Yes, her clothing style and color do improve as the movie goes on and seem to fit who she is. The mothers dress is another match for her.dongregg wrote:Yeah, that seems about right for Eli--unsocialized, almost feral at first. Definitely an outsider, and not just relative to Blackeberg, but an outsider to the human race. Minimum clothing to avoid attraction, no sense of style or gender. She gets better--the more Eli and Oskar bond, the more stylish and feminine she dresses. She consciously changes into the red sweater, and she is wearing a cute blouse and navy bellbottoms when she rings Oskar's door bell. (You get a glimpse of the bellbottoms when she hands Oskar her bloody clothes.)
Monster or Child--A Narrative Weakness in LTROI
Re: Monster or Child--A Narrative Weakness in LTROI
Re: Monster or Child--A Narrative Weakness in LTROI
Here's why I wrote: "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."cmfireflies wrote:Minor quibble, but I don't think that there is that much moral ambiguity in the story at all, if you take Eli's intentions towards Oskar as pure.
Since Eli kills for survival, there's no moral component to her actions. It is amoral to kill to survive. In fact, I would argue that no one in the film is motivated by morality, even Virginia took the path of least resistance-going to Gosta to feed at night and choosing suicide in the daytime. To me, moral ambiguity is where there are two moral concerns, loyalty v. justice, friend v. country, etc. But I think that a defining feature of LtROI is that they believe themselves to be dedicated to one person: Hakan to Eli, Lacke to Jocke, and Eli and Oskar to each other. When any of these "right ones" come into direct conflict, there is a clear victor, i.e., someone dies. For example, Eli never attacked anyone important to Oskar and to the extent that Oskar chose Eli over the rest of the world, well, his alienation was a theme, right?
It's a story about discovering what is really important, not having to chose between two important things. Without the possibility of Eli being manipulative, everyone acts morally by trying to protect the one that is most important to them.
This is not a matter of who is acting morally. Suppose as you say--all of them are acting morally. The ambiguities I just pointed out are about "what is moral?" Is it moral for Eli to kill to live? To continue to do so doesn't mean that it is moral; it is expedient. Calling it amoral doesn't remove the question of whether the human part of Eli should acquiesce to the needs of the vampire part. Was Lacke seeking to kill Eli to protect his friends? I see no reason to think so. It makes more sense that he was seeking revenge for the friends already killed by Eli. A revenge killing is immoral, and much ink has been spilt by moralists on the issue. Some members have questioned whether or not Oskar should have struck back at Conny. "Sends a bad message." It doesn't fit with "turn the other cheek." And Eli's slaughter of the bullies at the pool--forum members have pointed out that Eli could have just roughed them up and whisked Oskar to safety.
So I say it again--There is abundant moral and existential ambiguity to help create depth to the story. Existential ambiguity? Yes. How much is Eli a vampire and how much does she remain human?
Anyway, I don't think JAL can write a story that doesn't have unanswered questions that lead to ambiguity. Do you? Although TA and JAL both said that it's up to the viewer to choose between thesis K and thesis M, that just sounds like good after-the-fact marketing to me. JAL did not want viewers to see thesis M. The film just came out that way, and JAL made short work of thesis M in LTODD.
For all of the JAL-style ambiguity that is in the story, my vote is still that the confusion about Eli's real motivations arose from the film-making/editing process and was therefore an unintended consequence.
“For drama to deepen, we must see the loneliness of the monster and the cunning of the innocent.”
Re: Monster or Child--A Narrative Weakness in LTROI
Nicely put. I agree completely.dongregg wrote:Here's why I wrote: "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."
This is not a matter of who is acting morally. Suppose as you say--all of them are acting morally. The ambiguities I just pointed out are about "what is moral?" Is it moral for Eli to kill to live? To continue to do so doesn't mean that it is moral; it is expedient. Calling it amoral doesn't remove the question of whether the human part of Eli should acquiesce to the needs of the vampire part. Was Lacke seeking to kill Eli to protect his friends? I see no reason to think so. It makes more sense that he was seeking revenge for the friends already killed by Eli. A revenge killing is immoral, and much ink has been spilt by moralists on the issue. Some members have questioned whether or not Oskar should have struck back at Conny. "Sends a bad message." It doesn't fit with "turn the other cheek." And Eli's slaughter of the bullies at the pool--forum members have pointed out that Eli could have just roughed them up and whisked Oskar to safety.
So I say it again--There is abundant moral and existential ambiguity to help create depth to the story. Existential ambiguity? Yes. How much is Eli a vampire and how much does she remain human?
Anyway, I don't think JAL can write a story that doesn't have unanswered questions that lead to ambiguity. Do you? Although TA and JAL both said that it's up to the viewer to choose between thesis K and thesis M, that just sounds like good after-the-fact marketing to me. JAL did not want viewers to see thesis M. The film just came out that way, and JAL made short work of thesis M in LTODD.
For all of the JAL-style ambiguity that is in the story, my vote is still that the confusion about Eli's real motivations arose from the film-making/editing process and was therefore an unintended consequence.
