We, The Infected

... when the "new Håkan" theory comes up in a review, and than the critic starts to see the film only from this point of view, calling it (exact quote) "one of the most cruel stories of the decade: a tough drama about the will to control, bad choices and being used". And then you want to tell them, that it's the brilliant ambiguity of the film, but it actually is a love story, and if you've read the book... - and at that point, you know that you can't convince them, and starting to preach about what JAL said in interviews and the whole thing about real love is well, it's not worthy, there's no way they will take you seriously.

But still, the feeling is there, that it's not right when they write this about the film. Anyone felt the same?

Microwave Jellyfish wrote:... when the "new Håkan" theory comes up in a review, and than the critic starts to see the film only from this point of view, calling it (exact quote) "one of the most cruel stories of the decade: a tough drama about the will to control, bad choices and being used". And then you want to tell them, that it's the brilliant ambiguity of the film, but it actually is a love story, and if you've read the book... - and at that point, you know that you can't convince them, and starting to preach about what JAL said in interviews and the whole thing about real love is well, it's not worthy, there's no way they will take you seriously.

But still, the feeling is there, that it's not right when they write this about the film. Anyone felt the same?

I think it is a bad critic that will write only about this interpretation and present it as all there is to the film. I reluctantly have accepted that this is a valid interpretation because Alfredson wanted to make it valid. This is certainly not the interpretation of the novel the film is based on and one would expect any serious critic at least to check this so as to be aware that this is only one interpretation and is unlikely to be the one favoured by the author of the book and the script. The critic has not done his homework.
The critic is also a bad critic for another reason. This interpretation, while logically valid in the sense that it cannot be decisively disproved without a reference to the book, is a poorer, less satisfying interpretation. If you accept this interpretation than many of the most beautiful things in the film will be overlooked by you - in fact overlooking them is necessary in order to accept this interpretation (we have written so many times about this that I don't want to repeat myself again). The task of a good critic, whether of a work of music, a painting, a work of literature or film, is to point out to the reader the full wealth of possibilities that are contained in a work of art. The critic should not decide for the reader what he should think but bring his attention to as many significant aspects of the work as possible, anything that may affect the way the work is understood and appreciated. This includes , for example, the sacrifices that Eli visibly makes in the film: when eating the sweet, when not moving out of her apartment even though she knows she is in great danger, when entering Oskar's room without permission and without a full certainty that he will invite her in, and so on. Only after pointing out all these things and many, many others that we have discussed here, the critic might return to the "new Hakan" theory, if he is still convinced by it.
In any case, as I wrote at the start, any good critic should be aware of the existence of the book and of the existence of the other interpretation, which agrees with it. A critic that is not aware of these things is just not doing his job properly or is incompetent. So, I think the issue is not so much that the critic is actually wrong, but that he is a very bad critic.

Microwave Jellyfish wrote:... when the "new Håkan" theory comes up in a review, and than the critic starts to see the film only from this point of view, calling it (exact quote) "one of the most cruel stories of the decade: a tough drama about the will to control, bad choices and being used". And then you want to tell them, that it's the brilliant ambiguity of the film, but it actually is a love story, and if you've read the book... - and at that point, you know that you can't convince them, and starting to preach about what JAL said in interviews and the whole thing about real love is well, it's not worthy, there's no way they will take you seriously.

But still, the feeling is there, that it's not right when they write this about the film. Anyone felt the same?

You bet. Since the film evoked strong emotions in me, my reactions to the "new Håkan theory" was bound to be correspondently strong.
The best way for me to cope with this is to write and elaborate on the Norwegian wikipedia page about the film. (OK - it was already created when I started, but it was rather meagre and somewhat erroneous).

Echoing the sentiments expressed in the thread, it's always a little disappointing to hear someone walk away from the film with that interpretation. Perhaps it says more about them than the film itself but that is just wild speculation on my part.

I've never subscribed to the new Håkan interpretation because of key moments in the film that highlight, for me at least, that Eli's affection is genuine (as described by Lacenaire). One in particular that I've personally not seen brought up is a telling moment in the bedroom scene. Specifically, we see Eli hold and caress Oskar's hand for her benefit only; Oskar is fast asleep when this occurs. If she was leading him on, I can't think of any rational justification as to why she would continue her emotional deception when Oskar is completely unaware. Perhaps she is coveting her "prey" but I don't buy that for a second. This scene isn't some kind of elaborate manipulation to me, it is the viewer witnessing Eli relenting to her feelings. It's the moment Eli "warms up" from being unaware of her cold nature. It's Eli letting her guard down after hundreds of years of a vampiric existence necessitating her guard always be up. It's Eli letting the right one in.

And of course, there is no getting away from the fact Håkan is utterly terrible at murdering people and can't possibly have been with Eli for many years if that is why she recruited him. Similarly, why would she then deceive a child of all people to replace Håkan (ignoring the fact we see Oskar quite clearly reject his dark desire for murderous revenge when Lacke dies)?

