So she talking gradations of subjectivity
This is how I think of evaluation as well. Judgments/opinions/reactions move along a subjectivity-objectivity gradient. Judgments, etc. that move closer to objectivity are intersubjective.
But to rephrase and answer your question, is a totality formed by art (in Langer speak a non-discursive symbol) beyond one’s subjectively experienced world?
I’m gonna say yes.
And in your opinion, how does one, then, experience the totality of an art work?
Maybe read her book. It was done in 1952, the benefit of that is it is none of the Derrida/Foucault stuff had happened and I think it is readable for that reason.
Judgments/opinions/reactions move along a subjectivity-objectivity gradient
Yeah, there is a fluidity to it – sometimes one is in the right zone to get the pass and sometimes not.
I have just re-watched Spirit of the Beehive and then done a quick read of this thread. I believe House of Sober Second Thought has gotten to one of the keys aspects of the film, where Erice uses beehives and the hexagonal patterns throughout. Check the significant quotations from Maeterlinck’s The Life of Bees (see page 2 of the thread). From what I have read of Erice, he was a fan of Maeterlinck and this book. I found this quote from Erice in the wiki article re this film: “The title really is not mine. It is taken from a book, in my opinion the most beautiful thing ever written about the life of bees, written by the great poet and playwright Maurice Maeterlinck. In that work, Maeterlinck uses the expression ‘The Spirit of the Beehive’ to name the powerful, enigmatic and paradoxical force that the bees seem to obey, and that the reason of man has never come to understand”. Obviously, Erice intends an allegorical/symbolical interpretation of the bees, following Maeterlinck. So, I think a reading consistent with the bees as a political/social metaphor of something not quite right in Spanish society is a correct reading, but Erice is also expanding on this in the course of the film.
Again, HoSST gives us this key quote from Maeterlinck’s book: here, as everywhere, it is from without, from an unknown power, that the supreme order issues; and the bees, like ourselves, obey the nameless lord of the wheel that incessantly turns on itself, and crushes the wills that have set it in motion. Surely, Erice is implying the bees problematic existence in the hives, alluded in the passages the father is writing in his journal, are a reflection of the state of society in Spain. Franco is that “nameless lord of the wheel that incessantly turns on itself” that “crushes the wills”. But, he could also mean this as a commentary on the nature of existence itself, how any explanation of the true meaning of events can elude us. In other words, there are multiple levels of interpretation possible, but surely at the time this was filmed, the political context of this cannot be dismissed or down-played.
The effects of the civil war in Spain are mentioned in the letter the mother is writing where she writes how everyone is still living in a saddened state after the civil war has ended – obvious in the behavior of the father throughout the film, who seems a shattered man. The fleeing prisoner who Ana helps is a Republican soldier. Ana identifying the soldier partly with her image of Frankenstein as the benevolent monster is consistent with a hidden identification that Erice is intending for his Spanish audience of the time. He wants his audience to identify with the fate of the soldier (significantly a Republican – the side opposed by Franco), who only Ana tries to help.
Ana ‘s confused picture of Frankenstein is taken from the key scene in the film where she watches mesmerized with her sister as Frankenstein throws flowers into the stream with the little girl. She sees him as a benevolent monster who is killed for no reason she can understand. Her identification with the escaped soldier with Frankenstein is also apparent after she realizes the soldier has been killed and she runs away. She imagines the kind monster’s (Frankenstein’s) face gazing at her in the water – recalling the flower/stream scene in the film.
Throughout, we see the film through Ana’s anxious eyes as she tries to understand the world around her. Her father tells her of the threats in her own environment from mushrooms so deadly one bite would kill anyone. Her sister is an unreliable, teasing narrator and story-teller who Ana eventually finds she cannot rely on for the truth. At the end, her identification with the monster/escaped soldier is complete, as she tells the monster/soldier’s ghost she is coming: calls “It’s me, Ana.” This is the way to summon the ghost of the monster/soldier told her by her unreliable sister.
