That Old Chestnut: My “Pan’s Labyrinth” Review
Posted by Dirty Harry on Sunday, August 17th, 2008
In honor of Guillermo del HateAmerica (as he will forever be called from here on in) baring his HateAmerican soul, this felt like a good time to dredge up my Pan’s Labyrinth review from early last year:
Director Guillermo del Toro’s Pan’s Labyrinth has been in theatres for some time now. Time enough to win three Oscars last month and make a nice profit. Critics everywhere have lavished it with praise. Many call it a classic. But after seeing it myself the only possible explanation I can come up with for all this praise is that Pan’s Labyrinth is right: there really are two parallel worlds. Unfortunately, I don’t live in the one where the good movie was shipped.
Like most fantasy films, Pan’s Labyrinth is plagued by plodding episodic storytelling and otherworldly goals we mere mortals can’t relate to. For a story to be compelling, characters need more to do than the putting of three magic crystals in a giant toad to get a golden key that will save the magic tree. That’s not a story. That’s a video game. A video game for those who have never felt the touch of a woman. Did I miss the memo? Did I miss the memo that said fantasy films need not include a story? What do these filmmakers do? Instead of scripts do they send producers pop-up books of all the neat-o stuff they’re going to put in the movie? And where do they find these producers who react to pretty drawings like a dumb girl to shiny things?
I don’t begrudge Pan’s Labyrinth its Oscars. It won for cinematography and art direction — and it’s a lovely film to look at. And while I wasn’t in Franco’s Spain in 1944, I don’t question that had I been, it would’ve looked just like that. I’ve also never been to the Fairy Kingdom beneath Franco’s Spain, but again have no doubt it would’ve looked just like that. But I do know that characters need to want something. They need to have real goals and be pro-active. Unfortunately, all anyone does in this picture is react. Even the bad guy is lazy.
The film is set in the aftermath of the Spanish Civil War. Generalissimo Francisco Franco has dispatched his army to snuff out the dregs of any resistance to his rule, and this is the world 11 year-old Ofelia is thrust into. After Ofelia’s father died, her mother — now very ill and pregnant – married Captain Vidal, a brutal man in charge of a group of soldiers who have taken up residence in a villa. Ignored by her mother and unable to cope with the everyday horrors around her, Ofelia creates a fairy tale world in which to lose herself. It’s here she meets a faun (half-man, half-goat) who gives her a magic book and three ”wondrous” tasks. It seems Ofelia might just be the princess of the Underworld reincarnated and completing these tasks will prove it.
Meanwhile, back on planet earth, Ofelia’s evil stepfather waits around for the Communist rebels to do incredibly stupid things so he can find them. Though they know they’re being hunted, the Commies still light smoky campfires and take needless risks like stealing keys from the Captain rather than lose a major plot-point by simply breaking the padlock. I’m sure Communists all over the world and in Santa Monica appreciate del Toro’s depiction of them as noble, benign freedom fighters. But if they’re really this dumb it’s no wonder their only champions remain pretentious overrated filmmakers.
Nothing drives this story. The Captain acts menacing and waits for the Commies to do something else stupid. Ofelia’s mother grimaces in pain. And Ofelia goes about her “wondrous” tasks that are revealed to her in a “wondrous” book that leads her to “wondrous” places — but why should we care? And Ofelia’s as dumb as a Commie. The faun gives her one rule. One simple hard and fast rule, which we know she’s going to break as soon as it’s given (because why else would it be in the movie?). The result of this breach? Ofelia’s chased by The. Slowest. Monster. In. Movie. History.
The film’s politics are as simple-minded as the story. Captain Vidal is supposed to live in the real world but he’s so one-dimensional he seems lost without a mustache to twist. At one point he actually says, with just the proper amount of loathing, “The enemy believes all men are equal,” and then goes on about how they must be crushed. The “enemy,” those sweet-faced Commies, are all one-dimensional Boy Scouts (sans the Good Lord, natch) distinguished only by eye glasses and a feel-sorry-for-me stutter.
