Der Geist des Bienenstocks

I was about sixteen years old when I first saw The Spirit Of The Beehive, the first so-called "art house" movie I was ever fully confronted with. I say "confronted" because I had simply never seen anything like it before, and in a way I felt almost offended by its ambiguity and symbolism. How dare a movie suggest I tie all the loose ends together? I want everything on a plate, right there, explained! Then I watched it again. And again. And eventually it dawned on me: Film-making does not necessarily have to be about what we are *meant* to inscribe into something - it's what we, personally, subjectively, read into it, based on our experience and perspective of the world. Victor Erice's Espiritu De La Colmena introduced me to a whole new approach to film and cinema, and one which paved the way to my admiration for directors like Tarkovsky, Marker, and generally any unconventional film-maker under the sun. For that alone it holds a special resonance to me.

While there is definitely a point to be made that this film is, first and foremost, a haunting look at the innocence of childhood, the subversive political meaning was something which is primarily the result of an attempt on my behalf to tie all the loose ends together, and the conclusion below is something I arrived at based on my own personal understanding of the narrative.

On the surface, The Spirit Of The Beehive is about a family which attempts to cope with the aftermath of the Spanish Civil War. It bears mentioning that the fact that this film even dares to address the conflict in such a direct manner suggests that, two years before Franco's death, the tight censorship regime in Spain was slowly but surely loosening its grip of the domestic film industry. Up to that point many films made in Spain during the Franco era were only able to address the civil war or Franco's regime in a strongly metaphorical manner or via subversive narratives (a case in point being much of Bunuel's work, albeit done in exile, or Saura's La Caza). In fact, much of Spanish cinema during that point in history can be regarded as an excellent case study in how allegories can be used as a way of averting tight censorship.

That said, political commentary on a tangible level would not have passed the censors even at such a late stage in Franco's reign, and thus most of the criticism in ...Colmena is driven by a sense of mutual understanding between spectator and narrative. The start of the film is a case in point: a shot of a few children watching James Whale's Frankenstein (with the narrator proclaiming that "You are about to see a monster") is followed by a cut to the girl protagonist's (Ana's) father. For now assuming that this narrative is driven exclusively by metaphors, does Victor Erice suggest, with that cut, that the girl's father is the "monster" in question? Or, does he, on a more profound level equate the word father to monster? Franco called himself the "father of the nation", and with that knowledge in mind an audience could easily read that scene as a highly ambiguous, yet still extremely effective, criticism of Franco (ie. suggestively calling Franco a monster). However, due to its strongly ambiguous nature, not a single censor would be able to pinpoint that scene and say, without any discernible doubt, that this is indeed the case. It's a wonderful example of allegorical film-making, and how film techniques can be generally used to make an intrinsic statement which relies as much to the techniques applied as it does on the audience's intelligence and ability to understand the more profound meaning behind the images.

I remember once reading the viewpoint that Ana herself represents the Spanish nation, and I can see what the intention of that statement is when you consider the monster=Franco equation I outlined above. The monster Ana meets in her daydreams (as she imagines meeting the Boris Karloff figure she saw at the Frankenstein screen) is a figure which lulls her into a false sense of security and turns out to be a threatening presence; and the symbolism itself becomes very plain once the monster=Franco and Ana=Spain (though I'll admit that this is not the most original reading of the film, and aditionally one which doesn't even begin to scrape at the amount of symbolism apparent).

If only Erice was as prolific as he is imaginative, since El Espiritu De La Colmena makes up for only one third of his entire output in over thirty years (his other two films being the equally brilliant El Sur and Quince Tree Of The Sun). Needless to say, it's cinematic genius, and a flawless work of art bar none.

Has a child performer given as pure and brilliant a performance as Ana Torrent did in Victor Erice's allegorical masterpiece? This film has everything going for it; great performances, a honey hued atmosphere courtesy of Luis Cuadrado's genius as a cinematographer, and subtle, dreamy direction by Mr. Erice. I had often heard many works described as "dreams" in particular Bergman's works ("The Silence," "Hour of the Wolf"). As far as I'm concerned, this film ranks right beside the works of the master. It is an intense and involving work of art, which beckons us to look at a violent world, through the eyes of the children populating the screen. Many images stand out; among them the girls jumping over a fire and Ana sitting next to the "monster." This film should be seen by anyone who appreciates brilliant cinema. It will not dissapoint you, I guarantee.

