MovieChat Forums > Girl with a Pearl Earring (2004) Discussion > How Griet tweaked 'the bargain' and defe...

How Griet tweaked 'the bargain' and defeated VanRuijven

posted 16 years ago by Hesper79
32 replies | jump to latest

A summary of plot points that not everyone notices
(If You're Seriously Interested in This Film)

** Warning -- Practically Nothing But Spoilers **

Everyone is aware of the star-crossed love story in this film, but did you also notice the major power struggle between Van Ruijven and the Vermeers, or the diabolical trap that Van Ruijven sets for Vermeer and Griet in the form of a "bargain"? Did you notice that it was the humblest, most virtuous character who won the power struggle, defeating the most debased and powerful character in such a way that he never knew what hit him? It would be interesting to know from those of you who posted that you thought this movie was "boring", how many of the following provocative and dramatic plot points you were aware of:

1. Van Ruijven (VR) was essentially a sex addict and control freak who financially manipulated a reluctant Vermeer into painting pictures that allowed VR to pose with sexy young servant girls so that he could seduce them during the long hours of posing. In an early scene of the film, the Vermeers' housekeeper tells Griet about the most recent former maid who posed with VR for a group painting, was seduced and impregnated by him, and was socially ruined. Vermeer and his wife are clearly disgusted by VR's behavior but are forced to go along with it because they need his money. When she goes to deliver an invitation, Griet sees the very painting that she has heard about, hanging in VR's "private cabinet" where he is apparently in the habit of keeping a cloth draped over most of the scene, leaving only the figures of the maid and himself exposed to his view.

2. VR thinks that because of his money, he can do anything he wants, and the Vermeers will be unable to object for fear that he'll take his money and go home. But even though Vermeer and his wife have never acknowledged or said anything about VR's lecherous behavior, and in spite of the fact that Vermeer's mother-in-law takes every opportunity to flatter him outrageously in order to keep him as a patron, VR sees beyond their surface behavior. Like all master manipulators, he is a careful observer of his victims and he is entirely aware, based on such clues as their body language and facial expressions, that both the Vermeers and Griet are disgusted by him and consider him to be their moral inferior.

This so infuriates him that in order to get back at them, he behaves even more disgustingly whenever they're trying to get him to commission a new painting. He maintains only the flimsiest facade of being a distinguished gentleman while all the time he is leering, physically groping Griet and making suggestive remarks about the Vermeers' daughters. And then he sits back and enjoys watching them all squirm, knowing they don't dare object to his gross behavior and risk losing him as a patron.

What Was The Bargain?

3. When VR notices that Vermeer and Griet have developed an emotional attachment, he immediately seizes on this knowledge as a way to get revenge on them both for presuming to consider themselves to be his moral superiors. VR uses his influence as Vermeer's patron to insist that he be allowed to pose with Griet for a new painting and VR makes it clear to Vermeer that he intends to take full advantage of the posing sessions to force his attentions on Griet and try to seduce her just as he had the previous maid.

The fate of this former maid is well known to the townspeople and if it becomes generally known that Griet is now posing with VR, that fact alone will be enough to ruin her reputation. Because VR knows that Vermeer cares for Griet, he also knows that Vermeer will never allow Griet to pose with him and be compromised in that way. This gives VR the leverage that he needs to insist that if he can't pose with Griet himself, then Vermeer must agree to the terms of an alternative "bargain". Getting Vermeer to agree to this bargain is what VR really wanted all along, since its terms set a trap for Vermeer and Griet. It is a carefully contrived trap from which VR believes they will be unable to escape, one which he is sure will ensnare the idealistic, platonic lovers and drag them both down to VR's own morally debased level, once and for all.

4. Based on the clues which the film gives us, we can deduce the terms of VR's bargain. He demands that Vermeer paint Griet alone in a pose in which she would gaze provocatively backward over her shoulder, directly out at the viewer. VR stipulates that Griet must pose without her cap (which is a dress requirement of her strict Protestant religious sect and a symbol of her modesty and purity) and that she must wear earrings (which her religious sect does not allow).

Vermeer's mother-in-law mentions at one point that it takes three months of sitting for Vermeer to finish a painting. So what VR has achieved with this "bargain" is to manipulate Vermeer into stripping Griet of all symbolic reminders of her religious nature, making it all too obvious what she actually is behind her normally modest clothing and demeanor -- a very pretty girl. And instead of her usual reserved expression and demurely lowered eyes, VR has stipulated that for the duration of the sitting, for three months' worth of days, she must sit alone with Vermeer in his studio, gazing back over her shoulder, directly into his eyes.

