Pan's Labyrinth

[Gemini Cricket]

Spoiler:

I think it was intentional that her father didn't see the faun. I think it was all in her mind. It's sad, but I think that was intentional. Shrug.

[Alex]

Spoiler:

That is certainly a reading of it, but I don't think it was Guillermo del Toro's intent to settle the question. He has been talking a lot lately about film not needing to lay everything out for you, that it is good to be presented with a story and then you go away thinking it out on your own what happened, what it means.

But I have only been catching side conversations since I was avoiding specific spoilers. So if he was trying to answer the question he didn't go quite far enough and I'd prefer ambiguity because it makes it more interesting.

Ambiguity still exists, I just feel like del Toro was "taking sides." And of course, if anybody gets to take a side, it is him, but I don't want him to.

[Gemini Cricket]

Spoiler:

I hear ya. I'm not a big fan of films leaving it all up to you. Was it a dream, was it real, etc. I think a filmmaker needs to spell it out. Leaving it up to the audience means many different interpretations, many ways of looking at something. I like it to be clear cut, I like to see the director make a choice. I think he could have gone deeper into it, too. But I'm okay with that scene.

[mousepod]

Spoiler:

It didn't bother me that Capt Vidal didn't see the Faun. The Faun was magical (assuming it was real), so he wouldn't have seen it anyway. I liked the "ambiguity" of the story, but prefer to think of it as different perceptions of reality rather than ambiguity. I imagine that the fantasy part of the movie was very real to Ofelia, and the "real" part was true for Mercedes et al.

As far as renaming the movie for Pan, I'm pretty sure that del Toro made that decision - he's fluent in English - though I'm not sure why.

[blueerica]

I wish that I was more versed in the topic of magic and mythology, but...

Spoiler:

It doesn't bother me that the Captain can't see the faun. It's not the deciding factor on whether the faun was real or not. Perhaps only open minds can see the 'magic.'

What I thought was interesting was her death. Was the vision of her mother and her father on the throne the culmination of her returning as the princess, or just the hallucinations of a dying girl?

[Alex]

I agree with what the last several people have said. It isn't a deciding factor, just a case of the director taking sides where it isn't (in my opinion) important to do so.

I've found several people now that I'm reading more reviews who viewed it as the del Toro explicitly answering the question (including Mick La Salle of the San Francisco Chronicle).

It just struck me as an unnecessary moment. Since that is pretty much my biggest quible it just highlights how satisfying the movie was.


Steve, is it possible that the subtitles are impacting your ability to enjoy the movie? I know you don't like subtitles.

[blueerica]

Oh yeah, the subtitles...

I was glad that I have a very good understanding of Spanish, particularly Castillian Spanish. Most of the time, I didn't need the subtitles, aside from the occasional "check." However, the subtitles were so white and bright that it distracted from the darkness and subtle coloring of the film.

[Chernabog]

Taken from my post on another board (but I wanna discuss it here!): (Thanks, Steve!!)

OK so I finally watched it this evening and it is definitely one of Guillermo Del Toro's best films -- if you enjoyed this one, I would recommend also renting his "The Devil's Backbone" (which explores similar themes, but more along the lines of a ghost story than of a fantasy).



Pan's Labyrinth was just fantastic, and NOT for the faint of heart. This is a brutal movie in the "real life" elements-- and the fantasy elements are incredibly dark as well. No cutesy characters anywhere, so don't go in expecting any... And definitely do not take your children to see this movie I mean, I've seen a lot worse gore and violence-wise, but it's not a kid's movie at all.



The title is odd, considering the literal spanish translation of El Laberinto del Fauno should be "The Faun's Labyrinth".... there's a faun, but his name isn't Pan. I'm wondering why they did that....



Anyway, what I really liked was

Spoiler:

the ending of the film - how it was left rather ambiguous whether she had imagined the whole fantasy world or not (though, of course, "It was real" and "it was imaginary" are NOT the only two options!!!).



Guillermo Del Toro himself interprets the film as being all real -- I'm not going to go into the whole thing here, but the best director's interview I have read on the subject is at http://www.twitchfilm.net/archives/008507.html . The director left three little "clues" to let you know that HE thinks the fantasy world is all real (read the interview), but it can be interpreted another way. That's the beauty of this film -- it is so multilayered that you can interpret the symbolism of the characters and the fantasy world for yourself.



There are a lot of idiots on the IMDB board that are talking about... "well, if the director thinks it's real, it's real!!! End of story!!" Sorry, but that is total crap. If you can back up what you say, then the director's intent, while interesting from a filmmaking standpoint, has very little or nothing to do with whether an interpretation is "correct".



Certainly, asking whether it was real or imagined, or some of the fantasy was real, and some imagined, or whether it was all imagined (even the "war" parts), etc. etc. are all valid explorations and can lead to wildly varying, equally valid interpretations.

One thing that had me puzzled until this morning is the question of the key going into a lock that's different than the one the fairies pointed out (in the room with the Pale Man monster). If you're of the interpretation that the fantasy world was real, I think that the "test" in that room was not necessarily to retrieve the object, but to see if she'd simply follow blind faith instead of going by her own instincts. In that respect... she "passed" the second of three tests. She had to come into the third test in a mental state of desperation, which is why the faun disappeared on her after the second test. The fairies that got eaten, as immortal beings (like Ofelia/The Princess) show up in the end, after Ofelia's immortal soul passes the third test and leaves her body.


I'm still trying to figure out the meaning of that part if you thought it was all in her head -- would the pale man represent her stepfather, perhaps? What was happening in that movie that would "parallel" that event? What does the key, or the key in the different lock show?

^^ If you read the spoiler above, definitely check out that link. But not until you've seen the movie!!!

Anyway, go see it, you'll be thinking about it for a while. One of the few films (like Donnie Darko) that I wanted to watch again immediately after viewing.

[Alex]

Oh, and if nothing else, the creature at the feast was pure visual brilliance.

[LSPoorEeyorick]

We just got back from a last holiday hurrah tonight (our flight got delayed so I am one day late back to work.)

And when I can walk out of a movie saying "I found nothing wrong with it," that's pretty remarkable. I don't think that this is a movie that will hover in my few top favorites, but I do think it is one to which I will continually return. What vision! What use of reality/fantasy! What an amazing movie.

And for all of the spoiler warnings... I'll just say that I personally LOVE it when a movie ends ambiguously (and I believe that this one did.) I don't feel the need to have a definite answer, but I love toying with the possibilities.