This is a complex portrayal of childhood and the loss of innocence. The role of the older sister has already been discussed earlier in the thread. Her cruelty toward the cat, for example, shows another, more sinister side of childhood. All the characters pivot around the highly imaginative Ana, but her sister is the major tie she has with the reality around her. Her sister is locked into her own world and her budding adolescence and enjoys nothing more than leading her younger sister astray. Of course, the consequences in Ana’s fevered imagination are the story of the film.
I think this film can be subject to multiple levels of interpretation. This is just a very cursory reading. However, I do think the political/social aspect is one important aspect of the film. Of course, the film transcends any simplistic reduction, but it does exist as a testament to the imagination of Erice and his crew in bringing this profound reflection on childhood and life in Spain at the time. It is a beautiful and enigmatic film. Let’s allow all of its possibilities for interpretation and reflection to exist.
I think Erice’s use of the Frankenstein story to create a film within a film, the use of Maeterlinck and the ‘spirit of the beehive’, the subtle allusions to Spain’s recent history (post civil war), all make for a remarkable achievement. Of course, the austere photography, by a cinematographer going blind when this was filmed, only adds to the magic of this film. Much more could be said, but I will leave it there.
As always, nicely summarized & complete Bob – you avoided direct symbolic representation as in the pieces linked to in the OP.
We aren’t necessarily downplaying or dismissing politics, just looking for things in the film to support a thesis.
Obviously, to find the allegory one needs to move beyond the real elements and look to their structuring into allegory – that is what art does: it takes the ‘real’ and assembles it into something such as non discursive symbol, a gestalt, or a totality.
Thus an allegory isn’t in the film, because it is not a ‘real’ object. Nonetheless, the allegory is assembled by the relationships between the objects in the film.
I could quibble with the bees being “problematic”, but as you say in the following paragraph: also mean this as a commentary on the nature of existence itself.
I think this relates to Ana’s self development, she is coming to know there are forces outside of herself.
Ángel Fernández-Santos: Ana’s imagination reassembles the fragments of an elusive reality. Fragments of an elusive reality: Don Jose = Frankenstein = Freedom fighter = phantom. Linda C Ehrlich said the freedom fighter was Franco’s Frankenstein. They are projections of the same phantom.
Downplaying or dismissing politics is not the aim. What we are trying to do is use the objects in the film to find the totality, perhaps as you described it: the nature of existence itself.
That most certainly includes politics.
Nice post, Bob. I agree with most of what you wrote.
All the characters pivot around the highly imaginative Ana, but her sister is the major tie she has with the reality around her. Her sister is locked into her own world and her budding adolescence and enjoys nothing more than leading her younger sister astray.
So what is the significance of Ana’s sister—particularly her leading Ana astray? Is that an allusion to Franco, too?
I think there are many interesting and complex layers and allusions in the film—Franco/Spanish politics, nature of existence, coming-of-age, Frankenstein—all these things supporting or folding into each other in some way. At the same the time the film also has a dreamlike, enigmatic quality. I sense that one would have to watch this several times and put in a lot of thought to grasp the film. Your post motivates me to do that.
Much more could be said, but I will leave it there.
I, for one, would like you to go on.
I agree with most of what you wrote.
I was thinking you would say: “What if you are not familiar with Franco Spain?”
The fascist analysis is much more problematic then. In the doc’s accompanying the discs there is very ltille reference to fascism in the film. It is mostly referenced in terms of what they could not do as filmmaker at that time. Mostly said was that they couldn’t do politicized films.
The film is about Ana’s forming a self. It is explicitly discussed with the Japanese documentary filmmaker.
filmmaker.
Erice:…..when a child’s takes in the world for the first time. Isabel knew adult ways and Ana didn’t, she had only faith.
Well, I think my lack of knowledge of Spanish history and politics, especially around the time the film takes place, causes some problems for me.