5. VR was very sure of what this bargain would lead to. Because of their genuine admiration and attraction for each other, over the long days, weeks and months of being alone together, gazing into each others' eyes, Vermeer and Griet would find it impossible to resist giving in to their feelings. They would become romantically and (so VR hoped) physically involved. Griet's portrait would then reflect her love for Vermeer and the sexually awakened expression on her face would be irrefutable evidence of Griet's and Vermeer's passion and sin, and enduring proof that they were "no better" than VR himself.

VR would then have the portrait to hang in his "private cabinet" where, any time he liked, he could see Griet apparently looking *at him* with all of the feelings which she had for Vermeer. And he would have the satisfaction of seeing in Griet's eyes the guilty evidence of her sinful relationship with Vermeer, and revel in the knowledge that neither one of them would ever have the right to claim moral superiority again.

6. Vermeer agrees to VR's "bargain" because it is the only way to protect Griet from being ruined by VR, and Vermeer believes he can meet the terms of the bargain and still resist falling into an illicit affair with Griet. Vermeer is able to persuade Griet to replace her cap with a cloth which is a secular fashion, but she resists the idea of getting her ears pierced so that she can wear earrings. Meanwhile, VR drops by regularly to check on the progress of his devious little plot.

In one dramatic scene, angered by the fact that the painting is not yet finished, VR confronts Griet in the Vermeers' courtyard. Grabbing her by the chin, he inspects her face and exclaims "Still unplucked?! What's he playing at? Your master made a bargain with me!" Being "plucked" was the slang of the time for losing your virginity, and Griet would have understood from VR's remarks that he was angry that Vermeer had still not seduced her as he had expected him to.

Griet almost certainly came away from this encounter with the belief that it would not be enough to meet the terms of VR's bargain that she simply agree to pose in secular dress, if the expression on her face was still that of a demure virgin. Vermeer's mother-in-law by this time had already dropped several heavy hints to Griet that the painting was to hang in VR's "private cabinet" (that is, he intended it to be a "bedroom painting"), and she told Griet that VR was no fool and that she shouldn't think he could be taken for one. She also made it clear that the economic survival of the family was now in Griet's hands as only she could make sure that the painting would be accepted (that is, that the terms of VR's bargain had been met).

How Griet Wins the Power Struggle

7. And so, after the tender, highly charged and symbolic ear-piercing scene, when Vermeer can't resist caressing her lip before he just barely manages to tear himself away to paint, Griet realizes that just as Vermeer has saved her from ruin, she now has to save him. She runs to find her boyfriend Pieter and makes love with him. But when he urges her not to go back to the Vermeer house, she refuses. In the next scene we see Griet, looking uncharacteristically relaxed, returning the earrings to Vermeer's mother-in-law and, equally uncharacteristically, looking her somewhat knowingly in the eye. The very observant mother-in-law reacts to this noticeably different Griet with something close to a double-take and an expression somewhere between satisfied relief and uneasy concern, since at this point, she can't be sure who is responsible for Griet's "new look" and Vermeer himself is a prime suspect.

8. When Vermeer's jealous daughter spills the beans to her mother about the fact that Griet has been posing wearing her earrings, and Vermeer's wife confronts Vermeer demanding to see the painting, some may find her reaction to the portrait to be a bit on the extreme side, but you have to see it from her perspective. Griet had already proven to be not only an artistic muse of the highest order, but a kindred spirit to Vermeer, with a natural understanding of his work which his wife simply couldn't share. The one area in which Catherine still felt secure in her relationship with her husband was in his sexual attraction to her, and her confidence that Griet's religious beliefs would prevent her from indulging in any kind of immoral behavior.

And yet now, in the portrait of her rival, she sees evidence of the same change that had earlier captured her mother's attention. Griet's expression and demeanor are no longer those of a virgin, and Catherine now believes that the love and desire that are reflected in the portrait of Griet's face had been directed towards her husband during all the long months when she had secretly posed for him. Catherine understandably draws the conclusion that her husband has been unfaithful to her, and it is this aspect of the painting which she cannot help but see as "obscene". Unable to bear the humiliation of being fully replaced in her husband's affections by an illiterate servant, Catherine orders Griet out of the house.

