# Pans Labyrinth 'A Fairy tale for grown-ups'



## zenie (Oct 20, 2006)

This looks fucking amazing  

http://www.panslabyrinth.com/

I cant wait!!

*squeals with delight*  

Should be released in US December 29th so I think the same for us too.

BTW There is no David Bowie in scary make-up thank fuck!!


----------



## Groucho (Oct 20, 2006)

I like fairy tales.  I thought they were all for grown ups?


----------



## Biddlybee (Oct 20, 2006)

This the one from the bloke that did Devil's Backbone?

edit: bah, won't pay at work


----------



## Nine Bob Note (Oct 20, 2006)

Can someone please assure me this is in no way a remake of the Bowie film, before I start punching my collegues?


----------



## Groucho (Oct 20, 2006)

Nine Bob Note said:
			
		

> Can someone please assure me this is in no way a remake of the Bowie film, before I start punching my collegues?



No it isn't in any way.

Actually it looks fuckin' excellent. It is by the same director who made the fabulous Cronos the vampire tale with a difference.


----------



## Biddlybee (Oct 20, 2006)




----------



## Moggy (Oct 20, 2006)

I've been waiting for this to come out for *so* long  

Oh and bee, you can watch the trailer over at IMDB:

It's trailer #2


----------



## Biddlybee (Oct 20, 2006)

Cheers Moggy, will do when I get home (no sound card at work).


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Oct 20, 2006)

Looks quite good, like a mixture between Paperhouse, the Neverending Story (the book) and Legend


----------



## Pieface (Oct 20, 2006)

BiddlyBee said:
			
		

> Cheers Moggy, will do when I get home (no sound card at work).



It is the Devil's Backbone guy, verily and it shall be good


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Oct 20, 2006)

I haven't seen the Devil's Backbone... perhaps should check it out...


----------



## Strumpet (Oct 20, 2006)

OOoooooo fantasy! Love it, love it. 
Looks good.


----------



## Biddlybee (Oct 20, 2006)

That trailer is  looking forward to this... although I seem to keep missing films I want to see at the cinema


----------



## geminisnake (Oct 20, 2006)

Oooh, that looks interesting


----------



## kittyP (Oct 31, 2006)

zenie said:
			
		

> This looks fucking amazing
> 
> http://www.panslabyrinth.com/
> 
> ...




Looks fucking amazing but dont you slag off Mr Bowie in make up *shudders with pleasure*


----------



## Dubversion (Oct 31, 2006)

really looking forward to this


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Oct 31, 2006)

I thought the thread title started with the words 'penis labyrinth'


----------



## Stigmata (Oct 31, 2006)

Mrs Magpie said:
			
		

> I thought the thread title started with the words 'penis labyrinth'



That's a substantially more terrifying film that's going straight to DVD.


----------



## Moggy (Oct 31, 2006)

Well.

I just watched it.

It's really, REALLY fucking good!  

Not quite what i was expecting in some regards, but it's one of the few films that i would describe as having a proper 'magical feel' to it.

We must organise a mass group viewing of this when it comes out on the 24th (and i'm up that weekend ).

Guillermo del toro does it again, but better than ever before 

P.S. There's a leaked copy of the production company's promo VHS online, so you can watch it properly subbed and in pretty good quality too. Still needs to be seen on the big screen IMO.


----------



## Firky (Nov 1, 2006)

RenegadeDog said:
			
		

> I haven't seen the Devil's Backbone... perhaps should check it out...



He's also done Mimic, Hellboy and Blade 2.


----------



## Moggy (Nov 1, 2006)

firky said:
			
		

> He's also done Mimic, Hellboy and Blade 2.



Yeah, but most people don't like that kind of american shite.

Fair enough, i like Mimic and Blade 2, but his real talent is in his natural spanish/mexican stuff.


----------



## Firky (Nov 1, 2006)

I've only seen those three god awful films (well Blade 2 was alreet)


----------



## Moggy (Nov 1, 2006)

firky said:
			
		

> I've only seen those three god awful films (well Blade 2 was alreet)



Well fucking check out the devils backbone then! And come see pan's labyrinth the weekend it comes out


----------



## crustychick (Nov 1, 2006)

Zenie said:
			
		

> BTW There is no David Bowie in scary make-up thank fuck!!



oi! No slaggin off DB in make up - it was the best bit of the film, well, that and the lycra trousers


----------



## Biddlybee (Nov 7, 2006)

Not one of my favourite venues but this is on at the Barbican next week 

http://www.barbican.org.uk/film/event-detail.asp?ID=5163


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 7, 2006)

Stigmata said:
			
		

> That's a substantially more terrifying film that's going straight to DVD.




I beleive that pornos already been done under the title Labia-rynth


----------



## zenie (Nov 7, 2006)

BiddlyBee said:
			
		

> Not one of my favourite venues but this is on at the Barbican next week
> 
> http://www.barbican.org.uk/film/event-detail.asp?ID=5163



Why is the Barbican cinema a bit shit? 

Is this not going on general release?


----------



## Biddlybee (Nov 7, 2006)

Never been to the cinema there ... it's just a pain in the arse to get to.
Should be on  general release, but you said 29th December, so thought this might be some early screening thing...


----------



## Reno (Nov 7, 2006)

BiddlyBee said:
			
		

> Never been to the cinema there ... it's just a pain in the arse to get to.
> Should be on  general release, but you said 29th December, so thought this might be some early screening thing...




I'll never understand why people make such a fuss when it comes to the Barbican. Anything higher than 3 floors seems to be beyond the navigating capability of the British. The Barbican is right next to the Barbican tube station, so how can it be difficult to get to ? There are plenty of signs of where to go and to make it really easy for dummies there are yellow lines on the pavement leading you right into the main core of the building. Then you make your way to a lift, look up where the cinema is and get to the right floor. While you're at it check out the indoor jungle, it's like something out of the sci-fi classic Silent Running.


----------



## Biddlybee (Nov 7, 2006)

Mate, you have no idea where I live... I've got quite a few cinemas closer to me - so for _me_ it's a pain in the arse to get to. I've seen a few gigs there and don't particularly like the venue - personal preference.


----------



## Biddlybee (Nov 7, 2006)

zenie said:
			
		

> Is this not going on general release?


24th November


----------



## Reno (Nov 7, 2006)

...and I'm seeing it tonight.


----------



## Badgers (Nov 7, 2006)

Looking forward to this one too. Sounds like one I will be adding to the 'Sunday' section of my DVD collection


----------



## Moggy (Nov 7, 2006)

Like i said before, it's really quite good!


----------



## Yetman (Nov 7, 2006)

My mrs will love this - what rating is it?


----------



## jodal (Nov 7, 2006)

24th of Nov, limited release.


----------



## Yetman (Nov 7, 2006)

Er sorry just realised that makes me sound like I'm going out with a twelve year old - I'm asking cos I want to know if we can take her kid with us!


----------



## Moggy (Nov 7, 2006)

Not 100% sure, although i imagine it'll be a 15.

There are a couple of considerably violent parts in it though.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 7, 2006)

This looks great - read an article in Empire by the director and it's got me fired up.


----------



## Biddlybee (Nov 7, 2006)

Moggy said:
			
		

> Like i said before, it's really quite good!


How comes you've seen it already then?


----------



## Moggy (Nov 7, 2006)

BiddlyBee said:
			
		

> How comes you've seen it already then?






			
				Moggy said:
			
		

> P.S. There's a leaked copy of the production company's promo VHS online, so you can watch it properly subbed and in pretty good quality too. Still needs to be seen on the big screen IMO.



 

Still really want to see it again in the cinema though


----------



## Biddlybee (Nov 7, 2006)

I missed that bit.


----------



## Witness01 (Nov 7, 2006)

Am dying to see this film


----------



## zenie (Nov 7, 2006)

Witness01 said:
			
		

> Am dying to see this film



Me too hence the thread


----------



## Reno (Nov 8, 2006)

Saw it tonight and thought it was great. Do not expect a muppety Labyrinth style fairytale, this is one of the most violent and unremittingly bleak films of the year. Not sure I like it quite as much as The Devil's Backbone yet, but it is one of the best films of the year.


----------



## Witness01 (Nov 8, 2006)

Just saw it  

What a lovely film! Not quite what I was expecting.

Yeah, when I say lovely I mean the actual quality of the film - not the subject matter - not one for children


----------



## Witness01 (Nov 8, 2006)

zenie said:
			
		

> Me too hence the thread


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Nov 11, 2006)

Just finished watching it.  Good stuff.

Definitely not for kids though


----------



## Dubversion (Nov 19, 2006)

just saw it. Absolutely stunning - not without its flaws but a brilliant brilliant film


----------



## zenie (Nov 19, 2006)

Is it subtitled or dubbed?


----------



## Dubversion (Nov 19, 2006)

subtitled.

i'd rather eat my own earwax than watch a dubbed film


----------



## Moggy (Nov 19, 2006)

Oh yeah, that reminds me, who want's to go see it at the end of the week? Quite a few people seemed to show an interest.


----------



## Reno (Nov 19, 2006)

zenie said:
			
		

> Is it subtitled or dubbed?



In the UK they haven't really dubbed foreign language films for cinema release for a couple of decades now.  

These days you only get dubbed versions as on option on some DVD releases.


----------



## Moggy (Nov 20, 2006)

Ok, well if anyone's interested a bunch of us should hopefully be going to go and see it on saturday at some point - any takers?


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 20, 2006)

Can't wait to see this now


----------



## Strumpet (Nov 20, 2006)

Ditto!


----------



## kittyP (Nov 20, 2006)

Moggy said:
			
		

> Ok, well if anyone's interested a bunch of us should hopefully be going to go and see it on saturday at some point - any takers?


----------



## Groucho (Nov 20, 2006)

Moggy said:
			
		

> Ok, well if anyone's interested a bunch of us should hopefully be going to go and see it on saturday at some point - any takers?



Yep, me.


----------



## Groucho (Nov 20, 2006)

Reno said:
			
		

> ...and I'm seeing it tonight.



Well....

review please (no spoilers!)


----------



## Dubversion (Nov 20, 2006)

Groucho said:
			
		

> Well....
> 
> review please (no spoilers!)




It's hard to review without spoilers really - there's some questions i have about the allegory Del Toro is making, but i can't until more people have seen it.


----------



## Groucho (Nov 20, 2006)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> It's hard to review without spoilers really - there's some questions i have about the allegory Del Toro is making, but i can't until more people have seen it.



That makes sense. I intend to make the effort to see this.


----------



## Reno (Nov 20, 2006)

Groucho said:
			
		

> Well....
> 
> review please (no spoilers!)




Scroll down a bit. 

I liked it very much, but didn't think it was quirte as good as The Devil's Backbone.


----------



## Reno (Nov 20, 2006)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> It's hard to review without spoilers really - there's some questions i have about the allegory Del Toro is making, but i can't until more people have seen it.




I'm curious about your questions. Put a spoiler tag upfront and shoot.


----------



## Groucho (Nov 20, 2006)

Reno said:
			
		

> Saw it tonight and thought it was great. Do not expect a muppety Labyrinth style fairytale, this is one of the most violent and unremittingly bleak films of the year. Not sure I like it quite as much as The Devil's Backbone yet, but it is one of the best films of the year.



I've seen so few films at the cinema this year but this I will see. Glad it gets the Reno 'one of the best...' accolade.


----------



## Dubversion (Nov 20, 2006)

*Ok People - Spoilers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*

*WARNING! WARNING! SPOILERS! SPOILERS! SPOILERS! WARNING! WARNING! etc.*

ok, reno.. not even quite sure where i'm going with this but 

1)i guess we assume that the baby represents Spain's future and its relationship with the civil war ("it won't even know your name") but is it also a comment on the level of denial in spanish society about the war and who did what?

2) i found myself wondering if we were to believe, at the end, that none of it 'happened', that the girl just slipped into her own imaginings throughout, and little signs of it being 'real' - the chalk doors etc - were just her acting out the fantasies. Do you think this is the case, does it matter, and how does the mandrake root relate to this?

3). if the whole of the labyrinth is allegorical, i never quite worked out what represented what. The ugly motherfucker  at the banquet is presumably the church (stigmata, a big feast others are denied, old and emaciated and malign). so how about the toad? or am i being too literal?

At least it got me thinking, and it was a brilliantly evocative movie,even though there was something about the faun that didn't quite work - maybe it lost something in translation, but that character was a bit panto, camp even.


*WARNING! WARNING! SPOILERS! SPOILERS! SPOILERS! WARNING! WARNING! etc.*


----------



## Reno (Nov 20, 2006)

*WARNING! WARNING! SPOILERS! SPOILERS! SPOILERS! WARNING! WARNING! etc*


1) I think you could be right there, though that never occurred to me.

2) We only ever see the fantastical events from the girls POV and nobody else sees them, so the fantastic realm was just her way to escape and didn't really exist. She did put the mandrake root under the bed, but it was only alive to her. I thought that was the best of the creatures in a way, because it's resemblance to a baby when it burns was truly disturbing. As I'm an atheist I thought that the happy end in the fairy tale world was just her dying dream, but others could interpret it as Heaven.

3) I'm not sure all the creatures literally represented particular aspects of the political situation, but your interpretation of the ghoul with the eyes in his palms as the church makes sense and I would find that a bit laboured. I agree with you on the faun, he also didn't quite work for me. Too much mime like acting. 

I preferred the ghost story of The Devil's Backbone over the creatures here and I also thought it had more scope, narrative momentum and more interesting sub-plots and characters and many of the characters here were just too similar to the earlier film. Still Pan's Labyrinth did get to me and didn't leave me for a while. Despite my reservations it's a powerful film.

*WARNING! WARNING! SPOILERS! SPOILERS! SPOILERS! WARNING! WARNING! etc*


----------



## Moggy (Nov 20, 2006)

*WARNING, SPOILERS, DAH, DAH, DAH, BAKED BEANS*

I started thinking about some of the various metaphors going on in the film while watching it, but didn't want to let it distract me at the time. Might give it another watch later before seeing it on a big screen on the weekend.

I'm still somewhat undecided on the real/imaginary concept, since there are several definite events that back up either side. Plus i was sawying towards it being real if you think about the closing scene/shots of the frog tree blossoming and the fairy, plus the ending narrative.

