Contempt

Contempt-“A Cloud of Unawareness” David Brown
4/21/09
Seminar in Cin.

In the film Contempt, it seems that the love triangle between Camille (Brigitte Bardot) Paul (Michel Piccoli) and Jeremy (Jack Palance) is a subtle metaphor for the decaying film industry. In this film Godard equates failed filmmaking with a failed relationship. He also notes how the two inevitably intercede to destroy one another. It’s almost as if Godard is stating to the audience that films are so contemptible because no one examines in close detail the production aspects that mare a production; just as no one learns from past filmmaker’s mistakes. Godard’s critical stance against passive audiences who merely are indifferent is that they should be indignant towards flawed filmmaking. His feeling is that audiences, and filmmakers, have to study why a production went wrong in much the same way that relationships go wrong. If people are so hungry for the latest tabloid gossip, in terms of what infidelities are going on in the film world, surely they can be as interested on how these celebrities affect the productions that they are in; many times by the infidelities that they are having. (The casting of Brigitte Bardot is perfect, because at that time she was the tabloid goddess.)
Godard’s study of why a production falters stems from the confines of Jeremy’s (the producer’s) way of making a movie, which involves usury and lying. The great amounts of usury and lying on Jeremy’s part actually makes everyone who has to be intrinsically involved with his production have a mistaken view of reality, which ultimately makes that individual lose their integrity. This process begins with Paul’s being bind to the production by signing a contract to do the film; any protestation on Paul’s part will be flawed and illogical because he’s binded by the contract. When Lang, the personal artist, mentions the importance of culture, Jeremy states: “When I deal with culture I get out my checkbook.” Jeremy’s checkbook is his way of eradicating personal vision. Once Jeremy writes out that check, it becomes much easier for Paul to follow Jeremy’s orders.
Jeremy’s rationale for hiring Paul is so he can obtain his wife from him. Really, that is Paul’s job on this movie; no wonder he loses his integrity. He begins to lose his artistic creativity and begins to get distracted. Camille talks about this in a digression about the man who got distracted by an ass; this is in reference to Paul’s being distracted by his suspicions that Camille is sleeping with another man. This is all Jeremy’s fault, which is just another representation of Jeremy’s power in destroying artistic creativity/relationships.
It seems that Godard is arguing that the main creators on the film sets involved with big productions always intrinsically lose their personal vision because they try to mimic, in order to impress, the big hotshot producer producing the international enterprise. It’s almost as if Paul is not consciously aware that he slowly is resembling Jeremy more and more. He’s becoming the vulgar creative male personality, and this is represented by his wearing of that hat throughout the film, and by how he treats women. The audience is aware that this man used to have integrity. Yet, the audience never sees the true Paul in this film. In some strange way, Godard (and Camille) are criticizing Paul more than anyone else in this film because he is the French artist with integrity that sells out. At least Jeremy is consistent in his vulgarity.
There really is no basis on the producer’s part for making a solid production of the story of Odysseus; it might as well be titled what Camille calls it: the movie about the guy that swims. Camille should not be criticized for her indifference to art. After all, Paul’s definition of art is looking at old artwork and finding the nudity stimulating. He trashes antiquity by hitting the ancient nude female object in the flat in the private parts. This is a metaphor for the old dying way for making movies being destroyed by artist’s distraction with mundane sexual affairs. It’s almost as if the artist becoming a crass individual (Paul becoming Jeremy) destroys a filmmaker like Lang’s control over his personal vision.
Camille wants to escape from this barbarity by becoming indifferent to the processes of art. In one scene in a movie theatre, Jeremy finds it intriguing that Camille has no opinion on what should be done about the production. The camera then pans over to Camille’s face as she indifferently watches the screen with the rest of the audience. She wants nothing to do with this production; hence, she has an indifference towards movies and moviemaking.
