two fantasy films

[calimac]

I'm not itching to see Harry Potter V. My feeling after III was that if that was a good movie, then the definition of "good", insofar as it applies to Harry Potter films, has been downsized too far for me.

But there are two other recent fantasy, or quasi-fantasy, films that have been getting a lot of attention and praise, and which I thought it would be good to see before Mythcon: Pan's Labyrinth and Bridge to Terabithia. So as they're both now on DVD, I watched them this weekend. Both were pretty good; but both seemed to me to say a lot about the state of fantasy film, and not complimentary things either.

Pan's Labyrinth is an object lesson in the low expectations we have for quality in fantasy films. It's an impressive, sometimes awesome movie. Yet if the same story were told in a novel, it would be a run-of-the-mill, average quality, nice but unimpressive fantsy novel. It's the difficulty of getting a simply nice, unimpressive, average quality, run-of-the-mill fantasy story to film, or if they do, refraining from mucking it up, that makes Pan's Labyrinth so outstanding merely by its rarity.

Still, when a story begins with a little girl stumbling into a magical realm where she meets an implausibly friendly faun, and it ends with her death in the primary world while she lives on in glory and happiness in the secondary world, I am moved to ask rhetorically: where have I read this before?

It's not as scary a film as I thought it would be. The only moment when I winced and turned away was when the doctor started amputating the patient's leg, not a fantasy moment at all, alas. But there were some things that bothered me, and I suspect would have bothered Tolkien as well.

Most serious is the arbitrariness of the fantasy plot. Why do the three magical tasks have to be accomplished before the full moon? Because they do. Why does Ophelia eat the grapes when she has no reason to disobey clear orders? Because if she didn't, task 2 would be no more exciting than task 1. Why does the portal have to be opened by an innocent's blood? Because it does. (Although it turns out that it doesn't, and apparently Ophelia herself is not an innocent.) Why does Ophelia have to learn to disobey instructions at the right moment, when all her previous lessons have been to obey them at all costs? Because she does. This isn't timeless fairy-tale trope, it's modern storytelling plot manipulation.

I was also bothered by what felt like a complete disconnect between the fantasy plotline and the soldiers-and-guerrillas plotline. In fact, the latter didn't make much sense at all. If the guerrillas are so close, why is Ophelia allowed to wander off in the woods? Not all of her expeditions are secret nightime ones. And while I confess lack of familiarity with the history of guerrilla resistance to Franco after the end of the civil war, the idea that a ragged guerrilla band could outnumber, outwit, and essentially wipe out a unit of Franco's army as late as 1944 strikes me as a little unlikely. (For that matter, why does the chief guerrilla tell his sister he wants them to escape over the border? To where? Nazi-occupied France? That's a safe haven for a leftist guerrilla, all right.)

Lastly: as in every other live-action secondary-world fantasy film I see - but more painfully here than in most, because this film is better than most - the secondary-world characters look like they're made out of plastic and rubber. Whether they actually were or not. Please, when will this stop?

Bridge to Terabithia is an object lesson of a different kind. When a well-loved fantasy book is adapted into a movie that loses the soul of the original, the problem isn't what's left out, it's what's put in that doesn't fit the spirit of the story. Much of the scripting of Bridge of Terabithia - not all, but much - is a demonstration of how to expand the story properly, in the spirit of the original. Jesse's artistic talent and his love of running, topics raised but not really developed in the book, are here actually tied in to the creation of Terabithia. Terabithia itself becames more than a sketchy notion, and the fantasy imagination sequences are more attractive and less unintentionally grotesque than the ones in Heavenly Creatures. The only thing seriously skimped on is Leslie's sense of alienation, particularly from her parents. Jesse's relationship with his parents and sisters is very well done. A scene visible in one of the special features, in which his father comforts him with some platitudes, was wisely cut.

In fact the only place the script really fell down was at the very end, which was overblown. In the book, when Jesse takes his little sister to Terabithia, he merely tells her that rumor there has it that the girl arriving today is the new queen, and that's the last line. In the film she's changed to a princess, a word which today has self-aggrandizing overtones, and the girl starts chattering about how she wants purple flowers and a big castle. She's like a greedy monster in a toy store, not the wide-eyed wondering innocent she should be.

Oh well, nothing's perfect. But I'd prefer to end a good film with a satisfied feeling, not with grumblings at its flaws.

Comments

[khatru1339.livejournal.com]

I don't know if it's just lowered expectations for fantasy films. Most of the films that I am totally prepared to tell you that I loved, aren't as good as a good book -- in literary terms. There are relatively few movie screenwriters who could write a good novel. Films are good in different ways than books; plot logic is rarely a movie's strength. (But a good movie can disguise those flaws with visuals, acting, and sheer pacing.)

