Triumph vs. Tragedy

For discussion of Matt Reeve's Film Let Me In

Moderator: LMI Moderator

Post Reply
User avatar
metoo
Posts: 3678
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2011 12:36 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Triumph vs. Tragedy

Post by metoo » Sat Jan 10, 2015 1:15 pm

lombano wrote:The only things that distinguish him from a pure, complete, if delusional, monster are his restraint in the library scene and at the party
cmfireflies wrote:That's it. That's why I say that Hakan hates being a pedophile. And what's interesting is that he's so repulsed by what he is that he willingly became a murderer just so that he can cling to a fantasy of selflessly sacrificing for love, i.e., being in Eli's service. And the key is I don't think Hakan really has the stomach for violence, so his killing for Eli is radical change. Now, don't get me wrong, he's still a monster, and I'm not saying that Hakan is at all sympathetic, but he tried to change.
I still can't see any evidence that Håkan would hate being a pedophile. In his former life as a teacher, he had kept it a secret, never done anything to his pupils. Not because he didn't want to, but because it would be a stupid thing to do. But he had watched movies in secrecy, probably child porn movies, and it doesn't seem that he ever had had the thought that the children in those movies might be hurt. No, Håkan didn't hate being a paedophile.

But he did hate being forced out of his existence as a teacher and citizen. He very strongly felt that he was no longer one of the humans (Swedish: människorna), and in a way he wanted revenge. He tried to accomplish that through slowly killing himself by drinking, in plain sight to everybody.

Then Eli turned up, another being who by his nature didn't belong among the humans. I think a great deal of Håkan's motivation to go Eli's errands was a feeling of "us against them". The paedophilia was just a part of it, not the full explanation. That Håkan did change into a murderer is unquestionable, but he didn't change from being a paedophile, but into one who sacrificed himself to care for a being who only he could love.
But from the beginning Eli was just Eli. Nothing. Anything. And he is still a mystery to me. John Ajvide Lindqvist

User avatar
cmfireflies
Posts: 1152
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 7:39 pm

Re: Triumph vs. Tragedy

Post by cmfireflies » Sat Jan 10, 2015 6:14 pm

Then Eli turned up, another being who by his nature didn't belong among the humans. I think a great deal of Håkan's motivation to go Eli's errands was a feeling of "us against them". The paedophilia was just a part of it, not the full explanation. That Håkan did change into a murderer is unquestionable, but he didn't change from being a paedophile, but into one who sacrificed himself to care for a being who only he could love.
I don't mean that Hakan changed in the sense that he stopped being a pedophile, I mean that his relationship with Eli was based at least in part on his desire to have a sexual relationship without the guilt of being a victimizer. In Eli, Hakan thought he found someone who could satisfy his urges while being "in control." I don't agree that it's a "us against them" feeling, but rather Hakan's attraction to Eli is based on Eli being (to him) an adult in a child's body. Ok, so maybe "hate being a pedophile" is wrong, Hakan is more morally repulsed by the reality of his pedophilia. I'm not arguing that he's a good guy, just that his guilt and his actions in the library count for something. Hakan being in Eli's service is his way of absolving himself of the guilt of being a sexual predator. The fact that he went to the extreme of committing murder shows the depths of his self-loathing. Again, it's delusional and corrupt and in the end futile because he didn't really love Eli as much as he lusted after her and Eli's not an adult mentally anyways, but, in his own twisted way, he wanted to change, to see himself as a knight in Eli's service instead.

There's nothing in LMI that even suggests that Abby tries to break the cycle.
"When is a monster not a monster? Oh, when you love it."

