Contempt (Le Mepris) 4K UHD (1 Viewer)

[lark144]

Saw this for the first time, on the initial blu-ray nearly 15 years ago and didn't warm to it. However, as is the case for me seeing remastered classics in gorgeous, restored 4K UHD versions, I now find it mesmerising. I was just going to sample the disc, but ended up watching the whole film.

So glad 4K UHD didn't peter out after Smurfs 2.

After my second screening which I was dragged to kicking and screaming, with that utterly stunning print that looked like Renoir come to life, what initially attracted me to Le Mepris was the way it looked and because of that, I watched it over and over as I had never seen anything like that in a cinema before and grew to consider it Godard's greatest, as all those other elements, which I initially considered off putting, over time, came together. I've never read the novel. Maybe I should at this point. Godard, in the press conference at Cannes, said the novel was one of those superficial tomes you read on long train voyages, but I believe he was being ironic. People these days criticize Godard for putting the specifics of his mercurial relationship with Anna Karina into the film, but those "quotations" and "improvisations" on Godard's part in Le Mepris have a completely different feeling than in Breathless or Pierrot Le Fou. There, they open the films up, create a sense of playfulness and contemporaneity that becomes the films' raison d'etre superseding the narrative, whereas in Le Mepris, because of the classical unity which I'm assuming comes from the novel, those quotations and borrowings from life add to the overwhelming sense of tragedy. Of course, the essential reference, regardless of what was going on in Godard's domestic life at the time, for that pivotal scene is Rossellini's Voyage in Italy, with its own sense of domestic strife mediated by antiquity and the glances of the ancient Gods. So, on a very profound level, Le Mepris is Godard's essay, in image and sound, on Rossellini's film, its lasting influence on him and the other directors of the New Wave, and how those images seep into every day life and change it, how cinema isn't just something we watch in isolation, but more like a river, the air we breathe, the Gods we submit to, a force for change as well as meditation.

 

[JoshZ]

People these days criticize Godard for putting the specifics of his mercurial relationship with Anna Karina into the film, but those "quotations" and "improvisations" on Godard's part in Le Mepris have a completely different feeling than in Breathless or Pierrot Le Fou. There, they open the films up, create a sense of playfulness and contemporaneity that becomes the films' raison d'etre superseding the narrative, whereas in Le Mepris, because of the classical unity which I'm assuming comes from the novel, those quotations and borrowings from life add to the overwhelming sense of tragedy.

Everything you can can be true, and I certainly don't begrudge you for getting more out of the film than I do.

However, at the end of the day, the main character (who's an obvious stand-in for Godard himself) is an abusive a'hole who attempts to prostitute his wife for his own career advancement, treats her so terribly that it drives her to despise him, and then resents her in turn for feeling that way. It's like a handbook for toxic masculinity. That just doesn't appeal to me, and never will.

 

[lark144]

Everything you can can be true, and I certainly don't begrudge you for getting more out of the film than I do.

However, at the end of the day, the main character (who's an obvious stand-in for Godard himself) is an abusive a'hole who attempts to prostitute his wife for his own career advancement, treats her so terribly that it drives her to despise him, and then resents her in turn for feeling that way. It's like a handbook for toxic masculinity. That just doesn't appeal to me, and never will.

For me, there are way too many ambiguities in terms of image and character and narrative to support such a straightforward interpretation. In fact, the Le Mepris I've been watching for 50 years is exactly the opposite. It's about a misunderstanding, from both the husband and wife's side, which is exacerbated, because their "intimacy" is superficial, not based on communication and openness, so when a crisis emerges, they fail to communicate. I don't see the main character as callous but vulnerable, ambiguous and withdrawn, which could describe the character of the wife as well. It's one of the ironies of the film, that here is this person who makes his living through words, and isn't able to express himself when it counts. These are fictional characters, based on a novel. For me, the main character has nothing to with Godard. You're certainly welcome to look at it that way, but by doing so, so much of what makes the film meaningful is lost. What has always struck me about the film is how much sympathy there is for everyone, even Jeremy Prokosh. Godard, as a person, may have been extremely difficult to deal with, but I find the emotions expressed by him in this film very magnanimous and gentle. In fact, the wife is the emotional center of the film, not the writer, and as an audience, we are invited to see things through her eyes. The writer's personality changes with every scene, for that's how she is experiencing things. And no, I don't see the writer as a paragon of toxic masculinity at all. Initially, the wife sees it that way, but that's not the actual character on the screen. One of the aspects that makes the film great for me is all these ambiguities and shadings in terms of character, so watching the film becomes an act of interpretation for a viewer, which continually changes, and is mirrored by the use of an interpreter, who speaks the lines in three different languages, all of which have different meanings, so no one is really communicating. That exists on the level of narrative and image as well.