What I am most affected each time I see Erice's this movie is his ability to convey the world of a child to us sometimes even without depending on the dialogues. Instead, he prefers creating a beautiful atmosphere and feelings by using the faces, looks, the light and the silence.

We can give an alternative name to this movie as "the spirit of the house", for the director tries to show what is going on in this house whose windows resemble to honeycombs. Erice deliberately chooses not to give any shots with all members of the family, as there is serious feeling of alienation between father and mother, and total lack of communication and affection between them, and from them towards their children. Under that situation the only person whom Ana could touch with her words, plays and questions is her sister Isabel. Their house looks like a beehive with the queen bee, male worker bee, and child bees performing their duties only by being in the same house without touching to each other.

When Ana's best friend and her sister played on her trust and fears by deceiving her, she totally turned inward and found the image and the dream of Frankenstein ready for her friendship and to give her feeling of closeness. After she met the wounded Republican soldier, her Frankenstein's image came into being in his existence, who is considered as dangerous and outside the society by adults just like in the original Frankenstein movie. Like the girl in the latter, Ana does not see the fugitive as how adults define Frankenstein, as something to be run away from. Instead, she considers him as Frankenstein who could be her friend. I see the shadow of the "monster" on this movie used beautifully and magically by the director.

During the 97 minutes of the movie, Erice and his cinematographer Luis Cuadrado both reflect the heart of a child to us with their magical scenes, and skillfully convey the grey feeling of the civil war in the background without straightforwardly pointing their fingers to it.

This is an enchanting movie about two young sisters caught in the silence of post-war Spain. While representing the isolation of Spain in that era and the lack of communication that persisted throughout the country, "El espíritu de la colmena," by Victor Erice in 1973, fascinated me with its use of dramatic chiaroscuro lightening, large panoramic shots and the use of fades to connect scenes while commenting on the time warp that Spain endured after the war.

Without using much dialogue in the movie, Erice artistically comments on the political tension in Spain through potent images and scenes. He uses symbols such as the two young sisters to represent the division between the Republican and Nationalist parties, and the leitmotif of the beehive to represent the "trapped" workers in Spain under Franco. The most amazing aspect is that all of the post-war commentary is said without any words and without mentioning the actual event! It is a "cine de espectáculo," or spectacle cinema, that symbolizes the connection between fantasy in the movies and fantasy in reality. Without knowing the history of Spain, a spectator could misinterpret the movie as a commentary about the imagination of a little girl after viewing the movie "Frankenstein." The character of Frankenstein is a main component contributing to Ana's, the younger sister, interpretation of reality in Spain, and it gains meaning as Frankenstein evolves from a character in the movie to an object of fantasy. It continues to evolve into a man of flesh and bones and finally represents the hope of Ana when all other sources of information in her life turn out to be faulty.

"El espíritu de la colmena" is a powerful movie that uses many metaphors (such as Ana for the young, innocent generation of Spain) to question the interpretation of reality. It is a powerful, artistically made movie that captivates the viewer through images rather than words. It should be seen more than once in order to understand all it's hidden messages.

As you can see on IMDb there is a lot of praise for this film. It is my understanding that it was voted within the third greatest Spanish films ever made. It's good but I wouldn't go that far..

Many people here have mentioned the historical metaphors within the film but I won't delve into that, I thought the story was completely about the main character Ana.

First off, the actress who played Ana was very authentic, with a striking face full of emotion. She genuinely believed a lot of what was happening in the film including the Frankenstein monster being real! Such authenticity means it's worth seeing it for that alone and that is where the films true beauty lies...

For all this though, for what is essentially a beautifully shot film with great cinematography and performances, the film was a bit dull! It was only after the first 45 minutes or so that I started to wake up. There was a whole sub-plot between the parents marriage which I felt added little weight to the rest of the story.. There just wasn't a whole lot I felt I hadn't seen before.

So for me, I can see the film for what it was worth and why it received such accolades. But it was a little too dull for me to consider it "Great"

I recall one of my absolute favourite films ever The Fall, which also included a little girl who believed so much of the movie around her, that film was gripping from start to finish and never dull for a moment. Strange it hasn't gotten the praise it so deserved..