Eli vs. Abby: a different breed of loneliness

[ofelia]

I wonder how much our perception of movie Eli's relationship with Hakan would have changing if the film had included the tickling/hide the key part. I think it would have. At least, it would have shown that she was trying to have a personal connection with him.

Yeah, our perception of movie Eli's relationship with Hakan would have changed if they had include those parts in the movie.

What's really sad is that in the film it's never clear exactly why Hakan wants to be with Eli, whereas in the novel Eli knows he's a pedophile and yet still attempts to get close to him. In the film I could empathize with Hakan a lot more- not that surprising, I guess, but the actor also has a really expressive face, and he seems scared of what he has to do for Eli. But in the film I think it made sense for them to present Eli as not having any emotional connection to Hakan. It would have made her less of a mystery if they showed her interacting with him in a typically childish way. At the points where Hakan is still alive, you don't know if Eli is going to lean more towards monster or human. Oskar is the one who slowly changes her.

I liked in the novel how almost immediately Eli starts changing his behavior after meeting Oskar. He takes Oskar seriously, I guess because it's been such a long time since he had another child to talk to. He showers when Oskar says he smells strange; he starts trying to play with Hakan, not particularly to make Hakan feel better, but because he now has the idea that that's what he's supposed to do. And all the times he says the wrong thing and then says to Oskar, "You have to help me not to be strange." He wants to be as normal as possible for Oskar's sake. I wish there was more of that feeling, that Eli is anxious to live up to Oskar's expectations, in the film.

[sauvin]

In the LMI movie just before Abby dashes out to hurl on Owen's candy, there's a span of a few seconds showing Abby looking at him while he's playing Pac Man. She's clearly smitten with him, but she's also relaxed, relatively unguarded, maybe even genuinely amused. Eli nearly always comes across as stiff, guarded and watchful, with the only exception I can think of offhand being in the bedroom scene.

Mind, I'm not taking into account deleted scenes. As I understand it, Alfredson was concerned with maintaining some kind of balance, to make Eli come out somewhere just the shadow of a hair north of "moral neutral", not wanting to make her too evil or too sympathetic. If so, I suggest he succeeded hugely. One consequence of this balancing act, though, is that movie Eli is never really a child except by implication (once having fled the scene without covering her tracks (Jocke) and once having bungled an "impulse" murder completely (Virginia)).

There are important interpretational differences between LMI and LTROI, and one of these is precisely the relationship between child and "minder"; I suspect the nearly total persistent estrangement between Eli and her minder was meant to reinforce the impression given that Eli is completely alone, even in her own house, that she has nobody and nothing to rely on but herself. I suspect it's also possible Alfredson couldn't see a way to give Eli and Hakan an "innocent" relationship, he may have feared that showing affection between them may have dropped the paedophilia hint a bit too heavily. Reeves evaded this hint pretty solidly by giving Abby and Thomas forty years together.

[lombano]

There are important interpretational differences between LMI and LTROI, and one of these is precisely the relationship between child and "minder"; I suspect the nearly total persistent estrangement between Eli and her minder was meant to reinforce the impression given that Eli is completely alone, even in her own house, that she has nobody and nothing to rely on but herself. I suspect it's also possible Alfredson couldn't see a way to give Eli and Hakan an "innocent" relationship, he may have feared that showing affection between them may have dropped the paedophilia hint a bit too heavily. Reeves evaded this hint pretty solidly by giving Abby and Thomas forty years together.

Somewhat OT, someone I know derided LMI as the puritanical version of LTROI, on the grounds of making Abby a girl and making Thomas a former Owen (and therefore not a paedophile in the conventional sense). No doubt avoiding controversy was part of the reason for these decisions.
TA, in the UK commentary I think, mentions that love is the most threatening thing to Eli so that pre-Oskar she can only associate with those she despises. So he probably was never interested in shwoing any affection of Eli towards Hakan.

[DavidZahir]

Somewhat OT, someone I know derided LMI as the puritanical version of LTROI, on the grounds of making Abby a girl and making Thomas a former Owen (and therefore not a paedophile in the conventional sense). No doubt avoiding controversy was part of the reason for these decisions.

Honestly, I'm not sure of that. Matt Reeves has pretty much come out and said he didn't want certain things to "overwhelm" the main story of Owen and Abby--which makes sense to me. Balancing out the different elements in a story can be extremely tricky, and what is possible changes with the medium as well as a hundred other choices. Much as the screenwriter of The King's Speech noted how he deliberately minimalized the whole Abdication Crisis in his story lest it eclipse the main plot.

