Robert, i’ve argued with this before but i’m pretty sure it’s well accepted that the beehive is somehow a fascist metaphor. otherwise, why the emphasis, and why does the family home resemble a hive of sorts? i.e the windows? The significance to me of her opening the window, resemblling a hive, and calling out, is that she effectively ‘breaks the pattern’. She is not trapped like the others.
I think you are taking this too literally. Bees produce honey. They don’t benefit from the honey, we do. Beehives are man made structures. A bee’s survival is not predicated on their inclusion within this structure. hence, the structure must be pointing to something outside the obvious.
I think there is a difference between a natural and artificial beehive. The beehive in this film, to my knowledge, isn’t ‘natural’. Last time we discussed this you said the difference was irrelevant. I disagreed. i think it’s important to the film. The ‘disturbance’ amongst the bees is like the ‘disturbance’ in the natural social order. Man isn’t meant to be ‘caged’ in that kind of way, and arguably neither are the bees.
Yeah, I know we did.
Are you saying bees produce honey for humans?
The major problem I have with the hive for a fascist symbol is that the hive is from nature and the complaint made by Fernández-Santos is that fascism was unnaturally keeping Spain from a progression to democracy.
I will say that the film can be allergically about fascism, but at least the symbolism above doesn’t work.
People are “form-fitting” the idea to the film.
Is that acceptable? does it matter?
Isn’t the self-fantasy of misinterpretation sort of being narrow-minded?
^^Robert, i’m open to the idea that i’m completely wrong, and my appreciation of the film certainly doesn’t hinge on the beehive=fascist metaphor. I think it’s an interesting angle though, even if it’s wrong.
I think the film is definitely about the social effects of fascism though. Do you agree with the interpretation of the soldier as the ‘other’, like the Frankenstein monster, at least?
I’ll have to think about your other questions a little more before responding.
….hence, the structure must be pointing to something outside the obvious.
You mention structure.
My grandfather raised bees on his farm. He ate honey at every meal – ever have honey on a grilled cheese sandwich?
His hives were square and had racks that the bees built honeycomb on. Those racks were designed to fit into an extractor, which separated the honey from the comb.
Does the father extract the honey in the film? or his just observing the order and taking notes?
What is the structure of bee society and how would a human version of that structure be thougt of?
Robert, i’m open to the idea that i’m completely wrong,
Hey Joks, I could be completely wrong too – I know I am swimming against the tide with this – but that is the point of the thread – how do I know where to swim, if it isn’t in the film?
I wish I had the Fernández-Santos interview subtitles.
social effects of fascism though.
Yes – but I think that is embodied in the parent’s alienation.
Do you agree with the interpretation of the soldier as the ‘other’, like the Frankenstein monster, at least?
From who’s perspective? this is one of those questions. From the adult viewer yes.
I’m not sure about Ana – but the offering of the ‘apple’ suggests that she wants the knowledge of the ‘spirit’/other.
But would he be a spirit/other to her? if so, where is that in the film?
When she runs away, she dreams of Frankenstein’s face, not the soldier. (?)
Love this topic. Bookmarking for later.
@ Greg x What is the structure of bee society and how would a human version of that structure be thought of?
One version is above: Similar to the trapped bees that work incessantly without benefiting from their labor, so did the workers of Spain toil under Franco’s controlled dictatorship. Similar to the closed beehive, Spain also lacked communication during this historical period.
Bees, if they can do what they do, have no sense of being trapped – that is why we can raise them to get honey.
As a materialist symbol, it doesn’t work – if that is intended by Fernández-Santos then one can interpret the film any possible way – which isn’t necessarily bad. Personally, I would skip the anti-fascist reading and stick with a coming-of-age interpretation.
Can’t remember if the father took notes or not. I have only seen the film once. if Barnes and Noble hadn’t cancelled my order for the dvd i would have been able to double check for you ;-)
re:parental alienation. definitely true, but i think this alienation affects the kids, perhaps adversely. Ana is left to her own devices, and her sister is kind of nasty. I’m sure that people have established some kind of link between her often cruel behaviour and fascism. I’d have to watch again to be sure.