Plus the mandrake root/mother's recovery, ofelia's escape from the guarded room at the end (albeit i suppose she could have found another way out), her evasion of the captain in the labyrinth, etc. Need to rewatch it to think about other scenes.

*WARNING, SPOILERS, YADDA, YADDA, YADDA, CLOTTED CREAM*


----------



## Badgers (Nov 21, 2006)

Moggy said:
			
		

> Ok, well if anyone's interested a bunch of us should hopefully be going to go and see it on saturday at some point - any takers?


----------



## Moggy (Nov 21, 2006)

Behold my incredible organisational skills


----------



## Groucho (Nov 22, 2006)

*Socialist Worker's Review*

Er...*contains Spoilers!!!*

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php?article_id=10187


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Nov 22, 2006)

Would love to see this at the cinema.  Watched the screener version mentioned earlier in the thread.  Definitely the film of the year though.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Nov 22, 2006)

*SPOILER ALERT SPOLER ALERT SPOILER ALERT*

Must admit I'm not knowledgeable enough about the spanish civil war etc to have picked up on a lot of the themes mentioned above.  I didn't realise it was meant to be an allegory :embarrassed:

*spoiler alert spoiler alert*


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Nov 22, 2006)

*averts eyes from spoliers*

When is this film having general release?


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Nov 22, 2006)

This week on thursday in britain, i think.


----------



## Badgers (Nov 22, 2006)

24th is UK release


----------



## Moggy (Nov 22, 2006)

Right, so exactly WHO is coming to see it, on saturday, somewhere in london that is potentially not too expensive? Feel free to suggest cinemas, etc, i had a look for times earlier in the week but most places only had the preview times listed. Organise yourself into a list or something you can quote. That'll look nice 

Moggy
Badgers
Kitty
Groucho


----------



## golightly (Nov 22, 2006)

Moggy
Badgers
Kitty
Groucho
golightly
mango5

What about the Brixton Ritzy at 4:15pm?  £5.75 per person.


----------



## Groucho (Nov 22, 2006)

golightly said:
			
		

> Moggy
> Badgers
> Kitty
> Groucho
> ...




Sounds good to me.


----------



## Moggy (Nov 22, 2006)

I can do wherever/whenever so anything is good with me.


----------



## golightly (Nov 22, 2006)

mango5 was querying whether it would be a good idea to book the tickets in advance, but I reckon an afternoon showing is pretty safe.  What do people think?


----------



## Groucho (Nov 22, 2006)

golightly said:
			
		

> mango5 was querying whether it would be a good idea to book the tickets in advance, but I reckon an afternoon showing is pretty safe.  What do people think?



Yep, I reckon too.


----------



## Moggy (Nov 22, 2006)

Well i'm not gonna book anything in advance. Should be fairly safe i think.


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Nov 24, 2006)

This has got a very limited release


----------



## mango5 (Nov 25, 2006)

golightly said:
			
		

> Moggy
> Badgers
> Kitty
> Groucho
> ...


Laters dudes


----------



## fudgefactorfive (Nov 25, 2006)

Moggy
Badgers
Kitty
Groucho
golightly
mango5
fudgefactorfive + 'im indoors


----------



## mango5 (Nov 25, 2006)

fudgefactorfive said:
			
		

> Moggy
> Badgers
> Kitty
> Groucho
> ...


----------



## crustychick (Nov 25, 2006)

omg - I watched this last night and thought it was grim!

the fairy bits were cool as, but the civil war stuff was horrific. I guess the contrast was what he was trying to achieve but it thought was gruesome.

(although I did love the special effects for all the magic stuff - amazing!)


----------



## spoone (Nov 25, 2006)

my mates girlfriend phoned him up last night to make him write down the name of the movie.


----------



## sorearm (Nov 25, 2006)

me and the gf just got back after seeing it - it was amazing, beautiful visualisation and on such a small budget ($5 million dollars total - beat that).

do you think this guy will be lined up to do the Hobbit? (hope so)

It was grim on the civil war side - but then lets not forget the horrific things that happened at that time, the contrast with the magical qualities of Ofilia's world was great.

Jonathon woss 'reviewed' it on the telly and thought that it was all in ofilia's head to escape from the brutality that was happening around here ... except he forgot that it all started before they got to the mill when she put the stone eye back in that weird statue and the mantis/fairy creature appeared

overall I thought it was a brilliant film, pulled the 2 threads of the story together nicely, the chalk doors had an alice in wonderland charm, the faun freaked me out as I couldn't work out if he was malign or a goody (the devil-type imagery of his horns and his weird legs). It was a real tear jerker ending that left you wondering if it was real or not. I like to believe that it was real and she was reunited with her parents and brother.

... the monster with the eye-hands was just freakish, really horrid imagery

10/10 in my book! everyone go and see it NOW


----------



## Groucho (Nov 25, 2006)

fudgefactorfive said:
			
		

> fudgefactorfive + 'im indoors



Nice to meet ya.


----------



## fudgefactorfive (Nov 25, 2006)

Groucho said:
			
		

> Nice to meet ya.



Yes  Sorry to dash off so fast - we really were dead on our feet  

Really spectacular festival of grimness. Loved the visuals - outstanding make-up and special effects. Excellent performances too. Very moving. Had to look away from some bits though  

Fascists v fairies


----------



## Groucho (Nov 25, 2006)

The film:

Fantastic.

It was a wonderful Xmas family fantasy - Fairies v the fascists. The fairies win and Ofelia gets to be queen of the underworld - a lovely happy ending. 

The obvious way of looking at it is that the labyrinth and characters are the fantasy World that Ofelia escapes into because reality is so brutal. Or you can instead choose to believe that the Labyrinth is _a valid alternative reality_. 

The Labyrinthian world is a metaphor for aspects of Fascism - well yes, but it is also a World with its own laws with similarities and differences to the harsh World of 1944 Spain. The Labyrinth is not escapism; it is as much nightmare as dream - a child's own rationalisation of the insanity of the World around her. Instead of enduring complete powerlessness, in the Labyrinth Ofelia is central. The division between the 'reality' and the 'fantasy' is generally accepted as a given, but it is an illusion. It is an illusion in this film that assists in making the 'reality' harsher and 'realer' (more seemingly real). Both 'reality' and 'fantasy' are, of course, in fact fiction.

All of the humanity, warmth and caring is expressed by the 'reds' - the anti-fascists. There is no room for any humanity or caring in the brutal World of Fascism. True enough but that can be a difficult thing to pull off in a film whilst still maintaining a realistic feel without descending into two dimensional stereotyping. What makes the Captain so self obsessed, brutal and capable of inflicting the most extreme torture on his victims? We don't care, and it is not important, because we are seeing events through the eyes of a child - the 'fantasy' is important in keeping us there amidst such brutal 'adult' events. It is enough that he is a monster.

We only need to justly hate the Captain. Despite not being a rounded character, he doesn't become a mere pantomime villain. He never smiles (except a wonderfully bitter enforced smile towards the end ), but we don't for a second wonder why. Our heart is 100% with Ofelia. We are immersed in her World (and is why her World is _real _in the film - the chalk door etc. She doesn't wake up from 'dreams') not the more complex World of adults, but the harshness of the adult World is real enough. 

This is a fantastic anti-fascist tyrade. Even down to the blatant piss take of the obsession with military precision timing. And the captain's desire to be remembered to his son - he doesn't mind dying heroically in battle, the point is to be remembered via his son as a heroic warrior, and to thus live on in glory - so wonderfully denied at the end.  

Cronos, The Devil's Backbone and Pans Labyrinth are all wonderful films. None of these films attempts to seperate 'reality' from 'fantasy'. The films eschew 'realism' in favour of vampires, ghosts and fauns, but all deal in real life themes and not in escapism. Love 'em!


----------



## marty21 (Nov 26, 2006)

saw it tonight, brilliant, very very dark, special affects, great, recommended

i wanna be a faun


----------



## laptop (Nov 26, 2006)

Oh fuck yes! 

Missus laptop says this morning "I like it better than almost all my favourite films". 

And it's very, *very* deep.

Spoiler alert! Spoilation! Despoilation! Decay! Slime! 

Er... 




			
				Groucho said:
			
		

> Fairies v the fascists.



Yes. And much more. 

From the opening scene to the last-but-one, it's a _specifically radical-feminist_ analysis of fascism and of patriarchy in general.

A much misunderstood term, "radical-feminist", even by those who should know better than to imagine that the "radical" means "shouty". It means "from and about *the roots*."


We open on Carmen being taken - almost abducted - to go to live at her man's place. Patriarchy is patrilocal. 

Patriarchy, in this radical-feminist analysis, is _caused_ by - is _rooted in_ - men's anxiety that we do not know who are our children. 

This makes inheritance - which is a false dream of immortality, of an immortality matching that a woman obtains by giving birth - a bit difficult. Hence the need to control women. 

Hence the inheritance of the watch. (Credit: Missus laptop)

In case you forgot: *major spoiler*!

In that last-but-one scene Mercedes declares and decides "he will never know who his father was". 

And scriptwriter Carmen Soriano has read _everything_ pertaining to the subject. Missus laptop, for example, is now convinced she needs to read Julia Kristeva after all... and I, Vladimir Propp.


*Even bigger spoiler*!

The fairy world is where Ofelia goes to escape the evils that are befalling her. 

Note that she emerges from the woods covered in mud _in the real world_. What went on out there? 

* weeps *

Though fairy realm is classic dissociation from abuse, it is also a source of the imaginative power that we need to overcome fascism. 

The fascists have no imagination - only fear. The partisans have a dream. And that fascism did fall away, in the end.






Enough for now. There's much, much more.


----------



## Groucho (Nov 26, 2006)

laptop said:
			
		

> The fairy world is where Ofelia goes to escape the evils that are befalling her.
> 
> Note that she emerges from the woods covered in mud in the real world. What went on out there?
> 
> * weeps *



Shit, yes.   


Good post.


----------



## story (Nov 26, 2006)

*Spoilers Alert*

*SPOILERS AHEAD>>>>> SPOILERS AHEAD>>>>*




Saw this film today and really enjoyed it. At the end, I felt as if I was emerging from a trance.

It is bloody, but not gratuitously so, IMO.

I was aware of the political allegory stuff, and some of the posts here have made me aware of other possible metaphors (I liked the idea that the creature and the banquet represent the church).

While I was very aware and involved with the stuff about Spain and the fascists (I have friends in Spain who's families were caught up in the Civil War), I was also very interested in the archetypes and mythology stuff. There was a lot of Otherworld stuff, all of which keyed in to my inner world in very efective ways.

The girlchild on the threshold of womanhood (blood is part of this picture - cf. with Sleeping Beauty etc). She looked very knowing, almost sly, in the bubblebath scene. Her strength growing as the strength of her mother wanes. This also keys in to the Demeter-Persephone myth (summer giving way to winter and vice versa), as is underlined by the banquet in the Underworld and eating the fruit from the table and the risk being shut in the Underworld forever.

The toad under the tree - toads are limnal creatures, able to live while seeming to be dead. They go dormant when conditions don't suit them, and come back to life afterwards. It is said that they have been found encased in rocks and so forth. The toad also, for me, recalls the serpent that lives at the root of Yggdrasil, the World tree in Norse mythology. And of course the tree itself could be interpreted as Yggdrasil. At Ragnarok (the end of the World), Yggdrasil will be threatened - and here we see the tree dying while the world is being threatened by the Forces of Evil in the form of Franco's fascists.

Ofelia's first challenge, to go down into the tree, was incredibly evocative of shamanic journeying to the Otherworld. Even the removal of her dress echos the tradition of having to divest oneself of trappings in order to go there.

The inside of the tree seemed to be an evocation of the whole tomb-as-womb thing: the roots/the ribs looked like the inside of the Rotting Goddess; the bugs and invertebrates were also part of the Rotting Goddess thing. Ofelia's fearless quest to the roots of the tree (which in itself echoes many many myth quests) was a transformative journey to locate her own power (the scene in the bath, where she looked so much more grown up, followed this scene).

And the pathos and weary horror of her emergence from the woods was so disturbing, wasn't it? For me, it brought up memories of "babes in the woods" headlines about raped and murdered children.

There was a lot of Alice In Wonderland stuff too - her dress looked like something Alice would wear, and the descent into the heart of Labyrinth reminded me of Alice's plunge down the rabbit hole. And of course the pocket watch... we even had a couple of rabbits!

The dress - very little girlie, and then it was "spoiled" during her journey to the Underworld, after which she was no longer a little girl.

Rabbits represent fecundity and fertility - the Captain's acquisition of the too-young rabbits, and the subsequent cascade of their diminishing importance as they got handed from person, seemed to me to be a reiteration of the way things were being destroyed by the fascists.

That awful creature with the eyes in it's hands - I felt as if I was seeing something I was very familiar with, something archetypal and very ancient. Still thinking about that Thing. Fully expect it to appear in my dreams in the future!

The mandrake root - still thinking about that one as well, but the drops of blood from Ofelia's finger obviously presaged the blood she spilt i the last scene, as well as menstrual blood (becoming a woman, becoming able to "bear a child" whcih she then did as she bore away her baby brother.

Brother-consort is another resonance that goes back to early and universal mythology.

And so on and so forth. The film was so rich in these things! Too much to write down here, and more of which will occur to me over the coming days, I'm sure.

Anyone else got stuff to add about this aspect of the film?


----------



## laptop (Nov 26, 2006)

story said:
			
		

> *SPOILERS AHEAD>>>>> SPOILERS AHEAD>>>>*
> Anyone else got stuff to add about this aspect of the film?



The fig tree is also the Tree of Knowledge. 

Not sure what the creature in the banqueting hall stands for - feels like Thanatos in early, less loonie Freud - associated with acquisition iirc. 

Of course. while out in the Tree of Knowledge Ofelia was skipping a banquet - a banquet where yer man announces that food will be the new weapon against the partisans. 

What's she skipping in the real wotld while she's in the banqueting hall? I need to see it again to line up events in fairy world with those in the real (film) world...


----------



## story (Nov 27, 2006)

laptop said:
			
		

> The fig tree is also the Tree of Knowledge.
> 
> Not sure what the creature in the banqueting hall stands for - feels like Thanatos in early, less loonie Freud - associated with acquisition iirc.
> 
> ...




Good stuff laptop!

Hadn't clicked that it was the fig tree (have managed too successfulyl, apparently, to filter out Judeo-Christian stuff from my consciousness )

Thanatos.... interesting... yes, it makes sense...