9. In the final scene of the film, we see VR sitting in his "private cabinet", staring at the portrait of Griet, so he has apparently conceded that the painting meets the terms of his bargain with Vermeer. And yet his face shows no sign of the smug, gloating self-satisfaction which we would expect to see there. As many critics have since observed, Griet's gaze in the portrait, though filled with erotic intensity, still glows with all the purity of the pearl. The one thing missing from her expression, which VR had certainly expected to find there, is any trace of either guilt or shame, since Griet's relationship with her boyfriend Pieter would not have elicited either of those reactions from her.

VR would also surely have noticed the absence of any evidence of guilt or shame on Vermeer's part -- sadness or regret maybe, but a man as fiercely observant as VR could easily discern the difference. No wonder his face is such a dark stew of frustration and puzzlement in that last scene. Contemplating Griet's sexually awakened yet serenely innocent face, Van Ruijven realizes that he has somehow lost his power struggle with Vermeer and Griet, and he can't figure out how.

And so in the end, and against all odds, virtue and love triumph over malice, degeneracy, money and power. And although Griet pays a heavy price for ensuring the Vermeers' financial survival (at least for a while), the film does give us a subtle reminder of one important way in which her experience has surely changed her.

At the beginning of the film, as Griet is on her way to her new position, there is an overhead shot where we see that she has stopped at the center of a compass-like design etched into the pavement. Within this circle marked by the four directions, Griet hesitates for a moment as if taking her bearings before very purposefully setting off again. At the end of the film, just after she has left the Vermeer household for the last time, we see her walking once more and there is another overhead shot where she again hesitates. But this time around her feet we see only the very faint outline of a circle on the pavement where no directional indicators are visible, as if the socially accepted guidelines by which she had previously measured herself and gauged her "proper" place in the world have now disappeared.

The Film's Plot Is Different Than The Book's

For those fans of the book who will protest that this plot line is nowhere to be found in the book, you are right. As I'm sure you are aware, there are a lot of elements in the book which were left out of the film, and similarly, this plot line, which does not appear in the book, was added to the film by the film makers. One possible inspiration may have been this quotation which appears next to the reproduction of the painting on the website for the Mauritshuis picture gallery at The Hague, the museum where the portrait now hangs:

"It is always the beauty of this portrait head, its purity, freshness, radiance, sensuality that is singled out for comment. Vermeer himself, as Gowing notes, provides the metaphor: she is like a pearl. Yet there is a sense in which this response, no matter how inevitable, begs the question of the painting, and evades the claims it makes on the viewer. For to look at it is to be implicated in a relationship so urgent that to take an instinctive step backward into aesthetic appreciation would seem in this case a defensive, an act of betrayal and bad faith. It is me at whom she gazes, with real, unguarded human emotions, and with an erotic intensity that demands something just as real and human in return. The relationship may be only with an image, yet it involves all that art is supposed to keep at bay."

Edward A. Snow, A Study of Vermeer, 1979

[–] milliondollarbaby1213 16 years ago

This explanation was simply outstanding and really tied together aspects of the film that I assumed I understood, but have now been able to grasp deeper meaning from. I thought it shed a great deal of light onto the motivating factors that cause Griet to take action, and the response from the supporting cast. I will enjoy watching this film again with newfound understanding and appreciation, thanks so much for your post!

Do you have an interest in any other such films, to which you can share some background explanation?

[–] Hesper79 16 years ago

Thanks mdb1213. I'm glad you found it helpful.

Yes, I have been 'hooked' by other films that seem to me to have aspects to them that are generally overlooked, though so far these films have been very different from this one (and from each other). One case that still has existing posts on the board is the first film that Sean Penn directed, "Indian Runner", which seems to me to suggest the root cause of some very serious problems with our current culture. Some are long posts, but you might find them interesting. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0102116/board/flat/19267252

Another that *really* hooked me, ended up becoming a complete article, which someone kindly offered to post for me at their website. A reader at IMDb who liked my Indian Runner posts had asked me to take a look at Roman Polanski's "The Ninth Gate", which didn't seem particularly promising at first, but turned out to contain symbolism that essentially summarized the master spiritual teaching of the Qabalah's "Tree of Life" in a plot that, to the casual eye, appeared to be about the fatal misadventures of would-be "satanists".

