Monster or Child--A Narrative Weakness in LTROI

For discussion of Tomas Alfredson's Film Låt den rätte komma in
Post Reply
User avatar
dongregg
Posts: 3937
Joined: Sun Jul 21, 2013 10:58 pm
Location: Atlanta
Contact:

Monster or Child--A Narrative Weakness in LTROI

Post by dongregg » Thu Jan 30, 2014 4:48 am

I believe the ambiguity perceived in Oskar and Eli's relationship is largely a result of a narrative weakness in the film.

The narrative weakness is that the relationship develops at lightning speed—after only two encounters in the courtyard, Eli is either "all in" and can't keep away from Oskar, or she is already repeating a familiar pattern of recruit/use/dispose of/recruit again. It is up to us to account for how quickly Oskar and Eli become an item. After all, by the third encounter, Eli is either not able to stay away from Oskar, or she has already identified him as Håkan's replacement.

Given this narrative vacuum (that is, no explanation for how quickly Eli and Oskar connect) we must use our mind and our previous experiences with vampires to make sense of it: Eli has been 12 for a long long time and can think rings around poor Oskar. But Eli and Oskar are lonely, isolated kids. Håkan is getting sloppy. But the heart is a lonely hunter, and there is no accounting for how Eli and Oskar bond. And so forth.
I haven't read any blogs or forum posts that suggest a middle position. I think that is because it only works if Oskar and Eli bond unconditionally, or if Eli is a manipulative monster. Pick one. Only the one or the other will knit the narrative of the film into a whole.

(BTW, I think a more effective ambiguity is built into the moral dimensions of the tale—peace, love, and good vibes versus violence. Eli slays to live. Oskar strikes back at his tormentors. Eli chooses to kill the bullies, who deserve/don't deserve it. Lacke wants to kill Eli before she can kill any more of his friends.)

In the following discussion, K stands for Eli as a Kid; M stands for Eli as a Monster. In the end, you decide.

Thesis K = Eli is a lonely Kid.
Thesis M = Eli is a manipulative Monster.

Encounter #1 (Courtyard):

By the first encounter in the courtyard, Eli already knows that her apartment is next door to Oskar's. She may have seen him at his window, or she may have heard his door close when he went out.

K. Kids notice other kids. Eli may just be curious, and/or she may already be attracted to Oskar.

M. Eli wants to check Oskar out for suitability as a replacement for Håkan.

Encounter #2 (Courtyard):

K. Eli unconsciously and unaccountably seeks to be near another kid before she goes off to kill Jocke. She connects with Oskar because of his friendly gesture and through a shared interest in puzzles.

M. Eli takes the opportunity to establish a connection through the Rubik's cube with her potential new servant. Asks Oskar how you do the puzzle because she knows that men and boys love to show girls how things work.

Encounter #3 (Courtyard):

K. Cleans up for O to appear acceptable as a potential friend/playmate.

M. Wishes to appear normal so she won't scare Oskar off before she can ensnare him.

Encounter #4 (Courtyard):

K. Eli learns a new game—Morse code. Learns that Oskar is being bullied. First overt feelings of wanting to protect Oskar, who is vulnerable, like her.

M. Plays along with the Morse code game as a way to keep O's attention. Gives Oskar the hit-back advice to test his mettle.

Encounter #5 (In the Town Center):

K. How good it is to feel like a normal kid. Tries hard to be that for O. Feels anxious that she is too weird for him. Insecure about why O likes her.

M. Gives O a strong clue that she is not normal by upchucking the candy. Hints that she is not a girl, that their relationship will be going someplace other than friendship/romance.

Interlude: Hesitating to tap on wall to Oskar (who is not there)

K. Very lonely. Misses Oskar.

M. Here there seems to be no indication of a sinister plan.

Encounter #6 (Oskar's Bedroom):

K. Wants to play bulleribock. Doesn't want to be alone. Anxious to please Oskar. Leaves love note.

M. Urgent that she find a replacement for Håkan. Nude in O's bed. Plays hard to get and then pretends to go along with "going steady" idea. Leaves "love" note with hint that she may soon have to leave him.

