As I said in the first topic, I feel this is very well structured and very well paced, even though he didn't outline or worked some other analytical process. (Note: I am going to post my structure analysis above but I don't know if it will come properly formated here at Blogger. If not, I'll upload it somewhere and ask you to ignore this post.) ----------------- Subplot #1: Rebels vs Fascists. Subplot #2: Ofelia has to protect her mother and brother from Vidal. ACT ONE (p. 1-25). Sequence 2 (p. 4-11): From the woods to the fascist base. World of the story: During the Spanish civil-war, in a military base in the woods, where a mystic Labyrinth was once built. Status Quo: Ofelia is an innocent child strapped in the cruel world of war, where even her family relationships are above a fascist’s commands. Status Quo Obstacle: There are some mystic elements (the vigilant insect, the ancient ruins and the early tale) that may provide Ofelia a way out of that world. Introducing main character (Protagonist): Ofelia is a dainty little girl, amazed by the world of fairytales and rejects the authoritative figure of the Captain. Introducing antagonist (Nemesis): Captain Vidal is an authoritarian, fascist military man, even in personal matters. Introducing supporting character #1: the vigilant insect. Introducing supporting character #2 (Attractor): Carmen, Ofelia’s mom, who is handling pregnancy with difficulty. Sequence 3 (p. 11-18): The rebels are still fighting; Ofelia has an intimate moment with her mother and unborn brother. Introducing supporting character #3: Mercedes, the disguised rebel. Introducing supporting character #4: The doctor, another disguised rebel. Establishing Subplot #1: The rebels are surrounding the base. Inciting Incident Subplot #1 (Set-Up for later Pay-Off): The doctor handles the pack to Mercedes. Protagonists goal Subplot #1: Provide for medicine and food for assuring resistance. Main obstacle Subplot #1: The antagonists will asphyxiating medicine and food supplies for winning and show no mercy whatsoever (scene 13). Establishing Subplot #2: Ofelia needs to protect her mother and unborn brother from Vidal. Sequence 4 (p. 18-25): Ofelia follows the fairy to the Pan’s Labyrinth for the first time and is given the Book of Crossroads. Introducing supporting character #5 (Trickster): The Faun, who launches her on the missions. Inciting Incident/The Hook (Plot Point #1): Ofelia follows a fairy into the Labyrinth. Lock-In (Plot Point #2): The Faun gives Ofelia the Book that will dictate her missions. ACT TWO Sequence 5 (p. 25-32): Getting ready for the dinner (routines, bath and dress, cook, storage); Ofelia wonders about fairytale real world. Establishing Main Tension: Is Ofelia being dragged into a fairytale ? Hence, is she the Princess ? (connects with the need to prove it)*. New Goal: Complete the first mission. Subplot #1 Revival: There’s a lot of food in the base. Subplot #1 Obstacle (Set-Up for later Pay-Off): Vidal keeps the only key of the supply storage. * (mais tarde) “How do I know what you say is true ? Sequence 6 (p. 33-38): Ofelia beats the Toad and the fascists almost catch the rebels. First culmination (Plot Point #3): Ofelia beats the Toad. Set-Up for later Pay-Off: The clinging dress disappears from the tree branch. Subplot #1 Higher Stakes: The fascists have clues and their only medicine. Pay-Off: The package. Obs: there’s a feeling of “next level” in both. Sequence 7 (p. 38-45): The guests at the table