Eli at the Hospital Window

[mackousko]

I agree that Hakan is an unfortunate character.

[Jameron]

Hakan's devotion was dog-like. I'll do this for you if you'll give me "one night." Sickly obsessive. His willingness to die for her was the "good" counterweight to the thing he turned a blind eye to: that the focus of his attraction was pedophilia. An ultra-devoted pedophile is still a pedophile. Eli knew the true basis of Hakan's attraction and that is why she never showed genuine emotion towards him. The rest of their relationship was window dressing.

From the book we know that Håkan is a paedophile. From the film, not so much.

Håkan's character in the book is very layered and complex. No matter how much you may hate paedophiles, I think to label Håkan as 'just a paedophile', as if they're all the same, is doing his character a disservice. I think Eli may have had some very limited emotional connection to Håkan at the end, once Oskar had awoken those feelings within her, Oskar was the catalyst. She was cold towards Håkan to begin with because that was how she was inside ... cold. She was well aware of his paedophilia but I don't think that repulsed her as much as it does you ACL, and she was using that to control him.

By contrast, Håkan's character in the film is almost flat. We know that he is totally devoted to Eli, but we don't know why. We just have to accept it as it is presented ... unexplained. So there is nothing to hate about Håkan's relationship with Eli, but then again there is nothing of real interest either.

.

[a_contemplative_life]

Hakan's devotion was dog-like. I'll do this for you if you'll give me "one night." Sickly obsessive. His willingness to die for her was the "good" counterweight to the thing he turned a blind eye to: that the focus of his attraction was pedophilia. An ultra-devoted pedophile is still a pedophile. Eli knew the true basis of Hakan's attraction and that is why she never showed genuine emotion towards him. The rest of their relationship was window dressing.

You may get that but do you get that with help from the book? I didnt see it that way, I saw a man who repeatedly sacrifices himself in horrible ways, not only for little gain but for little sympathy. The only certain thing we know is that he sacrifices himself in horrible ways (not even a dog would do what Hakan does), his pedophelia is merely a general feeling we get if we only go by the movie.

You make a valid point about the novel vs. the film. There are, however, little hints about Hakan's attraction to Eli in the film. His request that Eli not see "that boy," and his staring at Eli and Oskar while they talk/play in the courtyard both suggest jealousy. And his response to Eli's touch on his cheek--something wasn't right with that, for sure.

[a_contemplative_life]

Well, Hakan certainly had the hots for Eli, but at the same time, as we read in the novel, his concept of beauty (desirability) did not encompass every boy of Eli's age. It was quite specific. The Hakan character is perhaps more hard to nail down and is more complex and paradoxical than that of Eli. And with most novels dealing with similar characters and subjects, there is not much attempt to explore it in any depth.
It seems strange that we can be satisfied by labeling Hakan as simple "pedophile", end of story, but see Eli's character as rich and interesting and worthy of exploration, when we could also just label him as "vampire."
To JAL's credit, he did attempt to flesh out the Hakan character beyond the cardboard cut-out his like are usually portrayed as. And Eli's relationship with him perhaps more endearing than we would like it to be.
Eli pulled herself up onto the window ledge, took his hand between hers and kissed it. Whispered: "Hello, my friend."

I don't mean to suggest that Hakan was a simple, easily defined character. In fact, I think JAL's prowess as a writer shines particularly bright in his development of Hakan, and in particular, in our ability to feel some amount of sympathy for him. I am willing to concede that Hakan and Eli had some feelings for one another; however, at bottom I think they were both deceiving themselves in an effort to make their daily co-existence more bearable. Their discussion about what constitutes "love" in the novel is particularly insightful, for example.

[a_contemplative_life]

Hakan's devotion was dog-like. I'll do this for you if you'll give me "one night." Sickly obsessive. His willingness to die for her was the "good" counterweight to the thing he turned a blind eye to: that the focus of his attraction was pedophilia. An ultra-devoted pedophile is still a pedophile. Eli knew the true basis of Hakan's attraction and that is why she never showed genuine emotion towards him. The rest of their relationship was window dressing.

Im not so sure Eli knew the true basis of Håkans attraction, like I and you see it. Even from the film, I get the impression of a pre-sexual Eli, not knowing what paedophilia is, except that what he shares with Oskar is much better than his experiences with Håkan.

