An immature and immoral film? (spoilers)

I saw Let the Right One In a few months ago and I was just thinking about it again recently. It seems I am one of the few people who really did not like this film, and was wondering why is that exactly. The film to me appeared to be extremely immoral in the sense that there is no real justification in the killings by the main characters. By the end, tons of people are are carelessly slaughtered, but for what reason? The main thing that got me angry about this film was the killing of Jocke (I think that was his name anyways) and both his friend and his wife. The whole movie I found myself rooting for him to get redemption, but it was never taken and he just ends up dying as well. I find myself having no reason at all to like either of the main characters, and by the end I hated them both. How can people like a film with such disgusting characters? By the end was I supposed to think that this movie was cute? Is there error in my logic? I’m just wondering what everyone finds so appealing in this film.

@Sunny

The film to me appeared to be extremely immoral in the sense that there is no real justification in the killings by the main characters.

Well, she needed their blood to survive. The killings may not have been “right”, but there is some justification to it, right?

It’s been a while since I’ve seen the film, but, while I liked it, I didn’t love it like others. I thought the boy’s acting could have been better and I felt the film was sluggish at some points. I did like the premise, though.

Why do you find Oskar repulsive? He didn’t do anything wrong. As for Eli, judging her harshly for killing humans seems a bit like judging a lion harshly for killing antelopes – it’s just how she survives. Her manipulative nature on the other hand is more…questionable (and makes the film more difficult to approach – is it a beautiful tale of childhood friendship (with vampires), or is she just befriending Oskar in order that she can get someone who can replace Håkan as the person who helps her feed), though a character having negative qualities doesn’t make the film immoral or immature (it would be immature to have perfect characters who do no wrong whatsoever, wouldn’t it?)…

Sorry if this post lacks coherence, just typing thoughts as they come to me >_>

Edit: Oh, and I thought both the lead child performances were excellent, and that it wasn’t sluggish at all but rather dreamy, beautiful and evocative (in response to Jazzahola), but tastes differ I guess…

I understand she needed the blood to survive, but that in no way makes it morally correct for her to slaughter these innocent people. Jocke’s wife made an honorable decision in killing herself when she had been turned into a vampire. Eli was a bad person and towards the end I was waiting for SOME revenge to be taken towards her.

“I understand she needed the blood to survive, but that in no way makes it morally correct for her to slaughter these innocent people.”

I understand that lions need antelope meat to survive, but that in no way makes it morally correct for them to slaughter those innocent antelopes :S

Also I just found out that the characters name I am referring to is Lacke, not Jocke.

Eli is a desperate terrified lonely child unable to grow up doing what she has to do to survive, what she does may be morally wrong, that doesn’t mean we can’t empathise and feel a deep sadness for her awful dilemma, she clearly know what she is doing is wrong, she doesn’t want to be what she is but in the concrete reality created in the film her actions are perfectly understandable. I don’t believe she was manipulative either, she didn’t want to befriend Oskar, once she met someone with an understanding of the loneliness she felt she and he forced together. It’s about desperation and loneliness, and the awful violence that it causes. Wanting children to commit suicide (which is what you are arguing it seems “honorable decision in killing herself”) isn’t particularly moral either… I thought it a beautifully looking and constructed meditation on the hell of loneliness, the hell of being bullied by the outside world, and the inevitable violence that it causes, can easily allegorically be applied to so many things. What a stupid thread.

I find humans to be more valuable than vampires with no morals. That is all I am saying. Is that a wrong opinion?

Thanks for your reply Allan, but you don’t have to say my thread is stupid :( I am just asking a question.

Allan said, What a stupid thread.

Aww, everything you said before this was good, but you almost ruined it with that last comment. I don’t think this is a dumb thread at all.

I agree that the movie is not good, more atmosphere than anything of substance

but I question what kind of morality one would expect watching a vampire tale

@Dennis

I saw Thirst around the same time and found that to be a much more moral tale by the end.

Vampires aren’t real though… and as I said if you can’t see the social allegory in good horror, don’t bother. Her character was that of a human child with essentially an awful awful disease of needing blood to live, a lonely desperate child who had lost all hope (until Oskar) is a pretty sympathetic character I feel, so yea I think you’re wrong.

even so searching out morality or expecting morality from horror is and should be a losing battle

“Vampires aren’t real though….”

