The Pan's Labyrinth thread, with spoilers

Come anticipate Pan's Labyrinth with me. ?

this was amazing

Also this was an incredibly VISCERAL film, it's been a long time since I've seen violence in a film that really ROCKED me like this did, and again, both the fantasy and reality elements delivered with this (the fairies being eaten alive, the wine bottle face crushing).

While I might've flinched a little during the bloodspilling and stitching, not as much as that toss in the fireplace.

Yeah, and I think it makes the supposed 'problem' with the shot from the Captain's (well, the Capitan's) point of view where Ofelia is talking to empty space less of an issue, for me at least. Rather than one interpretation of what 'really' happened throughout, there are several, and this isn't a (for lack of a better term) magical realism cop-out.

Also this was an incredibly VISCERAL film

Extremely. During the stitching sequence (shudder) I just looked to the side of the screen, the peripheral visuals and the audio was enough. It was also interesting hearing how the audience was reacting to that.

The Capitan isn't just a cartoon villain. He actually does have a backstory and real, albeit twisted, motivations. And Del Toro has patiently explained the significance and relevance of the Spanish Civil War in most of the interviews I've read. I think some reviewers just don't want to see it.

Or they don't want to admit to not knowing about it. Which is not necessarily their fault -- I think expecting most non-Spanish audiences to have an at-their-fingertips awareness of the Civil War and its impact is an unfair assumption (I'd certainly love it if everyone did but I'd love it if everyone had general historical awareness period, but if wishes were horses etc.). But yeah, if they learn about it via an interview with him or read some promo material suggestions or whatever and then still look past it, *shrug.*

A friend of mine who saw it with me noted that she wasn't fully aware on the nuances of the war but liked the fact that it actually wasn't necessary to do so -- that, as she put it, the world was just the forest and the mill, in essence. And she had no problem with the way del Toro lays out what the Capitan's internal motivation is.

it's a kinda more straight movie, in the (good) hollywood examples.

So you don't think there are any great fantasies in the history of cinema, it seems? I'm not a fan of the genre but I could list a dozen starting with Beauty and the Beast (Cocteau not Disney).

Ok, what motivation(s) of the Capitan did I miss or forget already?

Like I mentioned above, I find the issue over this 'defanging' to be a mug's game. I'm not saying it's the wrong way to consider it, rather that del Toro is offering it up as merely one way to consider it.

I think the ending of PL works fine, ie myths or even an afterlife doesn't make death any less real.

while i take yr point abt subtler-not-always-equalling-better, i still think that in Pan's Labyrinth the v. one-dimensional nature of the characters and their conflict, the fashionably sadistic violence and the over-reliance on generic convention (the eating of the grapes SURPRISE etc) makes it all a bit...shallow/predictable, give-or-take some clever narrative trope shuffling/re-arranging? Fine for a 3 minute Darkness single or whatevs, but for nearly two hours in the cinema i would've liked a bit more to chew on - esp. when you're dealing w/ nuanced political history that is now quite beyond the memory of the film's audience.

Also, the blue-colour scheme cinematography was too much of a quite-gd-thing, and the ending, with all that giant- thrones-in-heaven-biz, was beyond tacky/sentimental.

This isn't The Battle of Algiers here. Sorry, but I think you're demanding far too much of a film that is not meant to be aimed solely at a specific audience -- as is the case with most films anywhere -- and I'm a bit curious if you apply the same litmus test to any film you see set in such a specific historical context.

I didn't think the ending was sentimental at all, frankly; I thought it was terribly tragic and, as my myspace post indicated, emphasized the sense of loss and grief rather than provided an easy way out.

we can restage the tyranny of the patriarchal family in never-neverland, forever and a day

And I thought I could be bitter!

Definitely. I've only seen it once (but WOW!), but the feeling I came away with was of massive ambiguity (and sadness). The criticisms of this film all seem like sour grapes - "too brutal", "too soppy", "too real", "too fantastical" - because they contradict each other. Same with a lot of the reception of V For Vendetta; alot of the criticisms contradicted each other, and I ended up loving the film. Del Toro is, along with Christopher Nolan, probbaly my favourite director working today.

And yet there's even MORE to gush about this one. Actually, it's already in my ten best Evuh list.

(1) For those concerned that it ignores the "realities" of the Spanish Civil War, Orwell's Homage to Catalonia, Picasso's Guernica and some of Hemingway's fiction from the period form definite reference points: the barbarism, wanton cruelty, the senselessness. As in Children of Men, sadness permeates the picture.

(2) The audience reaction was quite interesting; I'm not sure if they understood their own feelings. When Mercedes enacted her vengeance on el Capitan, the audience applauded as if it was a Dirty Harry movie; it was cathartic and, for them, necessary. But when they realized that Ofelia was NOT going to live the theater went still. It was the quietest exit I've seen all year.

(3) This film and Children of Men render the two Eastwood war pics irrelevant, don't they? I don't want to see another for a long time.

(4) The ending wasn't sentimental. Maybe you need Spanish blood or an understanding of how the intertwining of Catholicism and cruelty is part of Spanish culture.

(5) A nice twist, not making El Capitan a cruel stepfather who has it in for Ofelia. Women exist as servants and child bearers. And thanks to Sergi Lopez's performance he isn't a goon show villain.

alfred otm on (5). nice touch.

Subtitled, thank heavens.

The audience reaction was quite interesting; I'm not sure if they understood their own feelings

Definitely something I sensed as well -- there were a couple of moments where there was laughter when I couldn't for the life of me see why or how.

Extremely OTM, really. There really are few other people in film I think I've simultaneously felt rage at and felt incredibly sorry for.

