Howdy folks, I posted this over at the HTF, and I thought you all might enjoy as well.
There are in my opinion several clues to suggest that Eli’s relationship with Oskar is much, much different than with Hakan.
From the first time we really see Hakan and Eli interact with one another as they’re being dropped off by the taxi cab, we are aware that Eli is the dominant party in the relationship. Eli walks into the apartment building straight away leaving Hakan to struggle with their things. This is of course more apparent during the scene where we hear Eli berating Hakan for botching the murder. Eli is a thousand times more powerful and terrifying than Hakan will ever be, and the only thing that Hakan can do is capitulate and beg forgiveness. Another good example is the scene where she tells Hakan that he might not want to go out, and she very mechanically touches his cheek. Hakan sinks into himself for a moment, relishing the physical affection, but it’s clear that Eli feels nothing and is performing this act precisely because she knows what it’ll do to Hakan. It’s also possible at this point in the story that Eli is willfully putting Hakan at risk, with full knowledge of what he’ll do if he’s caught. Manipulative, mechanical actions toward Hakan can also be seen in the hospital scene, there’s even a hint of what might be contempt for Hakan after we see him fall out of the window. This might’ve been the plan all along. It’s interesting to note the role-reversal here regarding pedophilia…it’s the adult who grooms the child, not the other way ’round as it is here. Eli is a manipulative monster and I believe she has had to learn to become that to avoid emotional pain.
On the contrary, we see her interactions with Oskar and witness Eli making herself vulnerable many times. There are also instances of Eli initating physical affection towards Oskar, and she displays actual emotion.
However, the scene that made me believe there is an element of codependency between Oskar and Eli is the scene where we hear Eli telling Oskar he needs to stand up for himself. It’s possible that Eli sees Oskar as a “project”, and is drawn to him because he has always been a victim. She is obviously a predator in the animal sense, but may also be a predator in the psychological sense. (as a side note, it’s interesting to me to think about which came first…was Eli naturally this way and it’s a fit with her vampire side, or has the wiring in her brain adapted to being a predator?)
Oskar readily accepts these roles. I don’t believe Oskar knows how or wants to be the dominant party in any relationship.
There are also a couple of instances where Eli has to control her most base instinctual urges regarding Oskar: The cellar scene of course, and another most people might miss. There is a scene after Hakan has not returned with the second boy’s blood and Eli is doubled over in pain facing Oskar’s wall. She raises her hand to tap on the wall, but hesitates and ultimately does not. She might’ve been thinking about Oskar as a potential meal. We see her later still idly tapping on the wall when she hears the radio report about Hakan and makes the decision to visit him.
There’s also of course the pool scene…she knows she has to go away, but willingly potentially sacrifices herself for Oskar’s life. She uses the part of herself that she hates, and is embarrassed by, to save Oskar. She makes herself vulnerable to herself here, too.
I love both directors for very different reasons, but I honestly believe that Kurosawa will have more of a lasting impact on the way we view cinema. His primary training was as a painter — and it certainly shows up in all of his films. He paints in the corner, and takes pain to ensure an evocative composition in absolutely every shot.
There is of course also the matter of “spoon feeding” the audience the ‘message’ of the picture versus simply showing action and allowing the audience to come to their own conclusions (certainly though with an eye toward a goal). I do not believe that Stone is interested in doing this. He has something to say, and he makes damn sure that the audience understands it his way.
One may take it in terms of egotistical vs. ego-less filmmaking: Kurosawa’s intent is never to force the audience to experience him or his view (he is interested in telling a good story…well.). Stone’s approach to guiding the audience through a picture involves hitting them with quarters at the bottom of a tube sock.
That is not to say I haven’t enjoyed some of Stone’s pictures.
That’s because Tarantino isn’t really interested in creating fully fleshed-out characters. Their motivations within the story are primarily due to outside forces acting upon them, rather than characters exerting their will on the world. We have little indication of internal narratives, and there are virtually no clues to allow us into their internal worlds. We as the audience are kind of sociopaths with regard to characters in Tarantino movies.
But honestly, that’s OK with me. Tarantino makes enjoyable pictures that I don’t have to feel dumb for liking. I can’t remember an instance ever in a QT picture where I felt talked-down or condescended to.
I own the “Masterworks Edition” of Ran as well as the CC. The former is an absolutely shameful presentation.
I’d also like to say how painful this news is. I love this film dearly and only hope that another capable company can rise to the challenge of presenting it to us on Blu.
There Wil Be Blood
Synecdoche, NY
Let the Right One In (not for everyone…)
Mulholland Dr. (and to a lesser extent the wonderful meditation on life that is Inland Empire. It’s just not as tight a picture, but worth the effort)
No Country for Old Men
Zodiac
We are lucky to be living now to see these wonderful movies.
