posted
I just saw Pan's Labyrinth last night, and while it was good, I was plenty surprised. First of all, having seen nothing about the movie besides the online trailer, I didn't realize that it was in Spanish with English subtitles.
More importantly, I was under the impression that it was a fantasy story, along the lines of Labyrinth or The Never Ending Story. Not really. It's a violent story set during the Spanish Civil War, and while it has fantasy elements, a large part of the story is about the brutality of the soldiers and the difficult life of the rebels. It bears more resemblance to "For Whom the Bell Tolls" than a fairy tale.
It was entertaining, and beautiful, but the brutality and scenes of torture really dampened my enjoyment of the movie as a whole. Most assuredly, it is not for children.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's why it's rated R, it's not like it was advertised as a movie for children. Remember when it was mentioned as being a "fairy tale for adults"?
I really want to see this movie because of this. It's a fantasy movie that is not traditional. I'm tired of sappy endings that I can't believe in for one second. Of course, that is not my opinion of all fairy tales with happy endings.
NOTE: This movie also reminds me of that manga Bizenghast.
quote:Originally posted by Zeugma: Holy bejeebus, Pan's Labyrinth was one of the most violent films I've ever seen. Or, didn't see, I literally spent about a quarter of the movie curled up in a little ball waiting for the audience to relax before I opened my eyes again.
However, I never watch horror movies, and The Green Mile was way more violent than I ever would have chosen to watch if I'd known, so take that with a grain of salt.
It's an excellent film, and a great story. It's not your usual Hollywood fare, and I really enjoyed it. I think it would have been juuuuust fine if they'd only hinted at some of the later violence, rather than showing it every time, but in most cases I had enough warning to just not watch.
posted
I saw it yesterday. It's a beautiful film, but exactly as harrowing as MightyCow says. I like to think that I have the stomach to handle violence in movies, but a lot of the torture and battle scenes had me cowering in my seat, cringing in horror. It pulls no punches. But the story is a wonderful one, and the acting was absolutely incredible- the girl who plays the lead role, especially. The creature effects were fantastic as well, especially the title character and the Pale Man, both played by Doug Jones (yes, those were all prosthetics, no CGI involved). The latter is one of the single most terrifying monsters I've ever seen.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Pale Man was indeed freaky. Very creative monster design, and an awesome horror creature. Really, it was the gore that got me. I have a hard time watching movies with very brutally depicted violence and mutilation. Eew!
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Unfair that you all get to see it before I do! It comes out here at our local indie theater on Friday.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
To be honest, I was a little disappointed with Pan's Labyrinth.
I'm a huge fan of a previous film by the same director, The Devil's Backbone, which is a ghost story also set in the Spanish Civil War and also with a child protagonist. Anyway, compared to the earlier film Pan's Labyrinth was kind of bland. Yes, the fantasy sequences were freaky and cool, but I don't really feel the story went anywhere interesting. I didn't think Ofelia's stepfather really made for a very interesting bad guy.
I also felt the blending of fantasy with realism worked better with The Devil's Backbone. Worst thing, I think, was that apart from some of the freakier fantasy sequences everything done in Pan's Labyrinth was already done in The Devil's Backbone, and better. So I am left wondering whether the critics hailing Pan's Labyrinth have actually seen the previous film.
Posts: 247 | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interesting movie, I saw it earlier tonight.
I liked it, and thought the little girl in it was fantastic. There was a lot less Labyrinth and a lot more graphic depiction of brutal Spanish repression than I thought there would be, but it was still a very interesting movie.
And I plan on buying the soundtrack as soon as possible.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
It was good but not what I expected, though I didn't see any previews or trailers to give cause for expecting anything in particular.
I found myself wanting more of the fantasy elements. I kept waiting and waiting for Ofelia to get deeper and deeper into that realm but we never really saw it and that disappointed me. What we did see, I loved! I liked the chalk and the pale guy and the mandrake root. All great, but I wish there had been more.
And I also spent a good amount of time hiding behind my fingers and wishing the violence would stop. I would have been much happier with a cut-away shot. My imagination is good enough to imagine all the gruesome things, I don't need to see multiple people shot in the head.