Camille is a tragic character because she can’t love Paul anymore. She’s well aware that Paul is losing his independence and whoring for the industry. She’s also well aware that he’s the ultimate hypocrite because he wants Camille to remain the way she was, i.e., in love with him. However, he’s not the same man anymore. Camille has an indifference to filmmaking not because she’s vain or lacks integrity, but because the process is so destructive towards relationships. Camille could very well be a metaphor for the indifferent film audience that Godard has empathy with yet criticizes. He has empathy for Camille/the indifferent film audience because they are powerless, yet he also criticizes them because they don’t properly get out of their situation. In a scene in the flat, Camille deplores to Paul that she won’t go meet him and Jeremy (at this point in the film the two sexist prigs); yet she moves around in circles and keeps repeating the line, almost as if she were trapped. She eventually does go meet them.
This sense of constrictedness (and of the main characters being trapped in the confines of Jeremy’s will) is felt in the tiny flats in the film. I find it ironic and humorous that these “fancy” flats that everyone sells their souls to live in are so constricting and unpleasant. This is a representation of Jeremy’s deceitful nature. It appears to these characters that once they sell their soul to Jeremy they will have free will over their lives; that selling their soul is all in the name of making a movie. A perfect representation of this: When Paul is typing away at the script, Camille walks under a ladder, which is a symbol of bad luck.
The way in which the camera constantly moves horizontally from left to right or right to left resembles, in many ways, a tennis match between the figures in the frame. It’s ironic that the people involved in a big production like this can never connect; how are they supposed to have their film connect with their audience in anyway? Their situation is so deplorable that all they can do is fight at one another. Camille’s going with Jeremy at the end of the film is her way of escaping from this constricting area, where everyone’s losing their integrity and individuality.
In the next to final scene in the movie, Godard continues to employ his visual indication of the contradictory nature of Camille. Jeremy’s vulgar red car color matches his sweater perfectly. This man will never change in anyway. Yet, Camille’s sweater in the scene is blue. The color contrasts against Jeremy’s vulgarity; yet Camille is losing her will against this man. Once the truck hits the car and kills the two, their bodies are facing against one another. If these two had not had the language barrier to obstruct conversation, they would have been the ones arguing in the film. Yet, on a multinational production such as this, it’s the people who speak the same language that have contempt for one another. This is the ultimate tragedy in Godard’s eyes. His feeling is that similar cultures (represented by Camille and Paul) should band together (or in Camille and Paul’s case, stay in their relationship), and make films together (like the New Wave group) and not lose their vision just to receive a higher budget for their production. (In the case of Camille and Paul, they should have never been won over by Jeremy.)
Camille’s only escape from Jeremy’s will (almost as if he were an evil creature out of Greek myth) is through death. The shot before the accident, showing Jeremy’s driving very rapidly from the left side of the frame to the right side of the frame, is very similar to the shot where Paul violently pulls Camille, once they have left Jeremy’s villa. Paul’s violent movement, in order to get him and Camille out of the presence of Jeremy and his production, is an example of Paul’s violent protestation against Jeremy’s way of making movies. Yet, Paul’s movement is ultimately rapt, and intense to the point of dissipation. The same sorts of movements happen when Paul becomes violent towards Camille, in the flat. Camille’s rapt decision to leave Paul also ends through violence. These protestations of Jeremy’s way of doing business are faulty, because once Paul signs that contract to write the script for the film (just as Camille decides to get in that car with Jeremy), both of them are ensnared in the confines of Jeremy’s will; escaping that will ultimately proves fatal for both of them. The rapid escape that both characters try to attempt in this movie is the delusion from the truth that Lang (the old pro who’s used to this way of making movies) does not believe in. Lang’s sentiment is felt in one of his last lines at the end of the film: “One has to begin what one starts.”It’s interesting that Contempt was the only high budget multinational film that Godard ever made, and yet this is the film that represents his stance against high budget multinational filmmaking. Perhaps Godard’s reflexive way in which to tell a story is the best way in which to write a critique against the film industry, because it allowed him to experience the situation firsthand. The fact that Godard kept his integrity throughout the filming of Contempt was his way of signaling to other filmmaker’s that there is indeed hope in the film industry; one has to be merely wary of the situation and not give in easily.