La Mepris

Le Mepris is a film about filmmaking. It is also a film about God. About Godard as God. About control. About love, lust and desire all printed onto celluloid and rolled into a nice discus shaped reel, to be tossed our way by the powers that be.

The story follows a writer named Paul Javal who is offered the opportunity, by a producer named Jerry Prokosch, of re-writing a script for Homer’s “The Odyssey”, which is being directed by Fritz Lang. Confused yet? The film basically concerns the difficulties encountered when conflicting ideas are proposed by the film’s makers, because of different ideas regarding what the film’s ultimate purpose is as an end-product, i.e. is it being made for profit, to reflect the modern society or for self-fulfilment in creating something that offers both a faithful interpretation and a reality that the writer himself appreciates.

In the first scene we are told by the opening voice-over that Le Mepris is based on a novel by Alberto Moravia. It goes on to tell us who stars in the film, who makes it etc… Whilst he tells us this, the camera films a cameraman tracking vertically towards “our” camera which is filming a woman reading from a script. This immediately suggests that “Contempt” is a film about filmmaking. I think Godard chose to film the filmmaking process to show how naturalistic the process (of cinematography at least) is. At this moment he is showing us just the camera and reality with nothing in between the two. However what is captured is then changed at the decision of the makers (as is shown in the subsequent scene in the production room where they review the film so far) and modified through editing using cutting, music, montage etc… to suggest certain things and make associations. The process of editing is a form of distortion, another issue the film is concerned with via materialisms distortion of nature, as it distorts the truth which the camera has filmed. The voice-over then quotes Andre Bazin saying “film substitutes a world that conforms to our desires”, responding by saying that Le Mepris is a story of that world; a sentiment echoed most notably in Paul who wants to substitute his own reality with Homer’s for he holds a very romantic, idyllic and utopian perception of the text.

In a subsequent scene set in the production room where Lang and his cohorts are sat reviewing the film as it has developed so far, he comments on how each picture should have a definite point of view, as “The Odyssey” is a fight between the individual and the circumstances, Ulysses versus the gods. He describes Minerva as being Ulysses’ protectress and Neptune (Poseidon) as his enemy; as he does the camera goes to shots of sculptures of each of these gods. He further comments on how Gods have not created man but man has created Gods. This solidifies Lang’s vision of how he thinks the film should be. It seemed to me that the most striking feature of Le Mepris is that of God and man, filmmaker and film, with the common denominator of creator and creation. Lang re-creates “The Odyssey”, Godard creates Le Mepris. Lang re-creates characters Ulysses, Penelope, Neptune and Godard creates Paul, Camille and Jerry. Godard is synonymous with Lang; both are directors/creators. Both have control, both are ultimately gods. The fact that the characters of Le Mepris have adopted the roles of those in “The Odyssey” seems to pose the question of whether art controls life and the way we choose to live it, or whether in fact we really do have any choice at all but are instead being directed by Gods just as the characters of Le Mepris are being directed by Godard

Still viewing the film, Jerry sees a naked woman (a mermaid) swimming in a pool – and like the clichéd producer that is concerned about there being a decent amount of tits and ass in the film - he becomes animated, or should I say deranged, and sports a dirty smile that decorates his even filthier laugh. Despite this Jerry is still unhappy with the direction Lang has chosen to take the film in saying “that’s not what is in that script”. He has a violent outburst as he picks up some film reels and tosses them as though he were a discus thrower in the Greek Olympics, setting him up as a God; an imitation of Neptune of whom we see pulling a similar athletic pose of the time with one arm pulled back and the other stretching out in front of him. Jerry is even heard saying I like Gods, I understand them. After successfully attempting to bribe Paul to re-write the script, offering him a cheque to do so of which Paul hesitantly accepts, Lang compares his approach of using money to Hitler’s (another man of God-like status) use of a gun in his dictatorship. This gives us a glimpse into the way studios and ‘God-like’ producers “persuade” filmmakers to change scripts to make them more accessible. It seems as though Godard is putting his own “contempt” for the production of his film into Le Mepris, for he had difficulties with the producers during shooting who wanted more nudity, and he was becoming increasingly frustrated with the actors, most notably and ironically Jack Palance (Jerry) who would become the figure of contempt for Paul and Fritz. The only person who he could suffer was Fritz Lang, one of his heroes and the character of whom Godard would use as a disguise for himself. Strangely enough, Woody Allen used a similar formula for disguise in his film Celebrity where Kenneth Branagh would adopt every aspect of Allen’s persona, from mannerisms to intonation of voice, whilst scouting the celebrity lifestyle.