So what were the cast like?

calling doug jones in like 3 mins.

hahaha that is cuet...what a perfect Silver Surfer he'll be.

The mandrake thing kind of blurred it for me. I was curious what would happen if it stayed alive, it seemed an ill and portentous cure.

Oof, that's a GOOD way to put it -- and the comparison to The Plague Dogs even more so.

hahahahahahaha, I am totally going to be that old guy, shouting stuff like this at the moon.

Ultimately, El Capitan fulfills everything we expect from him at the beginning.

-- Ned Raggett (ne...), January 15th, 2007 10:27 PM. (Ned) (later)

he really was a pretty cool dude, and yeah, that's such a great career arc. apparently he showed up in hollywood from indiana hoping to play goofy neighbour parts in sitcoms, and ended up in all these fantasy flicks and stuff. and interestingly enough, for someone dressed up as a monster or whatever so much, he doesn't really play many villains.

not that i wish the ending was darker or more hopeless, exactly. i'm ok with the ambiguity of whether the fairy tale is "real," and morbs is right that "even an afterlife doesn't make death any less real" -- you can believe the fairy tale 100% and ofelia's death is still horrible. but i don't know, the whole construction felt just a little couched, like del toro was a little afraid of his instincts. and he has scary instincts, so maybe i'd be scared of them too if i was him. he's a terrifically talented guy, he's great at conjuring these dark lush settings -- physically and psychologically -- and for all the cruelty in the movie it never felt sadistic. he doesn't revel in his violence (any more than cuaron does -- the two movies together make an effective 1-2 war-movie punch).

But it's not that kind of movie AT ALL. (It's much, much better.) Threw me a little. I couldn't have been alone in the audience on that point.

alfred i guess i mean it's couched structurally. there is an inherent reassurance in the prologue that gives a nice circularity to the conclusion but also softens its blow somewhat. i would have liked it better without the prologue, basically -- without the shot of her dead, with the blood running backward into her nose etc, and the implicit idea that ofelia doesn't really entirely belong to this world anyway and so is destined to abandon it. which i understand also works as a girl's fantasy of escape, but i just felt like that intro tilted the balance too far. i found myself frequently referring back to it mentally all through the film -- "ok, right, she has to end up dead so she can return to the fairy realm" -- which, however you interpret the fantasy world, just gave me too much foreshadowing. i would have felt more gutted by the ending without knowing it was coming.

http://www.indiewire.com/movies/2006/12/review_childs_p.html

Quote: "Pan's Labyrinth is this year's Amelie, the prototypical Foreign Film for Dummies."

(Apparently he's not without some credentials. "Managing editor at The Criterion Collection.")

Phew, someone's bitter. (I mean, if you come into it expecting a 'foreign film = immediate arty cachet' connection, then your reaction is going to be loaded whether positive or negative, and I can't say I'm surprised somebody at Criterion might think that, for all that I love them. I just want something to be a GOOD film, thanks.)

the different levels of fortuity, media hype, and bad taste that conglomerate to ascend directors like Del Toro, Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu, and Park Chan-wook to the level of art-house sacred cow are the same that keep true artists like Apichatpong Weerasethakul, Tsai Ming-liang, and the Dardenne Brothers in cinephile limbo.

true artists! as if a lot of people who like del toro don't also like apichatpong weerasethakul et al. if his complaint is that he wishes he could go see syndromes and a century at a multiplex (or anywhere!), hey me too. but it's a dumb dichotomy; del toro isn't the one keeping the dardennes from the masses or vice versa.

Oh, and when he drinks the liquor, and it just leaks right through his face. What deeper lever of reaction is he going for other than a full-body cringe?

I thought the liquor leak was a gag - you saw it coming, didn't you?

Maybe I HAVEN'T seen enough horror movies to be desensitized to this. Maybe I should think it's a gag. But the mood of the movie is very well-sustained... why would I suddenly expect violent, gross jokes?

Is it? Or is it a movie about a bloody war and a little girl terribly trapped in it that develops pronounced dissociative tendencies?

-- Eric H. (ephende...), January 21st, 2007 9:09 AM. (Eric H.) (later)

eric have you seen syndromes??

No, I'm hoping it might show up at this year's Minneapolis-St. Paul film festival.

i thought all of the fucking was connected to the movie's basic rejection of pornography.

I think that's very true. One of the things that got me, and Ned mentioned this, is the way both sides feel the need to shoot the dead, just to make sure.

gypsy OTM 100%

US and UK filmmakers are so delicate (dishonest) when it comes to material like this.

Women gush blood when certain things go wrong. People shoot people and reality doesn't move to lens far away. Etc.

It was good, in a moral sense, in a morally artsitic/responsible sense, when you saw the farmer kid getting his face literally caved in by Vidal. The camera didn't move in for a close-up nor did it flinch. Almost all the gore scenes were like that--the idea being the gore sequence is just another part of the general fuck-up-edness: nor emphasis or pulling away needed or apt.

-- Ned Raggett (ne...), January 22nd, 2007 3:53 AM. (Ned) (later)

my comment was actually an xpost but i guess it made sense like that?

I'd have to severely disagree there, but different takes etc. ("Empathy" though is I think the wrong word -- I feel sorry for the character as much as I also despise him.)

he's hardly one-note. He's a monster, sure, and utterly hateful, but he's not objectified--I think that's why, when Mercedes and the rebels kill him, there's no Die Hard sense of ohh-la-la revenge--just a total waste of good biodegrable material.

Well, to steal from my own post I linked near the top:

Even the figure of the Captain, the villain of the film, is I think explicitly shown to be someone trapped within a mindset not of his own choice -- the indictment is not so much one of fascism as of inculcation and obsession, and how his story resolves is, in one simple exchange, a rejection of this possibility.

