Can You Show Me Where Abby Manipulates Owen

[flypaper]

The supporting evidence for Thomas and Hacan be one and the same is their action s, their reaction to and their relationship with Abby/Eli. they both support her and care for her they are both world weary and both are willing to let Abby/Eli kill them for food. They even look alike. The only difference I saw was when they failed to get her a refill and they in their own words said I' sorry. If you'd like to explain how they are different I would be willing to listen...untill then I feel they are very basically alike and interchangeable .

Hakan's role in the LTROI movie is very ambiguous at best. The nature of their relationship is left very much up to the audience to interpret for themselves, but it does seem fairly clear that Eli endured him, that she regarded him with contempt. I offer the kitchen scene - I can't remember ever having seen an actor/actress so young pull off such profound froisseur with such adroit aplomb.

Contrast this with the same kitchen scene in LMI. In the few moments before he asked her not to see "that boy" again, they shared what appears to be a moment of deep tenderness and high mutual regard. In the moment or two after he asked, she moved back somewhat, looked down and had a troubled expression on her face. Different people will interpret that expression in different ways, but I saw conflict.

The LTROI movie's hospital scene had Eli being similarly remote with Hakan. She looked at him briefly, with an expression of what could be characterised as "vague regret" that he'd had to come to this pass, and looking at him expectantly as if asking "What do you want me to do? (Are you ready for what I have to do?)"

LMI's hospital scene showed an Abby who looked outright pained, as if she knew what she was going to have to do, and didn't want to. The touched foreheads briefly, as if acknowledging that a lifetime together is about to end, and it honestly does look to me as if Abby is manfully trying not to cry.

The real difference between Hakan and Thomas may well not exist in practical effect for the people living in neighbouring apartments or ZIP codes, but their respective relationships to their respective little vampire girls leave very different qualitative impressions.

I can't fast forward at this moment but there is a shared tenderness and disdain shown by both Abby/Eli, both show disdain for there guardians, Eli with a flick of the wrist tells Hakan to more so she can code with Oskar, and the same happens with Thomas when Abby tells him to get that she wants in to where he was sitting. Both T and H received tender pats and other conformation that they are alive. As far as the hospital both A and E were outright dismissive of T and H even as they offer themselves up for the chow line, they both looked sad but this did not stop them from killing their former friend. I remember both A and E being equally pleasant and foul tempered with the hired help.

Without belaboring the point the roles of T and H could be interchanged between pictures andboth would fit seemlessly.

[Lacenaire]

Thank you for some very interesting information on the lore. I was aware that the lore is almost world wide, but am very surprised that the Soviet's made such a movie. I guess the need for a good scare is world wide. Since there is so much why are your thoughts on why on Stokers Dracula is the most popular? Was it because of the original movie cemented it into the popular subconscious?

Well, although probably for many this will sound somewhat artificial, the way I see it is that what Bram Stoker did to vampirism, can be compared to what Kano did when he created judo out of jujutsu. In other words he took something very ancient and unsystematic, selected the parts that were most effective, got rid of the ones that had become obsolete and seemed ridiculous (in the case of jujutsu it was primarily techniques that were only useful for people wearing armor, in the case of vampirism it was a lot of staff connected with religious heresy, whichcraft etc) systematized and organized the whole thing so as it make it relevant and interesting to contemporary audience. That was the basis for his popular success. In Dracula, Stoker uses the figure of van Helsing to separate the “myth” and the “reality” of vampirism. His interest in vampirism is both practical and scientific, which is very much like Kano’s approach to jujutsu (Kano was basically a scientist and approached martial arts from the standpoint of modern physiology and mechanics).

As for why the Soviet’s made this sort of movie (this was one of very few horror movies made in the Soviet Union), the main reason is that Gogol belongs to the pantheon of great Russian writers (even though he was Ukrainian) whose heritage the Soviet Union always claimed as its own. Secondly, the Soviet Union did not only make propaganda films, people also needed entertainment etc, otherwise life would have become almost impossible. So when a director wanted to make a film based on a classic work by Gogol, Pushkin, Tolstoy and even Dostoyevsky he had a very large degree of freedom. Of course everything was subject to censorship and directors would have to be carful with certain things (showing religion in too sympathetic light would be one of them) but in the case of such classics the usual approach was to do it almost word for word as it was written. The only real classic Russian (pre-Soviet) work with witch this could not be done that I can think of, was Dostoyevsky’s “The Devils”, since nobody could miss the resemblance between the nihilistic terrorists it portrays and the bolsheviks. Still, the book was published in the USSR, but in very small editions and was very hard to get.