The symbolic material in this film, besides giving a great introductory explanation of how to follow the spiritual path 'up the Tree of Life', also turned out (in a very subtle way) to be directly applicable to another major issue of our times, our preoccupation with "The End Times" and "Apocalypse" and there is a direct correlation between the character Balkan's progress through the film and what I believe is the true nature of the phenomenon we have called the "antichrist", which involves the ordinary choices all of us make during our lives and how they affect the culture. The article, "A Qabalistic Key to 'The Ninth Gate' or How to Defeat the Antichrist in Your Spare Time", can be found at http://www.halexandria.org/dward900.htm

Because I believe that understanding the essence of this teaching is so important to all of us now, and because this film provides a way to make it accessible to the average person, I hope as many people as possible will explore the article. But if you feel at all intimidated by the metaphysical aspect, you might try starting with "The Polanski Code" section, http://www.halexandria.org/dward909.htm which will give you the gist of the symbolism and how it relates to the plot of the film.

At the moment, that's all that's online, but thanks for asking.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] angelosdaughter 16 years ago

re how different the movie plot is from the book's:
The ending of the movie is especially enigmatic. The pearl earrings are delivered to Griet by Tanneke. It is never evident who sent them, leading to some speculation: Who could have sent the earrings?
Maria Thins, Catarina's mother, was aware of Griet's struggle and her unwillingness to depart from the duties she was hired for to put herself in an equivocal position by becoming Vermeer's helper and muse; she knew Catarina was jealous and really did not like her in any case. I thought that Maria may have sent them to make up to Griet in some way for her sacrifice (her unwilling assumption of helper/muse to Vermeer, piercing her ears, putting up with van Ruyven's lecherous behavior, the subsequent loss of her job) that resulted in the painting that would help support the Vermeer family and retain their wealthy patron. Maria seems to have understood that it was Griet's grasp of the artistic process that inspired her son-in-law to produce his paintings in a more continuous sequence than he had before having Griet's assistance. Secondarily, I thought Catarina, once the situation was explained to her, might have sent the earrings as a belated thanks and apology.
I had read the book, but had forgotten the ending: at the end, Griet has married Peter and Vermeer has died and willed the earrings to Griet. Catarina having felt betrayed by another female's use of the earrings no longer would wear them in any case, and Vermeer had appointed an executor to see that his bequest was carried out.

[–] toast-15 16 years ago

Okay, I just got to #4 and I have to vehemently disagree. It's bad enough that a great painter's masterpiece has been fictionalized but now we are fictionalizing the impetus and the very design behind the painting? This is ridiculous! It's not just a pretty face that Vermeer has painted, it is the style, the expression, the composition, and yes, the dress, turban, jewelry and use of color are part of this composition, even the background is part of this composition. I fear we have given the real Vermeer, the back of our collective modern hand. This great master simply doesn't deserve this insult!

Vermeer was in control of the style, substance, color and composition of his own paintings! No one else!

[–] Hesper79 16 years ago

Interesting speculation on the final delivery of the earrings, angelosdaughter. The film does leave the question up in the air, but the explanation from the book makes sense to me.

toast-15, I'm not sure that I understand the grounds for your objection. The film presents a fictional story woven around the actual painting and the observations which have been made about the nature of the painting (such as the quote posted at the museum website, which I referred to).

My post is an analysis of the fictional story that the film-makers have presented. So I guess my question now is, are you saying that you disagree with my analysis -- that you don't believe that this is the story the film-makers are telling? Or are you disagreeing with the film-makers for creating a fictional story in the first place?

I don't really think that the story they have created in any way diminishes the artistic achievement of the painting. I certainly wouldn't draw that conclusion. If anything, the film has probably attracted new admirers to explore Vermeer's work. Griet is a fictional character, but as for the question of whether anyone but Vermeer could ever have had any influence on his artistic choices, I don't think there is any way for us to know that, one way or another. Fictional speculations notwithstanding, I don't believe that anything in the film casts any doubt on the fact that Vermeer remains a great master. My intent has been to point out plot elements *of the film* which seem to be often overlooked, possibly because viewers are so caught up in the visual beauty of the scenes.

[–] toast-15 16 years ago

Normally I would agree with you that people are smart enough to know the difference between fact and fiction but recent events and some comments in another forum prove otherwise to me. I read a comment on amazon.com from a former admirer of Vermeer's work who now states that she detests him and will never look at his paintings in the same way again. I doubt that this is an isolated incident. I also disagree with your analysis and when I have more time and feeling better, I will be more specific. I thank you for your take on the story, but I still disagree.

