el laberinto del fauno
Not quite a child, not exactly an adult, I have the worst of both worlds. Yeah, turns out, I’m a pessimist.
In the last few weeks, the intent behind this blog has been undermined by my actual practice of updating it. My original hope for the site was to be able to put up some reactions to the things I’d been watching, in an attempt to open a dialogue about them, as I used to do when I had a more consistent sort of company in the pursuit of entertainment; Visual, narrative and otherwise. I realized, however, that this required a little too much overlap in my activities and those of my readers. Many of you have told me specifically you’ve been refraining from posting comments because you haven’t seen, heard, played, experienced, etc. the title work of any given post. I defend myself and this project by saying that I rarely try to stay on-topic and go on wild tangents and try to expand the scope of the conversation beyond the limits of applicability to the initial material being referenced. But I get it. It’s a pain in the ass sometimes, simple as that. I don’t like pushing you to participate against your will, and you don’t like being pressured to post something, or to read this silliness at all. But we’re all friends here. Let’s put aside the excuses and be honest and brutal, though, shall we? Without being too rude about it, it’s not really about whether you’ve seen the thing or not, is it? I’m not going to call this reverse psychology outright, but it would be pseudo-clever and post-modern if I did: Don’t leave a comment on this post. It’s not for you. It’s just for me and its existence online defies reason. Get out of my head. Blogging is for desperate attention seekers who shouldn’t be encouraged. So there.
Where was I? Oh, right, speaking of honest and brutal, I saw El Laberinto del Fauno (Pan’s Labyrinth for those of us who are Americans). The reason I wrote that last wandering paragraph was because I actually meant to address the fact that, while there was some intent to spew forth unformed and malleable ideas as raw materials for ideas in these pages, I’ve waited too long to compose these posts lately and that ideal is more difficult to maintain now that I’ve waited a week and a half to write this. In fact, I saw the film with four friends and already had that first conversation, and allowed thoughts to gestate for that entire time, becoming slightly more developed, adolescent ideas, which everyone knows are the most unwieldy and demanding ideas to manage. Sorry about that. Spew forth? Gestate? Hi. I’m Eugene. Since I like David Cronenberg and Jhonen Vasquez, I often rip them off by assigning physical analogs to intangible concepts. Plus, it tends to be gross and icky. Because I feel gross and icky most of the time, I take sadistic pleasure in forcing others to sympathize. Enjoy.
Dammit. Paragraph three. Seriously, it’s time to talk about something that has even a little to do with the movie. As we left the theater, my friend Kate told me she was sad because she felt like an adult. I took this to mean that, because the magic in the film is focused on a child and her perspective, and goes largely unseen by the adults around her, one may have the interpretation that, because of the cruel reality surrounding her, she creates a magical world to which she can escape, where the impossible is possible. To the cynics among us (of which, begrudgingly, I am now including myself), it’s simply a coping mechanism. As much as I want to believe in the possibility of the magic I’ve been shown, the sheer fact that such belief requires effort on my part makes any absolute belief in the existence of such a wondrous, beautiful and frightening world impossible. Things don’t have to be absolute, of course. I consciously resist being told to accept that the world and all sub-functions within it, have pre-defined ways of working, unable to be altered or modified. But I understand that, in any given situation, it earns me the labels like “unrealistic,” “naïve,” and “bat-shit crazy.” Whereas, when I was younger, I was “imaginative,” “creative,” and “such a cute little girl.” Okay, that last label has less to do with cynicism as an adult and more to do with the fact that my parents let me have a gender-unspecific haircut for most of my young life. I’m being overly verbose about all this, but my point is that, like Kate, I was saddened to feel that I’d had all the wonderment forced out of me by the process of growing up.
Then again, maybe that’s not what Kate meant. For all I know, she could have meant that she was saddened by being an adult because the ticket prices are higher. Or, knowing her, it may have been some sort of comment about bladder control. Not sure. Depending on which, she’s potentially looking forward or entirely dreading becoming a senior citizen now; Our conversation was pretty short, and the rest of the film-oriented talk that night tended toward more technical aspects of sound design that I hadn’t noticed and I neglected to follow up. For those who haven’t seen it, I think there’s quite a bit to admire in the flick. It’s harsh, creative, relentless, beautiful and, depending on how much faith you have left in the miraculous, hopeful.
