MovieChat Forums > Le mépris (1964) Discussion > The Emperor has no clothes- inane piece ...

The Emperor has no clothes- inane piece of rubbish

posted 12 years ago by nutritionist
27 replies | jump to latest

This film reminds me of the story, "The Emperor has no Clothes". Everyone says it is amazing! fantastic! Art! Complicated! Deep! Groundbreaking Cinema!

However, as a movie lover I can say that the movie is an inane piece of rubbish. Ridiculous conversation, Terrible pacing, awful plot, preposterous music at the wrong times, crazy shots that go on and on for no reason, scenes that go on for no reason, actors that are there to pose, -shots of Bardots bare butt seems to be the raisson detre for the whole movie. The music makes me want to strangle someone. The dialogue in the apartment is ridiculous, and music starts to play in the middle for no reason, then stops, then starts then stops- for no reason. She wears a red towel for no reason. They talk absolute rubbish. there is no plot actually.

The emperor has no clothes. Bardot is beautiful. That's all.

[–] Luc_Ozade 9 years ago

I have to agree, somewhat, with the OP.

I have had this DVD for several years and just watched it tonight. I don't remember watching it before - but that could be because I found it so unmemorable.

I found the dialogue inane, incoherent and very stilted - almost as if a child had been given the task of writing the script. In the apartment scenes they seemed to wander around aimlessly, getting in and out of the bath alternately (Paul never once taking off his hat even! Why not?). SPOILER ALERT: The crash scene at the end was also complete nonsense: just a loud sound of a crash offscreen, and then a very obviously staged still picture of what had, supposedly, happened. Why was this even necessary?

I felt the whole movie seemed as if it was the first attempt at film-making by a novice film-maker who hadn't even read how to do it. What a waste of undoubted talent and money.

I love Brigitte Bardot (have done since seeing her films in the 1950s). But apart from being treated to shots of her beauteous face, expressions, figure, legs, rear nudity, etc - the rest of this disappointing attempt at entertainment, left me cold.

[–] whynot2 9 years ago

Well, it's certainly not necessary for all of us to 'like' the same thing, or 'respond' to the same thing...what a boring world that would be.

But criticizing 'Contempt' for not providing realistic dialogue, pacing, plot, for the 'crazy shots', and so on, sounds a bit like saying Monet is crap because his paintings don't look like the real thing, and a photograph would be better anyhow.

It's perfectly fine to prefer something a little more, shall we say, realistic and linear, but a fair number of people, critics as well as us, the unwashed, unenlightened common folk, seem to have gotten something out of it, even if perhaps not finding it as entertaining in the same way as, say, Ice Age.

It could be that the OP represents the position that those of us who enjoyed it are silly and self-delusional, and they we should be smarter than to be that easily seduced by Godard's strip of celluloid. Of course, that position could also be perceived as just a little, well, fascist: here, let me tell you what you think about the last thing you've seen...

And yes, in a way, Bardot's bare butt is the 'raison d'etre' for the whole movie. Just like Kubrick use of Kidman in the opening of Eyes Wide Shut, Godard's use of Bardot might be paraphrased as, "Oh! Fanboy of Prokosh's brand of commercial movies? Here's your payoff, in the first 5 minutes: a long lingering gaze at the starlet's butt. Now, no need to waste your time any longer, try not to trip over those opting to stay as you make your way out."

Apparently, dogs are wolves with Williams-Beuren Syndrome.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] nammage 8 years ago

I don't know, i kinda enjoyed it. They took a simple plot; especially for France, and sort of made it into a philosophical portrait. It was slow running but that didn't bother me; i've seen slower moving films that kept my attention, and some that didn't.

I like philosophy, it seemed philosophical to me.

-Nam

I am on the road less traveled...

[–] wim-vorster 8 years ago

Amazing how people can display their ignorance in public. Reaaly when ignorance is bliss. 'tis folly to be wise

[–] feodoric 8 years ago

Someone I know described forums on the web as "democratization of the morons". In support of this definition, here we are again with the overused paradigm of Andersen's "Emperor's New Clothes" story that we inevitably find in almost all discussion forums on "philosophical", "Nouvelle Vague movies", or virtually any movie that dares defying predetermined structures, deconstructing the Hollywoodian approach to storytelling or simply walking outside of the well-travelled paths in search of original yet meaningful and riveting cinematographic approaches. I don't think the OP realized, before posting his nihilistic analysis of a Godard's movie through the grid of his new version of the Emperor's paradox ( i.e. the nude Emperor by now!), how cliché and predictable his view actually is perceived by the readers here. As though Godard would accidentally make one movie that does NOT detract from his constant quest for new forms of story telling and new ways of using cameras to show humans acting or interacting with one another.

And yet, Godard had gained enough interest and respect from his mentor Fritz Lang, one of the most original and most brilliant film creator in the history of cinema, to get him to play a role in "Le Mépris". Granted, this does not prove by any means the validity of that movie per se. But if you (to the OP) watch the short documentary on discussions between Lang and Godard on cinema and their respective approaches and views, (available as a supplement with the Criterion edition), you clearly get a sense of how profund the views, love and respect both directors have for cinema as a grand art, and you will lose any prejudice you might have against Godard (or Lang, for that matter) and give him credit for the various innovations shown in "Contempt".

I'm not even a big Godard's fan, and yet I love "Le Mépris" a lot, to the same extent as I adore "À bout de souffle" (Breathless) - albeit for very different reasons. And my initial reaction was less than positive, I must admit. That's how strongly constraining our predigested structures of movies are after so many decades of Hollywood-based cinema for the masses. I'm not saying that masses cannot understand or appreciate a movie such as "Contempt": I'm just being realistic. Cinema that is pre-designed for mass entertainment follows recipes. And what people are looking for in movies varies considerably: obviously, one has to be more receptive and more cincenteated to enjoy such an experimental movie .

But trust me: once you find the right mindset and are ready for a transfixing cinematographic experience, there are very few movies with such intrinsic beauty (e.g. the palette and purity of the colors, which are contrasted with the splendid sunlight of the Mediterranean coast) and with the epic and symbol-laden character of a Greek tragedy in a modern context. I consider this movie as one of the most highly successful cinematographic experience to have come out of Dr. Godard's lab. The Emperor rarely showed such rich clothes in public.