At times the film seems to exhibit intense elements of drama where maybe there shouldn’t be using a captivating score by Georges Delerue, called “Theme de Camille” (of which Scorsese used in Casino). The score, like most, is melancholy yet uplifting but is used at a point where casual conversation continues and Camille, through a sequence of jump cuts, recollects what happened only in the previous scene as though it were of some importance. It seems a little presumptuous of Godard to insert a flashback sequence so soon into the film, when the viewer has yet to comprehend to a reasonable extent what is happening between Jerry, Camille and Paul. But then again, since when has Godard been a reasonable man? Joke; if reason had a reason to take corporeal form, I’m sure it would choose Godard as its host. However, to the viewer the music and flashback seems a little random. An even more, dare I say, humorous example (for I may be misinterpreting this) of his use of the score comes when Paul and Camille are arriving home. Paul is reading the newspaper, talking about films that are on at the cinema, and discussing trivial matters with Camille such as who has the key, yet the score continues to float and sink intermittently as though something extremely profound is happening. It is possible that Godard just wanted to use the music as a segue from the beginning to the middle part of the film or maybe to counterpoint sound and image as he is known to do. Or maybe the score, as it is devoted to Camille, is just about her personal feelings. So if at times it feels incongruent with things that are happening externally it is because it changes in pace or pitch in compliance with the beating of Camille’s heart.

The tracking shot that is filmed in the initial scene is one that Godard used frequently himself in creating Le Mepris. It seems the reason for this is to say, “Hey viewer, this is how a film is made.” So by filming the filmmaking process and then using that same process in his film Godard could be suggesting that the moments of production within the film, including the negative aspects such as dealing with producers (things that are as necessary in making a film as camerawork), parallel his own experience in making films. Please excuse me for using the word film so much. The Cinema Verite camera work itself is very fluid in the film using long takes and crawling dollies as well as incorporating sweeping movements, whereby the camera swoops around its characters and retreats backwards (into bushes) and continues to film them giving the feeling of someone spying on them. It seems to me that again Godard is trying to express his own tribulations that were caused by the Paparazzi, of whom kept harassing Brigitte Bardot during filming. The movements of the camera are synonymous with those of a Paparazzi reporter; swooping in to a star with their microphone, only to retreat back into the bushes and spy on their prey in an attempt to get a juicy scoop.

The film documents Paul and Camille at a turning point in their relationship. Like Camille’s flashbacks, we are introduced to the couple with no back-story, so to see Camille become increasingly hostile, frustrated and petulant we are forced to ask why. Even Paul is confused as to his wife’s sour attitude towards him. However it is Camille who thinks Paul has changed since he became more involved with the film industry; making more money. To be fair, we get the impression that Paul has “sold out” as he used to write thrillers which he had passion for and has now been swayed by a larger pay cheque and the pursuit of a nicer home to compromise his artistic intent. However his desire to cling on to his old-self seems to be represented by the fact he never once takes off his bowler “detective” hat. As he ascends into a corrupted world that is more sophisticated than his own, it is evident that Paul wants to maintain his integrity, using the industry as only a means to an end. His hat acts as a reminder of where his roots lay. There is an opposition between classical tragedy, where man was victim to a fate designated by the gods, and film noir thrillers that were more secular in nature and dealt with more realistic and less deterministic themes of crime and human relations (of which lasted because of integrity and weren’t destroyed by Roman decadence). Like Paul, Lang’s roots influence the gritty, honest, down-to-earth approach, proven by his citing of “M” as the favourite of his works. He criticises crimes of passion or any impulsive acts such as murder in the name of revenge because of its tragic consequences. Ultimately Lang holds contempt for fanciful invocations of Gods who exact revenge on instinct, and instead, appreciates “The Odyssey” for its growth with nature, unlike Jerry who revels in the iniquitous elements of it.

The use of location shooting enhances the linear narrative of beginning, middle and end as it gives each of the three “acts” a distinguishing environment of its own. In the first instance shooting was done at Cinecitta Studios which was the setting for Jerry’s Chateaux; antiquated with Roman art. The second at the interiors of Paul and Camille’s cold and sterilised contemporary flat. The third at Jerry’s villa, the Casa Malaparte on Capri Island; a house on a cliff surrounded by a forest of cypresses and rocks, and framed by the Mediterranean Sea, showing the sensuality and beauty of landscape and location, acting as a counterpoint to the turbulent natures of the characters and a means of bringing “The Odyssey” to life.