If you watch Viy you will see that there are vampires there, which actually have essentially all the features of Stoker’s vampires. The main character is a beautiful young witch, who is also a 200 year old had (does it remind you of anything?). She is actually also a vampire although she has many “ordinary” zombie-like vampires as her servants.

I just noticed that a new version of Viy was made in 2008 and a trailer can be seen on YouTube. Technically it looks much more impressive but I somehow doubt it has the full charm of the original.

[flypaper]

Thank you for some very interesting information on the lore. I was aware that the lore is almost world wide, but am very surprised that the Soviet's made such a movie. I guess the need for a good scare is world wide. Since there is so much why are your thoughts on why on Stokers Dracula is the most popular? Was it because of the original movie cemented it into the popular subconscious?

Well, although probably for many this will sound somewhat artificial, the way I see it is that what Bram Stoker did to vampirism, can be compared to what Kano did when he created judo out of jujutsu. In other words he took something very ancient and unsystematic, selected the parts that were most effective, got rid of the ones that had become obsolete and seemed ridiculous (in the case of jujutsu it was primarily techniques that were only useful for people wearing armor, in the case of vampirism it was a lot of staff connected with religious heresy, whichcraft etc) systematized and organized the whole thing so as it make it relevant and interesting to contemporary audience. That was the basis for his popular success. In Dracula, Stoker uses the figure of van Helsing to separate the “myth” and the “reality” of vampirism. His interest in vampirism is both practical and scientific, which is very much like Kano’s approach to jujutsu (Kano was basically a scientist and approached martial arts from the standpoint of modern physiology and mechanics).

As for why the Soviet’s made this sort of movie (this was one of very few horror movies made in the Soviet Union), the main reason is that Gogol belongs to the pantheon of great Russian writers (even though he was Ukrainian) whose heritage the Soviet Union always claimed as its own. Secondly, the Soviet Union did not only make propaganda films, people also needed entertainment etc, otherwise life would have become almost impossible. So when a director wanted to make a film based on a classic work by Gogol, Pushkin, Tolstoy and even Dostoyevsky he had a very large degree of freedom. Of course everything was subject to censorship and directors would have to be carful with certain things (showing religion in too sympathetic light would be one of them) but in the case of such classics the usual approach was to do it almost word for word as it was written. The only real classic Russian (pre-Soviet) work with witch this could not be done that I can think of, was Dostoyevsky’s “The Devils”, since nobody could miss the resemblance between the nihilistic terrorists it portrays and the bolsheviks. Still, the book was published in the USSR, but in very small editions and was very hard to get.

If you watch Viy you will see that there are vampires there, which actually have essentially all the features of Stoker’s vampires. The main character is a beautiful young witch, who is also a 200 year old had (does it remind you of anything?). She is actually also a vampire although she has many “ordinary” zombie-like vampires as her servants.

I just noticed that a new version of Viy was made in 2008 and a trailer can be seen on YouTube. Technically it looks much more impressive but I somehow doubt it has the full charm of the original.

Thank you for this very intresting history. And your take on the popularity of Stokers Dracula.

[DavidZahir]

Been busy. But I'd like to reply somewhat to this thread.

To my mind, Abby certainly manipulates Owen in terms of the fact she deliberately acts to influence his behavior. And using that definition, Owen certainly manipulates her, just as he manipulates his Mom and his Mom manipulates him. And so on. We influence each other. Such is part of the human condition.

If you want specifics here are some. Abby eats the candy to make Owen feel better. Just a little while later she disappears when his back is turned but is waiting next to his door to say goodnight. She gets under his defenses by acting about the cut on his cheek. She deliberately subjects him to the sight of her 'bleeding out' which sparks some kind of a reaction, and so on.

But to me, this seems like the ordinary (given the circumstances) interplay of two people whose lives are becoming entwined. I'm more intrigued by something Chloe Grace Moretz said about Abby testing Owen, seeing if he could handle the truth. Those incidents stand out rather more. "Would you still like me if I wasn't a girl?" for example. "I'm stronger than you think." "Twelve, more or less." But again, is this really any different than what we do when inching our way into a new friendship, or new relationship? I don't see how.

