"Contempt"

Contempt

Contempt is Godard's sixth feature film and his second color widescreen film, based on Moravia's novel. Michel Piccoli and Brigitte Bardot play the playwright Paul and his wife Camille, respectively. Fritz Lang plays the director role in the film. The director has received investment from Hollywood producers and is shooting a costume film based on the ancient Greek Homer epic "Odysseus" because he is interpreting Odysseus. He has a disagreement with film investor Prokosius (Jack Palance) over his views on his relationship with his wife Penelope, who invites Paul to rewrite the script... and the film's narrative is framed in this context. Expand.

In this feature film, Godard obviously has a greater narrative ambition than the previous films. Judging from the results, the film also presents richer ambiguities and different levels of reality references. Below are a few short notes.

1. Classic and Modern: Cultural Reflections

In the film, about the story of Odyssey's adventure and roaming home for ten years before returning home, Lang insisted on a classical interpretation, but was strongly opposed by Hollywood producer Prokosius. He insisted on rewriting the script. According to his interpretation, Odyssey was because of boredom. He did not want to go home at all, and finally returned home and killed Penelope's suitor, his motive was not out of love for his wife, but out of the dignity of the husband. After Paul intervened in the writing of the script, the change in his attitude was subtle, and he slowly accepted Prokosius' interpretation against his will. The symbolism of this shift is self-evident and serves to reveal Paul's attitude towards artistic creation. There are several scenes in the film where Paul, Long, and Prokosius discuss the script. It is worth mentioning that Lang later talked to Paul alone about one of his assumptions about the script, that is, Penelope's emotion for the Odyssey changed from love to contempt.

At the same time, the emotional changes of Paul and Camille are intertwined with the script, mirroring each other. The relationship between the two turned from love to awkwardness and finally broke down and parted ways, showing the relationship between Odyssey and Penelope under the classical interpretation. On the other hand, from Camille's point of view, it actually "confirmed" Prokosius' modern interpretation on a psychological level, and her own emotional changes towards Paul gradually developed in the direction of contempt envisaged by Lang. The two interpretations (classical, modern; male-oriented, female-oriented) are intertwined, which is equivalent to different aspects of the playwright's relationship between husband and wife - from the change of the substantive appearance of the relationship between the husband and wife to Camille with her Quite the emotional evolution of the self-imagined component - made a "prophecy". Classical and modern, art and reality, present a strange interaction and contrast here: the emotional relationship between the sexes has remained unchanged for thousands of years; what has changed? There is a layer of cultural reflection here, which especially includes the subversive power of the transformation of the subject of modern narrative/interpretation from a male perspective to a female perspective. This (including the "Feminism" section below) will not be expanded Explore.

2. Contempt: Double Reference

When Camille says "I despise you" to Paul, we can easily guess two reasons (scenarios). Scene 1: When meeting for the first time, Paul introduced Camille to Prokcio, (after making all sorts of frivolous actions) Prokcio invited the couple to go somewhere together, Paul agreed for Camille, and the question of how to get there now arose. , Paul faced Camille, who was hesitant and pleading, and asked him to go first in Prokopi's car, but he arrived late due to various unavoidable reasons, and the husband and wife had an argument for the first time later. . Scene 2: At the shooting site, Prokosius invited Camille to leave first on a yacht with him. Camille was still hesitant (but not as embarrassed as last time), but Paul did not mind letting her agree.

These two details, along with the interior scene, which accounts for a large part, the conversation between the husband and wife at home, at least show us the reason why Camille's attitude towards Paul has changed: she thinks that she is Paul's money (buying a house) One of the trade-offs between her and her, she was not unique and irreplaceable, and Paul would not have noticed her distaste for Prokosius, and even nonchalantly "promoted" them to be alone, she could not see one because The image of her husband who loves and sacrifices herself to protect her husband.

Therefore, her contempt is because of Paul's cowardice, Paul's submission under the temptation of money (or under the pressure of capital). This surrender is associated with love, and because of the trade-off in (she thought) Paul's mind, she despises him.

The direction of this disdain is twofold in this narrative. Camille's disdain for Paul has the first meaning of the character's psychological level, as well as the value orientation it symbolizes as the first narrator Godard (the embodiment of art) : Criticize the new generation of European filmmakers represented by Paul for the flattery and submission to the bossy American Hollywood capital. The film depicts the vulgarity and domineering of the character Prokos in many details to highlight this second layer of meaning. Through this scornful reference hidden behind the narrative, Godard ponders the contemporary European or French film (art) production environment (referring to the era in which the film was made), and at the same time calmly criticizes the European old age represented by Fritz Lang. The perseverance of a generation of filmmakers is affirmed and appreciated.

