Distant Relatives: The Spirit of the Beehive and Pan's Labyrinth

Robert here, with my new series Distant Relatives, where we look at two films, (one classic, one modern) related through a common theme and ask what their similarities and differences can tell us about the evolution of cinema.

Érase una vez...

There was a young girl in the civil war-torn Spainish country, very alone in the world, her mother hung up with a new lover, all she had was the flights of often frightening fantasy brought on by amazing tales.  It is surprising the similarities between Victor Erice's 1973 Spirit of the Beehive and Guillermo Del Toro's 2006 Pan's Labyrinth.  Both have young raven-haired girls as protagonists.  Both take place in the same decade in the same country and ask how their protagonists can comprehend and cope with the danger and unrest of their very similar situations.  And in that, they are not surprising.  Artists have been musing at the inner lives of children in trouble since, well, forever.

Playing at death

Culturally we romanticize the lives of children.  We think back on a time devoid of responsibilities and filled with play and forget that the darkness we've come to accept as adults was still there and far more confusing to us, conflicting with the lessons our young selves are taught about a world made of order, not chaos. Because of this, childrens' lives are actually filled with more fear than adults.  But we selectively forget to include this in our nostalgia.  For both Beehive's Ana and Labyrinth's Ofelia, the fear presents itself in the form of civil war and rebellion, encounters with soldiers, good or bad, death an every day possibility.

Dangerous Fantasy

Neither Erice nor Del Toro are interested in happy, fluffy fairy tales.  Neither young girl escapes into a world of joy.  Ana's search for the Frankenstein monster, who she knows to be a child killer, and Ofelia's quest to prove her royalty by accomplishing a series of dangerous tasks, including encountering a child killing monster too, demonstrate how the dark imaginations of children can reflect their dark emotions and provide them with a route to comprehend their worlds in a way where they have some control over the outcome (whether that be doing something as bold as saving an infant or simple as bringing a coat to a soldier.)

Tales about the intersection of fantasy and reality are commonly interpreted as metaphors about the effect of cinema on our lives.  In the case of Ana, who is obsessing over a classic film, the connection is direct, no metaphor needed.  For Ofelia, her escapes serve as fine examples of the scary, visceral and otherworldly realities that fine horror and fantasy films (something about which Guillermo Del Toro knows a bit) can transport us too.  In both cases, they transport us far from our normal lives while providing a new emotional understanding of them.


But is it real?


As is sure to become a frequent theme in this series, the primary noticeable difference between our two films is one of degrees of intensity.  The Spirit of the Beehive is the more subtle one this time, with Ana encountering just one strange creature, but Ofelia an entire world.  Furthermore the violence in Spirit of the Beehive is always off camera where Pan's Labyrinth is rife with cringe worthy moments.  Does that mean that modern audiences demand more blood or at least less nuance?  Not necessarily, or at least not in this case.  With extreme violence more common in films these days than in the early 70's, Del Toro is using a tool at his disposal and finding a new breaking point for our discomfort.  Pan's Labyrinth may not be as violent as some modern horror films, but the contrast between the bloodshed and evil of the real world and the innocence and strangeness of Ofelia's world is effective.  Victor Erice takes the opposite approach, utilizing what we don't see and playing up to what we fear we may see to induce in us a response.  When the Frankenstein monster finally arrives, the moment is that much more grand because we're finally allowed into Ana's imagination.

More than just fantasy

One other difference between the films is Del Toro's insistence that the events of Pan's Labyrinth aren't fantasy at all but are, instead actually happening.  While it's possible that Erice means for us to really believe that Ana meets Frankenstein, it's most likely just her perception (though it is fun to read the film as if it's actually happening).  Yet it doesn't matter whether it's actually happening or not in the cases of Ana or Ofelia.  The reality of these films' worlds are defined by their heroes' perceptions, and we know that what we're seeing is true to that.  Considering the undercurrent symbolism of the effect of cinema, we know that we have ourselves to define what we're seeing, whether it's real or not, it's still happening to us.  And these things were indeed happening to Ana and Ofelia, two dark children in the darkest of times.

