MovieChat Forums > Werckmeister harmóniák (2001) Discussion > Dissecting the allegory of the eclipse

Dissecting the allegory of the eclipse

posted 14 years ago by rooprect
12 replies | jump to latest

The allegory of the eclipse is, to me, one of the great moments in cinema and by far my favourite opening of any movie. I was wondering what your interpretations are.

The allegory depicts, at first, a state of universal comfort and harmony. The planets go round in their predefined orbits, and life on earth basks in its oblivious dependence on daily cycles of sunlight and seasonal existence.

Then a temporary interruption occurs, disrupting the daily cycle. Darkness descends at an inopportune time, and the denizens of Earth become terrified and eventually run mad.

Finally the interruption ceases, and just as suddenly as life went mad, it suddenly returns to normality.

But here is where Janos says something that, to me, is very significant. He says to the barkeeper, "But Mr. Hagelmayer, it's still not over."

My analysis: As many others have said, this allegory seems to illustrate the madness to which humans descend when order is disrupted. When order is restored, the madness lifts and life resumes. In parallel with this, the movie is about a town whose order is artificially disrupted by the arrival of a revolutionary, the Prince. Like the eclipse, he brings a time of darkness--a new, artificial "order"--where townsfolk go mad. Then like the eclipse the Prince inexplicably disappears, returning the town to the way it was, none the worse for wear.

My question is about Janos' line "it's still not over". Back to the solar system, could he be implying that even the sun, moon & spinning planets are temporary? And it is in fact darkness that will ultimately consume us. After all, our sun won't last forever.

And now relating to the ending of the movie SPOILERS BELOW

Janos, unlike the rest of the townsfolk, does not resume his ordinary life; on the contrary, he is left permanently damaged by the episode, stuck in a world of darkness from which he probably won't emerge. My interpretation is that somehow the ordeal shocked Janos into an even greater, endless state of darkness, like the inevitable darkness when our sun goes out. The birds, animals & people who resume their lives are ones who don't realize that the eclipse was just an infinitessimal taste of what is yet to come.

[–] tzuriel27 14 years ago

I disagree with your assessment that the townsfolk return to normal life. The village is horribly damaged and scarred, and everything we know has changed. Uncle Gyorgy is living sequestered in a part of his home, while his estranged wife and her crazed, drunken police captain lover have taken over. Uncle Lajos is dead. Even the first scene in the morning, as Janos sits among the ruins and reads a chilling, disturbing account of a similar event, leaves one with the feeling that everything has changed, that all the familiar elements we came to know through watching them in their natural order are upset and won't return to normal.

That's the point, I think - the normal is merely, as you transitory. But even worse, what the film is saying is that the madness is not something that occurs when order is disrupted - the madness is what's always there, implacable, inscrutable. That's what's highlighted through Janos and Gyorgy's greatly differing reactions to the whale. Janos sees the wonder and glory and mystery of an ordering God, who creates such strange things for his amusement. Gyorgy, looking into that great eye, sees the truth - that there is no order, that the meaning, purpose and very pulse of life are completely unknowable and inscrutable. A key line is from Janos' reading in the morning, where it says something like, "Not knowing what disturbed us, we proceeded to destroy everything". The men's reactions were against that horrible truth that threatens to destroy our carefully created worlds, their reaction was the unwillingness to face the emptiness of existence. And it was only when they tore away a literal veil (that being which separates God from man) and saw a clear representation of that truth, a naked, old, frail man, signifying everything we are but don't want to admit we are, that they realized the uselessness of their action, that they couldn't fight the clear truth and had simply to move on. Janos goes crazy because he was relying on the basic understanding of a kind God and good people, all of which was shattered before his eyes.