The film may essentially be about Ana’s formation of self (at this point, I’m not sure), but that doesn’t mean it isn’t also about fascism/Franco, nature of existence, etc. While the core of the film may be Ana’s formation of self, my sense is that there are many layers in this film—that it’s referencing many things that reinforce one another.
Btw, you’re not saying that the commentary from the documentary is the final authority on the meaning of the film are you? (Did your quote get cut off?)
Yeah, I had to log out there, but it is there now.
I think my lack of knowledge of Spanish history and politics, especially around the time the film takes place, causes some problems for me.
I think it is the desire to reify a very abstract film. Yes there are layers, but there are no hidden symbols or secrets to be unlocked. The important layer is what the film is about. Bob’s post is mostly about that – childhood.This could apply to a fascist society or a democratic society:
Maeterlinck uses the expression ‘The Spirit of the Beehive’ to name the powerful, enigmatic and paradoxical force that the bees seem to obey, and that the reason of man has never come to understand.
In the film, it applies most directly to Ana’s approach to adulthood. She is passing from a time when, as Arnheim says, as a center, the world emanates from us and returns to us. I time during development, common to all humans, when we recognize powerful, enigmatic and paradoxical forces outside of our selves.
At the end of the film Ana’s learning adventure in knowledge has reached its furthest limits suggesting that imagination can triumph over a devastating reality.
Thus, in the last scene, she calls to the spirit or phantom:
“It’s me, Ana.”
“It’s me, Ana.”
—> 01:35:55
One thing that struck me is how Ana asks her sister multiple times when watching Frankenstein, “Why did he kill the girl?” This too is a recognition of the confusion regarding what adults do — she feels for Frankenstein but she is also afraid of him. I remember how she looked at him in her hallucination when she ran away. Frankenstein’s face was sad, but she was afraid of him too. None of it makes any sense, but she goes with her intuition, which is the only thing she can really work with.
Agreed — great post, Bob.
Bob’s post is mostly about that – childhood.
This could apply to a fascist society or a democratic society:
I agree with this, but I think you’re too dismissive of the cultural/political context of the story.
I think it is the desire to reify a very abstract film.
I just feel like a little uncertain because I feel like I’m missing a crucial information—or I’m uncertain how crucial this missing information is to understanding the film (e.g., if I were Spanish would my understanding be significantly different? I suspect it would.)
there are layers, but there are no hidden symbols or secrets to be unlocked.
I don’t know. I think Frankenstein—the creature and the film—and the beehive/bees seem to be rich, complex symbols in the film. Their relationship to the film’s meaning as well as to the story, other symbols, characters and to Spanish and history and politics seems to be very complex. In other words, a viewer would need to unpack and analyze these symbols to grasp the richness and significance of them.
Odi said, This too is a recognition of the confusion regarding what adults do — she feels for Frankenstein but she is also afraid of him. I remember how she looked at him in her hallucination when she ran away. Frankenstein’s face was sad, but she was afraid of him too.
This also makes me wonder if Ana also represents or alludes to the Spanish people during the time of Franco—with the monster representing Franco. I’m not suggesting this is the only—or even the primary interpretation of Ana and Frankenstein—as Bob mentions, the film seems open to multiple readings, and I agree with this. However, I do think this is possibly a valid interpretation as well.
Hmmm… Frankenstein, a monster person, who goes around killing people because he’s deficient. A sense of sympathy for murderers… for surely the freedom fighter who ends up in the barn killed people too… Ana is afraid of him too, though she helps him. The gun he has is something she notices quite clearly.
I thought about this, not in specific to Franco but to people who murder having something wrong with them. But it’s sort of a Christian viewpoint — to hate the crime but not the person. I’m not sure Erice was going that route, but it certainly comes to mind from the point of view of an innocent child who’s been raised in the Christian tradition of forgiveness, love thy enemies, etc. etc. (this is making an assumption of course because I do not recall religious imagery/allusions of any kind in this film)
Thanks to those who have read and commented on my long post. I’ll now reward you with another – sorry(!)
