At the end of the film, the girl who worked with her but who never seemed to like her comes to Griet and gives her Catharina's earrings. Did this signify that Catharina died in childbirth? Did Vermeer send them so that she would get the hint and come back to the house?
I forgot, did this happen in the book?
In the book Vermeer died and Griet was told to go to the house by Taneka where Catherina gave her the earrings. However, I saw the film before actually reading the book and my impresion was that they were from Vermeer - the cloth was sealed with paint and I asked myself if Catherine would have even known how to mix the paint. In the book Catherina doesn't die, and I didn't get that impression from the film either.
shareWell, I wondered about it because I can't see how Catharina would not have missed the earrings and how Vermeer would have wanted to explain their absence to an already suspicious wife. I thought the packet was closed with sealing wax, a common way to seal anything back then.
Why did Cath give Griet the jewelry? I thought she hated her.
Ah, now I thought the package was sealed with one of vermeer's paint's - I'm going to have to look more closely next time I watch.
As for why she gave it to her, she did hate her, perhaps it was out os spite/revenge?
I think it was his wife that gave them to her because she would'nt have anything to do with them after Griet had worn them. Just a thought.
share[deleted]
golly and heres me thinking Vermeer simply believed Griet should have the earrings after he died.
shareRe: Earring Significance...
by artsmart 6 days ago (Wed Dec 20 2006 19:38:44 )
I think it was his wife that gave them to her because she would'nt have anything to do with them after Griet had worn them. Just a thought.
^^^^^THIS was very perceptive and would accord perfectly with
Catherina's erratic personality. And notice they were wrapped in
the blue linen cloth Greit wore in the painting. Almost as if
Caterina knew, or somehow sensed, their flirtation in the supply
cupboard doorway. I love all of those subtle moments in this film,
with cold reality always intruding, via a timely intrusive yelp or
squawk from someone in the household.
Well, I don´t know the symbolic significance, but...
In the book, Vermeer dies and leaves the earrings to Griet. Catherina probably never wore the earrings after the painting was revealed, and decided to give Griet the earrings like her husbond wanted. Griet sells the earrings right away.
The movie ending could be seen as a bit more optimistic, though...
Giving Griet the pearls could be a symbol of love...
Personally I think Griet married Pieter and a few years later, Vermeer dies, and leaves the earrings for Griet to show how much she meant for him.
The book explains the ending:
We are taken to ten years after Griet ran away from Papists' Corner. There we learn that Griet has known about Vermeer's death for two months (she married Pieter the son and had two sons). Tanneke comes to her and Griet is ordered back to the household. She goes and sees Catharina, to settle Vermeer's will. Catharina says, in the book, that she never wore the earrings again."I could not." His will wanted Griet to have the earrings, so Griet takes them, reluctantly, and sells them for twenty guilders. The Vermeers had owed Pieter the father and son fifteen guilders originally (Pieter the son had joked to Griet after they got married that he now knew the price of a maid) so Griet decides to give the fifteen guilders to them, but hide the five left somewhere secret. Now, however, with the debt settled with the Pieters, she is a maid come free. She did not owe anybody anything.
IMO both the book and movie had the ending open, but hopeful.
Well, thank you. I think the ending in the book is the one that I consider the most important.
sharei think vermeer really loved griet.. the only way he could ever show her this.. was after he had died.. he gave her the earrings knowing they were wortthless to catrina and meant something to griet because of their relationship and everything that happened..
i think she married pieter because she could not have Vermeer.. she settled..
the last line fo the book is beautiful.. 'becasue a maids free" or something
The earrings were wrapped in a yellow, blue, and gray clothes... the colours of the clouds...
shareThat was an excellent observation. I adore the symbolism in this movie. I believe the earrings were a sign of intimacy - the piercing of Griet's flesh would be equivalent to the tearing of the membrane in her first intimate experience. It foreshadows the scene shortly afterwards, as she is seen desperately needing to fulfill her emotions that have been breached.... thats why she runs to Pieter. But it is Vermeer that brings her to this precipice, his caress of her lip is in the way that she thinks it (he is quite infatuated with her) however, his devotion to art is stronger. Regardless he is drawn to her beauty and her understanding of his work, and thus regards the earrings as a symbol of their personal connection.
Thats why he leaves them to her.
I believe he respects her intellect and has such high regard for her artistic opinion (movement of the chair, color examination) that he couldn't violate her body. Doing that would cheapen his appreciation of her to merely physical. Yet we see a stark contrast in his relationship with Catharina. She is obviously only of reproductory use to him. She serves no other purpose than to please him phsyically. While Griet doesn't quite view Pieter as lightly important, I believe she connects a little deeper with him, it is quite similar. She shows little expression at his suggestion of marriage, she sighs and smiles nonchalantly. However when Vermeer merely tells her to lick her lips or invites her to view the camera obscura, she is incredibly nervous and awestruck. Vermeer to her, is like a perfect accessory, a complement to her nature and a bright point of her life's picture. She also to him, is a break of light into his monotonous life of paintings, guilders and children, void of enthusiasm. She gives him color and completeness. To each other, they are quite similar to the pearl earrings.
