The Official Review Thread of 2006

[anonymous1980]

Wow. All I did was see Pan's Labyrinth and posted my mini-review saying that I liked it a lot and it interrupted into all of this.

Oh, this reminds me of the good old days.

FYI: I've recently caught up on Spirit of the Beehive and I also love it.

[Johnny Guitar]

Italiano, re: "importance" and complexity in Pan's Labyrinth ... let me see if I can conceptualize the problem a certain way and you can tell me if you agree with it. When a generic effort engages with political and historical questions, it usually has to "reach out" to these and imbricate them within the generic (i.e., dramatic, iconic, or tropological) content. There are two general ways that films like these go about it--one is to subtly, or not subtly!, interweave contemporaneous concerns into a work (this is the case of many gialli, for instance, which you've vocalized an affection for in the past); the other way is to appropriate a certain historical struggle and prop the generic conflict and the historical conflict together (so there's something closer to allegory: the generic content gets grafted onto a preformed historical content, i.e., "Franco's forces are monsters"). This former option occurs in all sorts of films from all over the world; the latter is perhaps a "more American" option, conceptually if not always empirically, simply because it follows the Hollywood tendency to cash in on any kind of struggle (cf. Godard's excoriation of Schindler's List, or even Full Metal Jacket). I think this might be another way at characterizing the root of what bothers you about Pan's Labyrinth. It bothers me too (the tendency, not the singular case of Del Toro's film). But I have no faith in commercial cinema, and I expected certain conceptual compromises going into Pan's Labyrinth, and I thought it was quite strong.

By the way, there are more than three noteworthy films made about the Spanish Civil War and involving children who have very strong feelings toward fascist patriarchs, absent fathers, and complicit mothers! I strongly urge anyone interested to see Fernando Arrabal's Viva la Muerte if they haven't already--a powerful, impassioned, semi-autobiographical, and somewhat experimental feature about a boy's coming-to-terms with his antifascist father's 'disappearance' and his mother's complicity during the War ...

(Magilla, Pan's Labyrinth certainly played in several New York multiplexes, for what it's worth.)

As for the Champions League, I have certainly been following the competition. It's too bad that the final couldn't be between these Milan and Manchester, because Chelsea are always boring, and Liverpool are usually boring. That 3-2 match at Old Trafford was exciting! (I don't really follow Serie A, partly because it's harder to keep track of in America than the English game; but I have kept a small soft spot in my heart for Roma this season.) But like I said, if Milan can beat Manchester (who have been the most dominant, and consistently inspiring, English team this season--and I'm not a Man Utd fan, either), then Milan should be able to handle Liverpool (revenge for 2005?) or an injury-hindered Chelsea (though Drogba, far more than the ineffectual Shevchenko, would be the bane of Milan's existence in that game).

[Johnny Guitar]

I don't know how "totalitarian" the United States is, wire-tapping and all, partly because I have little faith in this idea of (philosophically) liberal capitalist democracy under which we live anyway--Bush is the worst, surely, but he is the worst as a matter of degree, not kind. America is not totalitarian; it is a nominal democracy substantively run by very few (and very rich), and if freedom can be "sold" to the American people as a commodity (which is what happens), then the oligarchs are all about "freedom"! If we want to really talk about totalitarianism, though, we should mention the culture industry--the movies and television that we all love here are, in fact, quite harmful to us (even when their artistic quality is high), and they do nothing but make profit for corporations (turning our leisure time into labor as we ratchet up ad revenues and such, tuning in for Sanjaya).

As for Empire. The Greeks had an empire, the Romans had an empire, the Mongols had an empire, the British had an empire ... but was there a Friulian empire, an Iroquois empire, an Irish empire? This pop discourse of history, as though everything were a clear line and a progression through "stages" for every group of people (all sub-sub-sub-Vico), is really just another expression or manifestation of the privileges of power--the privileges you & I have and enjoy as American citizens. It's easy for us to imagine our history (our "great rise," our troubling "imperialist" stage, etc.) as being on a universal course. But the truth is that most people, most societies, have not enjoyed some stage of great expansive power, but have in fact been crushed and exploited by the minority of societies that do undertake these courses.

I'm not really sure I understand what point you're making in your last paragraph, OG.

[Big Magilla]

I suspect that Magilla is the board champion in terms of number of movies seen.

I think Reza has me beat, and many of the younger posters will have seen more movies than I have by the time they're my age the way they're going. I've long been impressed not only with the film going experience of board members in their 20s and 30s, but with the almost encyclopedic knowledge they have of world film.