Through calling itself "Werckmeister Harmonies" the film is presenting the idea that music (read: the universe) is falsely predicated on man's conception of it in an attempt to quantify it, that the very nature of music is unknowable and has been compromised by our attempt to know it, that due to our imposed tuning upon the musical instrument we have lost its natural tuning and therefore what it really is. The film is saying that this is what has happened with our understanding of the universe, that it is only during an event like the eclipse, during the oppressive, inescapable silence of it, that we realize the truth as all our comforts are stripped away and we are left like that old man - naked, vulnerable, terrified, standing in the bathtub like a scared animal, reduced to his most base and natural elements. It's very significant that Gyorgy gives up his fight to return music to natural tuning by having his piano tuned the normal way. By the end of the film, he's realized his delusions, realized that he can't go back to the natural way because no one knows what that is, because it's unknowable and probably not even there. So he accepts his imposed order, with all its insecurities and unanswered questions, and tries to move on. Unlike Janos, Gyorgy realizes that the story continues, that he has no idea what it means but must learn to be content with that, which is what he does.

That's my two cents anyway :)

[–] rooprect 14 years ago

the film is presenting the idea that music (read: the universe) is falsely predicated on man's conception of it in an attempt to quantify it, that the very nature of music is unknowable and has been compromised by our attempt to know it, that due to our imposed tuning upon the musical instrument we have lost its natural tuning and therefore what it really is. The film is saying that this is what has happened with our understanding of the universe, that it is only during an event like the eclipse, during the oppressive, inescapable silence of it, that we realize the truth as all our comforts are stripped away

Yes, that's exactly what I meant; I'm not sure if I used the right words.

When I implied that the townsfolk return to normal, I didn't mean physically. I meant that society resumes its course. They will rebuild their town, re-organize their government, and history will repeat itself.

Only Janos, by swallowing the "boundlessness where quietness and infinite emptiness reign", breaks free of the routine. While it is debatable whether his fate is a good one or a bad one, we see that he is profoundly changed, and by all indications he will never go back to society.

The men's reactions were against that horrible truth that threatens to destroy our carefully created worlds, their reaction was the unwillingness to face the emptiness of existence. And it was only when they tore away a literal veil (that being which separates God from man) and saw a clear representation of that truth, a naked, old, frail man, signifying everything we are but don't want to admit we are

I don't see it that way. To me, the naked man is, like in the allegory, the sun emerging from its eclipse. It could have just as easily been a flower, a mother's touch or a sled named "Rosebud"--all things that give us momentary peace. It is not absolute truth but rather an island of calm in a vast emptiness that would otherwise drive us mad. The old man & the sun are meant to show the way we react when the darkness is momentarily dispelled (notice how in both scenes the camera highlights a bright, artificial light). But that's not truth. In this case, truth is darkness.

Are you familiar with the Bhagavad Gita? There's a chapter when Arjuna asks his charioteer (god) to show him what truth is. The charioteer shows him a horrific sight, violent, dreadful & maddening and says, "I am destroyer of the worlds, and I have come to engage all people." Arjuna pisses his pants and pleads for the illusion of calm again, which the charioteer gives him, and all is well.

To me, that is exactly what happens in both the opening allegory as well as the film's plot. We live in an illusion of calmness brought on by routine, ritual & relative understanding. When it is taken away and we glimpse the infinite darkness of truth, we piss our pants. Only by resuming the illusion can we humans keep our sanity against the inevitable.

[–] tzuriel27 14 years ago

Sorry I haven't replied faster, I've been quite busy. Hopefully, we can continue to discuss this fascinating film despite my lateness.

As to society returning to normalcy, I would say, yes and no. While the townsfolk do rebuild, they rebuild in a world forever changed by what's happened, and they are all aware of it, even if only superficially. Some have grasped that darkness with all their might and now swing it like a hammer, such as Gyorgy's wife, and others have simply accepted it and tried to find some peace, such as Gyorgy, though it is likely he has found no peace, will find no peace, and is in more turmoil then ever before.

