Question about the Pool Scene.

[drakkar]

I am being semi-facetious as I haven't seen the commentary and don't know what they said and I would imagine that they probably wouldn't exactly define what they hoped to put on the screen. It may be the case that a director and writer could have a non-unified vision, i.e. a director has the final cut and may impose his take on the story.

I believe TA is referring more to his style than about the actual content/intent. TA has said in interviews that he prefer the suggesting style, showing the audience the story without actually telling it what to think. People are supposed to think for themselves, to discover the details and to figure out their significance. This is also what I hear when I listen to the comments, that given the film, there might be more than one way the audience might put together the pieces, TA/JAL listing up a few. "The cycle" theory also is a result of his choice of style, it's almost as his films becomes personality tests - tell me what you think about LTROI and I will tell you who you are.

[sauvin]

... it's almost as his films becomes personality tests - tell me what you think about LTROI and I will tell you who you are.

Gee, where have I heard this before?

[drakkar]

Gee, where have I heard this before?

Oh, yes, but it is also an issue about projecting the story into one own's reality might yield different conclusions.

The picture below is taken a few kilometer from where the LTROI stageplay is showing 12th December. This freezing reality is what a local (or Scandinavian, perhaps) audience will place Oskar in when pondering the possibility of Eli and Oskar running avay together. Then it makes sense that Oskar would have to be turned, or else he would freeze to death, or some deus ex machina keeping oske alive through the winter has to be constructed.

If you are living in a warmer part of the world, where Oskar is likely to make it through the winter, other possibilities might enter enter your mind.

[gattoparde59]

sauvin wrote:
Gee, where have I heard this before?

Oh, yes, but it is also an issue about projecting the story into one own's reality might yield different conclusions.

That may be what Jacob Hultcrantz was getting at when asked about his bunnies on stage. The audience draws its own conclusions, or has a certain emotional reaction to something which could be contradicted if it was interpreted for them. The same problem comes up when there is a book to film adaptation. The reader's very private and personal reaction to the story may be contradicted by what shows up on screen.

[drakkar]

That may be what Jacob Hultcrantz was getting at when asked about his bunnies on stage. The audience draws its own conclusions, or has a certain emotional reaction to something which could be contradicted if it was interpreted for them.

We are straying away from the topic now, but skitt au: When I talked to Hultcrantz I got it he introduced the bunnies and the fox because he wanted them to be open to interpretation from the audience, as if some kind of nod to Alfredson and the film. Perhaps he also wanted to add a little for us to interpret, because in other respects the play was quite straightforward book version. We got to know that Håkan was on his way to the third attempt, and now he better suceeded, whe got the entire Håkan/Eli relationship, the slow approach between Oskar and Eli, etc. So we mainly got the reasons why the characters did what, and their development. (Nina Åkerlund was fantastic in portraying Eli as an intimidated child towards Håkan in the start of the play, there was some eerie elements of Håkan being a parental figure).

[Jameron]

Did they happen to mention what they were trying to put on the screen?

I am being semi-facetious as I haven't seen the commentary and don't know what they said and I would imagine that they probably wouldn't exactly define what they hoped to put on the screen. It may be the case that a director and writer could have a non-unified vision, i.e. a director has the final cut and may impose his take on the story. The movie seems more ambiguous than the novel, but there was only two hours allowed for the film and that necessitated compromise.

They spoke about John having wanted the have the camera seeing the bullies being killed from under the water as if the camera was Oskar's eyes, but Tomas felt it was better to keep Oskar in the shot, and we see Eli's revenge in the background. This would keep Oskar as the focus of the story in that scene and the killing just happens in the background. Tomas felt it was more in keeping with the theme of "Oskar's Story", and John agreed. Also, Tomas explained the reason why we don't see the glass hitting the water from Eli breaking in through the window ... it was too dangerous for the crew and actors to have broken glass flying through the air. So it looks like Tomas had the final say, but it was still a collaboration.

The line "Tomas: Somebody came with the idea that ... er ... that Oskar dies in this scene..." tells me that this was not the same as his idea of the scene. It's just the wording of it that suggests that it was new to him when he heard it originally. That and the chuckling.

[gattoparde59]

gattoparde59 wrote:
That may be what Jacob Hultcrantz was getting at when asked about his bunnies on stage. The audience draws its own conclusions, or has a certain emotional reaction to something which could be contradicted if it was interpreted for them.
We are straying away from the topic now, but skitt au: When I talked to Hultcrantz I got it he introduced the bunnies and the fox because he wanted them to be open to interpretation from the audience, as if some kind of nod to Alfredson and the film. Perhaps he also wanted to add a little for us to interpret, because in other respects the play was quite straightforward book version. We got to know that Håkan was on his way to the third attempt, and now he better suceeded, whe got the entire Håkan/Eli relationship, the slow approach between Oskar and Eli, etc. So we mainly got the reasons why the characters did what, and their development. (Nina Åkerlund was fantastic in portraying Eli as an intimidated child towards Håkan in the start of the play, there was some eerie elements of Håkan being a parental figure).

I wouldn't say we strayed from the topic. Hultcrantz produced a version that was closer to the novel, and less ambiguous than the film version. Is this because the novel is less ambiguous than the film version?

[a_contemplative_life]

Gee, where have I heard this before?

Oh, yes, but it is also an issue about projecting the story into one own's reality might yield different conclusions.

The picture below is taken a few kilometer from where the LTROI stageplay is showing 12th December. This freezing reality is what a local (or Scandinavian, perhaps) audience will place Oskar in when pondering the possibility of Eli and Oskar running avay together. Then it makes sense that Oskar would have to be turned, or else he would freeze to death, or some deus ex machina keeping oske alive through the winter has to be constructed.

If you are living in a warmer part of the world, where Oskar is likely to make it through the winter, other possibilities might enter enter your mind.

Brrr! Reminds me of that fan fiction by Covenant, "Winter's Cold Breath."

http://let-the-right-one-in.com/fancont ... old-breath

[drakkar]

Brrr! Reminds me of that fan fiction by Covenant, "Winter's Cold Breath."

I believe I remember feeding him with images like that one below.

[Marlow]

This would keep Oskar as the focus of the story in that scene and the killing just happens in the background. Tomas felt it was more in keeping with the theme of "Oskar's Story", and John agreed.

When I first saw the movie I saw it as Oskar's story for several reasons. It surprised me on arriving at this site and looking around the web the degree to which people have identified with Eli; it exceeds Oskar by a significant margin. This presents an interesting aspect of subjectivity in regard to LTROI the movie.

The line "Tomas: Somebody came with the idea that ... er ... that Oskar dies in this scene..." tells me that this was not the same as his idea of the scene. It's just the wording of it that suggests that it was new to him when he heard it originally. That and the chuckling.

I think one reason that the "it's all in Oskar's head" interpretation which can include Oskar dying in the pool has an appeal is that it conforms with commonly experienced reality. There may be artistically symbolic vampires, but not literal ones. The ethereal quality of the final train scene could be seen as the dreamy state of a realized love (Romantic) or a dying endorphic fantasy (Realist). Fantasy is part of the human reality of the mind and empirical sensation/perception is as well. An ambiguous work can be parsed, but a definitive answer is dependent on a singular perspective and that is excluded by the nature of art and the human mind.