User avatar
lombano
Posts: 2993
Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 9:56 pm
Location: Xalapa, Mexico
Contact:

Re: Triumph vs. Tragedy

Post by lombano » Sat Jan 10, 2015 8:27 pm

cmfireflies wrote:
The only things that distinguish him from a pure, complete, if delusional, monster are his restraint in the library scene and at the party
That's it. That's why I say that Hakan hates being a pedophile. And what's interesting is that he's so repulsed by what he is that he willingly became a murderer just so that he can cling to a fantasy of selflessly sacrificing for love, i.e., being in Eli's service. And the key is I don't think Hakan really has the stomach for violence, so his killing for Eli is radical change. Now, don't get me wrong, he's still a monster, and I'm not saying that Hakan is at all sympathetic, but he tried to change.

I'm not comparing the crimes of Hakan or Abby. Rather, given that neither could change their needs, I'm saying that Hakan took more drastic measures (although ultimately futile) to escape what he was. There's no indication that Abby even tries to change (regarding her relationship, she's resigned to suffering and making people around her suffer.)

As for what Abby could have done, she could have turned Owen. Or rather, the movie could have shown that she considered turning Owen to spare him from Thomas's fate. Now, I'm not saying that turning Owen makes LMI triumphant, (it may turn out as futile as Hakan's attempt) but the fact that Abby isn't even interested in thinking about that possibility shows that she's pretty much given up, which is fine, but she has to drag Owen into another cycle, which is pretty despicable.
But Haakan changes to a murderer, while remaining a paedophile. That is hardly an improvement. Abby doesn't try to change, but at least she's not making things worse. Perhaps she thinks that, however horrific Thomas' fate was, at least his suffering had an end and could only go on for so long, whereas if she turns Owen, the two can suffer indefinitely. She hardly seems like someone who'd give it a second thought, but in any case not turning Owen means only had the trail of corpses there would be if she did. Yes, she's given up, but it's hard to see any alternatives other than watching the sunrise that wouldn't make things worse.
Bli mig lite.

User avatar
metoo
Posts: 3678
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2011 12:36 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Triumph vs. Tragedy

Post by metoo » Sat Jan 10, 2015 8:30 pm

In reply to cmfireflies:

The reason Håkan rejected the boy in Åke's apartment, and the other one at the library, was very much based on aesthetics. Håkan found the situation in the apartment too ugly, even disgusting. Likewise the boy in the public toilet was ugly, not beautiful like Eli. Furthermore the boy had had his front teeth knocked out, which was even more repulsive to Håkan. This was the major reason that he rejected the boys' 'services', both times. That he also had moral concerns was an additional factor, but apparently a lesser one.

That said, I do agree that lust was a significant component in the attraction Håkan felt for Eli. However, it wasn't the only motivation. I think Håkan was a very lonely person, because of his paedophilia. Therefore I would say that he needed love, and if he was like most people, he needed it much more than sex. I think that he really did believe that in Eli he had found love, not just a way to satisfy his lust. But Eli couldn't give what Håkan wanted, and needed. Eli didn't love Håkan, but regarded their relation as a strictly utilitarian one.

Håkan was also very romantic, so, yes, he did indeed see himself as a knight in Eli's service. But I still fail too see that he would have wanted to change. Instead, he believed that through Eli he didn't have to change. He could be what he was and always had been, but without the moral qualms. Or he thought so initially, at least. But then Eli met Oskar, and things changed. Poor Håkan. He might have lived unloved all his life.

Eventually Eli did feel some affection towards Håkan. He didn't go to visit Håkan at the hospital to finish him off - he went there because he wanted to. I think that Eli's experience with Oskar had eventually opened his eyes to what Håkan really wanted, and that he felt genuinely sorry for Håkan. That was why Eli accepted the only gift Håkan had left to give. He couldn't reject it, because that would be to reject Håkan as well, and he couldn't do that anymore.
But from the beginning Eli was just Eli. Nothing. Anything. And he is still a mystery to me. John Ajvide Lindqvist

jetboy
Posts: 609
Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2009 5:22 pm

Re: Triumph vs. Tragedy

Post by jetboy » Sun Jan 11, 2015 7:53 am

cmfireflies wrote:
But, hey, what do you want? Either movie is a monster movie!
You'll never convince me that Eli is a monster though, while Abby is truly despicable, perhaps more so than novel Hakan...
I don't mean any offense but you don't have anything lost or gained by either Eli or Abbey's doings so who you think is monster or not doesn't carry that much weight. The only people who who have a reason to judge if these two characters are monsters are the victims and their loved one and I don't think it would matter to tbem. A monster is in only what it does not what's inside.