I loved Pan's Labyrinth, even though some of the points you make about the guerillas bothered me, too. And when it happened, it really bothered me that Ophelia ate the grapes. But later I came to the conclusion that the fantasy sequences were really fantasies, and didn't happen at all. So she "ate" the grapes to make the story more exciting -- it was Ophelia making the story more exciting, not del Toro. When she got to the kingdom at the end, it seemed so blatantly child-like wish-fulfillment that then I was totally convinced of my theory. I wasn't able to convince Ann of that, though; after days of discussion, she still believed the fantasy sequences really happened. Del Toro said he tried to make it so you could legitimately believe either way, though he came down on Ann's side. (Which isn't really important, because what matters is only what's on the screen, not what anybody says about it.)

I've watched all the Harry Potter movies, and they're okay. I don't mind the time I spent watching them. III, though...I thought III was great. So, yeah, if you didn't like that one, no sense bothering with the others.

Jeff

[kalimac.livejournal.com]

Be careful when you say, "Films are good in different ways than books." What you mean is that a movie can get away with plot flaws that would sink a book. But far too often that line is attached to a lot of guff about movie storytelling being fundamentally different from prose storytelling. Films do have different ways available to tell things, and have greater restrictions (notably in amount of time available) that books in some ways, but as Tolkien said, "The canons of narrative art in any medium cannot be wholly different."

It doesn't matter whether the fantasy sequences really happened or not. (And when it's highly ambiguous, you run up against the question of what "real" means when the whole story is fiction.) What matters is whether Ophelia thinks it's real. And she clearly does. Also, your theory runs up against what she told the faun - that she just didn't think the grapes were important. That doesn't work at all. If she were starving, I'd understand it.

[khatru1339.livejournal.com]

I guess what I'm saying is that if you're going to hold film to the same plot standards you hold prose, you might as well just not watch movies. That's a legitimate position to take, to say to the film industry "When you figure out how to construct a proper plot, then come see me." But, yeah, if you want to enjoy what films do well, you have to endure what they don't do well. (And a lot of that has to do with the low value producers put on writers, who are considered disposable and almost interchangeable.)

You're not allowing for any ambiguity in Pan's Labyrinth at all. It's established at the beginning that Ophelia reads fairy tales. She's placed in a horrific situation. As an escape, she imagines other horrific situations -- based on her reading -- that she can conquer. "Also, your theory runs up against what she told the faun - that she just didn't think the grapes were important." Umm, if she were making it all up, there's no faun to tell it to.

[kalimac.livejournal.com]

But ther are movies that tell their plots well. They just aren't secondary-world fantasies. To name two disparate films of a few years back, Shakespeare in Love (a fantasy by a definition broader than "has magic in it") and Apollo 13 (highly faithful dramatization of historical events) were brilliant storytelling that could hardly have been improved.

And because many people take your attitude, it's difficult to determine from reviews whether an otherwise good film will meet this standard. I have to see it for myself to determine whether it's worth seeing.

I'm not discussing the question of whether the faun "really" exists. I'm talking within the context of whether Ophelia treats it as if it exists, which it clearly does. Unless you are claiming that its possibly not existing is reason for her to lie to it about her motives (for eating the grapes), which doesn't make any sense, I cannot guess what point you are making by bringing this up. The theory that she ate the grapes deliberately to make the story more exciting doesn't hold up as the story is told. No, it's the scriptwriter who made her eat the grapes to make the story more exciting, and then forgot to provide the character with a motive.

[wild-patience.livejournal.com]

This was why it bothered me so that Ophelia ate the grapes: she reads fairy tales and must know what happens when you do the one thing you're told not to.

[khatru1339.livejournal.com]

But it was okay to eat the grapes because she could escape the fantasy monster, where she couldn't escape her stepfather, the real-life monster.

[khatru1339.livejournal.com]

Of course there are movies that don't have plot problems. Do you see enough of them to make it worthwhile to watch movies at all? Do you like 5% of the movies you see? 30%? I'm probably at 80%, so it's worth my while. (I don't like 80% of all movies; I like 80% of movies I choose to see.)

If all the fantasy elements in Pan's Labyrinth are in Ophelia's head, she is never in any danger (from them, at least) at all. So it's more exciting to imagine being chased by, and escaping from, the monster, than it is to imagine just sneaking away. So, she eats the grapes. There's no rational reason for this, even in her fantasies, so she has no excuse to tell the faun. But it doesn't matter. It's just a story told by a child. And told only to herself, and not anyone else.

