Pan's Labyrinth Plot point
March 17, 2007 3:54 PM Subscribe
I have a question about the movie Pan's Labyrinth. It involves a crucial plot point and so don't read inside if you haven't seen the movie...Spoilers follow...
Succinctly, my question is "Why did she eat the food?" I'll admit that the entire scene with the Pale man really baffled me. She (the girl protagonist) showed a lot of courage and determination in the Toad episode.
Probably related: Why did she disobey the fairies earlier and grab the left, not the center box to get the key?
I've looked around online and found no good explanation. I feel like I missed something. It's a crucial point in the movie as the Faun rejects her after that episode. Clarfications welcome as well as pointers to articles online which expose this point well.
Succinctly, my question is "Why did she eat the food?" I'll admit that the entire scene with the Pale man really baffled me. She (the girl protagonist) showed a lot of courage and determination in the Toad episode.
Probably related: Why did she disobey the fairies earlier and grab the left, not the center box to get the key?
I've looked around online and found no good explanation. I feel like I missed something. It's a crucial point in the movie as the Faun rejects her after that episode. Clarfications welcome as well as pointers to articles online which expose this point well.
And, of course, that same stubbornness and questioning of authority serves her well later.
posted by found missing at 3:59 PM on March 17, 2007
posted by found missing at 3:59 PM on March 17, 2007
She ate the food because she, as a poorly-wrought character/caricature, submitted to temptation despite her earlier displays of courage and drive. And she had gone to bed without dinner, though it was never shown that this had any effect on her.
And she chose the different key box because of some deeper intuition? I don't know. BUT IT WAS THE RIGHT THING TO DO AND SO SHE IS A VERY SMART LITTLE GIRL NOW ISNT SHE.
I had problems with the movie. Those were two glaring issues that, though I can sort of understand what they indicated, really broke the movie for me. Where's the motivation?! Where's the character?!
posted by wemayfreeze at 4:05 PM on March 17, 2007
And she chose the different key box because of some deeper intuition? I don't know. BUT IT WAS THE RIGHT THING TO DO AND SO SHE IS A VERY SMART LITTLE GIRL NOW ISNT SHE.
I had problems with the movie. Those were two glaring issues that, though I can sort of understand what they indicated, really broke the movie for me. Where's the motivation?! Where's the character?!
posted by wemayfreeze at 4:05 PM on March 17, 2007
I wondered about this as well, but they go to great pains to show that there is some serious rationing going on. It's conceivable that her character was really craving a grape/ some kind of fresh fruit when she saw them on the table, and like found missing said, she was susceptible to temptation.
posted by quin at 4:05 PM on March 17, 2007
posted by quin at 4:05 PM on March 17, 2007
Imagine the movie without the realistic superplot and the scenes of extreme violence. As a fairy tale, in other words.
In that context, her lapse in judgment would make a lot of sense. Fairy tales and fables are full of people giving into their base desires, in ways that would be completely ridiculous in a realistic world. Since Pan's Labyrinth works in two different storytelling modes, her eating the grape works as part of the fairy tale plot.
Having said that, I actually agree with you. That was a moment when--for me, anyway--the movie failed. She lost her realness and the world of the movie wobbled a little.
posted by roll truck roll at 4:07 PM on March 17, 2007
In that context, her lapse in judgment would make a lot of sense. Fairy tales and fables are full of people giving into their base desires, in ways that would be completely ridiculous in a realistic world. Since Pan's Labyrinth works in two different storytelling modes, her eating the grape works as part of the fairy tale plot.
Having said that, I actually agree with you. That was a moment when--for me, anyway--the movie failed. She lost her realness and the world of the movie wobbled a little.
posted by roll truck roll at 4:07 PM on March 17, 2007
Seconded. I think this is part of the reason the movie rises above the typical fairy tale story, myself. Also, if you notice carefully, she was sent to bed without supper before, and would probably be famished by this point.
posted by StrikeTheViol at 4:07 PM on March 17, 2007
posted by StrikeTheViol at 4:07 PM on March 17, 2007
oops
posted by StrikeTheViol at 4:10 PM on March 17, 2007
posted by StrikeTheViol at 4:10 PM on March 17, 2007
The fruit thing is so Persephone/Eve -ish that I've wondered if there was any translation mis cues. One would think not, but anything is possible.
