Contempt (Le Mepris)

I'm kind of torn about Contempt. Some things I liked about it, and some I didn't. Overall, though, a very good picture, and one that will probably reveal more after subsequent viewings. Fairly simple story about Paul, a writer hired to re-write a screenplay based on The Odyssey, directed by Fritz Lang. He arrives home with his wife, in their apartment, and he suspects she's lost the love she has for him. She eventually admits she has, yet they still head off to Cpari together, where the movie is being filmed. It's Jean-Luc Godard, so some things are intentionally fuzzy.

As you'd expect, the camerawork was great, if a bit flashy. I tried to pay a lot of attention to the symbolism in the film, though. It's divided, pretty sharply, into three acts; the opening and introduction of characters and The Odessey itself, a long sequence that takes place in Paul and Camille's flat, and lastly, the time spent in Capri, during the filming. The first act is breezy and lets you soak up the visuals and get to know the characters. I noticed that the characters move from right to left in the frame, most often, with the camera following them. I know that left-to-right movement is symbolic of travelling, a journey of sorts, but I wonder what the opposite means. Does it symbol a regression, and if so, whose regression? That of Camille, and her faded love for Paul? Or is it Paul's masculinity, his appeal? Or, it could be a direct opposite of a journey; a homecoming, of sorts. The heart of the film is the relationship between the two leads, so right-to-left movement could symbolize the build-up towards them getting to their apartment. That's the thing that sucks about amateur film analyzation, you can recognize symbols, but are barely able to figure out their precise meanings.

The second act is very claustrophobic, as it takes place entirely in Paul and Camille's apartment, in which you're not entirely sure what's truth and what's a lie. In here, there is a lot to put the viewer's subconscious on edge. The two are constantly changing clothes, hair, rooms, so much so that you wonder if we're viewing them on a completely different day and date. The Cinemascope photography is used to great effect, as it's able to show the physical distance between the two characters as they navigate through their marital dischord. In one particular shot, the two are in separate rooms with Paul nearly out of frame on the right, and Camille barely in frame on the left.

The final act, there's a great sense of motion in the camera's movements as well as the characters'. In one scene where Paul and Lang make their way to Prokosch's villa, they're seen coming down a hill, at the top of frame, as they talk. The two make their way down to the center of the frame, then turn around a bend and start to head down another hill, away from the camera. In the next shot, they're shown zigzagging a trail down another hill, down and to the right, then to the left, and to the right again. As for symbolism, it would normally show some kind of inner turmoil. However, there doesn't seem to be much for any character to be confused about, aside from Paul. Even Paul, though, seems to be pretty sure of what he wants, even if he couldn't have less of an idea how to go about getting it. The other characters don't seem to care one way or another, even as Paul makes his grand speech about writing in the villa. I think the side-to-side motif probably has more to do with the struggle that Paul is (and the other characters are, to some extent) is going though. He's trying his best to simply please his wife, to find out why she feels such disgust for him, and rectify the situation. Camille, I think she just wants out.

There's obviously a lot of ties drawn between the characters in The Odyssey and the film itself. This is solidified in the first and final shots. In the opening, we see Francesca reading a book, waiting for Paul to arrive. A camera crew is on the right, dollying towards us, following her movements. Afterwards, we're shown this angle, as Paul makes his entrance. The final shot of the film, we're seen this same dolly movement, externally, as the camera dollys to follow Odysseus as he looks out onto his homeland. It's fairly obvious, folks.

The soundtrack, I personally couldn't stand. It seemed horribly out of place here, and seemed to cut in at the worst times. However, I know Godard was fond of doing odd things with music, so it could very well be intentional. Also, how about that ending?

Edit: I was leafing through the Criterion essay and remembered something I'd forgotten to touch upon; the use of language in Contempt. I don't really understand it, but I do believe it's important in interpreting the film. Prokosch doesn't speak the same language as Paul and Camille does, and they all constantly have to rely on a translator to speak to one another. It would be so much easier, and simpler, for the filmmakers to just say 'Okay, Prokosch learned French somewhere' or vice versa. The fact that they didn't take the easy way out, and chose to make this an obstacle leads me to believe that it's an essential key to analyzing the film. But what does it symbolize, maybe a breakdown of communication between Paul and Camille, and everyone else, for that matter?