The accusation about manipulation comes across as mis-named. Abby, like Owen and everybody else, tries to manipulate those around her--or at least she tries to impact others' behavior. A more telling and fundamental question is about her emotional reaction to Owen. In that respect, we're on somewhat shakier ground because our judgment must remain subjective. The way Abby sneaks a look at Owen while he's playing Ms.PacMan -- is she simply enjoying watching the face of a boy she's falling in love with? Or gloating over successfully hooking another mark? Apart from one's own judgment, methinks we're left with overall context as well as the intentions of the creators as they've expressed them. Matt Reeves in the DVD commentary draws the parallel of that moment with one in the film Klute when Jane Fonda's character steals a glance at the detective played by Donald Sutherland with whom she's falling in love. More, Chloe Grace Moretz has said explicitly Abby was "kinda falling in love" with Owen. So it seems the creators of that scene had in mind a genuine emotional connection.

When ;you look at the overall context of the story, I frankly believe this ends up reinforced. For one thing, look at how Abby touched the wall, the one were Owen was on the other side. I have real trouble seeing that gesture as anything other than tender--especially since she's alone at the time. Likewise, her last moments with Thomas didn't have to be tender. She even hesitated before feeding from him. Why? Likewise think of what a very pretty naked girl sliding into the sheets with Owen might have done to cement his loyalty to her. To be frank, had she taken his virginity right then she'd've had very nearly a slave.

In short, her actions do not fit with the pattern one might expect if she were a sociopath--which psychologically matches what Abby stands accused of being. Personally, I would also point out her brain is only twelve years old. It is kinda like using a 386 computer. No matter how fantastic your skill with that 386, it isn't a Pentium 4. Abby remains a child in some fundamental way.

[kahx]

She is shown to be adult and or business-like around Jenkins while with Owen she is SUPER SWEET with a quiet shy voice... anyone who says she is manipulative is likely going to attribute much of that to the vast difference in shown behaviour.

[PeteMork]

Just to clarify, I intend to use the American Heritage Dictionary definition of ‘Manipulate’ to respond:

1. To operate or control by skilled use of the hands; handle: She manipulated the lights to get just the effect she wanted. 2. To influence or manage shrewdly or deviously: He manipulated public opinion in his favor. 3. To tamper with or falsify for personal gain: tried to manipulate stock prices.

I really see nothing in David’s post to indicate that Abby does any of the things he mentions “shrewdly or deviously.” Or to “tamper with or falsify for personal gain,” the implication being that this action is somehow dishonest.

Perhaps my own pendulum has swung too far the other way at this point, since I seem to find myself defending Abby’s motives with a bit more zeal than some of you battle-scarred veterans.

Been busy. But I'd like to reply somewhat to this thread.

To my mind, Abby certainly manipulates Owen in terms of the fact she deliberately acts to influence his behavior. And using that definition, Owen certainly manipulates her, just as he manipulates his Mom and his Mom manipulates him. And so on. We influence each other. Such is part of the human condition.

To me there is a big difference between influence, and manipulation in the American Heritage sense of the word. Most people who believe Abby manipulates Owen (Myself included, when I first saw the film) use the word as defined in the American Heritage Dictionary. I also tend to feel that even the influence as you describe it isn’t deliberate, except with the best of intentions.

If you want specifics here are some. Abby eats the candy to make Owen feel better. Just a little while later she disappears when his back is turned but is waiting next to his door to say goodnight. She gets under his defenses by acting about the cut on his cheek. She deliberately subjects him to the sight of her 'bleeding out' which sparks some kind of a reaction, and so on.

I agree, Abby eats the candy to make Owen feel better. But to me the motive is simply: she likes him and wants him to feel better. At the very worst, the same reason we pet our dog. Influence, not manipulation. The same applies to the cut on his cheek, IMO.

She waits by his door, because she likes him and doesn’t want him to think she’d leave without saying ‘goodbye.’ She knows it might hurt his feelings. No ‘manipulation’ here, IMO.

And the bleeding out scene is even more proof of this. She desperately wants him to understand what she is, and willingly risks her life to show him. She has no guarantee that he won’t faint dead on the floor and inadvertently allow her to die. IMO, too much of a risk for manipulation to be the motive. Her motives are made clear when her faith in him is verified: “I knew you wouldn’t let me,” she says, head on his shoulder and eyes closed.

But to me, this seems like the ordinary (given the circumstances) interplay of two people whose lives are becoming entwined. I'm more intrigued by something Chloe Grace Moretz said about Abby testing Owen, seeing if he could handle the truth. Those incidents stand out rather more. "Would you still like me if I wasn't a girl?" for example. "I'm stronger than you think." "Twelve, more or less." But again, is this really any different than what we do when inching our way into a new friendship, or new relationship? I don't see how.