I think Gyorgy also breaks free of the routine, or at least rises above it, by accepting the nature of the world and doing his best to move on in it. Janos, on the other hand, simply slips into a new routine, one where he stares at the wall all day and is fed by nurses. Janos is not strong enough to face the truth - when he realizes his old way of being is hopelessly broken, he simply reverts to a new one, a new form of denial. Because reality won't cooperate with his desires, because he has realized there will be no returning of the sun following the eclipse, he denies reality his participation, he checks out.

I do and don't see how you interpret the old man as an island of calm. He is certainly a calming event, in that the men stop beating people and go home. So I see that. But he himself is not calm. He's petrified, scared *beep* He's still not because he is calm but because he is so scared his only recourse is to just stand there and wait. He is Arjuna, reacting not with violence, but with animal fear, pissing himself.

I think we're both right. The darkness is truth in that it is unknown and unknowable, which is what truth is. But the old man is also truth, an acknowledgment of our baseness, that we live, we eat, we sleep, we *beep* we die, and that's the sum total of our grand delusion. When faced with the darkness, like in the eclipse, the men and the animals begin to lose it, they go crazy and react with fear-fueled anger, tearing apart everything to try and somehow validate themselves, as if saying, "See what I have destroyed! This shows I have an effect on my surroundings, that I am meaningful!" Only when they see their own frailty staring back at them are they forced to face the fact that they are no more meaningful than the massive whale sitting in the middle of town square. It is when they face this fact that they find peace, if there is such a thing. I think Bela Tarr is suggesting that we can only find peace or happiness when we first, face the empty darkness of life around us, and second, acknowledge we are powerless against that darkness.

Further, notice the difference between the two scenes you mentioned, the eclipse scene, and the nursing home scene. In the first, no one really catches what's going on. They're drunk and the barkeep interrupts the dance and they all gather their things and stumble home. The light, as you said, is artificial, meaningless and constructed. In the second, everyone realizes the magnitude of the moment, and they walk purposefully, yet somberly, home. The light illuminating the old man is artificial, yes, but that's purposeful because it's an acknowledgment that so is everything else, even the darkness. Light and darkness are meaningless distinctions created by us. That's why the film is black and white - to emphasize our distortion of reality with the very concepts of light and dark.

I think Bela Tarr is saying we can either resume the illusion, as you said, or we can face up to it's falseness and admit we have no clue what we're doing out here. If we choose the first option, the horrific events portrayed will only repeat themselves, as people settle into again thinking their illusions are real and then get pissed when they aren't. Most people pick the first option. Others, like Gyorgy, learn to acknowledge it and perhaps find some comfort in that, cold comfort true, but comfort nonetheless. Or we can check out as Janos does and effectively give up on the whole thing since it hasn't lived up to our illusions.

I must say I really enjoy talking to you. We should keep this up with other films.

[–] rooprect 14 years ago

Hey tzuri, I hope you're having a great holiday! I agree, it would be great if, between pumpkin pies and champagne toasts, we can continue this discussion. I gotta hand it to you; you really opened my mind to a great interpretation.

Janos, on the other hand, simply slips into a new routine, one where he stares at the wall all day and is fed by nurses. Janos is not strong enough to face the truth - when he realizes his old way of being is hopelessly broken, he simply reverts to a new one, a new form of denial. Because reality won't cooperate with his desires, because he has realized there will be no returning of the sun following the eclipse, he denies reality his participation, he checks out.

Yes, it never sat well with me (my old interpretation) that Janos' catatonic state was his way of accepting truth. I now agree with you that Janos does not break free of routine but rather finds a new routine even more numb & disillusioned than before. He doesn't accept truth but instead denies it through escapism & the apathy of oblivion.

On a side note, this is what I never understood about gurus who retreat to some secluded mountaintop to find enlightenment. Shouldn't enlightenment (total knowledge) require immersing oneself in the realities of the world observing & learning about both tranquility & strife, rather than chillin under a mangrove tree chanting mantras? Janos' "enlightenment" would be like the latter. Unable to cope with reality, he retreats into his own seclusion possibly finding some sort of peace but by false means.