I say this because I think to not consider the feelings of the victims as if they are your own or your neighbor or loved one is to not consider the full impact of the movie or Elis conundrum.

And I do think this question holds more significance in ltroi than lmi in that ltrois victims seem to have more personality.

User avatar
cmfireflies
Posts: 1152
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 7:39 pm

Re: Triumph vs. Tragedy

Post by cmfireflies » Mon Jan 12, 2015 6:13 am

That said, I do agree that lust was a significant component in the attraction Håkan felt for Eli. However, it wasn't the only motivation. I think Håkan was a very lonely person, because of his paedophilia. Therefore I would say that he needed love, and if he was like most people, he needed it much more than sex. I think that he really did believe that in Eli he had found love, not just a way to satisfy his lust. But Eli couldn't give what Håkan wanted, and needed. Eli didn't love Håkan, but regarded their relation as a strictly utilitarian one.
I don't deny that Hakan was lonely, but I really don't agree that he wanted love more than sex. Other than that, I don't think we disagree that much. I agree that Hakan refused the boys services because of the "ugliness" of the situation, but I don't that it's just a matter of aesthetics. I think Hakan was "moral" enough to be repulsed by his actions and that repulsion was stronger than his lust.

He wanted someone beautiful, pure and most important willing to satisfy his lust. But I don't think he ever sought out love, as he 1)tries to starve Eli into sexual submission and 2) just was generally uninterested in Eli as a person. He didn't really know the second thing about Eli, it seemed in the book that their argument over his screwup was one of the longer conversations they ever had. I think Hakan had a fantasy about love with Eli and was perfectly content with that and was quite annoyed when Eli started showing her true self. I think that Hakan used his idea of love to ease his self-loathing, definitely second to satisfying his lust. There's no hint that he tried to have a personal connection with Eli.

I would say that Eli showed basic decency to Hakan, affection may be too strong. After all, he did help her survive for a few months. I don't think Eli is in any position to reject any blood, although I think that saying that Hakan truly wanted what Eli and Oskar have is being very generous to Hakan, (except maybe on a universal level). Eli may have felt sorry for Hakan, understanding his isolation from the world.

I don't mean any offense but you don't have anything lost or gained by either Eli or Abbey's doings so who you think is monster or not doesn't carry that much weight. The only people who who have a reason to judge if these two characters are monsters are the victims and their loved one and I don't think it would matter to tbem. A monster is in only what it does not what's inside.
You're right that Eli would be a monster to her victims and their families. And I can only talk about Eli in such sweet terms because she's safely fictional. However, my point remains that I don't see Eli as a monster because she killed to survive. This is where stories work better because there's rarely such a clear line in the real world as kill or die. The closest analogy would probably be traditional war. If a family member were killed in a war, the individual soldier who killed him or her wouldn't be a monster. And monstrosity is a matter of degree, usual social norms wouldn't really call killing to save your own life monstrous.

I would go a step further to say that Oskar isn't a monster for choosing to be a vampire to be with Eli. That's probably not the most morally responsible decision but it's not monstrous either, in the sense that we can understand and empathize with the decision, right?
"When is a monster not a monster? Oh, when you love it."

