I'm sorry, but I have to voice my true opinions of this film. I can already hear the angry cries from fans, ready and willing to tear my head off for insulting such a "masterpiece." But please, spare me the hate mail, arguments and violent demands--just let it be. After all, this is merely my opinion!
Now down to business--I absolutely hated every second of this movie. In direct comparison to other films of the same time hailed (and actually deserving) of their revolutionary and genius status (works by Truffaut, Bergman, and Fellini come to mind), Godard's "Contempt" is a plain and flat examination of nothingness, and is therefore not much more than a torture to view. I desperately tried to love this film, and I really attempted to ponder and think of it as thought provoking art. I give credit to Godard for being avant-garde and experimental, possibly even ahead of his time, but the film only comes across as pompous movie making. I can envision Godard giving himself a pat on the back for being such a clever guy, and this narcissism tears through the celluloid, eventually catering primarily to narcissistic audiences that, just as Godard must have done, believed themselves to be nothing short of ground-breaking academics and ingenious intellectuals.
The film, when it's not way off track and stumbling, centers on an utterly disgusting and intolerable married couple--and we pay the $3.00 rental fee basically to see both of these self-obsessed grunts arguing non-stop for two hours. Is this cinema at its best? Is it beautifully realized art? Is this a brilliant filmmaker, unleashed, and on the top of his game? I really hope the answer to all these questions is no. I hated the characters, the annoying "experimental" color changes, the flat acting, the tawdry cinematography...am I missing something? Last weekend I had the pleasure of renting "8 1/2." Comparing the two films was inevitable, simply because they both share a great reputation and both are from Europe and were made in 1963. Fellini's film is truly a masterpiece--pulsating with life, joyous and fun, comic and dramatic, dreamy and artistic--this movie represents film at its best. "Contempt" falls flat on its face in direct comparison, and although they are very different films, I have to ask; if one film is so amazing and and other seems so dead and lacking, what's the point of the latter?
This is at best a good character-examination and a tormenting look at the anxiousness, paranoia, and questioning that comes with many marriages--but on film it just didn't seem coherent or feasible. It would have worked better as a book...no, wait, scratch that--it was a book before it was a film...so what did Godard find so fascinating about the book in the first place? Maybe he forgot to incorporate the passions he must have felt for the novel within the movie. After all, it must be very fatiguing constantly showing the world how much of a genius you are...
Now down to business--I absolutely hated every second of this movie. In direct comparison to other films of the same time hailed (and actually deserving) of their revolutionary and genius status (works by Truffaut, Bergman, and Fellini come to mind), Godard's "Contempt" is a plain and flat examination of nothingness, and is therefore not much more than a torture to view. I desperately tried to love this film, and I really attempted to ponder and think of it as thought provoking art. I give credit to Godard for being avant-garde and experimental, possibly even ahead of his time, but the film only comes across as pompous movie making. I can envision Godard giving himself a pat on the back for being such a clever guy, and this narcissism tears through the celluloid, eventually catering primarily to narcissistic audiences that, just as Godard must have done, believed themselves to be nothing short of ground-breaking academics and ingenious intellectuals.
The film, when it's not way off track and stumbling, centers on an utterly disgusting and intolerable married couple--and we pay the $3.00 rental fee basically to see both of these self-obsessed grunts arguing non-stop for two hours. Is this cinema at its best? Is it beautifully realized art? Is this a brilliant filmmaker, unleashed, and on the top of his game? I really hope the answer to all these questions is no. I hated the characters, the annoying "experimental" color changes, the flat acting, the tawdry cinematography...am I missing something? Last weekend I had the pleasure of renting "8 1/2." Comparing the two films was inevitable, simply because they both share a great reputation and both are from Europe and were made in 1963. Fellini's film is truly a masterpiece--pulsating with life, joyous and fun, comic and dramatic, dreamy and artistic--this movie represents film at its best. "Contempt" falls flat on its face in direct comparison, and although they are very different films, I have to ask; if one film is so amazing and and other seems so dead and lacking, what's the point of the latter?
This is at best a good character-examination and a tormenting look at the anxiousness, paranoia, and questioning that comes with many marriages--but on film it just didn't seem coherent or feasible. It would have worked better as a book...no, wait, scratch that--it was a book before it was a film...so what did Godard find so fascinating about the book in the first place? Maybe he forgot to incorporate the passions he must have felt for the novel within the movie. After all, it must be very fatiguing constantly showing the world how much of a genius you are...