posted by edgeways at 4:19 PM on March 17, 2007
posted by edgeways at 4:19 PM on March 17, 2007
And extreme violence is not anathema to fairy tales... just more modern/Disneyfied ones
posted by edgeways at 4:22 PM on March 17, 2007
posted by edgeways at 4:22 PM on March 17, 2007
Fate. It is the moment in fairytales, in biblical tales and some such that humans give in the moment's impulse. Plotwise, it serves as changing direction and setting the stage for the "disgrace period" --mother's death, rejection by the magical creature etc. Stylistically I thought it was spot on. It is a breath-stopping moment: acting proceeds (intentionally or not) sort of "directed" i.e. the girl "obeys" orders. You could attribute to her following the director's thought or (as I choose to do) follow her fate. She is not shown to pause and hesitate much. Director's misstep? No, I think it was intentional. Now these are in my opinion references to the regime that was torturing Spain at the same time. Is the little girl Spain?
Also, is it only me who thinks that the movie had religious references all over, anti-establishment Church references at that but definitely along the lines of Liberation Theology?
posted by carmina at 4:33 PM on March 17, 2007
Also, is it only me who thinks that the movie had religious references all over, anti-establishment Church references at that but definitely along the lines of Liberation Theology?
posted by carmina at 4:33 PM on March 17, 2007
As a little kid, I was totally obsessed with food, especially sweet things. And the more I wasn't allowed to have it, the more I wanted it - my mom was kind of a hippie, so cookies and candy were a relatively rare commodity. I distinctly remember thinking that people wouldn't notice if I took just one or two of something, even if looking back it's obvious and egregious. Like, if my mom had two Reese's peanut butter cups in her cabinet, I'd just eat one, and figure she'd just forget that she hadn't eaten that one. This seems ludicrous to me now, but I remember the thought process distinctly. And I really didn't learn - I'd get in trouble for taking candy, know I shouldn't, and go ahead and do it again. And my justification would always be that nobody would notice just one piece, even though that had been proved wrong in the past. Eventually, I just grew out of this - presumably because I got a little sister of my own who stole my Halloween candy and the like, and realized that yes, I did indeed notice it was gone. And so continued the circle of life.
Since I was this kind of child, the little girl's actions struck me as totally normal for someone of that age. I know my sisters were non-subtle food-stealers too. We still laugh about my sister having weird caches of sprinkles and sugar packets in her room that she took from the kitchen, assuming nobody would question why the sprinkles were gone. Maybe this was peculiar to our family?
posted by crinklebat at 4:33 PM on March 17, 2007
Since I was this kind of child, the little girl's actions struck me as totally normal for someone of that age. I know my sisters were non-subtle food-stealers too. We still laugh about my sister having weird caches of sprinkles and sugar packets in her room that she took from the kitchen, assuming nobody would question why the sprinkles were gone. Maybe this was peculiar to our family?
posted by crinklebat at 4:33 PM on March 17, 2007
Chalk it up to poor editing. I imagine the "directors cut" will add a scene lamenting her extreme hunger.
posted by blue_beetle at 4:35 PM on March 17, 2007
posted by blue_beetle at 4:35 PM on March 17, 2007
In fairy-tales, forbidden food always has extra-temptation powers. Also, it's magic. Besides, she had already questioned the judgement of the fairies (who were sent to her by Pan) and therefore picked the correct lock, so perhaps Pan was wrong about the food, too.
posted by desuetude at 4:35 PM on March 17, 2007
posted by desuetude at 4:35 PM on March 17, 2007
In my opinion, this is one part of the movie that most clearly links the "real" world with her fantasy world. She is entrenched in a world and time period where personal choice is severely limited, so she reaches into her fantasy world to create the possibility of choice and of personal heroism. What she sees (what we see) is that the world is dark, drab and a living hell because people are following blindly what is told to them to do.
She does not cave into what others tell her to do simply because they tell her to. Despite her mother's wishes she does not call her stepfather "dad". Other characters in the movie make similar choices where the outcomes aren't ideal and where the results are less than perfect (think of the rebels). But they make those choices and live with the consequences in defiance of the constrained world they are living in and in response to the tyranny they see.