[Bioroid]

And I actually disagree with Reeves on that idea, too.
At least for me personally, the pedo angle would've enhanced the love story rather than overshadowed it.
It should make people more glad to see the two main characters connect, rather than cause as much suspicion as making Thomas a former Owen seems to.

JAL and Alfredson agreed the pedo stuff should go, but Reeves felt the need to give a reason why the caretaker would be with the vampire, and since in the novel Håkan thought he was in love with Eli, what better way than make Thomas be in love with Abby... albeit for a different reason.

The problem is that his being a genuine friend does mean Abby has to have "a different breed of loneliness" and if Abby were actually in love with him too (which I doubt, but for the sake of argument), then that just detracts from the love story even more, IMO.

[sauvin]

The problem is that his being a genuine friend does mean Abby has to have "a different breed of loneliness" and if Abby were actually in love with him too (which I doubt, but for the sake of argument), then that just detracts from the love story even more, IMO.

Can you explain why you feel Abby loving Thomas detracts from the love story between her and Owen (if "love story" is accurate and applicable, that is)?

[Bioroid]

What I meant was it detracts insofar as LMI is supposed to be Lindqvist's love story.
At least, most seem to see LTROI as a love story, although I'm aware others see it more as a deep friendship story.

The original story, in my view, is much more like the traditional fairy tale love story, where Eli's connection with Oskar was what brought out Eli's humanity, brought him "out of his shell" as they say. Similar to the way in the fairy tales that the "one true love" causes Sleeping Beauty or Snow White or whoever wake up from whatever miserable state they find themselves cursed with. While in the real world this "one true love" stuff is something I find a bunch of hooplah (and something causing legions of young folk to have unrealistic expectations about relationships), I quite like the way that sort of fantasy ideal is utilized in LTROI.

LMI, in the perspective that Thomas was in love with her and Abby reciprocated the same, is much more aligned with a realistic point of view. Most of us have been in love at least a few times, and each time it ends, we're miserable for a while, then someone new comes along, our spirits perk up, and we hope that it turns out differently this time. Nothing about a curse or spell being broken, and no real loss of humanity involved here.

Under this framework, Abby and Owen may have something special, but it's really no more special than any other relationship is. Abby isn't so much re-discovering her humanity as she's coming out of a dead relationship and going through something akin to post-breakup blues. Part of the role many of us feel that Oskar played in Eli's character arc would have already been played by Thomas. Even having Thomas be "just a friend" begins to intrude on this a bit, as Eli isn't supposed to have had any "normal" friendships in 200 years.

And finally, it detracts in that it places too much emphasis on the possibility that Owen will end up like Thomas, to the point where it would seem as if Owen's future is set in stone, rather than the hopeful ambiguity of the original story.

[sauvin]

... it detracts in that it places too much emphasis on the possibility that Owen will end up like Thomas, to the point where it would seem as if Owen's future is set in stone, rather than the hopeful ambiguity of the original story.

And the original story's ambiguous "hopefulness" is based on what, precisely?

[Bioroid]

The idea that this kind of relationship something new for both of them, sort of heading into uncharted territory, whereas Abby (and the audience) knows very well what is likely to happen when she runs off into the sunset with a 12 year old boy.

[sauvin]

The idea that this kind of relationship something new for both of them, sort of heading into uncharted territory, whereas Abby (and the audience) knows very well what is likely to happen when she runs off into the sunset with a 12 year old boy.

Yes, and taking the LTROI novel and movie alone (disregarding subsequent works), that "uncharted territory" looks pretty [deleted] grim. What kind of future can they possible have together? Nobody can say with any real confidence, save to say it's apt to prove "difficult".

LMI is somewhat more realistic in suggesting Thomas cycles for Abby perhaps as metaphorical witness to what all mortal men must experience: birth, maturescence, senescence and inevitable death. In that sense, LTROI (especially the movie) is a "live for the moment" kind of fantasy where there is no birth and no death, just the here-and-now pleasure of running away, consequences be [deleted], but Owen has a pretty good idea of what his future is going to be like. Smit-McPhee did a wonderful job of conveying mixed reaction at the prospect, but Owen apparently thought life with Abby and all the misery her reality and lifestyle must mean was still preferable to the slow death he'd already been living.

Maybe LMI is a much better "fairy tale" for people for whom the promise or prospect (even the very appeal) has died long ago.

Edit: 5 Novembre 2011, replaced a "bad word" with [deleted] to comply with renewed restrictions on language.

Edit: 5 Novembre 2011, replaced a "bad word" with [deleted] to comply with renewed restrictions on language.