Who loves Abby?

[Petris]

im from philly so its a fair trade!

take care petris!

You too man!

[tman]

Yep, count me in the 'I love Abby' camp. The more I think about it, the more she seems like the victim of circumstance she is. She does what she does to survive. It's not pretty, it's not easy, but it's what she's got to do. We all do what we have to do to survive. As a girl, she only has the emotional capacity of a 12-year old, but still know's the implications of someone 'becoming her friend'. She's seen it all go wrong before, but in the mind of a child it's probably more simplistic than it really is. She maybe doesn't understand the turmoil an aging 'father' figure goes through as they watch their 'friend' stay young while they slowly lose touch with her. It's a haunting, daunting prospect for them that eventually becomes a reality.

Abby deals with it in her own way, likely promising that the won't put herself in that position again, but she needs companionship just like anyone else, and someone to act like a parent to love, care and look out for her. As long as they can deal with her 'dark' side, then there won't be a problem (for a while), but time tells on everyone, and slowly seeing that bond break down would be heartbreaking. Anyone who's prepared to 'kill' for someone is about as dedicated as you'll ever find.

[MJ Morrow]

Well, assuming the book rules, that there is a separate entity, another mind that controls Abby when she hunts and feeds, just isolating the Abby part of Abby, I could love her in certain ways. I could love her as a little sister or as a daughter. I would never get over that she looks twelve, even if she were one thousand years old, so I would never be attracted to her. If she looked eighteen or nineteen, I could apply Hollywood dating rules and date her, but there is no way I could ever be attracted to someone who looks like a little kid, no matter how many centuries she lived. S!

[danielma]

Even if assuming that you have no heart and think of Eli as evil and Abby as good, Eli is still the better liar. And I prefer a beautiful lie to Abby's honesty about her crappy existence.

I got to quote this, even if it is an old post. I don't think Eli lies to Oskar, if anything I think she/he is rather blunt with Oskar. The "Be Me" scene was always a moment of blunt honesty to me. I have to do this, I might not like it, but I do have to do this if I want to live.

To me that was the key difference between Abby and Eli, one accepted what it was she/he was whilst the other projected that guilt onto others. For me, I found Eli to be blunt with Oskar, what made them a good match was there somewhat questionable morals. To me, Oskar is somewhat of an A-Moral character. Eli is also questionably A-Moral, she may have guilt and torment that comes with her humanity, but at the same time I kind of saw acceptance within her of this is her position in life. . She's not without guilt, but it seemed to me that Eli knew what she/he was, and she seemed rather honest in telling Oskar this...that to me was always the key importance of the "Be Me", it's her/he being bluntly honest with Oskar.

Where as you contrast this with Abby, who clearly says to Owen "I'm Nothing"...now I know this is a quote in the book, but the context is completely different. In the book Eli uses it as a form of telling Oskar that her sexual gender is nothing (once again another case of Eli being very much honest with Oskar, at least in the book)...where as in Let Me In, the context is used to highlight Abby's own self loathing or guilt. This was one of the things that I could never attach myself to with Abby. I've always thought that with Abby there is simply put, no inner acceptance within her. There is a tonne of guilt and hints of self loathing, but no acceptance of what it is she is. Which always made me question whether her guilt was an angle? Was it guilt by design? Is it an angle to prey on the lack of self esteem that Owen shows?

I think the reason I accepted Eli and grew to love the character was because of her honesty with Oskar. And her honesty with herself, sure its a crap life, but at the same time I saw acceptance within Eli...to me, I saw the struggle of her duality as she tries desperately to balance out the "inner demon" with her "humanity"...I really liked that about Eli.

Where as with Abby, I always found myself questioning whether it was a child hiding the face of a demon, or the demon hiding behind the face of a child. The most I could muster for Abby was sympathy, but come the end of the film, I was kind of left feeling cold by her.

[sauvin]

Even if assuming that you have no heart and think of Eli as evil and Abby as good, Eli is still the better liar. And I prefer a beautiful lie to Abby's honesty about her crappy existence.

I got to quote this, even if it is an old post. I don't think Eli lies to Oskar, if anything I think she/he is rather blunt with Oskar. The "Be Me" scene was always a moment of blunt honesty to me. I have to do this, I might not like it, but I do have to do this if I want to live.

I don't personally care how "old" a post is. It's all still current unless somebody in some subsequent post recants.