And what you say about the banquet/food as weapon of choice is also very insightful. Thanks for that.

I'm still processing this wonderful film, and expect to discover all sorts of things as I go along. Pan himself is a rich and complex figure - not sure he works 100% in the film.... but portraying the Great God Pan Himself on film is always going to be incredibly tricky to pull off!

And like you, laptop, I too want to see the film again in order to understand the connections between the Ordinary and Non-ordinary worlds.


Just thought I ought to add that I understand that not all of these metaphors and allusions were added consciously or deliberately by Del Toro. Any good storyteller will be able to draw upon archtypes and the Collective Unconscious without necessarily being consciously aware of them themself. A Storyteller is a channel, that's all.

 Also, there are cultural differences - would the Alice In Wonderland stuff be so recognisable or coherent to a Spanish film-maker or audience? And what have I missed because I don't know Spanish folklore and myth?


----------



## laptop (Nov 27, 2006)

story said:
			
		

> portraying the Great God Pan Himself on film is always going to be incredibly tricky to pull off!



Except he isn't necessarily Pan Himself, is he? The Spanish title is _El Laberinto del Fauno_; I assumed that was "the labyrinth of the faun" and that the English title was chosen for the rhythm, not accuracy. (But I've failed in my attempt to look up the Spanish for "the god Pan".)




			
				story said:
			
		

> would the Alice In Wonderland stuff be so recognisable or coherent to a Spanish film-maker or audience?



I would assume so...




			
				story said:
			
		

> And what have I missed because I don't know Spanish folklore and myth?



Don't know. I was wondering whether the grasshopper in particular had significance there....

But I gather the film is an entirely different experience in Spain - all about coming to terms with the Civil War, at last. Only during the time the film was being made did the question of mass graves of people killed by Fascists such as Vidal first become a public issue outside Spain...


----------



## Reno (Nov 27, 2006)

I think treating the film like something that is to be decoded to make everything fit neatly is missing the point somewhat. We all got that it is an allegory and some references are blindingly obvious (I wasn't that keen on the Alice in Wonderland dress myself) but the film works as a drama, which is what matters most. I felt a bit let down by the overall "using the imagination to flee lives harsh reality" resolution which has been done many times before (The Spirit of The Beehive and The Night of San Lorenzo are very similar films). In Del Toro's earlier and I feel superior masculine companion piece The Devils Backbone the allegory was all a bit less belaboured IMO.


----------



## gaijingirl (Nov 27, 2006)

Film of the year for me so far... so many themes to be explored - mostly those that occured to me have already been discussed on the thread.. the pre-pubescent, coming of age, blood (the pricking of the finger for blood really reminded me also of Sleeping Beauty as someone else has already mentioned), the feminist themes etc...

I could watch it over and over.

Someone somewhere will soon be writing a thesis on this I expect!   


And visually stunning too!


----------



## gaijingirl (Nov 27, 2006)

laptop said:
			
		

> Except he isn't necessarily Pan Himself, is he? The Spanish title is _El Laberinto del Fauno_; I assumed that was "the labyrinth of the faun" and that the English title was chosen for the rhythm, not accuracy. (But I've failed in my attempt to look up the Spanish for "the god Pan".)



Yes.. I wondered about this too and I think Pan is Pan in Spanish also:

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_(mitología)


----------



## fudgefactorfive (Nov 27, 2006)

laptop said:
			
		

> Except he isn't necessarily Pan Himself, is he? The Spanish title is _El Laberinto del Fauno_; I assumed that was "the labyrinth of the faun" and that the English title was chosen for the rhythm, not accuracy. (But I've failed in my attempt to look up the Spanish for "the god Pan".)



We also thought this, and decided that "The Satyr's Labyrinth" was perfectly fine, and also avoids the unnecessary Narnianess of the word "faun". Because he wasn't really a lot like Mr. Tumnus.


----------



## story (Nov 27, 2006)

I was a bit ambivilent about the Pan/faun thing as well, to be honest.

He said he was very old, and had had many names. And Ofelia said he smelled of Earth. And there was some concern about how "purely" good he was... all these pointed towards Pan for me.

But he turned out not to be the highest authority, and he wasn't very clearly sexual, and Del Torro's name for him was the Faun.... these things made me wonder if "Pan" was accurate.

But Pan is wonderfully ambiguous anyway - can't it be Pan and also not Pan?


----------



## secretsquirrel (Nov 27, 2006)

Yer see I'm off to watch this when it finally hits Exeter next month and can't wait but you can bet your bottom dollar that I'd have just enjoyed it for what it is and being only dimly aware of all the allegorical stuff!

 at self, suddenly feeling desperately unread

(Mind you, if fucthest8 manages NOT to read this thread then I can just walk out afterwards saying 'it's all a radical feminist allegory of fascism you know sweetie..." and he'l be well impressed!


----------



## bmd (Nov 27, 2006)

There was an interview with del Torro on last Friday's Film show on R4 which can be listened to here.

Very interesting it is too.




			
				secretsquirrel said:
			
		

> you can bet your bottom dollar that I'd have just enjoyed it for what it is and being only dimly aware of all the allegorical stuff!



Same here, apart from the fact that I'd be completely unaware of it.


----------



## laptop (Nov 27, 2006)

fudgefactorfive said:
			
		

> Because he wasn't really a lot like Mr. Tumnus.



Praise be to Bacchus


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Nov 27, 2006)

BMD I think it is one of those films where you can analyse it to death and love it, or not really do so at all and still loved it.

I must admit that, shamefully as a former politics student, I'm not that familiar with the Spanish civil war.  However, I still thought it was a stunning film.


----------



## Moggy (Nov 27, 2006)

Wicked to hear everyone enjoyed it, sorry for not making it on saturday - hadn't managed to get any sleep since the night before and was so twatted i managed to get lost inside london bridge station for half an hour on my way there, so decided to turn back


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Nov 28, 2006)

Moggy said:
			
		

> Wicked to hear everyone enjoyed it, sorry for not making it on saturday - hadn't managed to get any sleep since the night before and was so twatted i managed to get lost inside london bridge station for half an hour on my way there, so decided to turn back



Yeah, if you were battered it was probably a good idea you didn't watch it since a. it's a film worth watching sober and b. it would have freaked you out.


----------



## Moggy (Nov 28, 2006)

RenegadeDog said:
			
		

> Yeah, if you were battered it was probably a good idea you didn't watch it since a. it's a film worth watching sober and b. it would have freaked you out.



I'd seen it before anyway, was only going to see what it looked liked on a big screen


----------



## treelover (Nov 29, 2006)

I'm going to see it tomorrow, heard a lot about it, though before the er, reviews, it did sound a bit like the Devils Backbone. People saying its brutal, on a scale of 1-10, what did folk think?

BTW, Groucho, only Reds, so no Anarchists then, in the Spanish Civil war, a serious omission me thinks...




> All of the humanity, warmth and caring is expressed by the 'reds' - the anti-fascists. There is no room for any humanity or caring in the brutal World of Fascism.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Nov 29, 2006)

The political persuasion of the people fighting the fascists is never actually mentioned.


----------



## Groucho (Nov 29, 2006)

treelover said:
			
		

> I'm going to see it tomorrow, heard a lot about it, though before the er, reviews, it did sound a bit like the Devils Backbone. People saying its brutal, on a scale of 1-10, what did folk think?
> 
> BTW, Groucho, only Reds, so no Anarchists then, in the Spanish Civil war, a serious omission me thinks...



In t'film the anti-fascists are referred to (by the Fascists) as the 'reds'. If it's a serious ommission take it up with the director not me.  

It's a fuckin' fantastic film.


----------



## Reno (Nov 29, 2006)

treelover said:
			
		

> BTW, Groucho, only Reds, so no Anarchists then, in the Spanish Civil war, a serious omission me thinks...




Pan's Labyrinth takes place in a small region involving a handful of people, so there is no need for it to be all inclusive in it's representation. It's not a war epic and the intricate politics of the Spanish civil war are not the central focus of the film.


----------



## Leica (Nov 29, 2006)

Besides at the time 'the reds' was a collective name for the republicans.


----------



## Pigeon (Nov 29, 2006)

RenegadeDog said:
			
		

> The political persuasion of the people fighting the fascists is never actually mentioned.



One of the lads- think it's Pedro- is unmistakably wearing a red hammer & sickle star.


----------



## Pigeon (Nov 29, 2006)

treelover said:
			
		

> BTW, Groucho, only Reds, so no Anarchists then, in the Spanish Civil war, a serious omission me thinks...



The father & son killed off by the fascist cocksucker early in the film are caught with an anarchist pamphlet, mind.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Nov 29, 2006)

Just to add my vote to what i thought was quite possibly one of the best films i have seen all year. Not a wasted moment, beautiful to watch and joyous to listen to, excellant from top to bottom and back to front. Who gives a flying fig about minor historical innaccuracies (if present), enjoy it for what it is which is a superb film that moves and delights in equal measures.


----------



## Groucho (Nov 29, 2006)

Pigeon said:
			
		

> The father & son killed off by the fascist cocksucker early in the film are caught with an anarchist pamphlet, mind.



They said it was an old almanac. The Fascists objected to the fact that it had 'No God No country No master' written on it. Turned out they were not part of the rebels and were telling the truth about hunting for rabbits. They were still shot though.


----------



## Pigeon (Nov 29, 2006)

Groucho said:
			
		

> They said it was an old almanac. The Fascists objected to the fact that it had 'No God No country No master' written on it. Turned out they were not part of the rebels and were telling the truth about hunting for rabbits. They were still shot though.



Hmm, well, they certainly were telling the truth about hunting for rabbits, but that doesn't necessarily mean they weren't rebel sympathisers: that's an odd slogan to have on an almanac, IMHO.

Thought it was a top film: I was cheering when Mercedes cut old bollock chops up, telling him he weren't the first pig she'd gutted.


----------



## Groucho (Nov 29, 2006)

Pigeon said:
			
		

> Thought it was a top film: I was cheering when Mercedes cut old bollock chops up, telling him he weren't the first pig she'd gutted.



Yes that and his execution at the end were terrific moments.


----------



## Reno (Nov 29, 2006)

Pigeon said:
			
		

> Hmm, well, they certainly were telling the truth about hunting for rabbits, but that doesn't necessarily mean they weren't rebel sympathisers: that's an odd slogan to have on an almanac, IMHO.
> 
> Thought it was a top film: I was cheering when Mercedes cut old bollock chops up, telling him he weren't the first pig she'd gutted.



I think it's irrelevent whether they were or weren't part of the resistance. Vidal never actually bothers to find out and the scene made it it clear that he was utterly ruthless and that he didn't give a toss about anybody's life but that of his unborn son.


----------



## fudgefactorfive (Nov 29, 2006)

This film has popped into my head at least once a day since I've seen it. Can't remember the last time a trip to the cinema did that for me.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Nov 29, 2006)

Groucho said:
			
		

> They said it was an old almanac. The Fascists objected to the fact that it had 'No God No country No master' written on it. Turned out they were not part of the rebels and were telling the truth about hunting for rabbits. They were still shot though.



Are you sure they were telling the truth about hunting for rabbits though? When boss-man tells Mercedes to cook it, the woman she gives it to says that its too skinny or small or something similar, which i took to mean that the rabbit could simply have been an alibi for their story. Layers upon layers, thats what i like about this, nothing as straightforward as it seems.


----------



## Groucho (Nov 29, 2006)

Pigeon said:
			
		

> that's an odd slogan to have on an almanac, IMHO.



No, not as odd as you might think.

Many Almanacs were politically radical (in some respects). Old Moor supported the American revolution and the French revolution. During the English Civil War there were Almanacs produced for the troops of both sides, each predicting victory... political slogans appeared on many, as did denunciations of the rich. 




			
				Reno said:
			
		

> I think it's irrelevent whether they were or weren't part of the marquis. Vidal never actually bothers to find out and the scene made it it clear that he was utterly ruthless and that he didn't give a toss about anybody's life but that of his unborn son.



Well, I thought it was fairly clear that they were innocent but that he didn't give a toss. They were stopped for being out under cover of darkness. They had a gun that had been fired. They claimed to be shooting rabbits. The rabbit was dug out of the bag after Vidal shot them. At which point he told his troops to search the 'scum' properly before bothering him next time indicating, I believe, that he realised that the rabbit showed their innocence. He was thus pissed off that his time had been wasted and regarded all peasant types as scum whether engaged in anti-fascist rebellion or not.


----------



## Pigeon (Nov 29, 2006)

Reno said:
			
		

> I think it's irrelevent whether they were or weren't part of the resistance. Vidal never actually bothers to find out and the scene made it it clear that he was utterly ruthless and that he didn't give a toss about anybody's life but that of his unborn son.



Oh, you're absolutely right. I only brought it up to make the point that the anarchist presence in the anti-Franco rebel forces is at least alluded to, as someone had previously said that it had been entirely written out of the story.


----------



## Pigeon (Nov 29, 2006)

Groucho said:
			
		

> No, not as odd as you might think.
> 
> Many Almanacs were politically radical (in some respects). Old Moor supported the American revolution and the French revolution. During the English Civil War there were Almanacs produced for the troops of both sides, each predicting victory... political slogans appeared on many, as did denunciations of the rich.



That's very interesting. You live & you learn.


----------



## geminisnake (Nov 29, 2006)

If I had realised it wasn't on at my nearest cinema I woulda asked if I could tag along with gaijingirl at the weekend.

No idea when it'll even be on


----------



## tastebud (Nov 30, 2006)

crustychick said:
			
		

> omg - I watched this last night and thought it was grim!
> 
> the fairy bits were cool as, but the civil war stuff was horrific. I guess the contrast was what he was trying to achieve but it thought was gruesome.
> 
> (although I did love the special effects for all the magic stuff - amazing!)


yeah i agree. great film but perhaps a bit too gruesome & scary for me. i guess i don't like fantasy stuff to be quite so scary and gruesome because i'm usually going to see it to escape the horrors of the world - tortue and that - i think i don't like this contrast too much, personally. same for tideland.