Inland Empire. It’s about life and how one creates its experience.
To Justin Biberkopf above:
One could make the argument that the characters in this picture are all representative of different stages of life existing in different forms, and as such we never really get a handle on them as people that might exist outside of what we see and aren’t intended to. So we might HAVE to make the leap that their existence in the film is to make an emotional point and not to exist as characters.
They are, in a way, emotional devices used to fantastic effect and not necessarily intended to be fully fleshed-out characters.
I think maybe I need to make my opinion clearer: I do NOT believe that Eli was grooming Oskar to be a replacement for Hakan.
Eli made the decision to return to Oskar’s life after having left. She could have easily steeled herself to be as emotionally numb as she’s had to be countless times before. She didn’t. She fell for Oskar and Oskar fell for her.
I think that Eli had found someone who she could understand in a way she couldn’t other people. If Eli were a sociopath, as I believe she is, Oskar may be the first person that exists emotionally to her. I’d wager it’d be difficult to conceive of emotion in people who A)Do not understand you and will not accept you, B)You do not understand because you exist in shadow and apart from them, and finally C)You have to use as food.
If Eli treated Oskar this way and thought of Oskar this way she simply would not have made herself as vulnerable as she did. There would be no point. The “coming in uninvited” scene actually has Eli willingly commiting suicide for Oskar. There would not have been a way out of that situation had she not trusted Oskar enough and wanted to illustrate that she’d made herself vulnerable for him. In Oskar, Eli found someone like herself and could have real sympathy for her situation.
In the book (I know the book is not the film, but this is important…) Eli very matter-of-factly TELLS Hakan how it’s going to be, and Hakan complies. Between Oskar and Eli there is actual interaction, a back and forth — both concerning the initation of physical affection and the exchange of power. Eli is simply always in charge of Hakan. She manipulates him and does not care about him. He is a potentially useful tool, nothing more.
On a completely different note, I think another major theme in this movie is the entire idea of gender identity as it relates to the whole concept of romantic love. I think this is one of the sweetest, purest love stories I’ve ever seen on film. Both have basically no gender identity (at the moment at least for Oskar, and he may never actually develop a gender identity because of his relationship with Eli), and their relationship is based solely on a very fundamental understanding of another human being, wholly untangled from the weeds of sexuality. “Then we’re together.” This is said only after Eli verifies just what Oskar is after, and is OK with it. This is the warm little campfire in the middle of all the cold and dark of this movie.
One last thing (OK maybe not): This film’s use of sound is PHENOMENAL. Not only are the sounds made punctuate by the silence they exist in, but very specific ones are chosen to evoke other senses and sense memory in the viewer. Just a quick couple of examples: The sound of the snow crunching under Oskar and Eli’s feet (who doesn’t hear that and immediately get ten other sensations associated with that? All of a sudden you’re cold, the bottoms of your pant legs are wet, the back of your neck is chilled, etc etc) and the sound of the boy Hakan killed’s blood as it dribbles sickly into the container. The sound used for that lets you instantly get a feel for the plastic jug, the viscosity of the blood, etc.
Another thing that pleases me immensely about this picture is Oskar’s line about how Eli smells bad. You just don’t get that in most movies. You don’t get to know what characters smell like. Not only is it used as a device later to show that Eli wants to please Oskar, but it’s used to add yet another dimension of reality to the illusion of the movie.
I will readily admit that his films are off-putting at first. I often do not enjoy them the first time I see them. There is very little material in them that is immediately accessible to me, and I often feel that some of his choices are less about an artistic goal than they are about being “clever”.
However, given some time with his films, and some time to get past the veil of his neuroses that manifest themselves on-screen, his films ARE often very rewarding. A lot of my love for movies comes right from Gilliam.
The only film of Gilliam’s that I loved immediately was Tideland — to go contrary to the initial poster, I identified with Jeliza Rose in ways that I am not entirely comfortable with. I think Gilliam is growing as a filmmaker, which is awesome. I hope his best work is still to come.
Let the Right One In about 3 years ago
Howdy folks, I posted this over at the HTF, and I thought you all might enjoy as well.
There are in my opinion several clues to suggest that Eli’s relationship with Oskar is much, much different than with Hakan.
