Maggie Kay's Horror Blog LTROI feature

[jetboy]

After skimming a few of the discussion boards on the film I found myself shocked at just how open to interpretation this film was.

Im with you on this. I also saw how Oskar could be following in Hakans footsteps and thought it was obvious. I didnt want to see it, but thats what I saw. As I said though, he COULD follow in Hakans footsteps. It definitely leaves it open to interpretation and I now believe that Eli is, in reference to Oskar, honest.

[cmfireflies]

Well, it wasn't my first impression, but I'm also fine with this interpretation of the story. It's what makes Eli such a unique character to me. She's the sweetest thing put on celluloid, and it's doubly amazing that there could be such a dark interpretation of her character.

It's really speaks to the creators' talent that they were able to make something that kills horrifically so sweet and something so angelic so dark and chilling.

I like the duality of Eli, so I do like the evil interpretation as well.

[jetboy]

Well, it wasn't my first impression, but I'm also fine with this interpretation of the story. It's what makes Eli such a unique character to me. She's the sweetest thing put on celluloid, and it's doubly amazing that there could be such a dark interpretation of her character.

It's really speaks to the creators' talent that they were able to make something that kills horrifically so sweet and something so angelic so dark and chilling.

I like the duality of Eli, so I do like the evil interpretation as well.

I sometimes feel I look at it from the creators perspective more than the characters perspective in comparison to others as you do in your post. Which is why it doesnt ruin it for me to think of Eli or Oskar in different ways.

[moonvibe34]

Though now, after studying this film so much at this forum, I can understand why some people would perceive that Eli is recruiting and grooming Oskar to be her next helper, but I can honestly say that I never once had those thoughts while watching the film the first time, or the second, third, fourth...

Maybe I'm just a love-blind fool.

p.s. I never thought of Håkan as Eli's father either, but I also didn't realize his true motives until I read the book.

[drakkar]

I've said it before, in some respects I regard LTROI a personality test.

[sauvin]

I've said it before, in some respects I regard LTROI a personality test.

We've both said it.

[MaggieKayPresents]

I want to bring up a point, however I am having trouble finding the correct words to express how I feel. So please, bear with me.

It is very common for books (or comic books, or paintings, or really any art form) to be converted into as cinematic production (whether film or television, it makes no difference). The biggest problem I have with this is the constant comparision between to the too very seperate pieces of work. Personally, I love books so much because they can take the time to truly develop a character. You don't get the luxury with film. You have two to three hours to smash as much of the book into a completely different form of art.

I am certain the book is wonderful, however while watching LTROI as film, I think one must look at it as it's own piece. They might be about the same characters and have some of the same scenes, but they are, in a sense, two completely different works of art. I viewed the film without any background into the story. That is how I watch film, even if I have read the book it was based upon. After all, if I'm always comparing the Harry Potter movies to the books, I can never truly like the movies.

So that's the point I'm trying to make, but I'm not sure I communicated it very clearly.

[Nightrider]

Absolutely.
Book and a movie have always been two separate entities in my eyes.

[sauvin]

I want to bring up a point, however I am having trouble finding the correct words to express how I feel. So please, bear with me.

It is very common for books (or comic books, or paintings, or really any art form) to be converted into as cinematic production (whether film or television, it makes no difference). The biggest problem I have with this is the constant comparision between to the too very seperate pieces of work. Personally, I love books so much because they can take the time to truly develop a character. You don't get the luxury with film. You have two to three hours to smash as much of the book into a completely different form of art.

I am certain the book is wonderful, however while watching LTROI as film, I think one must look at it as it's own piece. They might be about the same characters and have some of the same scenes, but they are, in a sense, two completely different works of art. I viewed the film without any background into the story. That is how I watch film, even if I have read the book it was based upon. After all, if I'm always comparing the Harry Potter movies to the books, I can never truly like the movies.

So that's the point I'm trying to make, but I'm not sure I communicated it very clearly.

I think you've communicated it very well, and I'd normally agree wholeheartedly. Books are conveyed through one medium and movies another; time and expense mitigate against full expansion on film but many people dislike books for their lack of visual glitz and heartpounding action. What's worse, books are often "re-imagined" in ways the original authors never foresaw or intended; sometimes, the people rewriting the stories for the movie format "get" what they're changing, but my personal impression is that they usually don't.

We often exempt LTROI from this because JAL, the novel's original author, worked very closely with TA, the movie's director. The movie is seen as a kind of distillation of a particular set of arcs found in the novel under the original author's creative guidance. If you'll scan a few thousand posts in this forum in the LTROI movie and novel sections, I think you'll see we often distinguish between a particular character from the movie from his or her counterpart in the novel while discussing this bagatelle or that niggling little point.

We do this with such zeal that when discussing the movie, we often refer to the novel as "Canon" when asserting some conclusion or extrapolation.

If you've not read the novel yet, please do so at your earliest convenience. I think you'll find why a great many of us who'd seen the movie first have gone on to seek the novel out.

[gattoparde59]

We often exempt LTROI from this because JAL, the novel's original author, worked very closely with TA, the movie's director. The movie is seen as a kind of distillation of a particular set of arcs found in the novel under the original author's creative guidance.

I agree. John Lindqvist wrote the screen play, and the film really does make sense as an adapatation of the novel. Eli is an engimatic character through much of the novel (a puzzle maybe ) and that has carried over to the film version.