----------



## swampy (Dec 1, 2006)

Reno said:
			
		

> I'll never understand why people make such a fuss when it comes to the Barbican. Anything higher than 3 floors seems to be beyond the navigating capability of the British. The Barbican is right next to the Barbican tube station, so how can it be difficult to get to ? There are plenty of signs of where to go and to make it really easy for dummies there are yellow lines on the pavement leading you right into the main core of the building. Then you make your way to a lift, look up where the cinema is and get to the right floor. While you're at it check out the indoor jungle, it's like something out of the sci-fi classic Silent Running.



Mate, the number of times if utterly gotten lost trying to find my way around the fucking barbican. Sure it's easy enought to get close to it, but that's when the tourble starts, numerous random corridors, wonky construction works, lovewly sandwich .. then a boring conference at which you aslepp fall asleep in the front-end in!


----------



## Dubversion (Dec 1, 2006)

tastebud said:
			
		

> yeah i agree. great film but perhaps a bit too gruesome & scary for me. i guess i don't like fantasy stuff to be quite so scary and gruesome because i'm usually going to see it to escape the horrors of the world - tortue and that - i think i don't like this contrast too much, personally. same for tideland.



But if you make the mistake of watching it as 'a fantasy film', aren't you doing the film and yourself a disservice? it's not a 'fantasy film', it's a film about the spanish civil war with fantasy elements.


----------



## Groucho (Dec 1, 2006)

*Fantasy reality problematic concepts within film*




			
				Dubversion said:
			
		

> But if you make the mistake of watching it as 'a fantasy film', aren't you doing the film and yourself a disservice? it's not a 'fantasy film', it's a film about the spanish civil war with fantasy elements.



I didn't watch the film in the manner of Offelia's psychiatrist.

For fantasy to be any good it has to have something to say about the 'real' World or it needs to reflect our unconscious desires (or fears, where fears can be sexy). 

Even Harry Potter, which is aimed firstly at kids, deals directly with bullying, childhood heirarchies, abusive parents, all of the real life issues that give rise to escapism (to a World where the bespectacled bullied kid at the bottom of the pile gets to battle and defeat all adversaries).

Pans Labyrinth is in equal part fantasy and 'realism'.  'Realism' is a lie, since it can never be 'real' but, unlike fantasy, it claims to be a window on to real life. We enjoy or appreciate 'realism' when it tells us something we believe we ought to know about real life. Frequently 'realism' only speaks to the converted. I love Ken Loach's work, but I doubt his films convert many people to Socialism. Fantasy can speak directly to the unconscious in ways sometimes not dreamt of by the creator. 

The desire to relate all the fantasy elements back to the 'real' life elements in Pans Labyrinth is a predictable trait of the consciously rational mind. Film at its best doesn't imo speak to the consciously rational mind. 

A consciously rational mind will tell us that the girl is suffering in 'real life' in the film and retreats into fantasy that aint real. She fantasises or dreams or enters into, in a form of mental retreat, the 'fantasy elements' of the film. Really? But the 'real life' elements of the film are as unreal as the fantasy elements. The fantasy elements as real as the 'real' elements. There is no Holywood wobbling into 'dream' within the film. The fantasy is played out as real. From our point of view, which is primarily Offelia's point of view, the labyrinthian World is (as) real (as anything else). The labyrinth is not a code, but it can be decoded. Each person who decodes it will decypher a different message. 

Of course there are clear givens. The linkage of violent male power and Fascism, and the condemnation of both. But it is so much deeper isn't it?


----------



## Reno (Dec 1, 2006)

Groucho, that's how I feel about the film as well.


----------



## Blagsta (Dec 3, 2006)

Brilliant film.


----------



## kittyP (Dec 3, 2006)

Moggy said:
			
		

> Wicked to hear everyone enjoyed it, sorry for not making it on saturday - hadn't managed to get any sleep since the night before and was so twatted i managed to get lost inside london bridge station for half an hour on my way there, so decided to turn back



I have to say that Moggy managed to make our weekend by turning up back at out place and relaying the fact that he hadn't gone to the film as he couldn't work out how to get on the tube at London bridge and thought it would be easier to turn around and find his way 15 mins walk back to ours!

 he he he he


----------



## Brainaddict (Dec 3, 2006)

I've seen it and found it a bit *too* dark myself - especially given that in the end it's mostly just making the point that you shouldn't obey authority unquestioningly - which is a good point to make, but could actually be more usefully made in the context of decisions that those watching the film are likely to have to make, rather than in the context of standing up to a sick fascist torturer.

I mean, soon the entire population of this country will presumably be trotting along to ID registration centres to have facial/iris recognition data taken that could enable them to observed/followed on digital camera anywhere in the country, as the technology gets rolled out. 

I don't think a film like this will encourage people to oppose something like ID registration, for the very reason that the bad guy is *so* evil that it's obvious he should be opposed, while in reality what has to be opposed in our society is far less obviously evil.

But I realise that this is critiquing it on political grounds rather than aethetic/artistic. I'm not saying it was a bad film - though I also decided that in the end I prefer my fantasy a bit more escapist than that.


----------



## Groucho (Dec 3, 2006)

You want it either more escapist or else you want to see documentaries about ID cards?


----------



## Dubversion (Dec 3, 2006)

Groucho said:
			
		

> You want it either more escapist or else you want to see documentaries about ID cards?




I was confused by this too. I can't see how this film is supposed to be making people think about ID cards? Or why it needs to be escapist, either.


----------



## Brainaddict (Dec 3, 2006)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> I was confused by this too. I can't see how this film is supposed to be making people think about ID cards? Or why it needs to be escapist, either.


Of course I didn't want it to mention ID cards. My point is that the film is irrelevant to today's moral quandaries, and therefore delivers a worthy but ultimately pointless message. 

It doesn't need to be escapist, that's just what I like in a film* - an expression of personal taste.

*sometimes, and particularly when I see a fantasy film, because isn't that half the point?


----------



## Dubversion (Dec 3, 2006)

Brainaddict said:
			
		

> Of course I didn't want it to mention ID cards. My point is that the film is irrelevant to today's moral quandaries, and therefore delivers a worthy but ultimately pointless message.



of course it's not irrelevant to today's moral quandaries - the themes of the film are pretty universal, no?




			
				Brainaddict said:
			
		

> *sometimes, and particularly when I see a fantasy film, because isn't that half the point?



but as I've already said, i think it's a mistake to watch Pan's Labyrinth as a 'fantasy film'. You're judging it against something it doesn't profess to be.


----------



## Brainaddict (Dec 3, 2006)

Well yes, a universal theme, but imo expressed in such an extreme/unsubtle way that it is easy for the audience to be left thinking  'Thank goodness that's not the kind of problem I have to face, since I rarely encounter sadistic fascist torturers who kill small children'.
Regarding the kind of creeping authoritarianism we do have to face - my example being ID cards - it has nothing to say. Hence my suggestion of irrelevance.

ETA: you and I, who are aware of creeping authoritarianism under Blair, are likely to make the link between the different kinds of authoritarianism anyway, but my suggestion is that those who aren't aware in the same way we are would not think to apply the ideals of the film to their everyday interaction with the government.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Dec 7, 2006)

SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER


Saw this last night and thought it was fantastic - dark, moving, brutal, spellbinding and beautiful in a way that defies catergorisation. 

I dont understand people who cant deal with ambiguous story lines or look for an exact 'meaning' for the story - the film makes no attempt to tell us the 'reality' or otherwise of Ofelia's fantstical world, instead it shows us that this world is 'reality' for her.

I dont accept that her 'fantasy' world is an escape from the horrors of her 'real' experiences as both worlds are dark, dangerous and terrifying. It is more Ofelia's way of interpreting and engaging with the suffering around her - not escaping it. 

Wit regards to the eyeless child-eating monster (brrr..!) what no-one else seems  to have noticed is the pile of childrens shoes in the banqueting hall - which I took as a direct reference to the holucaust (the film is set in 1944) . The creature - a blind monster that slaughters innocents - surely represents fascism, not the church.

The fascist captain is a compelling and brutal tyrant, the fact that he kills and tortures so causally and with so little emotion projects how  he sees the lives of his victims as utterly worthless - his wife is merely a brood mare, the peasnts are 'scum', his step-daughter merely an ornament, the doctor is a functionary there to deliver his son into the world.  His denial of any sort of redemption at the end ('he wont even know your name') is viscerally satisfying for the audience.   

The images and emotions and ideas thrown up by this sweeping work of imagination will stay with me for a very long time.


----------



## Groucho (Dec 7, 2006)

KT I agree entirely. 

However, aspects of Fascism in Spain include the Church which, for the most part, sided with Franco. So church & Fascism not completely seperate entities.


----------



## Dubversion (Dec 7, 2006)

Kaka Tim said:
			
		

> Wit regards to the eyeless child-eating monster (brrr..!) what no-one else seems  to have noticed is the pile of childrens shoes in the banqueting hall - which I took as a direct reference to the holucaust (the film is set in 1944) . The creature - a blind monster that slaughters innocents - surely represents fascism, not the church.




well you said yourself we shouldn't be looking for exact meanings, so make your mind up  It's also a tad presumptious to assume that only you were eagle-eyed enough to spot the shoes, no?

Del Toro himself has said the pale man and the banquet represent the church, at least to some extent.


----------



## han (Dec 10, 2006)

Just seen this - fantastic film.

Beautiful, horrifying, magical.


----------



## Cloo (Dec 11, 2006)

han said:
			
		

> Just seen this - fantastic film.
> 
> Beautiful, horrifying, magical.


 My thoughts exactly... gsv didn't get why I was crying buckets at the end.


----------



## krtek a houby (Dec 11, 2006)

This and "The Wind that Shakes the Barley" - best films of the year.

Saw it in the local multiplex and not one popcorn muncher or bored teen in sight. Bliss.


----------



## Chorlton (Dec 11, 2006)

best.baddy.ever

very rare these days that i go to see a film that i hear so many good things about that i don't leave disapointed from.... but this is a great film


----------



## oneflewover (Dec 17, 2006)

Just back from seeing this. A wonderful film. Although i'm unable to analyse it like previous posters it is still thought provoking. When it finished nobody moved or spoke for about 3 mins, quite moving.


----------



## treelover (Dec 18, 2006)

In my local art cinema, they have kept it on for two more weeks as it is so popular


----------



## Loupylou (Dec 19, 2006)

Brainaddict said:
			
		

> I've seen it and found it a bit *too* dark myself - especially given that in the end it's mostly just making the point that you shouldn't obey authority unquestioningly - which is a good point to make, but could actually be more usefully made in the context of decisions that those watching the film are likely to have to make, rather than in the context of standing up to a sick fascist torturer.
> 
> I mean, soon the entire population of this country will presumably be trotting along to ID registration centres to have facial/iris recognition data taken that could enable them to observed/followed on digital camera anywhere in the country, as the technology gets rolled out.
> 
> ...



*WARNING! IMMINENT SPOILERS AHEAD!*

I went to see the film on Saturday night & was very moved by it.

To gee yourself up when having to oppose opressive & abusive behaviuor, it really helps to think of those who have got up off thier knees when they are at risk of torture, being killed & other degradation. There are also many people on the planet who are doing the same thing as we speak. 

I do not know if I would be able to resist under torture / threat to my life, & am somebody who has the privlege of never having been put in this position (yet), just by sheer chance of the time & place I was born. So as a duty to those who have done that & are doing that now, I strongly believe that if your life, home etc is not at risk, you have no choice & owe it to those people to stand up for yourself & others, & it helps put things into perspective when facing one of life's trials. Thinking about this means you can hold your head high, bolstered by the spirit of very brave, often very 'ordinary', people. As Nelson Mandela said (something like) 'every time you don't stand up against the small immoral things then a part of your soul dies & how are you going to stand up against the big things?'. How would you be able to look those who struggle in the eye? Therefore the line in the film that had most resonance for me & which I found most uplifting on a personal level was when the Dr replied to Vidal who asked him why he had not obeyed him & he said 'because to obey without question, could only be done by a person like you' (or something like that). I don't think this is simplistic or irrelevant. A straightforward univeral truth like this is incredibly powerful & we need to remember it. If we had remembered it, this country wouldn't be in shit state for a start.

I started going to Spain as a small child when Franco was in power & met old people who had fought against the Fascists. I remember the hated military police & many other things as we went there a lot & my father is very knowledgeable about the history of Spain etc. (It's about the only country in Europe I do know anything about......)

I found the 'pagan' aspects of the film very interesting, particularly re the mandrake root. Like some previous posters, I don't think it's entirely necessary to delve into the exact references, altho they are fascinating, but I also think that misses the point. I wondered how on earth the film was going to marry the fantasy aspect with the gruelling reality. I started thinking 'oh no, a faun isn't going to leap out & save them is it?' That would have been highly disrespectful to those who fought the fascists or had to live under their regime. I was delighted when it suddenly all dissipated & was all in her head; I thought this was an excellent resolution & very moving. I think people will bring their own beliefs to this, as that is how we experience art, but the little girl achieved some kind of salvation or whatever by not sacrificing the blood of an innocent to save herself. 

I don't understand the whys & wherefores of the film like how the 'visions' came to her or whether they were 'real' or not, & it didn't bother me in the slightest, whereas historical & other glaring inaccuracies in films can really irritate me at times. Here it didn't matter, & there is a strong tradition of 'magical reality' in some art, particularly in Latin America. I think that the mythological references are not meant to be accurate but evocative, & they ceratinly fed into some ancient universal knowledge that we have due to the symbolism. That's the whole point of symbolism & it's fascinating that this still resonates with us, even when you don't 'understand' on a consciuos level.  

I felt that the strong otherworld / underworld aspect was so powerful due to the strong bond between Fascism & the Catholic church in suppressing people. Also remember that in some parts of Spain it's possible that Chistianity was still quietly being resisted up into the first few centuries of the 18 century! they had Catholicism much later than anywhere else in Europe, so there are still traditions all over Spain that celebrate or practice some very un-Christian beleifs, & Spain has the richest trdition of this in the present day than anywhere else in Europe.
In my mind, herbalism & magyk in the film represented the 'old Spain' & the alternative to Catholicism / Fascism. 