[–] Hesper79 16 years ago

Well toast-15, there's not much any of us can do about the kind of ignorant response that you describe. I hope that you will give me more details on what part of my analysis you disagree with. I haven't yet seen an alternate explanation which accounts for the events portrayed in the film, but I'm always interested in dissenting opinions.

[–] toast-15 16 years ago

Well, I'm going to try and reply but I know that I will be interrupted and so this may not include everything I wanted to delve into. First of all, let me just say that as a work of fiction, everyone is entitled to his/her interpretation. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying I disagree. That is, my interpretation is different from yours. Having said that, some of your points I agree with and I think they are spot on and have helped me in certain way, understand the film better.

#4, I've already stated that I cannot fathom a great artist taking direction of every aspect of his painting from a slob like VR. VR is rich but he is no artist. He is a user of other people and I suspect that his monetary conquests come at no small expense from the inhabitants of Africa both human and animal. He is, in every sense of the word, a degenerate. No, in fact, and in fiction, Vermeer was the seer and the maker of his own creations. In the heartbreakingly tender scene when he puts the earring on Griet, he moves his thumb gently over a cascading tear and wets her bottom lip. I thought that scene was great on so many levels. Earlier he had kept asking her to wet her lip, she instinctively knew to wet only the bottom as that would be a focal point. In the painting, if you look at it closely, there's a small glimmer at the corner of her lip, in the movie, this glimmer is made from Griet's own tears which Vermeer has lovingly and tenderly wiped from her cheek. It looks like they are going to move in for a kiss but he quickly leaves to capture the moment on canvas.

Right after that scene, I believe she ran quickly to find Pieter because she wanted to use him as a sort of surrogate for Vermeer. Whenever she feels something for Vermeer, she never acts on it with him, she acts on it with Pieter. I don't know if that has something to do with predestination Calvinism or just anti-catholic views espoused by her mother before she left but she is also reminded by Pieter to remember who she is. Is that a reminder to not rise out of your predetermined station in life? I don't know but Vermeer also seems to be using his wife as a sort of surrogate for Griet. In the scene where he's being tender with his wife while she's playing the pianoforte, he keeps looking up at Griet to see if she's watching. It's after this scene that she lets Pieter kiss her and again, right after the painting scene with the pearl earring, she goes running after Pieter when her feelings for Vermeer are aroused rather profoundly. Pearls are a metaphor for virginity. I'm not sure how to interpret this. Was losing her virginity after the portrait was finished, her way of making sure that the portrait wasn't really her anymore?

I can't see your other points from this page I'm on so I'll get to them tomorrow. I only disagreed with a few others, if I recall. Before I go, I just wanted to ask if you'd noticed the scene where she's walking through the town and she has only a scarf on her head, not the wimple, but when she arrives at the church, she has the wimple on. Did they carry wimples in their pockets? And why didn't all of the women in the church have that headdress? I thought the wimple had something to do with her religion.

Well I was only interrupted 4 times. Make no mistake, I have a lot of respect for this movie. It's probably the most beautiful thing I've ever seen on film. Every scene is like a painting in motion. I love this movie.

[–] toast-15 16 years ago

Just one other thing I noticed. After I watched the movie the first time, I went online to look at Vermeer's paintings. In most of the ones where he shows a floor, it is tiled in a checkerboard pattern. In the movie, the floor is plain wood yet other rooms in the house have the checkerboard pattern in the film. I wonder what his studio really looked like. I wonder if his studio is still in existence and open to the public. Not that I would ever manage to see it but I'm just curious.

I loved the look of the film, not only for its color but for the costumes. The men with their large hats and black cloaks with high cut pants and high heeled shoes were extraordinary. Sometimes I would just pause the film and stare at the costumes. Simply amazing how a film can transport the viewer into another world long since lost to us. And about the portrait, I read that the background is not really black but a very dark green although it appears black to us from age. This is interesting to me because the headdress is composed of two contrasting primary colors, blue and yellow. Every gardener knows that if you want a striking display, plant contrasting colors next to each other, if you want a soothing display, plant related colors. This is easily done with the use of a color wheel. What I found remarkable about the dark green background is that blue and yellow make green. So even in the background, he ties the whole work together making a dark background from the very colors he used to form the contrast.