January 22nd, 2007 at 4:08 am
I’m looking forward to being old [though some might inform you that I'm a 90 year old librarian, they're lying], so I can walk around with a stick and hit people with it when they annoy me.
January 22nd, 2007 at 9:39 pm
I have not seen Pan’s Lab-ee-rinth, but I’ve recently discovered that I really enjoy caramel corn. I mean, I really like it. If I were single, and it weren’t corn, I’d like get a room with it…err, something. When I get old I hope I don’t have to stop eating it because of dentures or some shit.
January 23rd, 2007 at 3:25 am
A – You’re never too young to begin beating things with blunt objects.
E – Careful there, big guy. That’s the kind of crazy talk I expect from your sister.
January 23rd, 2007 at 9:06 am
ok, so akika and I actually saw this. I too was sad I was old at the end, cause while I enjoyed the ‘reality’ bits and the ‘fantasy’ bits, the happy ending fantasy world seemed really scary and unlikely to me. I think it is cause I am old. That and akika keeps sticking her hands on her forhead and chasing me around. that’s really scary.
January 23rd, 2007 at 8:23 pm
I would never get a room with carmel corn when there are so many other kinds of corn (popped w/salt…lots of salt, creamed, on-the-cob, dogs, chips, cob pipes, balls…) that would feel feel left out.
January 24th, 2007 at 5:25 am
I’m not sure they would “feel feel” left out. But maybe that’s because I don’t know what you’re talking about. But, who knows, maybe they would would.
You better not be still rambling about corn variants next time I speak to you, unless it’s to apologize for leaving Beavis’ alter-ego off your ridiculous list.
January 25th, 2007 at 11:26 pm
Oh man, how am I going to get tp for my bunghole at the corn-lovers motel? Also, I’m pretty sure it’s caramel corn and not, as the upstaters pronounce it, carmel corn corn.
So I just had my first campus visit interview/dinner and there was much talk of ye ole Pan’s Labyrinth. Is it a strength of the movie that the fantasy to reality narratives do not form a one-to-one correspondence or would it have been better to give a little more insight as to how the fantasy elements relate to its obvious pro-Republicanism? I didn’t know because I’m a loser and haven’t seen it. I should have known the way to get an academic job was by going to the movies.
January 26th, 2007 at 1:26 am
It’s possibly an interesting interpretation, but I need clarification on what exactly is implied by “obvious pro-Republicanism” in the conversation you overheard. Are we talking about Republicanism as an overall political ideal or American Republican Party-ism? If the latter, I’m curious to know how the context created by the film itself can be so readily discarded. Before I get too defensive about it, and off topic, my initial reaction is to say that regardless, it’s better to have the two narratives be disparate as it speaks to the main character’s removal from her surrounding reality, both deliberate and circumstantial.
But, as is often the case with you, Megu-chan, your question may have gone right over my bakana head and I’m left with an unfortunate misinterpretation. And yeah, one day, you’ll figure out that the way you can get whatever it is you might want in life is to go to the movies. With me.
January 26th, 2007 at 6:18 am
I can’t think of anything that was “pro-republican” in either definition, let alone obviously so. Of course I don’t do literary theory, so perhaps I don’t notice such things…
Still, within the “reality” portion of the movie I don’t see it. In the first definition, of popular governance/anti-monarchy, I can see how resistance to Franco’s government could be seen as such, and thus the “good guy” rebels might represent a “pro-republican(1)’ bent. maybe. The same way that star wars would be pro-republican(1).
As for the GOP, republican(2), I doubt the movie’s makers had the intention of commentary upon american politics. If one looks at the intended extermination of “insurgents” who are in fact locals whose government changed without their agreement through torture and brute force, a comparison could be made to recent events. As such, I would say the movie (again, like star wars) is clearly pro-insurgency, anti-torture, pro-democracy.
Within the “fantasy” world, pro-monarchy would drive the political bent. Yet, with children’s movies this is not uncommon. Being a “lost” monarch, or the “chosen one” is a normal plot device. Again reference to star wars and the matrix. This is in some senses republican(1) as the special one is a member of the masses at the beginning of the story. (kinda like Di) Still, as Brin argues, this really just reinforces the divine superiority of the monarchy because the chosen one was selected by accident of birth and not by their own merit.
Yet perhaps I am missing the point.
