You know the feeling...

[Lacenaire]

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.

Well, maybe the question I should have asked was: whether it would upset Lindqvist if this view of the story became the geerally accepted one. That's why "A Clockwork Orange" came to my mind. That film became to be almost universally regarded as a glorification of violence, which was the opposite of what Anthony Burgess had intended when writing the novel. Kubrick, however clearly did not care, the film made him even more famous and was a great stepping stone in his career (although he perhaps began to care a little once he started receiving death threats). (Soon after that he made "Barry Lyndon", for me his greatest film, which at that time was not nearly as influential as "A Clockwork Orange" but since then has been regarded as a far superior film and regularly included on various lists of best films ever made). Burgess was so upset with what Kubrick did to his novel he began to really hate him and even satirised him in his later novels.

Later edit: I checked and found I did not remember this Kubrick/Clockwork Orange story correctly. The film was not actually banned in Britain as I had thought, but Kubrick himself withdrew it and threatened to sue any cinema that showed it (and he actually did sue). So it seems he did really care about he way it was perceived.

[sauvin]

Clockwork Orange has the dubious distinction of being one of the very few movies I've ever watched in part that I cannot sit through. I don't even remember well what I did see, but remember very clearly being appalled and sickened.

The only other movie that comes to mind that I've also never watched in toto was one of the Bronson movies - was it Death Wish? I'd taken my girlfriend to the drive-in, we witnessed a mother and daughter being assaulted and raped, and I started up the car telling Anne "We're outta here". I was, what? 17? I suppose after all the things I've seen since then, what we saw then might be comparatively mild, but the reaction I'd had then has stuck with me; I won't even touch it. I just couldn't handle the expression on the women's faces, couldn't handle what they must have endured. Anne's reassuring me it was all staged and make-believe didn't help at all - this kind of garbage can and does happen every day.

I've watched other Kubrick movies, and the worst I can say about any of them that I can remember is that they were "watchable". Most have been brilliant (well, except for The Shining - it was a good movie, and I can and will watch it again - but it missed the ferry completely by horribly miscasting Jack). Clockwork for me had absolutely redeeming value. It did just seem like a litany of utterly unacceptable violence, particularly sexual violence that can make me see red.

A fast scan of the wikipedia entry for the Clockwork novel says I missed the boat, too. Never having read the novel, do you think I would have understood the movie if I could sit through it? It seems unlikely.

[Struan]

Well, maybe the question I should have asked was: whether it would upset Lindqvist if this view of the story became the geerally accepted one.

I realize I've been speaking of Tomas, but really, would Lindqvist's reaction be that different in light of the final product? After all, it's not like he had no say in the movie. And note that the book delves far deeper into the darker areas; in fact, the JAL that wrote the film's script seems to be a softened and subtler version (not to mention far more focused) of his own self as the book's author.

As for the Clockwork Orange, wasn't the whole point of the outrage that this glorification of violence was because it was presented as an end in itself, with precious little to connect it to a broader commentary? (I read the book many, many years ago and I always thought that it was so much more successful in making its point than the movie, I didn't know the story about the Burgess/Kubrick feud but it doesn't really surprise me now that you mention it). On the contrary, the darker aspects of LTROI seem to me that aren't gratuitous at all.

[Lacenaire]

Well, maybe the question I should have asked was: whether it would upset Lindqvist if this view of the story became the geerally accepted one.

I realize I've been speaking of Tomas, but really, would Lindqvist's reaction be that different in light of the final product? After all, it's not like he had no say in the movie. And note that the book delves far deeper into the darker areas; in fact, the JAL that wrote the film's script seems to be a softened and subtler version (not to mention far more focused) of his own self as the book's author.

As for the Clockwork Orange, wasn't the whole point of the outrage that this glorification of violence was because it was presented as an end in itself, with precious little to connect it to a broader commentary? (I read the book many, many years ago and I always thought that it was so much more successful in making its point than the movie, I didn't know the story about the Burgess/Kubrick feud but it doesn't really surprise me now that you mention it). On the contrary, the darker aspects of LTROI seem to me that aren't gratuitous at all.

