Am I unique?

[Lacenaire]

To make the point clearer and I hope more convincing. One of the things that most powerfully affects viewers of the film is the scene where Eli shows Oskar her room and he is shocked by the squalor she lives in (and asks her if she is poor). But, as we know, Eli puts no value on human things - she is the world's worst consumer and would never wish to, for example, rob a bank, even if it was a childishly easy and entertaining thing to do. That is why Oskar's accusation that she stole the money from the people she had killed is so unfair, and we feel that. But Oskar is human, and human beings are not like that. Even vamires are not like that - after all power and not survival is what motivates Dracula. So I think my "second ending"has the potenial for some quite serious issues, even though I really prefer to end the story on the train.

To make it even clearer: they could live in palaces instead in miserable rented rooms, they could employ a thousand men to provide them with whatever then need, in other words, they could be Draculas Would not that be tempting?

[cmfireflies]

I guess I'm a romantic but what I meant was that I don't think there's anything that Oskar would want that Eli would not willingly give, if she could.

But now I see. Your ending would give Oskar unlimited power so the problem wouldn't be the betrayal of trust but Oskar's inability to handle that power. Oskar might not be able to appreciate how dangerous their new life is and if he decides to mind-control Eli into getting them a castle, the next morning SWAT teams would be breaking down the doors and SWAT teams are significantly better armed than the local drunk.

That'll be interesting, the angle that Eli already knows how to survive and is OK with the sacrifices but Oskar doesn't and isn't.

[Lacenaire]

I guess I'm a romantic but what I meant was that I don't think there's anything that Oskar would want that Eli would not willingly give, if she could.

But now I see. Your ending would give Oskar unlimited power so the problem wouldn't be the betrayal of trust but Oskar's inability to handle that power. Oskar might not be able to appreciate how dangerous their new life is and if he decides to mind-control Eli into getting them a castle, the next morning SWAT teams would be breaking down the doors and SWAT teams are significantly better armed than the local drunk.

That'll be interesting, the angle that Eli already knows how to survive and is OK with the sacrifices but Oskar doesn't and isn't.

Not quite, I meant something rather worse than that...
With the power and money they have at their disposal and with no limitations imposed on Eli by Lindqvist vampire rules... they could turn the world into a kind of hall for everyone else (or at least into “Chinatown” in the sense of Polanski’s film). They could corrupt all the judges and politicians, kill with impunity, get rid of anyone that stood in their way... I do not necessarily mean they would have to come to a sticky end eventually. If you only care about their survival and staying together than their becoming “truly evil” would not matter - but I think we all love Eli and Oskar because really they are not what they seem. It is easy to be “good” if you do not have the imagination to see all that you could gain by being bad.
One thing about Oskar, that I have not seen much discussion of (so would like to write about this when I find more time) is that he is an usually imaginative and intelligent child surrounded by adults who are really quite inferior to him in these respects - first of all his own parents. I am not at all surprised that Oskar does not tell anyone about his bullying - if I had around me adults like the ones we see in the film I would have done the same. What, for example, would they say if they discovered his collection of newspaper cut-outs? I am sure this picture of adults comes from Lindqvist own past - it is how he must have seen them.

So I mean not that Oskar would not see the dangers but rather than his own imagination would suggest to him too many possibilities of things that he could obtain not only for himself but also for Eli by making use of her powers in a way that she would not do by herself. As I wrote earlier: why live in squalor when you can live in luxury? Why be all the time on the run when you could own the police, the judges and everything? If you think that would not be possible in Sweden - well they could easily move to may countries where this would not be a problem. They would not need even to do their own killing - there is plenty of that going on all the time. This is what I think is the really non-trivial and non-”sickly sweet” solution. The real question is: if Oskar can see that they could have all this - why should he refrain from following this route? And would you still see it a happy ending if they went that way and got away with it?

[cmfireflies]

They could corrupt all the judges and politicians, kill with impunity, get rid of anyone that stood in their way... I do not necessarily mean they would have to come to a sticky end eventually. If you only care about their survival and staying together than their becoming “truly evil” would not matter - but I think we all love Eli and Oskar because really they are not what they seem. It is easy to be “good” if you do not have the imagination to see all that you could gain by being bad.

