| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Whippersnapper. 
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
 Posted - 03/01/2007 : 10:29:17
|
Yes, ok, but real to whom in the context of the movie is the real question. To Orfelia? To the other characters? To the audience? You seem to think that saying "he believes the fantasy is real" is illuminating, but in fact it is deeply nebulous and confusing.
There are multiple realities here, as in all film, but the question I was addressing earlier in this thread was whether the audience should believe in the context of a post-film discussion that Orfelia dies when shot at close range by a fascist or becomes a princess in a magical subterranean kingdom.
Here I have to insist that, for me, the logical interpretation is that she dies when shot by a bullet rather than being whisked off to be a princess in a magic kingdom. This is because I do not actually believe in fairies or giant frogs or magical subterranean kingdoms.
If I believed in the possibility of fairies and giant frogs and magical subterranean kingdoms I would be more equivocal, but I just don't. Sorry.
Serious themes can, and do, co-exist with fantasy elements all the time. The question is how successfully they do so in a particular context.
The one thing you're del Toro quote leads me to think it this: his effective admission that his personal vision is less ambiguous than that of the finished film supports my feeling that there is a disclarity within the film's meaning. In effect he is saying that he tried to have his cake and eat it, and to me it shows through.
|
 |
|
|
rabid kazook 
"Pushing the antelope"
|
Posted - 03/01/2007 : 11:05:43
|
quote:
Originally posted by demonic
I highly recommend "The Devil's Backbone", an earlier film by Del Toro, to anyone who enjoyed "Pan's Labyrinth". I actually think it's better.
I think both are kinda average. I moreover base this on my view that past this filmic gorgeusness of style (I so wanted to love it because of that, still...), there are these really cheesy relationships and character motivations, that are not particulary ripe and all that. Maybe if movie wasn't in Spanish, I could find my way through this cheesyness... compermisso, ayo achi... maybe. Sure in no way I shouldn't slender Del Toro for his trying and/or failing when he can bewilder such many people in the world with this flick... but he ain't a director who can particulary put out a dramatic feature. 
Now mix this into all of it too - I'm a something of a fan of Hellboy and Blade 2. |
|
|
|
MisterBadIdea 
"PLZ GET MILK, KTHXBYE"
|
Posted - 03/01/2007 : 11:35:01
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
Yes, ok, but real to whom in the context of the movie is the real question. To Orfelia? To the other characters? To the audience? You seem to think that saying "he believes the fantasy is real" is illuminating, but in fact it is deeply nebulous and confusing.
There are multiple realities here, as in all film, but the question I was addressing earlier in this thread was whether the audience should believe in the context of a post-film discussion that Orfelia dies when shot at close range by a fascist or becomes a princess in a magical subterranean kingdom.
Here I have to insist that, for me, the logical interpretation is that she dies when shot by a bullet rather than being whisked off to be a princess in a magic kingdom. This is because I do not actually believe in fairies or giant frogs or magical subterranean kingdoms.
If I believed in the possibility of fairies and giant frogs and magical subterranean kingdoms I would be more equivocal, but I just don't. Sorry.
Serious themes can, and do, co-exist with fantasy elements all the time. The question is how successfully they do so in a particular context.
The one thing you're del Toro quote leads me to think it this: his effective admission that his personal vision is less ambiguous than that of the finished film supports my feeling that there is a disclarity within the film's meaning. In effect he is saying that he tried to have his cake and eat it, and to me it shows through.
Does Oz exist, or did Dorothy dream it?
I personally don't believe in magical singing lions, flying monkeys, or good fairies. Logically, it makes more sense that it doesn't exist. But movies aren't exactly a realm of pure logic, and interpreting The Wizard of Oz as just a silly girl's dream destroys the magic of the movie. It makes it meaningless, in my opinion. For the movie to work, I think, you have to believe that what is going on in Oz is actually happening to Dorothy.
I have to say I still don't understand your argument. It doesn't matter whether or not you believe in fairies. Not in the slightest little bit. There's plenty of room for an interpretation that says that she made it all up, I'm not saying there isn't. But there's also room for an interpretation that it was all true. While Del Toro has his own interpretation, he leaves it up to the viewer to decide, just like it's your own decision whether Hobbes really does come to life when only Calvin is around, or whether Snuffalupagus is only Big Bird's imaginary friend. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian 
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 03/01/2007 : 11:35:40
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
Yes, ok, but real to whom in the context of the movie is the real question. To Orfelia? To the other characters? To the audience? You seem to think that saying "he believes the fantasy is real" is illuminating, but in fact it is deeply nebulous and confusing.
I think that del Toro's comment was perfectly clear on this matter. He left it intentionally ambiguous, so that people's different interpretations would all be valid, but his own view of the truth behind the world of the film is that the underworld elements are real - not just 'real' for Ofelia (I don't know where you dreamt up Orfelia from), but actually real.
quote:
This is because I do not actually believe in fairies or giant frogs or magical subterranean kingdoms.