Of course I do not think these two films (LTROI and "A Clockwork Orange") are in any sense comparable. I am sure that there is no danger of any vampires adopting Eli's methods to seduce and control young boys, unlike what happened with the "A Clockwork Orange" when youth gangs in Britain began to imitate both the behaviour and even the "style" of what they saw in the film. Also, I don' t think there is much chance that the idea that LTROI is somehow a celebration of seduction and exploitation will establish itself as this is clearly a small minority view among critics and reviewers (based on what I have seen). But it does sound strange when the director seems to not to reject this interpretation and at the same time he (or perhaps only the author) announces that the film has a "happy ending". If you combine these two ideas you may start getting the idea that the film was produced by individual with rather strange minds, the kind that most people would not let anywhere near their own children.
In fact once gets a reputation for "glorifying" something that most people naturally find repulsive, anyone seen enjoying this will share in that reputation. An extreme example is sado-masochistic pornography and stuff of that kind. If people think that is what a film is really about then naturally they will view those who are attracted to it in a certain way. Of course I don't think there is any danger of that happening in the case of LTROI, but I do feel somewhat angered by this sort of review, because of the sort of things it seems to be implying about me (since I like this film).

[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.

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.

I have to disagree. I certainly don't hear it as the sound of a furious adult in that scene - I hear it as a supernatural voice, a voice that is somewhat unhuman and the reason Hakan is somewhat fearful. If you want to describe the voice in that scene on a technical level, it's an audio manipulation effect applied to Elifs Ceylan's delivery and certainly not Elifs Ceylan's natural voice.

I think Eli's voice goes unnaturally deep in the scene to portray her monstrous side rather than to portray the character as an adult. In fact Alfredson has stated he dubbed Lina not because he wanted an adult voice but that he wanted a more androgynous voice for the character in keeping with the castrated male that Eli really is. I've never heard him justify the dubbing because he wanted Eli to sound adult and I don't think the fact adults tested for the dubbing role suggests that was his motive either. He said Lina's voice was too high-pitched for the character of Eli, not too child-like.

And I also think the casual observer who concludes that scene depicts an adult Eli is reacting to the tone in which she is speaking (raised and angry) and not the timbre of her voice as you suggest.

[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.

I have to disagree. I certainly don't hear it as the sound of a furious adult in that scene - I hear it as a supernatural voice, a voice that is somewhat unhuman and the reason Hakan is somewhat fearful. If you want to describe the voice in that scene on a technical level, it's an audio manipulation effect applied to Elifs Ceylan's delivery and certainly not Elifs Ceylan's natural voice.

I think Eli's voice goes unnaturally deep in the scene to portray her monstrous side rather than to portray the character as an adult. In fact Alfredson has stated he dubbed Lina not because he wanted an adult voice but that he wanted a more androgynous voice for the character in keeping with the castrated male that Eli really is. I've never heard him justify the dubbing because he wanted Eli to sound adult and I don't think the fact adults tested for the dubbing role suggests that was his motive either. He said Lina's voice was too high-pitched for the character of Eli, not too child-like.

And I also think the casual observer who concludes that scene depicts an adult Eli is reacting to the tone in which she is speaking (raised and angry) and not the timbre of her voice as you suggest.

OK, I agree with most of it. Monstrous rather than adult, indeed. But still, the effect is the same, it makes it harder to see Eli as a child. Alfredson indeed says that his intention was to make her sound more like a male, but in this intention he clearly utterly failed as almost nobody who has not read the book notices that. I did not notice that. The interviewer who asks Alfredson about it did not notice that. I have not yet met one person who thought: she is a boy because of the voice (or even for any other reason). So all these devices really simply failed, except for viewers who knew the book. That's not a good way to make a film.

As for the question whether it was the tone or the timbre that matters - its impossible to answer this objectively. I remember noticing the timbre at this point but of course the tone also had an impact. It was not a child. In my case however, later I associated this with Hakan (Eli is like that with Hakan), and after that scene the voice did not matter to me anymore. I don't think using Lina's original voice would have made any difference in how I perceived the film, except during this one scene. Alfredson's entire idea of trying to convey to the viewers that Eli is a boy seems to me clearly a failure.

In fact, I am not really sure anymore how successful this film is when viewed independently from the book. Many things that are shown can't be fully understood, hints are made that almost all viewers miss. In some cases, like mine, the film seems to succeed as much by accident than by design, to the point that I sometimes begin to feel that the more I understand it the less I like it.

The film certainly must have helped to sell many more copies of Lindqvist's book than would have happened without it. But I am now much more ambivalent in judging it as a work of art than I was when I first saw it. So much of what the artist wanted to convey he seems to have failed to do. And the enchantment of the story is wearing off. Of course I still see the film as a "love story", and this will never change, but more and more the "love" seems a very contrived one, not something that ever actually happens. Vampires are not human and for all his efforts, ultimately Alfredson fails to make Eli seem so, except in certain selected scenes. In fact, now I think he probably did not try hard enough. He wanted to leave open the possibility that Eli is a monster (in a sense of course she is) but most people, including me, will not sympathise with a monster. And in the end the impact of love is nullified by lack of sympathy.

