For me, the biggest thing I can take away from studying this film is how integral the themes are to the story creating process. This is one of the finest examples of a script where the themes are not an after thought. The entire story is built from the very same ideas, DNA, essence, place or whatever term you prefer. Knowing a bit about how Guillermo del Toro views authority, imagination and creativity, Pan's Labyrinth comes off as a very personal statement. The only way to achieve a well-crafted, personal story like this is to have these themes in mind, consciously or not, throughout the creation of it. That's why earlier in the week I was stressing how important it is to try to figure out why the writer makes certain choices. In order to create a work that has meaning, you have to create a world where that meaning can be displayed in the best fashion. You have to show opposing ideas within that world in order to understand the various aspects of a problem. You have to create characters that best can convey those ideas. You have to assign these opposing ideas to your characters in your story and create an argument. You have to show the audience what the result is of that argument. You have to show that one way of solving a problem is the better one. The opposing ideas battle it out throughout the story, you explore the problems from all angles, and in the end, one idea wins. That way you have created meaning. Something that the audience can take with them and learn from. A work with depth that can not only stand multiple viewings but something that you think about after you leave the theatre. And it doesn't have to be life or death decisions like in Pan's Labyrinth. It could be small things and everyday stuff. But the author has to show an opinion. Think about the word author. You are the authority of this world. You're in charge. You have to be in charge of every aspect of the story. Every strand has to have a reason to exist and have a purpose. Together these strands will create the structure of your story. Your opinion has to be there. It's your job to tell us why this way of solving a problem is better than that way. It's your job to tell us why this happens in addition to show us how it happens. We've all seen films where we think afterwards, what was the point? It could have gone either way. Those stories come off as bland and are quickly forgotten. They might be a good for an evening's entertainment, and there's nothing wrong with that, but to create something that has actual meaning you have to do more than that. Plot points, act turns, archetypes, reversals – all these things that we usually talk about are techniques and devices to tell a story. They're the building blocks to create a sum greater than its parts. By themselves they will not create a complete story. We can assign archetypes and talk about character arcs but they won't mean much unless we put them against each other in an arena where they can battle it out and show the results of that battle. I've gotta run but I have more thoughts about this. Later.

Let me clarify what I meant by the author has to have an opinion. It's an opinion within the story world. Sometimes it clashes with our real world but was the best choice within the story world, sometimes the opinions are truly the ones of the author and it also shows up in the story world. I think that in Pan's Labyrinth the opinions of del Toro the person and del Toro the author are clear. He shows us the opposing ideas and clearly explains why one way of solving the problem was superior than the alternative.

I'll expand on that thought with an example: if you tell us a story about a teenage girl who gets pregnant and decides to give the child up for adoption, you have to show us why she made that decision, explore how she came to that decision, and also argue why that decision was the best one in the story world. Otherwise, your story will lack meaning. I know I veered off from theme to meaning but I got inspired when I saw Scott's Theme = Meaning explanation.

Jeez, Teddy. You're hogging the discussion.

You're the one to talk.

@Teddy, stellar analysis, today and on Monday, fascinating observations, thank you. Script sadly still top of my reading pile, whirlwindy moment in life, but I have two bits to share from Del Toro interviews: a faun made repeated appearance in his childhood dreams, and his grandmother put metal bottle caps in his shoes after he came up with fantastical art. Makes me wonder if without grandmother he wouldn't have cleaved so tight to the fantastical realm. Worked out well. Pan's Labyrinth brought Guernica to mind, such a great work, also allegorical response to war (same war), and powerful responses by artists always welcome. And it feels fairy tale, pre-Disney fairy tale, real fairy tale, and that's pretty cool. But I really wanted (expected) more faun, more fantasy, more Persephone spin, less about war and fascism and the church. But Del Toro had something to say, stuff humanity can stand to listen to, and he said it damn beautifully. And Del Toro did it for $19mil, 83mil worldwide box office. That message, that box office, that's impressive. I loved, loved Hellboy, and can't wait for Pacific Rim.

You are talking my language, Teddy. It all comes from the writer / author creating, interacting, and understanding the characters. Here is an interesting thought re "Pan's Labyrinth" [as well as all movies]: Why does this story have to happen to this character at this time? This is yet another lens through which we can analyze the story, a macro view taken from outside the story, a writer considering the psychological dimensions of its characters and ultimately their respective destinies. Inside the story, we can say Ofelia is brought to this specific place because her mother has married Vidal and he has directed them to travel there because that is where he is headquartered. Outside the story, we can say Ofelia is brought to this specific place because it is where the labyrinth is. In other words, this story must happen in order for her to descend into the labyrinth on multiple occasions, take take on the three tasks, save her baby brother, get shot and killed so that she can reunite with her father and mother. Considering the story as a journey of the psyche, everything that happens is a projection of who Ofelia is and her destiny. There can be no other story for her. Everything that happens is tied directly to her and her specific psychological journey. I know this is a radically different way to think about the story-crafting process, but consider this comment from del Toro in today's interview excerpt about the thematic meaning of the labyrinth: “The labyrinth is a very, very powerful sign. It’s a primordial, almost iconic symbol. It can mean so many things, culturally, depending on where you do it. But the main thing for me is that, unlike a maze, a labyrinth is actually a constant transit of finding, not getting lost. It’s about finding, not losing, your way. That was very important for me. It is a place where you do sharp turns and you can have the illusion of being lost, but you are always doing a constant transit to an inevitable center." Why is it that Ofelia comes to this place and it just so happens to have this labyrinth? Coincidence? I prefer to think it's destiny. She is here not to get lost, but be found. It is the "transit of the girl [Ofelia] towards her own center, and towards her own, inside reality." In other words, a psychological journey. Indeed that language is such a reflection of Carl Jung, it's damn freaky. Consider Jung's fascination with mandalas: "Jung came to see the mandala as a pathway to the self and he begun to use mandalas in his work as a psychiatrist to help his patients make deeper connections with themselves. The circle or sphere of the mandala represents the psyche that holds within it, at the center, the true self. Looking deeply into the circle of a mandala means that we must look deeply into ourselves. It can sometimes take courage to study the picture in front of us and see the storms and turmoil as well as the peace and beauty that exists at our center." A Protagonist's psychological journey goes through a linear set of events, but drives them toward their internal and emotional center. And that is precisely what happens with Ofelia. Labyrinth = Mandala = Finding The Center. Obedience vs Disobedience is absolutely a primary theme in "Pan's Labyrinth," as Teddy has so eloquently articulated. The labyrinth as a journey to the center is also a theme. There are other themes and all of them are, I would guess, related to Ofelia's journey from Disunity to Unity, ultimately to be reunited with her Father and Mother. NOTE: Not all stories have to be this complex and multilayered. "Pan's Labyrinth" just happens to be one that is.

As I watched the movie again and read the script for the first time, I was struck by how many attributes it shares with my second favorite film of all time, THE SHINING.... a) a labyrinth b) a showdown with a threatening father figure in the labyrinth c) a young protagonist who sees what others can't see d) re-uniting with the mother in opposition to the father, or father-figure One common theme I see - both Danny and Ofelia are forced to grow up before their time, but both rise to the challenge.

That's interesting. I never made that connection and it's an enlightening one. And if you spin one's perspective to look at Vidal as the PL's main character / Protagonist, there are similarities to he and Jack in The Shining, yes? In a macro sense as he devolves into an increasing level of personal chaos and externalized violence. Also ending up dead. Yes, interesting indeed...