There's just plain flat-out lying, lying by omission or misdirection, being truthful without being outright forthcoming, and then there's complete candour. Given the reality of either girl's existence, in the movies, I don't find much outright mendacity. The girls seem to have been just as much forthcoming as their personal circumstances permitted.

The novel has Oskar at one point resenting all of Eli's lies, but the lies he's thinking of are all part of what I call a "legend"; a cover story. I don't remember novel Eli ever lying about anything that has any significant emotional value. They're lies Eli told before anybody (the kids included) realised that there was a deeper and closer relationship looming that required something beyond cover stories.

Bear in mind that Scandinavians and northern Europeans do tend to be a bit blunter than southern or western Europeans, and Americans. Blunt isn't necessarily forthright, since a lie can also be bluntly told.

To me that was the key difference between Abby and Eli, one accepted what it was she/he was whilst the other projected that guilt onto others.

Huh?

Where as you contrast this with Abby, who clearly says to Owen "I'm Nothing"...now I know this is a quote in the book, but the context is completely different. In the book Eli uses it as a form of telling Oskar that her sexual gender is nothing (once again another case of Eli being very much honest with Oskar, at least in the book)...where as in Let Me In, the context is used to highlight Abby's own self loathing or guilt. This was one of the things that I could never attach myself to with Abby. I've always thought that with Abby there is simply put, no inner acceptance within her. There is a tonne of guilt and hints of self loathing, but no acceptance of what it is she is. Which always made me question whether her guilt was an angle? Was it guilt by design? Is it an angle to prey on the lack of self esteem that Owen shows?

An alternative interpretation is that Eli has been more successful in compartmentalising her existence. If this is true, it means Eli is fundamentally less honest because she can't or won't remember the whole truth. Abby seems less episodic and better integrated in this sense.

In the bedroom scene, novel Eli says she's "not a girl, not a boy, not young, not old." She's "nothing". This kind of expansion may have been impractical within a movie's necessarily compressed storytelling, but novel Eli seems to be refuting not only gender and age, she's also refuting her own species. She's saying she's not a person at all because she's not human. This kind of denial goes beyond any kind of gender issue, and it transcends guilt, shame or self-loathing.

Movie Eli never even gets a chance to answer Oskar's question "Oh? What are you, then?" because he never asks it. Eli says "Oskar, I'm not a girl", and Oskar just says "Oh... but..." and just continues hammering her into committing to this "going steady" business.

In this sense, I think maybe Abby was the more emotionally honest of the two movie girls. It's actually a bit hard to draw a bead on precisely what she meant by saying "I'm nothing", but since later in the movie Owen doesn't have a "wtf!?" expression on his face as he peeks at her freshly showered girlfriend, one presumes she's not denying being an outwardly anatomically complete little girl. Like novel Eli, she seems to be denying that she's even a person at all.

Furthermore, I don't remember novel or movie Eli telling an Oskar trying to leave her apartment in a huff that "I told you we can't be friends".

I think the reason I accepted Eli and grew to love the character was because of her honesty with Oskar. And her honesty with herself, sure its a crap life, but at the same time I saw acceptance within Eli...to me, I saw the struggle of her duality as she tries desperately to balance out the "inner demon" with her "humanity"...I really liked that about Eli.

Where as with Abby, I always found myself questioning whether it was a child hiding the face of a demon, or the demon hiding behind the face of a child. The most I could muster for Abby was sympathy, but come the end of the film, I was kind of left feeling cold by her.

That's very much a question with either girl, actually. They're both eternally and ceaselessly beset by the same internal battle. Which girl is more the girl or more the monster at particular point in time can never really be said with absolute confidence.

The girls seemed to have faced the basement clubhouse scene with equally distressing conflict and equally admirable contro. After this point, neither boy can ever afford to forget, even for a moment, what he's just discovered: his sweet, strange and unusually shy and quiet girlfriend has two heads, and one of them is cold, deadly and repulsive.

I will admit that most of the time, Abby seemed more "strung out". She spent a great deal of the movie looking like a junkie a couple of days past due for a fix. It seems to me that Abby is just more outward in feeling the weight of her years and her loneliness. Or maybe it's just that Germanic people have more of a tendency to "suck it up" and "keep it in".

[danielma]

To me that was the key difference between Abby and Eli, one accepted what it was she/he was whilst the other projected that guilt onto others.

Huh?