January 26th, 2007 at 6:37 am
So then really, Doc, you can see how it would be pro-Republican in the first definition, then, ne? And by that definition, I think Star Wars is in fact pretty heavy-handed in its stark, blatant and overtly stated Republic vs. Empire scenario.
Stormtrooper armor is still so much cooler than those dopey bicycle helmets the rebels had, though. In the end, it’s all about marketing an image, and I wouldn’t wear one of those fucking Endor ponchos if you paid me; Freedom be damned.
January 27th, 2007 at 1:05 am
yeah, I took it to mean the movie made the loyalists to the second Spanish Republic in the Spanish Civil War the “good guys” and Franco et al the “bad guys” (I assume from the conversation they did this in a rather straightforward Star Warsy kind of way) and that this woman who saw it wanted the movie to be a little clearer about what, politically, it was investigating about this stance with the two story lines. So Steve, that seems to be an answer to her question and so I figure you did were right on the point. However, if the Republicans had stupid looking armor, perhaps this theory is shot.
okay, I think it’s time to actually see the movie. And then Star Wars.
January 27th, 2007 at 1:09 am
Yes, I wrote “did were.” I know you know I do these drunk.
January 27th, 2007 at 3:54 pm
So here it is: my first post. And now that there’s been all this talk about pro-Republicanism (1 and 2), this might seem out-dated and lacking in the segue department. But since Euge has established himself as the master of the segue (and I shan’t compete), and this blog has no apparent anti-tangent guidelines, I’ll cut this intro short and just respond already. First of all, your original interpretation of my comments after the movie was the correct one: up until the end of the film, I had accepted the magical realm as something that might really exist, but by the end, I felt sure that it was just a coping mechanism, and that realization made me feel out of touch with my own inner child, and therefore sad. (As though the movie wasn’t sad enough.) In contrast, my lack of bladder control is something that continues to make me feel like a child, since I never had it, so it’s not like I’ve lost it in my premature old age. Furthermore, I wouldn’t have commented on that publicly, since I didn’t think anyone knew about it, but now it’s out there– so thanks for that. At least it explains the smell. As for the lack of parallel in the two plots of the movie, I found that confounding at first, but ultimately really appreciated it. I know that for some people it didn’t work– I think Anthony Lane, in his review (where you can also find his thoughts on what is “afoot in Mexican filmmaking”) asks whether the two stories fit together well, but does not offer a solid answer. For me, it just indicates the vividness of Ofelia’s imagination, and how grounded it is in the storybooks that she loves. I can imagine (vividly, even)that if this were an American movie, there would be stronger parallels so that the audience would “get it,” and then I would have left the movie feeling insulted and angry, rather than sad and a little bit damp.
January 29th, 2007 at 7:24 am
“in its stark, blatant and overtly stated Republic vs. Empire scenario” -e
*steven sighs at the unsuportability of the position that star wars is not pro-republican*
I am not a historian either, but I think franco was technically the anti-monarch, and thus the anti-franco rebels by definition must have been anti-republican. I think that was my original point actually, which went off the rails when I realized I know almost nothing about franco, and wasn’t about to do the necessary research. I mean If I gotta look stuff up on on wiki to post on pestilence’s blog about a fantasy movie, something has gone seriously awry.
m hasn’t seen star wars??
January 29th, 2007 at 7:36 am
So, yeah. for the record, cause I am clueless: the army franco defeated was the spanish republican army. freakin’ facts ruining my perfectly good world view. And they let me into oxford. fools.
January 29th, 2007 at 9:07 am
Doc, I hope it is indeed simply that your world view has been torn asunder which has crippled your ability to think clearly, but: Of course M has seen Star Wars. But all this talk is obviously compelling her to revisit the movies. She just leaves out big words like “again” so that I can understand what she’s saying. And she’s posting drunk (and, more likely than not, simultaneously devouring the souls of innocents and cackling).
Stokely, I’m glad that I correctly read your interpretation for the most part, as well as your susceptibility to pee-based humor. I’m with you in the appreciation for the lack of correlation between the worlds to drive them more distinctly apart. You get the award for taking the right tangent-bait instead of going all political like these fuckers.
February 1st, 2007 at 11:11 am
yes Steven, please, let’s not talk crazy here. I’m pretty sure I’ve watched Star Wars with you, most likely more than once.
