I understand that the shots look good, and the acting is well done for girls that age, but what else makes this film so good? It was tedious at times, and I didn't understand the point of some of the shots (Especially the one scene of Teresa lying in bed for like a straight 3 minutes). Not much really happened in the way of plot, and the end left some things unexplained. Someone please explain how this deserves a 7.8.
shareThe shot of Teresa lying in bed is supposed to reinforce the state of her (then) loveless marriage. The amount of time she waited while her husband got ready for bed was like an eternity to her. The scene's supposed to be so you feel a little of what she feels.
here's lots of scenes in this movie that *could* have been shortened, but that would have interrupted the overall feeling and pace, which is slow and quiet, very much what life through the eyes of a child in this era would be like.
IMO, it's those kinds of scenes that make older movies so great. If this movie was shown today with all those long scenes intact, most people would either fall asleep or leave the theater within an hour. To really appreciate and enjoy movies like this one, you have to slow down, really watch, absorb what you're seeing, and most of all, be patient! This story is set in a place and time when life moved MUCH more slowly than it does today. So, instead of special effects, you get more depth of emotion, and a truer depiction of life. The way that happens is by avoiding distractions like rapid-fire scenes, and giving the viewer time to get immersed in the scene, to let his imagination take over. It also helps to assume that every scene has a purpose or deeper meaning. It's your job to figure out what that is. Granted, lots of scenes don't have anything below the surface, but figuring out which do and which don't is part of the fun of watching.
There could be many reasons why you don't understand it. Some people don't have the desire, patience or in some cases, the intelligence to peel beneath the layers. (I'm not saying that's you, though). For others, this kind of movie just isn't their cup of tea. But I think for most people who don't get it, it's simply because they're unable/unwilling to relax, *really* watch and recognize the relationships between scenes, and the evolution of a story. Take the 'Teresa in bed' scene. While watching that, did you quietly watch and look for subtleties that might explain it, or did you, (after the first minute or so) stretch, yawn, roll your eyes and look outside/kick the cat/go get something to eat/etc? :) Personally, I remembered the letter she was writing at the beginning, and thought "this woman's having an affair". Consequently, I was looking for something to confirm or deny that. That scene pretty much confirmed it, while showing through inaction exactly how she felt.
The key to this movie is subtlety. If you're not really watching it, you will miss enough stuff that it will probably make little cinematic sense.
I won't go into why it deserves its rating, or your comment about the plot, because ratings are subjective. Personally, I wonder why women in their mid-30s rated this WAY lower than even teenagers. No one knows, and I won't presume to know.
I will say, however, that despite its pacing, it most definitely *does* go somewhere, and a lot of people pick up on that, hence the rating. Your comment leads me to believe that you either watched this with some form of distraction present, or maybe you're just a person that sees (and/or prefers) things 'as they are' in movies, rather than someone who picks out metaphors and subtle references.
Sorry if I sounded like I was psychoanalyzing. I'm sleepy. :)
Kel
http://imdb.com/name/nm1485711/
Professional sleep-deprived poster on closed course. Do not attempt
I just saw this film today. I have nothing to add except that your comment was really refreshing. Thank you for taking the time to respond to the poster - I know I filled up message boards with demands for others to justify their differing opinions when I was eighteen; ten years later I barely if ever contribute a post. I'm glad you haven't followed the same track! - Ryan
shareThanks Ryan. I think I either can't resist orphan posts, or have a complex where something in my brain semi-randomly deems I MUST reply to certain things. If I had my way it wouldn't fire quite so much. It takes forever to reply to all these damn posts!
Funny thing about that behavior, it doesn't apply to email. I still have pretty important mail from 1996 that I really will get to *any* day now... :)
Kel
http://imdb.com/name/nm1485711/
Professional [?] on closed course. Do not attempt
just watched this film, appreciated the cinematography, the images of isolation, the colours and so on, but reminded me a bit of the deliberate lack of emotion that occur in films by, for example, Atom Egoyan. Would the film stand up without knowing about the Franco backdrop? - probably, albeit would seem a bit surreal and disjointed perhaps.
shareI'm just not all that sure the Franco/Spanish Civil War backdrop is so necessary anyway. Seems to me the film is about larger issues, with a nod toward those temporal ones. There's something deeply mysterious about it, which is also why I think criticism that runs along the lines of "which characters/events symbolize X or Y in the Spanish Civil War" really miss the point. There is something much bigger here, something about the relationship between children, the wide scary world, and how they try to figure it out themselves.
share...the deliberate lack of emotion...To me that was the whole point of the movie!