I would disagree and would point to the post-shower, nude 360-degree twirl for Hakan as some evidence that Eli knew exactly what Hakan wanted. Also, Eli agrees to let Hakan lie with her and touch her for a night, but cuts him off when he asks for something further. The act of cutting him off suggests that they had had similar conversations in the past, and Eli knew what Hakan was about to ask. I'm sure whatever it was, it wasn't pleasant.

[a_contemplative_life]

Hakan's devotion was dog-like. I'll do this for you if you'll give me "one night." Sickly obsessive. His willingness to die for her was the "good" counterweight to the thing he turned a blind eye to: that the focus of his attraction was pedophilia. An ultra-devoted pedophile is still a pedophile. Eli knew the true basis of Hakan's attraction and that is why she never showed genuine emotion towards him. The rest of their relationship was window dressing.

From the book we know that Håkan is a paedophile. From the film, not so much.

Håkan's character in the book is very layered and complex. No matter how much you may hate paedophiles, I think to label Håkan as 'just a paedophile', as if they're all the same, is doing his character a disservice. I think Eli may have had some very limited emotional connection to Håkan at the end, once Oskar had awoken those feelings within her, Oskar was the catalyst. She was cold towards Håkan to begin with because that was how she was inside ... cold. She was well aware of his paedophilia but I don't think that repulsed her as much as it does you ACL, and she was using that to control him.

By contrast, Håkan's character in the film is almost flat. We know that he is totally devoted to Eli, but we don't know why. We just have to accept it as it is presented ... unexplained. So there is nothing to hate about Håkan's relationship with Eli, but then again there is nothing of real interest either.

.

When Eli was relaxed and alone with Oskar in his apartment, he displayed an inner anger at those who had helped him in the past:

"I don't know. That's how it is with me at any rate. And then when I wake up I'm ... little again. And weak. That's when I need help. That's maybe why I've been able to survive. Because I'm small. And people want to help me. But... for very different reasons."

A shadow crossed Eli's cheek as he clenched his teeth, pushed his hands down into the pockets of the robe, found something, drew it up.

So I think that on some inner level, Eli did perceive that he was being used by Hakan (and his predecessors) in a way that did not represent genuine love.

As to the lack of information on movie Hakan, I would only mention the few points that I spoke of a couple of posts previously--hints of jealousy and unnatural devotion.

[drakkar]

I would disagree and would point to the post-shower, nude 360-degree twirl for Hakan as some evidence that Eli knew exactly what Hakan wanted. Also, Eli agrees to let Hakan lie with her and touch her for a night, but cuts him off when he asks for something further. The act of cutting him off suggests that they had had similar conversations in the past, and Eli knew what Hakan was about to ask. I'm sure whatever it was, it wasn't pleasant.

Perhaps the disagreement stems from the definition of the word sexuality. I include the adult understanding of it in the term. Hence I think Elis advances towards Håkan is the result of some kind of empirical knowledge Eli has achieved over the years, about how certain adults can be made help him, and this has nothing to do with sexuality as I define it.
I wonder if this a personally difference in pov, or if it also is a cultural thing?

[Jameron]

From the book we know that Håkan is a paedophile. From the film, not so much.

Håkan's character in the book is very layered and complex. No matter how much you may hate paedophiles, I think to label Håkan as 'just a paedophile', as if they're all the same, is doing his character a disservice. I think Eli may have had some very limited emotional connection to Håkan at the end, once Oskar had awoken those feelings within her, Oskar was the catalyst. She was cold towards Håkan to begin with because that was how she was inside ... cold. She was well aware of his paedophilia but I don't think that repulsed her as much as it does you ACL, and she was using that to control him.

By contrast, Håkan's character in the film is almost flat. We know that he is totally devoted to Eli, but we don't know why. We just have to accept it as it is presented ... unexplained. So there is nothing to hate about Håkan's relationship with Eli, but then again there is nothing of real interest either.

.

When Eli was relaxed and alone with Oskar in his apartment, he displayed an inner anger at those who had helped him in the past:

"I don't know. That's how it is with me at any rate. And then when I wake up I'm ... little again. And weak. That's when I need help. That's maybe why I've been able to survive. Because I'm small. And people want to help me. But... for very different reasons."

A shadow crossed Eli's cheek as he clenched his teeth, pushed his hands down into the pockets of the robe, found something, drew it up.

