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.

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.