Definitively I go on affirming that I don't understand why Godard is reckoned by critics in general one of the greatest movie directors ever and particularly this movie as one of the best ever made. This film is the usual old story with supposedly deep and almost meaningless dialogues and hollow meaningless scenes almost totally unprovided with the dramatic vibration which should be suited to the story that is (or seems to be) behind. Everything is around a film that is being made based on Homer's Odyssey without a clear explanation about what it has to do with the rest I mean the real life of the characters, their tendencies and conflicts. The dialogue scenes between husband and wife (Piccoli and Bardot) are particularly long, dull and psychologically confusing. And as usual in Godard's movies it ends abruptly without any significative outcome despite the tragic happening at the end. In this movie things happen one after another, characters go on talking here and there and that's all. But as I have said many times before concerning Godard's movies,the fault must be mine.

There are some films that can't really be contained into a simple paragraph and mere words can't express what they're really all about. In a word, I thought "Contempt" was marvelous. In several words, it was also beautiful and heartbreaking. This is a film that I really wanted to like and usually when I want to like something, I don't. This time I more than liked what I wanted to like, but rather, I loved it! Let's cover the basics and then we'll get into some of the more symbolic elements and some of my interpretations. The acting is fine, with Palance being a surprisingly good fit and a really great pair of finds in Michel Piccoli and Brigitte Bardot. They had great chemistry together, even though their characters, for the most part, lacked chemistry. And what about that music? It was almost tear inducing. There were times throughout the picture when it would strike up and I'd wonder if I was supposed to be feeling something at that moment. It was such a powerful score and it was played throughout A LOT of the movie. Played too much, perhaps? Well, it was just so good, that I can't bring myself to say that, but it's possible I guess.So, anyway, Camille is mad at Paul for not protesting when Jerry offered to take her alone in the car. Jerry was obviously hot for Camille and his reasoning for wanting to be alone with her was absolute poppycock, "Oh Paul, you surely won't be comfortable stuffed into the backseat, why don't you take a cab", to which Paul replied, "Oh sure Jerry, I'll just take a cab". Come on dude, you're wife is a gorgeous blonde and this arrogant, confident, good-looking man, whom you can't understand, is going to take her alone and all you can say is, "sure, why not". Now, on the other hand, does Camille's eventual backlash due to Paul's decision warrant such drastic measures? I mean, it's later revealed, when Paul recounts his interpretation of Homer's Odyssey, that he really did it because he had faith in his wife. He knew she wouldn't cheat on him, so he didn't have any problem allowing her to go alone with Jerry. It's a situation that I can see both points of view on, so therefore, the film works for me, because their arguments always seem genuine. I can see both sides, so all of the questions from Paul and all of the actions from Camille make, at least, some sense.I have to say I was pretty proud of myself for picking up on the correlation between Paul, Camille & Jerry and Ulysses, Penelope & Poseidon. Of course, it's all laid out for you, so it's not as if you've had to have read The Odyssey. I also (and I'm not lying) picked up on Bardot's resemblance to Anna Karina (Godard's real life wife) when she donned the black wig. In fact, even from there I made the assumption that Camille dying in the end was Godard's way of saying, "Take that bitch!". I can already tell that Godard didn't have a very high opinion of women and that, for the most, part he thought them to act very childish and stubborn and possibly had great disdain for them or maybe just one in particular. Obviously here, Godard takes the side of Paul, playing down his actions and heightening the complaints and absurd behavior of Camille and then killing her for being so bull-headed. You can also look at the camera shots, specifically those from the entire scene in the apartment, when the two are at the height of their argument. Godard isn't constantly forcing us into the situation, but, for the most part, allowing us to peer through doorways, as if we're peering in on a real-life disagreement - possibly his way of saying, "it's more than a movie folks, it's my life - take a look".Godard also seemed to be trying to say something, in the fact that you had Paul, a playwright who could form interpretations of Homer's writings and understand quotes about Dante, but couldn't interpret his own wife's emotions. Perhaps he's trying to say that women are impossible to understand?I had a deep desire to understand every facet of this film. While I'm sure I didn't understand EVERY FACET, I think I swallowed it very well and understood the majority of it. This blow's "Breathless" and "My Life to Live" out of the water. I just finished and I can say, I honestly can't wait to see it again and try to fit more of the puzzle pieces into place.