Thus, the gift of both of them is an absolution to their relationship. Meticulously beautiful
Milliondollarbaby...great observations! It is clear that you understand this movie and its beautiful nuances. GWAPE is not boring but has depth. Some are willing to dig deep and unearth its treasures, while others just skim the top.
shareThanks I've had to view it a few times to pick up on everything, but I absolutely adore this movie's ability to draw you in and force you to use your 'artistic eye' in understanding all its layers!!
shareVery good insights--except you have ignored the one controlling, deciding factor which kept Vermeer from acting out his infatuation with Griet: The Church. This is a devout Catholic family, hence the continual conception of children even though Johannes and Catherine are obviously unhappy with each other. There will be NO adultery or remarriage. Vermeer is as much tied to his religion as to his social structure. The fear of God, not the love of art, is what keeps him from acting on his impulses.
I know it's hard to grasp this in our day of widespread indifference to such matters, but theirs was a completely different and very ecclesiastically bound culture.
But, Vermeer converted to wed Catharina. He was born a Protestant. Since this is a fictional backstory to the painting, that must be remembered. It was Catharina and her mother who had and managed the money. I believe that Vermeer's attraction to Griet was based on her talent for understanding his art and the processes that created it, unusual in a servant girl or even a woman of that time. She understood him in a way that Catharina was incapable of doing. It never seemed to me that he had designs on Griet himself, although he was attracted to her, in my opinion, mostly as the subject of his next painting; his physical attraction to her was secondary, and really, not important to him. Nevertheless, he was not very sypathetic to her on a human level. He may have been physically attracted to Griet, but his real passion was for his art. And he would not have put his financial future at risk by taking a mistress in such close quarters, Catharina was suspicious of Griet in any case. If you watch his interactions with Catharina, it is possible to see that he is perfectly capable of manipulating her with a charm he does not trouble to use with Griet. Vermeer knows and loves his wife in his fashion. Griet is a servant, and he really never treats her as anything else. He demands that she help him, but in no way intercedes to relieve her of any of her household duties to make it easier for her. She just has to add that task to her other chores. That he protected her from his patron is in my opinion just evidence that he was a decent person at heart. Vermeer certainly does not protect Griet in any way from Catharina. The only person who truly seems to understand the sacrifices that Griet (whose presence in the house stimulates Vermeer to paint more often than before her advent) makes for the sake of the Vermeer family is Maria Thins, Catharina's mother. Griet, for her part, is drawn to the world that Vermeer represents and which is so far from her station in life. She is undoubtedly dazzled by him, and, physically attracted as well, but she is a virtuous Protestsnt girl who keeps herself to herself until, feeling threatened by Van Ruyven, and her own physical attraction to Vermeer, she takes matters under her own control and chooses to make love with Pieter, who has already asked her to marry him. Griet is dazzled and attracted to Vermeer, but as a virtuous and sensible girl, she cannot give in to the attraction. In a sense, Griet does what is for her, given her station in life, and what a catch Pieter is because his profession (butcher) means that she and her poverty-stricken family will never - as her mother points out in the book - be without food, the right thing. In the book, it doesn't seem she is in love with Pieter, either. The marriage is, as most, were, in that time, a marriage made for practical reasons.
shareI completely, utterly agree with everything you have said.
shareI got the impression at the end of the movie, that Griet was not happy to receive the pearls. The way she crumbled them back up in the cloth was in stark contrast to the way that she had earlier treated her broken tile with ritual and reverence. It occurred to me that she would probably sell the earrings. It is interesting to read that that is what happened in the book.
Another fine and subtle portrayal for which I thank the director and screenwriter.
Yes, in the end Griet sold the earrings, but also put aside some of the procceds for herself.
shareI agree that the wife didn't want anything to do with the earrings after Griet wore them. However I feel it was the husband (can't remember his name) that sent the earrings to Griet since the earrings were wrapped in a section of the blue cloth. I never got the impression that the wife would go out of her way to send Griet the earrings. What I think happened is that there was another argument between the husband and wife about Griet and the wife simply wanted to dispose of the earrings. Instead of letting her dispose of the earrings or after she disposed of the earrings the husband retrieved them and decided they rightfully belonged to Griet/she deserved the earrings more than his wife did.
shareVermeer left the earrings to Griet in his will. She receives them after his death. Vermeer has appointed an executor to be sure that Griet gets the earrings. And I also think that Katharina refused to wear them again in any case.