Yesterday's arguments here forced me to watch two films I had been meaning to see for some time - Erice's The Spirit of the Beehive and del Toro's Hellboy.

I was unimpressed with Hellboy. Oh, the sceenplay is intelligent enough. Thematically it belongs to the Superman - Batman - Spiderman school of superhero adventures, but the film is also excessively violent and not something I would want to see more than once.

The Spirit of the Beehive is thematically the same as Pan, but structurally quite different. It reminded more of Clement's Forbidden Games or one of the earlier Italian neo-realist films - Rossellini's Germany Year Zero, for example. A masterpiece, yes, but no more like Pan's Labyrinth than This Land Is Mine or The Moon Is Down, for example, are like Schindler's List.

If Beehive is teh influence that caused del Toro to tone down the violence in Pan, then bully for him. Rather than call the violence in Pan superficial, I would call it muted, and that is something that should be applauded, not derided, in the director of Blade II.

Pan is not an art film per se, but it played here primarily in art houses, not general audience cinemas. Its producers should be commended for not captializing on the films year-end awards by quickly dubbing it into English and mass marketing it where it could have made a fortune.



Edited By Big Magilla on 1244996817

[OscarGuy]

Johnny, I'm referring to the aspect of Totalitarianism that refers to the desire of the government to control all aspects of the society. Bush and co. certainly have displayed such a desire, but have been only mildly successful in implementation.

However, I think Penelope has the word I was wanting to use. Imperialist is a far better descriptor. Though, I do challenge the thought that all societies don't go through some manner of totalitarianism even if it is repelled by the people eventually. And history's a long time and it's certainly more prevalant in the past. Name one society that hasn't had such a period. And although the island nations like Tuvalu, etc, don't have the global-spanning power to launch a less-than-local offensive, I guarantee they've had very similar periods in their history.

People in the US are quite a bit different than people around the world when it comes to this kind of thing and thus, to a very minor extent, the American pre-disposition to violence may have helped the people you are familiar with, Johnny, to enjoy the movie, but liking it because it was moderately violent and understanding how that violence was woven into the fabric of children's fairy tales outside of the Disney system are relatively different things. I think that if you questioned those people why they enjoyed it, it would be for entirely different reasons than many of us enjoyed it.

[ITALIANO]

* But more importantly, I would also ask Italiano what the atmosphere is like in Milan among the sports fans (if you still live there, that is!)--do people think the Rossoneri will beat Manchester? Because if they succeed, the Champions League is theirs for the taking.

How do you know about THIS?! Really, I'm impressed. People here are quite optimistic (as you know, Milan lost to Manchester 2-3 last week - a very tense match); we'll see what happens. I'm not a big fan of Milan (it is, by the way, Berlusconi's team) but, I mean, I am "Italiano" after all, and you'll forgive me if I have to be patriotic in these cases. Thanks for asking.

I also think that your approach to Pan's Labyrinth is quite well balanced. If you take it as a genre movie, a commercial movie, and you value it on these terms, you can't deny that it has partly succeeded - not in Italy, by the way, where it has been a big flop (The Life of Others, in the meantime, is breaking box office records for a foreign, not English-language movie here - it's the big "surprise" hit of the season). But the movie has been also sold - and commented on this board - as an "art" movie, and I'm quite sure that it completely fails on this level. Because it is not complex (yes, I know, fantasy vs reality - please!), not challenging, not original. You may be moved by it (I wasn't), but this still doesn't make it a masterpiece. It's a very obvious movie, and even the kind of reactions from those on this board who loved it (read Damien's comments a few posts below - and Damien isn't stupid) are so superficial that, unintentionally, they reveal the movie's lack of any philosophical or artistic content. They keep on repeating the brothers Grimm's name, but of course their fairy tales were totally different - very human, first of all, and truly frightening but - almost always - without resorting to monsters - they were about primal, basic fears, not big frog-like puppets. (A more interesting approach would be to see the so-called, not by me, "realistic" part as another, parallel fantasy world - yet I hated this part too, for the reasons that I've already said and because it is used in a very cynical way by the director - as a historical framework which could provide the movie with much-needed "importance").

Now, there's nothing wrong with ENJOYING such a movie - like, for example, there's nothing wrong with enjoying "The Return of the Jedi" - but it's VERY wrong (and, in my opinion, even dangerous) to consider it a great "art" movie. It just isn't - it's a well-made, very clever commercial effort by a director who knows - ok, I have to say it, now you'll hear the cries - American filmmaking very well.