Well, don't they do that in the movie, only on a smaller scale? Eli certainty kills with impunity. And Oskar "got rid of" Lacke. And there's a case to be made for Eli not having to kill all the bullies. As for corrupting all judges and politicians, how will we be able to tell the difference?

I'm thinking that evil by necessity and "truly evil" isn't that clear of a line. I insist that Eli is "truly evil" from Lacke's point of view. It wouldn't matter to Lacke that she's only 12 or that she needed to kill to survive, or even that Eli has found true love, the fact is Eli killed the 2 people that mattered most to Lacke is the only thing (justifiably) that's on his mind. What gives Eli the right to be happy at his expense?

Would Eli be crossing the line in the following instance? Let's say that it's Oskar's birthday, and Eli wants to get him a present. She sees this beautiful coat in a lonely store and knows Oskar would love it. Eli doesn't carry cash on her so she decides to steal the coat. After getting an invitation in, she tricks the storeowner into leaving her alone for a while. Eli grabs the coat and plans to fly away but the store owner comes back and grabs her. She's not particularly hungry but decides to kill the storekeeper anyways to avoid the hassle of running away from the police.

So basically, Eli killed for a coat. She wouldn't have done so before she met Oskar, is she becoming "more evil" because of her love for Oskar?
Oh and I recommend you read "No Ordinary Day" in the fanfiction section. It's just a great read.

To actually answer your question: I don't know, it almost is the exact opposite of a sickly sweet ending, more like a sickly dark ending. A lot of posters over at IMDB said something along the lines of "I thought the movie was boring but I loved the pool scene." I thought the pool scene was only great in the context of the movie. The fact that 3 brutal deaths were overshadowed by a loving glance really made the movie special for me. I guess it would cheapen Oskar and Eli's relationship if they went on a worldwide crime spree because that would mean that love by itself isn't enough for them. They need wealth, power and luxury.

But I think I'm so infected that I'll probably forgive Eli and Oskar for almost anything if they did it out of love for each other.

[Lacenaire]

They could corrupt all the judges and politicians, kill with impunity, get rid of anyone that stood in their way... I do not necessarily mean they would have to come to a sticky end eventually. If you only care about their survival and staying together than their becoming “truly evil” would not matter - but I think we all love Eli and Oskar because really they are not what they seem. It is easy to be “good” if you do not have the imagination to see all that you could gain by being bad.

Well, don't they do that in the movie, only on a smaller scale? Eli certainty kills with impunity. And Oskar "got rid of" Lacke. And there's a case to be made for Eli not having to kill all the bullies. As for corrupting all judges and politicians, how will we be able to tell the difference? .

Well, this time I completely disagree. More, I think we understand the novel in an entirely different way and the thing that are most important to me do not seem to matter to you.
And I moreover, I am beginning to rather like my new ending - because it relates to some of the main aspects of the story.

As I wrote earlier : to me the scene where Oskar sees Eli’s room and sees the total misery she lives in, and then she shows him her jewels and offers money, and then he accuses her of having stolen it form the people she had killed - for me this is one of the most powerful scenes in the film, of of the most important.

Now imagine Eli as a kind of Dracula: she lives in a palace, surrounded by servants and attendants, she has people kiled for her to supply her with blood as one of the models for the Dracula character, princes Bathory was supposed to have done, and then suppose she falls in love with Oskar anyway. Would we feel about her the same way! I certainly would not.
The fact that she does not kill for money and wealth, that she lives in squalor is essential to my love of her, to the way I see the story. If she were a kind of Dracula it would all be gone entirely.

You are completely wrong, in my opinion, that “they kill with impunity”. The price is having to be on the run all the time, and in fact she is constantly at risk.

Anyway, I see her entirely differently. Oskar is a human being, and is certainly not indifferent to wealth and “worldly things”, including power. How many people here can say that they really are? I doubt that there are any. If millions wer lying aground only to be picked up would you ignore them?