The movie isn’t a complete waste. Vidal does torture him some Commies. The filmmaker presents that as a bad thing, but the filmmaker needs to read a book. The movie is excessively violent: People are shot in the head, tortured, and have their bodies slashed in gory close-ups. I’m not sure how it served the story to make the violence so visceral, but when a pretentious leftist filmmaker does it it’s called art. Mel Gibson could’ve avoided a lot of criticism had he simply changed his name to del Gibson before releasing The Passion.
Maybe people enjoyed the film’s politics so much they forgave the rest. Maybe they got swept up in the film’s vision and feel. Maybe they bought into the self-conscious fancifulness. All I know is that it needed a story. And a little gratuitous free-love-Commie-nudity wouldn’t have hurt either.
Filed in General |
Templaron 17 Aug 2008 at 7:41 pm 1What I really want to know is… what’s with del Toro’s fascination with eyes relocated to other parts of the human(noid) anatomy?
Katoon 17 Aug 2008 at 7:52 pm 2Unlike DH, I love fantasy generally, and was really looking forward to this film when it came out. But, even leaving the politics aside, the story left me just as cold as it did DH. Counter to what most might think, fantasy usually works better as a novel than a movie, because you need more time to create a believable world than is usually available in a movie. (Thank God Peter Jackson was given the breathing space to build the LotR world, or else it would have been a mess.) Pan’s Labyrinth was like a dumb blonde — beautiful to look at, but boring to spend time with.
JohnLockeon 17 Aug 2008 at 7:54 pm 3My significant other (who is the definition of a “compassionate conservative”) absolutely adores this movie, and I can’t for the life of me understand why. She even dragged me to Hellboy II purely out of interest in del Toro’s hand in it. Meanwhile, I, too, was still scratching my head over why critics loved this movie so much. After all, the political aspect was relatively minor. Maybe they’re just a sucker for anything that isn’t “mainstream.”
Although if that’s the case, they should be lining up to fawn over An American Carol.
Carolynon 17 Aug 2008 at 7:54 pm 4Hey, did you notice the monsters in ‘Pan’ are the same as the ones in ‘Hellboy 2′?
So, there’s something else besides America that del Toro hates. Originality!
Katoon 17 Aug 2008 at 7:57 pm 5JohnLocke, I think it boils down to whether you’re the kind of person who is satiable with eye candy. Some people love beautiful pictures for their own sake. I need a good story to get into it.
Katoon 17 Aug 2008 at 7:59 pm 6Carolyn: Good grief. So that’s what we can expect Smaug the dragon from The Hobbit to look like.
Carloson 17 Aug 2008 at 7:59 pm 7I love the fantasy genre, but couldn’t stand Labyrinth. So boring I never actually even finished it.
Press 7 for Celticon 17 Aug 2008 at 8:07 pm 8How much did Michael Jackson get for his cameo as The. Slowest. Monster. In. Movie. History? Honestly, I thought he was the highlight of the whole damn thing.
Pedersonon 17 Aug 2008 at 8:19 pm 9I dunno. I thought it was okay, if not great. The story was simple the way a child’s fantasy is simple (and while I’m not sure that’s intentional, it serves the movie well enough), with a somewhat interesting, if implausible, interplay between the fantasy world Ofelia escapes into and the real world she is escaping from. To me, the ending seemed sad, but mostly because I never was quite sold on the fantasy world being real.
As to the politics, I found it very hard to root for either the brutal oppression of Franco’s Nationalists, especially as represented by the caricaturish Vidal, and the naïve-ly portrayed Communists, who would have, inevitably, been at least as awful in their own awful ways had their political ambitions succeeded.
I’m glad I watched it, but there wasn’t much of value to take away, and I’m not in any rush to watch it again. In retrospect, a cheap rental would have made much more sense than catching it in the theater did.
bvorkaon 17 Aug 2008 at 8:28 pm 10I confess, I liked the film. In fact, I generally like all of del Toro’s work. But as with DH and his list of “bad films by great directors”, but in reverse, I can see all of the objections, can even agree with them, yet I still like Pan’s Labyrinth (and Hellboy, too, and Blade II is all kinds of guilty pleasure awesome).