...

By the end of the film, I found myself mourning all the dead, and thinking of that astonishing passage from The Lord of the Rings -- thought by Sam in the books, spoken by Faramir in the films, both regarding the corpse of a dead enemy fighter:

"(Sam) wondered what the man's name was and where he came from; and if he was really evil of heart, or what lies or threats had led him on the long march from his home; and if he would not really rather have stayed there in peace."

In Del Toro there is no question that someone like the Captain is evil of heart, to be sure. But that sense of being trapped in a lie beyond himself drives much of the action and the tension, and at the end of it all, again, the waste -- the lives destroyed all around -- is overwhelming. In a time when so much waste and horror occurs daily, there is a resonance that, though perhaps not intended, is inescapable.

And by the end, Vidal is just so puny; the only things that connects him to his species--dying with the damned watch; teling his son about him--are denied without a micro-drop of energy expended.

i almost couldn't get past this opening sentence.

Guillermo Del Toro's "Pan's Labyrinth" was anointed a masterpiece after its highly feted [read: fetid] Cannes and New York Film Festival premieres

should have just stopped here

what the fuck does "those reared on banalities" mean? this is like "politics and the english language"-style meaningless writing

i mean, seriously.

(especially the dazzlingly designed and "totally-cool" creature-featured segment in which a saggy-boned monster with eyeballs in his palms chases Ofelia - it has literally nothing to do with the rest of the film)

man do i hate it when people pretend they're quoting straw men like this

WHO ARE YOU QUOTING

Boy, that del Tor--he sure limned a candy-colored view of fascist Spain.

Again -- I disagree, The way Del Toro portrays the Captain and most of his men the film is as sadistic, one-note villains. Yes, there was that connection to the Captain's father but it wasn't expanded on substantially enough. This is just me but in the end I really felt I was watching a pulp villain and his nasty henchmen running a small community within a plausible Spanish Civil War setting.

Here's a funny thing: I always had the feeling that Del Toro was better at handling his female characters - eliciting wonderfully true performances that stand very separate from those of his somewhat 2-D male protagonists - in his Spanish-language films - and this film seemed to prove my point. Perhaps it's just over-analyzation but I came away from "Pan's Labyrinth" ( as I did fro "Devil's Backbone" and "Cronos") feeling that he's got to do an all-woman film to really blow people's minds.

Mind you - I loved a good part of "Hellboy".

I thought the performance by Vidal's second-in-command was fascinating. When they're killing the wounded rebels, he almost-pauses, something flits over his features, then he shoots the guy and there's a sense that he's made his decision to join the less-than-human crew.

I just saw it again tonight so I could do the minutia-exam thing.

But what they're doing in the same thouhght-train and PAN'S is nothing.

http://homepage.mac.com/merussell/iblog/B835531044/C1162162177/E20070120134123/index.html

a couple things: i think that people (no one on this thread i hope) who try to distinguish between what was "real" and what was "fantasy" are missing the point (was the faun real??)--the world of the movie, it seemed, refused to make any sort of distinction between the two, so why should we? it doesn't matter, in the end, if the world was a fantasy derived from the seriously fucked-up childhood of a war-born girl or the deep primordial reality of the area in which she was living (at some point can't it be both, anyway)? the tug wasn't between reality and fantasy but between nature and technology and the fetishization of both that occurs in facism--in fact im surprised no one's mentioned how absolutely FACIST the themes of the movie are: the mastery of nature with technology, the depth of ancient nationalism, the fact that the girl is ROYALTY... i need to see it again but to accuse the movie of shallowness is, i think, to betray a certain prejudice against a kind of fantastic or "easily-read" story (one that while perhaps easily-read doesnt deny a multiplicity of meanings or readings or truths).

Is there a name for this creature? what do you call it?

The thought that went thru my head during the "crawling thru roots" sequence was "jeez, this really is a dark-ass miyazaki flick."

oh yeah, and for those who didn't know, Del Toro's working on another Hellboy flick. Hopefully he'll be able to finally to get to his Lovecraft project one of these days. Has anybody seen the mexican sci-fi/fantasy/whatever tv show that Del Toro & Cuaron got their start on?

Because it's an absolutely anti-Fascist movie?

Yes, Fascists have used pre-christian myths and fables, but these predate Fascism and in fact any modern concept of nationalism.

"More tea, sir?"

i mean, seriously, WOW. terrific. i haven't seen a movie that good since... well, since children of men

word. i am going to see both again.

Astonishingly, Pan's Labyrinth has been showing non-stop since November in the Glasgow Cineworld multiplex. Only Casino Royale has lasted as long.

look, spelling's never been my strong suit...

The fascists were like cartoon characters, with none of them having any redeeming features whatsoever. I guess Franco was just too recent a memory for the Spanish to give fascism an even-handed response. The "good guys" were so good, and the "bad guys" so bad, that it just felt insultingly stupid. I mean, in the end what did the film actually say about people? Not much, IMO.

I thought the fantasy sequences were poorly structured, and didn't mesh will with the 'real world' either conceptually or visually. Unconvincing, and honestly a bit annoying.

The violence was way too much. The scene where the captain beats the farmer's son to death with a bottle to the face was gratuitous at best, and just sick at worst. Too much of the violence was shown explicitly when it would have been a lot more effective to simply allude to it. What is the point of showing that kind of stuff? It's somewhere between pornography and a cheap trick to get a reaction from the audience.

Also, the whole film was way too blue/green.

It wouldn't be enough just to have Vidal kill the peasant--but literally smashing his face in has (obvious, perhaps) symbolic value.

Del Toro cuts away from gore stuff that has no textural use.