So, I am sure that if Oskar tried to use Eli as a tool to obtain wealth and power she would stop to love him. If he yielded to this temptation their relationship would be destroyed, totally. This for me is the real essence of Eli.

So in my story, Oskar is tempted, and there are situations where he comes close to doing this, but in the end he resists it and they stay together. And I think this can be made pretty powerful and convincing. And, it concerns grown up issues: the temptations of wealth and power, and the way Eli must spurn them to stay what she is. The essential aspect of Eli is that she is not Dracula.
The story would gain a different dimension - it would become grown up rather than childish, as it is now. The childishness does not matter because it is about children but really serious grown up matters are not part of it. I am pretty sure that if Lindqvist does write a sequel it will not longer be so “childish” because of course he himself grew up and the story was really about his childhood.

[lombano]

They could corrupt all the judges and politicians, kill with impunity, get rid of anyone that stood in their way... I do not necessarily mean they would have to come to a sticky end eventually. If you only care about their survival and staying together than their becoming “truly evil” would not matter - but I think we all love Eli and Oskar because really they are not what they seem. It is easy to be “good” if you do not have the imagination to see all that you could gain by being bad.

Well, don't they do that in the movie, only on a smaller scale? Eli certainty kills with impunity. And Oskar "got rid of" Lacke. And there's a case to be made for Eli not having to kill all the bullies.

She didn't kill all the bullies, and all those killings were done in self-defense, to feed or in the case of the pool scene, in a fit of rage and to protect Oskar. Eli actually shows considerable self-restraint.

I'm thinking that evil by necessity and "truly evil" isn't that clear of a line. I insist that Eli is "truly evil" from Lacke's point of view. It wouldn't matter to Lacke that she's only 12 or that she needed to kill to survive, or even that Eli has found true love, the fact is Eli killed the 2 people that mattered most to Lacke is the only thing (justifiably) that's on his mind. What gives Eli the right to be happy at his expense?

The line isn't clear at all and yes, Lacke is right as far as he knows. From the point of view of pure justice, not tempered by any consideration of the weaknesses of human nature or the failings of society, the only acceptable course of action from Eli is suicide. But as Hamlet says, 'To be an honest man is to be one out of ten thousand' and 'treat every man as he deserves, and who would escape a whipping?' Or according to Dostoyevski: 'That is solely justice and, therefore, unjust.'

you guys are demanding too much of Oskar and Eli. If they decide to be happy lil' vampires together, then they should pledge to be with each other and screw anybody else. That would require some self-delusion like "I'm not killing for myself anyone, I'm killing so Oskar would be happy and wouldn't have to be alone" and that'll ease the guilt, maybe.

They fell in love, they didn't suddenly become saints or something.

To (mis)paraphrase Lina, while neither one of them is considerate, they are both kind as far as they can be without endangering their own survival. Neither one actually enjoys killing. Plus, murder is dangerous business - not all would-be avengers need be as inept as Lacke. I would expect them to seek to survive in ways not lethal to others if it's at all possible.

If Oskar doesn't want to commit like that, they can still be friends, it'll just require a painful breakup later on. Eli should be able to recognize when Oskar is starting to take on a more "guardian"-type role and should leave him at that point. It doesn't have to be traumatic. Maybe the day Oskar declines Eli's offer again, they'd have an unspoken agreement that one day they'll have to separate and it'll be the best thing for both of them. [\quote]

Yes, that would also be a good ending. Possibly artistically the best ending.

So I mean not that Oskar would not see the dangers but rather than his own imagination would suggest to him too many possibilities of things that he could obtain not only for himself but also for Eli by making use of her powers in a way that she would not do by herself. As I wrote earlier: why live in squalor when you can live in luxury? Why be all the time on the run when you could own the police, the judges and everything? If you think that would not be possible in Sweden - well they could easily move to may countries where this would not be a problem. They would not need even to do their own killing - there is plenty of that going on all the time. This is what I think is the really non-trivial and non-”sickly sweet” solution. The real question is: if Oskar can see that they could have all this - why should he refrain from following this route? And would you still see it a happy ending if they went that way and got away with it?