At the end of the film, Camille abandoned Paul and ran away with Prokosio, and gave up Paul, who was in the screenwriting cooperation project, and greeted the female translator on the stairs. , she has no need to approach or treat Paul), the meaning of these two scenes is self-evident.

However, the end of the emotional betrayal and capital that the runaway Camille and Prokosius ended up in a tragic accident, somewhat weakened the film's above-mentioned performance on the theme of "contempt". The collapse of capital and emotional betrayal symbolized by this ending has no necessary causal connection with the main line in essence, but instead deepens the powerlessness of the criticizing subject and the escape from the predicament; at the same time, just like Susan. Sontag's review of "As You Like It" (1964) talks about Godard's inappropriate intervention in his own emotional encounters (emotional rather than rational), which affects the film's integrity. Godard's views on feminism, which it implicitly reveals, is also worth talking about.

3. Feminism: Freedom and Responsibility

In this film, from the perspective of the hero, the playwright Paul, what Godard tries to explain (or what I think can be explained), and the tragic mood established at the end of the film (the death of Camille after his betrayal), is the same Compared with the theme of "contempt", it constitutes more narrative and logical coherence. (It can be compared with the relationship between Nikhil and Bimara in the movie "Home and the World" adapted by Satyajit Ray based on Tagore's novel of the same name)

Paul is a free-thinking and extremely rational playwright. His love for Camille is unquestionable, and he encourages Camille to step out of the narrow two-person world and into society to embrace true freedom and meaning. In other words, in his opinion, he does not exclude his wife's sense of self-independence, and will not bind her with love and family, and he does not exclude her from being alone with other men. It's not because he doesn't love, but in his mind, an independent person should be, even his most beloved wife. Therefore, from the perspective of Camille in the second part, the reasons that caused her to despise him do not exist or are even unreasonable in his eyes. It is the inevitable catharsis of this rational and free thought.

But can women withstand this kind of "indulgence"? In other words, they can't understand it, so they often don't know how to use it (just like adult men often have difficulty using it correctly), let alone using it properly under the control of a sense of responsibility, in reality, it is often They unwittingly overuse their freedom and neglect their responsibilities, just as women usually blame men. In the film, the root of Camille's tragedy lies in this: she is unaware of the freedom that Paul respects and "gives" her, much less the responsibility to match this freedom (in her view, only Paul is responsible for her. be responsible), and will eventually lead to bad results.

It's not so much a question of women's freedom and independence, it's more a question of how a person is free and independent, how to strike a balance between freedom and responsibility, the difference is that for women, it means a kind of "sudden possession" (breaking out of The yoke that masculinism has imposed on itself for a long time), it is easier to be at a loss or even self-destruct when encountering changes and being in "dangerous situations". Especially because from the perspective of women, it has long lacked feedback on social experience and ideas, so the "risks" brought by freedom are more likely to occur frequently.

Godard interprets feminism from the perspective of "liberty and responsibility", and with a tragic ending to ridicule the "misuse" or careless use of feminism (whether for Paul or Camille), I think for the current feminism The ideological appeal still has practical significance. It is worth mentioning that Godard interprets this theme in the previous year's "As You Like It" (1962), the difference is that the subjectivity and generative context of the point of view are different from "Contempt", but it is also based on women. The end of her death somewhat reflects Godard's inherent view of feminism during this period.

4. "Language"

"Contempt" is rich in interpretability. The statues of Greek gods and the use of strings all give people a different impression of Godard than before. I especially liked the opening that surprised me. At the beginning, it reminded me of the strong alienation effect created by the "front-end" of the shooting. Of course, the next episode told me that this was a misunderstanding, But I'd like to understand it that way, and think it's one of the best references to the "language" of a movie I've ever seen. (If it is not completely misunderstood from the perspective of the play-in-play structure created by the film and the self-referentiality of the scene with strong hints, "Contempt" can still be regarded as a "meta-movie".)

In Do As You Like It (1962), Godard explored the role of "language", and in "Carbine" (1963), Michelangelo's first movie scene shows Godard's interest in the "language" of images. With a high level of interest and outstanding expressiveness, "Contempt" also presents the dilemma of language and communication (characters speak different languages, through mistranslation by female translators and achieve effective communication) ... until "Cinema History" (1988-1998) , "Goodbye to Language" (2014), from form to content, the discussion of "language" runs through Godard's entire creative career, and is probably the most important motif in his films. This is something.

2017.05.27 Evening Grass

View more about Contempt reviews