I love this movie. I must find out if there are any Vermeers locally.

[–] Hesper79 16 years ago

Well, I certainly agree that both Griet and Vermeer redirected their feelings for each other by acting them out with others, Vermeer with his wife and Griet with her boyfriend. And I enjoyed your observations on the powerful ear-piercing scene, the color choices and the incredible beauty of just about every aspect of this film. It's one of my all-time favorites as well.

In real life, Vermeer may not have had to bow to the kinds of specific requirements on the part of his patrons that he apparently does in the movie version. But for purposes of the plot of the film, the screenplay strongly suggests to us that Vermeer's finances were precarious and that he couldn't afford to lose a deep-pockets patron like Van Ruijven. Vermeer's mother-in-law says just this, very plainly, to Griet in one significant scene that takes place after the portrait is already in progress. She says something like "If Jan crosses him over this, we will lose him (meaning VR), and *then* what? She looks pointedly at Griet and asks "Well Griet, what's to be done?" And "You're just a fly in his web -- we *all* are." She seems pretty clearly to be insinuating that it is somehow up to Griet whether the terms of the bargain are met or not and expresses a genuine fear that if the terms are *not* met, they risk losing their primary patron (as he seems to be depicted in the film version).

When Vermeer told Griet that he had made a bargain with Van Ruijven, and that she wouldn't have to pose with him, but that "I'm to paint you alone", Griet was greatly relieved, but Vermeer's face had tension and guilt written all over it. He wasn't telling her the whole story of what was involved in the bargain. In order to save Griet from being socially dishonored by posing with VR, Vermeer had to accept some terms set by VR that he apparently felt guilty about.

At the time of the mother-in-law's tense confrontation of Griet, the portrait was being painted, so why was she still so worried about losing Van Ruijven as a patron? She tells Griet that the portrait was to hang in VR's "private cabinet" and adds "He's no fool, mind you, and won't be taken for one, so don't you think otherwise." She seems to be suggesting that Griet might think that VR could be fooled, but about what? VanRuijven answers this question in the scene when he closely inspects Griet's face after accosting her in the courtyard, and says "Ripe as a plum and still unplucked? What's he playing at? Your master made a bargain with me. He's painting you for *my* pleasure." The plain implication is that although the portrait is being painted, the terms of the bargain have not been met because Griet remains "unplucked". If you put yourself in Griet's place in that scene, isn't that the conclusion you would most likely draw from what VR says?

I can't really think of another explanation that would account for Vermeer's guilty face after he made the bargain with VR, the mother-in-law's anxious conversation with Griet and VanRuijven's frustrated comments to Griet in the courtyard. As soon as Griet loses her virginity to Pieter, in terms of the scenes shown in the film, we find out that the painting has been accepted, which means that the terms of VR's bargain must have been met. VanRuijven has a beautiful portrait in which Griet gazes appealingly out of the painting as if looking at him. What more could a degenerate character like VR want in order to be satisfied that he has triumphed over Vermeer because the terms of the bargain have been met? And yet his face is not satisfied in the final scene where he is looking at the portrait. I see definite frustration in his expression and a clearly dissatisfied puzzlement. Why would that be?

So far, the explanation that I have come to seems to me the most likely one. Again, we're talking about a fictional story. Whether the historical Vermeer would ever have faced any such situation is not really the question. In terms of the fictional story as it is presented in the film, I believe that the explanation I have given is what the film-makers intended to convey, based on the scenes that I've described. But if you have an alternative theory that would also fit the information the film-makers give us, I'd certainly be interested in hearing it.

I believe that the fact that Griet has a noticeably different expression and demeanor when she returns the earrings to her mother-in-law (after the scene where she loses her virginity to Pieter), means that she has also been posing for the portrait *after* losing her virginity. The film doesn't tell us how much time has passed between her rendez-vous with Pieter and her return of the earrings, but it's *dark* when she meets Pieter, and light in the earring-return scene, so it's at least the next day. It could be more than one day, but it couldn't be less. She wore the earrings only when she was posing and returned them after each session.