I agree with Robert that the film is primarily about how Ana copes with the stark world around her with an imagination attuned to mysteries that the adults – even her older sister – can no longer see. At the end of the film Ana’s learning adventure in knowledge has reached its furthest limits suggesting that imagination can triumph over a devastating reality. I fully agree with this.
Ana is still a person who sees the world fresh and hasn’t closed off the possibilities – even when the reality can be quite terrifying. I also think Odilonvert has hit upon the frightening aspect of Frankenstein as well – which is definitely an aspect:_ she feels for Frankenstein but she is also afraid of him._ Ana is taken with the idea of the monster as both a kind, but also a mysteriously threatening figure. Erice is very subtle in the way he handles this, besides linking Frankenstein with the soldier, also linking the monster with the image of ghosts and spirits inhabiting the world. I didn’t make that aspect clear in my last post, as I was emphasizing the identification of Frankenstein and the soldier in Ana’s mind.
When we are young and imaginative, like Ana, the world is comingled with dangers both real and imagined. It is also full of mystery and presence. As I mentioned in my post, we see the world in this film filtered through Ana’s vivid imagination which can confuse reality with illusion. However, only she is perceptive enough to see the wonder still at work around her. Everything is magical: the bees, the moon, the possibilities in the abandoned building where Ana eventually sees the soldier. Still, reality is filled with its frightening aspects: Frankenstein, the mushrooms, the soldier, even her own sister and her tales. We follow her as she pieces this all together, not always making the right connections. I think Erice makes clear that her imagination trumps the inability of the adults and her older sister to fully connect with the reality around them.
I agree with Jazz when he says I think Frankenstein—the creature and the film—and the beehive/bees seem to be rich, complex symbols in the film. Their relationship to the film’s meaning as well as to the story, other symbols, characters, and to Spanish and history and politics seems to be very complex. In other words, a viewer would need to unpack and analyze these symbols to grasp the richness and significance of them. I think my own post shows where I stand on the political implications of the film – which to me are quite apparent. But we can all agree, I think, that this film is far more than just a political allegory – and it does have many secrets to uncode..
That is why I still have questions re Erice’s use of certain images and metaphors. Why, for example, do we see the bees in the wire cage climbing toward the blinding light of the bulb just above them? Why does Ana blow on them? Maybe these images have no meaning outside of themselves – I don’t know. Another curious aspect is Ana’s sister assertion that “Everything in films is fake.” Is Isabel a precocious advocate of Welles’ doctrine in F for Fake? Or is this an amused comment by Erice re his own film? If the latter, then how much are we being tricked into finding meaning by Erice in this hall of mirrors?
In any case, I did come back for some more comment here Jazz (!!!), but really, that’s all I have for now. I am glad for the opportunity you have given us, Robert, to discuss the implications of this beautiful film. I also think it wise to stay away from simplistic or reductive assertions about this film or any film that allows for multiple interpretations. Sure, films are fake, but it is a fakery – with the finest films (of which, this is surely one) – that we all love to explore.
Bob said, As I mentioned in my post, we see the world in this film filtered through Ana’s vivid imagination which can confuse reality with illusion. However, only she is perceptive enough to see the wonder still at work around her. Everything is magical: the bees, the moon, the possibilities in the abandoned building where Ana eventually sees the soldier.
This made me think of Pan’s Labyrinth—a film that seemingly, or at least partially, deals with similar subject matter. As much as I liked the visuals in PL, I think the lack of explicit fantasy elements in Spirit make it more magical and haunting than PL. I also wanted to mentioned that the langorous (some will say, “boring”) pacing effectively create a dreamlike quality of the film. (A discussion comparing both films might be interesting.)
But we can all agree, I think, that this film is far more than just a political allegory – and it does have many secrets to uncode.
Yep.
I don’t know, I didn’t find the pace of the film boring but realistic for a little girl who lives in a small town.