 

[JoshZ]

For me, there are way too many ambiguities in terms of image and character and narrative to support such a straightforward interpretation. In fact, the Le Mepris I've been watching for 50 years is exactly the opposite. It's about a misunderstanding, from both the husband and wife's side, which is exacerbated, because their "intimacy" is superficial, not based on communication and openness, so when a crisis emerges, they fail to communicate. I don't see the main character as callous but vulnerable, ambiguous and withdrawn, which could describe the character of the wife as well. It's one of the ironies of the film, that here is this person who makes his living through words, and isn't able to express himself when it counts. These are fictional characters, based on a novel. For me, the main character has nothing to with Godard. You're certainly welcome to look at it that way, but by doing so, so much of what makes the film meaningful is lost. What has always struck me about the film is how much sympathy there is for everyone, even Jeremy Prokosh. Godard, as a person, may have been extremely difficult to deal with, but I find the emotions expressed by him in this film very magnanimous and gentle. In fact, the wife is the emotional center of the film, not the writer, and as an audience, we are invited to see things through her eyes. The writer's personality changes with every scene, for that's how she is experiencing things. And no, I don't see the writer as a paragon of toxic masculinity at all. Initially, the wife sees it that way, but that's not the actual character on the screen. One of the aspects that makes the film great for me is all these ambiguities and shadings in terms of character, so watching the film becomes an act of interpretation for a viewer, which continually changes, and is mirrored by the use of an interpreter, who speaks the lines in three different languages, all of which have different meanings, so no one is really communicating. That exists on the level of narrative and image as well.

I'll admit, you almost make me want to give this another chance. However, my last experience with it was so negative, it's difficult for me to justify spending more time with it when there are so many other things I'd rather watch instead (which might even include other Godards I like more).

 

[mskaye]

I'll admit, you almost make me want to give this another chance. However, my last experience with it was so negative, it's difficult for me to justify spending more time with it when there are so many other things I'd rather watch instead (which might even include other Godards I like more).

I think a film either connects with you or it doesn't. I think it's a masterpiece that has only gotten better with time. And I connect with it deeply on every level. I sort of feel the way Scorsese feels about it. Contempt/Le Mepris is his #9 -
https://www.criterion.com/current/top-10-lists/214-martin-scorsese-s-top-10

That said, it is a Godard film and it will not appeal to everyone. He will always push the boundaries of conventional narrative structure. But damn, is this a beautiful film. And his characters in this are as rich and real as anything I've ever seen. At it's core it's a story about a marriage and love and cinema.

 

[jayembee]

I'll admit, you almost make me want to give this another chance. However, my last experience with it was so negative, it's difficult for me to justify spending more time with it when there are so many other things I'd rather watch instead (which might even include other Godards I like more).

Well, not every film is for everybody. It doesn't make Michael right and you wrong, or vice versa.

Years ago, I was talking films with a friend. There are a lot of films we both like, and a lot of films that only one of us likes. In the course of this one discussion, we came to the realization that she prefers movies that make her feel good, while I prefer movies that make me feel more, regardless of whether that "more" is good or bad.

 

[lark144]

I'll admit, you almost make me want to give this another chance. However, my last experience with it was so negative, it's difficult for me to justify spending more time with it when there are so many other things I'd rather watch instead (which might even include other Godards I like more).

As other posters have said, we all see films from the framework of our own desires. In terms of Le Mepris, this is not a film I liked the first time I saw it. What initially appealed to me was Coutard's use of light. It was just such a contrast to what was happening between the characters, which held no interest for me. For instance--now I'm going on memory, though I own a copy of the film, so forgive me if I don't get this right--the scene where the writer and interpreter take a separate car and finally arrive at Jemery Prokosh's villa. There's a flower garden, the blossoms dappled by a luminescence so dazzling, I was wonderstruck; and then the wife appeared, like a figure from a Renoir painting, a child of nature, the colors of the blooming poised before her pervading her features, flecks of reds and yellows, reflected from the flowers, dancing across her face. Now, this is the moment where she first feels contempt for her husband and begins to withdraw, but visually, the emotions evoked in me were very different. (The film is filled with privileged moments like this, especially towards the end, on Capri. ) I began watching the film again, to revisit those images, and also to try and understand why they were there. Godard isn't a lyrical or decorative filmmaker, like Donnen or Minnelli. If there's beauty in a Godard film, it's there for a reason, especially considering how the beauty in Le Mepris works against the narrative, which at first glance appears mundane. It was a mystery I needed to solve. Over time, the film has grown on me, and now the relations between the characters don't seem enigmatic or superficial at all, they reflect what I myself have experienced, but within the context of the sublime--it's all around us, those possibilities, yet we don't seem to see them or make use of them, which underlines the tragedy that the film shows, how a moment of confusion, a word you should say but don't, can create such a tangle of disruption; like a pebble thrown into a lake, those ripples can be lovely to look at, though are sometimes fatal.

 

[titch]

Le Mépris is essential Godard - indeed, it is one of five films included in the StudioCanal box, released in 2016. Le Mépris was not restored for that set, but a beautifully restored version of Alphaville was. I would be very happy if that was afforded a 4K UHD release.

 

[skylark68]

Le Mépris is essential Godard - indeed, it is one of five films included in the StudioCanal box, released in 2016. Le Mépris was not restored for that set, but a beautifully restored version of Alphaville was. I would be very happy if that was afforded a 4K UHD release.
View attachment 191091

I have the Kino bluray of Alphaville. It’s a wonderful film. I may have to give Contempt another chance at some point. There has been some compelling reasons to in this thread.