Its the old Addict metaphor...to me, I saw Abby as someone who ran from the guilt and the burden. but yet she has the desperate need to survive, so she projects it onto her loved ones. She projects her burdens on to those that surround her. Abby is the addict, the thirst will always be her main priority and everything else is secondary. The addict cant take responsibility for her burden. It pains her loved ones to watch this so hence they take on the burden...but my question has always been, is that an active part of Abby's plan or is it just a tragic series of events? Is the guit an act or is it sincere...is it a lure because thats her lure, or is she sincerely hurting???? I could never quite figure that out with Abby...what i did see was the priority of her addiction first and everything else is secondary

Where as Eli, this was where the "Be Me" scene becomes so important in my opinion. What i like about that scene is how assertive Eli is...there is no apologetic tone in her voice...it is simply of moment of Eli telling Oskar "This is what I am"...What i took from this is a character who very much accepts what it is she is. Its not a means of projecting guilt onto Oskar rather it is Eli being assertive and honest with Oskar.

That was something distinct that i got from Eli that i never quite got from Abby...

(im typing on an ipad at 1am in the morning....so please excuse the lack of further response for now...i just wanted to address that for now)

[sauvin]

Eliform vampirism as addiction is certainly a compelling metaphor, and you're absolutely correct in asserting that it affects everybody in the addict's personal life. Compound the addiction with what Joe Sixpack calls "split personality" and what emerges is the image of a bewildering life of irresolvable inner turmoil and conflict unless or until the girl (either girl) should give herself completely over to it to the beast.

I don't necessarily agree that the thirst is the foremost concern for either girl while conceding it has to have at least the same kind of priority as it would for anybody else. This is a lopsided consideration.

You or I, for example, dashing out of the house to go to work too late to have time to fix a breakfast or pack a lunch can always just use pocket change to grab a sandwich and a coffee on the way, and the only "evidence" we have to worry about concealing is remembering to toss away the empty cup and the crumpled up wrapper. Failure to do so is hardly worrisome.

In either vampire girl's case, there's always the worry that the ham and cheese is going to fight back, or that the roast beef and club sandwiches right next to where the ham and cheese used to be are going to pick up a torch or take the covering off a window. Food shopping for Abby is quite a bit more problematic. Food might not be either girl's absolutely highest priority, but it necessarily is more fraught with danger and therefore much more troublesome and time-consuming, I'd think.

It's hard to say what Eli's foremost priority might be before she'd met Oskar, and this, too, may be colouring our impressions and reasoning. Eli had just been trying to survive, nothing more, and so one can presume that her meeting Oskar is unique. With the photo strip leading us to surmise that she'd met Thomas when he was also Owen's age, we could say that Abby's priorities when she meets Owen are a bit muddled as she watches an old friend and lover decline as she runs across a potential opportunity for renewal.

When it becomes clear that the girls stand to gain a significant relationship, their approaches and conduct may differ somewhat in particulars (especially in view of Eli's disastrous misunderstanding of what human relationships are, if you follow the novel's model), but I'm thinking Abby's emotional weather would be overcast with the experience of already having at least once nearly completed a Thomas cycle, and knowing - dreading - what the years with Owen will likely bring.

I wonder: if the corresponding "be me for a little while" scene hadn't been left out of the movie, or if you had considered this deleted scene part of the actual movie, would it have altered your impression of Abby? For as much as I've run around saying "Abby ain't Eli" even while saying "but Eli ain't Abby", the fact that they have so many parallels and similarities probably means that I see Abby in a more or less Eli-like light. If there's something to what you're saying, then I've failed to keep the girls separate. I have seen the deleted scene where she shares with Owen what happened to her, and can't claim that it figures very largely into my thinking because I'll rarely enough even remember it.

When you say Abby "projects" her guilt, shame, self-loathing and other negatives onto her loved ones, it conveys to me that she sees these qualities in them or that she assigns them responsibility for her condition. She herself isn't at fault, it's everybody around her. Is this what you're trying to say?

I don't see that in either girl. Both seem to own up to what they are, and both seem to take ownership of it. The fact that they walk, talk and dress up like regular people, concoct cover stories (in novel Eli's case) and present an outward appearance of belonging to a family (with a father figure) is merely a matter of camouflage rather than actually outright lying to anybody else - or to themselves. I get a very strong impression that neither girl ever forgets what she is, not even for a moment.

I'll have to admit that having read Lee Kyle's "Let Me In 2" may have added some colour to how I see Abby

It does seem inevitable that anybody who comes into her life is going to have to share that burden, even if that "sharing" is only to the extent of failing to do something about it, such as running off to the authorities, grabbing a mallet and stake, etc. Anybody who associates with her associates with murder, and thus accepts a moral and criminal burden. Maybe sometimes this "sharing" is planned (in novel Eli's case wrt Hakan, it most certainly was), but it doesn't have to be. As far as I can see, it's implicit.

