Am I unique?

[Lacenaire]

Then again, I've never experienced poverty and always had everything I could reasonably want so maybe that's why I don't see the appeal.

I think more to the point is that you probably have not lived in a country where people kill and are killed for power. That makes quite a difference to how you see things.

Actually, what I really think is the most interesting thing about this film is how different can be the perceptions of it by those who like it (I am not counting those who do not or who usually completely misunderstand it). It seems to me that how you see it and what you like about it says just as much about the film as about yourself, and I think this is a mark of all great films and novels. So in my case, Eli’s self-chosen “poverty”, her disregard for worldly things is an essential part of what I love about her - and without that I would not do so. And this is really independent of whether it is supported by Lindqvist or not because it is the film that actually fascinates me and this is a valid interpretation of the film Eli. So I am also absolutely sure that if Oskar decided to use her as a tool to obtain wealth and power, by making her kill for such aims their love would die. No true love can be absolute, it can be destroyed if the loved one changes in certain essential ways. The only love about which this is not true is Don Quixote’s love for Dulcinea because it was a love of an image and not a real human being.
So now, here is an final outline of my sequel to the story, only with details missing (to be worked out when I really have nothing better to do which is means probably never).

We start with the train. They arrive somewhere, got off, find a place to stay and live for a while together just as Eli used to live. But then, for some reason that I have not yet thought out, they cannot get enough blood for Eli (perhaps the people around them are all members of this forum). So in desperation Oskar offers Eli his own blood and at first she tries to refuse but finally can’t resist it. So he cuts himself and she starts sucking his blood but only after a few sips she feels satisfied. And than to their amazement they begin to discover that all her vampirism appears to have gone: she can go into sunlight, enter places without asking for permission, even keep a pet cat
So they are very happy and begin a new life. But gradually they notice strange things. The first is that Eli does not seem to be able to refuse any of Oskar’s wishes, even if they go quite strongly against her own will. Secondly, she does not feel hungry but can consume human food without ill effects - but each time she does that she becomes a little older. So now she has the choice - she can stay young or age at the same pace as Oskar. But, they also discover that the effect last only for a time, gradually her blood hunger returns and then the whole procedure has to be repeated form the beginning. So now she has a another choice - she can refuse Oskar’s blood and return to being a vampire like she used to be or accept and remain his de facto slave. But as she trust him and loves him she chooses the second, and they go on living happily for a while. But gradually Oskar get’s tired of living in poverty and starts using Eli’s money more freely, and then it starts running out. And as he does not wish to try to sell any of her jewels, he gets involved in certain schemes with some people he got to know. And through that he begins to realize the tremendous and virtually unlimited possibilities of obtaining wealth and power, through using Eli’s own powers. I should add, that since Eli started drinking Oskar’s blood, her own powers have increased immensely - I am not sure about the details but she is now quite unstoppable and if Oskar so desires he can have any one he chooses assassinated virtually risk-free. So Oskar is tempted and even tries using Eli in this way, telling her that he is doing it really for her and the kind of things people usually would say. But then he realizes that if he goes through with this, he will gain everything that can be gained in the world but will looses Eli. And then he gives up and Eli forgives him. And they lived happily ever after until they died (since Eli continued to eat human food). Fini! ))

[Lacenaire]

Dracula may have had a castle and servants but he always died. Eli's living conditions aren't a moral choice, as much as a necessity for survival. I can't love her for having common sense.

Actually, I think this is quite wrong interpretation of Dracula, at least of Bram's Stoker's novel. (It's the only vampire novel I have read except for LTROI and I read Dracula much more carefully and more than one - though of course I can's remember everything now). In the book, van Helsing appears to have killed Darcula but he also knows he has not really done so. And the reason for that is also made clear in the book (but I think not in any of the film versions) - there are several places where it is implied very strongly that Dracula is Satan himself and he can never be killed. (Which is a very big difference between him and Eli.)

[lombano]

Eli is only a sympathetic character because she does the bare minimum of evil to stay alive

That for me goes to the heart of the issue of morality in LTROI. Eli has no choice if she is to live. Everyone else has some degree of choice. Thus when she tells Oskar 'I do it because I have to' she is implying 'You are actually worse than I am.' And I daresay Eli is right.

Eli's relationship with money seems simple enough: Money can get her a place to stay during the day, can be used to bribe others to help her, can be used to buy blood, all of which can save her life. Therefore stealing from the dead is done as much from necessity as killing them. The dead at least will not need the money. That she is totally uninterested in material things is shown by the poverty with which she lives, despite the money, and how willing she is to give it to Oskar.