I think this is the kind of movie that is totally different to watch in a theater with a bunch of people as opposed to on your TV screen at home. Having that kind of collective experience of shocking, visceral violence is like watching a public hanging or something.

It was interesting in relation to Irreversible, though. Basically the same gag (gag), but mainstreamed. In Irreversible the pitiless face-destruction was transgressive, unendurable, beyond the pale.

Here it's been tamed, toned down and rendered more-or-less acceptable. Still a sickening, insanely brutal gut-punch, but the dosage is semi-manageable. Hell, Del Toro even used the same kinda hollow, ringing sound effect...

The only thing that really bugged me was the hermetic, fixed-in-amber, storyboarded-to-death look/feel. What should have been otherwordly and evocative was too often predictable, even ham-fisted. Curse of the digital era, I guess, where obsessive directors can finally nail down every stray element of every single shot. The end result often feels mummified. I'm much more interested in art that strikes a balance between accident and intention.

Well, of course there's none of that. By my personal estimation it's roughly the 9th-best film in the worst year of commercial cinema since the nickelodeons opened, so that's expecting way too much.

Make with the list. Oh, wait.

Pan is about one thing: disobedience as defining element of being a full-blown human.

OTM. While I don't know that presenting this thesis really justifies the violence, I don't believe that violence needs to justify its presence in art in the first place. I'm not complaining about the face-smashing scene on a moral or even an artistic level. I just found it disturbing (personally) and perhaps a bit out-of-place in the film overall.

Haven't seen The Departed, so I can't compare it.

But I think Ian's point is valid even if you quibble with the B&W phrasing. Even if it's also about a million other things, Pan's Labyrinth is very explicitly about defining oneself through disobedience, through refusal. All of its characters make significant choices with regard to this issue, and a few even make speeches about it along the way.

UH

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/88/1_Thing.jpg

Even if it's also about a million other things, Pan's Labyrinth is very explicitly about defining oneself through disobedience, through refusal. All of its characters make significant choices with regard to this issue, and a few even make speeches about it along the way.

The only person I recall speaking about this theme at all is the Doctor, and then only passingly.

But I agree with the point, which further makes me think that the mention of Pan in the English title is expecially fitting. Mythically, Pan is a trickster who not only willfully disobeys, but is compelled to disobey (especially by his libido).

The Captain talks about the importance of obedience, and does so more than once (I think).

Not that it's really worth haggling over...

I wish two separate movies had been made; I understand the parallel storylines and all that, but interrupting this fantastic spell every 10 minutes with scenes of realistic murder and torture...I just don't have any desire to see the movie again because of it.

Saying "It's a DARK fairy tale, it's not DISNEY, this is how fairy tales started," etc. ok, fine. I guess i'd much rather have seen the instantly creepy Pale Man gruseomely eat some people than a historical fascist asshole torturing underdog political rebels.

But the bottle to the face bit really threw me. It's a new-ish effect, and still fresh. I've been talking for a long time about how directors need to step up w/ regard to the realistic & sickening gore possibilities offered by digital, but when push comes to shove, maybe I'm not quite ready for the future...

With that in mnd, the peasant getting his face literally caved in is not only awful and of symbolic worth, but it also exanys whatever we expect of the genre while putting the viewer on nervous notice--*anything* may happen, and if that anything is badm which it quickly becomes clear it will, then God knows what we're going to see, which both engages the viewer and ups the dramatic ante significantly.

Folx like this getting ambushed fills me with delight.

-- Dr Morbius (wjwe...), February 7th, 2007.

Well then at least someone got a kick out of it. Glad to be of service.

-- Grey, Ian (igre...), February 7th, 2007.

It felt like a cheap and hollywood way to do so, "shock and awe" tactics, something to make certain people afraid of what they will see while simultaneously appeasing those who get kicks from this kind of stuff.

I don't buy the "blowing away expectations of what a fantasy is", which seems like a major selling point among the critics. It felt like a modern, glorified version of a hollywood fantasy movie combined with a modern, glorified version of a hollywood political war movie. Two genres stuck together yet clearly separated. During the fantasy parts I didn't fear that anyone was going to get their face mutilated and during the war parts i couldn't see any ancient magic rituals taking place.

Logically and continuity-wise, the two halves do connect in places, but throughout the movie the general feeling was that I was watching two separates, the whole thing was nothing new or post-genre, just a sum of two very different genres.

It shocks because he's set up a tone where you think, Well, things kinda suck but there are certain rules here and suddenly there are no rules.

It's not pure manipulation for the sake of it--it's Vidal making a lesson of the peasant, showing him what extremes a good fascist will go to, with the punchline of the peasant not lying and Vidal's consequant contempt about it proving to the men who's what. In an awful way, it's a terribly elegant sequence in all it acheives with so little fuss.

To me it was just saying "Hey check it out these are bad guys..." and then the bottle scene: "no, really, they're bad, get it?" (me: "YES I GET IT OK!!!")

There's no insert of the smashed face, no move-in on the violence...

Ah, yes there is. It cuts to the bottle hitting the face.

She has intuition!!! GET IT!?

But that implies the joyless reading of the rest of the movie (that it was all fantasy, all in her head etc.).

While the movie doesn't categorically demand that you see Ofelia's magical adventures as wholly imaginary, there isn't any good reason to think that they're literally real in the same sense that the actions of the other human characters are.

It's wishful thinking to insist on the reality of the faun & his other world. Seemed to me that the film was about both the power and the limitations of fantasy (among other things, of course).