and Ofelia taking a bath. Subplot #1 New Obstacle: One ration-card per family. Subplot #2 Revival: Carmen is pissed at Ofelia’s behavior who is satisfied she pissed Vidal more. New Goal: Go for the second mission. Sequence 8 (p. 45-52) Subplot #1 Solution: Mercedes and the doctor have been hiding some food and go into the mountains. Subplot #1 Obstacle: Men are sick and wounded. Inciting Incident (Subplot #2): Carmen is very sick and bleeds. Subplot #2 Solution: The Faun gives Ofelia the Mandrake root to protect her mother.* Establishing Higher Tension: The protection of her mother is now dependent on how Ofelia turns out in the fairy world. Midpoint (Plot Point #4): Ofelia beats the Pale Man. * The plot and subplot interweave (the two worlds do, for the first time). The fairy world is protecting the real world, just as we discuss in the themeline. Sequence 9 (p. 52-66) Subplot #1 Higher Obstacle: Besides sick and wounded, the men don’t have any resources. Suplot #1 Solution: They’ll fight for honour. Subplot #2 Solution: The Mandrake makes Carmen better. Subplot #2 Obstacle: Vidal wants the doctor to choose the son. Subplot #2 Solution: Ofelia promises to make her brother a Prince if he doesn’t hurt her mother. Subplot #1 New Solution: Ambush gunfight. Subplot #1 Higher Obstacle: A living man is taken prisioner. Sequence 10 (p. 66-78) New Goal: Go for the third mission. New Obstacle: The Faun is disappointed and forsakes Ofelia. Subplot #1 Higher Obstacle: The stutter is tortured to talk. Subplot #1 Solution: The doctor kills him. Subplot #1 Higher Obstacle: Vidal uncovers and kills the doctor*. Subplot #2 Obstacle: Vidal discovers the Mandrake and Carmen burns it**. Subplot #2 Final Culmination: Carmen dies at childbirth. Establishing Higher Tension: All is lost. *In the same sequence, Vidal unveils two major contrivances of antagonism towards him, hyping him in the last fast-paced minutes of the Act Two. **In the same sequence, the Faun walks away, Vidal and Carmen dissolve the connection between the fairytale world and the real world and Carmen shouts that magic doesn’t exist. Sequence 11 (p. 78-88) Subplot #2 Half-Failed Goal: Ofelia packs her mother’s things, who she couldn’t protect. Subplot #1 Obstacle: Vidal tests Mercedes. Subplot #1 Solution: Mercedes tries to escape (with Ofelia). Subplot #1 Obstacle: Men capture Mercedes and Vidal gets ready to torture her. Subplot #1 Solution: Mercedes slashes Vidal and escapes. Subplot #1 Obstacle: Men go after Mercedes once again and surround her. Subplot #1 Solution: Mercedes is saved by the guerrilla.* Second Culmination (Plot Point #5): The Faun gives Ofelia a last chance **. *Look at the rising pace, just about to enter the Act Three. **There’s still the other half of the Subplot #2 goal to go: protect her brother. Now, the subplot merges with the main plot, breeding higher stakes. ACT THREE Sequence 12 (p. 88-95) New Goal: Finally fulfill the last task. Climax part 1 (Main Plot and Subplot #2 Highest/Last Obstacle): Ofelia sacrifices herself in place of her brother. Pay-Off: The tearing ribbon of blood from Ofelia’s nose into the well. Climax part 2 (Subplot #1 climax): The rebels kill Vidal. Pay-Off: The watch. Sequence 13 (p. 95-97) Resolution: Ofelia leaves the human world forever and rejoins her father to reign with peace and justice according to the tale, leaving a trace in the fig tree. Mercedes and the rebels triumph over fascism and take care of the little brother.