Of course, I love to tweak the noses of others who like the film by pointing out that the true fairy tale is the “real world” fight between the fascists and the Commies, meaning the “fantasy” world story must be depicting reality. I’m sure del Toro — who is really going out of his way to demonstrate just how big of an ass he is — would disagree, but it’s not my fault that he made his movie that way.
PerfectTommyon 17 Aug 2008 at 8:28 pm 11I liked Pan for the Christ analogy (blood sacrifice) but was surprised by how much I disliked Hellboy II. Saddened by the director’s recent rantings.
Rusty Jameson 17 Aug 2008 at 8:57 pm 12@”A video game for those who have never felt the touch of a woman.”
You used that one in an article on Watchmen too. You “go there” a lot. It’s kind of your “thing”.
Anyways, I think you should probably come up with something more clever than Guillermo Del HatesAmerica.
Robon 17 Aug 2008 at 9:06 pm 13I have a friend who told me nonstop how great this movie is. I don’t see it. I found the violence unnecessarily graphic and off-putting, and while I wouldn’t have thought to put it in Harry’s terms I knew there was something about the narrative that bugged me.
I think in retrospect that it was the lack of drive. I like fantasy movies, but a lot of them have a tendency to just make up some new thing every time they need to move the story. I felt like the fantasy didn’t set any ground rules and there was no clear goal for the girl.
I also thought that the fantasy world was so creepy in general that it wouldn’t exactly be paradise for the little girl. It made the whole thing confusing — if the story was all in her head, why would the little girl make her fantasy world so creepy? If it wasn’t then why didn’t the fantasy seem to have any effect on the real world?
Gilzillaon 17 Aug 2008 at 9:19 pm 14It is interesting that when liberals attempt to try epic fantasy, they generally use it as a vehicle for escapism from the world. Where as fantasy, especially that of Tolkien and Lewis embrace fantasy as a reflection of the good vs. evil found in our own world. Can anyone think of any other examples? I agree that fantasy takes a broader canvas to paint the whole picture and is usually better in the form of a novel, but Jackson’s success with the Lord of the Rings trilogy and Adamson’s, success of Narnia proves that good fantasy treated respectfully can be very lucrative. Libs just don’t like to confront evil, and that is the essence of good fantasy. So fantasy in the hands of a liberal director scares me. I love LOTR and the Hobbit and I am very concerned about it after the recent comments from del Taco. What, are we going to have to live through Smaug (the dragon who actually raped the continent by flame and killed all those innocent dwarves) saying “Mission Accomplished” after he finishes raping the mountainside and scorching and eating Dwarves like smores? I sure hope not. If any of you visit www.theonering.net please be active in the forums there and try to deride del Taco as the director. It has been proved that Jackson listened to the people who were active at that website. If we want the Hobbit to be the fantasy that Tolkien envisioned and not some shameless liberal manifesto using Dwarves and Goblins and an environmentalist Beorn preaching to us about America’s rape of the world, I would ask you all to visit the site and let your opinion of del Taco be heard loud and clear. Wow I rambled. Sorry. I must say del Taco has really gotten under my skin with his dumbass comment.
Gilzillaon 17 Aug 2008 at 9:25 pm 15Rusty and Harry, how about del Taco? It represents his culture, the food sucks, it makes you fat, Del Taco (the restaraunt) serves mexican food and hamburgeres which kinda represents del Taco’s hypocritical life making money in the country he hates. So what do you sya should he be forever known as “del Taco” or maybe “del Taco Muy Grande”?
Zundfolgeon 17 Aug 2008 at 9:32 pm 16I’ve always kind of liked “eye candy” movies but even I was bored with Pan’s Labyrinth.
Watched it and Mirror Mask in the same weekend several months ago, Mirror Mask was much better (both visually and story wise).
If you haven’t seen either and you find yourself drawn to Pan’s Labyrinth go rent Mirror Mask instead.
Or better yet, rent Labyrinth (with David Bowie and Jennifer Connelly as a teenager) instead.