In all of her tasks the little girl has to do what she thinks she should do - regardless of what others think. First she ruins her new dress, second she eats when she is told not to and third... well, you can probably figure that one out.
I would say the test isn't just about doing what the fawn tells her to - she wouldn't have passed if she had. But instead the test is to see if she can make her own decisions and live with her choices.
My .02
posted by mulkey at 4:37 PM on March 17, 2007 [1 favorite]
She does not cave into what others tell her to do simply because they tell her to. Despite her mother's wishes she does not call her stepfather "dad". Other characters in the movie make similar choices where the outcomes aren't ideal and where the results are less than perfect (think of the rebels). But they make those choices and live with the consequences in defiance of the constrained world they are living in and in response to the tyranny they see.
In all of her tasks the little girl has to do what she thinks she should do - regardless of what others think. First she ruins her new dress, second she eats when she is told not to and third... well, you can probably figure that one out.
I would say the test isn't just about doing what the fawn tells her to - she wouldn't have passed if she had. But instead the test is to see if she can make her own decisions and live with her choices.
My .02
posted by mulkey at 4:37 PM on March 17, 2007 [1 favorite]
Response by poster: I like ikkyu2's interpretation.
posted by mullacc at 4:37 PM on March 17
Ah oops! I didnt see that thread and thus, of course, that this was discussed within the context of that thread.
Nevertheless, it seems that the explanation is
1) that it is a clunky goof by the director to advance the storyline (its more fun if the creature wakes up)
2) An act of rebellion, signifying the storyline of rebellion going on in the movie.
2a) A purposeful act of rebellion
2b) A lapse into temptation
It seems that the support for 2) also comes from disobedience regarding taking the fairies advice. Thanks.
I wouldnt have posted this if I'd seen that earlier thread. And I also can't mark a best answer here. I thought I was missing an explanation which would have had me react: "Aha! Of course, how did I miss that?!" but it seems that its not so clear...
posted by vacapinta at 5:12 PM on March 17, 2007
posted by mullacc at 4:37 PM on March 17
Ah oops! I didnt see that thread and thus, of course, that this was discussed within the context of that thread.
Nevertheless, it seems that the explanation is
1) that it is a clunky goof by the director to advance the storyline (its more fun if the creature wakes up)
2) An act of rebellion, signifying the storyline of rebellion going on in the movie.
2a) A purposeful act of rebellion
2b) A lapse into temptation
It seems that the support for 2) also comes from disobedience regarding taking the fairies advice. Thanks.
I wouldnt have posted this if I'd seen that earlier thread. And I also can't mark a best answer here. I thought I was missing an explanation which would have had me react: "Aha! Of course, how did I miss that?!" but it seems that its not so clear...
posted by vacapinta at 5:12 PM on March 17, 2007
What troubled me most about that scene was the ease with which she escaped even after the first door closed. I feel like the world-rules don't really mean anything if they can be broken with such little consequence.
posted by dmd at 5:31 PM on March 17, 2007
posted by dmd at 5:31 PM on March 17, 2007
I agree that the food scene --- and her giving into temptation --- struck me as off. I put this down to her acting ability and the director, rather than the plot or writing. As written I think it makes perfect sense, I just think she didn't act that scene particularly well.
But what can you say, the actress is twelve years old maybe, and overall she did a fantastic job. I loved the film.
posted by alms at 5:33 PM on March 17, 2007
But what can you say, the actress is twelve years old maybe, and overall she did a fantastic job. I loved the film.
posted by alms at 5:33 PM on March 17, 2007
Where's the motivation?!
