Triumph vs. Tragedy

For discussion of Matt Reeve's Film Let Me In

Moderator: LMI Moderator

Post Reply
User avatar
metoo
Posts: 3677
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2011 12:36 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Triumph vs. Tragedy

Post by metoo » Tue Jan 13, 2015 5:11 pm

lombano wrote:Haakan never made any attempt to actually connect with Eli, to actually get to know Eli. You'd think you'd at least try to make conversation not about demands and bargains with someone living under the same rood, but Haakan never did. In essence, his conversation never seems to have changed from the initial meeting - "I can't afford such a beauty" in response to "you're going to be with me." Why would Haakan not make even the least attempt to actually get to know Eli (contrast this with Oskar's conversation)?

How do you know that Håkan never did try to connect?

However, I have to acknowledge that Håkan appears quite self centred, so you might be right. But absence of evidence is not evidence of the contrary.
lombano wrote:He didn't see that Eli was a child in a child's body instead of an ancient person in a child's body - and he was careful not to see.
Håkan believed that Eli was an old person in a child's body, because Eli was behaving that way at first. And Eli must have told Håkan about his chronological age, while apparently keeping the fact that he still was a child inside a secret. Finally, Håkan did notice when Eli started to change in response to Oskar's influence, so he wasn't totally blind to that.
lombano wrote:For me, the defining moments are when Eli bluntly answers yes, she only "loves" Haakan to the extent he helps her stay alive, and Haakan saying "you'd better start loving me, then" is response to Eli's protests about being too weak to provide her own blood. Eli is, whatever else, clearly honest. At any rate, even her definition of love seems more wholesome than Haakan's de facto definition.
Well, Håkan indeed seems to try to force Eli into loving him here. At least that is what it sounds like. But you should not forget what Eli was asking for. Furthermore, Håkan was upset, felt inadequate, and was under rather hard pressure from Eli. So maybe that "you'd better start loving me, then" wasn't more than some thoughtless words, a mean reply from a very frustrated man.
Last edited by metoo on Tue Jan 13, 2015 7:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
But from the beginning Eli was just Eli. Nothing. Anything. And he is still a mystery to me. John Ajvide Lindqvist

User avatar
PeteMork
Posts: 3781
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 9:56 pm
Location: Menlo Park, California

Re: Triumph vs. Tragedy

Post by PeteMork » Tue Jan 13, 2015 6:54 pm

metoo wrote:So maybe that "you'd better start loving me, then" wasn't more than some thoughtless words, a mean reply from a very frustrated man.
That was my take on this empty threat also. It was just Håkan's frustrated response to a frustrating relationship.
We never stop reading, although every book comes to an end, just as we never stop living, although death is certain. (Roberto Bolaño)

User avatar
sauvin
Moderator
Posts: 3410
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 5:52 am
Location: A cornfield in heartland USA

Re: Triumph vs. Tragedy

Post by sauvin » Tue Jan 13, 2015 7:21 pm

People who haven't read the book can't follow the bulk of the foregoing posts meaningfully unless or until they do read it. Likewise, people who've not read the book and not seen the Swedish movie would have a great deal of trouble with much of the recent discussion, having seen only LMI. As much as possible, I'd think it'd be appropriate to "try" to confine the discussion to what can be found only in the movies if we're trying to decide if Eli was more triumphant - or tragic - than Abby, or Oskar more or less so than Owen.

Either movie has variances from the novel, perhaps the most major being in Haakan's role and character being minimised or fundamentally changed. We can't really use novel Haakan (or novel Eli) in discussing their interactions with a view towards developing an impression of her character because movie Haakan is almost nothing more than a handservant, errand boy; a man who exists only to die in order to lend focus to a transition point in Eli's (possible) development. We also can't use novel Haakan in discussing Abby's relationship with Thomas and how it reflects on her character because she probably didn't dump preteen Thomas's bottle of hooch out, saying "You will help me", with his hand stroking her thigh and regretting he couldn't afford her. It seems highly unlikely that she found him in a rage of despair after having been burned out of his job and his home for looking at pictures of other children his own age.