Now, if del Toro were trying to say the fantasy elements actually happened to Ophelia, then it should have been better thought out. But in my take on the film, it's not a flaw. Del Toro may say that both ways of looking at it are legitimate, but I chose the more mundane explanation simply because it made more sense.

[kalimac.livejournal.com]

I like most of the movies I see - and bear in mind that I didn't dislike these - but I'm very selective. I see maybe ten new films a year, if that, and most of them on DVD, so that if I do dislike them, I can turn them off before I have to spend too much time on them.

There are some types of films I know enough to avoid from the start, or if I do see them because I want to be au courant, like the Lord of the Rings films, to brace myself. The last "summer blockbuster" type film I actually liked was the 1978 Superman film, and that's almost as far back as "summer blockbusters" go.

If a film has the name of Steven Spielberg on it, I know that I will loathe it to its very bones.

Going back to Pan: again, the question isn't whether the elements are "really" in Ophelia's head or not. The question is how she treats them, and she treats them as real. There is ambiguity in the first question; there is no ambiguity in the second. If she had eaten the grapes because she wanted a more exciting story, she would have said so to the faun, or at least something on the lines of "I just wondered what would happen, and why you were so insistent that I shouldn't." Instead she said, "It was only two grapes. I thought no one would notice." (This is not a paraphrase, but a quote from the English subtitles.) These are not the words of someone who wanted to see what would happen, they're the words of someone who thought nothing would happen. And the hypotheses that she's speaking to a nonexistent creature, or even the hypotheses that she knows she's speaking to a nonexistent creature (the latter of which is not credible), does nothing to change this.

[khatru1339.livejournal.com]

Eh. We're done. I stand by my interpretation, you don't buy it. Nowhere else to go.

Good luck with Mythcon.

[kalimac.livejournal.com]

I'm afraid your interpretation did seem to me to be contradicted by the actual text of the movie, yes. Oh well.

I hope you're not upset by this disagreement. Some people do take offense in such cases, so I find it wise to ask.

[khatru1339.livejournal.com]

David, we have been friends for too many years for me to get all bothered about a disagreement over a movie.

Certainly, since I feel there are two possible interpretations and I prefer one over the other, I'd be more comfortable if you felt there were two possible interpretations and you prefer the other, instead of feeling there's only one possible interpretation and it's not mine. But that's okay, I can live with your wrong-headed-ness.

I thought of you last night while watching Simon Schama on PBS extolling the virtues of Mark Rothko...

[kalimac.livejournal.com]

Some things allow ambiguity of interpretation. Some don't. The Ring is not an allegory of the atomic bomb, for instance. It just isn't.

Rothko! Thanks for reminding me. Read this, if you please.

[khatru1339.livejournal.com]

I saw this movie before it was released. I've had plenty of time to think about it, and I have thought about it a lot. You need to stop telling me my opinion isn't valid, okay? Because now, as you can see, you are beginning to make me testy.

[bibliofile.livejournal.com]

... she is never in any danger (from them, at least) at all. So it's more exciting to imagine being chased by, and escaping from, the monster, than it is to imagine just sneaking away. So, she eats the grapes. There's no rational reason for this, even in her fantasies, so she has no excuse to tell the faun.

I was thinking that perhaps she eats the grapes because they look so delicious to someone who has been deprived of such treats during wartime. Also, while getting caught by the pale creature might be scary, it could be a different sort of scary than the dangers she faces every day from her stepfather and his cohorts. The danger from the fantasy creature might actually be preferable to the danger from the real world. Eating the grapes was part act of defiance, part an escape attempt, and part the maybe-no-one-will-notice rationalization of a child starved for food and affection.

Also, children are not necessarily known for choosing strictly rationally.

As for books versus movies, I'm reminded of Peter Greenaway. He doesn't want to make movies based on books. After all, if they were perfectly good books, they may not make such a great movie. Instead, he makes stuff like The Pillow Book, which takes advantage of the medium in all sorts of ways. So in some ways, no I don't necessarily expect the same things from books and movies. But that's a different comment...

[milwaukeesfs.livejournal.com]

Regarding eating the grapes, we must recall that Ofelia had been sent to bed without supper. Also, in other such tales, the ogre's table seems to have an enchantment that makes the food irresistible, such that Ofelia ate despite the fairies' warning.

Georgie and I thought that learning when to obey and when to disobey is part of the lesson, especially given the fascist background where obedience without thought is the desired goal.

[kalimac.livejournal.com]

Then she should look hungry. Or enchanted. Or something.