MovieChat Forums > Werckmeister harmóniák (2001) Discussion > Could someone plz explain the symbolism ...

Could someone plz explain the symbolism of...

posted 19 years ago by rooprect
29 replies | jump to latest

Two things I thought were very profound ideas, but I'm having trouble figuring how they gel with the story.

1) The title. As a student of music myself, I fully understand (and agree with) what the musicologist was saying into the tape recorder. We have been using a flawed musical scale since the development of the even-tempered keyboard (late 18th century), and for the convenience of playing in multiple keys we have sacrificed the purity of music & harmony. How does this relate to the plot of the film?

2) The opening allegory of the Earth, sun, moon and eclipse. Again, I understand the allegory itself--that we living beings have come to rely on the sun's light and take it for granted. When shown an unexpected glimpse of the infinite darkness outside our solar system (the truth), we freak out. Profound thought, but again... how does it relate to the plot?

I've thought long and hard about this, and here's the best I can deduce:

1) The town has been beaten into a dull, oppressive acceptance of order. But in reality, it's all falsehood like the tuning of the piano. Yeah, this is a weak correlation, but it's the best I've got.

2) Ok, obviously the eclipse-freak-out parallels the riot scene. But in what way? In the eclipse allegory, "darkness" is the truth of the universe, and the panic is due to our sudden rude awakening. But with the town, the riot is not caused by truth but rather by the Prince's sensationalism (falsehood). These are totally different things, are they not?

So I'm still quite, quite confused! Any ideas?

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] rooprect 19 years ago

You're telling me that there's no correlation between the allegory of the eclipse panic and the town riot? No symbolism between the Prince's hateful words and the rising political unrest in Eastern Europe at the time? That the title itself is just an ambiguous concept that doesn't apply to any other part of the movie?

Many artists deny the existence of symbolism and deeper/literal meaning. Dali was violently opposed to people philosophizing over his work. Jim Morrison said all of his ideas were transmissions from some ethereal muse. Artists like to play with our minds like that, but it doesn't mean that the works lack deeper meaning. It just means the artist doesn't wish to discuss them.

"Persons attempting to find a motive in this narrative will be prosecuted; persons attempting to find a moral in it will be banished; persons attempting to find a plot in it will be shot." - Mark Twain

Whether Mark Twain (or Salvador Dali or Jim Morrison or Bela Tarr) likes it or not, people like me will seek to find a symbolic meaning & structure to a work if we sense one. Imo, the audience is expected to at least try.

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] rooprect 19 years ago

I agree that the artist has no responsibility to deliver any kind of message. But as viewers, sometimes we can't help deducing some kind of message from the information we receive. Sometimes it's like cloud-watching. Obviously there are no sailboats & bunny rabbits in the sky, but we can entertain ourselves by considering these notions.

Another view is that the artist may not be conscious of what messages he/she is putting into the work, and like psychologists interpreting the artist's dreams, we have to draw the hidden meanings out.

To me, that's the beauty of art (and Werckmeister), that it is indeed a puzzle to be solved. Why? Because it's fun! No other reason.

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Rurik_Snorri 19 years ago

I have to agree with rooprect much more than with you, wetdog.

How fitting that you brought up Eraserhead. Lynch also refuses to discuss "symbolism" and analogies and metaphors and deeper meanings in his work and says they are to be taken prima facie and and end all to be all. Guess what? The so-called deeper meanings are blatantly obvious and the analogies and metaphors are as plain as the nose on his face.

I'm also surprised at your hostility towards the original poster when he brought up very valid ideas. Frankly it only takes a few seconds of intellectual legwork to notice the metaphors and analogies instead of barking at someone and saying take it for what it is. If you take it for what it is, frankly the film is boring enough, that without these questions there is no point in watching it.

And btw in the case of Eraserhead it takes half a brain to understand that the lady in the radiator represents death, which is what Henry Spencer wishes for to escape the horror of his existence - which is also very obviously rooted in Lynch's own experience and fear of being a father - which he said so himself! I am sometime surprised that there are whole websites devoted to trying to "figure out the meaning" of Eraserhead, Mulholland Drive, Twin Peaks, etc. To me they couldn't be clearer.

Now for Bela Tarr. Obviously the film deals with order vs chaos - and like his other films - specifically in the context of communist industrial societies' collapse after the Berlin Wall and th end of the USSR.

The whale and the prince are beautiful metaphors. Unfortunately they do not work because he does not make enough use of them. Furthermore the concept of tempered instruments is also insufficient - though interesting. It is a beautifully shot film and probably well intentioned, meaning done with personal integrity, but doesn't cut muster IMO. It is WAY too disjointed and lacks any kind of structure that can keep the audience paying attention.