That's pretty comprehensive - not much I can add to that. Apart from to note how the traditional fairy tale structure mirrors the three act structure - three tasks, and at the end of the second she seems to have failed, but she's given one more chance... Etc.

Wow, Diogo, you definitely get the GITS Gold Star today! I want to sit down tonight when I have time and really process your breakdown, but most definitely thanks for posting.

Debbie, the number three is perhaps the most important one for storytelling. We see that pattern over and over and over again (see, I just did it there!), and I'm not surprised why because three is reflected throughout nature and human culture. Your additional point -- about how after the second task, Ofelia seems to have failed -- is exactly right, what I call the All Is Lost moment at the end of Act Two in screenplay structure. Good observation.

Scott, since I'm anticipating you will bring up The Hero's Journey at some point in this discussion, let me ask you this: since this is primarily an educational series, what is the lesson here? It is well known that del Toro doesn't follow any of the screenwriting gurus, or outlines his stories as he's writing, and he doesn't want any restrictions on his imagination so he rejects all of the popular theories on how to create a story. I can highly recommend his hour-long conversation with Rick Kleffel at Zócalo Public Square. Start at 15:00 for del Toro's views on the writing process, and at 31:40 for some choice words regarding screenplay structure (a hint, it starts with an F and ends with a U): http://zocalopublicsquare.org/thepublicsquare/2011/01/19/an-evening-with-guillermo-del-toro/read/the-takeaway/ So with that knowledge, that he writes intuitively and hates the linear screenplay structure, how is it possible that this script could line up with the stages you usually describe? Is that just inherent in all stories? He approaches writing from a completely different angle and it still yields the same result? What can we learn from a writer who doesn't subscribe to the traditional Hollywood style storytelling? I think we have to look at this particular script and film through the eyes of its creator, not through the eyes of the audience. What is he trying to tell us? What is the meaning? How did he create that meaning? By analyzing a story and saying here are the plot points and act turns, what are we actually learning from that? I personally don't know how to apply that information to my own writing, so it would be great if in addition to pointing out the various archetypes, stages and plot points we could discuss why the writer made those choices. To me, the reasons are clear why he chose these characters and this setting to make his argument. But to discover that we have to start with the theme of the film. In one of the first scenes, when Carmen and Ofelia first arrives at the mill and meet Vidal, del Toro shows us two opposing ideas: Carmen obeys Vidal, Ofelia does not. She sticks out her left hand, and when he points out it's the wrong hand, she says nothing, she doesn't offer him the right hand. This is the primary theme of Pan's Labyrinth and it is so beautifully woven into the structure of this story that they are inseparable. Obedience vs. disobedience. Blindly following rules or questioning them. It is shown from the backdrop of Fascists vs. Rebels to each character's choices throughout the film. These two opposing ideas battle it out during the course of the story, and in the end one of them wins. This is the true structure of the story. That's what del Toro set out to show us and he does it brilliantly. In this particular case, del Toro argues his points by having the characters make choices and suffer the consequences of those choices. In the end he answers the dramatic questions posed in this story, and we as an audience feel satisfied because it has meaning. The story feels complete because he ties all the strands together. Each character, each sub-plot, each action has a beginning, an end and a reason for existing. Together they create a sum greater than its parts. Together they create meaning. That, to me, is story structure. Not the order in which things happen. That's when yesterday I said I found myself not caring when things happens in the story. It is why and how it happens that matters. It's not because I got lost in the story, it's because it really doesn't matter when the plot points happen or if act turns happen at all. And if you do find that this story has three acts, what is the purpose of those three acts part from being just a beginning, middle and an end? Del Toro certainly didn't consciously structure the script that way, so how come they are there anyway? Again, is it just inherent in all stories?

Pan's Labyrinth is a film I felt was actually constructed using Joseph Campbell. Don't really have much to add to Diogo. He broke down the film very precisely. You can plug in the Hero's Journey at the same break points. The insect is the CALL TO ADVENTURE. The FAUN is the first threshold guardian between the Ordinary World and the world of Act Two. He also acts as a Mentor throughout the rest of the film. (I also totally agree he plays the role of Trickster as well. We never really know if we can trust him). But he's the guy that gives Ofelia the tools and direction for her journey. Once we get into Act Two there's 3 challenges -- the Toad, the eye monster thing, and the Mandrake. TESTS, ALLIES, ENEMIES. These are minor threshold guardians in her journey to discover if she really is a fairytale princess. The ORDEAL occurs when The Mandrake is discovered, burned, and Carmen dies at childbirth. Vidal's upset with Ofelia. The faun leaves her, breaking the fairytale. She's on her own. Reward / Seizing the Sword / Elixir -- she's completed her task and returns with the knowledge/belief that the fairytale world is real -- despite Carmen's renouncment. The Road Back -- is actually flopped here. This is partially due to the plot. We are told Ofelia was a princess in the fairytale world. Returning to her status quo would actually be returning to that world. The road back is actually the conflict between these two worlds and which one she will choose. Resurrection -- She's shot. Wakes up in the fairytale world -- "KING: Arise, my daughter." Return with the Elixir coincides with her resurrection in the fairytale world, where she is able to take a seat next to her father. Those are the basic Hero's Journey beats.

