Pan's Labyrinth

Sorry Dave,

Personally, the things that took me out of the film were:

a) the bits of violence, which seemed really overdone. I guess I can see the point, but to me, it became an end in itself. In just two spots that I can remember, but both spots took me out of the scenes.

b) I felt like the film was soooo color corrected that it almost couldn't be called cinematography at all. I see this in a lot of modern films, and it's sort of distracting to me. Films that are so color-corrected that they almost seem like cartoons.
 
Mark Harris said:
Sorry Dave,

Personally, the things that took me out of the film were:

a) the bits of violence, which seemed really overdone. I guess I can see the point, but to me, it became an end in itself. In just two spots that I can remember, but both spots took me out of the scenes.

b) I felt like the film was soooo color corrected that it almost couldn't be called cinematography at all. I see this in a lot of modern films, and it's sort of distracting to me. Films that are so color-corrected that they almost seem like cartoons.
Click to expand...

I loved the look of the film. It helped push the fantasy aspect as if the colors were not fully real, particulalry the deep saturation.

Also, as far as the violence I don't think any of it was far worse than many other films. At least to me it felt like that is what happenend in that era and still happens today during war. Though I would agree that in some case the violence was played up to force the audience to hate the Colonel.
 
Read a couple accounts of the Spanish Civil War, and it becomes clear that the violence depicted in the film, is realistic.

Spanish Fascists weren't any kinder or gentler, than German Fascists.
 
There can be no denial of its historical existence, but is visceral inclusion (approaching exploitation) really necessary to get the point across?

Hundreds of films have shown that "war is hell." We already know that. If this film is really so great, why would it need to reassert such a generic and cliche point, and waste so much time on it?
 
Of course you're welcome to your opinion, that the material is unnecessary, generic, cliche, and a waste of time.

I just happen to disagree.
 
So what direct, artistic purpose did the violence hold?

One could argue juxtaposition... until you note the darkness of the fairy-tale scenes as well.

You seem fairly well informed, and I'm genuinely curious to hear your response.
 
I think that the violence served more than one purpose...

(1) It accentuates Ofelia's vulnerability and the precariousness of her situation. With no father to protect her, and a mother who herself is too vulnerable and weak to care for her, Vidal's coldness and violence are all the more terrifying. And I think that a big component of this story, is about the helplessness of children at the mercy of adults.

(2) It defines Vidal's character. I think that a key moment for appreciating Vidal, is the dinner scene wherein he expounds upon his social and political perspective on the civil war - his opponents are worthless, less-than-animal no-account peasants who had better learn their place. His violence is a further expression of his contempt for his adversaries - and he believes it to be his natural right, to inflict it. Contrast that, with the gentleness with which he treats actual animals, like his horse. Very typical of Fascists, German and Spanish alike.

What kind of person, is Vidal? He's the kind of person who smacks little girls around, tortures helpless prisoners, shoots doctors in the back, and kills enemy wounded out-of-hand. Showing me that, tells me a lot about the character. How else do I know that, if I don't see it? References, off-screen? Weak, ineffective, and unsuited to the subject matter.

(3) It creates a parallel linkage between the 'real' and the 'imaginary' worlds. There's really no escape from the violence - and childhood fantasy is largely about escape - it just changes in form, whether it's Vidal torturing a prisoner, or the Pale Man torturing his victims.

(4) It contributes to the sense of setting, and in this sense is not gratuitous. The Spanish Civil War was a shrieking nightmare for most everyone in its path (Orwell's Homage to Catalonia is great material on the subject) and most of the audience is not going to be sufficiently aware of the period, to be expected to know what the stakes, or the tactics were. Unless they see it.

(5) This is a fairy tale, and fairy tales are generally not about refined sensibilities. Fairy tales in their unexpurgated form, are about death and sex and power and blood and violence. What separates this from, say, Hostel, is that the death and sex and power and blood and violence in a fairy tale all work toward refining a moral. Which I think Labyrinth has.


I can't think offhand of a specific shooting, knifing, slapping or whack-in-the-temple-with-a-hammer, that did not serve the story, and development of the characters. From my perspective, it's the most uncomfortable and hard-to-sit-still-for kind of violence in a film, because it works at a visceral level where a Saw-style onslaught of torture-for-the-sake-of-watching-torture, can't. But, that's just me.

*edit*

Ironic1 considers the story's violence from a theological perspective - worth reading at http://ironic1.com/2007/01/into_the_moral_labyrintha_theo.html
 
Last edited:
I don't deny that the violence was realistic. And I don't deny that it served all of the purposed SadMax lists. It might boil down to my personal preference. To me, it reached the point where it passed helping the scene and took me out of it. That's the only way I can put it.