I just finished watching the movie on DVD but due to circumstances was not able to view it more than once. However, I am going to make it a point to beg, borrow or buy a copy to watch over and over. Most everyone notes the cinematography which is outstanding especially compared to most '70's output. The only weak point to me, and it is major, is the use of the "stand-in" Boris Karloff. The face of the actor playing the monster should never have been shown. It ruins the scene and jolts one out of the moment. If anyone has a reason the director allowed this to happen I'd be willing to listen but I doubt if you could convince me it was the right thing to do. I gave it an IMDB rating of 9 otherwise it would have been 10.
shareThe "stand-in" was played by Ana's father. This symbolizes her deep need for a loving father figure. The "monster" was the only being with whom she could have an emotionally satisfying relationship, which she longed to have with her father and the rest of her family. Look again, and you'll see that there was no attempt to hide the fact that this is Ana's father.
share[deleted]
Yep, some of the bonus material on the Criterion DVD goes into this situation. It explains they actually did try to get Boris Karloff himself for just this reason, but were unsuccessful. Then it explains the producer felt very strongly the stand-in's face shouldn't be shown, because he didn't look enough like Boris Karloff and the effect would be spoiled. The producer felt so strongly about this he explicitly instructed the director not to shoot face-on closeups of the monster. But director Erice -for reasons that were never entirely clear to me- did it anyway.
shareThat would have made it much better because Fernando Fernán Gómez is one of Spain's biggest names and highly recognizable even behind all that make up, but on the other hand for symbolic reasons it was a good intention although the "recognizable famous actor would spoil it" rule would have been a better option.
share1.)It's appreciated because it's original. It deals with children during war and that topic was hardly touched back then. Have you seen EL LABERINTO DEL FAUNO(Pan's Labyrinth)? Everything is much clearer and simpler there.
2.)Franco was still the ruler of Spain when this was made. It wasn't possible to be more precise an thus more accesible.
3.)The slow pace was common in many old movies.
I've just seen this film for the first time. It ended 5 minutes a go. I'm finding it very difficult to breathe. What a film.
shareI've just seen this film for the first time. It ended 1 minute ago and quite frankly I don't see any justification for the classic status it is given by many film critics. It is far too slow paced to justify it. What I will credit is the way it is shot. It has almost been shot with a yellow filter, there is so much yellow in it. I don't know if it was deliberate to signify honeycombs that link into the beehive but whatever the motive it was damn clever. I would also give credit to an adorable performance from Ana Torrent but beyond that I was disappointed what with all the hype.
shareFrom a simple examination of your other postings it's pretty clear why this film isn't for you. You enjoyed "The Wedding Singer".
This film avoids cliches, is full of subtle tonalities and embraces mystery. "The Wedding Singer" indulges in cliches from start to finish, is absolutely ham-fisted and leaves nothing to the imagination.
Need I mention your love of the atrocious "Bad Santa"...?
From a simple examination of your other postings it's pretty clear why this film isn't for you. You enjoyed "The Wedding Singer".
This film avoids cliches, is full of subtle tonalities and embraces mystery. "The Wedding Singer" indulges in cliches from start to finish, is absolutely ham-fisted and leaves nothing to the imagination.
Need I mention your love of the atrocious "Bad Santa"...?
nocompassneeded, people like you should be banned from posting on these message boards. My post was strictly related to the film only. You obviously disagree and yet cannot be bothered to post a reply without resorting to a personal (and grossly inaccurate) attack on my viewing choices. Neither the Wedding Singer (I was commenting on the stage musical and not the film anyway) or Bad Santa would be within a million miles of my choices for favourite films but even if they were that gives you no right to be condescending. It is somewhat disturbing anyway that you have taken that much interest in my posts which cover a diverse list of films.
What a saviour the ignore lists are. Thank God I won't have to read your crap again.