User avatar
metoo
Posts: 3678
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2011 12:36 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Triumph vs. Tragedy

Post by metoo » Mon Jan 12, 2015 9:57 pm

cmfireflies wrote:I don't deny that Hakan was lonely, but I really don't agree that he wanted love more than sex. Other than that, I don't think we disagree that much. I agree that Hakan refused the boys services because of the "ugliness" of the situation, but I don't that it's just a matter of aesthetics. I think Hakan was "moral" enough to be repulsed by his actions and that repulsion was stronger than his lust.
OK, I'll accept that Håkan's moral scruples would have added to his repulsion in both cases. Maybe they were the main cause, even, like (I think) you suggest. This sentence seems to point in that direction:
Förmodligen hade han dessutom skrupler, som bara den gången manifesterat sig i en intensiv avsmak för situationen.
Probably he [Håkan] additionally had scruples, which only then had manifested into an intense repulsion regarding the situation.
cmfireflies wrote:He wanted someone beautiful, pure and most important willing to satisfy his lust. But I don't think he ever sought out love, as he 1)tries to starve Eli into sexual submission ...
That Håkan tried to "starve Eli into sexual submission" is debatable.

Eli and Håkan talks with each other four times in the novel, if my counting is correct. The first time the subject is love, not sex (the 23rd of October). Håkan says that he cannot do it again, i.e. to get blood for Eli. But I see no reason to question that Håkan found killing people unbearably hard.

The second time, Håkan has returned home drunk (the 23rd of October, later). Eli has met Oskar the second time and borrowed the Rubik's cube. This time Håkan does request sexual favours from Eli. Eli then replies: "Yes. On one condition." But Håkan rejects Eli's condition, it isn't worth the reward. To me it seems that Eli is trying to coerce Håkan into doing something that is objectionable, rather than the other way around.

The third time (the 24th of October) Eli has washed, which had not happened before. He tries again to persuade Håkan to get blood for him, but Håkan says no. However, Håkan does offer his own blood to Eli, without any conditions. For some untold reason Eli rejects the offer, and instead decides to "go himself", apparently aiming for Oskar. But Oskar saves himself, and Eli instead uses deception to get close enough to Jocke. (I have re-read this passage, and it seems that Eli initially wasn't very strong, and thus told the truth to Håkan. However, when Jocke after a few seconds finally realised what was happening, Eli had already drunk enough of Jocke's blood to become too strong for Jocke to get rid of.)

The fourth time (the 29th of October) Eli and Oskar had been meeting every night, and Håkan had heard them laughing outside. Håkan was sitting on the floor outside the bathroom when Eli exits, and Håkan offers to go for blood one more time, in return for a night with Eli. This is the first (and only) time Håkan requests sexual favours in return for getting blood, but by this time Eli had already proven that he was capable to do it himself. Therefore, I don't think Håkan trying to "starve Eli into sexual submission" fits the situation. Instead he was bargaining, your services in return for mine, but this was only what Eli had initially suggested. Still, Håkan wasn't certain that he would get what he was asking for:
"One night. I want one night."
"Yes."
"Can I have that?"
"Yes."
"Lay beside you? Touch you?"

It doesn't seem Håkan has very much to bargain with here. Eli clearly is in control. What could be held against Håkan is that he had begun to realise that Eli was actually what he looked to be, a child, and therefore might want to lay in bed with Håkan just as much as any child would do. But Eli was also a vampire, not the usual child. He could say no, and he did, when Håkan tried to extend what Eli already had accepted.
cmfireflies wrote:... and 2) just was generally uninterested in Eli as a person. He didn't really know the second thing about Eli, it seemed in the book that their argument over his screwup was one of the longer conversations they ever had. I think Hakan had a fantasy about love with Eli and was perfectly content with that and was quite annoyed when Eli started showing her true self. I think that Hakan used his idea of love to ease his self-loathing, definitely second to satisfying his lust. There's no hint that he tried to have a personal connection with Eli.
In the book Håkan didn't screw up in the sense that he returned home without the goods. Eli got the blood he needed thrice. Håkan's mistakes were that he left traces.

