Contempt (part I)
As I stated in class, I’m particularly fascinated with Godard’s Contempt (1963). Though each of Godard’s films varies greatly in terms of thematic preoccupation and stylistic convention(s), Contempt is the most divergent film that I have encountered thus far. As Shaviro noted in class, this is largely the result of an increasing level of producer oversight. In effect, this is the first film for which Godard receives significant financial backing. Although this might benefit the film on a certain level, in that Godard is ultimately able to shoot in color and widescreen, there are certain ramifications for the production. One of the most notable implications is that more money generally indicates an increasing number of people that can exert influence on the text. For example, as Professor Shaviro noted, the beginning scene featuring Brigitte Bardot was eventually added in order to appease the producer.
In a number of ways, one can see that the film’s financial benefactor has a significant impact on the way in which the film diverges from Godard’s other texts. First, there is room to read that Godard voices a concern for this type of oversight in the film itself, even going as far as casting an American actor to play the filmic counterpart to his real life producer. Here, one assumes the utterly arrogant, misogynistic, and often idiotic character to be representative of the American producer that Godard is forced to deal with on a regular basis. Moreover, though the whole film is concerned with this issue, specific scenes are especially self-reflexive. At the beginning, as the credits are narrated, Godard provides an interesting shot of a filming location. The first camera frames two men moving another camera down a guiding track, a stage-person holding a boom, and an actress walking across the set. As the other camera approaches the audience, it suddenly turns to capture the first. Though there is definitely room to read that Godard is concerned with being caught by various apparatuses of control, this scene is really suggestive of the amount of influence that producers are exerting on the film.
Even though one expects that Godard will use the same type of shooting style and experimental conventions as in his other films – a more freely moving hand-held camera – the initial scene is shot from an incredibly static position. Essentially, the camera rests on top of the very guiding tracks alluded to previously. Interestingly, as the other camera begins moving, one notices that the shot is being jostled by the guiding tracks. The steady shot is eventually distorted by the other camera’s movement. Here, it is interesting to consider whether Godard chose this camera position with this type of movement in mind. Again, it seems that Godard is referencing the type of control that is exerted on the film.
As I suggested earlier, there is room to read that certain production restraints inhibited Godard from making a film too similar to those that preceded Contempt. The film, in its entirety, is utterly different from any of those that precede it. As opposed to the open and wide ranging urban experience that we encounter in Breathless, Vivre la Vie, and other texts, we are only ever given privy to the confining interior spaces of the couple’s apartment, the screening room, and dense nature spaces. In addition, there is very little of the accelerated comedic dialogue and gestures that one encounters in other films. Instead, conversations are often incredibly serious and drawn out for extended periods of time. Third, the intertextual references are quite different than those in Godard’s earlier works. Whereas Godard initially shows interest in the French New Wave by making early references to the work of Truffaut and others, here Godard’s interest seems limited to the character and personality of Fritz Lang. Though other films are mentioned briefly, the intertextual gesture is not quite as intense.
Despite these differences, Godard’s style often comes blaring back into the picture. This is not to say that Godard’s presence is ever really absent from the filmic space, but rather, that there are slight disjunctions and variations in terms of stylistic patterning. For instance, the scene that transpires at the theatre really stands out in the course of this film. Here, Contempt becomes particularly reminiscent of Godard’s other texts as he ultimately seems interested in what it means to interrupt discourse, dialogue, and action. As Paul and Camille move towards the front of the theatre (and the camera correspondingly), they chose to sit down on opposite sides of the aisle. Camille (played by Brigitte Bardot) immediately sits next to Fritz Lang on the left, thus forcing Paul to sit with the American producer (Jeremy Prokosch) on the right. Although the theatrical performance still continues on stage, the sound and visuals are often interrupted. Interestingly, as certain rifts begin to occur, the camera starts moving to the right of the room thus capturing the awkward discussion occurring between Jeremy and Paul. Then, a moment later, the camera strafes left and renders Lang and Camille as they gesture humorously at Jeremy and Paul. During the entirety of this relatively brief sequence, the camera continues to oscillate from one side of the aisle to the other.
Here, as in other portions of the film, it seems that Godard is accentuating the dispute that Paul and Camille are having. In the scene previous to this, Godard uses a very similar convention, featuring the two at a table in their apartment. As the camera moves from side to side, it seems that the formal conventions accentuate their dispute. As in other places, Godard seems interested in the nature of conflict. Instead of constantly assimilating audience and character perspective by using the conventional reverse shot, Godard moves more spatially. What this means for this text is a thread of discussion that I’ll have to reinitiate a little later.
Leave a Reply