As for whether or not the guilt is "sincere" or "an act", we start dragging into the discussion a whole can of worms involving variances in personality, culture and the like. We also invite discussion of just how human is either girl. If she's not human, then the "guilty act" is part of the camouflage, and Eli has us all fooled. If this were the case, though, wouldn't she choose to be more... what? Charismatic? Seductive? Wouldn't she want to appear to be more appealing somehow, rather than less?

I don't find Abby's plight the slightest bit less impossible than Eli's.

[danielma]

It's hard to say what Eli's foremost priority might be before she'd met Oskar, and this, too, may be colouring our impressions and reasoning. Eli had just been trying to survive, nothing more, and so one can presume that her meeting Oskar is unique. With the photo strip leading us to surmise that she'd met Thomas when he was also Owen's age, we could say that Abby's priorities when she meets Owen are a bit muddled as she watches an old friend and lover decline as she runs across a potential opportunity for renewal.

Agreed, it is hard to tell what Eli’s foremost priority was before she met Oskar because the back stories are so vauge in that film. For me, the heart of the story was never between Eli and Hakan. Hakan was simply there to serve the audience a few hints of what may or may not be going on. The heart of the story was between Eli and Oskar. I think there are a few scenes that are very telling of what Eli’s relationship with Hakan entails though. I’ve always felt that it is solely a relationship out of need as opposed to love. Nothing about Hakan and Eli struck me as love. It struck me as a deal between them. You get the blood, and I may give you something in return. In this way the addict metaphor is also appropriate to Eli, except in this case, you could view Hakan as nothing more than the supplier to her need. But throughout the film, I never quite saw a glimpse of love between them. And if there was any love between, it was an unrequited one on Hakan’s behalf. After all he is far more infatuated with her then she is with him. My take was that Hakan was simply a means to an end for Eli, whereas Oskar was the boy she least expected and was something special.

Abby and Thomas however, it’s clear that there was love there once upon a time. But somewhere over the course of their time it went from love to necessity. As Thomas got older, the relationship went from one of companionship to one built out of need. I think CMFireflies said it best in an earlier post. For Abby, she can’t afford to live in the past and her survival is the main priority. For Thomas, as he grows older he is left with the fleeting memories of a past that is now long gone.

When it becomes clear that the girls stand to gain a significant relationship, their approaches and conduct may differ somewhat in particulars (especially in view of Eli's disastrous misunderstanding of what human relationships are, if you follow the novel's model), but I'm thinking Abby's emotional weather would be overcast with the experience of already having at least once nearly completed a Thomas cycle, and knowing - dreading - what the years with Owen will likely bring.

But if that is the case then why does she pursue it? I guess the answer is childish hope…but how far can that childish hope take you? Personally, I think it is because she knows it’s a means to an end in survival. That and for the short time it will be fun I guess…I’m not saying that she doesn’t feel some guilt over this, but I think at the end of the day she knows it’s a means of an end to survival and that for the short time it may offer a fleeting moment of happiness (at least until Owen gets older)

For me, there are a few moments that are telling of Abby’s priorities. One of which is the rubiks cube-hunger spasm scene. In the original film, I like the way that Eli clutches to that cube for dear life whilst in severe pain. I view that as the ultimate sign of ones struggle of duality. She struggles to hold onto her humanity whilst suffering intense pain due to the addiction (if you will). It’s very telling of that duality that I think Eli struggles with. Whereas with Abby, it always struck me that she drops the cube in favor of her hunger spasms. This may be a blunt assumption, but I thought it was very telling of where Abby’s main priorities lie…that it is her hunger and addiction that rules her whilst her humanity will always follow closely behind…I’m not saying she doesn’t care for Owen (or Thomas) but I still think that they are secondary in many ways.

Or perhaps I’m reading too much into this. But I think another connection is Virgina. In the last moments of Virginia’s life, we don’t see the human side of Virginia rather we see the beast that has consumed her. Feeding on her own blood supply…much like the desperate addict who is scraping the bottom of the barrel to feed their addiction. Once again, maybe I’m wrong but this seemed very telling of just how desperate the addiction is.