The parts I am thinking of were the beating of the guy with the bottle and the slice of the guy's cheek. The bottle part to me would have been just as powerful to see the guy fall out of frame sooner. I still get the action. I still get the idea that he is a bad mofo. As for the cheek slice...not sure what the does exactly...
 
Last edited:
mjjason said:
I loved the look of the film. It helped push the fantasy aspect as if the colors were not fully real, particulalry the deep saturation.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I understand. Again, it might come down to my preference. And I think it might actually have helped to save that CC for the fantasy parts, to help distinguish. Of course, it's his film, but like I said, its not just here. I see it a lot in movies no-a-days, and I think its wielded a little too heavily, much like digital effects are.
 
Mark Harris said:
As for the cheek slice...not sure what the does exactly...
Click to expand...

It's the release of Mercedes' long-pent-up rage and hatred.

It's the revelation to Vidal that he's been a fool - the quiet, smiling, reliable, wouldn't-say-boo woman he's had underfoot all along, is a real fighter, herself. And he's just confined himself alone with her, with none of his henchmen there, to save him.

It's an attack on Vidal's vanity.

And maybe a little bit of we all know what comes out of that mouth...why don't I just widen it a little, for you?


I can appreciate that everyone has their own limit, and that violence that looks integral to one person, might feel over-the-top, to someone else.
 
Excellent movie!

The violence was indeed a little bit more than necessary in some scenes. And all this without a good purpose.

You can inspire the feeling of violence in many ways, without actually showing it.

Moreover, I believe that such "invisible" or hinted violence has a stronger effect on the audience, because it makes them co-authors of the movie.

The director hints and the audience finishes the "picture" in their imagination. And we all know that imagination is boundless ["it could be anything"], while a concrete shot is limited in its power to inspire emotion and\or give information.

Same goes for eroticism - the hinted beauty and sexuality arouses the audience more than a direct nude approach.

Hinted, not hidden.

But this is just my humble opinion, of course.

Different people - different tastes...

The Labirynth is magnificent - very good script, casting, beautiful visually and the CC fits the story well.

One of the good ones, these days.
 
Last edited:
I prefer the Road to Perdition take on violence--mixing up harsh, extremely visceral violence with implied violence.

I also find that to be a far superior film to Pan's...
 
StefanHaynes said:
What leads you to that impression? I assure you, I "got" the film.
Click to expand...
...anyone who got this film (and praising it) will find your argument about its excessive violence or production values mostly irrelevant. I'm not going to bother arguing this point with you.

I've written papers on religious nuances and implications in Solyaris. I've attended Seminars on Ozu. I understood every aspect of this film... and it was a poorly-made, poorly constructed piece of anti-art.
Click to expand...
Too cerebral. Sometimes knowing too much can be a drawback. Some films you must watch with your heart.

The best film ever made!? How many films have you seen?
Click to expand...
Apparently, not as many as you. I've seen enough movies to know in my heart that this is a very special movie... one that touches me on a very deep level. It's a shame this movie has not moved you to the same extent. In the end, that's your loss...
 
If it moved you more than any other movie, great. You got a lot out of it, and it's personally very relevant to you.

I think a lot of people would argue that it doesn't make it "the best film ever made," though. Yes, it's a somewhat subjective appellation, but there's a sizable objective quality to it as well.

"Stand By Me" moved me considerably, but I can still recognize it's not in the upper echelon of movies.
 
I've been hesitant to rent this one . Fantasy isn't usually in my rotation. But condsidering the 14 pages of debate, I'll put it in my rotation.

Jg Marceaux ?

I think it's great you feel this passionate about this film. I definately have films I just adore that most people simply snub
 
I think the whole "best X ever" thing is very relative. The best film ever or the best director ever or the prettiest girl ever... How can you tell for sure?...

There's something weird in the thinking of the Western World, constantly striving for the "best thing ever"...

Dunno...

I think there are a lot of very good films out there and the Labyrinth is one of them.

There are also a lot of very good directors and a lot of very pretty girls who like very good directors...

... and life is beautiful :).


P.S. Gotta get some sleep now. Tomorrow I'll pour some more of my deep wisdom. :grin:
 
Last edited:
IT was definitely an interesting film. It didn't work on all levels for me. I did think the disjointed story lines were distracting. The violence was "nicely" graphic if i can combine those thoughts. Other than hand eyes the other fantasy characters didn't do much for me. Also, the English translation was very untrue to the native language.
 
It's true; I speak just enough Spanish to have recognized that the subtitles missed a fair amount of subtlety in the dialog.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top