You know the feeling...

[Lacenaire]

And this, precisely, is so hard to do because we never see the child that we know Eli is. She's seen to be fascinated with a Rubik's Cube, that's true, but it's also not a particularly child-like thing; plenty of adults wasted hours and hours on those things, too. We get to see her learning Morse Code, this, too, is true, but this, too, isn't unique to twelve year olds. Mostly, she IS reserved self-possessed, maybe a little stiff, especially in the first half of the movie. She is presented as a miniature adult, and so I suspect a great many people will hold her to adult values and ascribe to her an adult mentality.

I have to agree with Sauvin, and Drakkar on this one. The idea of Eli recovering her lost chldhood is something that was lost in the translation of book to screen. Oskar is clearly a child who is shown repeatedly playing with toys, and there is his high pitched child like voice. The film Eli is much more ambiguous. They dubbed in that voice of hers and her portrayal is very solemn. I really don't understand why the Beilleri Beilleri Bock scene was cut from the film, since it follows very neatly after the "Hit back hard" scene. Also the table full of Eli's toys and puzzles could have been made more distinct, to parallel the toys that Oskar has in his room.

I think this lost "lost child hood" was the director.s decision. He wanted us to see this more as an adult romance, and once that happens it can be interpreted as a tale of seduction which is a convention of vampire stories.

I certainly agree about the voice. I remember the shock I had when I heard Eli shouting at Hakan. That was not a child's voice.
Later, in the scenes with Oskar, however the impact of this subsided and I started seeing her as a child. But I remember arguing with my daughter about this interpretation (she was at first inclined to the "evil seduction" view point) and that incident, Eli shouting at Hakan, was the first thing she mentioned that in her opinion demonstrated she was evil. I later persuaded her to change her view by showing her the Beilleri Beilleri Bock and "Fighting" scenes on the DVD. Still, I could never make her really like the film after the initial negative impression. My wife was easier, but I cheated by telling her my interpretation of the story before she watched it

[Lacenaire]

Still, I can't help wondering how Alfredson, who spent so much time working with children and seems to have such a natural rapport with them, but at the same time deliberately allow this "exploitation" view of the film, would react to being told that he is the creator of "one of the most cruel stories of the decade". I would like to see someone ask him this directly.

[Struan]

Still, I can't help wondering how Alfredson, who spent so much time working with children and seems to have such a natural rapport with them, but at the same time deliberately allow this "exploitation" view of the film, would react to being told that he is the creator of "one of the most cruel stories of the decade".

That would be interesting, but my guess is that he wouldn't mind it much, if at all. He's had plenty of opportunities to shoot down that view for good, but the farthest he's gone to (to my knowledge) in giving a clear answer was sharing his own optimistic view about the ending. I think he was actually firmer in dismissing the "Oskar dies in pool" theory as a very creative idea, but definitely not what had actually happened.

Viewed from a dark perspective, the story is not only cruel, but downright sordid; however I think it's no small achievement to be considered top of the decade in that regard. In my opinion, it's from that balancing act between hope and dread that the movie draws much of its power (and the reason why it's both commercially unclassifiable and artistically self-contained, i.e. no epilogue is really needed).

[drakkar]

I really don't understand why the Beilleri Beilleri Bock scene was cut from the film, since it follows very neatly after the "Hit back hard" scene. Also the table full of Eli's toys and puzzles could have been made more distinct, to parallel the toys that Oskar has in his room.

Fully agreed, It would fit well in after the hit back hard - scene, and added some playfullness to Eli.
However, my impression is that Eli is looking distinctivly more hungry here than in the Hit back Hard - scene. So I suspect the Bulleri Bulleri Bock -scene is preceding the Candy/Would you like me anyway - scene, where Eli look equally hungry. But still, couldn't it fit in?

[Mono]

Eli raising her voice at Hakan struck me as a child's anger born of disappointment and desperation rather than calculated adult malice. I certainly don't consider the scene conclusive of a of a master/slave relationship between the two characters.

My personal justification for this are two-fold. Firstly, moments before this scene, we see Eli clearly in pain from hunger and in need of sustenance. When Hakan fails to provide because of incompetence, I see her reaction as a struggle to take the situation with good grace because she is aware that she now has endure painful hunger. Similarly, Hakan knows he's messed up and that Eli's anger at him is entirely justified. He is truly sorry and so takes the telling off with an almost childlike guilt as he recognises Eli's dilemma. But he is also understandably fearful - I would think the supernatural tone of Eli's voice in combination with her excruciating hunger and the beginnings of a transformation on the jungle gym (the eyes) in the previous scenes mean she's probably not looking too human as she paces in the kitchen. For me, that explains the glint of fear (or uncertainty) we see in Hakan's eyes. I certainly don't accept his emotional response as the fear of repercussion from some kind of authority figure.

My second justification is, of course, that Eli's desperation leads her to kill Jocke much to Hakan's disapproval. In fact, we see Eli getting a right good telling off from Hakan as she stands silhouetted in her apartment window. It's a perfect role reversal in contrast to the earlier Hakan scene - Eli appears childlike in guilty silence because she knows she has messed up and Hakan is understandably furious at her. I struggle to accept that Eli would put up with that treatment if she were an adult mind in control of a fearful Hakan. In fact, I struggle to believe Eli would mess up in such a way at all if she really is as clever as the manipulative "adult mind" interpretation indicates.