We never stop reading, although every book comes to an end, just as we never stop living, although death is certain. (Roberto Bolaño)
- cmfireflies
- Posts: 1153
- Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 7:39 pm
Re: Monster or Child--A Narrative Weakness in LTROI
I agree, except that I don't think it was intended. I think it's a creative difference between JAL and TA. For me, I think that the bit of ambiguity is a nice touch and shows that falling for someone requires a bit of faith.For all of the JAL-style ambiguity that is in the story, my vote is still that the confusion about Eli's real motivations arose from the film-making/editing process and was therefore an unintended consequence.
If you listen to the DVD commentary, you can hear TA and JAL explicitly disagree over whether Eli actually leaves after killing Lacke.
"When is a monster not a monster? Oh, when you love it."
Re: Monster or Child--A Narrative Weakness in LTROI
That works for me. I suspected there were some creative differences. I recall that TA wanted to leave out the bleeding scene, but JAL stuck to his guns. And TA put the kibosh on the mutilation flashback. There must have been other polite disagreements.cmfireflies wrote:I agree, except that I don't think it was intended. I think it's a creative difference between JAL and TA. For me, I think that the bit of ambiguity is a nice touch and shows that falling for someone requires a bit of faith.For all of the JAL-style ambiguity that is in the story, my vote is still that the confusion about Eli's real motivations arose from the film-making/editing process and was therefore an unintended consequence.
If you listen to the DVD commentary, you can hear TA and JAL explicitly disagree over whether Eli actually leaves after killing Lacke.
“For drama to deepen, we must see the loneliness of the monster and the cunning of the innocent.”
Re: Monster or Child--A Narrative Weakness in LTROI
To chime in, TA wanted the audience to have the possibility of multiple interpretations, while for JAL it was only one. So their disagreement over Eli in the taxi wasn't really whether he left or not, it was about the possibility that Eli didn't exist at all (a figment), and the taxi was just another taxi.cmfireflies wrote:I agree, except that I don't think it was intended. I think it's a creative difference between JAL and TA. For me, I think that the bit of ambiguity is a nice touch and shows that falling for someone requires a bit of faith.
If you listen to the DVD commentary, you can hear TA and JAL explicitly disagree over whether Eli actually leaves after killing Lacke.
For the heart life is simple. It beats as long as it can.
- Karl Ove Knausgård
- Karl Ove Knausgård
Re: Monster or Child--A Narrative Weakness in LTROI
I don't hear any disagreement, just TA asking if ELI really is in that taxi.drakkar wrote:To chime in, TA wanted the audience to have the possibility of multiple interpretations, while for JAL it was only one. So their disagreement over Eli in the taxi wasn't really whether he left or not, it was about the possibility that Eli didn't exist at all (a figment), and the taxi was just another taxi.
The DVD commentary was likely recorded when the film had been in theatres for a while and different interpretations had been discussed by spectators. TA's question should probably be understood in the light of that.
But from the beginning Eli was just Eli. Nothing. Anything. And he is still a mystery to me. John Ajvide Lindqvist
- sauvin
- Moderator
- Posts: 3410
- Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 5:52 am
- Location: A cornfield in heartland USA
Re: Monster or Child--A Narrative Weakness in LTROI
However, killing in order to avenge a killing, however, may have exactly this kind of moral net effect. In periods of human history where a "state of the art" home kitchen involved open fires, heated rocks and maybe a smoke hole in the top of the cave, I wouldn't be surprised to learn this is exactly what was generally understood.dongregg wrote:Lacke wants to kill Eli before she can kill any more of his friends.
What, indeed, is "moral", and who gets to make this judgement, and why?dongregg wrote:The ambiguities I just pointed out are about "what is moral?"
Is it moral to insist that Eli surrender her life? All living things must obey a few simple hard-coded directives: to survive (consuming food and water, maintaining temperature, using violence as required for defense or to acquire meat) and to procreate. Demanding that Eli expire demands that she ignore the most driving of all natural laws.dongregg wrote:Is it moral for Eli to kill to live? To continue to do so doesn't mean that it is moral; it is expedient. Calling it amoral doesn't remove the question of whether the human part of Eli should acquiesce to the needs of the vampire part.
How much is the girl a girl, and how much some hematophagous lizard? The question is actually a lot more complicated: not yet thirteen in "actual" years (assuming complete morphological and biochemical stasis), how much more mixing, kneading, folding, oven time and being left to fully "become" would be needed for an unturned Eli could properly be said to have baked up a proper challah (by way of "frontal lobe") in order to assess morality and its implications in a manner consistent with how the rest of us greybeards do it? Moreover, if unturned but yet forever deprived of estrogen's and testosterone's influences, might there not still be variances?dongregg wrote:... Eli's slaughter of the bullies at the pool--forum members have pointed out that Eli could have just roughed them up and whisked Oskar to safety ... there is abundant moral and existential ambiguity to help create depth to the story. Existential ambiguity? Yes. How much is Eli a vampire and how much does she remain human?