For me, "New Håkan" is certainly a valid theory within the fiction played out in film but is also one born of non-observance to the combination of the finer details.

I have come to the conclusion that many of these strange reviews of the film stem from the reviewer having an immovable point of view. They cannot really get into the point of view of either Oskar or Eli. They have learned to view child characters (or perhaps they been trained to be this way) as miniature adults. If you take Eli's actions as those of an adult then they would certainly have a chillingly manipulative feel to them. If on the other hand, you are able to view her as a twelve year old then she just seems painfully lonely and isolated.

I could see where contemporary cinema would teach someone that child characters should be suave, smooth, and self-confident - full of witty repartee and deep insight. It is much easier to write and direct them this way than it is to make them feel authentically like children. I think also that most child actors have only adult role models and so their acting skills lead them to act like little grownups. Kåre and Lina both definitely were able to portray twelve year old characters as really being twelve. LTROI would have been destroyed if the leads had been played by by actors like Haley Joel Osment and Dakota Fanning. But since almost all child actors (in The States anyway) seem to come from wise-beyond-their-years, little adult mold, maybe reviewers have come to expect that and are unable to see beyond their expectation. Really, the only child actor that I have seen recently who can play her age well is Abigail Breslin.

I think that it is only when you allow the film to show you the story with twelve year old eyes that you will see the things that will tend to infect you.

People writing these reviews may be assuming they're watching a vampire film. If they are unable to move from this point of view they will probably not be able to see Eli as the child she also is.

Wolfchild wrote:I could see where contemporary cinema would teach someone that child characters should be suave, smooth, and self-confident - full of witty repartee and deep insight. It is much easier to write and direct them this way than it is to make them feel authentically like children. I think also that most child actors have only adult role models and so their acting skills lead them to act like little grownups.

That does not say much for "Hit Girl."

gattoparde59 wrote:

Wolfchild wrote:I could see where contemporary cinema would teach someone that child characters should be suave, smooth, and self-confident - full of witty repartee and deep insight. It is much easier to write and direct them this way than it is to make them feel authentically like children. I think also that most child actors have only adult role models and so their acting skills lead them to act like little grownups.

That does not say much for "Hit Girl."

But Kick Ass is a different film. Everyone that I know who has seen the trailer about the bullet-proof vest says that it is disturbing - and hilarious. If Chloe Moretz had been acting as a twelve year old (or whatever age Hit Girl is supposed to be), it would have just been disturbing. Sometimes in cinema the child-as-miniature-adult character is appropriate.

I was thinking more of Chloe Moretz as an actress. Can she manage the trick of turning from the smart-ass hit girl to the innocence of Eli? If she does she deserves an academy award!

You have hit on one of the major charms of the original film. It looks at the world from a child's point of view, rather than seeing children from an adult's point of view. One of my favorite older films is the original Bad News Bears. Walter Matthau has his epiphany at the end when he realizes he has a dugout full of little kids and not professional ball players. Oh, and its easy to imagine the Lupus kid as Oskar!

Mono wrote:Echoing the sentiments expressed in the thread, it's always a little disappointing to hear someone walk away from the film with that interpretation. Perhaps it says more about them than the film itself but that is just wild speculation on my part.

I've never subscribed to the new Håkan interpretation because of key moments in the film that highlight, for me at least, that Eli's affection is genuine (as described by Lacenaire). One in particular that I've personally not seen brought up is a telling moment in the bedroom scene. Specifically, we see Eli hold and caress Oskar's hand for her benefit only; Oskar is fast asleep when this occurs. If she was leading him on, I can't think of any rational justification as to why she would continue her emotional deception when Oskar is completely unaware. Perhaps she is coveting her "prey" but I don't buy that for a second. This scene isn't some kind of elaborate manipulation to me, it is the viewer witnessing Eli relenting to her feelings. It's the moment Eli "warms up" from being unaware of her cold nature. It's Eli letting her guard down after hundreds of years of a vampiric existence necessitating her guard always be up. It's Eli letting the right one in.

And of course, there is no getting away from the fact Håkan is utterly terrible at murdering people and can't possibly have been with Eli for many years if that is why she recruited him. Similarly, why would she then deceive a child of all people to replace Håkan (ignoring the fact we see Oskar quite clearly reject his dark desire for murderous revenge when Lacke dies)?

For me, "New Håkan" is certainly a valid theory within the fiction played out in film but is also one born of non-observance to the combination of the finer details.

i agree completely with everything you've said in this post and you've conveyed my own thoughts perfectly. i my self have never given two cents for a critic's thoughts as most of them tend to pick apart a movie for what they believe to be it's shortcomings. i first heard of LTROI in entertainment magazine and the critics in that publication gave it favorable reviews which usually means i won't like it but thankfully i was wrong. as most of the infected might agree i believe that in order to appreciate LTROI fully there must be a genuine connection between the viewer and one or more of the characters. you have to watch LTROI with your heart and not your eyes. i think most critics have lost that ability after diluting themselves with so many films inferior to LTROI.