And as it so often happens, Sonic Youth's posts - without meaning to - prove that I am right. Look at those Arthur Lacklam's drawings. You'll see that not only most of the fantasy characters from the movie would be really unthinkable in his world (yes, ok, the tree, but still..!) - but his pictures also have a naivete, a softness, a sense of enchantment and even an originality which the movie dramatically lacks.

And Damien, I don't know if you saw more movies than I did and of course I don't care. It was just Oscar Guy's claim - so affirmative, so devoid of doubt - which needed to be corrected. But of course, in his own private fantasy world (so more interesting than Del Toro's, and so more deserving of a deep analysis - I'm not joking) it's all bad guys vs good guys, and I am, I am afraid, the Sergi Lopez character. Still, for someone who has seen so many movies, I think that comparing this one to Night of the Hunter, To Kill a Mockingbird or Spirit of the Beehive is really a surprising exaggeration (I would add "objectively", but I have learned that for Americans this would be meaningless, so don't start complaining...).



Edited By Big Magilla on 1244996828

[Sabin]

I want to thank Johnny Guitar and Sonic for steering this conversation away from ugly retread.

(BTW, I love 'Pan's Labyrinth'. It's one of the few movies to make me cry that I've seen in quite some time. But Italiano's right. 'The Lives of Others' is better. It would've been lovely to see Del Toro win the Oscar that he so clearly deserves for his efforts on this film and how successfully it crossed over. I think that if 'Pan's Labyrinth' had been released a month earlier, it could've been a Best Picture nominee. But 'The Lives of Others' is better. The Academy made a good call; it was just anti-climactic.)



Edited By Sabin on 1177907619

[Sonic Youth]

Just to get my two cents in on why I think the fantasy sequences were plausible for Pan's Labyrtinth:

Look at this illustration.

And this one.

And this.

And this.

And this.

And this.

The artist who drew these is Arthur Lackham, one of the most renowned illustrators of children's books in his day. (He illustrated Alice in Wonderland and Wind in the Willows; the last picture is of Beauty and the Beast.) Every picture has a nature setting from which he derives fantasy and horror from. Look at a collection of his work, and you'll see that a good many of them uses an old tree as the dominant image, just like in Pan's Labyrinth. Lackham died in 1939, a few years before the movie takes place, but his work was already in wide circulation. And he wasn't the only one. This stark, elaborate, chilling style of Art Nouveau was prevalent for decades prior to 1944, and it was common in fairy tale books and mythology books for young readers. And it's what the visual scheme of Del Toro's film looked like to me.

The point being, children of that time period who have read such books could surely have their imaginations affected and derived by these books, just as the fantasies of today's children are affected by whatever influences are in the current pop culture zeitgeist.

EDIT: FWIW, I loved both Pan's Labyrinth and The Lives of Others, and I'd be hard-pressed to choose which one I'd vote for. Probably Pan's. If it's better, then it's only by a tiny margin.

[Johnny Guitar]

Criddic and OG, how much history have you guys read?

"Every" society goes through a period of totalitarianism!? Wanna bet?

As for who finds Pan's Labyrinth most resonant (re: OG saying WWII babies and those brought up on Grimm will be moved most by the film), what one should probably do to prove or disprove that is look up box office information, test screenings, things like that--see what demographics are going to Pan's Labyrinth, and how each of them are liking it. This debate needn't be 100% speculative. Because the screening I was at was full of people who were too young to be alive for WWII (and sometimes too young even to have parents alive at that time). The audience seemed to like the film a lot--does this mean they were probably all raised on old European fairy tales?

And the stuff Criddic wrote is--to borrow the famous line of Wolfgang Pauli about string theory--"not even wrong."

And for the record, I liked Pan's Labyrinth. Not quite as much as Damien, but I think it's a solid accomplishment, and very moving. I would ask Italiano* why he thinks the fantasy sequences should "ring true," for instance--shouldn't fantasy sequences in fact always ring a bit false? (Because desiring fantasy narratives to move or trick us into believing them, as opposed to being open charades, is actually the more regressive spectatorial urge, I would argue. This opinion hardly originates from me, of course.) The film is a pop fantasy, it doesn't really have much to do with the Brothers Grimm or myth or history per se, except as totems with which to experiment and formulate a story out of archetypes; I think one's approval or disappointment with the film may come from how one approaches it, what expectations one brings to the theater for the "kind" of film it is, because it's been sold simultaneously as both art film and genre film, and I think that its resonance comes from fleshing out a certain generic structure, trying to tie its generic motivations and stock horrors/joys/mysteries into a pre-established historical-political struggle (a modestly noble enterprise, in my opinion, and I think successfuly achieved in this film). That is to say, I think it's most flatteringly seen as a genre film that builds out from its core, and not as an a priori artistic expression on childhood, politics, history, desire coming from the head of Del Toro. Any extended comparisons to Cria cuervos and Spirit of the Beehive (I agree with Damien that these are two masterpieces) would of course have to take into account the fact that Del Toro's film is steeped in genre, and by necessity also trafficks in the marketplace with respect to this fact, drawing in audiences in much the same way that any number of recent horror or fantasy films have.