It is such a fundamental convention that something can be true in a film but not in real life that it is bizarre to object to it on that basis. |
Edited by - Demisemicenturian on 03/01/2007 11:36:16 |
|
|
|
Whippersnapper.
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 03/01/2007 : 12:55:07
|
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
Does Oz exist, or did Dorothy dream it?
I personally don't believe in magical singing lions, flying monkeys, or good fairies. Logically, it makes more sense that it doesn't exist. But movies aren't exactly a realm of pure logic, and interpreting The Wizard of Oz as just a silly girl's dream destroys the magic of the movie. It makes it meaningless, in my opinion. For the movie to work, I think, you have to believe that what is going on in Oz is actually happening to Dorothy.
During the film you suspend disbelief, sure, but in a post-film discussion it is unreasonable, in my view, to be ambivalent about whether Oz exists or not - it was clearly shown to be a dream. As a matter of fact the Wizard Of Oz is, as I remember, pretty clear about this, more so than PL.
I have to say I still don't understand your argument. It doesn't matter whether or not you believe in fairies. Not in the slightest little bit. There's plenty of room for an interpretation that says that she made it all up, I'm not saying there isn't. But there's also room for an interpretation that it was all true. While Del Toro has his own interpretation, he leaves it up to the viewer to decide, just like it's your own decision whether Hobbes really does come to life when only Calvin is around, or whether Snuffalupagus is only Big Bird's imaginary friend.
Firstly, remember it is post-film interpretations I am talking about here, not what you might think whilst watching the film. If, given that, you still think that believing the fantasies could be real is reasonable, ok, let's agree to disagree on it, because we've tested each other's views and ultimately neither of us wants to tell the other what they should or shouldn't think.
[/quote]
On RK's comments, I think we are pretty much on the same lines on this film. It has some strong plus points - its just that most of the people here have ignored its weaknesses, including paper thin characterisations.
I think the fact that this is put against the background of a civil war makes the lack of rounded characters more bothersome, the point being that most of the evil is done by people who are not pure evil but are nice to their friends and families etc. This is what should be shown in civil wars, not just cut-out wickedness. We should be aware of the potential for wickedness in everyone, including ourselves. I expect that coming from Croatia you RK know more about this than most of us.
However, I consider both PL and DB - I prefer DB myself - as well above average cinematic output, and I don't have any problem with criticising those aspects of an above average film which IMHO fail, even if, as you rightly say, so many people are clearly unbothered by them.
|
|
|
|
BaftaBaby 
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 03/01/2007 : 13:57:27
|
DB aside, the elements of Pan's Labyrinth need to be evaluated in respect of Ofelia's pov. That's why, imho, del Toro's ambivalent phrase about fantasy/reality makes sense. I've highlighted below some expansion on this from my pre-BAFTA film review:
I'm reluctant to over-praise this unnerving del Toro cine-fable since it's so easy to raise expectations about the kind of film you're going to see. Pan's Labyrinth isn't the first film to transcend genre,it isn't even del Toro's first to do so; but I must admit both the trailer and reviewers' hype led me to expect something very differently balanced, more weighted on the fantastical horror side. Nevertheless, fable it is complete with a profound morality, and fabulist in part is its execution. Think Alice in Wonderland by way of Maurice Sendak crossed with Elem Klimov's disturbing Come and See.
In that it is rooted deeply in a relentless and murky reality, Pan's Labyrinth shares much with Klimov's view of obscene Nazi brutality through the eyes of a pre-pubescent child: in the Russian film the child is a boy who becomes deranged by what he witnesses, and in del Toro's post Spanish Civil war setting, it's young Ofelia who is changed utterly, thrust as she is into the daily horrors of a fascist military encampment. The soldiers protecting Franco's Spain against leftist insurgents are commanded by Capit�n Vidal, recently married to Ofelia's widowed mother, who's heavily pregnant with his baby and having a rough time of it. At his most benign the Capit�n merely tolerates Ofelia, and the growing threat of the rebels nudges him steadily to reveal his most malignant essence.
In order for del Toro to immerse Ofelia in an expressionist vision of her real world, the claustrophic world of the encampment - a basic farmhouse in the middle of a wood - is not only devoid of other children, but all the adults are depicted in the simplistic tones that a child like Ofelia would observe. Forget character arc, Vidal is the enemy from the first; the housekeeper Mercedes becomes an early ally; and the woods themselves take on a living presence. A feature of the forest is a stone labyrinth, full of promise and terror in equal measure. And it is to the labyrinth that Ofelia retreats from her increasing discomfort among the adults.
In this created world del Toro embodies Ofelia's sense of danger. This is no cutsey wonderland and its creatures, though visually astounding, bring little redemptive comfort and certainly no humour. Ofelia is confronted by Pan, a faun who seems to be in continual pain but determined in his mission to test the little girl so she can prove her destiny to rule his domain as its true Princess. Neither the bizarre faun nor his tests, mythic as they are and singularly unpleasant elicit any fear in Ofelia, who feels impelled to obey whatever the consequences will be when she returns to the real world. After all, in a world where she has no possibility of exercising any control over her circumstances, Pan's Labyrinth holds the promise of granting her the dominion. That her reign will contrast to Vidal's in its benevolence is the heart of the story.