From the first time we really see Hakan and Eli interact with one another as they’re being dropped off by the taxi cab, we are aware that Eli is the dominant party in the relationship. Eli walks into the apartment building straight away leaving Hakan to struggle with their things. This is of course more apparent during the scene where we hear Eli berating Hakan for botching the murder. Eli is a thousand times more powerful and terrifying than Hakan will ever be, and the only thing that Hakan can do is capitulate and beg forgiveness. Another good example is the scene where she tells Hakan that he might not want to go out, and she very mechanically touches his cheek. Hakan sinks into himself for a moment, relishing the physical affection, but it’s clear that Eli feels nothing and is performing this act precisely because she knows what it’ll do to Hakan. It’s also possible at this point in the story that Eli is willfully putting Hakan at risk, with full knowledge of what he’ll do if he’s caught. Manipulative, mechanical actions toward Hakan can also be seen in the hospital scene, there’s even a hint of what might be contempt for Hakan after we see him fall out of the window. This might’ve been the plan all along. It’s interesting to note the role-reversal here regarding pedophilia…it’s the adult who grooms the child, not the other way ’round as it is here. Eli is a manipulative monster and I believe she has had to learn to become that to avoid emotional pain.
On the contrary, we see her interactions with Oskar and witness Eli making herself vulnerable many times. There are also instances of Eli initating physical affection towards Oskar, and she displays actual emotion.
However, the scene that made me believe there is an element of codependency between Oskar and Eli is the scene where we hear Eli telling Oskar he needs to stand up for himself. It’s possible that Eli sees Oskar as a “project”, and is drawn to him because he has always been a victim. She is obviously a predator in the animal sense, but may also be a predator in the psychological sense. (as a side note, it’s interesting to me to think about which came first…was Eli naturally this way and it’s a fit with her vampire side, or has the wiring in her brain adapted to being a predator?)
Oskar readily accepts these roles. I don’t believe Oskar knows how or wants to be the dominant party in any relationship.
There are also a couple of instances where Eli has to control her most base instinctual urges regarding Oskar: The cellar scene of course, and another most people might miss. There is a scene after Hakan has not returned with the second boy’s blood and Eli is doubled over in pain facing Oskar’s wall. She raises her hand to tap on the wall, but hesitates and ultimately does not. She might’ve been thinking about Oskar as a potential meal. We see her later still idly tapping on the wall when she hears the radio report about Hakan and makes the decision to visit him.
There’s also of course the pool scene…she knows she has to go away, but willingly potentially sacrifices herself for Oskar’s life. She uses the part of herself that she hates, and is embarrassed by, to save Oskar. She makes herself vulnerable to herself here, too.
Thanks for the great discussions everyone.
Go to Comment
Best Director: 1986 - KUROSAWA OR STONE? about 3 years ago
I love both directors for very different reasons, but I honestly believe that Kurosawa will have more of a lasting impact on the way we view cinema. His primary training was as a painter — and it certainly shows up in all of his films. He paints in the corner, and takes pain to ensure an evocative composition in absolutely every shot.
There is of course also the matter of “spoon feeding” the audience the ‘message’ of the picture versus simply showing action and allowing the audience to come to their own conclusions (certainly though with an eye toward a goal). I do not believe that Stone is interested in doing this. He has something to say, and he makes damn sure that the audience understands it his way.
One may take it in terms of egotistical vs. ego-less filmmaking: Kurosawa’s intent is never to force the audience to experience him or his view (he is interested in telling a good story…well.). Stone’s approach to guiding the audience through a picture involves hitting them with quarters at the bottom of a tube sock.
That is not to say I haven’t enjoyed some of Stone’s pictures.
Go to Comment
Top 5 Tarantino about 3 years ago
That’s because Tarantino isn’t really interested in creating fully fleshed-out characters. Their motivations within the story are primarily due to outside forces acting upon them, rather than characters exerting their will on the world. We have little indication of internal narratives, and there are virtually no clues to allow us into their internal worlds. We as the audience are kind of sociopaths with regard to characters in Tarantino movies.
But honestly, that’s OK with me. Tarantino makes enjoyable pictures that I don’t have to feel dumb for liking. I can’t remember an instance ever in a QT picture where I felt talked-down or condescended to.
Go to Comment
Ran is now officially OOP about 3 years ago
I own the “Masterworks Edition” of Ran as well as the CC. The former is an absolutely shameful presentation.
I’d also like to say how painful this news is. I love this film dearly and only hope that another capable company can rise to the challenge of presenting it to us on Blu.
Go to Comment
The Best Films of the New Millenium about 3 years ago
There Wil Be Blood
Synecdoche, NY
Let the Right One In (not for everyone…)
Mulholland Dr. (and to a lesser extent the wonderful meditation on life that is Inland Empire. It’s just not as tight a picture, but worth the effort)
No Country for Old Men
Zodiac
We are lucky to be living now to see these wonderful movies.