I think Gyorgy also breaks free of the routine, or at least rises above it, by accepting the nature of the world and doing his best to move on in it.

To be honest, I never thought too much about Gyorgy until now. I'll have to watch it again keeping him in mind. It would be nice if he indeed represents a sort of progress despite the calamity that hits the town.

I also see your point about the old man. Yes, that's exactly how I envision Arjuna pissing himself in the face of cosmic terror. I guess that's what you were saying above when you said the old man's frailty was the truth that the rioters were suddenly confronted with, causing them to sober up.

I think Bela Tarr is saying we can either resume the illusion, as you said, or we can face up to it's falseness and admit we have no clue what we're doing out here. If we choose the first option, the horrific events portrayed will only repeat themselves, as people settle into again thinking their illusions are real and then get pissed when they aren't. Most people pick the first option. Others, like Gyorgy, learn to acknowledge it and perhaps find some comfort in that, cold comfort true, but comfort nonetheless. Or we can check out as Janos does and effectively give up on the whole thing since it hasn't lived up to our illusions.

This is a theme that really interests me: how humans deal with the unthinkable. There are only a few films I've seen that tackle the subject like we see here. Brazil is another. And if you haven't yet seen the more recent film Synecdoche, NY, I highly recommend it. I quote what someone mentioned on a discussion at the Synecdoche board; it also seems to apply here:

(from HL Mencken)

"Man cannot sit still, contemplating his destiny in this world, without going frantic. So he invents ways to take his mind off the horror ... All the while the thing that moves him is simply the yearning to lose himself, to forget himself, to escape the tragic-comedy that is himself."

Most films (and philosophers) do seem to present a dark, nihilistic view to the subject which is why I really like your interpretation of Gygorgy's response. If you can think of any other films that touch on this stuff (both optimistic & pessimistic), please tip me off so we can get to the bottom of this

[–] sapphicats 14 years ago

I just watched this film and I'm immobile, We need harmony--whether natural, as in the rotation of planets, or contrived, as in the tuning of pianos--in order to live, in order to sleep at night. At times, only illusions can give us this harmony. And when the harmony is disrupted--say, by a total eclipse--"natural order" gives way to chaos. I see both Kierkegaard and Nietzsche in this film.

Have either of you considered the whale as God?

Synecdoche is also a movie that had a profound effect on me--a play of one's life substituting for the life itself.

A Serious Man, while billed as a comedy, is another discomfiting meaning-of-life movie, accessible absurdity.

Any other "abyss" movies, you two?

[–] rooprect 14 years ago

That's an interesting thought about the whale being God. It fits perfectly with the Nietzschean ideas you brought up ("god is dead" and we're parading its carcass around like a freakshow). I'll have to give that a bunch of thought & get back to you!

As far as other "abyss" movies, you've named the big 3 that come to mind, particularly Synecdoche which left me speechless for a good 15 minutes. I suppose in Synecdoche we can say Caden is also desperately trying to create artificial order in his chaotic life by way of scripting a play out of the whole thing.

A Serious Man, as with most of the Coen brother films I've seen, tackle the abyss with degree of childlike innocence--as if fumbling toward an answer that's elusive but exists nonetheless--and that seems easier to swallow than the no-holds-barred approach of Werckmeister & Synecdoche. Have you seen the Coen brothers film "The Man Who Wasn't There"? That's definitely an abyss movie (some say patterned loosely around Camus' existentialist novel "The Stranger"), but again they inject moments of childish wonder into the blackness, like the hero's bizarre dreams of UFOs & aliens watching over us. It's almost as if they're saying that God exists but don't bother looking because we're just infants incapable of comprehending. Hard to describe, I guess you gotta see the movie.

Werner Herzog has done some powerful movies tackling the whole man-made-order vs. natural-order thing; that seems to be his calling card. "Fitzcarraldo" is about a madman who wants to build an opera house in the middle of the Amazon. "Aguirre the Wrath of God" is about a Spanish conquistador trying to tame the jungles of Central America. "Grizzly Man" (billed as a documentary, but it has a heavy Herzoggian slant) is about a madman who wants to befriend bears in Alaska. In fact, I'd say every Herzog film I've seen deals with some sort of madman trying to bring order to the chaos of nature, probably because, as you said, it's the only way we can sleep at night.