So probably in the long run I will admire this film for its visual beauty, for Soderqvist's music (the pop songs are just background noise for me) and the acting of the two child actors.

[sauvin]

(sorry about not including quotes; the forum software told me only 3 levels of nested quotes are possible, and I wasn't up to editing while trying to maintain continuity, and so just snipped all of it.)

I find myself looking at the movie at times with a view towards seeing how Leandersson's face and body could have been meant to imply androgyny, but have met with limited success. This is probably a limitation on my part since half Iranian (I think it is) Leandersson bears a passing resemblance to my daughter whose mother is Lebanese.

I suspect more of the failure (on my part) is in how Eli is portrayed in the movie by the actress, not to mention her appearance, and partly by the quality of the voice used to dub her. I hear a woman, sometimes even a soothing, caring kind of woman, the kind of voice anybody likes to hear when he or she is bedridden with a particularly unpleasant cold or flu.

At the first meeting at the jungle gym, Eli is wearing a button-down tent, but she's also wearing the kind of pants a girl would wear. In the basement clubhouse scene, it's actually hard to miss Leandersson's widening hips, even under those ridiculously oversized man's pants held in place with a rope. At the scene where she's about to walk into her apartment's living room and tell Oskar about her egg-shaped puzzle, she's wearing a girl's panties, and as she actually is walking into the living room, well.... she just doesn't look like a boy.

She runs like a girl.

Mannerisms and bodily kinesics are harder for me to pin down, but would have been the more convincing argument for me if her appearance and even voice had been more ambiguous. Something about the way she looks at Oskar as they interact, I suppose. She's more attentive, more prone to look at him directly into the eyes, is my impression, than would have been the case if the actor had been a boy. Girls are like that, in my experience: they look at faces, they gaze into eyes, perpetually trying to get an idea of what's going on inside the heads of the people they're dealing with.

No, I never saw a male Eli, not even after having seen her pubic scars. Sorry, Tomas.

Was she an adult when she yelled at Hakan? Maybe, maybe not. That kind of behaviour can be expected of anybody at any age when starving, and promised food isn't delivered.

As for the quality of the voice at that time, I DID notice a difference from its usual tonality (timbre?) but didn't attach any particular significance to it. I'd thought it was simply that Eli was hungry to the point of weakness, possibly even illness. I should have paid more attention to the fact that we don't get to see her at all, maybe a shadow and an glimpse of a mane of hair - we never do get to see Eli clearly when she's feeding (Hakan's suicide doesn't count because this is the only time we don't hear that weird BARK when Eli's about to attack, and Eli licking blood off the basement floor almost doesn't count because all we see that's not human is a tongue almost half a metre long), and we don't get to see her at all while she's busy with Oskar's murderers.

[Struan]

Also, I don' t think there is much chance that the idea that LTROI is somehow a celebration of seduction and exploitation will establish itself as this is clearly a small minority view among critics and reviewers (based on what I have seen).

I disagree with your choice of words here. Whatever your take on the emotional slant of the story, I would hardly call it a "celebration". In fact I think you will find that every critic or viewer that has been hit by the dark implications of the ending finds them disturbing and not something you'd root for.

But it does sound strange when the director seems to not to reject this interpretation and at the same time he (or perhaps only the author) announces that the film has a "happy ending". If you combine these two ideas you may start getting the idea that the film was produced by individual with rather strange minds, the kind that most people would not let anywhere near their own children.

A while back we were discussing the topic of real-life monsters, and you pointed out that a certain amount of relativism in judgment was necessary to allow for historical/cultural context, lest we think every leader who ever lived was a monster. I agree with that (I find moral revisionism in history quite absurd), but here I think you're being too harsh. I don't see in the film the celebration nor the glorifying of realistic violence for titillation or laughs that seems to be commonplace today, many years after Clockwork. LTROI will certainly not have teenagers trying to emulate Eli, but more importantly it's a movie where the disturbing aspects succeed in disturbing the viewer instead of provoking delight. That in itself I find refreshing.

This light/dark duality exists in the story from its inception and it's conveyed by the movie through several means, not only visual clues. Consider the Rubik's Cube, the catalyst for the blooming love between the two kids. According to JAL, this innocent cube is actually a homage to the portal device from "Hellraiser", a movie I will guess you haven't seen but that can be very disturbing unless you watch it with the right mindframe (I did, as little more than a teenager, and found it average; by contrast today I can't watch a Tarantino film or any form of torture porn). Lindqvist, unlike Alfredson, has clearly shown a knack for horror, and it's in the synergy of the two men that the movie lost much of the cheese (bubye Zombie Hakan) and gained in subtetly. But certainly we cannot believe that this is all Tomas' doing either. I believe Lindqvist is skilled at mixing both the horrifying and the innocent and the movie is the perfect channel for this.