I am the one who says thanks for the initiative which got me to analyze scripts in a way I had never done - like what I did right here, I had never broken down a script like this. I am learning so much, from everybody. Cheers.

Whether or not Del Toro "believes in" story structure, he instinctively follows its paradigms. Ideally, when we shape a story, we will not need to think about structural paradigms either. Mere mortals will write a draft or an outline and not have everything shaped perfectly. Checking in with the imperatives of dramtaic form is an invaluable tool to help realize a script. Del Toro may not want to think about it BUT HE KNOWS IT INSTINCTIVELY. One important element for me in the script - Ofelia's father. The dramatic kernel of the entire script may be what we never learn - did Vidal kill him to win his wife? This is implied but not stated. Ofelia's relationship with her stepfather hinges on this literally and emotionally. The denouement of the film is her reunion with both her parents. This subplot underlies everything in the script. Emotionally, the story of a child coming to grips with the a step parent resonates throughout.

Very nice thoughts, totally worth discussing. First, I haven't watched the interview, but I will, with most interest. When we talk about structure we talk about the articulation of events, we try to put the pace in a schematic and analytical way to blossom mental fingerprints of stories for the screen in what comes to this particular topic. You get a sense of the flow, of the breaks, of ups and downs, of convergence of the plots and the actions of the characters. The example you give of the first scene is very pertinent. But I don't think that is structure. That's interpreting, that's semiotics, that's what Toro wants us to know but having the characters do something. That's not structure, that's maneuvering significances. Del Toro didn't think about structure. Kaufman doesn't. Nolan does. Hitchcock did. Tarantino doesn't. Some do, some don't. But in the end, because they're talented and write down great stories, it all comes with its self breeding structure. And you will interpret it according to your own patterns of thinking which may or may not mirror the way you write yourself - it doesn't have to be a "literal" transposition.