QFT. But not manipulation. Testing, perhaps, but not manipulating his feelings.

The accusation about manipulation comes across as mis-named. Abby, like Owen and everybody else, tries to manipulate those around her--or at least she tries to impact others' behavior. A more telling and fundamental question is about her emotional reaction to Owen. In that respect, we're on somewhat shakier ground because our judgment must remain subjective. The way Abby sneaks a look at Owen while he's playing Ms.PacMan -- is she simply enjoying watching the face of a boy she's falling in love with? Or gloating over successfully hooking another mark? Apart from one's own judgment, methinks we're left with overall context as well as the intentions of the creators as they've expressed them. Matt Reeves in the DVD commentary draws the parallel of that moment with one in the film Klute when Jane Fonda's character steals a glance at the detective played by Donald Sutherland with whom she's falling in love. More, Chloe Grace Moretz has said explicitly Abby was "kinda falling in love" with Owen. So it seems the creators of that scene had in mind a genuine emotional connection.

When ;you look at the overall context of the story, I frankly believe this ends up reinforced. For one thing, look at how Abby touched the wall, the one were Owen was on the other side. I have real trouble seeing that gesture as anything other than tender--especially since she's alone at the time. Likewise, her last moments with Thomas didn't have to be tender. She even hesitated before feeding from him. Why? Likewise think of what a very pretty naked girl sliding into the sheets with Owen might have done to cement his loyalty to her. To be frank, had she taken his virginity right then she'd've had very nearly a slave.

In short, her actions do not fit with the pattern one might expect if she were a sociopath--which psychologically matches what Abby stands accused of being. Personally, I would also point out her brain is only twelve years old. It is kinda like using a 386 computer. No matter how fantastic your skill with that 386, it isn't a Pentium 4. Abby remains a child in some fundamental way.

QFT, to all of the above based on your definition of manipulation.

I completely agree with this part, no matter what your definition of manipulation is.

And this. I can think of no other reason for her abstinence if she were simply manipulating him (by the AH definition.)

[sauvin]

There's something I don't get. When they were coming back from the game arcade, Owen's mom called out. Owen said "Oh, God..!!", lied about being in the courtyard "the whole time", and turned to find that Abby had gone =::poof::=. Why did she do that? Was it she'd been concerned about his mother knowing he had a girlfriend? It can't be because she'd been uneasy about being seen with him otherwise, because they wouldn't have gotten anywhere near the game arcade to begin with if so.

[DavidZahir]

I thought she did it to avoid being seen by Owen's mom (habit by this time) and to surprise Owen by beating him to his front door.

[ziblitt]

Rubik's cube.
She's -way- into puzzles and games, but has never seen a Rubik's cube? This is set in the 80s. The cube emerged in 1974 and hit mass production in 1980.
I just don't buy she'd never seen one. Especially since Owen is so surprised/outraged that she doesn't know what one is. In fact, this is our first hint that she isn't normal.

There are plenty of examples in this thread (when it's on-topic) showing her overt and covert manipulation. Sure, they can be interpreted either way.
And, just because she's harsh with "the father" doesn't mean she's not tentative around Owen. We've all been in situations where we meet someone new, at any stage of our lives, and we're different to how we are with people we know very well.

And just to throw another spanner in the works, it's entirely possible she realises she needs a replacement for the father, picks slightly psychotic kid, and ends up falling in love. I mean, her opening line is "Just so you know, I can’t be your friend."

Second time, she approaches him. And acts like he's the one who's approached her: "Oh, so it's you again?" And there's the rubik's cube bit.

Those first two meetings, it seems like she's very cleverly controlling the situation.

Then, in the third, she rocks up looking clean and smelling nice. Deliberately changing her appearance to appeal to him/please him. Again, despite having said she won't be his friend, and that he should leave.

But yeah. That was my take on it. She started off with the manipulation because the father has started to get less effective at delivering her blood. She needs a replacement. But ends up falling in love. What happens next? I like Caspar's gambit.

Also, at the risk of getting stuck back into vampire mythology, some variations have been able to charm humans to some extent, through look, touch or action.


By the way, hi! Politest forum evah.

[intrige]

I actually think she planned to manipulate Owen when she knew Thomas was getting useless, but then she really started to have feelings for Owen. She still manipulates him, but with feelings.. That's what I see, with all those smiled, thoughing walls, giggling and kisses, yet the circle from Thomas to Owen and such.. I think it's both!