I wonder: if the corresponding "be me for a little while" scene hadn't been left out of the movie, or if you had considered this deleted scene part of the actual movie, would it have altered your impression of Abby? For as much as I've run around saying "Abby ain't Eli" even while saying "but Eli ain't Abby", the fact that they have so many parallels and similarities probably means that I see Abby in a more or less Eli-like light. If there's something to what you're saying, then I've failed to keep the girls separate. I have seen the deleted scene where she shares with Owen what happened to her, and can't claim that it figures very largely into my thinking because I'll rarely enough even remember it.

Yes and no, it would have increased the sympathy level for her…but I still probably would have been questioning her come the end of the film.

When you say Abby "projects" her guilt, shame, self-loathing and other negatives onto her loved ones, it conveys to me that she sees these qualities in them or that she assigns them responsibility for her condition. She herself isn't at fault, it's everybody around her. Is this what you're trying to say?

No I’m saying that’s one of the questions the film left me with that I’m not sure if I can answer. Is it a form of manipulation or is it really just a sincere burden on her? I was never quite sure when the movie ended…and I’m still not sure.

I don't see that in either girl. Both seem to own up to what they are, and both seem to take ownership of it. The fact that they walk, talk and dress up like regular people, concoct cover stories (in novel Eli's case) and present an outward appearance of belonging to a family (with a father figure) is merely a matter of camouflage rather than actually outright lying to anybody else - or to themselves. I get a very strong impression that neither girl ever forgets what she is, not even for a moment.

It’s not that they forget what they are…rather do they run from it? With Eli, the Be Me scene I saw an assertiveness in her tone and demeanor. She’s not sugar coating it for Oskar instead telling him straight out. With Abby, well I never got that moment. I got the fact that she was tormented and has a level of self-loathing to her. But there was never a moment where I felt she asserted to Owen that this is what she is. I think with Abby I saw someone who was probably ashamed of it.

I'll have to admit that having read Lee Kyle's "Let Me In 2" may have added some colour to how I see Abby

Haven’t read it

It does seem inevitable that anybody who comes into her life is going to have to share that burden, even if that "sharing" is only to the extent of failing to do something about it, such as running off to the authorities, grabbing a mallet and stake, etc. Anybody who associates with her associates with murder, and thus accepts a moral and criminal burden. Maybe sometimes this "sharing" is planned (in novel Eli's case wrt Hakan, it most certainly was), but it doesn't have to be. As far as I can see, it's implicit.

I don’t disagree with that at all.

As for whether or not the guilt is "sincere" or "an act", we start dragging into the discussion a whole can of worms involving variances in personality, culture and the like. We also invite discussion of just how human is either girl. If she's not human, then the "guilty act" is part of the camouflage, and Eli has us all fooled. If this were the case, though, wouldn't she choose to be more... what? Charismatic? Seductive? Wouldn't she want to appear to be more appealing somehow, rather than less?

I don't find Abby's plight the slightest bit less impossible than Eli's.

It’s not that I don’t find her plight impossible…just more so that I question her motives. (to be fair I questioned Eli's as well from time to time, so this isn't just a hate speech on Abby )

[sauvin]

For me, the heart of the story was never between Eli and Hakan. Hakan was simply there to serve the audience a few hints of what may or may not be going on. The heart of the story was between Eli and Oskar.

Novel Hakan added quite a bit of dimension to the story. In a sense, you are correct, Oskar provided thesis where Hakan provided antithesis. Hakan's part was actually kind of heat-wrenching if you can forget that the addiction he struggled with isn't something that's purchased as a white powder or bought in bottles at liquor stores.

Hakan existed in the story almost exclusively to support and help Eli in material ways. He does additional service for us, though, in illustrating just how profoundly confused and lost Eli is where it comes to human relationships. The conversations they have concerning love spring to mind.

In effect, what Hakan gave us (if not Eli) is that (1) truly human monsters are altogether too real, (2) they can be bought and subducted into greater monstrosity, (3) they can have seriously negative effect on an already badly damaged self-image. What Hakan also seems to be telling us is that the drive to satisfy an addiction can drive us away from our own humanity

As for movie Hakan? He may have been there just to explain how Eli comes to have an apartment, to show us who wears the pants in Eli's bought families, and to help give some idea just how hair-raisingly tenuous can be the life of a vampire. He was otherwise just a blob.

Abby and Thomas however, it’s clear that there was love there once upon a time. But somewhere over the course of their time it went from love to necessity. As Thomas got older, the relationship went from one of companionship to one built out of need. I think CMFireflies said it best in an earlier post. For Abby, she can’t afford to live in the past and her survival is the main priority. For Thomas, as he grows older he is left with the fleeting memories of a past that is now long gone.

