We, The Infected

To start this discussion, I would like to mention that I have not read the book yet. Although I've read enough on forum post to know everything that I need to know to start this conversation. That said I do plan on reading the book, and the short story that followed. Eli in the book was originally a boy, who, after being castrated identified himself as a female. In the movie, we get a very brief shot of Eli's genital area, showing signs of scarring. Now, in my opinion, I very much like that the director didn't add the fact that Eli was originally a boy. I very much like how he left the character with a past shrouded in mystery. Eli (while technically still is neither a boy nor a girl) could have been born either a boy or a girl. This sense of ambiguity is what I enjoyed so much about the film. Eli is a vampire, what if those parts are vampire parts? What if (different from the novel) Hakan had tried to rape her and she decided to cut out her ovaries to insure she wasn't impregnated. Now, I want to add that I am in no way condoning pedophilia nor do I claim to be an expert in female anatomy, but that shot of her genital area was not done at an angle to reveal her vagina if she had one. I again feel that while the director's original intent was to follow the book, I feel that he left the entire thing ambiguous on purpose. It doesn't matter that Eli is a guy or a girl, we don't know what happened to her or exactly how old she is. We know that she is lonely, we know she is sad, that's all we need to know. I personally like how they didn't go into the matter deeply. It makes the entire thing feel far more supernatural / mysterious, not that the book didn't of course. So that being said, I feel that the movie seemingly has it's own canon in which where we don't know if Eli was a guy or a girl, because in the end Eli is Eil.

I feel that the movie seemingly has it's own canon...

Thanks, Cthulhuthanos. Call me Ptahhotep.

I haven't read the novel, but I was so influenced at first by posts on the forum that I thought I was supposed to see Eli as Elias, an emasculated boy, and I thought I was supposed to see Håkan as a pedophile. But the gender issue is completely ambiguous and open. I got straightened out on these points in two interviews -- Lina talks about playing the role of the little vampire girl and refers to Eli as she and her. And Per Ragnar said he wasn't told Håkan was a pedo and that he just played him as a lonely man.

I may have to read the novel after all to see how much stuff isn't there either that forum members write about as though it were. Do we know, for example about past Håkans? Or where Eli lived during the centuries? In the film, she doesn't seem to know jack about living in town. In the book she gets around Blackeberg, or so I read on the forum, but in the film she just seems to be hiding out in the apartment before she and Oskar become involved.

Several members have said here that the film is just a kind of synopsis of the book. Even if that were so, the film is one of the very top cinematic experiences I've ever had. If the book is as wonderful as members say it is, then hats off to JAL for a great book and a great script for the film.

They are not the same story. One is not based on the other. Rather, both are based on JAL's life as a young boy living in Blackeberg. Anyway, I have a feeling that JAL wrote the script from scratch. I don't think he wrote a synopsis of the book or cut and pasted pieces of the book together to make the script. I don't think creative people operate that way.

In my fan fictions, I not only incorporate things I've learned on the forum -- like Eli has lived for more than 200 years -- but I also incorporate a lot of homage references that occur only in other fan fictions. That's having fun, isn't it? What's not fun is to be corrected from time to time about how I'm supposed to present Eli or Ávila because the book says this or that.

I write fan fictions to immerse myself in the feelings I get from the film. I present the children in a way that lets me hang out with the two kids I fell in love with. I'm sure members can enjoy stories based on the film, just as I enjoy fan fictions based on the book or based on sheer imagination.

Okay, fellow membes one and all, I love you like my very own brothers and sisters, so be of good cheer.

Fwiw Lina mentions Eli as possibly being a boy here.

http://www.horrorpilot.com/exclusive-in ... andersson/

Cthulhuthanos wrote:[...] Eli in the book was originally a boy, who, after being castrated identified himself as a female. [...]

This is probably not correct. While it isn't specifically mentioned in the novel what gender Eli identifies with - if any - there are clues indicating that it's male rather than female. Now, some of these clues get lost in the translation - you need to read the Swedish original to appreciate this to it's full extent. But JAL himself refers to Eli as "he", as can be seen in the quote I use for my signature.

The movie, on the other hand, presents Eli rather unambiguously as a girl. Lina was never told otherwise during the filming, either. Thus, movie Eli is a girl, while novel Eli isn't and never was.

The fact that novel Eli is (or at least was) a boy creates a conflict for Oskar, which is interesting but would have been very difficult to present in the movie. It would also have distracted from the main theme of friendship and love between Oskar and Eli. Thus, it was a wise move not to include it in the movie. The same goes for Håkan's paedophilia.

dongregg wrote:They are not the same story.

People who have actually read the novel tend to differ, including JAL himself: And in all important aspects it´s still the same story! Quote from here.

dongregg wrote:One is not based on the other. Rather, both are based on JAL's life as a young boy living in Blackeberg. Anyway, I have a feeling that JAL wrote the script from scratch. I don't think he wrote a synopsis of the book or cut and pasted pieces of the book together to make the script. I don't think creative people operate that way.

Then you apparently are mistaken. JAL specifically wrote: discussed what to keep from the book, and what not to. Quote from here.

Several members have said here that the film is just a kind of synopsis of the book. Even if that were so, the film is one of the very top cinematic experiences I've ever had. If the book is as wonderful as members say it is, then hats off to JAL for a great book and a great script for the film.

They are not the same story. One is not based on the other. Rather, both are based on JAL's life as a young boy living in Blackeberg.

To take it a step further, the film can be seen as a corrective to the book in some cases. JAL was evidently not satisfied with just two of the bullies being killed in the book, so he bumps off three of them in the film. Can someone point out other cases?

What to keep and what to leave out and what to change.

Back to "based on his life": There's also a lot that JAL changed as he sought a publisher who would find the book acceptable. Should ur-LTROI be part of the cannon? And should a bio of JAL be considered when discussing the motivation of the characters in the book or the film?

dongregg wrote:There's also a lot that JAL changed as he sought a publisher who would find the book acceptable.

In the interview below JAL talks about how he had three copies of the novel, which he sent to three publishers. When he got them in return, he sent them to three new publishers, with the same result. And then he sent two of the copies to another two publishers, still without success. Then he gave LtROI up, and started working on what was to become Handling of the Undead. However, after about half a year a young relative of JAL's got the novel for reading, and apparently was very exited about it. Speechless, actually. So JAL made yet an attempt to get it published, and the rest is history.

Evidently, John had three copies that he sent to various publishers. The copies were identical, most likely. And he kept sending these same copies around. So while the idea I quoted above seems plausible, it apparently isn't what actually happened...

Here's the interview. It's in Swedish, but has English subtitles that are reasonably accurate:

metoo wrote:The movie, on the other hand, presents Eli rather unambiguously as a girl. Lina was never told otherwise during the filming, either. Thus, movie Eli is a girl, while novel Eli isn't and never was.

I don't agree that in the film Eli was presented as unambiguously female. I agree that given Lina's performance, it difficult to see her Eli as anything but a girl. However, given other things that we are shown on the screen, I believe that Tomas wanted to give subtle nods to Eli really having been a boy.

First of all, Eli himself hints at the same thing ("Om jag inte varit en flicka… Hade du tyckt om mig ändå?" - "If I were not a girl… would you like me anyway?") As a viewer at that point in the film, we believe that Eli means, "…if I were a vampire… would you like me anyway?" and that is a reasonable interpretation I suppose. Later, Eli tells Oskar straight out that he is not a girl ("Oskar, jag är ingen flicka"), and once again it seems we are intended to think Eli means, "I am not a girl, I am a vampire."

However, the film never portrays that Eli views himself as a vampire. I believe the key scene for divining how Eli views himself is the scene at the glass door. Oskar asks him directly if he is a vampire. Eli admits that he is - sort of. He instead answers a slightly different question, "Jag lever på blod. Ja." ("I live on blood. yes.") He doesn't say, "Yes, I am a vampire." Eli is shown as never lying to Oskar. When he answers a question, he answers with the plain truth - however improbable, (such as, "How did you get in?" "I flew.") Thus, when he does not answer Oskar's question at the door with, "Yes, I am a vampire," or simply "Yes," I must take that as meaning that Eli does not view himself as a vampire. Indeed, a few moments later when Oskar asks if he is old, Eli answers, "Jag är 12 år, fast det har jag varit väldigt länge," ("I am twelve years old, though for a very long time"). Eli views it to be the simple truth that he is twelve years old - even if it seems improbable to he himself.

So if Eli does not view himself as a vampire, how then to interpret his statement that he is not a girl?

However, for me the clincher is The Peek Scene, where Oskar peeks at Eli as he is putting on the dress. What do we (and Oskar) see? We see what appears to be a scar running horizontally across the front of Eli's otherwise smooth pubis. Granted, this is a film about a vampire, and you can't make factual statements about exactly what effects a transformation into a vampire must entail. What we are shown in the peek scene can literally have a million interpretations, none of which can be contradicted absolutely. For my part, I prefer to use Occam's Razor: the simplest solution is probably correct. So what is the simplest solution to Eli having a scar across the front of his pubis? Eli must have once had something there. Eli must have been anatomically a boy.

As an aside: what we see in the scene is of course not Lina, but actually a doll. Back in the day there was a poster on the LTROI chat board at IMDB who worked at Fido (the company that did all of the cg effects on LTROI) and in fact had himself worked on the effects for LTROI. I recall him saying that there were actually three dolls made, each looking different. He said that there was much discussion about which one to actually use. Tomas put a lot of thought about into to show us in that scene. The attention that he put into that scene makes me feel as though there is something important going on there, if I care to look for it.

I will readily agree that this all some close reasoning (especially from someone who references Occam's Razor ), but I believe that Eli is a boy, and the above is why I believe it, based upon what I saw on the screen.

The fact that novel Eli is (or at least was) a boy creates a conflict for Oskar, which is interesting but would have been very difficult to present in the movie. It would also have distracted from the main theme of friendship and love between Oskar and Eli. Thus, it was a wise move not to include it in the movie.

Actually, I disagree that this conflict is not present in the film. Although Oskar says he doesn't care if Eli is not a girl in the candy scene, we are given hints that he is at least curious about Eli as a girlfriend. When Eli comes in his window and then tells him not to look, we get a close-up shot of Oskar's face where we can see his eyes moving underneath his eyelids. He is trying unsuccessfully to sneak a peak at Eli through the slits of his eyelids. Also, it is this same sexual curiosity that motivates Oskar to peek at Eli while he is dressing. In both the film and the novel, Oskar has imagined a boyfriend/girlfriend with Eli up until the reveal scene. In the film, the peek scene lets Oskar know that Eli is not a girl (and lets us know that Oskar knows). Despite this knowledge, Oskar is unwavering in his attitude towards Eli. So while this conflict for Oskar is not identical to the one in the novel, it is very similar, and ultimately develops the character in the same way.

Without reiterating them, I will stand by the positions I presented, and I invite others (including JAL ) to weigh in.

And I will thank Cthulhuthanos again for starting this thread. Revisiting these issues is timely for me, especially as a fan fiction contributor.

I will readily agree that this is all some close reasoning (especially from someone who references Occam's Razor ), but I believe that Eli is a boy, and the above is why I believe it, based upon what I saw on the screen.

Parsing parts of the film, such as examining the evidence for a definitive conclusion about Eli's gender, only retrospectively addresses the sense of ambiguity and open-endedness that many feel when the credits roll. I and some others have the idea that the feelings of ambiguity about gender and the lack of background information in the film don't need to be resolved.

Note: I said "feelings." The intellectual rigor that members bring to questions stands largely outside of the film experience. It is fun (mostly), but it is tangential to the experience of having just watched the film and feeling weepy, happy, glorious, mysterious, and altogether puzzled at these and other feelings. Not puzzled about details -- that can come later -- but puzzled about where the heck these feelings are coming from and am I losing my mind.