Fixed.

plus tragedies dont have happy endings, theyre TRAGEDIES. itd be like if antigone ended with haemon and antigone coming back to life and doing a song-and-dance number

I'd just love to see these ideas put to Del Toro. I'll hold the coats.

yeah but thats kind of my point--the fantasy world as i conceived it was pre-christian and pre-moral (and therefore pre-heaven/hell) and pre-JUSTICE. it was world of duty/disobedience and maybe life/death or strong/weak more than one of good/evil or just/unjust. obv i have to see it again to make these claims (im happy to be proven wrong) but to cram cosmic justice into the end (girl goes to HEAVEN, man goes to HELL) is a kind of cheating. PLUS: she needs to be SACRIFICED. sacrifice doesnt work if she TURNS OUT OK.

but i know unity and coherence and continuity are bogeymen and i cant really expect them in any given work. i just would have liked the whole movie more without the heaven part.

and i dont think del toro gets to have the last word on his movie. just because he thinks he made it one way doesnt mean it cant mean a multitude of different things.

Everybody has an unconscious mind, everybody has a fantasy world, and they all start with I wish . . Robert E. Howard didn't invent that, and neither did ol' Fred Nietzche. The secretly Fascist idea may be hypebole, but I don't think I started it.

No, of course Del Toro doesn't get the last word on his movie, but he was kind of around when it happened, and I think he needs to be heard.

tell it to jesus.

seriously, how is this movie "pre-christian"? it's completely christian.

Quite a few - a short list off the top of my head: (excluding documentaries)

Paris Texas
Wings of Desire
Aguirre, Wrath of God
Cobra Verde
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
Blue Velvet
The Conversation
Pink Flamingos / Female Trouble (they both make a similar point)
Sunrise (Murnau)
and it goes on and on...

to each their own etc.

However, I think the analysis is flawed. It's the sort of thing that might occur to one while watching it, but doesn't really work as an after-the-fact summation of the film as a whole.

Agree with gypsy. It's ultimately far more Christian than pre-Christian. I can see why the mythical "happy ending" might bother some folks (poignancy of self-sacrifice in the name of mercy that costs everything vs. satisfaction of self-sacrifice in the name of mercy that gains everything), but it didn't bother me.

-- max (maxnoreaxspa...), February 8th, 2007.

This seems very evident, especially given Christianity's (and Catholocism in particular's) track record of emphasizing eternal justice. However, Christianity was definitely not the beginning of tales of cosmic redemption/justice. The ending, with the beams of light streaming behind everyone and all the glam clothes and shit, feels more like El Captain is getting the ancient karmic wheel BROUGHT DOWN on him.

He's reincarnated into the innards of the toad, I'm guessing...

Well, Paris Texas is my #1 favourite movie ever, so what can I possibly say to that?

And yeah, Lost In Translation would be on my list!

We should all be blessed with a rogue Belgian or two?

(haha, "lower Netherlands"!)

I suppose that amounts to the same thing.

I am "doing" the extras now. They are not really much cop. It spoils the effect to see how all the effects etc are done. I mean, it always does, but here more than ever.

[Maybe it goes without saying, but there are big spoilers ahead. Please don't read this unless you've seen the film.]

Ofelia's fantasy world parallels the real world around her in a number of physical ways: the knife, the key, hidden food protected by a monster, etc. But there's also a parallel morality at work: the faun's "pre-Christian" demands for simple obedience are similar to those of her stepfather, the Captain. In this sense, the rules of Ofelia's fantasy world might seem at least quasi-fascist. This is max's central point, as I understand it, and it does make a great deal of sense.

The film's real-world protagonists all define themselves by rebelling against the Captain's local tyranny and against fascism in general. They do this at great personal cost, and some even lose their lives (sacrifice themselves) in the process.

In refusing to obey the faun's demand that she kill her baby brother, Ofelia finally rebels in a similar manner and at similar cost. She rejects simple obedience in favor of her own personal morality and pays for this choice with her life (as a direct consequence, she seems to lose her eternal life in the fantasy world and as an indirect consequence, she loses her mortal life as well).

So what should the ending be? Is max right? Does the film undercut its own message by rewarding Ofelia with the eternal life that she so agonizingly sacrificed in the name of a greater good? In some sense I wonder whether it might have worked better if Ofelia had lived in the real world, but lost forever her entry to the faun's underworld, allowing the anti-fascist parallel to run full circle. I dunno...

I get it, but prior to the revelation of that fact, one could interpret the story and the faun's significance in it very differently.

Max suggested that the story betrayed itself when it broke the implied (perhaps imaginary) association of the Captain with the faun by suddenly revealing that it had all been a test. I don't know that I agree, but it's an interesting question.

well...that's kind of like saying, if it had a different ending, it would mean something different. of course you're supposed to be unsure of the faun's motives all the way through, they're not revealed until the end. the ending doesn't change his motives, it just makes clear what they actually are.

I agree, GM.

I'm pursuing this 'cuz Max doesn't like the ending and the way it resolvs the story's open questions. And while I disagree, I can't deny that he's making a valid point. If we view the film as a religious metaphor (as you seem prone to do), the ending is not only appropriate, but necessary. But if we read it strictly as an antifascist parable about disobedience and self-sacrifice, the ending could seem misplaced.

I'm not sure, just wondering. Personally, I still love the movie and love the ending. It made emotional sense to me, and that's much more important than all this airy jibber-jabber.

Kinda downbeat.

I might be wrong but i dont remember any references at all to Christ or Jehovah in this movie at all. Tying the pagan/fantasy morality to that of the fascist characters' seems the wrong way to go. If anything I would tie the Captain's logic with Christianity: do what you're told, don't ask questions, don't be nosey, etc. whereas the faun is offering real world solutions that Ofelia recognizes; sure she can mess up and bend the rules but she sees that even though the rules aren't clear, Mr. Faun is pointing to some underlying connection to the real world, something the Captain's Old Testament Fear tactics dismiss because it's his way or the highway. The mandrake root really does heal the mom and the baby whereas all the torturing and fighting does....what?