I also had no idea what Hanna Scygulla's character was up to but maybe its because I was nodding off. Now there's a metaphor for you about the passage of time and fleeting youth. For me she will always remain in my minds eye opening Hermann's tin of stew in her bra, panties and stockings rright before she blows the house up. "Goal!"

There are several filmmakers who are gaining more respect, for lack of a better word, though respect they do deserve, perhaps I should say "exagerated accolades", because they seem to fill the gap left affteer Bresson and Tarkovsky died. They include Sokurov (dreadful bore), Angelopolous and Bela Tarr.

Tarr is too all over the place rise to the occasion that he could potentially fill. Particularly with this film, which for me was very disappointing.

Satantango is much more interesting despite its seven (?) hour length, though I wasn't able to finish the whole thing either.

Speaking of music, I can probably think of some comparisons about why something works and something doesn't. While superficially one would think/hope this film would be more like Schonberg or Ligeti, in fact it is closer to Xenakis or Stockhausen - and thus makes for some rather difficult listening/viewing and overall hard slogging indeed, while the message is already known from the get-go.

The opening scene was brilliant though.

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Anasazie 19 years ago

Ah ha you've answered my question....here you are with the usual convoluted reasoning that you come up with about metaphor in cinema. I reckon you've just borrowed this from some film book and saved it on your computer so that you can cut and paste it whever the situations calls for it. It reads exactly the same as it did when you posted it on the fascist boards you run.

Again spitting out that Lynch quote because you seem unable to say things yourself. Again contradicting the quote you've learned by ruining cinema with your silly words. You're always harping on about what a certain image means.

Wolf Creek anyone? Get off your horse! You must feel quite out of sorts on IMDB, not being to edit peoples posts and all.

"You must have chaos within you to give birth to a shining star"

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] motorcyclediary 19 years ago

The point of the title is to state that, beauty isn't always truth - which ties in with the opening allegory. Janos has rational explanations for everything: the eclipses, the sun, the darkness. He believes that, even when darkness appears, light will always return. Everything in the universe has a set place which creates an ultimate harmony. But the musician is showing that our harmonies have been tweaked to make it sound more beautiful, that it is not truth. Another important thing that comes into play is Jano's fascination with the whale, and his belief that it is a perfect example of the amazing power of God - and, in reality, it is merely a decaying toy for the corrupt Prince.

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Anasazie 19 years ago

It's still a reduction of the images to the level of words Wetdog, which you claim to be against. Get off your horse and stop being a hypocrite. You're the one that's destroying things with analytical comments, get over yourself.

"You must have chaos within you to give birth to a shining star"

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Anasazie 19 years ago

Oh you're so wonderful. Let's all bow to the superior knowledge of wetdog in the internet geek boy. You really have an amazing love for yourself don't you? Talking about cinema is the same is dissecting symbolism as though it were illustrated words. Maybe you should spend a little more time making art and a little less time talking about. At least then you'd be practicing what your preaching in relation to not reducing it all to words. Most of the time it's not your own words anyway because you're constantly quoting people like some bad film critic who can't articulate anything for himself.

"You must have chaos within you to give birth to a shining star"

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] viva-negativa 19 years ago

There is a quote in the film, from the Prince, "The whole is false." This is a quote from Theodor Adorno, and the original was from Hegel, but Adorno changed the last word to read "false." Adorno claims that not only society, but humans as individuals have been thoroughly deformed. Progress (beginning with the enlightenment) rather than moving us towards emancipation has returned us to barbarism, albeit in new forms, forms that we do not even recognize ourselves.

There is more, and I don't know if my short explanation of a small part of Adorno's thought is good enough. But the way I see the film, is that the town, due to the presence of the whale (and maybe prior to its arrival) has somehow begun to see through the veil and are realizing how awful and frightening things in the world are, they are in a state of panic. Maybe the men gathered in the square see this even more clearly, as they are pushed even further, into action. They lash out, and as it says in the notebook Janos reads from they can't find the source of societies ruin because there is no one thing to blame or one thing that caused it, it's totalizing. The opening scene, I think is indicitive of this, as in the world is currently under a shadow, and the optimism lies in the idea that first of all it does not have to be the way it is, and secondly it will at some point become better (the light will return)(hopefully).

Just my thoughts on the film, and maybe it's incorrect. But I do think it's obvious that Bela Tarr at least has read Adorno and some of the other Frakfurt School theorists (as well as other social theory/philosophy). Plus there are more connections; Adorno was also a composer, he studied under Alban Berg and for a time (I think) with Arnold Schönberg, and Adorno's friend and fellow Frankfurt School thinker Max Horkheimer wrote a book called "The Eclipse of Reason." But I am perhaps going to far with this now.

[–] Anasazie 19 years ago

If being an internet geekboy is an art, then you're practicing it very successfully.