What is that supposed to mean? In the movie they are real and that is all that matters. I know she had an awful disease, but she was harming others with her disease. When I see Lacke and his family slaughtered when he is completely innocent, I cant help but feel great sympathy for him. I felt his killing goes unpunished and I felt that was immoral.

It was in response to “I find humans to be more valuable than vampires with no morals.” and as I said, she does have morals, she knew what she was doing was wrong, but when it comes to survival people do very rash desperate immoral things. Look at Suicide Bombers (not to derail this with politics), however absolutely heinous and immoral their behaviour is (I am not disputing that), it has an objective cause. How desperate must one be to commit such an act, I am obviously much more sympathetic to the innocent victims (as I am with the Lacke family) but that doesn’t mean that the bomber his or herself isn’t deserving of empathy, how else do we learn to understand it. Most violent crime happens in the poorest most poverty stricken communities, desperation causes people to do the most abominable things.

As I said in my previous post, I felt the killing of the innocent lives go unpunished and that is what i was angered by. I do feel sympathy for Eli and her condition, however even if what she did was survival it WAS a wrongdoing. I understand she is a desperate and lonely person, however she is a killer. I guess I see where you are coming from when you say that this is a film about desperation, and how it can cause people to do abominable things, however at the end I was just left frustrated and angered to see such acts (even if they are for survival) go unpunished (and the fact that the door is left open for her to keep on killing).

Sunny! you seem like you’re too nice for this kind of movie. It’s not a morality tale, so to look for the moral to the story is futile. You may need to stick to classic film noir where bad deeds rarely go unpunished.

Eating to survive isn’t immoral.

@Malik
So if Eli ate your family you would call it a moral act.

@Scubadonc
I don’t know, just watching completely innocent likable people die without any sort of redemption bothers me.

No. It’s not an issue of morality. It’s what animals do. I certainly wouldn’t be happy about it, but it doesn’t register on my morality scale of ‘right’ or ‘wrong’. This reminds me of that scene in Donnie Darko.

@Sunny! Surely you want rehabilitation rather than punishment? Do you believe in capital punishment and that’s why the film offends you morally? (I’m not being accusatory here, just curious!)

I loved the film and the book. I think the film and Eli stand up on their own, all the characters are ethically complex as lots of people have illustrated on this thread. In the book however, I would say there’s a counterpoint evil in Hakan, who is perhaps interesting to compare Eli to. He is a paedophile that physically degenerates into a grotesque, inhuman, almost unstoppable primal evil; very different to Eli, who is an articulate child and predatory survivor.

I love Eli’s character, he/she is enigmatic and terrifying. I felt very sorry for the character who dies as a result of trying to help her, a lesser man would have survived.

Rehabilitation would be fine, I just wanted her slaughter to come to an end. To me, the film played out like a monster who comes into town, kills a bunch of people, and leaves without anything happening to the monster. Yes, the monster is a lonely creature, but having no lesson being learned by this creature, I felt it was a bad element to have for a film.

wait wait wait,

are you asking whether the character in the film is immoral, or if the film itself is immoral?

either way…

I am saying that I think the film itself is immoral.

but all you’ve been discussing is the immorality of the main character. that’s not even close to being the same thing.

MATT!!! MATT!!! WHERE ARE YOU?!?!?!?!?!?! FACEPALM!! FACEPALM!!

This film is a tragedy, but that does not make it immoral. It’s just that the evil personified in this setting is too powerful to be overcome.

Whether the vampires are truly evil or just surviving (or both) is somewhat beside the point. Humans in reality may be at the top of the food chain, but imagine how we’d regard a predator that was above us. I’m guessing not by trying to understand their survival instincts.

The resonant theme of Let the Right One In, however, I believe is the inability to recognize something for what it is. It’s a great film because it goes after the audience’s perceptiveness as well (without cheating).

Eli is not befriending Oskar. She is not lonely and, most importantly, she is not a child. The fact that she appears to be all those things is what gives the film levels.

Oskar is destined to be her slave until he is no longer of use. This is a sad ending, but not an immoral one.

When you live to be 400 years old morality sort of fizzles itself out. That being said the film’s intent is not at all immoral and Eli is meant to be an endearing character.

-MATT!!! MATT!!! WHERE ARE YOU?!?!?!?!?!?!-

Just getting here now . . . sorry.

^^Robert Pattinson