The film was very different to what I expected - I too thought it would be a fantasy film, highly allegorical i.e. with little of 'reality' & lots of metaphor etc. I have always loved the illustrations of Arthur Rackham which were in one of the girl's books, so was drawn to the film, as the little I did read about the film prior to watching it mentioned him. I was intrigued by the setting due to my knowledge of Spain. To be honest, I don't think I would have gone if I'd known about the (pretty unrelenting) horror of the 'reality' scenes, so I'm glad I didnt know in advance, else I wouldn't have gone (if you catch my drift), as I am fairly squeamish. I am always taken aback by directors who can induce terror in the audiences' minds without much actual gore i.e. just the sight of the torture tools & a few words had me writhing in my seat! So when Mercedes was up for torture, the suspense was awful. I thought 'I cannot handle another torture scene', so the relief when she cut him was like a boil being lanced! I really liked the way the film addressed the issue of women's place in the fascist order.

What I kept thinking all the way through the film was about how short the collective human population's memory can be. It's only been 30 years since Franco died & Fascism is on the rise, & in fact a right wing party was re-elected much less than 30 years after his regime ended. Was that why the little girl's left hand was bleeding? (I know the communists / anarchists lost at the time the film related to, but I wondered if this had some reference to now? It did for me anyway.)

I would be really interested in what Spaniards think of the film as obviously it would have different resonance to them & obviuosly they have a deeper understanding of their country. Most English people have a different mentality from most Spaniards. I couldn't imagine a Spaniard writing some of the, frankly, wet responses to the film as in this thread.


----------



## MsDayglo (Dec 19, 2006)

I thought this one of the most powerful films I had seen for years.  

Loupylou's analysis is spot on.


----------



## hiccup (Jan 2, 2007)

Saw this last night. Was well impressed. It were proper dark and scary. The non-fantasy bits were actually much more disturbing and scary than the fantasy bits.... though maybe that shouldn't be a surprise. Thought the look of the whole thing was amazing too. Best film I've seen in _ages_.


----------



## Shandril19 (Jan 22, 2007)

Went this weekend to see it.

Not only did I think it was wonderful, but I was shocked and overwhelmingly pleased how packed it was.  The theater was absolutely sold out.  Wonderful!!!


----------



## Shandril19 (Jan 22, 2007)

Although, I've been really surprised by the number of small children I've seen at the theaters.


----------



## rekil (Jan 29, 2007)

It's doing surprisingly well at the US box office.

1. Epic Movie ($19.2m)
2. Smokin' Aces ($14.3m)
3. Night at the Museum ($9.45m)
4. Catch and Release ($8m)
5. Stomp the Yard ($7.8m)
6. Dreamgirls ($6.6m)
7. The Pursuit of Happyness ($5m)
8. Pan's Labyrinth ($4.5m)
9. The Queen ($4m)
10. The Hitcher ($3.59m)

It could be down to hispanic audiences, and Oscar nominations but I wonder if there's any other reason. How often do subtitled films do so well in the US.


----------



## Dubversion (Jan 29, 2007)

does seem unusually successful. I supposed Del Toro does have some kind of track record in the US as well cos of his "one for the studios, one for me" approach. But even so - good to see!


----------



## laptop (Jan 29, 2007)

copliker said:
			
		

> How often do subtitled films do so well in the US.



Hardly ever. They're almost never shown on TV, either. Not even cable channels, from what I remember.


----------



## Maltin (Jan 29, 2007)

copliker said:
			
		

> How often do subtitled films do so well in the US.


They do OK. Probably about the same as they do in the UK, if not slightly better.

Unsurprisingly, the distributors consider that there is a smaller demand for them and restrict the number of cinemas they play in.  They are probably right in their assumption, although it would be good if they were to receive a wider release.

In the UK (where it has grossed around £2m) Pan's Labyrinth played in a maximum of 88 cinema in one week, compared to 300 plus for the other major releases.  In the US, it has been on a maximum of 823 cinemas at a time, compared to over 3,000 for the major releases.

The top 10 grossing foreign language films of the last 10 years are:

Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon $128m
Life is Beautiful $57m
Hero	$54m
Amelie	$33m
Jet Li's Fearless	$24m
Kung Fu Hustle	$17m
The Motorcycle Diaries $17m
Pan's Labyrinth	$16m
Iron Monkey	$15m
Monsoon Wedding	$14m

The problem with the list is that I don't know which made all their money whilst being shown in a subtitled version.  Life is Beautiful received a limited release in a dubbed version.  I think that Crouching Tiger may have as well.

Crouching Tiger was the 12th highest grossing film in 2000.

When compared to films with similar distribution, they do very well.

For films with a limited release, Amelie was number 1 for its year and Motorcycle Diaries was second.

Life Is Beautiful and Jet Li's Fearless were in the top 10 for films that played in less than 2,000 cinemas at one time.

Compared to the other films on the list, I don't think Pan's Labyrinth performance is anything unusual.


----------



## Maltin (Jan 30, 2007)

copliker said:
			
		

> It could be down to hispanic audiences, and Oscar nominations but I wonder if there's any other reason.



Variety reported:

"The pic earned its success by going after the arthouse crowd, the fanboys and mainstream Hispanics--all at the same time.

In its promotional efforts, the company sprinkled in a mix of Comic-Con-esque fanfare alongside an arthouse campaign of broad critics screenings.

Del Toro has also been very visible during award-season campaigning; a shout-out from the podium at the Golden Globes from Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu didn't hurt.

As if that weren't a diverse enough set of targets, it also blanketed Hispanic radio and TV with ads."

It earlier described the audience as Geeks, Latinos and Cineastes.


----------



## Badger Kitten (Feb 4, 2007)

Still on at the Shaftesbury Av Odeon and boy, was it good.


----------



## Maltin (Feb 5, 2007)

copliker said:
			
		

> It's doing surprisingly well at the US box office.


It's now the highest grossing Spanish-language film in the US.


----------



## DexterTCN (Feb 11, 2007)

Watched it today, finally.   The cinema was half full, not bad in Edinburgh when the Scotland/Wales rugby match was about to start and Hearts were playing at home and the cinema had misprinted the start time by 45 minutes.

*SPOILERS*

The 'hand torture' reminded me slightly of 'In The Name Of The Rose'.   The whole violence/facism thing was avatistic, inhuman, real.   The fantastic elements were more appealing to me as a human - I connected more with them.   I preferred to believe in them, I opted for them.

To me, for me, the film did not require the scene where she met her parents at the end - it could have ended with her death and her blood dripping into the labyrinth.   It was a pleasure though. 

Why did she choose to open a different lock in the food room, and was correct?   Another subterfuge to test her?


----------



## DexterTCN (Feb 11, 2007)

Toro interview with Kermode.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Feb 26, 2007)

Uffffffff now i've finally seen this movie I am allowed to read this thread.
*signs with relief*
It was amazing wasn't it?
Best thing I've seen in a long time.


----------



## laptop (Feb 26, 2007)

3 Oscars but 2 only consolation Oscars: best art direction, best makeup and cinematography...


----------



## Treacle Toes (Feb 26, 2007)

laptop said:
			
		

> 3 Oscars but 2 only consolation Oscars: best art direction, best makeup and cinematography...


Woot! Anyway!


----------



## JohnC (Feb 26, 2007)

I finally got around to watching this last night (after it being on my computer for weeks) and I gotta say it was excellent. A very dark fantasy indeed - and the eye-thing was fab! Four stars from me.


----------



## Cid (Feb 26, 2007)

Brainaddict said:
			
		

> I've seen it and found it a bit *too* dark myself - especially given that in the end it's mostly just making the point that you shouldn't obey authority unquestioningly - which is a good point to make, but could actually be more usefully made in the context of decisions that those watching the film are likely to have to make, rather than in the context of standing up to a sick fascist torturer.
> 
> I mean, soon the entire population of this country will presumably be trotting along to ID registration centres to have facial/iris recognition data taken that could enable them to observed/followed on digital camera anywhere in the country, as the technology gets rolled out.
> 
> ...



It's not about this country though, it's about Spain which has a whole different set of political problems and issues... It fits in quite well with Basque separtism/eta etc.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Feb 26, 2007)

I've had a check disk for this for a bloody week now and still not got around to it. Tonight I going to have a go.


----------



## Nixon (Feb 26, 2007)

I saw this at the Ritzy a few weeks ago because my gf made me go with her..But I actually thought it was really really really fucking good.Probs best film i've seen this year  (so far..)


----------



## laptop (Feb 26, 2007)

Nixon said:
			
		

> I saw this at the Ritzy a few weeks ago because my gf made me go with her.



So thank her.

Worship at her feet, in fact 

[Contd. knobbing and sobbing...]


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Mar 5, 2007)

Watched a preview DVD last night. Tough stuff, not what I was expecting at all. I think I'll be ready to watch come and see soon. 

A very irregular film, fab.


----------



## Groucho (Mar 5, 2007)

*Great dvd set on way...*

Del Torro box set

Cronos
The Devil's Backbone
Pan Labyrinth

Three top rate fantastic spectacular and very _different _films with a common theme.


----------



## elevendayempire (Mar 6, 2007)

Groucho said:
			
		

> Del Torro box set
> 
> Cronos
> The Devil's Backbone
> ...


Except Amazon says that you only get the one-disc version of Pan's Labyrinth in the box set. Boo!  

SG


----------



## Badgers (Mar 7, 2007)

Too lazy to catch it at the cinema and decided to wait for the official DVD release to take advantage of the plasma rather than my dying CRT PC monitor and a lower quality download..... 

Should arrive on the 14-16th and I have yet to hear a bad review (from anyone with good/similar tast in films


----------



## madamv (Mar 10, 2007)

Sorry for the bump but had to add my heart to the others for this film.

I saw it last night, in a local theatre which pulls down a screen for movies.  It was so kitsch.

The movie is just breathtaking.  Sinister and magical, like every good fairy story.  I can't/don't watch films the way some of you guys do.  My brain would hurt too much.....


----------



## DexterTCN (Mar 12, 2007)

Special 2 disc DVD came out today 

£15 in HMV and it has big, cool postcards.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Mar 12, 2007)

Tee hee I get everything form Optimum for free and before it comes out. 

Sadly 90% of their output is wank. Pan and Angel A were pretty skill though.


----------



## T & P (Mar 13, 2007)

Just bought the DVD and watched it. What can I add, other than what's been said already? Great film.

It's only £13 at Virgin for those who are tempted by the way. Haven't watched the special features DVD yet though.


----------



## elevendayempire (Mar 14, 2007)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:
			
		

> Tee hee I get everything form Optimum for free and before it comes out.
> 
> Sadly 90% of their output is wank. Pan and Angel A were pretty skill though.


Ah, but do you get aesthetically-displeasing check discs, or do you get the pretty versions with the covers and everything? I got a check disc of The Notorious Bettie Page the other day, and there's a bloody copyright notice written through the centre of the frame for the _entire film_.    

SG


----------



## Badgers (Mar 14, 2007)

DexterTCN said:
			
		

> Special 2 disc DVD came out today
> 
> £15 in HMV and it has big, cool postcards.



Same from Amazon was £12.99 

It arrived yesterday but I think I will save it for the weekend


----------



## passenger (Mar 14, 2007)

watched half of it last night amazing film i found the bit 

where he kills the father and son a bit heavy


----------



## Groucho (Mar 14, 2007)

elevendayempire said:
			
		

> Except Amazon says that you only get the one-disc version of Pan's Labyrinth in the box set. Boo!
> 
> SG



Yes indeed and it has printed on it 'Disc 1'.  

What's on disc 2? 

I just felt that presentationaly the three films deserve to be in one box together in a set, so I bought the box set and will give away my copy of The Devil's Backbone.


----------



## elevendayempire (Mar 14, 2007)

Groucho said:
			
		

> Yes indeed and it has printed on it 'Disc 1'.
> 
> What's on disc 2?
> 
> I just felt that presentationaly the three films deserve to be in one box together in a set, so I bought the box set and will give away my copy of The Devil's Backbone.


I'll have it if it's going spare. 

SG


----------



## Groucho (Mar 14, 2007)

elevendayempire said:
			
		

> I'll have it if it's going spare.
> 
> SG



I already have a taker


----------



## Badgers (Mar 14, 2007)

The Devil's Backbone will be on my purchase list for this payday.... 
£8.97 including postage is the best I have seen so far  

Not so keen on box sets (apart from TV series) for some reason, I like to have the individual films


----------



## Badgers (Mar 14, 2007)

Duplicate post 

bin/ban/lol


----------



## Groucho (Mar 14, 2007)

Badgers said:
			
		

> The Devil's Backbone will be on my purchase list for this payday....
> £8.97 including postage is the best I have seen so far
> 
> Not so keen on box sets (apart from TV series) for some reason, I like to have the individual films



Depends in my view. Some films belong together. I have the Ring trilogy (Ring, Ring Two, Ring Zero - piss on the later Hollywood versions) in a great box set which includes in addition Hideo Nakata's wonderful whimsical film Sleeping Bride and a great double image card of Sadako emerging from the TV set


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Mar 14, 2007)

elevendayempire said:
			
		

> Ah, but do you get aesthetically-displeasing check discs, or do you get the pretty versions with the covers and everything? I got a check disc of The Notorious Bettie Page the other day, and there's a bloody copyright notice written through the centre of the frame for the _entire film_.
> 
> SG



The only discs I have ever had with burn in was 25 grams, broken glass and wolf creek. (both timecode).

I used to get the advance ones and the final boxed versions of everything released but then I was making a show about DVDs. All I get these days are Optimum releases, simply because they haven't take me off their list. 

I used to get all sorts of bollocks. I was given Martin Lawrences trousers for bad boys two and I have a kill bill tracksuit. 

Oh and three amazing DVD players and a 35'' flatscreen TV.


Those were the days.


----------



## May Kasahara (May 22, 2007)

Am I the last/latest person on Urban to catch this film? Finally got around to seeing it last night - I wanted to see it at the cinema so had to wait for the next batch of screenings at my local arthouse, since I missed it every other time.

Nothing to add to the fascinating exploration of all the different themes already on this thread; I just thought this was one of the best, most honest and well made films I have ever seen. Very grown-up in the way that he leaves so much open-ended for individual viewers to interpret in their own way, and not just in terms of the interplay between the fantastical and real life elements; it was a pleasure to see a film where characters' backstories (the Captain's obviously problematic relationship with his father, Ofelia's mum's sadness and the matter of how she came to be married to the Captain) were simply allowed to inform the film without being laboriously filled in as they so often are in 'mainstream' movies.