So I think that on some inner level, Eli did perceive that he was being used by Hakan (and his predecessors) in a way that did not represent genuine love.

Re: the quote from the book; Eli may very well be angry about being used by others, in her past, that have helped her "for very different reasons" But let us not forget that Eli knows her past, knows what people are capable of, and yet she still approaches Håkan for help. Apparently fully cognisant of what that will entail. She chose to enlist his assistance because she wasn't repulsed enough to not endure it, and she knew that his attraction to her was his downfall and control mechanism. As for 'genuine love', I think Eli has no real concept of the idea...

"‘Håkan, stop it.’
‘What do you need me for anyway?’
‘I love you.’
‘No, you don’t.’
‘Yes. In a way.’
‘There is no such thing. You either love someone or you don’t.’
‘Really?’
‘Yes.’
‘In that case I have to think about it.’

If Eli was trying to use the 'love' word to manipulate then she wouldn't have had to 'think about it', she would have had an answer for that challenge. So I take this as evidence of Eli not really understanding love, and thus, not being able to tell if other's professed love for her was genuine or not.

Also, what we have to remember is that the three main players in this story are all outsiders, or at least on the fringes of society. A strong element of the story is society's rejection of people considered as being 'not worthy', so who else could Eli call upon for help other than fellow outsiders? When people feel they have too much to lose they wouldn't entertain the idea of killing for her, but when society thumbs it's nose at you what have you really got to lose? She would have to make do with what she could find, and it would be from the dregs of society, swine among swine.

Håkan was still a paedophile when he was a teacher, would he have killed for Eli then? I very much doubt it, he had too much to lose, he was a teacher, a pillar of the community. Strip away his social standing, his house, his books, his armchair, his future and he is suddenly open to the idea. When Dr. Manhattan (Watchmen) says "Why would I save a world I no longer have any stake in?" he echoes this sentiment perfectly. Håkan no longer had any stake in society, and therefore he was ideal for Eli to use. The very reason he had no stake in society would be used, and endured, by Eli. I maintain that Eli was in charge the whole time, she was not being used by Håkan. Rather, she was allowing him to think he was using her in order to manipulate and control him.

I realise I was rambling a bit but it was more a stream of consciousness that a well put together argument

As to the lack of information on movie Hakan, I would only mention the few points that I spoke of a couple of posts previously--hints of jealousy and unnatural devotion.

But that could also be seen as just jealousy, without there being any sexual overtones. A very strong heterosexual relationship between two men is also subject to jealousy when a third person is perceived as an interloper.

And when dealing with vampires, is it not expected that there will be unnatural devotion?

I'm just not getting any paedophilia vibe from the film.

.

[Jameron]

I would disagree and would point to the post-shower, nude 360-degree twirl for Hakan as some evidence that Eli knew exactly what Hakan wanted. Also, Eli agrees to let Hakan lie with her and touch her for a night, but cuts him off when he asks for something further. The act of cutting him off suggests that they had had similar conversations in the past, and Eli knew what Hakan was about to ask. I'm sure whatever it was, it wasn't pleasant.

Perhaps the disagreement stems from the definition of the word sexuality. I include the adult understanding of it in the term. Hence I think Elis advances towards Håkan is the result of some kind of empirical knowledge Eli has achieved over the years, about how certain adults can be made help him, and this has nothing to do with sexuality as I define it.
I wonder if this a personally difference in pov, or if it also is a cultural thing?

I agree with this.

A monkey can copy someone typing, this doesn't mean the monkey can type, or even understand what typing is. It is an issue of cognition.

I think it is perfectly reasonable to believe that Eli can observe and learn techniques to control certain people without fully understanding the context.

.

[a_contemplative_life]

Re: the quote from the book; Eli may very well be angry about being used by others, in her past, that have helped her "for very different reasons" But let us not forget that Eli knows her past, knows what people are capable of, and yet she still approaches Håkan for help. Apparently fully cognisant of what that will entail. She chose to enlist his assistance because she wasn't repulsed enough to not endure it, and she knew that his attraction to her was his downfall and control mechanism. As for 'genuine love', I think Eli has no real concept of the idea...

"‘Håkan, stop it.’
‘What do you need me for anyway?’
‘I love you.’
‘No, you don’t.’
‘Yes. In a way.’
‘There is no such thing. You either love someone or you don’t.’
‘Really?’
‘Yes.’
‘In that case I have to think about it.’