Posts: 1733 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah seriously, the one thing that got me about the movie was the senseless wasting of ammunition whilst soldiers continually shot people that were ALREADY DEAD! And then the rebels did it!
Is there some massive epidemic of an overabundance of bullets in Spain?
I too found myself wanting more fantasy elements, most of the fantasy stuff was all in the trailer. But I still like what I got.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure why you're all clamoring for more fantasy in the film. It was so obviously Ofelia's escape from the real world in her own mind, hence why the captain did not see Pan while he and Ofelia were talking at the end of the film; as such an escape, I think you all are missing the point of the movie, in that war is hell (the scenes of torture and the soldiers finishing off their enemies helping to demonstrate that, which, by the way, is not a waste of bullets; people are capable of surviving some pretty serious wounds, and in such a visceral situation as that, you don't want another potential enemy, and bullets are pretty easy to manufacture anyway) and everyone copes in their own way. The movie focused particularly on a child's perspective of the war; I mean, how many films have you all seen that actually takes a look at war through the eyes of a child instead of from the perspective of the adults suffering through it? I think the film is that much more evocative because, as a film obviously intended for adults, it's tugging at the strongest heartstring of all: feelings for your children, which is especially played on when Ofelia is actually shot. Not many films dare to have a scene such as that, particularly as an ending to the film.
Posts: 143 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^In that case though, it still loses to "Grave of the Fireflies" in my book. Much more disturbing look at the impact of war on children.
Posts: 1733 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've never seen that movie, so I couldn't say. If it's better, I'm certainly interested in seeing it.
Posts: 143 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
What was up with the Mandrake baby then? Her mother improved until it was killed, and was physically there. And the book foretold of the problems her mother was having with the baby.
That's equal weight against the fact that the Captain couldn't see Pan, which DOES make sense to me, because Ofelia is a Princess of the underworld, and the Captain is just a random psycho, he wouldn't have any magical properties.
I was perfectly satisfied with what I got in that movie. It was all a balance of fantasy to reality, and I wouldn't want it ALL to be fantasy, it would have ruined the juxtaposition being portrayed. But instead of 90/10 I wouldn't have minded 80/20.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Like I said, it was Ofelia seeing what she wanted to see. The only times we ever see Ofelia's mother after Ofelia puts the mandrake root under the bed is when Ofelia is actually with her mother. Don't you think it's kind of bizarre that no one, neither the captain nor Ofelia's mother, heard the mandrake root shriek as it died? If you notice when the captain is actually holding the mandrake root, it looks nothing like it did when we see Ofelia with it; rather, it just looks like a normal tuber. Of course the book will foretell of her mother getting better; that's obviously what Ofelia wants, and it was likely her imagination on overdrive to cope with the situation that caused her to see what she did in the book. Notice also that when Ofelia becomes particularly stressed, after she retrieves the dagger and causes two fairies to get killed, the mandrake root is no longer "alive". That can't be explained away by the idea that Ofelia's actions caused the root to die, as they're completely independent situations, hence why I believe it's her beginning to break down since she let down Pan (which, I would argue, is a dream of hers).
I think you're exaggerating more than a little how much fantasy is in the film. Watch it again, if you get the chance, and pay attention to how much time is spent on the fantasy sequences. It's quite a lot, as you'll see.
Posts: 143 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
One of the aspects that I really enjoyed is that it is unclear if we should believe in the fantasy, or just see it as Ofelia's escapism. It works well on both levels.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
It wasn't obviously either real or Ofelia's imagination. The director left it deliberately ambiguous.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: It wasn't obviously either real or Ofelia's imagination. The director left it deliberately ambiguous.
Do you really think that? There are too many subtle signs throughout the movie for me to think that it was meant to be that way but instead it was meant to force the audience to pay as close attention as possible to understand what was going on.