Can't really argue with much of that, but I don't necessarily get that her relationship with Thomas devolved into one of simple physical need. An alternative interpretation is seeded by a passage in the novel where the kids are in the courtyard playing and laughing, and Hakan notes that he's "heavy", that he can't help Eli be a child the way Oskar can. Thomas grew up, grew older and grew apart. It doesn't mean that whatever commitment he might have shared with Abby has necessarily changed in fact, but it has necessarily changed in character. Thomas, too, is unable to be a child with Abby.

When it becomes clear that the girls stand to gain a significant relationship, their approaches and conduct may differ somewhat in particulars (especially in view of Eli's disastrous misunderstanding of what human relationships are, if you follow the novel's model), but I'm thinking Abby's emotional weather would be overcast with the experience of already having at least once nearly completed a Thomas cycle, and knowing - dreading - what the years with Owen will likely bring.

But if that is the case then why does she pursue it? I guess the answer is childish hope…but how far can that childish hope take you? Personally, I think it is because she knows it’s a means to an end in survival. That and for the short time it will be fun I guess…I’m not saying that she doesn’t feel some guilt over this, but I think at the end of the day she knows it’s a means of an end to survival and that for the short time it may offer a fleeting moment of happiness (at least until Owen gets older)

And have none of us ever pursued a relationship we knew couldn't be sustained? If she really is a child, she won't necessarily be thinking in terms of "someday, this boy is going to make a fine daddy". If she really is only twelve years old, even her centuries of experience won't necessarily enable her to plan out her life up to next Tuesday. It's all about the here, the now; Thomas is going away, and maybe Owen is coming in.

If so, maybe Abby is smarter than all of us. Maybe she could tell us better than anybody there is no yesterday, and no tomorrow, there is only now. By taking up with Owen, she's just grabbing what life she can while she can.

For me, there are a few moments that are telling of Abby’s priorities. One of which is the rubiks cube-hunger spasm scene. In the original film, I like the way that Eli clutches to that cube for dear life whilst in severe pain. I view that as the ultimate sign of ones struggle of duality. She struggles to hold onto her humanity whilst suffering intense pain due to the addiction (if you will). It’s very telling of that duality that I think Eli struggles with. Whereas with Abby, it always struck me that she drops the cube in favor of her hunger spasms. This may be a blunt assumption, but I thought it was very telling of where Abby’s main priorities lie…that it is her hunger and addiction that rules her whilst her humanity will always follow closely behind…I’m not saying she doesn’t care for Owen (or Thomas) but I still think that they are secondary in many ways.

Necessarily secondary? Either movie makes it pretty clear that the monster can have an irresistible influence over either girl's behaviour. Here's where we may be fighting apples with oranges: what we're seeing in Abby's case might be less a matter of priority than of strength.

Or perhaps I’m reading too much into this. But I think another connection is Virgina. In the last moments of Virginia’s life, we don’t see the human side of Virginia rather we see the beast that has consumed her. Feeding on her own blood supply…much like the desperate addict who is scraping the bottom of the barrel to feed their addiction. Once again, maybe I’m wrong but this seemed very telling of just how desperate the addiction is.

How desperate is the addiction? Very likely. Also bear in mind that we don't get to see Virginia's process of transformation, and even the LTROI movie doesn't expand on it as much as the novel does. We don't get to see what kind of person she is. First time we see her, we get distracted (well, the men among us anyway) by a body part. In another couple of scenes, we see her fully clothed and closed off; guarded. A bit later, we're shown her being dropped in on by a vampire. We're finally shown that she has transformed. We never really saw the "human side" of Virginia at all unless you're claiming that the "human side" is summarised succinctly with a few seconds' exposure to a single bare breast.

The transformation itself, where she discovers the wonder of her own blood, wasn't even accompanied by a "what the heck" moment. It was fast, seamless and complete. Virginia never had any idea anything was happening to her, and by the time it started happening, she wasn't Virginia anymore.

I don't see that in either girl. Both seem to own up to what they are, and both seem to take ownership of it. The fact that they walk, talk and dress up like regular people, concoct cover stories (in novel Eli's case) and present an outward appearance of belonging to a family (with a father figure) is merely a matter of camouflage rather than actually outright lying to anybody else - or to themselves. I get a very strong impression that neither girl ever forgets what she is, not even for a moment.