If Eli was trying to use the 'love' word to manipulate then she wouldn't have had to 'think about it', she would have had an answer for that challenge. So I take this as evidence of Eli not really understanding love, and thus, not being able to tell if other's professed love for her was genuine or not.

I don't dispute that Eli came to realize what sort of a person Håkan was, and chose to remain with him so that he would serve her needs. In a sense, she "chose" to use him, and I only put quotes around that word because I think Eli is a person for whom the idea of having free choices does not fit very well, at least not in the sense that you or I might understand that expression. In fact, due to her unique and tragic circumstances, Eli's choices in terms of finding companionship were very curtailed, to put it mildly. In the final quoted line we see Eli putting Håkan off and stringing him along, just as she did by agreeing to spend the night with him but not to allow anything further. The bottom line is that Eli is desperately in need of blood, is for whatever reason strongly repulsed by the idea of getting it herself, and will agree to or do what it takes to motivate Håkan to go out and kill.

I would strongly disagree with your claim that Eli did not really understand love, because Eli clearly had a loving relationship with her own mother. IMO, what you are seeing in the quoted exchange is something that Eli knows, at a level she is not willing to admit to Hakan, is not really love. There is a charade quality to their relationship that is necessary to mask the very unpleasant realities upon which it is founded, viz., Eli's need for a helper to murder others for fresh blood, and Hakan's desire to exploit Eli for his own sexual gratification.

Also, what we have to remember is that the three main players in this story are all outsiders, or at least on the fringes of society. A strong element of the story is society's rejection of people considered as being 'not worthy', so who else could Eli call upon for help other than fellow outsiders? When people feel they have too much to lose they wouldn't entertain the idea of killing for her, but when society thumbs it's nose at you what have you really got to lose? She would have to make do with what she could find, and it would be from the dregs of society, swine among swine.

All of which underscores my point that Eli's scope of choices when finding someone are very restricted. Håkan was probably among the least offensive of her helpers.

Håkan was still a paedophile when he was a teacher, would he have killed for Eli then? I very much doubt it, he had too much to lose, he was a teacher, a pillar of the community. Strip away his social standing, his house, his books, his armchair, his future and he is suddenly open to the idea. When Dr. Manhattan (Watchmen) says "Why would I save a world I no longer have any stake in?" he echoes this sentiment perfectly. Håkan no longer had any stake in society, and therefore he was ideal for Eli to use. The very reason he had no stake in society would be used, and endured, by Eli. I maintain that Eli was in charge the whole time, she was not being used by Håkan. Rather, she was allowing him to think he was using her in order to manipulate and control him.

Well, Håkan certainly found it convenient to believe that Eli was in charge. His view of Eli as an old person in a child's body was (along with his self-professed desire to lay down his life for her) the second pillar supporting his ability to sleep at night and maintain some notion that he wasn't evil. After all, if she is really 200 years old, then he is not a pedophile, plain and simple. But we know from what Eli told Oskar that she does not actually fit this mold. She is actually more akin to a perpetual child. I believe that the longer Håkan spent with Eli, the more he would come to realize this, because the judgments that children make are immature and readily distinguishable from those of a mature adult. This is true even for children who are very bright, because intelligence does not equal wisdom. Håkan is a perceptive person, and one would expect him, sooner or later, to come to the realization that Eli is more akin to a perpetual child than a 200+ year-old person masquerading in a child's body. The latter would be unlikely to relish a game of tickling and playing "hide the key." So I think there was plenty of "using" all the way around.

As to the lack of information on movie Hakan, I would only mention the few points that I spoke of a couple of posts previously--hints of jealousy and unnatural devotion.

But that could also be seen as just jealousy, without there being any sexual overtones. A very strong heterosexual relationship between two men is also subject to jealousy when a third person is perceived as an interloper.

And when dealing with vampires, is it not expected that there will be unnatural devotion?

I'm just not getting any paedophilia vibe from the film.

In the film, TA/JAL shied away from overt pedophilia for very good reasons. If, however, Håkan maintained a genuine, heartfelt, altruistic "love" of Eli, he would not become jealous of her playing in the snow with another child, nor ask her to stay away from said child in the form of a request to "do one thing for me." Also, you have ignored the obvious gratification he expressed at Eli's caress.