Posts: 143 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with Katie. Even if you ignore the director's comments (though I don't know why anybody would) it was a beautiful depiction of the dual reality of childhood. Quite often, the fantasy elements were as scary and threatenning as the 'real' world around Ofelia.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, the director has said that he himself believes the fantasy to be "true," and points at several moments in the movie as evidence: Ofelia's escape from the captain's room using the chalk, and the captain's initial inability to follow in the labyrinth after the opening closes. The ambiguity is deliberate, but del Toro's personal interpretation of the story is that Ofelia's fantasy was real. He leaves it to his audience to find their own.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with kat more, I think it could go either way. And yeah I did overexagerate the lack of fantasy in the film, there really was quite a lot, I think it's just that there was much less than most people were expecting, so it SEEMS like there was less overall.
Personally I lean towards the fantasy world being real, but it's open to interpretation I guess.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Olivet: I agree with Katie. Even if you ignore the director's comments (though I don't know why anybody would) it was a beautiful depiction of the dual reality of childhood. Quite often, the fantasy elements were as scary and threatenning as the 'real' world around Ofelia.
I agree that it was a great depiction, and I can kind of see where you're all coming from regarding the fantasy; I just think you're ignoring too many elements and reading too much into others. The chalk Ofelia uses to "escape" the captain? We never actually see that, do we? It's implied, like a number of other elements, and like I said concerning other things like it which were implied, I believe it's Ofelia's imagination at work, and we're viewing it through rose-colored lenses.
As to your comment on not knowing why anyone would ignore what del Toro said, it's fairly common for that to happen (in general, that is). Just because the creator of a work wanted to construe one thing doesn't mean he didn't portray that work in such a way as to create an entirely different, perhaps "more" (if you can say that) accurate interpretation based on what happens within the story itself. I had a discussion in a literature class about that very thing last semester, in fact, and it was one of the more interesting I've ever participated in.
Posts: 143 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, I know about ignoring the intents of the writer/creator in interpreting a work. Literary theory is very exciting.
However, with that as the guide, there is no definite answer and we are all just giving our interpretations. In order to state a definite answer either way, you have to fudge or discount the evidence for the other point of view. Doing so and then implying that others who don't also discount the evidence you deem unimportant are missing the point of this highly-ambiguous work is a little off-putting, to say the least.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Eldrad, I'm not an idiot. In fact, I was so good at the lit-crit game that I got my degree a year early and graduated summa cum laude. I gave it up when I reallized I really didn't care whether Homer was woman, or if Shakespeare really wrote Shakespeare's plays. *giggle* Though it was fun for a while.
Argument for it's own sake is exciting, and you can make a case either way. However, given the subjectivity of such interpretations, asserting a definitive is pointless.
The fantasy elements may have been merely Ofelia's imagination, but but they were far from a "rose-colored" perspective, I think.
But since it is entirely subjective, I will say that it was true to me. That is the point, I think. Many of us believe in worlds we cannot see, and I am uncertain whether they exist because of our belief or independant of it (such as the afterlife, god, sub-atomic particles whatever).
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Olivet: Eldrad, I'm not an idiot. In fact, I was so good at the lit-crit game that I got my degree a year early and graduated summa cum laude.
You guys are getting a little defensive, aren't you? I apologize if it seemed like I was being insulting, but I don't believe anything I said had that sort of implication.
Posts: 143 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nah, dude. The instructorial tone of your final paragraph was amusingly familiar, is all. Lots of young fellas mistake their fellow posters for a younger, less experienced crowd than we have here. It's cute.
Please, feel free to share these exciting new concepts with us any time you like. Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Amusingly familiar" and "young fellas"? Could you be a little more condescending next time? I know you're joking, but it still comes off as a thinly veiled insult.
Posts: 143 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Eldrad: "Amusingly familiar" and "young fellas"? Could you be a little more condescending next time? I know you're joking, but it still comes off as a thinly veiled insult.
Hello, Kettle! I'm Pot. Nice to meet you
Yes, I was condescending in response to condescention, though I did mean mine jokingly, as kind of a finger to the ribs, let's lighten up sort of thing. I meant no real offense. Can we start over? Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Uh...what? Nothing I said could reasonably be construed as condescending, and then you proceed to offer an olive branch after insulting me again over something that you apparently wanted to perceive in what I said, seeing as you're trying to justify yourself in that way. Stop insulting people before you try to make peace with them; you're intentionally goading me while trying to make yourself look better, and it's juvenile.