Encounter #7 (Basement Room at Pool):

K. Doing going-steady stuff with her new boyfriend.

M. Scouting out Oskar's habits and routines. Doing "going-steady" stuff with Oskar to further ensnare him.

Encounter #8 (Eli’s Apartment):

K. Insecure following basement snafu. Doesn't want Oskar to find out even more weird stuff about her. Takes a chance. Tries and fails to keep Oskar near her. Heart breaks.

M. Too early to overtly recruit Oskar as a servant. Must think of a way to get Oskar back on track.

Encounter #9 (Oskar’s Apartment):

K. Has to give the relationship another try or just give up on her only friend.

M. Confident that she can ensnare him completely. Plays the girl card by dressing up in a cute outfit. Bleeds to get sympathy. Plays up Oskar's dark side.

Encounter #10 (Sleepover at Eli's Apartment and Second Note):

K. Want to meet tonight? I really like you. Your Eli.

M. I really "like" you. "Your" Eli.

Encounter #11 (Eli's Apartment):

K. One more loss in a lifetime of losses. As a vampire, she has no choice but to flee. A lingering kiss and goodbye forever.

M. A kiss to keep Oskar interested while she figures out the next step.

Encounter #12 (Pool):

K. They're trying to hurt my Oskar!

M. They're trying to hurt my servant! As an accessory to murder, Oskar will have to come away with me. Now he's ready to learn the procedure for transporting me in a box.

Encounter #13 (Train):

K. K-I-S-S. (Oskar, I love you.)

M. K-I-S-S. (Are you still guarding me, like I told you to?)

JAL and TA have both indicated that their intention was to make a movie about the relationship. If so, then the movie was probably not intended to be about a monster using a relationship as a way of recruiting a servant.

Thus, my own bias inclines me to reject the monster thesis. I pick thesis K--Eli is a lonely kid who unexpectedly falls for a normal human kid. To that end, I wrote a modest fan fic, "When I Am With You," which presents thesis K from Eli's perspective. I think it would be a hoot to now write a fan fic that presents thesis M. But I won't. I've thought about it, and it always comes out as a parody. Mildly amusing but pointless.

And now you must revisit your own choice. If the discussion has run its course for you and you don't wish to respond here, then you may PM me with which thesis you support.
“For drama to deepen, we must see the loneliness of the monster and the cunning of the innocent.”

User avatar
cmfireflies
Posts: 1152
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 7:39 pm

Re: Monster or Child--A Narrative Weakness in LTROI

Post by cmfireflies » Thu Jan 30, 2014 5:44 am

I don't think it's a narrative weakness; I think it's a strength that there could be two different interpretations-sort of like how beauty is in the eyes of beholder.

Anyways, it's not a secret that I don't like LMI, so I wrote a story where Abby was the monster just to test the waters of the manipulative theory. I had fun writing it, but even there, it wasn't total manipulation, merely a sort of unspoken bargain on the vampire's part-I'll be your friend and protect you when you're young, in return you'll protect me when you're older. The manipulation comes from mismatched expectations from Owen: I love you and we will never change. As a monster, Abby will never understand this because she knows that every one of her companions change and die and want different things from her at different points. So to Abby, it would seem like she fulfilled her part of the bargain, giving Owen/Thomas years of friendship and merriment only to have Owen/Thomas grow less and less willing to do his part as he grows old. Abby would feel like a banker chasing after a bad debt as she yells at Thomas to get off his ass and bring her some food. It's very unfair to Abby.

So even if you accept "manipulation" it merely means that the vampire is offering the child a deal, not that they necessarily are evil or a monster.
"When is a monster not a monster? Oh, when you love it."

User avatar
cmfireflies
Posts: 1152
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 7:39 pm

Re: Monster or Child--A Narrative Weakness in LTROI

Post by cmfireflies » Thu Jan 30, 2014 5:58 am

I've posted this before, I apologize for the repost, but I didn't want to find my old post

And this is for funsies:

Why doesn't Eli wipe her mouth before crawling in bed with Oskar? (Obvious meta answer: the bloody mouth and the innocent kid makes for a memorable image and adds to the tension of the scene, making it a tightrope between sweet and horrific, which is why this was not in the book)

But what's the in-story answer?-It doesn't seem like something Eli would forget, so she must have chosen to keep blood on her mouth while telling Oskar not to look. This is unflatteringly, a power-trip. Eli's acting like a god: don't eat this apple, don't open this box, don't look back least you be turned into a pillar of salt. Eli is testing Oskar for obedience, and more importantly, unquestioning obedience. Because if he had looked, he would see Eli's bloody mouth and if Eli were anything like the gods of old, things would have turned very badly for Oskar, but he didn't and earned the right to Eli's servant. If there is any weakness to the narrative, this is it: a bit for style that makes no sense in the context of the story, except that it's brilliant if Eli is canonically evil
"When is a monster not a monster? Oh, when you love it."