However, there is a duality in the mise-en-scene of these locations; a dichotomy between contemporary and 8th Century Roman art. The lurid, fluorescent orange and blue hues of the furniture, that match Camille’s towel and Jerry’s jumper and car, versus the ornate furniture, portraits, harp, sculptures of Roman deities and perverse images of sexuality and so on. Almost as though Godard were invoking Alfred Hitchcock’s Vertigo, the characters seem to be influenced by the lifestyle and colours of this art, just as they seem to impersonate the roles of those in “The Odyssey”. For example, the flowers, sofa and towels in Paul and Camille’s flat all seem to be purposefully colour co-ordinated. This has the effect of stagnating Paul and Camille’s relationship that seems to have deteriorated for lack of vitality and spontaneity. This is made apparent by Camille’s childish and mocking attempt at offering impromptu sex to Paul who rejects it angrily. In fact, in one of the first scenes we see Paul and Camille having an intimate discussion in bed, the shots of which are filtered with orange and blue hues. It could be that these filters which match the colours of their furniture are meant to have a foreboding effect hinting at the negative influence their furniture (symbolic of materialism) will have on their relationship. Even though it is clear that both Paul and Camille are complex and interesting individuals, they have already begun to become trapped by convention that seems to be sucking the life out of them. This arc contemplates age-old theories of life imitating art which has been inspired by life.

However it is not just the furniture that would exercise power over the couple but the conniving producer also. Just look at the way he sips on his wine and playfully tilts his sunglasses whilst giving Camille a cajoling smirk. Jerry sees himself as the modern equivalent of a Greek God; exercising financial power over Paul (in giving him his cheque) and erotic power over Camille (who we see enraptured by visceral images of fornication and sodomy that are contained within Jerry’s Roman “art” book). Never are the couple in control over their own lives, but instead are subject to the whims of this glorified Poseidon. Like Paul and Lang he envisions “The Odyssey” in a self-serving manner though his has more realistic and tragic consequences as his desire is to split Paul and Camille’s relationship. It has already been inferred that the characters of Paul, Camille and Jerry are synonymous with Ulysses, Penelope and Neptune and so when Jerry says that Ulysses loves Penelope but she doesn’t love him, he is insidiously saying that Paul’s love is not reciprocated by Camille. He further distorts “The Odyssey” for his own gain by suggesting to Paul that the reason Ulysses took so long to return home (10 years) was because he was unhappy with Penelope. He is trying to plant seeds within Paul’s mind that make him doubt his own relationship. However, as though acting out an auxiliary role as Minerva, Lang reassures Paul that Ulysses would not have undertaken such cowardly action, if that were the case.
Jerry clearly represents Godard’s contempt for Hollywood. Jerry who only gets excited at the sight of naked women in pools, who has a greed for power possessed only by gods, convincing women to take off their clothes, sweet-talking and bribing those around him and driving off with other men’s wives in his sports car. Fritz Lang however is the antithesis of this. His passion for “The Odyssey” develops from his belief, as he says in the film, that “Homer’s world is a real world but the poet belonged to a civilisation that developed in harmony with nature, not in opposition to it…The beauty of “The Odyssey” lies precisely in this belief in reality as it is.” It is an objective reality that cannot be distorted. It is a reality free of materialistic desires which are disharmonious with nature. It is a reality which lives because of people’s ability to breathe life into it without the aid of respiratory devices. The problem seems to be adapting a story that was a product of its civilisation to a modern civilisation which has different values, making it anachronistic. For “The Odyssey” to succeed it can no longer remain as it is.

Le Mepris is thus an amalgamation of different epochs. The difficulty in adjusting “The Odyssey” (whilst incorporating conflicting ideals from these epochs), acts as the embodiment of the struggle during radical changes that have occurred throughout civilisations. The film’s turbulence stems from a European vibe, which is more of a tremor or a quake, of beauty, art and money, and being able to balance the three. It is a crisis similar to that of Marcello Rubini in “La Dolce Vita” or Sandy Bates in “Stardust Memories”.

In the final scene between Paul and Lang, Paul says he is returning to Rome to finish his play. He then asks what shot Lang is filming and he replies that it is the one where Ulysses sees his native land for the first time, concreting the comparison of Paul with Ulysses. The film ends with a tracking shot of a tracking shot, similar to the beginning, only this time from a horizontal perspective; the linear movement of each complimenting the linear structure of the film and the triumph of one interpretation/perspective over another.

Le Mepris confronts the viewer with the fact that there is a mechanism behind cinema as it shows us the filmmaking process (and its consequences); from the tracking of the camera, to the disputes between producer and filmmaker to the effect of being a writer and what strains that puts on the writer’s relationship. Just like man can be comforted by a Godless world, this film is saying there is a god (as god in this film is synonymous with the filmmaker) and he does direct things. Whereas a film that is only an end-product without any reference to its means can comfort the viewer as they can indulge with impunity in a reality that just exists without fear of consequence. It all allowed for cause and effect and created more complex themes of determinism, providence and life imitating art in the form of the tragic development of Paul and Camille’s relationship and the dynamics of adapting a film within an industry