As well as the excellent performances and scripting etc, I was really, really impressed with the special effects - there was such attention to every little detail, from the big stuff like the labyrinth walls opening for Ofelia as she flees the Captain, to the Captain's eye haemorrhaging when he is shot in the face. Such painstaking work meant the SFX were seamlessly integrated into the 'real' fabric of events IMO, instead of having that cheesy tacked-on look you quite often get in films with a large fantastical element.

Marvellous  Both myself and Mr K left the cinema in a daze, still gripped even after the film had finished.

*puts 3 film boxset on wish list for next payday*


----------



## DexterTCN (Jun 8, 2007)

Wait until you watch it again.   

I revelled in its beauty second time around, enjoying the whole cinematography.

Does it mean anything that the same actor played both the Faun and the Pale Man?


----------



## girasol (Jun 20, 2007)

I've just ordered the dvd on account of watching it last night on a dodgy dvd player that caused us a lot of hassle - but gave me a good idea of how good it is, so much so I'm going to watch it again.  Got the one with the 2 dvds, rather than the box set (the same one as you, elevendayempire  )

I thought the girl who plays Ofelia was amazing, and what really got to me was how her scared breathing was played, and it gave a real sense for how terrified she was.

Looking forward to seeing it again, this time without any freeze ups


----------



## girasol (Jun 20, 2007)

DexterTCN said:
			
		

> Does it mean anything that the same actor played both the Faun and the Pale Man?



It probably means that they saved up a lot of money on actors I should think


----------



## Reno (Jun 20, 2007)

DexterTCN said:
			
		

> Wait until you watch it again.
> 
> I revelled in its beauty second time around, enjoying the whole cinematography.
> 
> Does it mean anything that the same actor played both the Faun and the Pale Man?



For me seeing it the second time made it a bit obvious how simplistic a film it is. There is no shading between the baddies and the good guys and the fantasy sequences don't really reflect as profoundly on the war story as many on here claim they do. The film does look beautiful and I still liked it, but there was something slightly hollow and predictable about it and I think it's a tad overrated.


----------



## J77 (Jun 20, 2007)

Saw it on a plane -- was quite nice -- a bit Willy Wonka tho


----------



## Brainaddict (Jun 20, 2007)

Reno said:
			
		

> For me seeing it the second time made it a bit obvious how simplistic a film it is. There is no shading between the baddies and the good guys and the fantasy sequences don't really reflect as profoundly on the war story as many on here claim it does. The film does look beautiful and I still liked it, but there was something slightly hollow and predictable about it.


Glad I'm not the only dissenter


----------



## DexterTCN (Jun 20, 2007)

Reno said:
			
		

> For me seeing it the second time made it a bit obvious how simplistic a film it is. There is no shading between the baddies and the good guys ...


It's a fairy tale 

And there is a lot of shading with the faun as a primary character.


----------



## Guineveretoo (Jun 20, 2007)

It's a horror film as well as a fairy tale!

It made me want to scream, and want to cry!

I knew virtually nothing about it before I watched it! 

Good film


----------



## Dissident Junk (Jun 21, 2007)

I share reno's view, I'm afraid.

I was very disappointed by Pan's Labyrinth, and very upset by the fact I was disappointed. I specialise in fantasy narratives and modern fairy tales, and, as such, I desparately wanted PL to be marvellous.

Unfortunately, it is riddled with problems.

I think the major one is that the fantasy sequences add little meaning, profundity or alternative perspective to the historical narrative. 

Within magic realism, where fantasy is the way the vulnerable assert their perspective over events outside of their control, fantastical events reveal the vulnerable's ontological power over their own experiences: for example, say, 'it is I, a lowly child/beggar/slum dweller who truly commandeers history, not Franco, Peron, Indira Ghandi, my local tin-pot dictator' and so on. 'And these great figures do not recognise how truly powerful I am and how my power made that happen', which is true -- the lowly common man has a power and influence that history often forgets.

This trope would seem a perfect tool for del Toro who, himself, says he has difficulty comprehending the events, and his place within them, of the civil war and cannot annunciate what he truly wants to say. Seeing as he has places a little vulnerable girl as a 'protagonist', he has so much room to do so much within the fantasy narrative. He had the ability to claim the civil war back from traditional historical readings of anonymous forces with figureheads, and show how one vulnerable individual understood the war around her through her own actions and their consequences. 

And as magic realism and fantasy allows the weak to read events and comprehend them in their own way, a way that makes sense to them and places them in the centre of history, rather than on the periphery where they tend to be left by the  majority, I would have assumed that del Toro would have used fantasy to reclaim the voices of the unheard, and reinforce that, within them, the war was a construct of the actions and decisions of the many, rather than the force of the few.  

But here is the problem. The film 'de-protagonises' his protagonist Ofelia. Her actions, both in the realm of the real and the real of fantasy, do not influence events in any way, and you simply cannot have a protagonist whose actions do not affect change the combined narrative structure. Ofelia, despite what she does, what decisions she makes, does not influence the narrative or the outcome. The fantasy narrative can be removed and you lose no meaning in the film.

This is largely because the fantasy narrative leaves Ofelia as powerless to render events into her own understanding, to control them, to be powerful a player within them, as her position does within the historical 'real' narrative. She is left a statistic; an un-individual whose actions are as meaningless within her own world as the world outside. 

So PL ends up as a film that runs an alternative narrative next to historical events, and this alternative fantasy narrative can not even be described as a fairy tale for it has no quest motif. Ofelia is given tasks that do not take her towards maturity nor do they affect action in the real world, redeem her position, nor do they particularly explain her death. Nor do they add an alternative metaphysical dimension to the real events that occur.   

If ofelia's actions in the fantasy world had had revealed her ability to affect change in, or comprehend, the real, the film would have used its fantasy narrative sequences to add depth and explain action in the real. Yet this does not occur. Ofelia has no comprehension of events at all. Even rendered into a childish fairytale world where she is the centre of all, she is as buffeted by illogical twists and turns as she is within Capitan Vidal's household.  

Yes, she is tried by typical means: do not eat the produce of the underworld, successfully complete three tasks to inherit the kingdom and fulfil the prophecy, overcome the labrynth, but as she fails, through little fault of her own, these failures are then meaningless in real time. When Persephone eats the pomegranite seeds of the underworld, she gives us winter. When Pandora opens the box, she gives us evil. When Ofelia eats the food of pale man's table, nothing occurs or explains changes in the real  -- apart from her close escape from the pale man's clutches and it does not affect her status with Capitan Vidal.

She is only a thing that fails and dies, even within her own inner world.

I actually believe the film would have been stronger, and more profound without the fantasy narrative. Then you would have had a vulnerable, sweet innocent girl murdered by ideology and fanaticism. The fantasy narrative only gives her a chance to assume power and centre stage, an opportunity that is never fulfilled, and, ultimately, results in the same conclusion.

The only messagre the fantasy narrative seems to give is that all is hopeless, nothing can be done, and death is the only refuge for the truly good who can do nothing to affect change. And this conclusion, I find, deeply difficult.


----------



## Guineveretoo (Jun 21, 2007)

I loved the film, but I had no expectations at all, since I knew nothing about it beforehand. I don't know what I would have thought if I had looked for a fantasy narrative, or a horror movie, or a fairy tale, or all of those...


----------



## slaar (Jun 21, 2007)

Dissident Junk said:
			
		

> I share reno's view, I'm afraid.
> 
> I was very disappointed by Pan's Labyrinth, and very upset by the fact I was disappointed. I specialise in fantasy narratives and modern fairy tales, and, as such, I desparately wanted PL to be marvellous.
> 
> ...


Interesting, this. I enjoyed the film, but I did often feel that the narrative link between the real and fantasy elements was lacking, and that the ending was weak / bleak in equal measures.


----------



## May Kasahara (Jun 23, 2007)

Dissident Junk said:
			
		

> Ofelia, despite what she does, what decisions she makes, does not influence the narrative or the outcome....She is left a statistic; an un-individual whose actions are as meaningless within her own world as the world outside....If ofelia's actions in the fantasy world had had revealed her ability to affect change in, or comprehend, the real, the film would have used its fantasy narrative sequences to add depth and explain action in the real. Yet this does not occur. Ofelia has no comprehension of events at all. Even rendered into a childish fairytale world where she is the centre of all, she is as buffeted by illogical twists and turns as she is within Capitan Vidal's household....She is only a thing that fails and dies, even within her own inner world....The only messagre the fantasy narrative seems to give is that all is hopeless, nothing can be done, and death is the only refuge for the truly good who can do nothing to affect change. And this conclusion, I find, deeply difficult.



See,I kind of thought this was the point. The fantasy narrative starts off with the traditional shape as you say (travel to the underworld, complete 3 tasks etc) but gradually becomes more and more random and meaningless, just as the horror and chaos of what is happening in the real world becomes harder for Ofelia to ignore. Her attempts to escape into the structured, predictable child's world of the fairy tale are thwarted by the ever more forceful intrusion of adult themes into her life - she cannot remain a child but is thrust into unwilling adulthood. Thus it seems to me that the ending is true to del Toro's inability to fully grasp and make sense of the civil war and its horrors and oppression, because ultimately there is no sense to be made. People hurt, people died, and for what? A temporary try for power or glory or righteousness, which ultimately ended up as a page in the history book and a load of forgotten names and stories.


----------



## mrs quoad (Jul 23, 2007)

Loved the film.

But the girl is blatantly made of 150% proof fail.


----------



## Reno (Jul 23, 2007)

DexterTCN said:
			
		

> It's a fairy tale .



Despite the thread title Pan's Labyrinth is not a fairy tale. Ofelieas imagination relates to fairytales, but most of the film is a historical drama/war film.





			
				DexterTCN said:
			
		

> And there is a lot of shading with the faun as a primary character.



I didn't see that much shading with the faun and I found the ghosts in Del Toro's superior companion piece, The Devils' Backbone a lot more interesting on an allegorical level.


----------



## Dubversion (Jul 23, 2007)

Dissident Junk said:
			
		

> The only messagre the fantasy narrative seems to give is that all is hopeless, nothing can be done, and death is the only refuge for the truly good who can do nothing to affect change. And this conclusion, I find, deeply difficult.



so your problem with the film is that it challenged your worldview?


----------



## Fruitloop (Jul 23, 2007)

Good criticisms from DJ, but I would have thought that was part of the point, that as a child caught up in a war situation she wasn't in control of her own destiny - the only thing that she was in control of was her interpretation of it, she could only master it by turning it into a fantasy narrative.

What was the alternative, her going all Die Hard and single-handedly wasting Franco's army?

Edited to add: that would have been sweet, actually.


----------



## maximilian ping (Jul 23, 2007)

*Ping say 'yay'*

Totally brilliant film

best i've seen in a while.


----------



## Dj TAB (Jul 23, 2007)

I enjoyed it, I was truly out of my tree whilst watching it which made it even more fun.....

Didn't really seem like a kids film in the end, very dark in places but I did enjoy it...


----------



## Reno (Jul 23, 2007)

Dj TAB said:
			
		

> Didn't really seem like a kids film in the end, very dark in places but I did enjoy it...



Who said it was a kids film ?


----------



## Groucho (Jul 23, 2007)

Dissident Junk said:
			
		

> ....I think the major one is that the fantasy sequences add little meaning, profundity or alternative perspective to the historical narrative. ........But here is the problem. The film 'de-protagonises' his protagonist Ofelia. Her actions, both in the realm of the real and the real of fantasy, do not influence events in any way, ....



Terrible criticism imo. It seems you want the film to follow a formula or else it is not 'proper' fantasy'. "This is not what fantasy/allegory/magic are for!!!  " but...

IMO the abuse of the 'genres' is not abuse at all. The film sidesteps out of well worn paths. In real life there are victims of war and fascism who are not saved by some heroic last minute intervention. Films are not real life, but they often (usually?) do try to deal with/represent/initiate a dialogue about aspects of real life. IMO Pans Labyrinth is one of the more successful. It contains hope - there are people fighting back against the Fascists, but it also contains hopelessness and despair. 

I am always confused by people who want everything to make sense in their fiction. Senseless acts of cruelty and violence that occur in war and under fascism rarely make sense. Actually half of my own life makes no sense whatsoever. Half the events around me make no sense or follow some alien logic imposed by people who like to think they are following a nicely pre-ordained plot (and then have nervous breakdowns when 'senseless' things happen). Films should provoke thought processes/stimulate imagination. I don't like closure in films - neat conclusions served on a plate following a formula. Life is rarely like that.


----------



## Dissident Junk (Jul 23, 2007)

My issue is that there is little point in having the fantasy narrative at all, because it seemingly has no narrative function. The fantasy sequences are redundant, you can take them out and yet not lose the narrative hypothesis of the film.

And it is difficult to have a protagonist that does not make choices that affect the narrative; futhermore, there is no notion of Ofelia and 'agonistes' because there is no challenge within the narrative for her. She is little more than a puppet with no self-consciousness idea of her state. She does not evolve, she does not learn, shew does not challenge -- you could say it is Victorian, but even Alice contradicted the Queens of Hearts.

You can argue that this is the point del Toro was trying to make. That they were all puppets in the civil war, and the innocent more than any, but I think fantasy techniques used, say, in Potter's Dreamchild would have been a better way to convey this idea, and still keep the eerie and inconclusive nature of the film.


----------



## Reno (Jul 23, 2007)

I was also thinking of Dreamchild, Dissident Junk, where the dark fantasy dream world of the real Alice Liddle was motivated in a pychologically much more complicated way. I too found the co-relation between the fantastic and the real too straightforward and obvious in Pan's Labyrinth. I had a "was that all ?" reaction by the end.


----------



## Groucho (Jul 23, 2007)

Dissident Junk said:
			
		

> My issue is that there is little point in having the fantasy narrative at all, because it seemingly has no narrative function. The fantasy sequences are redundant, you can take them out and yet not lose the narrative hypothesis of the film.
> 
> And it is difficult to have a protagonist that does not make choices that affect the narrative; futhermore, there is no notion of Ofelia and 'agonistes' because there is no challenge within the narrative for her. She is little more than a puppet with no self-consciousness idea of her state. She does not evolve, she does not learn, shew does not challenge -- you could say it is Victorian, but even Alice contradicted the Queens of Hearts.
> 
> You can argue that this is the point del Toro was trying to make. That they were all puppets in the civil war, and the innocent more than any, but I think fantasy techniques used, say, in Potter's Dreamchild would have been a better way to convey this idea, and still keep the eerie and inconclusive nature of the film.