Having just seen this movie as well as read death of a nationalist, I think the prosaic version of the motivation is that there were significant food shortages going on right after the civil war. Of course she was the daughter of the wife of a high nationalist, so she would be better fed than most, but even to the rich, luxuries were selling only on the black market for ridiculous amounts. It seems quite plausible that the grape she ate was one of the best things she had tasted in months or longer. I suspect all this (if I am correct) would be much more obvious to an adult spanish audience, whose grandparents (or parents for some) were alive during that period.
posted by advil at 5:36 PM on March 17, 2007
Having just seen this movie as well as read death of a nationalist, I think the prosaic version of the motivation is that there were significant food shortages going on right after the civil war. Of course she was the daughter of the wife of a high nationalist, so she would be better fed than most, but even to the rich, luxuries were selling only on the black market for ridiculous amounts. It seems quite plausible that the grape she ate was one of the best things she had tasted in months or longer. I suspect all this (if I am correct) would be much more obvious to an adult spanish audience, whose grandparents (or parents for some) were alive during that period.
posted by advil at 5:36 PM on March 17, 2007
I think that it's not clear is, to me, representative of what makes the movie so fascinating. Not everything is so clearly spelled out so you have to think about it.
Such is life. My girlfriend and I had completely different interpretations of what really happened at the end (and, for that matter, over the course of the whole movie). I don't think either of us were "right" - we just perceived and analyzed the same events differently.
On preview, I agree with alms that the food scene did seem a little off. I've never had a twelve-year-old, though, but I bet they occasionally confound their parents.
posted by asuprenant at 5:40 PM on March 17, 2007
Such is life. My girlfriend and I had completely different interpretations of what really happened at the end (and, for that matter, over the course of the whole movie). I don't think either of us were "right" - we just perceived and analyzed the same events differently.
On preview, I agree with alms that the food scene did seem a little off. I've never had a twelve-year-old, though, but I bet they occasionally confound their parents.
posted by asuprenant at 5:40 PM on March 17, 2007
That is:
Not everything is so clearly spelled out, so you have to think about it.
posted by asuprenant at 5:41 PM on March 17, 2007
Not everything is so clearly spelled out, so you have to think about it.
posted by asuprenant at 5:41 PM on March 17, 2007
Somewhat tangential to the subject, I read somewhere that the scene represents Catholicism - the monster's hands have holes like the stigmata, and you are punished for eating the forbidden fruit.
posted by PercussivePaul at 5:49 PM on March 17, 2007
posted by PercussivePaul at 5:49 PM on March 17, 2007
Disobedient little girls are a recurring fairy tale theme, and since this was a fairy tale, the theme might have been put in on purpose.
This theme is discussed in the book "Folk & fairy tales" by Martin Hallett and Barbara Karasek.
They mention the most famous example: Little Red Riding Hood, who left the path even though she was explicitly told not to.
posted by easternblot at 5:50 PM on March 17, 2007
This theme is discussed in the book "Folk & fairy tales" by Martin Hallett and Barbara Karasek.
They mention the most famous example: Little Red Riding Hood, who left the path even though she was explicitly told not to.
posted by easternblot at 5:50 PM on March 17, 2007
I should add: in the book they also describe this theme as "loss of innocence", which is in line with the "forbidden fruit" reference someone mentioned above. (I also thought of the forbidden fruit biblical theme when I saw the scene)
posted by easternblot at 5:52 PM on March 17, 2007
posted by easternblot at 5:52 PM on March 17, 2007
I was unfortunate enough to see this movie.
If you ignore the fairly tale aspect of the movie and, instead, view it as being about a little girl escaping a harsh reality in a psychotic break or through her imagination, the fact that she ignored the warning and indulged in the food makes more sense. She steps through the drawn door into her fantasy world. What could possible harm her? Why not eat the food?
If there is anyone in this thread that hasn't seen this movie I would have to agree with ikkyu2. It is a very well executed movie that leaves you feeling like complete shit after watching it. Avoid it.
posted by 517 at 7:02 PM on March 17, 2007
If you ignore the fairly tale aspect of the movie and, instead, view it as being about a little girl escaping a harsh reality in a psychotic break or through her imagination, the fact that she ignored the warning and indulged in the food makes more sense. She steps through the drawn door into her fantasy world. What could possible harm her? Why not eat the food?