User avatar
dongregg
Posts: 3937
Joined: Sun Jul 21, 2013 10:58 pm
Location: Atlanta
Contact:

Re: Monster or Child--A Narrative Weakness in LTROI

Post by dongregg » Thu Jan 30, 2014 6:17 am

cmfireflies wrote:I don't think it's a narrative weakness; I think it's a strength that there could be two different interpretations-sort of like how beauty is in the eyes of beholder.
Here's why I think it's a narrative weakness. It is a story of unconditional love, but there are not enough links that tie the progression from "We can't be friends" to "K-I-S-S" together, so it makes us look for a convincing narrative in its absence. And here's why I think that detracts from the film. The only other interpretation (though your alternative is serviceable) is the evil vampire explanation. The real theme, unconditional love, cannot coexist with the evil vampire theme, so that muddies up the perception of the relationship. To speak honestly, defending this unintended ambiguity as a strength of the film sounds too much like a Madison Avenue approach--"If you can't fix it, feature it." So I think it is something broken about the film which obviously can't be fixed. I don't think that seeing the value of this ambiguity makes up for how it adds an element of confusion to a sweet love story. There is abundant moral and existential ambiguity to help create depth to the story.

But, yeah, on the other hand, I don't think I would be writing this if I were not full-tilt bat-s___ crazy. And, in fact, if there were not a forum such as this, made up of other delightfully whack devotees, I would be reduced to blog tirades aimed at trolls who may or may not have even seen the film.
“For drama to deepen, we must see the loneliness of the monster and the cunning of the innocent.”

User avatar
drakkar
Posts: 3833
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2009 8:26 am
Location: Trondheim, Norway

Re: Monster or Child--A Narrative Weakness in LTROI

Post by drakkar » Thu Jan 30, 2014 7:31 am

dongregg wrote:The narrative weakness is that the relationship develops at lightning speed—after only two encounters in the courtyard, Eli is either "all in" and can't keep away from Oskar, or she is already repeating a familiar pattern of recruit/use/dispose of/recruit again.

I hink it's more to it than that. In the beginning Oskar is potential dinner, escaping the second meeting by a rather narrow margin. However, the result of that second meeting is that a friendship start to emerge, which later develops to unconditional love.

In the beginning, I view Eli as both K and M, altough Eli isn't very much aware of being a lonely kid - he is too distanced from humanity/society. Trough Oskar, Eli reconnects with his human sides. At last, he becomes fully aware of how much of a lonely kid he really is; return to Blackeberg and pool showdown.
I keep thinking: When was the last time Eli killed out of rage, and to save someone?
For the heart life is simple. It beats as long as it can.
- Karl Ove Knausgård

User avatar
a_contemplative_life
Moderator
Posts: 5896
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2009 2:06 am
Location: Virginia, USA

Re: Monster or Child--A Narrative Weakness in LTROI

Post by a_contemplative_life » Thu Jan 30, 2014 11:12 am

Maybe one way to look at it would be to ask, what more could have been added to ensure that a love story is the only interpretation? How about those 2 charming deleted scenes involving the kids? I am pretty sure that if the wrestling match from the novel had been thrown in with Eli's response to having been slapped, the 'M' theory would be dying a slow death, if not outright dead. Or maybe the "bananas" part or the "knight of Angby maybe" exchange? I guess you are looking for something more from Eli that would allow us to make clearer inferences about her feelings for Oskar. The trouble is, for each one of those that you could add, the folks who want to see 'M' can come up with an 'M' interpretation. And you also begin to have a film that is unmanagely long.
Image

User avatar
metoo
Posts: 3678
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2011 12:36 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Monster or Child--A Narrative Weakness in LTROI