...It is far too slow paced...That's a matter of opinion. I'll grant it's a common opinion, but it's not the only one.
I have to admit I'm so perplexed with these movies. Especially the older european arty flicks. Some of them I watch and I feel "yeah it's great, I could probably watch it again, but just under my own tastes I can't sit through it once a month or such."
But anyhow, often I'm watching and I end up being moved by these slow scenes, although I have to admit I sometimes draw my own conclusions I almost never know what they represent! I sometimes find feeling somewhat moved by them but I sometimes only can guess at the meanings without feel 100% certain.
Either way, I loved this one a lot. I wouldn't cut a frame.
I loved this movie.
Finding major flaws in everyone you ever met...is a skill.
I know Criterion has restored this picture but I recorded it off TCM and watched it tonight. I can sympathize with those who say it drags in spots but I also know that with a film like this the poster who said "have patience" is completely correct. This kind of film is like enjoying a long and relaxing bubble bath instead of rushing through a shower. There is much symbolism here and the story is about a family; the Frankenstein monster symbolizes the family members' isolation from one another. In the scene where Ana sees the monster in the water that is her FATHER she is looking at. She might be hallucinating because she ate that mushroom she knew she shouldn't have eaten, but still Ana had fear of her father and so the monster to her was her father. Children can always sense when their parents do not have a good and loving relationship; so Ana and her sister act out their fears about their parents lack of love and intimacy by instead focusing on the monsters within themselves.
shareDon't confuse her biological father (the actor who played the Frankenstein stand-in) with the character "her father" (played by Fernando Fernán Gómez) in the movie story. Staying within the context of the movie, I didn't notice any apparent relationship to the monster.
shareSome movies are good because they're not full of plot. I'm sick of plot. The purpose of a film is not always to further the plot with every shot, that's just Hollywood's boring way of doing it. If you ask me, films like Spirit of the Beehive are far less boring and tedious than Hollywood dramas like Shawshank Redemption.
shareIt cracks me up to see so many people referring to this as such an "old" movie. If THIS is old, what is the original Frankenstein, that came out in 1931??
shareI agree. Same thing with music, when the radio stations call songs from the 1980's "oldies". It's hilarious.
I watch silent films a lot, now there you have old. But timeless. And that's more important.
Sorry, folks, I found this film to be a dull bore.
Without wanting to burst any of your little bubbles of preconception, I am a highly educated 52 year old Irishman who loves the work of Malick, Ford and Bergman - so explain that!!!
That's truly suprising given your love of Malick. His plodding, quasi-poetic self-indulgence absolutely defines tediousness for me. This film, however slowly it shifted as a whole, consistently deepened its figurative elements and generated a mysterious air that I found engrossing.
shareI found the film so vague that I feel just about any meaning can be attached to it. It's beautifully photographed, but it's an amorphous, over-intellectualized cinematic exercise that is exactly what you'd like it to be, no more, no less.
share[deleted]
Maybe abstract is a better word choice than vague. And I suppose abstract isn't for everyone.
[deleted]
The scene where Teresa lied in bed for 3 minutes is crucial; it simply portrays the ignorance between husband and wife. But, Teresa plays asleep for 3 minutes UNTIL a train is heard from afar, and her eyes open up with hope... Train is the only connection between her and whoever the person she writes to, and he is also the only person Teresa shows obvious affection in the movie.
shareSee, I agree with the OP to a point. I understood the distance between the parents and their daughter, who in turn looked for a fantastical stand-in, especially after feeling even further pushed away when she associated her father with the death of a potential friend.
But... why does it have to make it all so lifeless? I like artistic films that inspire emotion and thought out of me. This... does neither. Subtly is good for realism's sake, but going overboard with it makes everyone seem like the walking dead instead of people.
"For that day."
-Three Days of the Condor
I really didn't like this film.
Mind you, I'm not a very "artsy" kind of guy when it comes to films. It was just badly paced for me. And nothing particularly interesting happened. Thought maybe something would come of the older sisters descent into a sociopath (Strangling the cat) but nothing really came of that either.
You say "lifeless." Some of us say "quiet." As in, quiet in a good way; in a way very few films ever are.
share