I agree that the whole perspective issue is difficult. We cannot confuse what we see for what Ana sees, but somewhere along the line things start to blur and it’s hard to know what’s really going on. As a child Ana doesn’t understand cause and effect like we do(hence the killing, and disappearance, of the solider seems inevitable to us), but i’m not sure exactly where the whole knowledge/spirit aspect comes into it. I’ll have to think about it more. She is reaching out to him, no doubt, but for what reason? other than perhaps ‘friendship’?
re:Bees awareness: perhaps the metaphor is not air tight then? I wouldn’t necessarily discard it for that reason. It doesn’t need to be surgically precise, but it does at least have to make sense. Do humans always have a sense of being trapped though? That is the question. i’m not sure the answer is always yes either.
re:coming of age interpretation. what’s that mean to you exactly?
Bees awareness: perhaps the metaphor is not air tight then?
This is what I am trying to get at – partly, if the metaphor doesn’t make sense in (relate to) reality and you try to take it to the totality of the film, I think it is problematic – or can it be done to some acceptable degree.
coming of age interpretation. what’s that mean to you exactly?
Ana is developing an identity – hence the end were she has enough of a sense of self, to reference herself to something (imaginary) outside of herself:
The last scene:
01:35:35,296 —>
VO: If you’re his friend, you can talk to him whenever you want.
Just close your eyes and call him.
Ana: “It’s me, Ana.”
Ana: “It’s me, Ana.”
—> 01:35:55,210
It takes an internal locus of control to do so.
The alternate interpretation, offered by others, is that she has bought into the lies of her sister, Isabel.
Robert said, “Great art deserves multiple interpretations. I have been wondering, however, how far does one stray from the material in a film in making an interpretation?…Where do we draw the line?”
These are interesting questions that I’d like to address, but I haven’t seen the film so…I’ve been wanting to see the film, so maybe this will motivate me to see it soon. Good questions, though, Robert.
ROBERT: agree with your interpretation, but i think the ending is more of a mixed bag. She calls out and gets no response. it’s kind of sad, but again, it’s part of a necessary step in her personal development.
JAZZ: Spirit is incredible. I only saw it recently actually, just last year, and it instantly became one of my favourite films.
Surprised you haven’t seen it Jazz – it is 226 in the TSPDT canon, down from 204.
what’s the TSPDT?
They Shoot PIctures Don’t They. It’s a list or canon of great films.
@Robert
I’d be almost embarrassed to admit the films that I haven’t seen, yet.
Btw, this thread, plus Joks’ comments has motivated me to see this soon. (I’m concerned that my lack of knowledge of Spanish history—it is a Spanish film, right?—is going to give me trouble, but oh well.)
This sums it up somewhat:
“It is one of the most beautiful and arresting films ever made in Spain, or anywhere in the past 25 years or so… The film can be construed in many ways but is, above all, an almost perfect summation of child hood imaginings.” – Derek Malcolm, The Guardian, 1999
—towards the end of this writing it shows the father looking in on his sleeping daughters
and then cuts back to him at his desk crossing out the last line.
This would be that line.
Someone who observed these things, after the initial astonishment had passed,
quickly looked away with an expression of indescribable sadness and horror.
In this abstract the author is pointing out how nature is viewed by fascism:
… the symbolism of nature and city as two opposing domains in the worldview of Italian Fascism. Nature was construed as a disordered and hostile realm destined to be conquered by man.
Again, I don’t think the beehive is a fascist symbol.
I think this is the behavior of a fascist:
Someone who observed these things, after the initial astonishment had passed,
quickly looked away with an expression of indescribable sadness and horror.
I’m still not sure why you’re looking for some sort of either/or reading of the film Robert, or that’s what it sounds like anyway. To me it is fairly evident that the story isn’t either a fascist allegory or a simple coming of age tale, really, Ana is too young for a coming of age story, but I’m assuming you mean that as something other than the traditional sense of “of age”, it needs both to be seen as having some political references and more personal, character driven ones. I can’t imagine why anyone would want to separate those two strands out and favor one over the other since that would irreparably damage the totality of the film. If some people are over-emphasizing the political, then, yes, reminding them of the other aspects of the film is sensible, but I generally take such readings as drawing out elements of the film that may not be seen as readily as the story of the little girls and not necessarily intended to suggest their story doesn’t matter at all.
