Pan’s Labyrinth (潘神的迷宫)
Feb 13th, 2008 by trevelyan
Dinner at Kabbs last night with Ken, Frank and Amber. We talked about No Country for Old Men and Lust, Caution, and the conversation made me realize how negatively I reacted to both films. I felt that both wasted my time and were disrespectful to me as a viewer. When I was challenged on this, I cited Pan’s Labyrinth as an example of a film that rewards intellectual engagement and respects its audience.
In the discussion that followed, I was surprised that no-one else seemed to have noticed the things that impressed me the most about the film. And since there aren’t many blogs or even journals that engage in serious analysis of contemporary film, I thought it might be nice to write up my thoughts here. For while I don’t think that Pan’s Labyrinth is a masterpiece, I think it comes about as close to crossing that line as a very good film can, and that it’s worth writing about.
Assuming we’ve all seen the film, what I thought set it apart was its treatment of the labyrinth as a symbol for moral choice, the sheer density of menstrual imagery, and then the trilogy of tests, which provide the key to the film.
The first test Ofelia faces requires her to asset control over her sexuality. The tree is vaginal, and I don’t think her victory over the monster within can be read in anything but a sexual context. In addition restoring natural fertility and defeating a creature associated with fascism and death, Ofelia’s passage through the tree causes the destruction of her dress, a symbolc of her stepfather’s attempts to dominate her in the same way he controls her mother.
Once past more menstrual and maternal imagery (the cycle of the moon, the bleeding of the book and more) we’re at the second test, where the film really starts to get interesting. This is because on the narrative level we’re invited to see Ofelia’s act of defiance as foolish. Yet film suggests the exact opposite: the rejection of arbitrary authority is a positive act associated with the Spanish resistance (who like Ofelia, are doomed). The link is symbolic and situational: the monster is a surrogate for her step-father, a figure of blind fury who sits at the head of another table, and the guardian of “forbidden” food in another context.
The constant juxtaposition of the external and political (the situation in Spain) with the personal choices Ofelia faces is well done, as are the smaller touches that establish Mercedes as a second mother figure, structurally fleshing out the film and suggesting the consequences (in adulthood) of the moral choices Ofelia faces as she grows up. I’m not sure if the Doctor is intended as a second father figure, but it’s possible: there is a lot of substance to the structure of this film that rewards reflection.
The final test is an obvious moral choice which isn’t terribly sophisticated on its own. What makes it work is really the logical inevitability of the choice Ofelia faces and the way the director builds to it and frames it as the central dilemma of the film. Being “adult” means things in the film, and Guillermo del Toro is more interesting as a director for insisting on them. Becoming an adult means gaining and exercising control over yourself, learning to question authority, and acting morally even in situations which come with high personal risk.
It doesn’t hurt that the final test has a number of subtle touches. The one I like the most is the flower that appears on Ofelia’s dress in her judgment scene. This recalls the parable of the rose we heard earlier and suggests a positive interpretation to the film’s climax. I believe Guillermo del Toro is inviting us to consider her end as a positive Christian reward (salvation and eternal life), rather than a meaningless event made more bitter by the struggle of her imagination to romanticize her own death.
Of course, the best thing about Pans Labyrinth is that all of its intellectual baggage is superfluous. The film has great cinematography, acting and dialogue: one doesn’t need to notice or even care about the symbolism and message of the film to enjoy it. But this sort of intellectual consistency and purpose makes it a much better film than most. And I would challenge *anyone* to explain to me what the Coen brothers are really trying to say in their films, and how any message they are communicating is linked in any non-sophmoric way to the visual narratives they present.
No Country For Old Men suffers from the zombie film affliction; the characters fall into tragedy by making clearly suboptimal choices (”Hey that looks dangerous; let’s go there!”, “Ok, you go that way; I’ll go this way and we’ll meet real soon”). Compare NCFOM’s zombification to Atonement’s spiteful malice, and I find the latter more believable (just make sure you leave when you see the girl floating, you’ll only lose 5 minutes of statistically “improved” film). Granted, Atonement doesn’t probe much, it’s just about the wanton wealthy living in an easily upset world.
NCFOM on the other hand asks better questions. Extremely biased against modernity, the film begins with an idyllic life in unspoiled nature and goes downhill in cities’ artificial temporary homes. The modern Organized Man is not inconsistent Llewelyn, at points quite crafty, at other points mindbogglingly dumb; rather he is the plodding nemesis Anton who uses an automated slaughter tool.
So if modern man is evil; what makes him evil? Do his methods corrupt him? Anton’s task list must be completed and anything that prevents that is eliminated. Society? The only extra-family cooperation we see is between drug gangs and financiers. Or are we all evil despoilers of nature, chasing after bits of paper and poppies, and it’s high satire to call Anton evil….
How does NCFOM romanticize “idyllic life in unspoiled nature”? The opening landscape is a bleak autumnal brown (not pastoral green) and the opening metaphor is of the hunter and his prey.
Llewelyn had a private ethical imperative to kill his wounded stag. Perhaps we are meant to compare his behavior to Anton’s, but if so the emphasis would seem to be on their similarity rather than difference. The city doesn’t encroach on the country; they are both impersonal landscapes for tracking, hunting and killing. The positions and species of the hunter/hunted may change, but the camera and story stays focused on the hunt (blood trails, etc.).
You’re right about the zombification principle, although I won’t hold it against a good story. And it may be that the point of the film is simply that “in a dog-eat-dog world, no act of kindness goes unpunished”. Which is fair enough, but I don’t think it’s a particularly insightful statement, or was really the reason the Coen brothers wanted to make that movie.
Enjoyed your post, by the way. Made me think.
I took the destruction wrought by men as an incursion into the relative calm of the plains, hence idyllic. As for the rest of the film, I guess the crux lies in what you make of Anton; if he’s just a foil to Llewelyn’s hunter, then yeah, the film does run light.
Regarding recreational culture crit, I like keeping that part of my brain engaged (there’s only so much code can do ;). Can you post culture crit in Shanghai? Or is that unwise? You seem more than up to the challenge.
I don’t see why there anyone would have a problem with my posting cultural crit from Shanghai. I probably self-censor on the Taiwan issue, but it isn’t exactly hard to figure out my sympathies.
Will post more cultural crit, but probably not much on contemporary Chinese fiction or film if only because it seems to be a big wasteland. It’s embarassing that Zhang Yimou’s “Curse of the Golden Flower” is considered good filmmaking here, and whenever I stumble across a good book the odds are heavily on it being from a Taiwanese writer. Maybe this is changing now and I’m just behind the curve on exposure to new literature.
Eric Abrahamsen and a few others are running this site, although their focus is more on translating than on explaining why the books in question are worth reading:
http://www.paperrepublic.org/
Hi, I’m up to this page. Is it possible to add ‘page…’? Easier to search.
bad question. Thanks