Teddy, terrific analysis especially regarding obedience vs. disobedience. And thanks for that link, another great resource for this discussion. Your post requires more time than I have, so let me address the top of line points first. 1. A writer does not need to believe or subscribe in ANY THEORY whatsoever. As I have said time and again, in my view there is no right way to write. So if a writer does not like the idea of The Hero's Journey or plot points or sequences or even Aristotle's idea of beginning, middle and end, I would say "Go with God" and write whatever stories you want however you want. 2. That said, I do believe there are universal forms and shapes to story. I am convinced of this because of my own life experience in reading stories, watching movies, experiencing directly those patterns, and of course reading Joseph Campbell and Carl Jung, among others. So I think even if a writer does NOT subscribe to any theories of story structure, indeed, if they do everything they humanly can to AVOID them while writing, some structure will emerge, just like some narrative functions in the form of characters type will do so, too. In my humble opinion, some sort of universal forms exist, whether a writer consciously works with them or not. They just ARE. Again that is my belief. A writer doesn't have to believe that. And also again, if anybody feels that knowing these ideas or working with them consciously restricts their writing, then by all means DON'T USE THEM! I'm reminded of a thing I read in an interview with screenwriter Steve Zaillian who said something to the effect that whenever he entered a bookstore and happened upon the area where they housed screenwriting books, he would head in the opposite direction. He just gets story intuitively (or however) and does not want to open the potential Pandora's Box (my words) of how that fragile sensibility could be screwed with by abstracting it into theory. I TOTALLY RESPECT THAT PERSPECTIVE!!! Especially because Zaillian is one of the finest screenwriters in Hollywood, I doubt anyone would want his approach to writing to be messed with. But if we analyzed, say, the script for "Searching for Bobby Fischer," I know already that story falls into three acts. And I know the Protagonist, his father, and his chess teacher each go through a metamorphosis that follows a 'classical' arc per mainstream Hollywood movies. I know there are plot points. I know there are sequences. So even if Zaillian doesn't profess to know or care to know any screenwriting theory (or just what he learned while an undergrad at, I believe, San Francisco State), it emerges in that story - again - because those forms just ARE. 3. That serves as a segue into screenwriting because movies are a unique narrative type. Now let's be specific here. If a filmmaker wants to make an experimental movie, great. If a filmmaker wants to make a cutting edge indie film that defies convention, fantastic. We NEED those type of stories for any number of reasons not the least of which is they challenge our perceptions of what narrative is and can be. But if a writer wants to work on mainstream Hollywood movies, I will not hesitate for one second to discuss these ideas of three acts, sequences, plot points, characters arcs and all the other aspects of a screenplay's narrative form because of one overriding fact: Screenplays are structure. I didn't say that, William Goldman did. A screenplay is a blueprint to make a movie. It is by DEFINITION (again at least as far as mainstream Hollywood movies are concerned) a structural entity. And let's just say a writer doesn't subscribe to those ideas. That's all well and good, too, however that writer will somehow have to find a way of talking with studio executives, producers, agents, managers, even talent about things like three acts, plot points, character arcs, and all the rest because that is how people discuss script development in Hollywood. Here's the funny thing: I think you and I are MUCH closer on these subjects than you would realize. I, too, have a problem with structure in this respect: So much of the discussion about screenwriting seems to be focused almost exclusively on that subject. Precisely one thing I am attempting to do with my teaching and eventually my books is start the conversation at a different point: Characters. If we start there and explore them, the story's structure should emerge. So my issue isn't with structure per se but HOW WE GET THERE as screenwriters. What I'm trying to figure out and articulate is a character-based approach to screenwriting. Why? Because I think that's the best way to approach the process. I think that is a writer's best chance of finding the heart and soul of their story. I think it's the best possibility a writer has to create a coherent story where all the subplots tie into and amplify the impact and meaning of the Plotline. I think it's the best way find the story through their characters. I think it's the best way to work within the confines of what Hollywood expects and yet still deliver stories that have rich, multilayered characters. I think it's the best way for a writer to respect the organic nature of story and guard against writing formulaic scripts. Indeed I would bet that's how del Toro developed Pan's Labyrinth -- through the characters. That little moment you noted between Ofeila and Vidal, where she sticks out her left hand -- by the way, I noted that in my script -- is a perfect example. A tiny little grace note that could only have emerged by having spent an enormous amount of time talking, living and being with the story's characters. And in the larger frame of things the story evolving as a result of that direct interaction with the characters. And THAT is precisely my point: Story emerging from character, and as an aspect of story, structure emerging from character. Character = Plot. That's the old adage. The process I envision and teach tries to put flesh on those bones. Okay, so I rambled on for much longer than I had anticipated, and do not feel I did a very good job in articulating my point. Curses, foiled again by the ticking clock and the low-level chaos of my life! A few last things: You will notice that I chose to divide our weekly script discussions into 5 parts only one of which is about structure. That should tell you something about my attitude of the relative importance of the various aspects of the screenwriting process. Re the Hero's Journey: Please do not lump me in with the Vogler 'school' of interpretation. My main points of takeaway from Campbell's work in terms of screenwriting are these: Departure - Separation - Return, Old World / New World, transformation. There are a few other elements, but in macro that's pretty much it. In other words, I don't approach story thinking about this stage or that, in fact I never use the word "stage" when I teach. There are characters, events happen that change the plot and compel the character to respond. Repeat, rinse, lather several times and a story emerges. Re why a writer makes the choices they do: I'm all for that, but we have limited resources, don't we? Interviews, which is why I've tried to include excerpts with this series' posts. But beyond that, all we can do is interpret the 'text' (script) and extrapolate. And perhaps the best way to do that is to track the psychological journey of the characters. They chose to do this because of this, and in that choice, perhaps we see a reflection of the writer's intention. Hope at least some of that made sense! I'm going to circle back to Pan's Labyrinth and consider its structure. More later.

* hat’s what Toro wants us to know by having the characters do something. In this particular case, del Toro argues his points by having the characters make choices and suffer the consequences of those I understand what you mean. But this happens in every great story, it is wan of the basic principles of writing for whatever medium.