It’s not that they forget what they are…rather do they run from it? With Eli, the Be Me scene I saw an assertiveness in her tone and demeanor. She’s not sugar coating it for Oskar instead telling him straight out. With Abby, well I never got that moment. I got the fact that she was tormented and has a level of self-loathing to her. But there was never a moment where I felt she asserted to Owen that this is what she is. I think with Abby I saw someone who was probably ashamed of it.

Without being able to compare the "be me for a while" scenes, it's hard to make this distinction meaningfully.

I'll have to admit that having read Lee Kyle's "Let Me In 2" may have added some colour to how I see Abby

Haven’t read it

Aw, come on. Give it a shot! It's stunning!

As for whether or not the guilt is "sincere" or "an act", we start dragging into the discussion a whole can of worms involving variances in personality, culture and the like. We also invite discussion of just how human is either girl. If she's not human, then the "guilty act" is part of the camouflage, and Eli has us all fooled. If this were the case, though, wouldn't she choose to be more... what? Charismatic? Seductive? Wouldn't she want to appear to be more appealing somehow, rather than less?

I don't find Abby's plight the slightest bit less impossible than Eli's.

It’s not that I don’t find her plight impossible…just more so that I question her motives. (to be fair I questioned Eli's as well from time to time, so this isn't just a hate speech on Abby )

And there are probably still uncounted numbers of people who've watched LTROI movie and commented on the IMDB boards that it's pretty obvious that Oskar is just the next Hakan. The consensus on this board seems to be that it's not "obvbious" at all that this is what Eli intended even if life for an unturned Oskar seems likely to take him that way whether the kids know it or not, or whether they would like it or not. It's almost unfortunate in a way that Hakan's true role couldn't be brought to the movie because it'd cast quite a bit more doubt on the assertion of Eli just being a heartless manipulating demon who just happens to look like a little girl.

[danielma]

Novel Hakan added quite a bit of dimension to the story. In a sense, you are correct, Oskar provided thesis where Hakan provided antithesis. Hakan's part was actually kind of heat-wrenching if you can forget that the addiction he struggled with isn't something that's purchased as a white powder or bought in bottles at liquor stores.

Was trying to leave Novel Hakan out of this, but I do agree, he does add a fair amount of dimension to the story.

Hakan existed in the story almost exclusively to support and help Eli in material ways. He does additional service for us, though, in illustrating just how profoundly confused and lost Eli is where it comes to human relationships. The conversations they have concerning love spring to mind.

That's a conversation I wish had made it in to LMI...just because I felt it would have been rather appropriate to the story of Thomas and Abby

As for movie Hakan? He may have been there just to explain how Eli comes to have an apartment, to show us who wears the pants in Eli's bought families, and to help give some idea just how hair-raisingly tenuous can be the life of a vampire. He was otherwise just a blob.

For me he is one of two things

1.) A hint to provide the audience with a vital clue as to what may happen to Oskar
2.) The Supplier who helps feed Eli's addiction whilst getting something in return to feed his own addiction (much like Novel Hakan)

I don't think he was just a blob, I always felt they gave us just enough info on the guy to show us that he was a man who trying to get Eli's attention only to have it not returned by her. Could be either a former long time friend, or the addict who is drawn to her for his own certain needs (I've always felt the "Don't see that boy" scene is handled more so like a deal then it is genuine affection)...But I don't think he is a blob, I think that he serves to give the audience some clues in order for them to fill in the blanks.

Can't really argue with much of that, but I don't necessarily get that her relationship with Thomas devolved into one of simple physical need. An alternative interpretation is seeded by a passage in the novel where the kids are in the courtyard playing and laughing, and Hakan notes that he's "heavy", that he can't help Eli be a child the way Oskar can. Thomas grew up, grew older and grew apart. It doesn't mean that whatever commitment he might have shared with Abby has necessarily changed in fact, but it has necessarily changed in character. Thomas, too, is unable to be a child with Abby.

Then what else could it be? He grows older and enter adulthood alone, she stays the same...surely he would be faced at some point with the prospect of love and a serious adult relaionship. Once again, trying to leave the novel out of this and treat it as its own seperate thing. The commitment would surely have to change though, otherwise why linger on the past and a time that has gone? As he is seen doing by the way he looks at the photograph. When I say need, I say this because I think they both get what they need whilst never fully growing past that. For Thomas, its a fleeting reminder of the past, for Abby, its the blood and companionship. That's the need, but where else does the relationship go? What else is there other then need?