And your demands for analogies are a little harsh. When someone says something like our brains are like computers, they certainly don’t mean they need to be plugged in or that we must go to Steve Jobs for intelligence up-grades. They are referencing certain aspects of how computers work to explain a more complex process.
Greg X To me it is fairly evident that the story isn’t either a fascist allegory or a simple coming of age tale, really, Ana is too young for a coming of age story
Yeah, coming-of-age usually means becoming an adult, but there is an age where one transits from seeing the world from an infantile perspective – that is, the world emanating from and returning to a central perspective.
That is more precisely what I am referencing.
The anti-fascist POV:
I think The Spirit of the Beehive is allegorical – there are few if any symbols in the film. Allegory is a story running behind the actual narrative. The quotes linked to in the OP show how far off people are – hence the thread.
So to answer your charge, it is both.
And your demands for analogies are a little harsh.
Allegory is an extended metaphor – the issue is that it doesn’t require symbolism which would bring the background story too far forward making it non-allegorical.
The thread is asking for materialist approach for interpreting those metaphors – not requesting literalism.
Again, the beehive is identified by many to be fascist symbol, which makes no sense.
Robert, what’s your take on the beehive then? what does it represent, if not fascism? What’s its overall significance in the development of the narrative?
Joks,
In his criterion essay, Spanish Lessons , Paul Julian Smith doesn’t give the beehive much ink.
Each member of the family is introduced separately, in a different location: the spartan cinema, the teeming beehive, the hushed room, reminiscent of Vermeer, where Teresa writes her letter to an unknown man.
Even the honey-colored light that streams through the windows, glazed with hexagonal panes, is more ominous than it first seems. It evokes the beehive of the title, which Fernando tells us is a society of feverish, senseless activity, one that has no tolerance for disease or death. Cuadrado’s cinematography thus cites a tradition of Spanish old masters that sees intimations of mortality not just in shadows but also in the vanity of everyday life.
Could it represent the vanity of everyday life?
I finally watched this, and I’m not sure what to think. On one hand, I know I’m unclear about what this is about, and I’m also not sure about the slow pacing of the film. On the other hand, there’s something meaningful, albeit mysterious about this film. My first thoughts of forming an interpretation go toward a kind of meditation on childhood, belief/fantasy and moving towards an end of innocence. I like the mysterious and meditative feel of the film, though.
Agree that this doesn’t have to be either/ or interpretation but an interesting fact is that SOTB was released in the last years of the dictatorship. In Spain it was called the “soft dictatorship”. Censorship both legitimately relaxed and the Spanish government was supporting art cinema that would make it appear to the rest of the world that censorship was completely a thing of the past.
IMO a lot of attention is rightly paid to the fascist allegory partly because the director studied political science and was known to be critical of the Franco regime in his film criticism. He also made another film El Sur also about the legacy of the Spanish Civil War on families. I think the beehive metaphor – on the fragmentation and bureaucratized of people under the regime – does make sense thematically. It’s also used as a visual metaphor as @joks said way too often in the film not to carry a wider meaning.
Also the film is largely through Ana’s perspective and since she does not fully understand the ramifications of facism but can only see how her family is affected I think it was wise for Erice to leave some questions unanswered.
However, not a lot of attention is paid to the film-within-a-film elements and discussing why Erice framed the film through cinema. I would like to see more on his use of particular actors (some associated with both neo-realism and the avant-garde) from a certain point in Spanish film history and his use of genre.
Amazingly, I was thinking about this thread in regard to a Michael Mann review where I found this a “NYT article”:http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/12/science/12tier.html?_r=1.
“hive thinking” …… by which he means the glorification of open-source software, free information and collective work at the expense of individual creativity.
Hive thinking would have been antithetical to Fascism because it is uncontrollable.
Found this on the NEH The Spirit of the Beehive thread by soybean: towards the end of this writing it shows the father looking in on his sleeping daughters and then cuts back to him at his desk crossing out the last line. This would be that line:
Someone who observed these things, after the initial astonishment had passed,
quickly looked away with an expression of indescribable sadness and horror.
@ Machiko Kyo I think the beehive metaphor – on the fragmentation and bureaucratized of people under the regime – does make sense thematically. It’s also used as a visual metaphor as @joks said way too often in the film not to carry a wider meaning.
