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