A couple of errant thoughts, without rereading the foregoing posts closely:

I want to know what love is (I want you to show me). Novel Eli readily enough agreed that love is all about mutual benefit in practical terms. Poets, novelists, song-writers and other lunatics might beg to differ, claiming there's some intangible and invisible dimension to love that allows for "unconditionality", something that transcends the purely practical, or even anything at all "worldly". People who study evolutionary psychology might agree with both points of view, but obliquely: to them, love might very well just be an evolved trait that helps preserve a species by causing it to marshal its members' resources, even to the point of voluntary individual self sacrifice. In this light, a parent's or sibling's "unconditional love" is still based on the premise that preserving the unconditionally loved maximises the probability of said parent's direct or sibling's partial blood line surviving the ages.

We view such characters as Grutas ("Hannibal Rising") and Hannibal Lecter as repugnant for this reason. They represent the exact antithesis of this "love" that's probably been part of our innate instinct since (or even before since) our species fell out of the trees and sprouted oversized frontal lobes. They represent the ultimately self-centered, people for whom the health, safety, comfort and welfare of others form no part of their social calculus. There's no concern for the continued survival of the species beyond perhaps a specific blood line - their own. We don't even get that Dr. Lecter has any interest in sex at all.

(Hrm... I wonder if some interesting parallels between LTROI and Hannibal (book or movie) could be drawn..., even if Starling never play-acted at stabbing trees...)

I don't find bringing wolves into the discussion particularly relevant. Wolves love, too, probably some more than others, and some are loved more than others. It would be unsurprising to learn that lupine bonding mechanisms differ from those of human, because... well... wolves are not anthropoids, and men are not canids. If we say that what they have isn't what we call "love", then maybe someday a species of wolf will evolve the power of speech, if only to ask "Yeah? Says who?"

Since their forebears have been carnivores stretching back into the gazillions of years, it's probably accurate to note they feel no guilt when making a kill, but I don't remember reading anywhere about one wolf eating another. That doesn't mean it doesn't happen - cannibalism in the animal kingdom does occur on occasion - but what would really bake my noodle is reading about a wolf, or a whole species of subspecies of wolf, whose diet can abide no other source of food. It seems to be a natural law: wolves don't eat wolves, bears don't eat bears, cats don't eat cats, and the only conditions under which this natural law might be disregarded among the "higher" animals would involve extremity.

Wolves have been observed to mourn. In the documentary I remember watching, the wolf who'd passed on had been the least of that pack's members. For this reason, if one wolf should kill and eat another, I'd certainly think guilt wouldn't be out of the question.

Hrm... think I'll pick up a couple of tenderloins on the way to work, or maybe a couple of chicken breast sandwiches.
Fais tomber les barrières entre nous qui sommes tous des frères

User avatar
metoo
Posts: 3677
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2011 12:36 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Triumph vs. Tragedy

Post by metoo » Tue Jan 13, 2015 7:34 pm



Sorry, couldn't resist...
But from the beginning Eli was just Eli. Nothing. Anything. And he is still a mystery to me. John Ajvide Lindqvist

User avatar
dongregg
Posts: 3937
Joined: Sun Jul 21, 2013 10:58 pm
Location: Atlanta
Contact:

Re: Triumph vs. Tragedy

Post by dongregg » Tue Jan 13, 2015 7:44 pm

sauvin wrote:People who haven't read the book can't follow the bulk of the foregoing posts meaningfully unless or until they do read it. Likewise, people who've not read the book and not seen the Swedish movie would have a great deal of trouble with much of the recent discussion, having seen only LMI. As much as possible, I'd think it'd be appropriate to "try" to confine the discussion to what can be found only in the movies if we're trying to decide if Eli was more triumphant - or tragic - than Abby, or Oskar more or less so than Owen.