If there is anyone in this thread that hasn't seen this movie I would have to agree with ikkyu2. It is a very well executed movie that leaves you feeling like complete shit after watching it. Avoid it.
posted by 517 at 7:02 PM on March 17, 2007
Also regarding her grabbing the left, and not center, box: one of the drawings on the wall showed a child reaching for the left box, while the center box had no lock. I still didn't understand why the fairies would have her open the center box, or the man with the eye-hands. The scene seemed out of place to me, as well.
posted by rhapsodie at 7:09 PM on March 17, 2007
posted by rhapsodie at 7:09 PM on March 17, 2007
I hated the movie but I know the answer to this question: the night before she was sent to bed without any supper (that I'm positive about but I don't recall why--perhaps because she messed up her dress doing the toad exercise).
posted by dobbs at 8:30 PM on March 17, 2007
posted by dobbs at 8:30 PM on March 17, 2007
view it as being about a little girl escaping a harsh reality in a psychotic break
I've heard this from so many people now but I simply gotta disagree. It woulda been nice if that's what the movie was, but it wasn't: she was seeing things (the fairy, for instance) before encountering the idiot bad guy. (Unless you mean the harsh reality of the war itself, in which case I'll say that's poor storytelling.)
posted by dobbs at 8:32 PM on March 17, 2007
I've heard this from so many people now but I simply gotta disagree. It woulda been nice if that's what the movie was, but it wasn't: she was seeing things (the fairy, for instance) before encountering the idiot bad guy. (Unless you mean the harsh reality of the war itself, in which case I'll say that's poor storytelling.)
posted by dobbs at 8:32 PM on March 17, 2007
My interpretation of that scene was of that of the two sides of disobedience. You have the first situation, where following her own intuition pays off and Pan turns out to be wrong. She then takes it further, already being hungry, to think that Pan was also wrong about the food. The world isn't so black and white, though, and she had to deal with the consequences.
The whole scene is, of course, running parallel to the real dinner, but was to me all about the benefits and dangers of independence. It's especially impacting that it wasn't just that she almost died, but that she is directly responsible for the deaths of those around her.
I'm totally in agreement with asuprenant that this ability for so much of the movie to be naturally interpretted many ways is one of its (many) strengths.
posted by Schismatic at 9:40 PM on March 17, 2007
The whole scene is, of course, running parallel to the real dinner, but was to me all about the benefits and dangers of independence. It's especially impacting that it wasn't just that she almost died, but that she is directly responsible for the deaths of those around her.
I'm totally in agreement with asuprenant that this ability for so much of the movie to be naturally interpretted many ways is one of its (many) strengths.
posted by Schismatic at 9:40 PM on March 17, 2007
I had no problem with it. My opinion was that the magical world was a complete construct of her mind. So she was fantasizing about being the reluctant, forgotten princess who has to overcome obstacles to claim her rightful place at the throne. That is never easy. So she comes up with a scenario where she is told to avoid temptation (the temptation -- food -- being the most difficult temptation to avoid that she can think of at the time as everyone is hungry) while trying to achieve her goals. She gives in slightly to her temptation, but she is still able to persevere without actually being harmed. It puts a little more excitement into her adventure.
I saw that part of the movie as making a lot of sense. She is able to actually prove to herself just how special she is by being able to give in to temptation and still get away with it. This interpretation, of course, is dependent upon viewing the magical scenes in the movie as completely being the creation of her imagination. And I did assume throughout the whole movie that the magical scenes were imaginary. The ending reinforced this idea for me.
posted by flarbuse at 12:25 AM on March 18, 2007
I saw that part of the movie as making a lot of sense. She is able to actually prove to herself just how special she is by being able to give in to temptation and still get away with it. This interpretation, of course, is dependent upon viewing the magical scenes in the movie as completely being the creation of her imagination. And I did assume throughout the whole movie that the magical scenes were imaginary. The ending reinforced this idea for me.
posted by flarbuse at 12:25 AM on March 18, 2007
It did make sense in the context of the fairytale scene - the task would've been too easy if the guy hadn't woken up. It's pretty standard fairytale fare that the protagonist gets a moral warning, ignores it, and faces the consequences. Still, it bugged me that even while it it was happening the fairies were hissing around in her face trying to stop her and she still failed to remember the faun's warning. I also didn't understand why she chose a different door to open than the one she was told to.