Yes, it a carries a wider meaning, just not that meaning – allegory doesn’t require metaphor or symbols.
The problem with the beehive as a metaphor is that the beehive is from nature. On interview, Ángel Fernández-Santos complained that Franco’s regime was unnatural.
Yes it is used many time because it represents becoming part of the herd – i.e. to grow up one must submit to that order.
The order is a fascist order – that is where the allegory comes in. That order is represented by the mother, father, and sister.
In the OP, I list some of the assertions being made about the hive – things that aren’t in the film; hence, the title of the thread.
@ Jazz I’m not sure what to think.
Tell us how you felt about the film – how did the slow pacing make you ‘feel’?
Edit above: changing metaphor to symbol, as allegory is an extended metaphor.
Problem with threads is getting away from the OP, where in #2 the beehive is referred to as symbolic.
Tell us how you felt about the film – how did the slow pacing make you ‘feel’?
It’s been a while since I’ve seen this film but if I recall correctly it’s not slow in the way that people see Ozu as being slow. It’s slowness is due to portentous shots that encourage some kind of symbolic interpretation, if not a political Franco-based one.
We can always draw parallels with exterior events when interpreting a film but we just have to be careful that we don’t miss meanings that are based more in specificity than generalities. I tend to think that some reviewers simply want to file films away under an easy metaphorical umbrella than grapple with troubling eccentricities that challenge them.
Robert W Peabody III
MATERIALISTIC MISINTERPRETATIONS: what does reality consist of and how does it originate?
Great art deserves multiple interpretations. I have been wondering, however, how far does one stray from the material in a film in making an interpretation?
Not specifically metaphoric ideas, symbols & etc, but projecting one’s reality or adding a reality or adding facts to a scene.
Where do we draw the line?
The Spirit of the Beehive is one of the most egregious examples I have found. If you haven’t seen this coming-of-age film please do so. I think it could rival Citizen Kane for top spot in the canon – not for filmic reasons, but because it is a better film to introduce film to new generations.
Spoilers Spoilers Spoilers Spoilers Spoilers Spoilers
The Spirit of the Beehive 1973 is supposed to be a cleverly disguised statement about fascism in Franco Spain. Apparently many place a reality on an object in order to get the object to conform to an idea – in this case, the idea of fascism. The Spirit of the Beehive is an excellent a example because mis-interpreters have the excuse of saying: well the fascism had to be hidden from censors.
The father, Fernando, is trying to design a better beehive, so to speak, creating a glass honeycomb with clockwork agitation that’s supposed to stimulate production. Instead, it seems to turn the insects into an angrier, less effective swarm. The link to the authoritarian state is obvious, but Erice is subtle enough to leave the comparison purposefully open-ended.
Huh ?: creating a glass honeycomb with clockwork agitation that’s supposed to stimulate production.
Honeycomb isn’t glass how do we know Fernando is design(ing) a better beehive?
Where is that in the film?
That interpretation misrepresents what fascism was in Franco Spain, It wasn’t about progress, it was about a nostalgia for order. Near his death, Franco wanted to turn the country over to a monarchy.
The repeated motif of the beehive pattern in both the window and hive draws attention to the symbolic meaning of the items. Similar to the trapped bees that work incessantly without benefiting from their labor, so did the workers of Spain toil under Franco’s controlled dictatorship. Similar to the closed beehive, Spain also lacked communication during this historical period.
Huh ?: Similar to the trapped bees that work incessantly without benefiting from their labor
The bees aren’t trapped They do what they do to survive that is the benefit they do not dream of representation by democratic trade unions. If the glass hive were unacceptable they would swarm or die.
Huh ?:
The honeycomb is shadowing Ana’s face she see it and by the expression on her face knows it’s a fascist symbol ?!? and yet at the end of the film she submits ?!? (sarcastic questions)
I noticed recently a film described in such a way and with some googling I found what the director/writer thought was the central theme. That is very rare, in fact as far as I can tell, Fernández-Santos & Víctor Erice have never offered an interpretation although in an interview Fernández-Santos does allude to allegory in The Spirit of the Beehive
Where do you draw the line when interpreting a film?
How do you know when you have done enough thinking to complete an interpretation?
What does FILM reality consist of and how does FILM reality originate?