The summary posting on magical realism raised again a few nagging

          questions I had been having all along, perhaps reflecting my  own

          interest in the generic approach to fantasy. It seems a couple of

          the secondary examples, especially Field of Dreams and Heaven Can

          Wait (either version), fall into the conventional expectations of

          the  Hollywood  mainstream  formula  for  the  fantasy  film.  By

          contrast, I  had  thought  that  the  key  if  not  the principal

          distinguishing element of magical realism must be its basis in  a

          certain social or sociological viewpoint behind the narrative and

          frequent  roots  in  folklore outside  of  the  dominant  Western

          culture.  Otherwise,  the  simple  journey  into  a  make-believe

          netherworld where magic is a possibility is  a standard Hollywood

          genre.  (I  don't  mean  magic  as  basic  wish-fulfillment,  but

          embodied  in  such  manifestations  as  guardian  angels,  flying

          carpets, etc.) For instance, is there  a difference between Field

          of Dreams and Heaven Can  Wait  vs.  The Thief  of Bagdad or  The

          Jungle Book and Lost Horizon? I fail to see it. Magical realism I

          would think, by  its  very nature  and commitment to  a political

          perspective, must  remain almost entirely out  of  the  realm  of

          mainstream production, generally precluding the  Hollywood  genre

          of "fantasy".

          These are just some initial reactions to what  I  find  to  be  a

          fascinating question in  a discussion that has provided some very

          worthwhile ideas to contemplate.

          Brian Taves, Motion Picture Division

          Library of Congress

                                Tavesmail.loc.gov