* But more importantly, I would also ask Italiano what the atmosphere is like in Milan among the sports fans (if you still live there, that is!)--do people think the Rossoneri will beat Manchester? Because if they succeed, the Champions League is theirs for the taking.

[Penelope]

I don't know if every nation goes through a form of totalitarianism, but it could be argued that every nation has experienced a form of imperialism, either as the aggressor or the aggrieved or both.

Though we don't like to think of ourselves that way, the United States has been an imperialist nation since 1804; today's imperialism is a bit different, but the determination of the Bush crowd to "bring democracy to the Middle East" has in it the same evangelistic arrogance that led McKinley to subjugate the Phillippines in 1898 as well as echoing the "Civilizing Missions" of the British and French empires of the same era.

To say that government isn't one of our problems is laughable; the structure of our government is fine, though, as all things are, it has its flaws; its how our government has been corrupted over time, to where it now is, indeed, become an overbearing entity -- not USSR/Big Brother style overbearing, but in the wrong hands, it can be. It's the people in government that are the problem, and right now we have perhaps the worst selection of individuals, on both sides of the aisle, that have led our nation in its entire history; I'd like to think that we are at the nadir and can only get better, more humane, just and fair, but, sadly, history teaches us that just as things can get better, they can also get worse.

[criddic3]

Every society goes through a period of totalitarianism. It's part of the development of a culture. The Roman empire was perhaps the most noted of these types of cultures. For all its advances (many of which were appropriated from other cultures), the Roman empire was no less violent, opinionated or hopelessly self-centered than the United States. Europe progressed past this but it took time. The US will take time as well, though probably not as much time...at least we can hope.

unfortunately, despite the regular utterance of the phrase "if we forget the past we're doomed to repeat it" in history class rooms, many of our leaders either remain ignorant of that statement and proceed down avenues that have been explored ad nauseum or they willfully exploit the insecurities of the ignorant to celebrate the profit motive. We'll never be able to exist without some form of compensation for work delivered, but until we can proceed past the pursuit of the almighty dollar (or yen or mark or lira, etc.), we'll never be able to see where our culture can go.

I just find it irrational to harp on something that's a commonly-held belief among the posters of this board (Criddic excepted). I think very few agree with many of your observations about Americans, but it's your way of approaching it that leaves a lot to be desired. I have no problem with intellectual discourse on film but I can't have those kinds of conversations with you because you can't let it go. Not everything is about the United States. Pan's Labyrinth has very little to do with American culture, IMO.

The film is intended to be more akin to Grimm's fairytales (a distinctly non-American group of writings). The violence in those stories pre-dates the modern American pre-occupation with blood, guts and gore. To use American pop culture as a case-in-point for Pan's Labyrinth isn't really applicable.

My review has been written since early this year and has been on my website for quite some time, so it's not like you can't read my thoughts on it. If you want me to go more in depth, I can, but I think I put my opinions together as succinctly as possible in that review.

I don't agree with the analogy between the Roman Empire and current-America. Totalitarian systems are always bad analogies to America. Besides which, the "arrogance" you refer to isn't really arrogance. Some people say we are bullies because we have a policy now of pre-emptive defense. I see that policy as wise, if used for the right purposes.

This is a country that helps billions of people and countless nations worldwide with medicine, food, money and other help. We are always asked for help when there is trouble: a horrible storm or natural event, oppression, etc. We always find a way to help.

For all we have done, many European nations refuse to recognize it with gratitude. They like us when they need us, but they hate us when we defend ourselves or our allies. Okay, fine, but don't say we are arrogant because of it. It isn't true.

The truth is that we are nothing like the Roman Empire. We have our problems, but truthfully the government isn't really one of them. The system we have is still the most fair and solid of any you can name. We generally like differences in culture but not totalitarian systems that oppress their people. The idea that we are going through a "totalitarian stage" is so far off the mark as to be ridiculous.