I’ve seen much slower films than this.
But maybe for its time, esp. according to the Criterion interview, it was slow.
The pacing may not be boring, but wouldn’t langorous be an apty description? Personally, I think many modern mainstream movie fans would find the film’s pacing boring.
This too is a recognition of the confusion regarding what adults do — she feels for Frankenstein but she is also afraid of him. I remember how she looked at him in her hallucination when she ran away. Frankenstein’s face was sad, but she was afraid of him too.
Yes, yes and yes.
She is not fully formed as a human being.
When Erice asked her whether she knew of Frankenstein she said yes, but she hadn’t met him. He knew she was exactly right for the part. She hadn’t, at that age, been able to separate fact from fiction which applies to cinema, a dream from which we abstract a reality (Langer).
@ Bob Why, for example, do we see the bees in the wire cage climbing toward the blinding light of the bulb just above them?
They had to have access to the outside from the wire tunnel – otherwise they would die.
@Jazz — well yeah, anything even remotely slower than choppy frenetic editing with handheld camera movements all over the place, like someone on coke or something (the drug), would be slow for today’s audiences (based on what we are subjected to, for example, in car commercials).
But that may start to go out of style in the not so distant future (as I hope the blue/orange color scheme does). There’s only so much overstimulation and lack of concentrated focus the body can take before convulsions become a habit.
@Robert — She’s fully formed, she’s just not schooled in the ways of the world. Which are always learned. She operates on what she was born with, which is what we are all born with, and that is instinct and intuition. And that is beautiful. It’s only later, in an effort to protect ourselves and survive, that we learn to trust our instincts and intuition less, and rely on the “logic” of how the world operates.
But I think underneath, we all still have that ability to be like her, if once in a while we can scrape through all the muck life (as in the ways of our societies) buries us under.
Are there secrets or are we just trying to make that abstract concrete?
I’d like to leave the secrets and keep the abstract abstract. :D
Seriously.
That’s what makes the film stand away from time, it will always apply.
Long live mystery. Long live not knowing. It’s part of our reality after all.
I think in art, as in real life, imagination is a mystery.
And that’s what’s so magical about it! :)
Maybe we should examine a single scene. I want it to be the scene where Ana hands the freedom fighter the apple.
Here’s what I consider the material of that scene:
Someone running away and hiding in the barn is discovered by Ana. She goes home and gets things of value and gives them to the man. One of those items is an apple.
Interpretation:
Notice I didn’t call him a freedom fighter – that isn’t in the film, nor could it be. The man could have been a criminal. I think this might have been the character that the censors held up the film on, but ultimately could not figure out what Erice was saying and released the film.
Ana believes the phantom lives in the well, I guess she thinks this man is the phantom. The apple is symbol of knowledge, but it is being offered by someone who is a child with no worldly knowledge.
We have a scene that, for me, defies reification and thus becomes very abstract. I think what Erice and Fernández-Santos are saying makes sense: Ana has faith in her imagination. The apple as a symbol of knowledge works in the way a ham sandwich wouldn’t – it represents a concept, something more than an edible, yet the symbolism stops there making the scene abstract.
If the anyone can tie the apple to something more concrete as an interpretation from things in the scene, please do.
But what does Ana giving the apple (knowledge) to the soldier (i.e. the phantom) mean? Are you suggesting that the act represents the fact that Ana’s knowledge is based on her imagination? Or that she’s giving her knowledge up for her imagination—or faith?
I don’t know if the scene defies reification but I think reifying(?) scene would probably be inappropriate—as would be much of the film.
Robert W Peabody III
This where it gets complicated – subjectivity is too broad a term.
Langer, in Feeling and Form, quotes Otto Baensch, who suggests individual feelings can be subjective or objective. So she talking gradations of subjectivity.
But to rephrase and answer your question, is a totality formed by art (in Langer speak a non-discursive symbol) beyond one’s subjectively experienced world?
I’m gonna say yes.