Posts: 143 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Uh...what? Nothing I said could reasonably be construed as condescending
Just because the creator of a post wanted to construe one thing doesn't mean he didn't portray himself in such a way as to create an entirely different, perhaps "more" (if you can say that) accurate interpretation based on what happens within the post itself.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
*shrug* Talking to us like we had never heard of the wondrous mysteries of interpreting a work while ignoring the creator seemed a tad condescending to me.
My innitial response was annoyance. Then I tried to be playful, abit self-mocking and friendly. I was not trying be insulting that last time, honest. I was joking with you. I thought you understood that you had sounded a tad condescending (whether that was your intent or not) because it had been interpreted that way.
The irony is blinding.
ETA:I will stop trying to be funny (and failing, obviously). I didn't meant to insult you (though I did, judging by your reaction). You didn't mean to be condescending (though, from my reaction you must see that it could be read that way). Sorry about that, really.
My attempt at the Funny failed, and undermined my apology. Sorry about that, too. But if you want to continue to be offended, feel free.
This is the limit of my ability to apologize for offenses I never intended, but I have apologized. If you can apologize for an offense you didn't intend, I'll be impressed.
But even if you can't, as far as I'm concerned, we're cool.
posted
Chris and I just saw it this morning (early matinee). I thought it was a fantastic movie.
I was surprised to read above several mentions of "graphic depictions of violence). I thought the movie was actually quite tasteful in the depictions. Most of the more brutal acts of violence actually happen off screen, then later, when the camera cuts back you see the (albeit somewhat graphic) aftermath. This is true of the more violent parts of the torture. Of course, to me a lot of recent movies have set the bar much higher than Pan's Labyrinth meets to qualify for "graphic depictions". If you haven't seen those, you might be more disturbed than I.
Regardless of what the director has said, I didn't really see the fantasy as real while watching the movie. I'll buy the arguements to the contrary after the fact, but if it is real, it's a somewhat different movie than the one I enjoyed. I much prefer the ambiguity.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it's like an inkblot. I mean, I think it is supposed to be. That's a big reason I like it so much.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll totally buy that the fantasy was real to the little girl. It clearly wasn't "real" in any subjective way since none of the adults experienced it at all even when they were simultaneously present with the little girl during some of the fantastic events.
Regardless, I thought the movie was brilliant and beautiful. It's also a sad testement to the homogenization of Hollywood. I can't imagine a Hollywood movie taking the risks Pan's Labyrinth takes, nor allowing the darkly realistic ending.*
BIG SPOILER
I'm referring here to the fact that the girl dies. I can't help but see this relegated to the "alternate endings" extra on a DVD, and an ending created where she lives happily ever after for the theatrical release if an American studio got ahold of it.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Noemon, if I was going to bother to continue reading this thread, I would ask you what is at all condescending in what you quoted. Did you even read the " 'more' (if you can say that)" of the post? I thought it was pretty apparent the quotations and what was in parentheses made it pretty obvious that one opinion can't actually be considered more accurate than another in regards to something like this, but apparently I was wrong.
quote:Originally posted by Olivet: The irony is blinding. ... But if you want to continue to be offended, feel free. ... This is the limit of my ability to apologize for offenses I never intended, but I have apologized. If you can apologize for an offense you didn't intend, I'll be impressed. ... But even if you can't, as far as I'm concerned, we're cool.
That was the exact point I was getting at with the last line of what I said. I don't even know why I'm bothering.
Posts: 143 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Probably because you're a decent human being. It's a pain in the butt, but I assure you that it's appreciated. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wasn't trying to goad you, but I accept that you took it that way. You weren't trying to be condescending, but you can't accept that I took it that way?
I do not understand which point it was that you were trying to make and if it was the same as what I said, then why are we not agreeing?