Then there's my favourite, "2001 A Space Odyssey", mainly because it can be interpreted in so many different ways. At the heart, it tells the story of humankind's evolution from savagery (making order of chaos), but theologically it can go either way. It can be a powerful metaphor for the existence of supreme beings guiding us, or just as easily it can be an atheist's manifesto telling us we are alone in the universe evolving by our own instincts.

I really like movies that touch on these subjects. Know of any more?

[–] Artimidor 12 years ago

Great discussions you two were having here, rooprect and tzuriel27. I'm late for the party, but I'd like to provide a few suggestions of other philosophical films you should definitely check out:

Tarr is pretty much the Hungarian answer to Andrei Tarkovsky, so you shouldn't miss his key works like Stalker, Solaris, Nostalghia and The Sacrifice, all slow and philosophical, just like Tarr's works. Satantango (Tarr) of course should also be mentioned, even The Double Life of Veronique (Kieslowski) which poses key existential questions and the disputed The Tree of Life (Malick).

Have a look at my list (link below), I bet you'll spot some more in that vein you'll find interesting.

Artimidor
Art's Top 100 Movies: http://www.imdb.com/list/e-VkvtHDDNQ/
Trailers and reviews included. Recommendations welcome!

[–] PoppyTransfusion 9 years ago

Have either of you considered the whale as God?

Have you considered that Janos's response to the whale is a reflection on mankind. A strange creature that reflects God's curiosity and playfulness but of course there is evil ... like the smell of the dead and decaying whale.

A bird sings and the mountain's silence deepens.

[–] rooprect (202) 7 years ago

Poppy, I hope you make your way over to this new forum along with the rest of us imdb refugees. This discussion must continue!

Anyway, no I never recognized that god/whale symbolism, but it's so fitting. Here comes this awesome, majestic representation of nature planted right in the center of everyone's lives, and nobody bothers to notice except Janos. Everyone else is fixated on the Prince, the sensational manipulator who brainwashes everyone with his clever oratorios.

The whale sits there unnoticed as if it were invisible, while humanity descends into self imposed madness.

The metaphor can go even further. The whale does not interfere. The whale is completely inert and powerless except for its mere presence. And yet for those who see it, it's life changing. This reminds me of the monolith in 2001: A Space Odyssey. It doesn't take an active hand in anything that happens, except to be noticed and to spark curiosity and higher awareness at the idea that some mysterious, ominous presence is among us.

[–] ilpohirvonen 14 years ago

This board is restoring my faith for IMDb. Thank you for creating this thread! I don't bother posting my own theories, I just wrote a review, it's been such a pleasure reading these ideas of yours. Just wanted to mention that.

What a film.

[–] rooprect 14 years ago

Hey Freku, the Werckmeister board is definitely a nice secret corner of imdb, isn't it? I've learned tons here, not just about the movie but about philosophy & art in general.

I read your review & really enjoyed it. You pointed out so many interesting details I missed: the metaphor of fire (being extinguished in the very beginning), the comparison between Janos and Dostoevsky's "Idiot", the dual nature of anxiety having the potential for either love or violence.

So I gather you interpret the eclipse to be a taste of utter despair? And despite the eclipse eventually lifting, the inevitable fate of Tarr's world is darkness (as Janos warns: "But Mr. Hagelmayer, it's still not over.")?

How do you interpret Janos' catatonic madness? Is it bliss (like in Brazil) or is it just total numbness, a state of nonexistence in itself?

[–] estocade 8 years ago

Janos was granted an opportunity to spectate the "night" with the eyes of God, but using such great power took its toll on him and has drained his consciousness away. He did not die or went to some form of hell, just got burned really, like Icarus.