CopperheadLXXIXon 17 Aug 2008 at 9:37 pm 17Gilzilla, considering how LOTR turned out inspite of all the liberals involved in making it, I’m pretty sure The Hobbit should come through okay as well. Frankly, being one of the few del Toro fans in these parts, I’m pretty excited to see his creature-feature stamp on The Hobbit-Weird eye placement and all.
whiskeyon 17 Aug 2008 at 9:53 pm 18The main problem with del Toro is that he pushed a Pagan fantasy world onto a profoundly Judeo-Christian audience.
Lest we forget, the old Gods Odin and such were always demanding the blood of innocents, human sacrifice, and were never satisfied. Moreover the Judeo-Christian conception of God posits one that loves all.
Del Toro’s rules-based fantasy fits the Pagan rules. Do this, don’t do that, sacrifice here, etc. Which is probably why it left so many cold — it’s an extended rolling of the dice in Dungeons and Dragons.
mrpitheron 17 Aug 2008 at 10:55 pm 19I didn’t care for PL either. Given the comments, I would be tempted to rent it again to pay more attention to the story (or lack thereof), but given del Toro’s comments that’s a nonstarter. Ditto on my buying the Helboy II DVD (at least until it’s cheap at Wal-mart.
Jasonon 18 Aug 2008 at 6:19 am 20DH, your analysis of PL pretty much sums up my feelings on it. IMO it was little more than pretty visuals. The story was weak at best, the gore was unnecessary, and the historical “accuracy” was appalling.
IMO the only hope that we have for The Hobbit is if Del Toro sticks VERY closely to the book and doesn’t try to take too much creative license.
*crosses fingers* If Del Toro can do that, and if the fans here tell me that it’s not a liberal bash on America, I may decide to actually go see it.
gnon 18 Aug 2008 at 6:50 am 21I really do not “get” this director. I was saying it back when everyone (even here) was lavishing praise on Hellboy 2 and the Orphanage, two abysmal movies. I really do not understand the “incomprehensible = artsy = fabulous” mentality.
I am now dreading “The Hobbit”. Even with Peter Jackson holding this nut’s leash, I have a feeling that it’ll be all the bad bits of The Lord of the Rings to the nth power - all those “cinematic cgi-scapes” of “Return of the King” which replaced the story.
Jackson seems to be going the way of Lucas in a man who lucked out (I still maintain that Jackson was set up to fail by those who wanted to sink New Line; I’ve seen his early work) and began to believe his own press. By RotK they had no time for Denethor’s character/backstory, no time for the Watchers, but plenty of time for drinking contests and Gimli farting. The very latest we have from Jackson there (the extended scenes of Rotk) added nothing to the story and were total filler (apart from the perennially “bumped” Saruman sequence).
A good director could have saved “the Hobbit” from Jackson’s dark side. I now have no doubt that this’ll be going the other way, with del Toro’s signature “mindless clutter”, another live-action Bakshi film. I’m already starting to imagine in my mind how some sequences (like the spiders) will be turned grotesquely del Toro on us.
ArchiCrashon 18 Aug 2008 at 6:52 am 22I never could work up any intrest in a “Labyrinth” movie without a minotaur or David Bowie….
wfon 19 Aug 2008 at 1:25 am 23I´m still looking forward to del Toro doing H. P. Lovecraft.
His statement was inane and Pan´s Labyrinth a disappointment, much inferior to the earlier The Devil´s Backbone. But I did like his earlier B-movies (Mimic, Blade II, Heckboy) and if he focuses on something he understands (that is, he stays away from politics and economics) he might do fine.
If you´re going to boycott every filmmaker or actor who ever says something idiotic there won´t be anything to watch. Me, I´m boycotting Clooney, Penn, Sarandon and Robbins, especially since they are mostly activists these days and I´m not missing much anyway. But I epect every filmmaker to be a fool in some respect. That´s why I don´t like the hero worship of directors like Christopher Nolan. Yes, he is a great filmmaker. But who knows what he´ll say tomorrow? And what are you going to do then, boycott him? Even Kurosawa was a socialist.
promon 19 Aug 2008 at 3:58 am 24I remember walking out in the middle of this one. Never did that for any other movie and I’ve seen some godawful movies.