Either movie has variances from the novel, perhaps the most major being in Haakan's role and character being minimised or fundamentally changed. We can't really use novel Haakan (or novel Eli) in discussing their interactions with a view towards developing an impression of her character because movie Haakan is almost nothing more than a handservant, errand boy; a man who exists only to die in order to lend focus to a transition point in Eli's (possible) development. We also can't use novel Haakan in discussing Abby's relationship with Thomas and how it reflects on her character because she probably didn't dump preteen Thomas's bottle of hooch out, saying "You will help me", with his hand stroking her thigh and regretting he couldn't afford her. It seems highly unlikely that she found him in a rage of despair after having been burned out of his job and his home for looking at pictures of other children his own age.
Thanks, sauvin. Playing off the two films and the book against one another always seems to end in a muddle. I'm sure it's great fun, but what's the point? Each is a stand-alone work that tells the story and then says, "The End."
“For drama to deepen, we must see the loneliness of the monster and the cunning of the innocent.”

User avatar
metoo
Posts: 3677
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2011 12:36 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Triumph vs. Tragedy

Post by metoo » Tue Jan 13, 2015 10:17 pm

dongregg wrote:Thanks, sauvin. Playing off the two films and the book against one another always seems to end in a muddle. I'm sure it's great fun, but what's the point? Each is a stand-alone work that tells the story and then says, "The End."
Some of us are more interested in the story than in the individual works per se. For us the point is that contrasting them against each other highlights the story, and makes us understand it better.
But from the beginning Eli was just Eli. Nothing. Anything. And he is still a mystery to me. John Ajvide Lindqvist

jetboy
Posts: 609
Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2009 5:22 pm

Re: Triumph v s. Tragedy

Post by jetboy » Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:13 am

To bring it back to the OP, I agree somewhat with him or her. Not in how I like or dislike it, just in what its all about. I don't think Abbeys all evil and Owens powerless against his destiny. If Owen is Thomas and Thomas never escaped then Thomas wanted to be there. Its not his dream life but its something and its with somebody who cares for him and knows him and will have his back. This is the pull for Owen in his topsy turvey world. He will be grounded, emotionally at least, and the misery of everything else is the cost for that.

I disagree with OPs views on LTROI in that it isn't foregone conclusion that Eli will turn Oskar.

User avatar
dongregg
Posts: 3937
Joined: Sun Jul 21, 2013 10:58 pm
Location: Atlanta
Contact:

Re: Triumph vs. Tragedy

Post by dongregg » Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:25 am

metoo wrote:Some of us are more interested in the story than in the individual works per se. For us the point is that contrasting them against each other highlights the story, and makes us understand it better.
Right. Carry on then.
“For drama to deepen, we must see the loneliness of the monster and the cunning of the innocent.”

User avatar
lombano
Posts: 2993
Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 9:56 pm
Location: Xalapa, Mexico
Contact:

Re: Triumph vs. Tragedy

Post by lombano » Thu Jan 15, 2015 2:53 am

metoo wrote:How do you know that Håkan never did try to connect?
Because surely he would've at least learned that Eli was still a child, or at least had doubts. He was, instead, completely ignorant about Eli, he was even unsure about the invitation rule.

metoo wrote:Well, Håkan indeed seems to try to force Eli into loving him here. At least that is what it sounds like. But you should not forget what Eli was asking for. Furthermore, Håkan was upset, felt inadequate, and was under rather hard pressure from Eli. So maybe that "you'd better start loving me, then" wasn't more than some thoughtless words, a mean reply from a very frustrated man.
In context - with Eli bargaining for him to get her something she needed to survive, it seems more than thoughtlessness. He may have hated killing, but the proof is in the pudding, and he could have just walked away from the job any morning.