If there is a "callous" aspect to the movie, I can see it in how we react to the killings and how quickly we dismiss those. Or how little compassion the bullies get in general despite meeting a disproportionately violent end; in a different movie, this aspect would have disturbed me. So you could say that it is through clever manipulation that the film gets away with it. Trascending the story on the screen, we're asked to stick with the kinder and nicer aspects of Eli and pity her, and this meta-effect on the viewer mirrors the spell Eli might, just might, be putting on Oskar.

[Mono]

It definitely comes as a surprise to anyone unfamiliar with the book when you reveal to them that Eli is a castrated boy. I don't necessarily see that as a failure on Alfredson's part because I think Eli needs to be portrayed as female for the story to work as it does. In fact, this is even the case in the book for the majority of it. I can't help but feel that if Eli was explicitly portrayed as male, the film would become something very different.

In short, I see Alfredson's hints at Eli's male origins in the film as more of knowing wink and a nod for those familiar with the book rather than a failed attempt to make the average viewer aware of it. The film works without the need for that.

[Lacenaire]

Also, I don' t think there is much chance that the idea that LTROI is somehow a celebration of seduction and exploitation will establish itself as this is clearly a small minority view among critics and reviewers (based on what I have seen).

I disagree with your choice of words here. Whatever your take on the emotional slant of the story, I would hardly call it a "celebration". In fact I think you will find that every critic or viewer that has been hit by the dark implications of the ending finds them disturbing and not something you'd root for .

You slightly misunderstood my intention here. I meant to present a view of the story that, if it "established itself", would probably make Lindqvist unhappy. I don't think Kubrick actually intended to make "A Clockwork Orange" a "glorification of violence" (he always denied it) but nevertheless this is exactly how it was perceived. So I was only being hypothetical, meaning to suggest only the the author is probably not indifferent to this aspect of the matter.

But it does sound strange when the director seems to not to reject this interpretation and at the same time he (or perhaps only the author) announces that the film has a "happy ending". If you combine these two ideas you may start getting the idea that the film was produced by individual with rather strange minds, the kind that most people would not let anywhere near their own children.

A while back we were discussing the topic of real-life monsters, and you pointed out that a certain amount of relativism in judgment was necessary to allow for historical/cultural context, lest we think every leader who ever lived was a monster. I agree with that (I find moral revisionism in history quite absurd), but here I think you're being too harsh. I don't see in the film the celebration nor the glorifying of realistic violence for titillation or laughs that seems to be commonplace today.

I agree. Again I was referring to the way the film could be misunderstood, not the way it actually is. Also, I agree, that it would take quite a lot of bad will, to see this film as somehow evil in its intent. But unpleasant and unwatchable - yes, quite possible.

But certainly we cannot believe that this is all Tomas' doing either. I believe Lindqvist is skilled at mixing both the horrifying and the innocent and the movie is the perfect channel for this.

I completely agree. But Lindqvist's job is easier since he works with words. He can for example tell you what everyone is thinking. It is harder to radically misunderstand the novel than the film. In the end, in spite of some horrific horror, which has been omitted from the film, I think there is less of a chance of people finishing the novel with the idea that they had read a nasty and sordid story than them feeling that way after watching the film. My point was basically the following. I am not sure if Alfredson (and perhaps Lindqvist as script writer - although I am pretty sure it was Alfredson who took the crucial decisions) in his determination to let the viewer make his own choices about many fundamental aspects of the story (choices that the book reader does not have) did not make it impossible for many viewers to appreciate the nobler, finer aspects of the story. It is also true, I think, that Lindqvist at least once stated that this was not the film he would have made (or something like that) and Alfredson repeatedly stated that the film is his interpretation of the story.

If there is a "callous" aspect to the movie, I can see it in how we react to the killings and how quickly we dismiss those. Or how little compassion the bullies get in general despite meeting a disproportionately violent end; in a different movie, this aspect would have disturbed me. So you could say that it is through clever manipulation that the film gets away with it. Trascending the story on the screen, we're asked to stick with the kinder and nicer aspects of Eli and pity her, and this meta-effect on the viewer mirrors the spell Eli might, just might, be putting on Oskar.

Yes, "we". But we seem to be a minority of viewers, so the others are seeing something different. It is exactly what these "others" are seeing that has been bothering me.

Later edit. Hmm... maybe I should stop writing "we" as I am no longer sure I really like this film. Gradually people are succeeding in persuading me that this is indeed a horror film and not a fairy tale, and I just don't like horror films.