The enslaving aspect, and the whole set of issues it opens regarding Oskar, make it an interesting solution. Apologies for having called it sickly sweet, I had not realised that you meant in the process Eli would become subject to Oskar's will. Call me a pessimist but your actual proposed ending is actually pretty dark, in my opinion. EDIT: The more I think about it, the darker I find it.
I've thought of a kind of reverse version: what if willingly drinking Eli's blood or something makes Oskar a vampire while freeing them both from the need to feed on human blood, and making Oskar enslaved to Eli? Eli has already shown herself capable of dealing with those temptations, so it would be less 'dangerous,' but there could still be instances of misuse of power.

[Lacenaire]

Now imagine Eli as a kind of Dracula: she lives in a palace, surrounded by servants and attendants, she has people kiled for her to supply her with blood as one of the models for the Dracula character, princes Bathory was supposed to have done, and then suppose she falls in love with Oskar anyway. Would we feel about her the same way! I certainly would not.

Sorry, "countess Bathory" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Báthory

[cmfireflies]

Maybe kill with impunity is a bad way of putting it. What I meant was that Eli is not held socially responsible for her actions. I don't think that you can say that it's OK for me to steal because I ran really fast getting away and now I'm tired and that's my punishment.

I think I get what you're saying. That Eli is only a sympathetic character because she does the bare minimum of evil to stay alive and Oskar might be tempted to do more given the power and opportunity.

I think the Oskar accusing Eli of stealing scene is important, but in a different way. At that point Oskar was slowly falling in love with Eli and suddenly he's confronted with the fact that Eli's persona may be just a lie. That brings up some major questions of trust. Eli is struggling to find a way to show she cares about Oskar and still wants to be his friend so she grabs the money. It's her way of saying, "please stay, I still like you, I can still help you."

Oskar is angered at that gesture because he doesn't want his relationship with Eli to turn into one of convenience. He sees that type of relationship in adults everyday, i.e. drunks like Lacke hanging around the apartment complex willing to be anyone's friend for the price of a drink. See Lacke's conversation with Hakan for an example. Furthermore, Oskar knows that Eli doesn't value the money. His accusation of stealing is his way of saying: "You didn't work for this money, and you're now trying to buy me off with it. Do you think I'm that cheap?"

So I don't think 12-year-old Oskar really values things like money or status. Then again, he's never had to go without creature comforts either. So maybe he'll be tempted to use Eli to get things. And you're right, that would destroy their relationship. But I honestly don't think it's in Oskar's character to do so.

As for Eli living in squalor, I think of it as a practical necessity. What would you want money for if you lived off blood? If your survival depended on people not noticing your existence? 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.

I still think your ending wouldn't entail that much temptation. I think Oskar and Eli are still innocent in the way that they would view the choice between ill-gotten luxury and honest, pure, love for each other as an easy one. But of course that's my particular interpretation.

[Lacenaire]

Well, I think you are assuming that Oskar remains 12 year old. Its rather easy for a 12 -year old to resist such temptations. If you are sure you would rather live like Eli than like Bill Gates (I am not trying to imply anything about Bill Gates ) than you are a much better man than me. (Or it could be a matter of imagination ) I think probably our different background makes us see things in a very different way. Which itself is rather interesting. As I wrote, I see the film as a little childish, but that is not a criticism. The issues I was introducing, wealth, power over others, etc. are (for me) much more grown up. They are not in the film because it is based on Lindqust's view of his childhood. A sequel would have to be different.

[cmfireflies]

Well, I limited the scope to Oskar being more or less 12 years old. I think as he gets older that'll be one of the issues that would force them to separate. Again, it has nothing to do with morality or lack of imagination, more like lack of desire or ambition. 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. My particular vice has always been sloth

I disagree that LtROI didn't deal with "grown up" issues like power over others. Look at the motivation of the main bully. He went beyond bullying for the fun of it, if there is such a thing, and really tried to dominate Oskar (and got whacked in the ear for his trouble.)