But, as pointed out in other discussions (and other contexts), Eli is also a child out of time. Suppose after all these years her moral thinking is still coloured predominantly by what she understood of the common values prevalent a quarter of a millennium ago in the relatively sparsely populated countryside of a country that was itself a relative backwater on the European scale? Would her slaughtering these bullies still be seen as excessive, if all the pertinent facts surrounding it were generally known?
Fais tomber les barrières entre nous qui sommes tous des frères
Re: Monster or Child--A Narrative Weakness in LTROI
True, every bit true. The film raises many of these questions. But the film just presents them. We get to play around with trying to answer them, but that is an endless process.sauvin wrote:However, killing in order to avenge a killing, however, may have exactly this kind of moral net effect. In periods of human history where a "state of the art" home kitchen involved open fires, heated rocks and maybe a smoke hole in the top of the cave, I wouldn't be surprised to learn this is exactly what was generally understood.dongregg wrote:Lacke wants to kill Eli before she can kill any more of his friends.
What, indeed, is "moral", and who gets to make this judgment, and why?dongregg wrote:The ambiguities I just pointed out are about "what is moral?"
Is it moral to insist that Eli surrender her life? All living things must obey a few simple hard-coded directives: to survive (consuming food and water, maintaining temperature, using violence as required for defense or to acquire meat) and to procreate. Demanding that Eli expire demands that she ignore the most driving of all natural laws.dongregg wrote:Is it moral for Eli to kill to live? To continue to do so doesn't mean that it is moral; it is expedient. Calling it amoral doesn't remove the question of whether the human part of Eli should acquiesce to the needs of the vampire part.
How much is the girl a girl, and how much some hematophagous lizard? The question is actually a lot more complicated: not yet thirteen in "actual" years (assuming complete morphological and biochemical stasis), how much more mixing, kneading, folding, oven time and being left to fully "become" would be needed for an unturned Eli could properly be said to have baked up a proper challah (by way of "frontal lobe") in order to assess morality and its implications in a manner consistent with how the rest of us greybeards do it? Moreover, if unturned but yet forever deprived of estrogen's and testosterone's influences, might there not still be variances?dongregg wrote:... Eli's slaughter of the bullies at the pool--forum members have pointed out that Eli could have just roughed them up and whisked Oskar to safety ... there is abundant moral and existential ambiguity to help create depth to the story. Existential ambiguity? Yes. How much is Eli a vampire and how much does she remain human?
But, as pointed out in other discussions (and other contexts), Eli is also a child out of time. Suppose after all these years her moral thinking is still coloured predominantly by what she understood of the common values prevalent a quarter of a millennium ago in the relatively sparsely populated countryside of a country that was itself a relative backwater on the European scale? Would her slaughtering these bullies still be seen as excessive, if all the pertinent facts surrounding it were generally known?
"Lacke wants to kill Eli before she can kill any more of his friends." That's me reflecting someone else's thoughts. I think Lacke just wants to avenge their deaths. Many societies have evolved rules to regulate revenge killings and to distinguish them from murder. Rules evolve. "An eye for an eye" is universally thought to be a brutal rule. ("An eye for an ear" says Jimmy.) But at that stage of moral development, it may have served to limit violence--"Just and eye for an eye and nothing further."
I think the moral and existential issues account for much of the depth of the film. That Eli must kill but perhaps doesn't think it's right to do so is a result of her being both a human and a vampire. Reminds me of Little Big Man, where the protagonist says that the Indian who had him at his mercy spared him because "I was a white man. I killed him because I was an Indian." (Not the exact words from the novel, but...) You can re-imagine it as, "Lacke spared me because I am a little girl, but I killed him because I am a vampire." She is both (or he is both, whatever).
Anyway, what I wrote was to make a case that the ambiguities help make LTROI a thinker's film without viewers having to take sides about whether Eli was manipulative or just a lonely kid. That the question remains open for some viewers is to me just an unfortunate artifact of how much of the film made it to the screen and how much of it ended up on the cutting-room floor.
“For drama to deepen, we must see the loneliness of the monster and the cunning of the innocent.”
Re: Monster or Child--A Narrative Weakness in LTROI
I think Elli does not need a servant. Except the first murder, Elli kills all the other victims. After the death of Lacke, she leaves the apartment on her own, without any help of a servant. The only thing she is looking for is a companion or a friend, because she doesn’t want to live alone. Oskar is a better choice for this and Oskar would be a very poor servant, even worse than Hakan.
Hakan kills for Eli, because it is the only way, he can show his love to Eli. Otherwise he can only offer his lust for her/his premature body, which Eli doesn’t really want.
So, Thesis M does not really work.
Hakan kills for Eli, because it is the only way, he can show his love to Eli. Otherwise he can only offer his lust for her/his premature body, which Eli doesn’t really want.
So, Thesis M does not really work.
A creature of the night, that carries the light in itself.