I suppose deep down in his mind the Captain imagines a better, fascist future far off in the distant. It's fairly puritan if you can picture it from the point of view of his soliders: just do what I say, fuck this magic shit, and kill as many evildoers as it takes, cos one day it will be just us and it will be a grand old party! I see the sides as offering the two philosophies:

Fascist/Christian: Suffer in the present because the future will be better.

Fantasy/Pagan: Try this weird stuff out kid, it really works and you can get results NOW!

I set out determined to enjoy this, was nonplussed throughout, and then overwhelmed by a nasty little aftertaste upon reflection. What's the deal? The script is unmemorable, the acting rigid, the characters either one-dimensional or non-existent, and the plot developments predictable. They even rip off Jurassic Park at one stage (girl escaping hand-eye monster)! Shots of her feet are just like Amelie, and the bad guy more or less as stereotypically brutal as any James Bond villain. No other film is as festooned with overanalysis as this one, in my experience, and few other films are as woefully overrated.

wow. I just saw this and um, let's just say it was totally not what I expected. I missed out on most of the hype (didn't read any reviews or whatever) when it first came out and what I thought was going to be a straight up Alice in Wonderland thing turned out to be pretty damn horrifying. and fantastic - there was a lot going on in this movie, i felt quite exhausted by the end.

I'm not sure I have too much to add here, other than the fact that the underworld kingdom looked kind of corny. A bit too dream-like. Fairy-eating monster's world seemed infinitely more beautiful, I think due to the way that entire sequence was shot, everything seemed more substantial somehow. But in the end, whether the whole thing was "real" or not doesn't really matter, I suppose - it only mattered that it was real to Ofelia and how she was perceiving events around her.

The script is unmemorable, the acting rigid, the characters either one-dimensional or non-existent, and the plot developments predictable. They even rip off Jurassic Park at one stage (girl escaping hand-eye monster)! Shots of her feet are just like Amelie, and the bad guy more or less as stereotypically brutal as any James Bond villain. No other film is as festooned with overanalysis as this one, in my experience, and few other films are as woefully overrated.

YOU ARE WRONGER ABOUT MOVIES THAN MORBIUS

it's LJ, man

I saw this for the first time the other day and I thought it was brilliant.

I had noticed LJ's comment and felt it wasn't worth bothering with.

I mean, with Morbius I often see where he's coming from, I just disagree (often vehemently). LJ's analysis of the film comes from somewhere near Tuomasland.

I just didn't get anything from this movie, was very disappointed after my mate had raved to me about it.

xpost heh ned i noticed lj's post at the end there and didn't feel like responding to it either, especially since I just saw the movie and totally came to the opposite conclusion.

i was a bit disappointed that there didn't seem to be all that much fantasy on the whole, but I think the emotional pay-off more than made up for it.

YA - this was a fucking great movie.

There are movies that are overrated and are worth fighting against, and then there are movies you can think are overrated but not feel the need to rail against.

Yer a good man, Eric H. (So wait, did Syndromes ever come out over here?)

Not really, it's just sort of a matter of knowing which sensibilities simply don't work for you and letting it go.

And no, I still haven't seen Syndromes. :(

andrew completely otm upthread.

smug 'not worth bothering with your criticism'-style fandom even more annoying than hype shockah

and i stand by my statements. especially about the film being predictable. fascist colonel especially disappointing; his personality summed up by regimental obsession with father's watch, and his modus operandi to squash and kill any resistance without the merest flicker of remorse. in other words, a robot.

and the script was DULL! maybe it lost a little in translation, i dunno.

oh, and HAI DERE
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/80/CB-WeAretheNight.jpg

in other words, a robot.

I know, right? What kind of cartoon-fairy tale doesn't give us infinitely complex villains?

Finally saw this t'other day, and loved it. i did wonder whilst watching why the violence was so visceral, i'm sure with a bit of tweaking that it'd be suitable for kids. well, a LOT of tweaking. i'm not sure if it's as tough as it is because young spanish audiences are really hard, or cause it's intended for adults.

Not much else to add, other than that the MySpace blog Ned mistakenly links to in his first post is mine. Weeeeeirrd.

I'm just saying that the grim inevitability with which the colonel would plunge a bottle into his captive's face/shoot the doctor/shoot the girl/shoot (or try to shoot) just about anybody who defied him may have initially shocked, but became very tedious by the end.

And the bit when she swings up out of the reach of Mr. Hand-Eye Coordination is JUST like the girl's escape from a velociraptor in Jurassic Park, into an air-vent. Watch it and see!

Watched this a couple of weeks ago on a DVD borrow - wasn't going to even comment, just reviving this thread to say that "Spirit of the Beehive" is getting a screening on BBC 4 this tuesday, which is nice so I can contrast.

Anyway, I've skimmed through the thread so a response to a cpl of things:

- Its not that I'm desensitized toward violence in film, but I don't think it confronts you with violence - I never felt it, there is a need for violence to be well placed in a film now that it is so commonplace not only in cinema but also on TV (you can see surgeries being performed once a week on Brit TV). I think that's where 'Hidden', for example, got it right.

- I agree when it ws said above that there is a bit of nuance to the evil captain, and space give to character stuff on both sides, but at the same time you can easily gloss over any of that as the effects and the violence take over..

- ..so I think in the ending I felt the girl had a big(ger) decision to make as to whether to give her baby brother up for sacrifice (or a bit of blood) after all I imagine she could've held him responsible for her mother's death (the scene where the girl tries to talk to the baby while her mother sleeps hints at this?)