shareI agree. That was the impression I got that the wife wouldn't wear them anymore after they had been "tainted" with Griet's blood/contact. But my impression was that they were sent by the mother in law, not by Vermeer or his wife.
shareVermeer left the to Griet in his Will. In the book Catharina is not happy about this, but the executor of the will and good friend of Vermeer, Van Leeouwehoek (sp) made sure that his wishes were carried out. After Catharina had seen that Griet had worn them she states (in the book) that she could no longer wear them anyway.
shareNot knowing the movie was based on a novel and therefore not having read said novel, I assumed the earrings (wrapped in scraps of cloth from her headress) were from Catharine, who wouldn't wear them anymore after they had been worn by the maid. Since Griet wore them for the portrait, Catharine must think everyone would see the portrait and it would be an enbarressment for Catherine to be seen wearing them afterward.
shareThe 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.
In the book Vermeer died and it said in his will that he wanted her to have them
-"Oh Sam, I think my heart is breaking"
-"I can fix that."
Pearls are a sign of virginity. Piercing her ear, Vermeer symbolically deflowered Griet and the painting is the evidence, which is also why the wife calls the painting "obscene." It is the salacious pose of the open mouth girl gazing directly at the observer that is the visual evidence of the intimacy recording a relationship of her husband and her housemaid. It is also the evidence of the deeply intimate exchange that took place between an artist and model (Vermeer and Griet) that the painting's owner could never experience or even hope to achieve with Griet. The pearl earrings given to Griet can be seen as payment for services rendered for posing, a gift, or getting rid of the evidence from the wife's sight. Pearls have a long sexual history in art history and can be a loaded visual signifier. I like the idea they were gifted to Griet by Vermeer out of appreciation for a remarkable work of art he was privileged to produce through her presence. She is the muse.
-- If Ewan McGregor were a lollipop I'd be a diabetic strumpet --
Having fallen in love with Jan Vermeer's art many years ago (two reproductions of his paintings, "Woman With A Water Jug" and "The Milkmaid" have graced my walls ever since) I was intrigued to read Chevalier's novel and then see Vermeer's actual portrait of a "Girl With A Pearl Earring" rendered into film by Peter Webber.
Scarlett Johansson's face is the mirror of the girl in Vermeer's actual portrait, her expressions innocent and knowing by turns, her acting brought into focus by Colin Firth's reserved and understated Vermeer subordinating dialogue to gesture and facial expression as it should be in bringing this portrait to life.
Of all Vermeer's portraits of girls and women, and there are many in which the subject is overtly amour and seduction, (ie The Procuress, Woman and Two Men, Soldier and Laughing Girl, The Glass of Wine, Girl Interrupted at Her Music, Girl Reading a Letter at an Open Window) 'Girl With A Pearl Earring' is one of his most intriguing and successful. In these works Vermeer captures the inner tension and eroticism of secret love affairs and the breaking of the vows of chastity so rigorously condemned by the Calvinists of Griet's church; hence just the removal of her headdress and the revelation of her hair to Jan becomes a moment of erotic tension.
Pearls figure often in Vermeer's portraits as symbols of Superbia, the vanity of a girl dressing herself for her lover, and he was likely aware of St. Francis De Sales admonition that "...the first part of the body that a man wants, and which a woman must loyally protect, is the ear; no word or sound should enter it other than the sweet sounds of chaste words; which are the oriental pearls of gospel."
But Jan's view of pearls is anything but chaste as we see him sensuously fondling Catherine's pearl draped ear and neck while Griet watches with dismay and a touch of jealously. Thus when he asks Griet to wear her mistress's pearls she is fully aware of the implications without Jan uttering a single seductive word.
The glance Griet throws at Jan over the pearl in her ear, and that he captures in the painting speaks volumes for the powerful but unstated emotions passing between them. When Griet agrees to wear the pearl and asks Jan to pierce her ear, the act symbolizes the giving of her innocence to him and of her deflowering. In the end Jan looses Griet to his wife's jealous fury, but in his final bequest of the pearls to Griet she realizes that he has never forgotten her and his feelings for her have always smoldered within him.
The sense I got from the film, having not read the book or known the ending of the book, was that the wife refused to ever wear the earrings again, maybe even threw then at Jan in a fit of rage, so he decided Griet should have them to help her out financially after she was let go from her job through little fault of her own.
share^^^
You know, that was what I thought too. Catharina refused to wear those earrings again, so Griet could just as well have them.
Intelligence and purity.
In the 17th century it should be remembered that a wife and her possessions were merely chattels and the husband was free to dispose of the earrings as he chose.
shareIn this particular situation, that might not have been the case. Vermeer married Katharina whose family had the money. Her mother, Maria Thins from whom the money derived, seems to have overseen the family finances
I could be a morning person if morning happened at noon.