Monster or Child--A Narrative Weakness in LTROI

For discussion of Tomas Alfredson's Film Låt den rätte komma in
Post Reply
Bloody Mary
Posts: 272
Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2014 7:49 pm

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

Post by Bloody Mary » Wed Feb 05, 2014 3:19 am

jetboy wrote:
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.
I thought Hakan poured acid on his face to protect Eli. He told her that there were people who knew they lived together, so when he was caught the police could trace Eli.
"Do not go gentle into that good night . . . Rage, rage against the dying of the light." -Dylan Thomas

Bloody Mary
Posts: 272
Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2014 7:49 pm

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

Post by Bloody Mary » Wed Feb 05, 2014 3:22 am

a_contemplative_life wrote: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.
That is true. I thought that Virginia could resist the infection better than Eli because she was older and more mature.
"Do not go gentle into that good night . . . Rage, rage against the dying of the light." -Dylan Thomas

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 » Wed Feb 05, 2014 3:51 am

Bloody Mary wrote:
a_contemplative_life wrote: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.
That is true. I thought that Virginia could resist the infection better than Eli because she was older and more mature.
I think that Eli's holds within his heart a deep and bitter sense of injustice that doesn't bubble to the surface very often. By that I mean that Eli feels that his life has been snatched from him through no fault of his own. He understands that suicide would offer an end to his suffering, but as the perpetual child, he forever rejects this option because it does not seem fair to him that he should have to kill himself when he has never truly had the opportunity to live. In a way, he is a victim of his own immaturity.

Virginia, by contrast, is a mature woman who has lived and loved. She has worked for many years in a job that she enjoys. She has a daughter and a grandchild. Although their love is imperfect, she has loved Lacke and knows that he loves her. Eli's bite has brought a terrible calamity to her, but once coming to accept what she has become, she cannot bear the thought that she might ever be responsible for hurting those she loves. She cannot tolerate the notion of living with the urge to destroy those around her. Ergo, suicide is the sensible and only solution.
Image

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

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

Post by jetboy » Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:30 am

Bloody Mary wrote:I thought Hakan poured acid on his face to protect Eli. He told her that there were people who knew they lived together, so when he was caught the police could trace Eli.
True but why did he go to such lengths when whatever feelings he had didnt seem to be reciprocated by Eli? Who was Hakan and why was he so dedicated?

Bloody Mary
Posts: 272
Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2014 7:49 pm

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

Post by Bloody Mary » Wed Feb 05, 2014 5:01 am

jetboy wrote:
Bloody Mary wrote:I thought Hakan poured acid on his face to protect Eli. He told her that there were people who knew they lived together, so when he was caught the police could trace Eli.
True but why did he go to such lengths when whatever feelings he had didnt seem to be reciprocated by Eli? Who was Hakan and why was he so dedicated?
That's what I'm trying to figure out. In the book, it's pretty clear that Hakan hates himself and has for a long time. He was fired from his job as a teacher after a postal worker discovered his pornographic male (possibly child) porn, so he feels that he has no purpose and that Eli gives him one. I think that in the beginning of their relationship, s/he made him feel loved when he felt worthless. And he has an inclination to be attracted to children, so we can conclude that he feels he is in love with Eli. S/he stopped caring about him when he was pretty well ensnared (as far as I can tell), so his devotion is partly an attempt to earn back her love.
"Do not go gentle into that good night . . . Rage, rage against the dying of the light." -Dylan Thomas

User avatar
EEA
Posts: 4739
Joined: Mon May 24, 2010 5:53 pm

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

Post by EEA » Wed Feb 05, 2014 6:12 pm

I am watching the movie and here is what I think Eli is thinking if she were a monster and was luring Oskar to be her next caretaker. I will be adding more as I continue to watch the movie. :)

1:00-4:05 Eli arrives

Oh why do you look at me? It's annoying. And why is there a smirk on your face? We are here because of you, because again you couldn't do things correctly.
The good thing is that maybe here I will find your replacement. And you can carry all the things inside because is your fault we are here.

7:30
So you are cleaning your tools. Ha. Look at you all happy. This time you better come through.
13:30 first encounter with Oskar
Isn't this something. I might not have to wait too long to replace Hakan. Here is his perfect replacement. Though he is just a kid but with that anger that he has inside I can shape him into a good caretaker in a few years.
Where do I live?
Next to you. I will be watching you closely.
14:20 Hakan fails at his attempt to get blood for Eli
What are you?
Useless! You can't do anything right! And there you think that by apologizing will change anything!
Why do I keep giving you opportunities! Now I have to do what you couldn't do!