*one

I like where Tom is going on this one. Is it also possible that Ophelia felt this threat, that she knew she would die at Vidal's hands from the very beginning? Could she have created the Faun and the fairies in order to help her cope with her reality and rescue her brother? It sure gives her life a greater sense of meaning rather than just being killed senselessly by a cruel stepfather. I don't really think this is the case, but as I was reading it I thought it might be. I'd rather just believe that there really are Fauns and fairies in the forest. What is the significance of the full moon? The Faun references that it is only three days away on page 70. Is it a ticking clock thing, is it to make it easier for Ophelia to navigate the labyrinth, to aid the rebels. Or are full moons just cool?

I'm not saying one way is right and the other is wrong. Neither are you. No one is. We should really stop feeling that we have to explain that every week. We all have different opinions and that's what makes this such a great place for discussions. Think how boring it would be if we all agreed on everything. I'm not saying that you think there's only one way to write. I know you're not. Now, let's just assume from now on that everybody's opinions are just that: opinions. There's no need for disclaimers. As far as structure goes, I think we just interpret that differently. I'm trying to figure out what makes a great story and I'm not able to do that by looking at a linear outline of events. Maybe that works for others but not for me. To me, it just reads like a map of sign posts with no context as to why they're there. Like I said, I'm not able to use any of that knowledge and apply it to my own writing. Those of you who are, please feel free to chime in and tell me how that works for you. Diogo did a terrific job on the breakdown and I'm curious to know how people use this information. I ask a lot of questions. I always have. I'm a curious guy and I usually don't give up until I've looked at a subject from every possible angle and tried to figure it out and actually learn something. My main question was not in any way sarcastic: Is it possible that completely different approaches to writing can produce the same results? If it is, the next question is: how? The quick explanation would be that there are inherent elements of telling stories that, like you said, just are. This is how we humans communicate and that's why we interpret stories this way? I don't know. It's a never ending quest to find out, I guess. It won't stop me from trying to find out, though, and I know it won't stop you either. I didn't mention Vogler, by the way. I said The Hero's Journey. I'm not lumping you in with anyone else. You've mentioned Joseph Campbell on several occasions and I was expecting that the analysis of this film would at one point be seen from that perspective. If not by you, by someone else. It always does. It is interesting that we do these analyses every week and most of the participants come to pretty much the same conclusion every time; that all of these stories are some version of the Monomyth. I think I'm detecting a pattern. I agree about overdoing it with the structure talk. People talk about screenplay structure because it is easy to dissect. It's easy to figure out where the different ups and downs are by watching films or reading scripts. It's hard to figure out why they're there. There are a million books on this subject and they all pretty much say the same thing, but they don't actually teach you anything about writing. By seeing that most stories follow a certain pattern, does that mean my story should too? Of course not. But that's the only thing that I get out of these books and theories. And I reject them. Even if del Toro doesn't use any pre-determined structure, when he creates a story he also creates a structure for that story. That's just the way it is. If you build a house, there's also a structure that goes with it. They go hand in hand. It's the same thing, in fact. Just because he rejects the books and the theories and doesn't outline, doesn't mean there isn't structure to his stories. It's quite the opposite. They're magnificently structured. Pan's Labyrinth is a great example. It's just not structured ahead of time following a pattern. If it falls into that pattern after the fact is still up for discussion. I guess we will continue analyzing this throughout the week and see what happens. I do believe it's possible to figure out why a writer makes certain choices by analyzing their work. It's never a certainty but there are elements in a story you can look at to get clues. There are plenty in Pan's Labyrinth and I'll try to explain further when we talk about the characters. Thanks for reading.