All this said, I agree that Håkan's love towards Eli was delusional, and but I'm less convinced that Håkan did not take an interest in Eli's person. He had the idea that Eli was an old person in a child's body, and I think that Eli had let him into that conclusion on purpose. Additionally, Eli didn't behave very childlike initially, so that Håkan was mistaken isn't necessarily a sign that he wasn't interested.

But I think that Håkan wanted to love Eli, and that he tried quite hard to be what was his idea of a loving and caring person. That he didn't love Eli the way he should might be because he didn't know how to love at all. I think Håkan had not been loved by anyone for a very long time, if ever.
Last edited by metoo on Tue Jan 13, 2015 6:22 am, edited 2 times in total.
But from the beginning Eli was just Eli. Nothing. Anything. And he is still a mystery to me. John Ajvide Lindqvist

jetboy
Posts: 609
Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2009 5:22 pm

Re: Triumph vs. Tragedy

Post by jetboy » Tue Jan 13, 2015 4:05 am

cmfireflies wrote: You're right that Eli would be a monster to her victims and their families. And I can only talk about Eli in such sweet terms because she's safely fictional. However, my point remains that I don't see Eli as a monster because she killed to survive. This is where stories work better because there's rarely such a clear line in the real world as kill or die. The closest analogy would probably be traditional war. If a family member were killed in a war, the individual soldier who killed him or her wouldn't be a monster. And monstrosity is a matter of degree, usual social norms wouldn't really call killing to save your own life monstrous.

I would go a step further to say that Oskar isn't a monster for choosing to be a vampire to be with Eli. That's probably not the most morally responsible decision but it's not monstrous either, in the sense that we can understand and empathize with the decision, right?
Of course and is why its such a great story. I just feel I need the full weight of the deeds she has done to make the good part that much better. I want her to be judged as we would judge her if we lived in Blackberg, the way she actually judges herself no less. Which BTW makes her unlike say a wolf because a wolf doesn't feel guilty for killing. Its how she feels about it and how she should feel about it that makes finding love that much more meaningful.

As for Oskar changing, it would actually be more monsterous than Eli because he chose it. And this adds more monstrosity upon Eli because she agreed with it.

User avatar
PeteMork
Posts: 3781
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 9:56 pm
Location: Menlo Park, California

Re: Triumph vs. Tragedy

Post by PeteMork » Tue Jan 13, 2015 7:20 am

jetboy wrote:As for Oskar changing, it would actually be more monsterous than Eli because he chose it. And this adds more monstrosity upon Eli because she agreed with it.
QFT. Which is why I not only have trouble with LTODD, but with most fan fiction that has Eli deliberately turn Oskar. Innocence lost.

Admittedly, they are both children and can't be judged as we would judge adults. But the fact remains; pure innocence becomes, at the least, conditional innocence when Eli turns Oskar.
We never stop reading, although every book comes to an end, just as we never stop living, although death is certain. (Roberto Bolaño)

User avatar
lombano
Posts: 2993
Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 9:56 pm
Location: Xalapa, Mexico
Contact:

Re: Triumph vs. Tragedy

Post by lombano » Tue Jan 13, 2015 8:25 am

Haakan never made any attempt to actually connect with Eli, to actually get to know Eli. You'd think you'd at least try to make conversation not about demands and bargains with someone living under the same rood, but Haakan never did. In essence, his conversation never seems to have changed from the initial meeting - "I can't afford such a beauty" in response to "you're going to be with me." Why would Haakan not make even the least attempt to actually get to know Eli (contrast this with Oskar's conversation)? He didn't see that Eli was a child in a child's body instead of an ancient person in a child's body - and he was careful not to see. For me, the defining moments are when Eli bluntly answers yes, she only "loves" Haakan to the extent he helps her stay alive, and Haakan saying "you'd better start loving me, then" is response to Eli's protests about being too weak to provide her own blood. Eli is, whatever else, clearly honest. At any rate, even her definition of love seems more wholesome than Haakan's de facto definition.
Bli mig lite.

Post Reply

Return to “Let Me In”