Godard was forced to add more Bardot nude scenes and came up with some of the least sexy scenes imaginable. He was coerced into shooting in Technicolor and Cinemascope and doesn’t make traditionally good use of either until the last third of movie.

 

Having said all that, I still have not really changed my original dislike of the movie. Nothing I read washed away my initial disengagement with the film. I still think Paul and Camille are grating to be around and that their fights are annoyingly repetitive. But that is okay in my book. Doing this marathon has made me realize that personal taste and critical consensus will not always line up perfectly. Enough critic respect Contempt and I can see enough going on beneath its surface that, while I may dislike it, I can’t dismiss it.

Why does the film belong on this list?

Serving as a big middle finger to mainstream film, Godard’s Contempt is a relentless satire of the film industry and the men who dominate it.