Directed by Jean-Luc Godard, Contempt is a 'new wave' French film full of 'French emotions' and rather a lot of unhappy and/or weird people. It stars Brigitte Bardot and Michel Piccoli as Camille and Paul Javal, a young couple ravaged by marital and emotional difficulties and in the case of Camille either low self esteem or mental illness and an anger management problem. Paul (a screen writer) has his demons too and it's hard to figure out if he's a nice guy with a crazy wife or a sly and manipulative guy who has driven his wife crazy - and that's the crux of this movie. Contempt. The contempt that Camille feels for her spouse, the contempt her spouse feels for the crass American film Producer, Jeremy Prochosh (played by Jack Palance) who wants to commercialize Fritz Lang's Ulysses. The difficulty with this movie is that it's unclear whether the problems Camille and Paul had in their relationship existed prior to Paul's involvement with Prochosh and co. However, Camille's insecurities are showcased in the opening scene. What 'Contempt' does best is realism, and one of the most striking scenes involves Camille and Paul arguing (for what seems like hours) as they go about their business in their apartment; walking past each other, getting dressed, preparing dinner etc. The ending is unexpected but then again perhaps not if one takes Paul's interpretation of the Odyssey to heart? 'Contempt' certainly lives up to its title and is well acted, entertaining (in a voyeuristic way), and makes you uncomfortable because the acting is so 'real'.

No, I'm really not a person that likes everything that is French and 'old'. As a matter of fact, I'm not too big on Jean-Luc Godard and really don't like all of his movies. This movie however was one I nearly fell in love with.In all truth and honesty, I was absolutely taken by its movie its style and approach. It's visuals were splendid and its subject manner was truly an unique and great one as well. It's a sort of a shame that the movie somewhat lost me in its middle part and its end also definitely wasn't as great as the beginning but overall this remains a movie I really admire and can be positive about.Of course it's being an artistic movie but what I like about it is that its being quiet and subtle art. It doesn't ever goes over-the-top with any kind of weirdness and instead really takes its time to subtly show and tell you what this movie is all about.The movie does truly feel like a moving painting. It's also because of the compositions and camera-work that the movie uses. It's filled with long shots, in which the camera is also occasionally slowly moving but never toward its subjects. It's being a very subjective, observing movie that views everything from a distance and doesn't use close-ups or any other movie tricks to bring out or emphasize certain emotions. I absolutely loved the cinematography and not just because of its use of vibrant colors.It makes the movie almost an hypnotic one and completely sucks you in. Because of the movie its approach and overall style of storytelling, you are forced to constantly keep paying attention, which will suck you all the more into the movie itself. Even when there is very little happening or being said, it still feels like there is plenty going on in this movie and I also most certainly won't call this a boring one.The movie is already a very special one for the fact that is stars the legendary director Fritz Lang in it, who is playing himself. He probably did it as a favor and out of respect for director Jean-Luc Godard, since Lang never starred in anything. It's basically good and fun to watch all actors in this, who each speak their own language. French, English, German and Italian gets constantly spoken throughout the entire movie, no doubt to also emphasize the differences and contrasts in the characters, who all have their own ideas about finishing a particular Fritz Lang directed movie. Besided the name of Lang, also the names of Brigitte Bardot and Jack Palance should arouse certain people's curiosity.But the movie does not only tickle the brain and is a feast for the eyes, it's easily great to the ears, due to the wonderful classical musical score by Georges Delerue.A true mesmerizing viewing experience!8/10 http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/