Quote:
Originally Posted by ChronoGrl
I just found it incredibly uneven. There was the obvious subtext of war (backdrop and subplot of 1944 besieged Spain), but I felt as though Guillermo del Toro just didn't know... what he wanted to... do.
|
I do see where your coming from, and many share your opinion. My concept of what the film was trying to do is merely speculation; that is what the film allows. Nothing is truly explained.
Pan's Labyrinth's point, I thought, was the story of Ofelia. She was trying to cope with the current state of her life through escapist methods. She came to face what was going on in real life through her imagination; through the fairy tale. The biggest question is whether or not this fantasy existed. Is the film itself a fantasy, or is it more the story of adolescence. In my opinion, what occurred in this film (the fawn, her trials...) were not real. They were simply her imagination, stories she told herself, stories she created. They were presented to us as if they were occurring; as if they were real. Because Ofelia wanted to believe they were real, perhaps she even did. Everything she experiences in the fantasy world is directly related to the events occurring in the real world. She is merely using this covering in order to make what is happening easier for her to accept.
I believe people came in to this film expecting two things. A period film, or a fantasy film (like Narnia or something... that type of fantasy film. We are expected to believe that the fantasy is real.) A fairy tale, straight and simple (I hope you know what I mean...) It certainly was promoted with a fantastical lean. What they got was neither, not concretely, but a mixture of the two. And that's what the movie's point was.
It allows the viewer a war film, and a fantasy film, but if you focus on either, you're missing the point. The focus is Ofelia. The point is, that the real world is happening, and the fantasy world is her trying to cope with it. Guillermo uses the two worlds to get the message across. So I don't think it was uneven. He did what he wanted to do, use contrast and connection and a central chracter to get a messages across. Along the way, he did throw in a social commentary and his own ideas of Spain. That's just a personal touch.
I hope you understood this. It sounds right in my head, but I can't hammer it out. How I see the film, that is. So... this is the best I can do... :p