BenLaw said:
Given strapped is around and I'm sure he's seen the film I'm sure also that we could entertain the views of a non-member!
Oh, I don't know that I should storm back into discussion of nominated films, though I'll say the following.
It's useful to think of Pan's Labyrinth as an open text that invites realist and fantasist readings. It's also packed with metaphor (the flower with poisonous thorns, unable to bequeath its gift, etc....).
I was interested in some of the discussion above with reference to issues of film authorship and genre, and certain assumptions about both.
With regard to the former, nobody has ever managed to define a perfect genre. Theorists approach the subject of genre now in terms of marketing (a way of managing audience tastes and filmgoing habits).
It's helpful to think of film authorship in similar terms. The director is never the single author of a film, but the idea that a film represents a single artist's vision is a useful marketing construction. As above, audiences are offered a point of reference across films. This point of reference often informs their tastes and choices.
The idea of the director as author can be powerful in this regard, so when something goes wrong, we often attribute failure to external tampering, usually by corporate philistines, or "Hollywood" (this is a common caricature).
Film authorship is an incredibly complex subject, with a rich history of theory and literature, so I won't go into depth here. However, it's worth noting that the director wasn't always given such prominence.
During the so-called "classical" era, American cinema was regarded as a producer's medium, and the producer's name served a similar function. In addition, certain studios became associated with particular genre labels and stars. I recall you bought the Universal Monsters box-set, which is an example of the studio's name being put to use in the same way.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram