Is it worth seeing?

[CyberGhostface]

It’s playing an hour away from me. Just wondering what people’s experiences are and how it compares to the Swedish film or the book. (I get that it will be different for everyone based on where they are.) I will admit it’s a little weird personally seeing Oskar and Eli played by adults.

I have the script on my kindle, should I give that a go first?

[danielmann861]

I'm off to see it next weekend here in Sydney. I'm keen to check it out although I do have the same slight reservation. It's gonna be a weird disconnect to see adults playing 12 year olds. I've actually never read the script for the stage show either. I have the book but I never did get around to reading it.

I'm curious to see it for myself. Figured I'll make a weekend out of it so I'll report back after seeing it next weekend.

[CyberGhostface]

Thanks!

[gkmoberg1]

I say go explore. See how they adapt the story, even how they adapt against the play's script. After all, the play is an adaption of the story within the novel. And the play, as produced by each theatre group, is yet an adaption on that. How cool! (Sorry, doing the complete story nerd thing)

A request though! See if you spot of hear of reviews of the performance, either while there or thereafter in the local media. Being there might make you aware of how it the run is being critiqued. From afar, these things are hard to spot. By the time the search engines catch up, the run is typically long over.

[danielmann861]

Well I saw the Darlinghurst Sydney Performance last night.

First thing first. There is indeed a weird disconnect watching adults play 12 year olds and I do think it kind of loses something. I think this story plays out more effectively when you do have actual kids playing these roles. I know that’s something you can’t really do in a stage play and it’s just something you have to get used to but yeah, I’m not gonna lie. There was a bit of a disconnect.

That aside, it still did justice to the core story.

I would say the version I saw was an amalgamation of the book, original film and even Let Me In.

In terms of the gender stuff, it did follow the book. Eli is Elias in the version I saw. It didn’t dart around the gender stuff at all. Granted it never explained Eli’s origins but Eli did make mention that her name was Elias before.

In the version I saw, they darted around the pedophilia stuff with Hakan and it once again winds up being more of a caretaker role. Although, there was one slight hint of the pedophilia stuff but nothing explicitly said. Most people in my audience made the assumption that Hakan was once a younger Oskar. So yeah, it didn’t really delve into that stuff and more so focused on the caretaker part.

I’m not sure how many people in my audience were actually familiar with the original story as I heard a lot of reactions that felt like they were watching this for the first time and going in blind.

What else? No local drunks in the version I saw. Instead we have the cop taking on the role of Lacke much like Let Me In.

I was surprised the “No Banana’s” scene from the book was actually in here that got a nice little chuckle out of me.

Also, I’m surprised that Alfredson’s film is still the only one that has kind of gotten Oskar mostly right. In the play that I saw, Oskar is kind of a wimp. So much so that even when he does strike back, his response isn’t to relish in his moment of triumph but rather be almost apologetic as if it were an accident. I find it funny that this is the third time I’ve seen a much less blood thirsty Oskar. Still to this day I feel like Alfredson’s film is the only one I’ve seen that almost got him right.

No Zomkan in the version I saw. Hakan’s role played out almost entirely the same as film Hakan. Nothing new there that I haven’t seen before.

Oscar’s mum and dad? Oskar’s mum was an overbearing drunk in the version I saw while his Dad shows up for the alcoholic scene. Although it downplays the alcoholic factor and more so plays up the gay factor that was maybe hinted at in the original film, I felt.

For the most part, it followed the trajectory of the original film but it was the little flourishes and changes that made it kind of interesting for me to watch and what I took from it was a mix of all of the different versions I’ve seen thus far.

I did like the performances. I thought the two cast as Oskar and Eli were well played. I liked the way they handled the story. I even liked their approach to some of the scenes. The pool scene in particular. There was one touch I really liked in the strike back scene. Oskar doesn’t strike back with a pole or stick rather he cuts the Bullies with his ice skate flinging it around in self defence. I thought that was kinda neat.

For the most part I enjoyed it. Once you get past that disconnect, the story is still very much in tact and as enjoyable as it always has been. I think it’s worth a watch on stage just to see it from a different perspective.

[CyberGhostface]

Thanks… I’ll be seeing the play next week.

[danielmann861]

Oh there was one other thing about the version I saw that I thought was a really interesting change.

In the scene where Hakan goes to the gym to hunt a fresh victim for Eli, they actually changed it in this version to have Hakan potentially hunting Oskar with the intent of feeding Oskar's blood to Eli. Only to be interrupted by Avalia resulting in Hakan hunting a random boy instead. Later on in the hospital, Eli confronts him about this. I thought that was kind of an interesting change.

Coming from the perspective of a fan who has seen and read this story many times over, I was really intrigued by the small changes made to the story. Some of them were really interesting. Others not so much. I assume every stage version is slightly different in the way they approach the story? I really should read that stage play book now and find out what was carried over into the version I saw. I know there is the Lindqvist version and the Jack Thorne version.

The only complaint I had with it is at times I thought it was a bit too showy and wordy in terms of performances. I don't know, maybe I'm just too accustom to Alfredson's "less is more" approach and I get it, stage acting is a different beast to film acting. But at times I couldn't help but feel it was a bit too pantomime which served to remind me why I love the simplicity of the film. But I think that's just me being pedantic.

[Jessy7217]

more so plays up the gay factor that was maybe hinted at in the original film, I felt.

I got that sense, the very first time I watched the movie. Really still makes me curious, numerous watches later, if his dad and his dad's friend are involved, in the book.

[Siggdalos]

I got that sense, the very first time I watched the movie. Really still makes me curious, numerous watches later, if his dad and his dad's friend are involved, in the book.

They are not. It's clear in the novel that Erik and Janne are just drinking buddies (and not Erik's only such friend, it should be mentioned).
In the commentary tracks for the film, TA and JAL mention that the gay interpretation is mostly found with foreign audiences and suggest that it's a result of cultural differences, but I think it's more due to the how the scene is shot and the way the camera lingers on their faces. I read the book first, but even I thought on my first watch that it'd be pretty easy to interpret the scene in a romantic way, which does somewhat obscure the intended message of the scene.

[Jessy7217]

I got that sense, the very first time I watched the movie. Really still makes me curious, numerous watches later, if his dad and his dad's friend are involved, in the book.

They are not. It's clear in the novel that Erik and Janne are just drinking buddies (and not Erik's only such friend, it should be mentioned).
In the commentary tracks for the film, TA and JAL mention that the gay interpretation is mostly found with foreign audiences and suggest that it's a result of cultural differences, but I think it's more due to the how the scene is shot and the way the camera lingers on their faces. I read the book first, but even I thought on my first watch that it'd be pretty easy to interpret the scene in a romantic way, which does somewhat obscure the intended message of the scene.

Yes, the way it was shot, is why I thought that.

Thank you for the info about the book. I haven't read it, yet.