President Bush is no more a dictator than President Clinton was. People can disagree with policy, but to insinuate that our government is supressing free speech or our rights is really kind of silly. You'll cite warrantless wire-taps, but the truth is that average citizens aren't being harmed by the program.

I do agree with the assessment on the film Pan's Labyrinth, though. It is not a statement about American culture. It is a Grimm Fairy Tale-type story. And on that basis, it is one of the best films made from 2006.

I also agree that much of society, not just American society however, is interested in the "Almighty Dollar." This is the culture of world-thinking and exists in every corner of the Earth. Without money, there is no power, and without power you can't have what you want. At least that's the idea. I don't think all people view the world this cynically, but I do think the idea exists not just here but everywhere. There are people willing to do anything for the taste of power, but I don't believe that this means there are no good people or that everyone in government is corrupt. If that were true there would be no reason to live or to strive for any kind of peace or harmony. I don't believe we are at that point in this world. I hope we never are. That is the struggle between good and evil that we try to defend ourselves from, but there are people who spin it another way. Anyway, we aren't the Roman Empire in any case.



Edited By Big Magilla on 1244996849

[Damien]

I really have no idea if I've seen more movies than Marco -- if I have it's only because I've been on the planet longer. But there have been long periods in my life (such as when I was at boarding school) when I didn't see many movies at all.

I suspect that Magilla is the board champion in terms of number of movies seen.

I guess it's just something subjective, but I found Pan's Labyrinth to be one of the most evocative and moving and knowing explorations of childhood, and the commiserant terrors of being that age -- to me its up there with the Erice and Saura films, as well as Night of the Hunter, To Kill A Mockingbird and Germany Year Zero.

[OscarGuy]

I don't necessarily agree. We're talking about more modern children, but when looking at the period in which the film is set, we're finding children growing up in an age of war and oppression. I think it's wholly appropriate that this child, surrounded daily by violence would take inspiration from the fairy tales which she's reading. She wouldn't have been reading a disnified version of Cinderella, she'd be reading the original tale featuring morbid mutilation. That her fantasy world was colored both by her environment and by her reading material speaks volumes about her state of mind.

You wouldn't find anything like that in an American home for children. It's too dark.

I'm sure it resonates more with anyone who grew up during WWII or with Grimm's fair tales than it would with someone who grew up during the 80s and later and were inspired and adored films like Aladdin.

[ITALIANO]

Pan's Labyrinth has very little to do with American culture, IMO.

True. I just meant (and I can be wrong, but this is my opinion) that Del Toro seems to direct with the American audience firmly in his mind - or, better, a global, American-influenced audience. It may be about Spain and the Civil War, but you don't get any real feeling of the place or the period, and even the fantasy sequences don't ring true - technically efficient, I know (as THAT kind of audience would appreciate) - but the magic of childhood, from the artistic point of view, needs a more genuine, more honest, even more simple approach to truly work on a deep level.



Edited By Big Magilla on 1244996861

[OscarGuy]

Every society goes through a period of totalitarianism. It's part of the development of a culture. The Roman empire was perhaps the most noted of these types of cultures. For all its advances (many of which were appropriated from other cultures), the Roman empire was no less violent, opinionated or hopelessly self-centered than the United States. Europe progressed past this but it took time. The US will take time as well, though probably not as much time...at least we can hope.

unfortunately, despite the regular utterance of the phrase "if we forget the past we're doomed to repeat it" in history class rooms, many of our leaders either remain ignorant of that statement and proceed down avenues that have been explored ad nauseum or they willfully exploit the insecurities of the ignorant to celebrate the profit motive. We'll never be able to exist without some form of compensation for work delivered, but until we can proceed past the pursuit of the almighty dollar (or yen or mark or lira, etc.), we'll never be able to see where our culture can go.

I just find it irrational to harp on something that's a commonly-held belief among the posters of this board (Criddic excepted). I think very few agree with many of your observations about Americans, but it's your way of approaching it that leaves a lot to be desired. I have no problem with intellectual discourse on film but I can't have those kinds of conversations with you because you can't let it go. Not everything is about the United States. Pan's Labyrinth has very little to do with American culture, IMO.

The film is intended to be more akin to Grimm's fairytales (a distinctly non-American group of writings). The violence in those stories pre-dates the modern American pre-occupation with blood, guts and gore. To use American pop culture as a case-in-point for Pan's Labyrinth isn't really applicable.

My review has been written since early this year and has been on my website for quite some time, so it's not like you can't read my thoughts on it. If you want me to go more in depth, I can, but I think I put my opinions together as succinctly as possible in that review.