I generally have a very low tolerance for depictions of violence (I eventually stopped watching *The Sopranos * for that reason). But I found the amount and degree of violence in Pan’s Labyrinth absolutely essential for conveying the brutality of the situation and of various characters. If it hadn’t been so uncomfortable for viewers, we might not have emphathized with some the characters so much.
So I would strongly urge you to do what I did: go see the movie, watch as much of it as you can without flinching, then shut or cover your eyes when it gets too rough. You’ll be glad you saw it, I think. It’s wonderfully powerful.
Actualy I think it was well-suited to the context of the film. The Captain filled me with absolute dread every time he was onscreen. There was such an unpredictable, animalistic thuggery about him. There was no finesse to his violence. It was just simple barbarism.
With implied violence I would have though “Okay, he’s evil. Got it.” but the explicit violence had me clenching my gut dreading his actual screen presence because I didn’t want to see what he would do next. I was afraid for every other character up there, even his own men.
Everyone around him, all his soldiers, just silently watched him do the things he did. It actually was like the terror of being a small child with an abusive father. Here was someone who had absolute authority over those around him that no one dared even question what he did. You just tip-toed around him grateful that you weren’t the one he was hurting that day.
I don’t think I would have felt the same way at such a fundamental level if I wasn’t afraid of what I might see on screen. Every single time he was on screen, I think I held my breath.
Actually, that’s a good point. There weren’t many.
However, I think what made it so effective was after the first one, you spend the rest of the movie with the awful anticipation and expectation of a repeat. And the cold built up that led to the second…
For the poor stuttering soldier, it was also his make-up. You see him wide-eyed with terror. Trying desperately not to stutter. Then you see his big, bright brown eyes swollen shut, and he quietly pleads “K-k-k-kill me, please.” There was something about his stutter that made him seem simple and child-like, so when you see the aftermath of what was done to him…
Oh, and as far as unpleasant/violent sights, you missed one:You also see the gangrenous wound of the rebel leader, and his leg gets the saw
Also, the Captain’s barbarism was extremely casual too, sometimes completely unwarranted. That’s what made him so terrifying. It was completely unexpected and set the tone for the rest of the film.
Everytime he was even mildly annoyed with Ofelia or her mother, my girlfriend squirmed. Whenever he grabbed her, especially with those black leather gloves, I was afraid for her life. Hell, when he was talking to the doctor or his own soldiers, I was afraid for their lives too, even if they were ordinary conversations. What if one of them accidentally said something that pissed him off?
That is how effective the explicit violence was. I can’t think of any other film that had me actually cringing and adrenalized from someone’s mere presence.
Ditto. I have to wonder how the actors and crew managed to deal with the actor who played the Captain. I’m sure he’s a lovely man IRL, but I could not invite him over for tea!
You guys make some good points.
Still not sure I’m going to see it, tho.
That kind of graphic image really sticks with me - which I find unpleasant.
Sometimes doesn’t even have to be entirely graphic - for example, the “curbing” scene in American History X.
Was a very powerful scene in a very powerful movie.
But I’m not sure my life is improved by having that unpleasantness pop into my mind every once in a while.
Pan might really bother you then. Unlike slasher flicks, which can be viewed with a dollop of detachment, the violence in this movie has vivid emotional contexts as well. I don’t recall ever needing to turn away before, even though I’ve seen graphic, gory effects that were far more sadistic. This violence, in a way, is more meaningful. It haunts you more.
Mercedez stabs and slashes him repeatedly are pretty graphic.
We just finished the movie an hour and a bit ago. It was really, really good. We decided, on the way home, that the magic was real…
Not just because we’re hopeless idealists, although we are, but because Ofelia got out of her room, because we think the chair she used in the demon-thing’s lair was missing, and because of the way the Captain could also see the roots growing out around the mandrake bowl. Oh, also because the Captain comes to a blind spot in the wall where Ofelia got through.
In Sin City, it’s a cartoon. You don’t believe in the suffering. In this movie the brutality combined with the emotional depth of the characters were frigging hard to watch. Splendid movie, and very what I think fairy tales are really like. The Little Red Shoes, anyone?