The narrative elements can be seen as an alternative _reality_ if you like. One that surpasses the dull reality inhabited by the fascists. Then you can add that her alternative reality might in fact obscure some dreadful events in the 'real World' too horrible for her to comprehend. I think Ofelia's role is as victim where _the only hope is escape through fantasy and ultimately death_. The futility of a life destroyed by forces much greater than her and with her unable to influence events. At the same time the mother is a victim who seeks to contain the horrors by conforming and complying, but she is destroyed. Then you have the woman who takes a stand and fights back. Her and her comrades represent hope through struggle. They have not, unlike the mother, opted for the easy root of compliance. 

So you have the innocent powerless victim who cannot express her powerlessness through her actions only through her thoughts/dreams, the compliant victim and the victim who kicks arse. 

The monster is shot in the end. He lives for war and for glory and most of all for his legacy - his life is a fascist ideal - a legend for his child to marvel at and to, awestruck, desperately seek to live up to. But his twisted hope is snuffed out, the (patriarchal) line is broken. There is hope there too.


----------



## mrs quoad (Jul 23, 2007)

It was still a good film, and that kid was still blatantly made of 150% proof fail.

_Fin._​


----------



## Reno (Jul 23, 2007)

Groucho said:
			
		

> The narrative elements can be seen as an alternative _reality_ if you like. One that surpasses the dull reality inhabited by the fascists. Then you can add that her alternative reality might in fact obscure some dreadful events in the 'real World' too horrible for her to comprehend. I think Ofelia's role is as victim where _the only hope is escape through fantasy and ultimately death_. The futility of a life destroyed by forces much greater than her and with her unable to influence events. At the same time the mother is a victim who seeks to contain the horrors by conforming and complying, but she is destroyed. Then you have the woman who takes a stand and fights back. Her and her comrades represent hope through struggle. They have not, unlike the mother, opted for the easy root of compliance.
> 
> So you have the innocent powerless victim who cannot express her powerlessness through her actions only through her thoughts/dreams, the compliant victim and the victim who kicks arse.
> 
> The monster is shot in the end. He lives for war and for glory and most of all for his legacy - his life is a fascist ideal - a legend for his child to marvel at and to, awestruck, desperately seek to live up to. But his twisted hope is snuffed out, the (patriarchal) line is broken. There is hope there too.



Not sure why you are recaping the plot, I got all of that from watching the film. Your synopsis still doesn't convince me that there was that much to it or that it had anything new or interesting to say about the co-relation between war and the power of the imagination. It's not like the film goes over new ground, though it does have considerable style.


----------



## Dissident Junk (Jul 23, 2007)

I don't believe in the genre-worn paths of fantasy at all, but I do believe that fantasy is a language that give us access to, and covneys, meanings we can not rationally depict, state or grasp with our largely Socratian minds. The fantastical is the world of the upside-down, the non-rational, or that which inhabits the realm of the undeciderable -- objects or states that are neither one thing or another. Fantasy attempts to address the 'absences with presence': that which is both alive and dead, off and on, lowly yet powerful, black yet white.

Yet, in PL, something has gone wrong with this language somehow; it reinforces the realistic narrative, but doesn't open access to the realm beyond the real, to those absences with presence that Ofelia, as a child, may peceive in Vital's household -- the film is strangely stripped somehow, thin.

Take the laden-table scene with the grey man with eyes in his hands. What is that scene for? What does it do? Yes, there is a parallel with the Vital dining scene where Ofelia is late, but one does not inform the actions of Ofelia in the other, so what does that grey man scene mean?

Is the grey man scene Ofelia's way of processing, re-running, or even predicting, events? The fantasy narrative is not an escape, because otherwise Ofelia would have elevated her success rate in the fantasy narrative, so it must be some sort of processing of the events around her. That we have access to this as an audience suggests Ofelia's consciousness, of the real and her generation of the fantastical, is the eye of the film. This is great, but maybe a bit vague.

But then there's a problem with this. If Ofelia is the eye in the film, then why do we see events that occur after she is dead or when she is not around? You can argue the final fantasy scenes are the flutters of a dying mind, but then why can we, as an audience, then have access to the Vital/leftists confrontation at her corpse? 

I reckon there's possibly a point of view problem with PL, and del Toro has not used the power of fantasy to truly access the 'unspeakable' inherent in the Spanish civil war.


----------



## christonabike (Jul 23, 2007)

That's all very well, but does it have a talking dog in it?


----------



## Dubversion (Jul 23, 2007)

Dissident Junk said:
			
		

> so what does that grey man scene mean?




i saw the grey man as the catholic church


----------



## maximilian ping (Jul 23, 2007)

Dissident Junk said:
			
		

> I don't believe in the genre-worn paths of fantasy at all, but I do believe that fantasy is a language that give us access to, and covneys, meanings we can not rationally depict, state or grasp with our largely Socratian minds. The fantastical is the world of the upside-down, the non-rational, or that which inhabits the realm of the undeciderable -- objects or states that are neither one thing or another. Fantasy attempts to address the 'absences with presence': that which is both alive and dead, off and on, lowly yet powerful, black yet white.
> 
> Yet, in PL, something has gone wrong with this language somehow; it reinforces the realistic narrative, but doesn't open access to the realm beyond the real, to those absences with presence that Ofelia, as a child, may peceive in Vital's household -- the film is strangely stripped somehow, thin.
> 
> ...



fair points, but any chance of you speaking normally?


----------



## Leica (Jul 23, 2007)

Dissident Junk said:
			
		

> My issue is that there is little point in having the fantasy narrative at all, because it seemingly has no narrative function. The fantasy sequences are redundant, you can take them out and yet not lose the narrative hypothesis of the film.



I think one mistake you are making is that you are reading a movie as you would a book. The fantasy elements may not have a "narrative" function according to your theory, but they are part of the visual attraction -- to use your terms, images do have a "function" in a film.


----------



## DexterTCN (Jul 23, 2007)

> A long time ago, in the underground realm, where there are no lies or pain, there lived a Princess who dreamed of the human world. She dreamed of blue skies, soft breeze, and sunshine. One day, eluding her keepers, the Princess escaped. Once outside, the brightness blinded her and erased every trace of the past from her memory. She forgot who she was and where she came from. Her body suffered cold, sickness, and pain. Eventually, she died. However, her father, the King, always knew that the Princess' soul would return, perhaps in another body, in another place, at another time. And he would wait for her, until he drew his last breath, until the world stopped turning



del Tormo did his own Spanish to English translation.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 23, 2007)

fwiw, i thought it was a lot simpler - the fantasy elements are simply the girl downloading or transcribing mad events in real life, going on around her and uncontrollable to any degree, and also imagining some fantastical otherworld scenario that ultimately demonstrates that it's all coincidence and lies and luck. 

S'like William S Burroughs repeated, nothing is true, everything is permitted. And where does that get you? Fascism, foul deeds, and fairly bleak outlooks. Doesn't make Pans Labyrinyth a bad movie at all, more a thought-provoking one. imo.


----------



## laptop (Jul 23, 2007)

Dissident Junk said:
			
		

> Take the laden-table scene with the grey man with eyes in his hands. What is that scene for? What does it do? Yes, there is a parallel with the Vital dining scene where Ofelia is late, but one does not inform the actions of Ofelia in the other, so what does that grey man scene mean?



Dunno.

Talking it over with my friend after we'd been blown away by it, I promised myself I'd watch it again and take careful note of how (or whether) the fantasy scenes mirror scenes in the real world.

Her being dragged through the slime into the hole in the roots of the tree and confronted with the jewel in the gruesome beast - then returning from a real tree, covered in real mud, in real pain - is a bit obvious and horrific when put this way (though not obvious to all watching, the way del Tormo put it, as it were...)

My suspicion was that on re-watching I'd see more links. As I say, at the moment, dunno.


----------



## Groucho (Jul 24, 2007)

Dissident Junk said:
			
		

> .....
> But then there's a problem with this. If Ofelia is the eye in the film, then why do we see events that occur after she is dead or when she is not around? You can argue the final fantasy scenes are the flutters of a dying mind, but then why can we, as an audience, then have access to the Vital/leftists confrontation at her corpse? .....



I don't agree with this either. You seek to be too one dimensional. A film can move in and out of a number of different perspectives. There is no reason for a film to be confined to the minds eye of one character alone. The film did not clarify whether the 'fantasy' elements (as I said before this itself is an odd concept given that the 'real' elements are also fantasy in a sense as this is a fictional film) are in fact 'real' or in her head. That's left up to you. 

The 'A long time ago..' narration at the beginning of the film quoted above, sets the basis of the story. The 'fantasy' World is the narrative, it is what the film is about - Ofelia's return to her World where she is Princess. The fasisct stupidity of the 'real' World is just a backdrop. Whereas usually fantasy sequences are used to present morality tales to inform the central character for when they return, lesson learned, to the real World, in Pans Labyrinth it is the other way around. Except that that is only a small part of the story and only one way of looking at it (but an opposite topsy turvy way from yours)

There are actually at least three stories. Ofelia the powerless victim of fascist aggresion, Ofelia the Princess estranged from her World, and a (victorious) struggle against fascism. Each of the three weave in and out of each other, but if you follow just one the others can be looked at as largely immaterial backdrops. In the third Ofelia is just another victim serving to underline the callous barbarity of the fascists. However, the seperate stories are not really seperate. 

How does vision work? We don't look at one thing, we flit about from object to object, we move closer or further away. Visual art can't really keep up. How do thought processes work? We simultaneously process five senses worth of information plus memory plus the continuation of whatever thought process werre underway, often flitting to a new concept or fantasy as a consequence of external or internal stimula. How the fuck can a film even try to emulate that? Well interestingly we could be appalled by any film that deigned to be so chaotic. We string together events, even random unconnected events, into a narrative; we draw associations in our mind between unconnected events and occurances. If we didn't the randomness would kill us. In Pans Labyrinth you insist that the two seperate realities presented - the two World's - cannot be seperate, the one must be there to inform or illuminate the other. Well not if they are seperate unconnected Worlds - would that be crime against the genre?! I'm all for genre busting! As it happens I suspect that associations between the two realms can be drawn out, it is just that they are not obvious or explicit. For if they were obvious and explicit the presentation of two seperate 'real' Worlds as a possible interpretation would be compromised.

Mostly films have conformed to a stifling rational desire for straight-jackets. So films have often followed the principle of the simple narrative, beginning, middle, end. Visually this has been presented as a monoscopic more or less rigid, if not static, viewpoint. In 'real life' no-where and never do all things move together in a unified direction for the simple purpose of getting from A beginning via B middle to C end. The associations between strands in a film can be left to us to make because we will usually make them, but we have become used to all loose ends being tied for us, all things to be made explicit, obvious and purposeful or we feel conned. Except that _ I_ feel conned if a film seeks to do my all of my thinking for me.


----------



## laptop (Jul 25, 2007)

Groucho said:
			
		

> ...


----------



## rollinder (Jul 25, 2007)

seconded


----------



## Reno (Jul 25, 2007)

While I think Dissident Junks complaints of Ofelias point of view is somewhat narrow (there is no reason why the film should restric itself to Ofelias POV) I also don't agree with Groucho that the film is particulary complex on a narrative level or that it does anything unusual, as there have been so many other films where children escape from a terrible reality into an alternate world of dreams or fantasy and this one doesn't anything very different. I actually thought the film was too linear and conventional, not at all compelx or chaotic as Groucho describes it. I also thought the way the characters were drawn in the real world was svery black and white and there were moments which I found teeth grindingly predictable and some of the symbolism was just a bit clumsy. For instance you just know that the Alice in Wonderland dress gets ruined as soon as she puts it on. Not a bad film by any means, but rather overrated.


----------



## Groucho (Jul 25, 2007)

Reno said:
			
		

> While I think Dissident Junks complaints of Ofelias point of view is somewhat narrow (there is no reason why the film should restric itself to Ofelias POV) I also don't agree with Groucho that the film is particulary complex on a narrative level or that it does anything unusual, as there have been so many other films where children escape from a terrible reality into an alternate world of dreams or fantasy and this one doesn't anything very different. I actually thought the film was too linear and conventional, not at all compelx or chaotic as Groucho describes it. I also thought the way the characters were drawn in the real world was svery black and white and there were moments which I found teeth grindingly predictable and some of the symbolism was just a bit clumsy. For instance you just know that the Alice in Wonderland dress gets ruined as soon as she puts it on. Not a bad film by any means, but rather overrated.



I wasn't describing the film with my comments on the chaotic. I was decribing filmic possibilities. DJs critique seemed to me to be in part because of the relatively minor complexity of the plot and the lack of clearly established inter-related events in the 'real' and the 'fantasy' World. My rambling was on the limitless possibilities once you stray from straight forward linear narratives. However, I do think Pans Labyrinth works on a number of levels; one of which is very basic - a visual splendour.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 25, 2007)

I'm beginning to agre with Pingu now 
http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=215119&highlight=analyse


----------



## Badgers (Jul 26, 2007)

It is on at The Prince Charles Cinema tonight at 21:00


----------



## obanite (Jul 26, 2007)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> I'm beginning to agre with Pingu now
> http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=215119&highlight=analyse



Meh, what do you want, a thread full of vacuous praise?


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 26, 2007)

obanite said:
			
		

> Meh, what do you want, a thread full of vacuous praise?


No, not at all! I'm just confused by it all! I never saw all the levels people are seeing in this film and feel stoopid


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 26, 2007)

Badgers said:
			
		

> It is on at The Prince Charles Cinema tonight at 21:00



Well make sure that you don't go into it without paying attention to the dialectic undercurrent running through the magical realism that underpins the  Marxist analysis of civil war Spain, whilst similtaneously considering whether the way that the little girl looks at the camera in the second movement of the pseudo-mystical metamorphasis is actually intended to symbolise a deeper meaning, vis a vis, is she really just a naif, or is she actually intended to signify the entropy that drains the lifeblood out of any opposition to a totalitarian regime.

Or you could just go to the Prince Charles and enjoy the movie, now there's a thought.....