Did your psychology lecturer write that one for you wetdog? How did you become so full of yourself?

You're always dissecting symbolism. Rememeber the conversations we had about Greenaway and all the non-existent meanings you found Wolf Creek?

The funny thing is, i completely agree with your comments about the impossibility of a visual metaphor, reducing symbols to words etc etc. My issue with you is that you are guilty of the same thing yourself. If you don't have an intelligent response for something, you'll attack the poster and claim that it's futile to reduce art to words. You sit on your high horse and try to dictate conversations with other posters, deciding for yourself when it's ok to reduce art to words and when it's not. Get over yourself man!

The funny thing is that it's so obvious that you didn't come up with that philosophy about the impossibility of a visual metaphor yourself, you've just read it in a book and gone spouting it around to people like your some kind of art viewing god. When you've got a little bit more life experience, maybe you'll realise that the whole world can't be read in a book or seen in a film.

How is the wank smelling parents room that you infest by the way?

"You must have chaos within you to give birth to a shining star"

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Anasazie 19 years ago

When you write something that's come from your own experience and not stolen from a book you'll receive a bit of respect. You're not even capable of having a normal interaction with people because you're sitting on your high one telling them when and where they can't reduce art to words, while all the time doing it yourself.

"You must have chaos within you to give birth to a shining star"

[–] The_Dying_Flutchman 18 years ago

I hope to one day exam the script of this fine film and add it to my collection of marvelous and redolent hardware. I dream in operas of Zasu Pitts and Mantan Moreland lending credibility to splotches on my soul. May I rest in pieces knowing it has little to do with this.

Nothing exists more beautifully than nothing.

[–] explainmyself 17 years ago

Bath - Watched this twice. Enjoyed it very much.

[–] The_Dying_Flutchman 17 years ago

I bet you had a "whale" of a time.

Nothing is more beautiful than nothing.

[–] rooprect 18 years ago

hmm, it's been a while... I don't recall this thread getting out of hand, but I missed the last few posts which may have turned nasty (my guess). Or maybe wetdog broke some rules somewhere else and got himself bannes from the whole system. He didn't really offend me personally, but I think others may have accused him of being a spammer/troll/etc.

[–] uutuus 18 years ago

Yes, it was a bit cryptical to read this thread when so many posts had been deleted. But it was still interesting to read what people had seen in the film.

I understood the film rather differently than the initial poster, Rooprect, it wasn't far into the film that I completely left the task of trying to understand symbols, or some kind of underlying meaning in the film.

Think of the scene where the musicologist records his musical theory, the door opens quietly and János enters with a cup of tea for the musician, János remains in the room sitting on a chair while the musician continues his monologue, after a while János gets up and leaves the man to his recording machine.
It was a simple and stunningly beautiful scene as that and I didn't feel left out because I didn't understand what the musician was talking about. But it was also rewarding to read Roopects little description (above) of musical harmony.

What I'm trying to show is that a dramatic choice is not necessarily needed to be taken between allegorical understanding and not seeing symbolism. If I understood the discussion above, this is what people have been upset about (or if it was a troll on the loose, as has been suggested).

[–] rooprect 18 years ago

What I'm trying to show is that a dramatic choice is not necessarily needed to be taken between allegorical understanding and not seeing symbolism.

Now that's something I really agree with. Great thought. Yes, I've often been guilty of trying to read too deeply into things (example: David Bowie lyrics--which I recently read he sometimes just picks out of a hat).

Maybe the idea is, like in the scene you indicated, we're supposed to see a poetic contrast between complex minutiae (musician's monologue) and simple things (János bringing a cup of tea). I loved that scene too, and I'll be the 1st person to admit that there was no real symbolism present. It was just very powerful.

On a sidenote:
Hey, if you guys are familiar with the films of Jim Jarmusch (Dead Man, Coffee & Cigarettes), you'll notice almost an identical situation. He also is very precise and careful, which leads one to believe that there is a "secret meaning" in everything, but I'm beginning to realize that it's not always the case. Thanks, this thread is helping me better understand both Tarr & Jarmusch.

[–] uutuus 18 years ago

Thanks for your nice answer!

You're right about the similarities in Tarrs and Jarmusch's (maybe especially Dead Man and Coffee Cigarettes) film-making.

The both directors succeed in making me as a viewer very concentrated on the film, and afterwards I remember specific scenes very accurately. Accurately is the wrong (too technical) word, vividly maybe says more and this is linked to the sense of suggestive atmosphere I sensed when watching the films.

Speakingn of pea-soup (a Swedish expression used when one is suddenly changing subject):
David Bowie performed a duet with Brian Molko at a concert, the song was Placebo's Without you I'm nothing. It was the one of the most moving love-song I've ever heard.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]