Go to Comment
This or the remake? about 3 years ago
I did not like this movie. It was not an enjoyable experience.
It was in that regard very effective.
Go to Comment
Films about life. about 3 years ago
Inland Empire. It’s about life and how one creates its experience.
To Justin Biberkopf above:
One could make the argument that the characters in this picture are all representative of different stages of life existing in different forms, and as such we never really get a handle on them as people that might exist outside of what we see and aren’t intended to. So we might HAVE to make the leap that their existence in the film is to make an emotional point and not to exist as characters.
They are, in a way, emotional devices used to fantastic effect and not necessarily intended to be fully fleshed-out characters.
Go to Comment
Let the Right One In about 3 years ago
I think maybe I need to make my opinion clearer: I do NOT believe that Eli was grooming Oskar to be a replacement for Hakan.
Eli made the decision to return to Oskar’s life after having left. She could have easily steeled herself to be as emotionally numb as she’s had to be countless times before. She didn’t. She fell for Oskar and Oskar fell for her.
I think that Eli had found someone who she could understand in a way she couldn’t other people. If Eli were a sociopath, as I believe she is, Oskar may be the first person that exists emotionally to her. I’d wager it’d be difficult to conceive of emotion in people who A)Do not understand you and will not accept you, B)You do not understand because you exist in shadow and apart from them, and finally C)You have to use as food.
If Eli treated Oskar this way and thought of Oskar this way she simply would not have made herself as vulnerable as she did. There would be no point. The “coming in uninvited” scene actually has Eli willingly commiting suicide for Oskar. There would not have been a way out of that situation had she not trusted Oskar enough and wanted to illustrate that she’d made herself vulnerable for him. In Oskar, Eli found someone like herself and could have real sympathy for her situation.
In the book (I know the book is not the film, but this is important…) Eli very matter-of-factly TELLS Hakan how it’s going to be, and Hakan complies. Between Oskar and Eli there is actual interaction, a back and forth — both concerning the initation of physical affection and the exchange of power. Eli is simply always in charge of Hakan. She manipulates him and does not care about him. He is a potentially useful tool, nothing more.
On a completely different note, I think another major theme in this movie is the entire idea of gender identity as it relates to the whole concept of romantic love. I think this is one of the sweetest, purest love stories I’ve ever seen on film. Both have basically no gender identity (at the moment at least for Oskar, and he may never actually develop a gender identity because of his relationship with Eli), and their relationship is based solely on a very fundamental understanding of another human being, wholly untangled from the weeds of sexuality. “Then we’re together.” This is said only after Eli verifies just what Oskar is after, and is OK with it. This is the warm little campfire in the middle of all the cold and dark of this movie.
One last thing (OK maybe not): This film’s use of sound is PHENOMENAL. Not only are the sounds made punctuate by the silence they exist in, but very specific ones are chosen to evoke other senses and sense memory in the viewer. Just a quick couple of examples: The sound of the snow crunching under Oskar and Eli’s feet (who doesn’t hear that and immediately get ten other sensations associated with that? All of a sudden you’re cold, the bottoms of your pant legs are wet, the back of your neck is chilled, etc etc) and the sound of the boy Hakan killed’s blood as it dribbles sickly into the container. The sound used for that lets you instantly get a feel for the plastic jug, the viscosity of the blood, etc.
Another thing that pleases me immensely about this picture is Oskar’s line about how Eli smells bad. You just don’t get that in most movies. You don’t get to know what characters smell like. Not only is it used as a device later to show that Eli wants to please Oskar, but it’s used to add yet another dimension of reality to the illusion of the movie.
Go to Comment
Let the Right One In about 3 years ago
Matty — where can one find the script?
Go to Comment
Best film of the 40's? about 3 years ago
Having not seen many movies from the 40s, I’m going to have to go with The Third Man and Citizen Kane. :)
Go to Comment
Heist Films about 3 years ago
Hey…no love for Snatch? Love this movie!
Go to Comment
misunderstood genius about 3 years ago
I will readily admit that his films are off-putting at first. I often do not enjoy them the first time I see them. There is very little material in them that is immediately accessible to me, and I often feel that some of his choices are less about an artistic goal than they are about being “clever”.
However, given some time with his films, and some time to get past the veil of his neuroses that manifest themselves on-screen, his films ARE often very rewarding. A lot of my love for movies comes right from Gilliam.
The only film of Gilliam’s that I loved immediately was Tideland — to go contrary to the initial poster, I identified with Jeliza Rose in ways that I am not entirely comfortable with. I think Gilliam is growing as a filmmaker, which is awesome. I hope his best work is still to come.
Go to Comment