In the end I felt there ws some ace images, and some cinematic moments, but like 'Children of Men' there wasn't as much to chew on. I liked it BUT...

Although I'll stress that I saw the DVDs so I might've felt differently had I gone to the cinema to watch these.

Can't wait to watch "Spirit of the Beehive" - really like Erice's "Quince Tree Sun".

LJ did you inherit the Jagger maw?

sadly not

I disagree.

Twas rhetorical, really.

Yeah, haven't read the whole thread but this was altogether disappointing for me. Despite being up to two hours long, nothing really seemed to get going. The fantasy bits, while very well filmed with excellent effects, didn't really seem to tie in with the rest of the story, nor did they really get very deep. Really what happens is Ofelia and her family go to the army camp, Pan turns up and asks Ofelia to do what he tells her without question, she asks him why she should trust him and the only thing he says is "would a little fawn like me lie to you?" - which I found a bit weird. I thought the point of the film was to always question what you are told to do.

Maybe I was expecting something more on the lines of "Spirited Away". I mean, if you're going to have monsters and creatures at least put more than, oooh, three of the buggers into your film.

the story has to incorporate two worlds (the real and the fantasy) equally, unlike Spirited Away which remains largely in the fantasy world in which she has to escape. i liked this contrast and the coverage of monsters seems proportionately correct on this basis.

Hmmm... fair dos, but I found that both halves felt diluted. You never fully saw into the fantasy world which seemed to consist of a sub-Black Gang Chine sized labyrinth, a giant toad, a couple of fairies, that Silent Hill reject and a suspicious goat-man. That whole side is so ambiguous, perhaps purposefully so, but I spent most of the film wanting to know more about the fantasy side. There were a lot of good bits in this but I couldn't help feeling as though those bits deserved to be in a better film.

Maybe I'd have preferred it if I hadn't already seen the Silent Hill movie (which is a lot better than it even deserves to be).

this:

Pan turns up and asks Ofelia to do what he tells her without question, she asks him why she should trust him and the only thing he says is "would a little fawn like me lie to you?" - which I found a bit weird.

is not incompatible with this:

I thought the point of the film was to always question what you are told to do.

Why not? If the fairy tale is supposed to mirror the morals of the real world, then it doesn't make sense. The faun, who is incredibly sinister even up until the last scene, tells Ofelia to obey him without question, but when she asks why she should trust him, his answer is basically "just because". OTOH you have the Capitan who also wants people to obey him without question. So what's the point of all this?

I don't see why the girl even bothers doing all the fucking tasks in the first place. If I were her, I'd tell the faun to go swivel and stick his magic kingdom up his arse. It sounds like a horrible place to be if it's got anything to do with him and it feels like he's using her for his own means. Why does he want to stab her brother at the end? Would you be up for hanging round with someone who enjoys stabbing babies? If anything the capitan actually wants to protect her brother.

It was definitely the ending that disappointed me most I think. It just didn't tie up any loose ends and just felt all wrong.

Also, I was surprised that this got such a good response from the board, particularly when Tideland was almost the same film but got a round slating.

But the point of the last task is to refuse to obey orders. Do you not see?

I was also a little bit disappointed with the film, although I still enjoyed it. All my friends saw it at the cinema, and every one of them said it was 'really dark' and/or 'scary', which it actually wasn't at all. Obviously, the themes are fairly dark, but the presentation of those themes wasn't exactly disturbing.

er, the dude with the eye hands was the scariest 'theme presentation' i've seen in a non-18 film possibly ever.

Why not? If the fairy tale is supposed to mirror the morals of the real world, then it doesn't make sense.

right. so maybe the fairly tale isn't supposed to mirror the morals of the real world.

The faun, who is incredibly sinister even up until the last scene, tells Ofelia to obey him without question, but when she asks why she should trust him, his answer is basically "just because". OTOH you have the Capitan who also wants people to obey him without question. So what's the point of all this?

what's the point of two major figures from the two different spheres of ofelia's reality (one a fairy tale, the other a historically-politically specific time and place) showing similar authoritarian traits? is that the question youre asking?

I don't see why the girl even bothers doing all the fucking tasks in the first place. If I were her, I'd tell the faun to go swivel and stick his magic kingdom up his arse. It sounds like a horrible place to be if it's got anything to do with him and it feels like he's using her for his own means.

ofelia's motiviations are probably different from your motivations, the next grozart.

dude seems to have missed the whole 'she is a princess trapped in an alternate (our) reality - the faun has to return her to her realm at pretty much any cost' thing.

agree the ending is quite creepy/uncertain tho

i mean, the chick is doing what the faun says because her real life SUCKS and the faun is telling her that shes a princess!! it doesnt matter how creepy the faun is, he at least gives her the promise of a better life. also, shes 10 so i dont think shes really weighing her choices.

what's the point of two major figures from the two different spheres of ofelia's reality (one a fairy tale, the other a historically-politically specific time and place) showing similar authoritarian traits? is that the question youre asking?

Yeah I guess so. Surely the fantasy world is supposed to represent some kind of haven-like place away from the violence of the real world. But why then is it so dark and imposing? And why is it still full of people getting her to do as they say all the time? Why is there even a labyrinth if no one even gets lost in there (the capitan seems pretty good at finding his way around)? Why should she trust one when she doesn't trust the other?

But the point of the last task is to refuse to obey orders. Do you not see?

She also died doing it. Yes yes, the willingness to die for an innocent person, and she goes into the kingdom (heaven?) but why should she believe the faun in the first place? He's promising Ofelia a wealthy future that may or may not exist. He could just be manipulating her for his own means. The Capitan also promises his people a wealthy future so long as they do as he says.

