Re: Pan's Labyrinth
- View Source* Partial spoilers herein *
Yes, she's hungry - BUT she went for grapes, she didn't ravenously dig
into more substantial fare. I felt it was willful, childish
disobedience and *if she believed nothing bad was going to happen* she
was not representative of children in that era or, I think, of fairy
tales in general. One of the purposes of fairy tales is to teach "bad
things happen if you're disobedient!"
In any case, her disobedience didn't read as "real" to me, it seemed
too quick and the fairies were warning her and she waved them off - it
was a character point that confused me.
I really didn't like Pan himself--
And I was bothered by the torture without viewing it as "torture porn"
(a scary concept for me - yikes!)
-- Lynn --
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, David Bratman <dbratman@...> wrote:
> However, I have a question about the film's plot I'd like to put to the
> collective minds of the list.
> One of the girl's tasks involves passing by the banquet at which the
> eyeless man is sitting motionless. Although Pan had told her
> not to eat anything, at possible peril of her life, she takes two
> and all heck breaks loose.
> The question is, why did she eat the grapes?
> One person with whom I discussed this pointed out that this was just
> she'd been sent to bed without supper. I'd forgotten, when watching the
> banquet scene, that this had immediately preceded it. In any case, the
> girl didn't look ravenous. She looked more as if she was taking the
> out of curiosity.
> But when Pan berates her afterwards for taking the grapes, her only
> response is to say, "I thought nothing would happen." That seems to
> contradict and disable any suggestion that she did take the grapes
> curiosity. Did she conclude that something bad would happen, and
> to make it happen in order to spice up an otherwise boring and
> Someone else suggested that possibility to me, but that doesn't
- View SourceIn the cool light of day the morning after viewing this, Jo and I
discovered that, while the movie was certainly wonderfully done, it was
a bit off-putting for the reasons Pat and Carl noted below-though, as
noted before, the girl's fate was something I would much rather not have
known in advance.
As Jo said, "It's fine that good finally overcame evil, but did there
have to be so much evil?" The ending, where the girl's death amounts to
the saving of her brother and her final glimpse of a beatific heavenly
vision with a God the Father (as well as David Crosby) lookalike seems
to be an obvious Christian parallel.
In reviewing this thread, especially the business with the grapes, it
seems fitting to cite Chesterton's "The Ethics Of Elfland" and his
Doctrine of Conditional Joy, where all good and evil hang on a random
choice to do or not to do a simple deed: Eve's apple, Pandora's box.
Tolkien mentions this in "On Fairy Stories." It certainly looms in the
amplification of the power of the Ring from -The Hobbit- to -The Lord of
the Rings-, where what had been a handy little talisman for Bilbo
becomes life or death for Frodo. That's why Jackson's plot change from
Faramir refusing to take the Ring from Frodo to the muddled digression
to Osgiliath is one of the more egregious offenses in the screenplay.
From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] On Behalf
Of Carl F. Hostetter
Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2007 8:48 AM
Subject: Re: [mythsoc] Pan's Labyrinth
On Aug 22, 2007, at 8:22 AM, Patrick H. Wynne wrote:
> watching a helpless adolescent girl (probably delusional)
> being physically and psychologically abused for two hours, then shot
> dead, is NOT my idea of a good time!
> Am I the only one who absolutely loathed this film?
No, you are not.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]