And have none of us ever pursued a relationship we knew couldn't be sustained? If she really is a child, she won't necessarily be thinking in terms of "someday, this boy is going to make a fine daddy". If she really is only twelve years old, even her centuries of experience won't necessarily enable her to plan out her life up to next Tuesday. It's all about the here, the now; Thomas is going away, and maybe Owen is coming in.

True but most of us end a relationship we can't sustain before the very end (death)...most of us usually grow to a point where we realize we can't keep going on. If Abby is truly a child then of course this can't apply in the same way, but it can apply for Thomas who does grow older and could leave at any point. It's questionable as to whether she is truly 12 years old (but this is a can of worms that got me into strife over at the IMDB). If you live with someone for 40 years how do you not learn? How do you wake up every day and not learn the mistakes you made? A child learns, children aren't idiots. If a child makes a mistake, chances are they learn from it. This is why I say its questionable as to whether this applys at all here. But who knows, maybe when she sleeps it has the same effect of Eli in the novel, I don't know...but the movie does nothing to explain this so you almost have to question it.

Necessarily secondary? Either movie makes it pretty clear that the monster can have an irresistible influence over either girl's behaviour. Here's where we may be fighting apples with oranges: what we're seeing in Abby's case might be less a matter of priority than of strength.


How desperate is the addiction? Very likely. Also bear in mind that we don't get to see Virginia's process of transformation, and even the LTROI movie doesn't expand on it as much as the novel does. We don't get to see what kind of person she is. First time we see her, we get distracted (well, the men among us anyway) by a body part. In another couple of scenes, we see her fully clothed and closed off; guarded. A bit later, we're shown her being dropped in on by a vampire. We're finally shown that she has transformed. We never really saw the "human side" of Virginia at all unless you're claiming that the "human side" is summarised succinctly with a few seconds' exposure to a single bare breast.

The transformation itself, where she discovers the wonder of her own blood, wasn't even accompanied by a "what the heck" moment. It was fast, seamless and complete. Virginia never had any idea anything was happening to her, and by the time it started happening, she wasn't Virginia anymore.

I lumped these two together

So first of all we kind of get this from Abby, we get the monster's effect over her...so why is this driven home with Virginia? What is the point of this? The point I took was to highlight the desperation of the movie. Which I think is one of the major distinct differences between both films, LTROI has its character making active choices...where as LMI has its character's placed into situations of desperation. What I took from Virginia in this version was the desperation of the monster had consumed her. I thought it was there to further highlight the desperation of the plight.

Aw, come on. Give it a shot! It's stunning!

To be fair, I haven't read a single ounce of fan fiction here regarding Oskar and Eli either. I don't know, I always had my take on where they went next and was happy with that so I never felt the need or urge to read fan fiction (even though I'm sure there is some wonderfully written stuff out there)...but for me, I had my own take and was happy with it so never had the urge to read anyone elses follow ups...the only follow up I want to read is JAL's very own follow up

And there are probably still uncounted numbers of people who've watched LTROI movie and commented on the IMDB boards that it's pretty obvious that Oskar is just the next Hakan. The consensus on this board seems to be that it's not "obvbious" at all that this is what Eli intended even if life for an unturned Oskar seems likely to take him that way whether the kids know it or not, or whether they would like it or not. It's almost unfortunate in a way that Hakan's true role couldn't be brought to the movie because it'd cast quite a bit more doubt on the assertion of Eli just being a heartless manipulating demon who just happens to look like a little girl.

Don't doubt that at all...And I don't really argue it with them at all because I think it is a possibility. I think that is the brilliance of the original film, I have yet to hear one theory that I haven't thought "that's not possible", because to me the film walks that fine line of giving you just enough without guiding your hand. To me there just isn't one theory that I've sat there and thought "that wouldn't work" because I think that film is truly open ended in its interp.

I think the reason people get so passionate is simply due to the emotional connection we share with these characters...and that can lead to so many heated arguements (believe me, I've been there on IMDB)

As for Abby and Owen, I think there is no question that its going to end up as an instance of history repeating itself...Yes I'm aware that not everyone agree with this (which I am fine with)...but to me, I just saw so much in there that it seemed a foregone conclusion. I think the question that Let Me In imparted on me was "Was this deliberate manipulation or was it sincere?"...And I don't have an answer for this...I have my own theory...but I don't have a foregone answer.

I think that theory gets people heated because they do want to love Abby, and I think much like many of us here did, they feel emotionally connected and the need to defend the character....but at what point do we sit back and say "hey, its just a character, its just a movie, why are we getting so upset by someone else thinking differently?"

Sorry that went a bit off topic towards the end