Hmmm...ok.  I think I see what Del Toro was going for now.  Thanks for the insight Squiggly, well done!

I think the problem you had was you thought it was a fairy tale. It wasn't, it was a myth. Think The Hobbit, not The Little Mermaid. Hercules, not Alice.

Just because A Midsummer Night's Dream has fairies in it does not make it a fairy tale. And yes, while not a particularly strong play, it does follow the rules it sets out.

MasterZap, you have no idea how much I love you right now.

I'm treading lightly here, as I'm not defending the movie. Yet.

However, this hardline definition of what a Fairy Tale™ can and cannot do is silly. Certainly myths, fairy tales and even folk tales (to a lesser degree) tend to follow certain rules (à la Campbell), but there are plenty that have no moral or classical structure. Some people may consider these to be poorly (or at least non-traditionally) constructed stories, but that does not mean that they cannot be called fairy tales.

This begs the question: How can we determine what is or is not a fairy tale or a myth or simply a story? Is The Little Mermaid really a fairy tale? Is Alice in Wonderland? Ultimately, why does it matter? Do we allow a myth more handicaps in story structure than a fairy tale? It's like trying define the role and restrictions of sci-fi.

Further, not every powerful, affecting story needs to follow The Hero's Journey. It's a guide, a formula. It can work, but it's not the only way.

A good story is a good story, regardless of whether it's a fairy tale, a myth or a fucking documentary.

However, I'm NOT saying this is a good story...

I have to assume that Del Toro isn't dumb enough to leave something like the Pale Man scene in the film unless he wanted it there for a specific reason. I'll be damned if I know what the reason is, but I'm more likely to believe that he had some legit reason for doing that - at least in his own head - whereas there are many other writers/directors to whom I would never give that much credit.

But even if Del Toro did have some specific reason to write some of these more 'troubling' scenes the way he did, it doesn't mean that it makes any sense or that he shouldn't have done it some other way. If the goal was just to have an excuse to have the Pale Man wake up, a 'suspense' moment of him closing in on her while she was unaware, a moment where the Pale Man demonstrates exactly what he'll do if he catches her (eat her alive), and then have her flee to the next suspense scene where she's trying to make a door as he's closing in on her again... This is probably the most straightforward way to write that. Maybe that's all it is. Just writing it as plainly as he could.

As far as the replies to my original post RE: "it's an interesting detail, but how is that helping the story?"

I have no idea. I just find it fascinating. I didn't notice it until after I had seen the flick a couple times. There are some other things that I'd love to figure out as well. I haven't given much thought to the story about the rose that gives eternal life, but I'm gonna bet that it does have some correlation to the film. Perhaps the fact that the film has so many things like that that is evidence of some poor writing. If that stuff is SUPPOSED to make sense and enlighten the rest of the film in some way, then obviously I'm in the dark, and I assume a lot of other people are as well.

It could be a cultural thing, tho. It's possible that in Spain or Mexico these stories are obvious references to something specific to that culture.

@Jeffery
I agree with you, man. I didn't really go into it expecting much beyond "War" and "some fantasy stuff". Pretty sure someone had told me before I went into it that it was more 'reality' than 'fantasy', so maybe I was just better prepared for what the film was, as opposed to the people who just saw the trailers and thought "ooh, dark Alice In Wonderland!". The trailers were pretty misleading...

Just listening to the 'cast now. The Cafe FX comment about it being next to an onion field so there's nothing to do but work or go back to your rented apartment had me in stitches -- I'm currently working on a show waaaay out of London in rural England, and I do find my myself hitting Maya well into he night rather than go home & sit in my box...

Look, I never thought that Pan's was a fairytale. I always took it for a a secret history - that the fawn & co are real, and those real creatures and their past interactions with man are the origin of similarly-themed fairytales. Like 13th Warrior to Beowulf, or Ridleycrowe's Robin Hood to Robin hood

So I don't think that any argument that it claims to be a fairytale but fails at being a fairytale holds up. That said, I dont' that that any argument that it never claims to be a fairytale and is therefore AWESOME stands up either.