*spoiler*
So why does she make Pieter have sex with her? She made it seem like she doesn't feel anything for Pieter throughout the movie, and he's not mentioned in the end. I guess I just figured it was because she assumed the dirty old man only wanted her because she was virginal? And if she had sex his attraction to her would end?
Anyone else have a say?
~Lady Amalthea
I honestly thought she got wound up by posing for Vermeer and needed an outlet.
sharein the book you read alot more of her and pieter than they show in the movie. at the end, her and pieter were married and had children, but in the movie you don't see that, but i think its assumed since he did ask her to marry him just before she got thrown out.
Ricardo Quaresma is ahhhmazing!!
Derek <3
There are several theories for Griet's having sex with Pieter.
1. She wanted to lose her virginity before it could be stolen from her by Van Rijven.
2. She loved Vermeer but since she could never be with him, she used her passion with Pieter, a substitute.
She does marry Pieter in the book(implied in the movie) and they have two children together. It is explained that she likes Pieter(most of the time) but she's not really in love with him. This line makes me think the second theory was more correct "He gave me pain, but he gave me some pleasure too, when I thought of my hair around my shoulders in the studio" or something like that. That makes me think that she was acting out her passion on Pieter because getting with Vermeer was impossible.
"Everything I do, I do it for you."
I believe it was to rescue Vermeer financially by helping him to fulfill the bargain that Van Ruijven had pressured him into accepting. Vermeer had protected Griet earlier by not allowing her to pose with Van Ruijven, which would have ruined her socially. Instead, Vermeer accepted the terms of a bargain stipulated by Van Ruijven. We are not told directly what the terms were, but we can deduce them from what the film shows us.
Griet was already posing for her portrait and had replaced her religious cap with a secular cloth, when Van Ruijven confronted her in the courtyard and looked at her face, observed that she was still "unplucked", and was obviously exasperated with Vermeer that the terms of the bargain had not been met. After Griet makes love with Pieter and poses again for the portrait, we see that Van Ruijven has the portrait in his possession, indicating that the terms of the bargain had been met. Van Ruijven intended to hang the portrait in his "private cabinet" where he also had a painting of himself with a former maid he had seduced, and another lesser painting of a partially nude woman, and it is a fair assumption I think, that he was not interested in having a portrait of Griet looking pure, virginal, and "unplucked".
I think Griet released the feelings that she had for Vermeer by making love with Pieter, but she also understood that if Van Ruijven's portrait didn't meet the terms of the bargain, the Vermeers could lose Van Ruijven as a patron, putting them at financial risk. And so she did what she had to do in order to save Vermeer.
There is more on the clues in the film that support this theory at http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0335119/board/flat/99214094
She was intellectually, emotionally and physically turned on by a man she can't have. And if you can't be with the one you love....
share[deleted]
>>I believe it was to rescue Vermeer financially by helping him to fulfill the bargain that Van Ruijven had pressured him into accepting. Vermeer had protected Griet earlier by not allowing her to pose with Van Ruijven, which would have ruined her socially. Instead, Vermeer accepted the terms of a bargain stipulated by Van Ruijven. We are not told directly what the terms were, but we can deduce them from what the film shows us.<<
WOW -- thank you for a very interesting analysis of this scene between Griet and Pieter. I was wondering how Van Ruijven knew Griet was yet "unplucked". I thought perhaps something was going on between the two which the viewer could not see on the screen but could deduce from his comment.
I also failed to connect the head scarf, and then the secular head covering with her status as a virgin. Really interesting!
I thought she had sex with Pieter as a way of taking control of her desperate situation. She'd rather decide who should be her first, and perhaps save her reputation, then allow Van Ruijven to make that decision for her.
-Jane
I agree 100% with everything you said! I was hoping to come here and find someone who saw exactly the way I did. i loved the book as well. Cannot get enough of this movie!
"Your husband ain't dead lady. He's hiding."
Um, HELLOOOOOO
SHE WAS HORNY. You didn't get that????????
lol. She couldn't fvck vermeer so she went to the guy who already wanted to fvck her anyway.
****************************
Nothing Gold Can Stay
Book Spoiler below!
The book explains that Griet hid all of her hair under her bonnet because it was wild and curly and she felt that it was the sinful side of her. Her "wild uncontrollable" hair was a metaphore for her of the "wild uncontrollable" side of her that she kept surpressed and hidden away. Her having her head completly covered was NOT a religious thing that the movie seems to make you believe but a personal choice. After Vermeer walks in on her with her hair down she feels exposed and while that freedom of being exposed is still on her she has sex with Pieter.
www.freewebs.com/regencylady
Thank you for finally explaing the true meaning. I was just about to before I read your post.
I'm so hungry I could ride a horse.
[deleted]
I've only read the book, but I always saw that scene as just her wanting to lose her virginity because her hair was now down, with someone who was easier to come by.
When Vermeer saw her with her hair down, he was the first person who had seen it like that. Since Griet associated loose hair with er...loose women (as is described in the book), and she knew she could never ever be with Vermeer, she wanted to let out her now vulnerable virginity on the guy who really loved her most, but whom she only liked. And then that way she could unleash her feelings for Vermeer by using Pieter.
I never really felt while reading the book that Pieter and Griet had a romantic relationship. I didn't see much chemistry, and if there was meant to I must've missed it. There was alot more going on's with Vermeer.
I just figured she wanted a let out with all the sexual tension between her and Vermeer. Since she couldn't have sex with Vermeer she went to Pieter and had sex with him instead to act on her libido or something.
Thats how I interpret the scene.
[deleted]
Griet's character is much too obviously a modern imagining of what a 17th century house servant SHOULD have been like. By the end of the film, it seems that her nascent artistic impulses and sexuality have come to life, never mind the fact that she's poor, unemployed, and illiterate.
And FURTHERMORE, this is my signature! SERIOUSLY! Did you think I was still talking about my point?
Some of mentioned the book regarding their relationship, since I have not read the book I can only judge Griet and Pieter's relationship from this film which there was zero chemistry. Their relationship felt forced for the sake of the narrative, so when the sex scene came along it did not seem right.
"I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not".
Neither in the movie nor in the book does Griet ever say she loves Pieter. In fact, the book makes it clear that she marries him for financial security, to provide for herself and her parents.
shareI thought it was a reality check for Griet. It was the only thing she could think of to save herself from wanting too much a world she could never live in.
"Joey, have you ever been in a Turkish prison?"
I thought it was a reality check for Griet. It was the only thing she could think of to save herself from wanting too much a world she could never live in.
"Joey, have you ever been in a Turkish prison?"
Whatever the reason for the sex scene,It almost ruined the film for me. I thought it excellent up to that point but Griet became very coarsened in my mind after that. I probably have an old fashioned over idealised view of how a young girl should behave or at least would have behaved at that time with her devoutly religious and respectable working class background...running through the town like an alley cat in heat definitely isn't it. But a wonderful film otherwise.
shareShe has already been assaulted by Van Ruijven, and it is made clear to her that she must be considered a perk of his financial patronage. If she became pregnant Van Ruijven wouldn't marry her but Pieter would, as long as it might be his child. It would also be easier to explain why there was no "rose of honour" on her wedding night.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
[deleted]