I really really do not understand why you are upset. I would appreciate it if someone wants to explain it to in email, or Mike's forum or whatever.
posted
You were both being perceptibly brittle and/or defensive, even in your apologies. You then picked up on the brittleness in each other's posts, and focused on that (and any perceived sarcasm) instead of the apology itself. This is a self-perpetuating thing, at least until both people involved say "We're okay." Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Eldrad: Noemon, if I was going to bother to continue reading this thread, I would ask you what is at all condescending in what you quoted. Did you even read the " 'more' (if you can say that)" of the post? I thought it was pretty apparent the quotations and what was in parentheses made it pretty obvious that one opinion can't actually be considered more accurate than another in regards to something like this, but apparently I was wrong.
Do people ever *not* check back on threads like this? I don't think that I've ever announced that I wasn't going to be coming back to a thread, but I'm pretty sure that if I did I'd be back anyway.
So, I'm just going to assume that you'll read this and respond to the question that you'd have asked me, had you asked me a question.
I think that you misread me, Eldrad. I wasn't quoting your text as an example of the condescension Olivet saw in your post. Actually, if you look carefully you'll see that I changed your words around a bit, replacing "work" with "post" and the like. My point was to underscore the irony in your on the one hand saying that it was legitimate to find meaning in a work that was unintended by its creator, but then dismissing the possibility that what Olivet was reading in your post was a valid interpretation of it.
Mostly I was just being funny. For what it's worth, you didn't strike me as being condescending in your post (and I can understand why you wrote what you did). I can also see, though, why it read that way to Olivet. You presented a very basic concept in literary criticism as though it would be something that your audience was unfamiliar with (or that's how it read to some portion of your audience, anyway). To someone who has spend years doing literary criticism, having something that's generally introduced in freshman high school English lit classes spelled out like that could easily seem insulting. Can you see how that could be?
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Back to the movie... Fresh Air on NPR will be broadcasting an interview with the director today, if anyone's interested.
And I saw the movie a few weeks ago and greatly enjoyed it. I don't have much to say about it at this point - I really need to see the film again.
Posts: 959 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I liked the movie, the pale guy with the eyeballs in his hands scared the crap outta me. I like the fact it was ambiguous and open to interpretation. But I was left with an somewhat empty feeling after, as if it had a chance to say something important but didn't.
Posts: 1042 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm a little late to the movie, but I just saw it and I can't believe how sad it was. I avoided this thread earlier because I didn't want to spoil anything, but now I'm reading everyone's reponses and completely agreeing--it's not what I expected at all. I definitely liked it, though.
On the subject of children's fantasy, let's just say that the first books I remember reading were the Calvin and Hobbes books, and when someone first suggested the idea that live Hobbes was just Calvin's imagination, I was apalled. For me, child's fantasy is ALWAYS real. The whole "child's escapism" as a coping mechanism thing is so jaded for me.
One of my questions: What kind of a culture/society/family breeds men like the captain? I ask because I've never actually witnessed that kind of pride in my life--I've only seen it in movies and in books. What did the captain have to live for? What made him happy? When he was in seclusion, they always showed him shaving, shining his shoes and brushing up his appearance. Has anyone here ever known anyone like this?
Posts: 1314 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
And one more question: Can ANYONE find the voice they used to dub over Doug Jones, who played the Faun and the Pale man? I've been googling and I can't find anything! The voice sounds like Michael Parks (Kill Bill Vol. II), but it's not listed in his imdb profile.
Posts: 1314 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Heh. I find it interesting how both the European and the American trailers gave such different (and such completely wrong) pictures of what this film would be like.
The American trailer promised it'd be a Narnia type family adventure, the European trailer promised it'd be a freaky horror film in the spirit of the Devil's Backbone, the director's previous Spanish civil war fantasy... and it's actually neither.
As for the captain, I actually found him to be a bit too movie-villainly and kooky. Especially since the bad guy of the Devil's Backbone was so realistically violent yet still managed to stand as a kind of a symbol for all the brutality of the war.
Posts: 247 | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, the reviews I read in the local paper before I saw the movie gave me just about exactly the right expectations. Without giving away the movie.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
whatever).
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