Also, I could make a very good argument (because it’s right) that Star Wars is not pro-Republican. It’s just pro-rebel. yee ha.
February 1st, 2007 at 12:22 pm
M – Are you sure you’re up for that? Maybe you’re thinking of the Dukes of Hazzard again. I know it’s hard not to. The rebels in Star Wars are trying to restore the Republic, because everything went to crap once the Empire took over, having eliminated those who would defend and maintain the old ways (the Jedi). The shit in the prequels tries to make things more complicated but instead simply makes them stupider, but it remains true that the rebels are Republican and trying to revert to a system they’ve known rather than blindly raging against the Imperial machine. The argument could be made that Lucas doesn’t think the (restored) Republic would be without its problems, but I wouldn’t give him so much credit for considering a grey area there. But maybe I’ve gone too far outside the scope and content of the original films to fill in the gaps?
February 1st, 2007 at 12:58 pm
first of all, i’m always thinking of the dukes of hazzard. doesn’t mean i can’t tell the difference between luke and duke (yes, for those of you who don’t know i thought their names were luke and duke, um, duke when i was little) and luke and han.
okay, this first run through will be quick and messy cause honestly, i’ve gotta start getting some work done today. but since you challenge me, duel we shall.
who is the coolest character in the trilogy? okay, who’s the best friend of the coolest and hairiest character in the trilogy? (steve, i know you will argue this, more on yoda to come). is he all about politics and restoring an ordered republic? yeah, in the end he turns out to have some ethics, but they aren’t exactly the ethics of republican order. granted he’s not a fan of the empire either but this whole good/bad thing breaks down a bit when you look at who we are actually invested in. also, leia, pretty fuckin cool. but not because she’s fighting for restored order but because she’s willing to stand up to the bastards who killed her people–the republic for her is in the end a better system but really she just wants to take those fuckers down. plus you know we really like her because she’s a hot chick who kicks all kind of ass. again, rebelling against gender stereotypes in a way available during revolution, not necessarily during a stable republican rule. luke, he’s all about the politics, balancing the force, blah blah blah. boring as all hell, i tell you. he needs fucking droid side-kicks to get you through his scenes.
finally, yoda. he knows the republic isn’t/wasn’t really all that great. it’s better than the empire, sure. but what he really wants is to see some people with minds of their own–you know interesting, like his old pals. the kind of guys who appreciated stealing people’s hot dogs, who understood irony and the fact that the world is not actually made of separable goods and evils. honestly, he’s probably hiding out on dagobah because he knows the most interesting person in the galaxy is fucking vader and he only got that way because he was pushed to rebel against what at the time was kind of a bloaty, useless, piece of shit republic (i bring in the prequels here, sorry, but historically republics fall to dictatorships often because they are themselves screwed the hell up and people are looking for something else–here refer back to the original conversation about the SCW, the appeal of communism at a certain historical moment as an alternative to republican governments, etc.).
i end this terribly thrown together (but nevertheless right) argument by saying that i am not arguing anything about lucas (i think more and more he had no idea about the greatness of what he was actually producing). i am arguing only about the movies themselves. lucas can keep his grey area right there in his pants.
February 2nd, 2007 at 2:04 am
This is a surprisingly well argued point for a certifiably insane person. I see only one flaw: I don’t remember Boba Fett being particularly hairy, nor was he Han Solo’s best friend.
I’m also noticing something else: An inability to be succinct runs strong in my family. My father has it. I have it. And… My sister has it.
February 5th, 2007 at 2:44 am
Well put. It is all about the rebels (at least in 4-6) yeehaw. I wouldn’t argue that han is, by far, the coolest character the series, possibly ever (after indy of course). I mean who would you want to be? the swave gambling ladies man with the cool ride or the short old guy who lives in a swamp? And as far a leia is conserned, she is after all royalty, by adoption, and devine by birth. Which, is not republican per se. Further, she does come into her own in the rebelion that allows her to step outside her preordained gender and class roles. The situation does this as well for that matter does the peasent luke, and outlaw han, who are allowed to step outside class restrictions for the same reasons. Chewie though gets stuck in the post-slave servant role. I mean he doens’t even get a medal at the end of new hope. What’s up with that?
Although, I must take issue with the reference to lucas’s grey area. I did not need that mental image.