If one of the ways we look at "Pan's Labyrinth" is as a psychological journey -- and we can do that from the vantage point of all the major characters -- then the story's multiple layers of meaning open up. When I read the script, I was struck more so than when I saw the movie of the presence of Ofelia's shadow: the loss of her father. [There is also a loss of home emphasized by her forced relocation]. Into this void, there are two human presences: Vidal who could in theory at least act as a surrogate father and her baby brother. I will get into this at more depth tomorrow when we discuss characters, but from a structural standpoint, as soon as the story introduces the narrative dynamic of a Lost Father, we know almost certainly that must be resolved. How to resolve it? The father is dead! Then we look to the other dominant male characters -- Vidal and baby brother -- and somehow it figures they will be involved in some fashion. Thus right there as soon as we learn about the baby brother and meet Vidal, we have some of the key aspects of the story's end point set into motion -- because of a character dynamic! Now this idea that Tom suggests that Ofelia might have felt -- consciously or unconsciously -- Vidal was somehow responsible for her father's death adds another layer to the story's richness. Even if she doesn't believe him to have literally been involved in her father's death, psychologically for a girl her age, it is quite plausible she might have made an emotional connection leading to a feeling of causality. That feeling could have been compounded further by the fact that Vidal is supposed to replace her father, which is like killing her father again, this time her memories. That is one reason she refuses to call Vidal "father." We can go further: Her disobedience of which Teddy spoke, I figured that to be a form of denying Vidal the role of authority figure. But what if at a conscious or even unconscious level she believes Vidal to have been involved in her father's death. And as I suggested, even if there is no logical evidence to support that belief, she could still feel it as a 'truth.' And would that not fuel her disobedience? Of course, the fact that Vidal is, as Gabe says, a "cruel stepfather" adds a whole other layer onto the story. He could have been any type of personality, but del Toro experienced / created him to be a monstrous human being. Given all that, don't we begin to feel like this story is headed toward a violent ending? Again all arising from who the characters are. I have a couple of other points related to structure to follow.

One of the most powerful and universal ideas of The Hero's Journey is how the Protagonist ventures forth from their Old / Ordinary World into a New / Extraordinary World. Generally speaking, we see this at the middle of Act One or the end of Act One depending upon the specific nature of each story. In "Pan's Labyrinth," we can see that transition when Ofelia follows the Stick Insect, ventures into the labyrinth for the first time, and meets the Faun [P. 20-24]. Even though Ofelia begins the story traveling to this new place, it is still her Old World in that she is with her mother, but more important in relation to this story -- in essence a fairy tale -- that world is substantially different than the New World she experiences, one of Fauns, the Three Challenges, nightmarish creatures, and dark danger. Here is a direct quote from Joseph Campbell's book "The Hero With a Thousand Faces": “A hero ventures forth from the world of common day into a region of supernatural wonder: fabulous forces are there encountered and a decisive victory is won: the hero comes back from this mysterious adventure with the power to bestow boons on his fellow man.” Isn't that the basic structure of "Pan's Labyrinth"'s narrative?

Per the Ten Major Plotline Points of the Narrative Throughline paradigm: ACT ONE The Opening: Ofelia's journey to her new home [1-5] The Hook: Ofelia finds the labyrinth [8-10] The Lock: Ofeila ventures into the labyrinth and meets the Faun [20-24] ACT TWO Deconstruction Test: The Toad challenge [34-36] Transition: The Pale Man challenge [53-55] Reconstruction Test: The Faun tells her she has failed [69-70] All Is Lost: Carmen dies while the baby is born [77-78] ACT THREE On The Offensive: Faun gives her another chance and she kidnaps her brother [86-87] Final Struggle: Ofelia refuses to give up her brother, then is shot and killed by Vidal [92-94] Denouement: Ofelia reunited with her parents [95-96] Again we may discuss this further tomorrow when we get into characters, but Ofelia's story is - in my view - a classic tale of metamorphosis, and each of these Plotline points form the spine of that narrative. But there are endless ways to interpret this story as with all stories -- that's one of the reasons stories are so wonderful! -- and we've seen some great examples of that in this thread of comments.

Totally. And to echo Tom -- What Joseph Campbell talks about drips from all of Guillermo Del Toro's work whether he acknowledges it or not. I don't think there is any single correct way to do anything. Most structure techniques are made in hindsight and applied to work that was made without it. Makes sense that most theories should apply when fit ontop of an existing product. But the types of stories Guillermo Del Toro tends to tell more often than not fall into a category that are easily exemplified by the Hero's Journey.

Kal analyses these stories really well. He's come out with a 2000+ stage hero's journey. Go see http://www.clickok.co.uk/index4.html ; with further arguments - every story involves transformation and a new world....