Spoke with my wife and daughter last eve. They agreed that the portrayal of the violence had the visceral effect such that they literally cringed whenever the character appeared.
I was wondering, tho, how graphically violence need be portrayed to have that effect. I was thinking about the curbing scene in American History X. Cusack’s character has the black guy open his mouth and bite the curb - shown in closeup. Then it shows Cusack lift his foot, and stomp it down - but cuts away just before impact. I believe it cuts away to his brother. I’m not sure if you hear a “splat” or the brother screaming. Then it shows Cusack striding away from the crumpled body. I’m not sure the scene actually needed to show the guy’s skull collapsing - or whether that would make it any more or less effective/horrendous. Interesting.
One question my family asked was what others thought about what they perceived as religious references/implications. As I understand it, the faun offered the girl eternal life if she would believe in him. Was that obvious, or were my wife and daughter reading something into it that wasn’t intended?
I thought the violence made clear the difference between the real world and the fairy world. In the fairy world, although there’s the suggestion of extreme violence, there are rules. That’s one of the fundamental laws of fairytales. If you obey the rules, and are brave, things will go well for you. The horrific scenes in the real world show that there are no rules, and there is no safety, only courage.
[SPOILER]Did anyone else think that the eye monster had already eaten a succession of Princess Moannas? The pile of shoes was pretty obvious. Also, my husband pointed out that it was obviously fairytale wrong for Ofelia to stab her brother with the dagger because it was the thing’s dagger, and therefore an evil blade.
Also, was the baby really the Captain’s? It sounded like they met only a year ago, and Ofelia’s mother talked about being alone for a long time. How long ago did Ofelia’s father die? Was the baby his? Ofelia certainly seemed more fond of it than I would have thought she’d be, if it were the Captain’s.[/SPOILER]
Upon previewing, Dinsdale, there’s a mortality/eternal life thread running through the movie. in the Underworld, there is no age, or death. If Ofelia returns to her kingdom, she won’t ever die.
[QUOTE=Dinsdale]
I was wondering, tho, how graphically violence need be portrayed to have that effect. I was thinking about the curbing scene in American History X. Cusack’s character has the black guy open his mouth and bite the curb - shown in closeup. Then it shows Cusack lift his foot, and stomp it down - but cuts away just before impact. I believe it cuts away to his brother. I’m not sure if you hear a “splat” or the brother screaming. Then it shows Cusack striding away from the crumpled body. I’m not sure the scene actually needed to show the guy’s skull collapsing - or whether that would make it any more or less effective/horrendous. Interesting.[./quote]
That scene haunts me, as well, and I would call it “explicit” even though we never see the foot meet the neck. If I was making a similar list for that movie, I’d include that scene as #1, so that’s very like the kind of violence in this movie. There’s not the slime and arterial spray of a Stallone flick, but disturbing acts that come out of nowhere and leave you shaken.
There is definitely a point at which I realized that Fairy Tales portray fauns as both nice Mr. Tumnuses and as Satan. And I realized I might have made some wrong assumptions about which kind of faun this one is. And that’s all I’ll say.
It’s a fauno. They may have called him “Pan” in the English title because they thought it sounded better or that English-speaking audiences might recognize the name more easily, I don’t know. But it’s a fauno. Not the freaking devil. In Spain we have enough devil legends to be able to distinguish our faun legends from our devil ones, thank you. Plus, most of our devil legends picture the devil as a handsome man (who may be going through some interesting antics to hide a cloven hoof), not as anything resembling a faun. The few instances where you get satan in any kind of faun-like (more commonly ram-like) form is as part of aquelarres, witches’ ceremonies.
All the interviews I’ve seen speak of el fauno and of greek traditions and old legends, so I’m going to assume it’s a faun until otherwise proven.
I keep wondering if Mercedes saying, “I was always told not to trust fauns” was significant. I still don’t entirely trust him, after the end of the movie.
You’re not supposed to trust fauns for the same reason you’re not supposed to trust any of the fae… they’re liable to take you away and keep you from ever coming back, or to let you come back only to discover you thought you’d been away for a month and it was 200 years.
It isn’t just Satan. I don’t think fauns are generally… respectable, in myth. They’re drunkards and lascivious, aren’t they? Maeneds and fauns? Bacchus?