In parallel to her descent into her internal world, Mercedes and the camp doctor, plot secretly to help the band of rebels hiding out in the woods. Ofelia's mother battles her illness to assure her baby will be born safely. And Vidal cloaks his insecurities, paranoia, and power-lust behind a near fanatical devotion first to the idea of the baby and then to the child itself. His wife, its mother, has become in his eyes a mere vessel to deliver the embodiment of his destiny, his name. She's perfectly expendable and he no more mourns her death than that of the enemies he so summarily kills.
In recognition that the real world holds greater horrors than any invented fantasy del Toro shrouds those scenes in murk and half-light, often draining the screen of all colour, which is saved for Ofelia's forays into the labyrinth, most especially in one of the final scenes of an almost spiritual dimension, radiant with light. The Labyrinth creatures charm us as well as Ofelia in the sense of exerting a potent and magical force. Perhaps it's because we know that Ofelia's relation to these creatures is an expression of her battle with impotence that they're both more and less horrifying than, for example, the monsters in Harry Potter or LOTR.
Pan's Labyrinth isn't easy to watch, but it's rivetting, both as a moral tale and as a truly accomplished piece of cinema.
|
|
|
|
Whippersnapper.
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 03/01/2007 : 14:39:46
|
but all the adults are depicted in the simplistic tones that a child like Ofelia would observe.
They are certainly depicted simplistically, but this extends not only to scenes where Orfelia is not present but also to situations in which she would have no knowledge - for example the moments of extreme violence. This may or may not be deliberate Expressionism - I'm a little cynical as the characterisations in The Devil's Backbone are no better rounded (although in fairness it is also about children) - but I don't see the legitimacy of one character, who is not the narrator, being the audience's filter of characters and situations of which she is unaware. It may have been fully intended, but, outside of scenes where she is present or at least aware of, it just doesn't work for me. Much better, in my opinion, if there were a contrast between the world as Orfelia sees it and the "real" world of the civil war.
After all, in a world where she has no possibility of exercising any control over her circumstances, Pan's Labyrinth holds the promise of granting her the dominion. That her reign will contrast to Vidal's in its benevolence is the heart of the story.
Agreed, but I would add that Vidal's reign would be more terrifying to me if it were more realistic - compare with Ralph Fiennes's performance in Schindler's List for example.
The Labyrinth creatures charm us as well as Ofelia in the sense of exerting a potent and magical force. Perhaps it's because we know that Ofelia's relation to these creatures is an expression of her battle with impotence that they're both more and less horrifying than, for example, the monsters in Harry Potter or LOTR.
Yes, the fantastical creatures are the part of the film which work superbly - del Toro's visual imagination is perhaps his greatest talent - and I agree entirely that they are an expression of her feelings, and ultimately nothing more (or less). To see them as having an independent existence, as some people seem to think reasonable, to me seems just facile and pointless.
|
|
|
|
BaftaBaby
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 03/01/2007 : 14:58:32
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
but all the adults are depicted in the simplistic tones that a child like Ofelia would observe.
They are certainly depicted simplistically, but this extends not only to scenes where Orfelia is not present but also to situations in which she would have no knowledge - for example the moments of extreme violence. This may or may not be deliberate Expressionism - I'm a little cynical as the characterisations in The Devil's Backbone are no better rounded (although in fairness it is also about children) - but I don't see the legitimacy of one character, who is not the narrator, being the audience's filter of characters and situations of which she is unaware. It may have been fully intended, but, outside of scenes where she is present or at least aware of, it just doesn't work for me. Much better, in my opinion, if there were a contrast between the world as Orfelia sees it and the "real" world of the civil war.
I believe he's asking us to watch the film AS THOUGH we were children like Ofelia, including the scenes she cannot logically be party to. Whether or not she actually witnesses the scenes of extremest violence, she'll be aware of them. It's her sensibilities del T asks us to share, and to extrapolate from - [after all, we're going to watch the film as ourselves as well]. That's the only way the film makes sense to me, and del T is too intelligent a filmmaker not to know that. As you say, his choices must be deliberate.
In any case, I believe he's joined a handful of cinematic poets who understand how to combine lyricism with brutality. All right, he may not be in the same league as Cocteau, Klimov, Wenders, Cl�ment, et al ... but he's on the list. Well, my list, anyway! 
|
|
|
|
Conan The Westy
"Father, Faithful Friend, Fwiffer"
|
Posted - 07/05/2007 : 05:59:45
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
quote:
Originally posted by Conan The Westy
That it's a fantasy?
I take it that you have not seen the film, because no, it is not a fantasy.
It's set in civil war Spain and includes fantasy scenes as well as "real" scenes.
Next guess?
I've finally watched it. It was fantastic and I hope my pending review resonates well with the voting public when it is MERPed. |
|
|
|
randall
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 07/06/2007 : 04:56:57
|
I loved it.
Listen to del Toro on the DVD commentary track: he'll explain it all -- at least, his take. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Anyone seen Pan's Labyrinth?