Post by metoo » Thu Jan 30, 2014 11:22 am

A hint that Håkan was picked up recently by Eli would do it - but I have no idea of how to make such a hint. It has to be clear, but still not take focus away from the main theme of the movie.
But from the beginning Eli was just Eli. Nothing. Anything. And he is still a mystery to me. John Ajvide Lindqvist

jetboy
Posts: 609
Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2009 5:22 pm

Re: Monster or Child--A Narrative Weakness in LTROI

Post by jetboy » Thu Jan 30, 2014 1:31 pm

dongregg wrote:
cmfireflies wrote:I don't think it's a narrative weakness; I think it's a strength that there could be two different interpretations-sort of like how beauty is in the eyes of beholder.
Here's why I think it's a narrative weakness. It is a story of unconditional love, but there are not enough links that tie the progression from "We can't be friends" to "K-I-S-S" together, so it makes us look for a convincing narrative in its absence. And here's why I think that detracts from the film. The only other interpretation (though your alternative is serviceable) is the evil vampire explanation. The real theme, unconditional love, cannot coexist with the evil vampire theme, so that muddies up the perception of the relationship. To speak honestly, defending this unintended ambiguity as a strength of the film sounds too much like a Madison Avenue approach--"If you can't fix it, feature it." So I think it is something broken about the film which obviously can't be fixed. I don't think that seeing the value of this ambiguity makes up for how it adds an element of confusion to a sweet love story. There is abundant moral and existential ambiguity to help create depth to the story.

But, yeah, on the other hand, I don't think I would be writing this if I were not full-tilt bat-s___ crazy. And, in fact, if there were not a forum such as this, made up of other delightfully whack devotees, I would be reduced to blog tirades aimed at trolls who may or may not have even seen the film.
I think they can coexist because of how the film is made. Its made in a way that is like we are there, this seems to be the cinematographers and TA's strategy with its far away, non-moving camera work. And because its made like that, like we dont know the intentions of people in real life, we dont exactly know the intentions of the characters in this movie. How this method works in relationship to the 'unconditional love' theme is that because certain things are left out (Hakans reasoning for pouring acid on face) we may come up with Oskar may be the next Hakan. As horrifying as that seems, its only a possibility but what the possibility does thematically is represent the part of love that makes it so special and longed for which is our fearful imagination.

User avatar
intrige
Posts: 4208
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2010 5:20 pm
Location: Norway
Contact:

Re: Monster or Child--A Narrative Weakness in LTROI

Post by intrige » Thu Jan 30, 2014 4:35 pm

To me I wouldn't say Eli was completely good. Not evil. He planned on feeding on Oskar for sure, in the novel, then changed his mind and became friends with him instead.
But for the movie, I remember thinking nothing odd of Eli incountering Oskar again in the courtyard. I think Eli was corious, not attached to Oskar. But curious about him, something I have exerienced being right before I got a crush on people, I am curious. Maybe being curious was a new thing for Eli, or at least a forgotten one, and therefore he came back.

If looking deeper, why wouldn't Eli at least try to talk to this boy? I mean, a small chat never hurt anybody right? Often, kids do things without thinking. Maybe Eli just sat down with him and talked, without really thinking it through.

I also think that the good and the bad outcome for Oskar, is a nice edtion to the movie's plot, and not a weakness.
Last edited by intrige on Mon Feb 03, 2014 8:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Bulleri bulleri buck, hur många horn står upp

User avatar
a_contemplative_life
Moderator
Posts: 5896
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2009 2:06 am
Location: Virginia, USA

Re: Monster or Child--A Narrative Weakness in LTROI

Post by a_contemplative_life » Thu Jan 30, 2014 4:48 pm

I think one of the key things that the "M" critics overlook is Eli's statement, "I'm twelve. But I've been twelve for a long time." Those who ascribe to the view that Eli "seduces" Oskar tend to characterize her as an older woman in a child's body. But that view is really not supported, and is in fact, contradicted, by the film. They don't stop to consider whether a perpetual 12-year-old who is apparently inept in matters as basic (for a vampire) as how to cleanly take down a person like Virginia, could successfully embark upon a pre-meditated campaign to seduce and enslave someone.
Image

Post Reply

Return to “Let The Right One In (Film)”