Piggyback question: my wife agrees with flarbuse, that the magical world was a mental construct to insulate her from the violence around her, but since there was an objective narrator I asssumed the fairytale part was real, if implausible. Which did you think was true?
posted by BorgLove at 9:57 AM on March 18, 2007
Piggyback question: my wife agrees with flarbuse, that the magical world was a mental construct to insulate her from the violence around her, but since there was an objective narrator I asssumed the fairytale part was real, if implausible. Which did you think was true?
posted by BorgLove at 9:57 AM on March 18, 2007
There's a massive thread on this question on the IMDB, with people posting nearly every possible theory. I have read them all, and my opinion is that if the director actually had a coherent reason for this action, at best he failed to transmit it to the audience. I believe that the director simply needed this to happen and so it happened. None of the explanations seem all that great to me. I wrote a fairly long post there explaining how her actions actually break with centuries of convention regarding food in the fairy tale model, and the symbolism used by the director could be easily inerpreted in the exact opposite way the director probably intended.
Borglove, she chose the correct door because it was a test, and the whole thing was set up so that if she was really the princess that she would instinctively know which door to choose. In the larger scope, everything was a task to see if she was capable of rejecting "fascistic"(real word?) mindless instruction-following (my interpretation.)
I did not actually like this movie all that much.
posted by erikharmon at 11:27 AM on March 18, 2007
Borglove, she chose the correct door because it was a test, and the whole thing was set up so that if she was really the princess that she would instinctively know which door to choose. In the larger scope, everything was a task to see if she was capable of rejecting "fascistic"(real word?) mindless instruction-following (my interpretation.)
I did not actually like this movie all that much.
posted by erikharmon at 11:27 AM on March 18, 2007
if the director actually had a coherent reason for this action, at best he failed to transmit it to the audience.
This is exactly how I feel. The whole scene was annoying. Why, for example, didn't she face any real consequences for not getting out before the timer went off? Why on earth did she turn her back to flaccid-face? Why did she follow directions to the letter under the tree with the creepy frog, yet suddenly get all independent in this particular challenge? She went to bed without dinner, but she doesn't act particularly hungry during the scene, which seems to be a directorial issue. This was the point in the movie where the fairy-tale thread seemed to begin to be treated as a plot divice, and that was disappointing.
posted by oneirodynia at 1:13 PM on March 18, 2007
This is exactly how I feel. The whole scene was annoying. Why, for example, didn't she face any real consequences for not getting out before the timer went off? Why on earth did she turn her back to flaccid-face? Why did she follow directions to the letter under the tree with the creepy frog, yet suddenly get all independent in this particular challenge? She went to bed without dinner, but she doesn't act particularly hungry during the scene, which seems to be a directorial issue. This was the point in the movie where the fairy-tale thread seemed to begin to be treated as a plot divice, and that was disappointing.
posted by oneirodynia at 1:13 PM on March 18, 2007
So glad I'm not the only one that was struck by that scene in a bad way (not that I understood why everyone was saying the movie was the Foreign Film Oscar shoo-in, but different strokes for different folks and all that)
That scene totally killed all the good will I had for the character. I was tempted to throw popcorn at the screen and vented about it the entire way home.
posted by yggdrasil at 11:59 AM on March 19, 2007
That scene totally killed all the good will I had for the character. I was tempted to throw popcorn at the screen and vented about it the entire way home.
posted by yggdrasil at 11:59 AM on March 19, 2007
vacapinta: Why did she eat the food?
Short answer: she was very hungry. (2b) a lapse into temptation.)
The official website has the complete screenplay (in English). Starting on page 55:
posted by russilwvong at 3:36 PM on March 19, 2007
Short answer: she was very hungry. (2b) a lapse into temptation.)
The official website has the complete screenplay (in English). Starting on page 55:
It's very hot: beads of sweat roll down Ofelia's face. Her hungry stomach growls....To me, the movie was basically a horror movie, not just within Ofelia's fantasy world but outside it as well; the Pale Man scene in particular reminded me of Silent Hill. The strongest part of Ofelia's character is her courage: like the partisans, she's willing to sacrifice her own life.
Ofelia readies to exit, but then she spots a plate of ripe grapes: so many of them!!
She looks back at the eerie, sitting figure: immobile and seemingly lifeless. The Fairies warn her repeatedly, trying to prevent her from eating any grapes. But the girl sneakily picks one up and eats it.
Unseen by her--The Pale Man lifts his head....
posted by russilwvong at 3:36 PM on March 19, 2007
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by found missing at 3:56 PM on March 17, 2007