To me, Eli is still a child but one who has developed some traits that we adults consider hallmarks of "adultness". I don't see those traits as evidence of an adult mind, rather evidence of a protracted existence. I see Hakan as subservient to Eli's needs as a parental figure rather than some kind of literal servant to Eli herself.

[gattoparde59]

Eli raising her voice at Hakan struck me as a child's anger born of disappointment and desperation rather than calculated adult malice. I certainly don't consider the scene conclusive of a of a master/slave relationship between the two characters.

What still strikes me is Eli angrily hurling part of the "murder kit" into the corner. It was almost as though Hakan had childishly not told Eli he had come home empty handy and she had to find that out for herself. Maybe this is not a master and servant, but I like the inversion involved in this: little Eli is the parent and big Hakan is the child.

I don't know if this is major difference from what has been said already, but when I first saw this I saw Hakan as an old version of Oskar. There is not much else to explain why Hakan is so devoted to Eli. This does not make Eli evil or even emotionally false, but it does caste the relationship with Oskar in a different light.

[Mono]

What still strikes me is Eli angrily hurling part of the "murder kit" into the corner. It was almost as though Hakan had childishly not told Eli he had come home empty handy and she had to find that out for herself. Maybe this is not a master and servant, but I like the inversion involved in this: little Eli is the parent and big Hakan is the child.

I don't know if this is major difference from what has been said already, but when I first saw this I saw Hakan as an old version of Oskar. There is not much else to explain why Hakan is so devoted to Eli. This does not make Eli evil or even emotionally false, but it does caste the relationship with Oskar in a different light.

I don't think it's a far stretch to imagine he told her and she instinctively checked the kit herself in disbelief with the scene beginning when her disbelief turns into frustration as she throws it down. Until I was aware of the motivations of Hakan in the book, I took the film's portrayal of Hakan's love for Eli to be that of a devoted parent or assigned guardian acting in her best interests and being hurt when he fails her (just like any parental figure would be I suppose).

[Lacenaire]

Viewed from a dark perspective, the story is not only cruel, but downright sordid; however I think it's no small achievement to be considered top of the decade in that regard.

I assume you meant it as a comment on the kind of films people have been making during this decade. If so, I am sure you are right, which one reason why I watch so few of them.

If the brief review I read in the Virgin Atlantic inflight magazine half a year ago said that kind of thing about LTROI it is 100% sure that I would never have watched the film and as a result about a dozen persons who watched it because of my recommendation also probably would not have done. So this kind of "praise" is certainly having some effect. Whether there are enough people who watch LTROI because they are expecting to see a cruel and sordid story to make up for those who do not watch it for that very reason is certainly an intriguing question.

This somehow reminded me about what happened after Kubrick made "A Clockwork Orange". The film was generally seen as a cynical glorification of violence (and was eventually banned in the UK after some copy cat murders) and as a result of this the relations between the author, Anthony Burgess and Kubrick, which used to be very good, completely broke down, since Burgess began to see the film as a travesty of his book. Famously he commented on film:
" a film which seemed to glorify sex and violence. The film made it easy for readers of the book to misunderstand what it was about, and the misunderstanding will pursue me till I die."

[Lacenaire]

Eli raising her voice at Hakan struck me as a child's anger born of disappointment and desperation rather than calculated adult malice. I certainly don't consider the scene conclusive of a of a master/slave relationship between the two characters.

It's not a question of her raising her voice at all, but the sound of that voice. Its the voice of a furious grown up woman and not an angry child. And, after all, that is exactly why Alfredson decided not to use Lina's real voice - because it sounds like a child's voice.

[Struan]

If the brief review I read in the Virgin Atlantic inflight magazine half a year ago said that kind of thing about LTROI it is 100% sure that I would never have watched the film and as a result about a dozen persons who watched it because of my recommendation also probably would not have done. So this kind of "praise" is certainly having some effect. Whether there are enough people who watch LTROI because they are expecting to see a cruel and sordid story to make up for those who do not watch it for that very reason is certainly an intriguing question.

Yeah, sorry about that -- I guess I ignored the review that kicked off the thread. I was just commenting on the idea of Alfredson being told that he's made a cruel story. I think he has, when looked at from the proper angle. And I think he's fully aware of this. Hence the ambiguity, and hence the interminable "Oskar will be a new Hakan" discussions. So I don't think the idea that he's made a "cruel" film would annoy him. Or maybe I'm wrong (what do I know anyway?) and it would annoy him, and maybe he wishes he'd shot a few more scenes or spent some more time in the editing room to avoid these misunderstandings. But whatever the case, the film is done, is out there, and it is what it is.
Of course I agree that many people might be put off by being informed in advance of the deep darkness lurking behind one of the sweetest love stories ever committed to celluloid, just as many have probably written the film off altogether on learning that it features a vampire (I know several people who have and I still haven't convinced them to give it a chance).