----------



## obanite (Jul 26, 2007)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> No, not at all! I'm just confused by it all! I never saw all the levels people are seeing in this film and feel stoopid



Oh right, I think some people are reading a bit much into it myself, but I still enjoy hearing what they think. I'm not great at spotting deeper meanings myself, which is why I kind of like it when people analyse it for me


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 26, 2007)

obanite said:
			
		

> Oh right, I think some people are reading a bit much into it myself, but I still enjoy hearing what they think. I'm not great at spotting deeper meanings myself, which is why I kind of like it when people analyse it for me


With you there, but I'm tiring of it now!


----------



## Belushi (Jul 26, 2007)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> No, not at all! I'm just confused by it all! I never saw all the levels people are seeing in this film and feel stoopid



It's because we went to a New University


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 26, 2007)

Belushi said:
			
		

> It's because we went to a New University


I studied literary and film theory though. I blame the skunk.
And laziness.


----------



## DrownedSheep (Aug 4, 2007)

For the fans/geeks, Del Toro has announced theres going to be action figures coming out, made by neca


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 4, 2007)

DrownedSheep said:
			
		

> For the fans/geeks, Del Toro has announced theres going to be action figures coming out, made by neca


----------



## DrownedSheep (Aug 4, 2007)

Well im excited


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 4, 2007)

Why would you want to play with action figures from Pan's Labyrinth?


----------



## DrownedSheep (Aug 4, 2007)

Dont want to play with them. Like to look that them cause they are pretty. They arent toys they are art.


----------



## Groucho (Aug 5, 2007)

DrownedSheep said:
			
		

> For the fans/geeks, Del Toro has announced theres going to be action figures coming out, made by neca



That's terrible.


----------



## Badgers (Aug 5, 2007)

Might watch this tonight


----------



## JTG (Oct 30, 2007)

Right well I've finally watched this now...

Have to admit I don't watch films on the same level some of you guys do and I have no desire to critique it in the style of a bloody film studies essay. I write in normal English me.

I do find it hard to accept the idea some people are seemingly taking for granted that the fantasy stuff is only in Ofelia's head. How the hell did she manage to walk through three walls to (briefly) escape from Captain Cuntybollocks then? Maybe I'm inherently more romantic when it comes to these things (I was bought up on fantasy books/movies) but I don't see any reason to necessarily disbelieve the literal reality of what she saw. It's a film, anything can be true 

I would like to see more comment from a Spanish perspective (especially the director's own) before drawing conclusions on what it's all about though. The general themes are fairly clear (fascists are cunts for example) but obviously the subtleties need to be spelled out for ignoramuses like me. I'd like to point out that it's not actually set in the Civil War though, it had been over for eight years by the time the film opens 

Anyway, quality film, absolutely loved it and look forward to seeing it again having read more criticisms of the plot and themes etc. Wonderful


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Oct 30, 2007)

The civil war ended but the fascists remained in power. For Franco to remain in power with the complicit support of so many "democratic" nations makes a mockery of democracy imo. And yes i think its a very good film too, very enjoyable


----------



## Wolveryeti (Oct 30, 2007)

The SFX were ace, but I was disappointed by the dyed in the wool villains, and crudely realised 'eccentric' characters (e.g. the one with a stutter). 

A poor man's Delicatessen  if you ask me.


----------



## JTG (Oct 30, 2007)

DapperDonDamaja said:
			
		

> The SFX were ace, but I was disappointed by the dyed in the wool villains, and crudely realised 'eccentric' characters (e.g. the one with a stutter).
> 
> A poor man's Delicatessen  if you ask me.



There was only one villain in the story, the rest were just lackeys doing their jobs. Can't think of any 'eccentric' characters either, even the stuttering bloke didn't strike me as being deliberately eccentric.

I'm about to watch Delicatessen but it doesn't sound much like PL to me.

You're right about the effects though


----------



## JTG (Oct 30, 2007)

DapperDonDamaja said:
			
		

> A poor man's Delicatessen  if you ask me.


so:

Pan's Labyrinth - Spanish language tale of a little girl's encounters (real or imaginary) in a hidden fantastical world whilst the reality of her 'real life' situation as the step daughter of a sadistic fascist becomes ever more grim

Delicatessen: French language League of Gentlemen remake without the laughs

apart from not being in English and both having a group of entirely dissimilar resistance fighters, how are they at all similar? How is the latter a poor man's version of the former?


----------



## mauvais (Oct 30, 2007)

JTG said:
			
		

> Delicatessen: French language League of Gentlemen remake without the laughs


 

You do know it's from 1991, right?


----------



## JTG (Oct 30, 2007)

mauvais said:
			
		

> You do know it's from 1991, right?



I had no idea when it was made, was merely saying what it reminded me of

don't think much of it tbh

but that isn't the point - how can DDD draw any sort of comparison between the two? They're completely and totally different.


----------



## mauvais (Oct 30, 2007)

JTG said:
			
		

> I had no idea when it was made, was merely saying what it reminded me of
> 
> don't think much of it tbh
> 
> but that isn't the point - how can DDD draw any sort of comparison between the two? They're completely and totally different.


TBF I thought it was shot in a very similar, immediately identifiable as European, way. There's also something about the kind of narrative that's common between the two.

In terms of story and therefore probably target audience, very little, but there are parallels.


----------



## JTG (Oct 30, 2007)

mauvais said:
			
		

> TBF I thought it was shot in a very similar, immediately identifiable as European, way. There's also something about the kind of narrative that's common between the two.



don't see that at all but hey ho.

I'm not sympathising with anyone in delicatessen. possibly they're all too french for me to identify with


----------



## Wolveryeti (Oct 31, 2007)

mauvais said:
			
		

> TBF I thought it was shot in a very similar, immediately identifiable as European, way. There's also something about the kind of narrative that's common between the two.
> 
> In terms of story and therefore probably target audience, very little, but there are parallels.



Yes - completely different themes, but a very similar kind of whimsical and distinctively continental approach.

However, whilst I found the Jeunet's effort imaginative, engaging and sublime, Del Toro's (whether by his fault or not) just left me cold. I didn't know enough about the characters beyond their inanely contrived idiosyncrasies, I didn't care about the stupid brat, and was absolutely on the edge of my seat hoping the eye monster would gobble her up. Only the faun really deserved a curtain call, and that's a pretty damning indictment of the film when he's a CGI character. 

Anyway, it very much seemed as if Del Toro was a 6th form student asked to do a story using the cinematic flourishes employed in Delicatessen. It borrows very heavily from it IMO.


----------



## Wolveryeti (Oct 31, 2007)

JTG said:
			
		

> Delicatessen: French language League of Gentlemen remake without the laughs



Delicatessen is riotously good. You must have just received news of your entire family dying or something to not find it funny.


----------



## rover07 (Oct 31, 2007)

Great film, best bit... when she sliced the captains mouth open... owww!


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 31, 2007)

Is this just being released in UK?


----------



## rover07 (Oct 31, 2007)

I think it's already been on at the cinema... you can get it on DVD now


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 31, 2007)

rover07 said:
			
		

> I think it's already been on at the cinema... you can get it on DVD now



That makes more sense. It was in the cinema here months ago, and is on DVD and the movie channels now. 

At the beginning of the thread, people were talking about looking forward to it, so I assumed it hadn't been released yet.


----------



## JTG (Oct 31, 2007)

DapperDonDamaja said:
			
		

> Delicatessen is riotously good. You must have just received news of your entire family dying or something to not find it funny.


or just not be French.

I found it utterly annoying and in a word, crap.


----------



## Dubversion (Oct 31, 2007)

DapperDonDamaja said:
			
		

> A poor man's Delicatessen  if you ask me.



what nonsense


----------



## zenie (Oct 31, 2007)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> At the beginning of the thread, people were talking about looking forward to it, so I assumed it hadn't been released yet.


 
It hadn't...over a year ago when I started the thread


----------



## Brainaddict (Oct 31, 2007)

Did you know that the reason films have traditionally been released a bit later here than in the US is that to save on creating more film prints we have traditionally been sent the US's second-hand reels when they're done with them. I was fascinated to discover this


----------



## Reno (Oct 31, 2007)

DapperDonDamaja said:
			
		

> Only the faun really deserved a curtain call, and that's a pretty damning indictment of the film when he's a CGI character.



He was an actor, only agumented by CG in a few shots of his legs.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Nov 1, 2007)

mauvais said:
			
		

> TBF I thought it was shot in a very similar, immediately identifiable as European, way.



I disagree.  The fantasy/horror bits of PL look very much American style, while the 'real' bits are pure gritty film type stuff.  Delicatessen on the other hand is visually unique and done in the style that is unmistakeably jeunet's (he's one of the few directors whose films you can instantly recognise from a mere shot, along with kubrick and a few others).

That said, I thought PL was a better film than Delicatessen.

And JTG is right - the comparison was ludicrous.


----------



## cliche guevara (Aug 4, 2008)

Huge bump because I watched this at the weekend and it was awesome. I was expecting a proper fantasy wankfest, but it was captivating and brilliant.
The biblical ideas of forbidden fruit/sacrifice/pride issues were such an obvious choice of plot mechanism, but worked so well.


----------



## Crispy (Oct 21, 2008)

Another massive bump.

Just got round to watching this and it's fantastic.

Also, LOL at all the film studies interpro-wank  - I watched a story about the princess of the underworld, trapped in post-revolutionary spain. It was great.


----------



## El Jefe (Oct 21, 2008)

On a couple of occasions I've heard Danny Baker rail against Pan's Labyrinth, he described it as vile and pornographic. But I missed the initial rant, does anyone know why he took against it so?


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Oct 21, 2008)

cos he's a dick?


----------



## scalyboy (Oct 21, 2008)

El Jefe said:


> Danny Baker [...]described it as[...]pornographic.



eh??

Pornographic -what's he on about?


----------



## El Jefe (Oct 21, 2008)

scalyboy said:


> eh??
> 
> Pornographic -what's he on about?



I don't think he meant it literally

ie: pornography doesn't necessarily solely refer to sexuality.


----------



## dodgepot (Oct 21, 2008)

Crispy said:


> I watched a story about the princess of the underworld, trapped in post-revolutionary spain. It was great.



yes. an excellent film


----------



## foo (Oct 21, 2008)

El Jefe said:


> I don't think he meant it literally
> 
> ie: pornography doesn't necessarily solely refer to sexuality.



but what did he mean then?  

i love this film. and the monster is the best monster *ever*.


----------



## mrs quoad (Jan 20, 2010)

WE watched it last night!

I'd forgotten LOADS!

But by god, it's a good film!!!!!


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Jan 20, 2010)

Indeed it is, and the boat doesn't come to recuse her at the end of this one that's for sure.


----------



## mrs quoad (Jan 20, 2010)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> Indeed it is, and the boat doesn't come to recuse her at the end of this one that's for sure.



Yeah, t'gf and I were having a discussion about that.

I'd completely forgotten the whole fairytale ending. And thought she'd just died in a pool of her own blood, bleak and hopeless.

As it was, seemed a bit more ambivalent. T'gf loved it, I'm sticking to the belief that it was all in her head. Maybe


----------



## Private Storm (Jan 20, 2010)

mrs quoad said:


> WE watched it last night!
> 
> I'd forgotten LOADS!
> 
> But by god, it's a good film!!!!!



Bizarrely, so did we. Great film, looked stunning/beautiful/horrifying all the way through.


----------



## Badgers (Jan 20, 2010)

I thought this was amazing. 
Lent it to my sister telling her it was an amazing fantasy film. 
She had many nightmares


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Jan 20, 2010)

mrs quoad said:


> Yeah, t'gf and I were having a discussion about that.
> 
> I'd completely forgotten the whole fairytale ending. And thought she'd just died in a pool of her own blood, bleak and hopeless.
> 
> As it was, seemed a bit more ambivalent. T'gf loved it, I'm sticking to the belief that it was all in her head. Maybe



Er? I thought it was fairly clear all the fairy tale stuff was in her head and she was dead.


----------



## mrs quoad (Jan 20, 2010)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> Er? I thought it was fairly clear all the fairy tale stuff was in her head and she was dead.



Yeah, no, not entirely really.

Yeah, she's blates dead _in this world_. Ennit. 

But there's the stuff about the portal which could, you know, be a bit of 'The Road'-esque cop-outery.

The only bit that makes it transparently seem as if it's in her head is when the Captain sees her talking to the faun, and the faun isn't there. No?


----------



## Reno (Jan 20, 2010)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> Er? I thought it was fairly clear all the fairy tale stuff was in her head and she was dead.



You are really not very good on picking up on ambiguous endings, are you.


----------



## bi0boy (Jan 20, 2010)

I thought this was shit.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jan 20, 2010)

Got this for Christmas, haven't got round to rewatching yet as I want to give it the attention it deserves. Sadly that suggests it will remain unwatched for a while


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Jan 20, 2010)

Reno said:


> You are really not very good on picking up on ambiguous endings, are you.



What? I wanted an ambiguous ending for COM you dingus. I like them, all those strange Miike Takashi endings (in the older films) got me all tingly. 
In Pans I thought it was fairly clear even before the ending that the fairy tale world was in her head. Yes of course I see that the film leaves this (and has to) in a fairly ambiguous state but that doesn't mean I can't have an opinion on it. 
Del-Torro said he considered the film an ink blot test, some see hope and others see bleak stark reality.


----------



## Reno (Jan 20, 2010)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> What? I wanted an ambiguous ending for COM you dingus. I like them, all those strange Miike Takashi endings (in the older films) got me all tingly.
> In Pans I thought it was fairly clear even before the ending that the fairy tale world was in her head. Yes of course I see that the film leaves this (and has to) in a fairly ambiguous state but that doesn't mean I can't have an opinion on it.
> Del-Torro said he considered the film an ink blot test, some see hope and others see bleak stark reality.



I wouldn't be too sure who the "dingus" is. Funnily enough, this is what Alfonso Cuaron said about the ending of Children of Men:

_We wanted the end to be a glimpse of a possibility of hope, for the audience to invest their own sense of hope into that ending. So if you're a hopeful person you'll see a lot of hope, and if you're a bleak person you'll see a complete hopelessness at the end._

In both films the lead dies at the end. Both have ambiguous endings with a glimmer of hope that the world might be a slightly better place as a result of the heroes/heroines self sacrifice (for an infant in both cases), but for you one film has a happy ending and another one a bleak one.

Your arrogance and poor manners on here are becoming tiresome btw. I have a theory about people who feel they have to resort to personal insults in a debate...


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 20, 2010)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> you dingus.



Don't call people that.


----------