Lunk. Subgenius. Monster.

awwww, poor Frankenstein Monster. Always so pathetically lonely. Hit refresh ya big lug! I'm sure someone will cozy up. If you're lucky she'll have a huge skunk inspired beehive. [Note: This illustration is brought to you from the wonderful imagination of Mr Hipp.... click over and see other illustrated wonders.]

Beware Take Care Bela Beware

.
JA from MNPP here with this week's Monday Monologue.

The original Hungarian fang-banger Bela Lugosi died 54 years ago today. His entire career was haunted, one might say, by his role as Dracula in Tod Browning's 1931 film. He played the role on the stage in 1927 and he would be buried just twenty-nine years later in one of his costumes from that same stage production.

But as with the famed Count himself, one life wasn't enough for Bela - he'd reappear posthumously three years later in Ed Wood's crap-classic Plan 9 From Outer Space donning a familiar cape in footage shot for another project that Wood edited into the film as a nonsensical, though loving, tribute to his friend.


Or at least that's the way Tim Burton's 1994 masterpiece Ed Wood romanticizes the story. Resurrecting Bela anew, Martin Landau turned in a brilliant performance therein that finally brought Landau a much-deserved Oscar after earlier nominations for Tucker and Crimes and Misdemeanors and served as a reminder of the sad final few years of Bela's life.

.

.

CONRAD: (Brent Hinkley): Mr. Lugosi, I know you're very busy, but could I have your autograph?

BELA: Of course.

CONRAD: You know which movie of yours I love, Mr. Lugosi? "The Invisible Ray." You were great as Karloff's sidekick.

The Invisible Ray came out in 1936 and was the third of five films the two horror icons would make together (not counting 1934's Gift of Gab, which was just an excuse for the studio to keep a slew of their stars working between pictures and is kind of like a Golden Age episode of The Love Boat). By all accounts their roles in The Invisible Ray - wherein they play scientists who've discovered a toxic meteorite in Africa - are of equal standing and they received equal billing for it. The only time Lugosi got second-billing to Karloff in all the times they acted together was in 1935's The Raven, and it doesn't make much sense there - Lugosi actually has the much bigger part! (It's also one of his finest performances, you should check it out.)

BELA: "Sidekick"??? "KARLOFF"??? Fuck you!! Karloff doesn't deserve to smell my shit! That limey cocksucker can rot in hell, for all I care!

ED: What happened?! Jesus, Connie, what did you do?

CONRAD: Nothing! I told him he was great.

BELA: How dare that asshole bring up Karloff?!! You think it takes talent to play Frankenstein?! NO! It's just make-up and grunting! GRRR! GRRR! GRRR!

Lugosi always claimed that he turned down the part of Frankenstein because it was a non-speaking part and then he himself recommended Karloff for the role. Others claim that Frankenstein director James Whale spotted Karloff in the studio commissary and asked him to test for the part and liked what he saw. Knowing the way Bela was prone to let's say amplify his accomplishments, I don't think we'd be straying in the wrong direction if we leaned towards the latter explanation, but time's erased the facts and replaced it with a much more entertaining miasma of bickering and speculation. As time and fictionalizations are wont to do. By all accounts Bela never cursed either, but where would this performances be without all the colorful expletives?

ED: You're right, Bela. Now Dracula, that's a part that takes acting.

BELA: Of course! Dracula requires presence. It's all in the voice, and the eyes, and the hand…

ED: Look, you seem a little agitated. Do you maybe wanna take a little break, go for a nice walk... and then we'll come back and shoot the scene?

BELA: BULLSHIT! I am ready now! Roll the camera!!

.

.

ED: Um, okay... roll camera… And... action?

BELA: "Beware. Beware! Beware, of the big green dragon that sits on your doorstep. He eats little boys! Puppy dog tails! Big fat snails! Beware. Take care. Beware!"

Wait! Pull the string! Pull the string!

.

I Propose...

... that one shouldn't scream whether one collides accidentally into naked Ryan Reynolds or naked Sandra Bullock. If you take questions of tastes in starring vehicles out of it, isn't this a win win whether you're stage right or left? My weekly column at Towleroad is up with a very brief rundown of: this week's new releases, Woody Allen's rare gay characters, remake news including The Bride of Frankenstein and Fame and Judd Apatow's penis and its resemblance to Sir Ben Kingsley. He said it not me. I apologize for him.

Regarding this weekend's releases: What are you planning to see?