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 » Fri Feb 07, 2014 8:52 pm

EEA wrote:I am watching the movie and here is what I think Eli is thinking if she were a monster and was luring Oskar to be her next caretaker. I will be adding more as I continue to watch the movie. :)
Great start! I'm looking forward to more!
“For drama to deepen, we must see the loneliness of the monster and the cunning of the innocent.”

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 » Wed Feb 12, 2014 2:57 am

I felt when reading everyone's responses to this thread that many of the insights were either new, deep, or otherwise worth pondering again. Here are some of the insights that meant something to me. (I hope I got the attributions right.)
drakkar wrote:In the beginning, I view Eli as both K and M, although Eli isn't very much aware of being a lonely kid - he is too distanced from humanity/society. Through 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.
metoo wrote: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.
a_contemplative_life wrote: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.
gattoparde59 wrote:For me one of the major flaws in the movie is the character of Eli's blood collector. Significantly he is never given a name in the film, although it shows up in the credits. Who is he? What is he doing with Eli? Why does he have to bring blood to Eli? The viewer is left to fill in the blanks and it is easy to watch the end of the movie on the train and say: "this guy probably started out just like Oskar."
drakkar wrote:I disagree. When Håkan comes home without blood, Eli tells him he has promised to help him. Not something he would say to an old acquaintance. Next, is their conversation in the kitchen, just before Håkan goes to clean up the mess after Eli nomming Jocke: "Du vet ju att jag måste" (You know I have to). So, quite early in the film, Eli tells Håkan about his duty, and why he (and Eli) has to kill people and collect blood, two times. Because he might think Håkan has forgot.

Unfortunately, these incidences are lost in the English translation, the first is translated with the weaker "you're supposed to help me", while the second isn't subtitled at all (half drowned in Johan Söderqvist's music). So the "narrative weakness" is much due to the translation, not what's in the film.
sauvin wrote:I remember reading somewhere that JAL or TA (or both) were also concerned with preserving a kind of moral neutrality where Eli is neither clearly completely the monster nor clearly completely just a disarming but lost little kid with an unusual disease. We're free to decide for ourselves what the case may be according to the strictures of our own individual masses of experience and sets of prejudices.
Yes, that's right. A vampire is ipso facto a monster (although our Eli is not of the usual sociopathic mold of other "monsters"). I see, though, that I should have named the M thesis the MM thesis—manipulative monster. As important as it is for Eli to be "other," a plain old monster wouldn't fill in the narrative holes, although she still has to be a stinky, dirty, unsocialized murderer for the film to succeed, regardless of which thesis prevails.
PeteMork wrote:So basically Eli isn't a 200 hundred year old inside the body of a 12-year-old. Eli is a 12 year old who has lived for a very long time.
sauvin's insights are all worthy of being reread, but here is an additional one that I wanted to re-post:
sauvin wrote:I'll certainly agree that the kids share inherent common ground, an allusion I suppose I was making rather ham-handedly by suggesting that Oskar's frozen and lifeless courtyard was Eli's, too, but to a far greater degree. As you say, Oskar isn't stuck, but even if there hadn't been an Eli to encourage him unwittingly to angering a psychopath, odds are nonzero he'd have died anyway at some point before his 18th birthday, most likely by suicide. Eli, well... before they'd met, would you really call what she was doing "living"?
a_contemplative_life wrote:I think that Eli's holds within his heart a deep and bitter sense of injustice that doesn't bubble to the surface very often. By that I mean that Eli feels that his life has been snatched from him through no fault of his own. He understands that suicide would offer an end to his suffering, but as the perpetual child, he forever rejects this option because it does not seem fair to him that he should have to kill himself when he has never truly had the opportunity to live. In a way, he is a victim of his own immaturity.
“For drama to deepen, we must see the loneliness of the monster and the cunning of the innocent.”

Bloody Mary
Posts: 272
Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2014 7:49 pm

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

Post by Bloody Mary » Wed Feb 12, 2014 3:19 am

Thesis M adds horror to the story (the idea that Oskar may turn out like Hakan) and I think it is more complex than Thesis K because it's not as obvious. But M destroys the film's sweet, hopeful side that everyone seems to love so much. So I subscribe to K just because I'm an idealist. You can't look at the shot of Eli and Oskar holding hands and stomach the theory that he's using Oskar.
"Do not go gentle into that good night . . . Rage, rage against the dying of the light." -Dylan Thomas

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

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

Post by jetboy » Wed Feb 12, 2014 6:42 am

Bloody Mary wrote:Thesis M adds horror to the story (the idea that Oskar may turn out like Hakan) and I think it is more complex than Thesis K because it's not as obvious. But M destroys the film's sweet, hopeful side that everyone seems to love so much. So I subscribe to K just because I'm an idealist. You can't look at the shot of Eli and Oskar holding hands and stomach the theory that he's using Oskar.
I like this post.

Post Reply

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