I was also a little bit disappointed with the film, although I still enjoyed it. All my friends saw it at the cinema, and every one of them said it was 'really dark' and/or 'scary', which it actually wasn't at all. Obviously, the themes are fairly dark, but the presentation of those themes wasn't exactly disturbing.

No it would only be dark and disturbing to people who hadn't seen many films that are actually dark and disturbing. All the violence, while pretty graphic, is put in the right places; and the fantasy stuff is actually quite light on its feet (apart from maybe the pale man, who is a bit rubbish anyway).

dude seems to have missed the whole 'she is a princess trapped in an alternate (our) reality - the faun has to return her to her realm at pretty much any cost' thing.

I didn't know that she had to be returned at any cost.

But yeah, I do the point of the moral now, stunted as it seems in my mind. I watched it again earlier and it still seemed as though there were things referred to in the film that didn't get tied in at the end. Mind you I can't remember what they were, so maybe not.

Yeah I guess so. Surely the fantasy world is supposed to represent some kind of haven-like place away from the violence of the real world. But why then is it so dark and imposing? And why is it still full of people getting her to do as they say all the time?

i think thats, you know, the central conceit of the film; the way the myth-world and the real-world bleed into each other, esp. in terms of violence. as for "why?'--i think the idea is that youre supposed to be asking that question. one way to read is that the fairy tale is all in ofelia's head, and because her world outside her head is filled with violence and retribution, her made-up world would be too.

Why should she trust one when she doesn't trust the other?

because only one is promising her a celestial kingdom.

I'm sure the fascists had their own ideas of what celestial kingdom lay before them in death too.

One of the reasons this film isn't very good is that the debates it raises aren't particularly interesting.

sorry sorry.

Grotzart, I feel like the allegory is passing you by a little here -- possibly because you're imagining this as a story about a girl in a violent world, and not a story about the specific political violence of that time and place.

For instance, I'm not sure why you're assuming the fantasy world is "supposed to represent some kind of haven-like place away from the violence of the real world" -- a much more basic reading of the allegory here is that the faun, like good fascists everywhere, promises power and luxury in return for your obedience and submission to the greater will. A lot of the elements of fascism are slipped in there, actually -- something perfectly nationalistic about the promise that she's a princess, something aesthetically fascistic about the testing of her will and dedication via the tasks.

And of course it suggests that, train schedules aside, fascists are selling you a fairy tale.

(This is what makes the allegory more worthwhile than simply pointing out that fascists are bad: it's a warning against anyone who suggests that your, umm, will can triumph like that.)

(This is also the one thing that makes me forgive the overdone stock depiction of the scary fascist as so well-groomed and punctilious and orderly -- those really ARE some of the things fascists want to sell you.)

(P.S.: There are obviously a whole bunch of ways you can read this apart from the one above, if you're inclined to.)

I liked it but mainly for the visual integrity of the dreamlike scenes - they really were fantastical and magical, just like a dream. A fairy tale is, I know, full of non-sequiturs and irrational strokes of good and bad fortune that can be somewhat jarring. However, you know how there is sometimes in a film or a book a moment when a character acts in a way that is so psychologically inconsistent with the character thus far depicted that you 'snap out' of your entrancement and suddenly see the adventure as a film, with a script, and wobbly sets, and so on, whereas before you were basically along for the ride, and completely in the movie. That moment was when, in spite of the warnings, and in spite of the horrible monster (to which she faced her back), and in spite of the warnings of the fairies flitting around her head, and the egg timer, Ofelia ate one grape slowly, then another. I mean, no, sorry, don't believe it. Wrong characterization - staggeringly wrong, heinously wrong. This was, until that point, the bravest, toughest, smartest little girl we've ever encountered. She was not a goof, she was not an idiot; nor was she starving or underfed. This scene was so jarringly contrived and hard to believe that one must be quite the self-manipulator to fully recovered one's suspension of disbelief.

Instead of the elaborate here-comes-the-punchline-it'll-be-here-next-week quality of this task, with the conceit of the table of food, it should have been based around Ofelia's incipient fear, because this movie was all about facing monstrous fear, all about transcendent bravery.

Instead of the table of food, perhaps just the monster on the chair, asleep. That was have been more starkly terrifying and dreamlike. Instead of the temptation of eating food, the temptation of giving in to terror (mirroring the tasks of the torture victim, the doctor, and the man who lost his leg). For example, she might have been abjured not to make a sound, or she would wake the monster; and then, because her hands are shaking with fear (as yours would be, if you had to encounter a monster like that), she drops the key! It rattles and rings on the floor. The monster is roused!

You may say, 'a small thing in a great movie' and I can see your point - except that it was a big thing, a real and conspicuous misstep in characterization that came right from left field.

the point of the grape scene was her deliberate disobedience. that at least i can kinda appreciate, even if the film itself didn't do much for me.

i dunno i saw it as her basically living out the fairy tales she read, so according to the structure of those she would of course disobey.

People can clarify what the fantasy represented all they want, the fact that the stuttering freedom fighter got more screen time than the dude with the eyeballs in his hands is pretty unforgivable. This movie really needed to trim the scenes the girl didn't witness herself by about 50%-75% and add more Oz.

also, if the point of her fantasy is that it's wrong to blindly follow rules, what was the point of the fascist's not believing in magic seemingly directly leading to the death of her mom?

maybe the moral is that you shouldn't conflate your Spielberg too much.

I have questions.

This is a beautiful but horrible depressing movie, I can't imagine making a musical of it. Otoh, Sweeney Todd.

If they "Les Miz" this, I will be furious

Something more in the vein of "The Light in the Piazza" might work, though.