So this is why the portrait would reflect a sexually-awakened expression on her face. But because it was her free choice to go to Pieter when she did, she apparently felt no guilt about it, and so the expression in the portrait also reflects a quality of innocence, which critics have compared to "the purity of the pearl". Griet was put into a position in which she was made to feel that she held the financial survival of Vermeer's entire family in her hands. Her feelings for him were clearly reciprocated, and it must have been a great temptation to simply give in. Instead, she found a way to save Vermeer without dishonoring either of them. To me, this is where the symbolism of the pearl comes in (in terms of the story presented in the film). It was, after all, Vermeer and not VR that she gazed at as she posed, and her love for Vermeer remained chaste and unsullied.

On the question of Griet's headgear, I believe it was a requirement of her religious sect, but maybe it was only for unmarried women or young girls? I'm not familiar with the details on that. And unfortunately my DVDs are packed away at the moment, and I don't remember the scene where the wimple apparently appears instead of a scarf. I'll look for it next time.

[–] astockton_uk 9 years ago

Griet kept her head covered partly for practical reasons (to keep her hair out of her face while she worked) and partly because society in general, not her church in particular, expected women to keep their heads covered.

This is one social convention that died hard. It wasn't until the 1960s that women began to feel comfortable going out in public without hats.

[–] SsmittenKitten33 16 years ago

I really liked reading this point of view, it really filled out the movie for me watching it a second time. Thanks! :)

[–] Hesper79 16 years ago

Glad you enjoyed it, SsmittenKitten33 -- I appreciate the comment. :)

[–] hrhqueene 15 years ago

This is absolutely THE best interpretation of this gorgeous film. You have given voice to my wispy impressions. THANK YOU for posting this--bookmarked and saved for future viewings!

[–] Hesper79 15 years ago

Thanks so much, hrhqueene. I'm sorry that the IMDb system for some reason didn't e-mail me that a post had been made to this thread, or I would have responded earlier. :)

[–] n_ewer 15 years ago

Finally, a thread that discusses and analyzes a film. Thank you :)

[–] Hesper79 15 years ago

(sympathetic laugh) I know. What a concept, eh? Thanks for the appreciation.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] redqueen13 15 years ago

This is a fantastic analysis and I fully agree with your breakdown. But I have to wonder, would a person of enough faith and conviction to keep her head covered and refuse to have her ears pierced REALLY have premarital sex?

Another unanswered question perhaps you could help out with: What afflicted Griet's father? Other than blindness?

[–] jpgr69 14 years ago

Griet's father was blinded and injured during a kiln explosion (he was a tile painter by trade). That's why she had to hire out as a maid- the family had lost its income.

I would like to echo the other posters here in my appreciation for the OP's post. So well thought out and perceptive! I love it. Thanks.

[–] angelosdaughter 13 years ago

I think that when Griet had sex with Pieter it was actually to defuse the sexual tension she had built up in her relationship with Vermeer with the man (Pieter) who had already proposed marriage to her. In some cultures, sex with a betrothed was not sinful although it was seen as a lack of self-control. In a sense, she was betrothed to Pieter, so sex with him was not as sinful in her eyes as it would have been with Vermeer, a married man. Also, Van Ruyven almost raped her and she would undoubted eventually have had to contend with his importunings in one way or another. In going to Pieter she made her own choice as to whom she would surrender her virginity. She was also thus agreeing to marry him, acknowledging to herself how untenable her position in the Vermeer household was becoming. Among other things, Griet was ensuring herself of a respectable refuge (marriage) that would have the approval of her parents (Because Pieter is a butcher, he will also be able to provide food for his in-laws, making up for the loss of her income that Griet's job had provided) when the time came to leave her position with the Vermeers.
The novel is actually far grimmer than the film. Griet has a sister who dies from some sort of outbreak (It's been awhile since I read the book),and her brother works at a backbreaking job and eventully (I think) runs away to sea or something like that.

[–] fishrockcarving 13 years ago

Excellent excellent analysis. I watched it again because of your observations and conclusions.

I think, though, you may have overlooked the Mother in law's complicity. When Griet's presence in the household felt threatening and contentious, Catharina wanted her gone. Even after Griet was exonerated for the theft of the comb, Catharina still did not want to keep her. The mother in law kept her on. And immediately invited the patron to solicit another commission for Vermeer. She suggested a group picture with the patron knowing that he would want a pretty young girl to pose with to pass the time.

The mother in law adroitly offered Griet up to the patron in exchange for the commission. This would get her out of the household after the patron had ruined her, and made a profit while doing so.

Again, excellent observations. Thank you for going to the effort to post them.