[Lacenaire]

Eli is only a sympathetic character because she does the bare minimum of evil to stay alive

That for me goes to the heart of the issue of morality in LTROI. Eli has no choice if she is to live. Everyone else has some degree of choice. Thus when she tells Oskar 'I do it because I have to' she is implying 'You are actually worse than I am.' And I daresay Eli is right.

Eli's relationship with money seems simple enough: Money can get her a place to stay during the day, can be used to bribe others to help her, can be used to buy blood, all of which can save her life. Therefore stealing from the dead is done as much from necessity as killing them. The dead at least will not need the money. That she is totally uninterested in material things is shown by the poverty with which she lives, despite the money, and how willing she is to give it to Oskar.

But I do not think she steal from the dead. She tells Oskar "it was given to me". And when he asks "by who" she says "other people". And I think she means "not the ones she had killed". I think there is something very dark about this answer, quite different from what comes to Oksar's mind.
The idea that she would steal money to live on while having keeping jewels worth " a whole nuclear power station" - would really make her look very different. To me these "other people" are very significant. I can't remember what she means in the book. But my own interpretation of her words, when I saw them in the film was ... well, quite dark. I think I will write about this in another thread.

[TΛPETRVE]

Well, considering what is implied about her past with the vampire lord and Håkan's true intentions (both points taken from the novel, that is) , I guess some things are best left unspoken .

[lombano]

Eli is only a sympathetic character because she does the bare minimum of evil to stay alive

That for me goes to the heart of the issue of morality in LTROI. Eli has no choice if she is to live. Everyone else has some degree of choice. Thus when she tells Oskar 'I do it because I have to' she is implying 'You are actually worse than I am.' And I daresay Eli is right.

Eli's relationship with money seems simple enough: Money can get her a place to stay during the day, can be used to bribe others to help her, can be used to buy blood, all of which can save her life. Therefore stealing from the dead is done as much from necessity as killing them. The dead at least will not need the money. That she is totally uninterested in material things is shown by the poverty with which she lives, despite the money, and how willing she is to give it to Oskar.

But I do not think she steal from the dead. She tells Oskar "it was given to me". And when he asks "by who" she says "other people". And I think she means "not the ones she had killed". I think there is something very dark about this answer, quite different from what comes to Oksar's mind.
The idea that she would steal money to live on while having keeping jewels worth " a whole nuclear power station" - would really make her look very different. To me these "other people" are very significant. I can't remember what she means in the book. But my own interpretation of her words, when I saw them in the film was ... well, quite dark. I think I will write about this in another thread.

If memory serves, the book, like the film, says nothing else about the money. I interpreted it essentially as Oskar does - she lies because she does not want to admit she is a thief to him. I don't see her jewels as contradictory with my hypothesis, after all they may have sentimental value - in the book it is hinted she knew or had some connection to the egg's maker, so that perhaps it's somewhat analogous to Oskar's Rubik's cube. In any case theft seems to me the lesser crime here, especially since by giving a plausible false reason for the murders it helps protect her and, rationally, it is less harmful than stealing from the living.
I can think of two ways she could 'earn' the money, if you start a thread I will post about them there.

[TΛPETRVE]

He did.

[a_contemplative_life]

Perhaps this is a good point to mention that the way I resolve for myself the "dilemma" of the ending (is it a "happy ending" or not) is by imagining that in the last scene of the film time is "suspended" or "frozen" and this scene never ends. Eli and Oskar remain in the train together for ever - nothing else ever happens.

But how can our love succeed
A miracle is what we need
And so I appeal to you

Keep me suspended in time with you
Don't let this moment die
I get a feeling when I'm with you
None of the rules apply
But I know for certain
Goodbye is a crime
So love if you need me
Suspend me in time

[a_contemplative_life]

To me these "other people" are very significant. I can't remember what she means in the book. But my own interpretation of her words, when I saw them in the film was ... well, quite dark. I think I will write about this in another thread.

In the novel, there is a conversation between Hakan and Eli where Eli says that there were others before Hakan who were better than him in what he was doing for her. So it would seem that Eli does have a very dark past.

[Gavin]

Wouldn't the money be a survival issue especially with Hakan needing a place to stay and to not look conspicuous in the eyes of the towns people. Hakan certainly couldn't work in the traditional sense for obvious reasons. Relocating frequently would also require funds. Eli took from its victims what they no longer required. It does what it does to survive. I can here Oskar now, "You're a vampire and a thief! Vampirism I can handle but thievery is where I draw the line." I'm new here by the way. So, hey.