sauvin wrote: We can't really use novel Haakan (or novel Eli) in discussing their interactions with a view towards developing an impression of her character because movie Haakan is almost nothing more than a handservant, errand boy; a man who exists only to die in order to lend focus to a transition point in Eli's (possible) development. We also can't use novel Haakan in discussing Abby's relationship with Thomas and how it reflects on her character because she probably didn't dump preteen Thomas's bottle of hooch out, saying "You will help me", with his hand stroking her thigh and regretting he couldn't afford her. It seems highly unlikely that she found him in a rage of despair after having been burned out of his job and his home for looking at pictures of other children his own age.
All true. Sorry, we just got carried away on a tangent. My only point was to explain why I didn't think Abby was worse than novel Haakan.
sauvin wrote:It seems to be a natural law: wolves don't eat wolves, bears don't eat bears, cats don't eat cats, and the only conditions under which this natural law might be disregarded among the "higher" animals would involve extremity.
It does seem to be true of mammals, usually, but even then not always - when a lion takes over a pride, he eats all the existing cubs. Cannibalism seems routine among spiders and insects. Note that there is also a pragmatic reason for avoiding cannibalism: if you're a carnivore and a predator, others of your species are also going to be equipped to fight; hunting wolves, if you're a wolf, is dangerous business. Eli and Abby are an interesting special case, since they have strengths and weaknesses other humans don't. I don't remember if Abby weeps when she kills the jogger, but that, and broadly how either vampire feels about it is maybe not essential to whether the relationship is more or less a triumph or a tragedy.
Bli mig lite.

User avatar
metoo
Posts: 3677
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2011 12:36 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Triumph vs. Tragedy

Post by metoo » Thu Jan 15, 2015 7:25 pm

metoo wrote:How do you know that Håkan never did try to connect?
lombano wrote:Because surely he would've at least learned that Eli was still a child, or at least had doubts. He was, instead, completely ignorant about Eli, he was even unsure about the invitation rule.
Probably you are right. If Håkan had connected, he would have learned. But what if Eli did not want Håkan to connect? Eli needed Håkan to provide blood, and would have done what was necessary for that purpose. Given Håkan's scruples against actually utilising children, it would be counterproductive for Eli to reveal his inner child. One should also consider that Håkan found going Eli's errands very taxing, like most people would. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that Eli did not blurt out such a request immediately. Instead, Eli would have cautiously seduced Håkan, slowly leading him into doing what he needed him to do. And Eli was not reluctant to use deception when it suited him.

Furthermore, I think we have a consensus at this forum that Eli did re-learn to be a child from Oskar. When Eli first met Oskar, he talked like an adult. At least Oskar thought so. And even Oskar at least once got the impression that Eli was very old, long before he had heard Eli actually saying so. Maybe Eli showed the old face that Oskar glimpsed more often to Håkan? Maybe he was like that all the time before he met Oskar? Håkan's reminiscences support this view: "He had looked into Eli's eyes and seen an ancient person's wisdom and indifference." (My translation.)

Another ting: One should not overlook the way the human mind works regarding ideas and evidence that support or contradict them. We have to be very alert to avoid falling into the trap that our minds set up for us, i.e. that we readily make notice of supportive evidence, while easily overlooking the contradictory. So if Håkan - with Eli's benign assistance - had been lead into believing that Eli was not a child, he might simply not have been able to see the occasional sign of youth until the truth became too overwhelming.

Regarding knowledge of the invitation rule, I think you ask too much of Håkan. He didn't know if he needed to speak, or if making a sign would be equivalent. But he never had had any reason to learn that before, since he had been able to speak. Besides, it seems that he had tried to understand the rule; the novel says "he had never really understood that" (my translation), implying that Håkan had at least thought about it before. Had he asked Eli? Who knows. Maybe he had, and maybe Eli didn't fully understand it himself.

I don't expect to convince you of my view, lombano, but if I don't, this exercise still has not been a waste to me. I have looked deeper into Eli's and Håkan's relationship, and therefore learnt more about what Eli needs to do to stay alive.

And, finally, I apologise for pirating this thread...
But from the beginning Eli was just Eli. Nothing. Anything. And he is still a mystery to me. John Ajvide Lindqvist

Post Reply

Return to “Let Me In”