What makes the film even more fantastic is that Oskar chooses this fate consciously, as he binds himself to Eli step by step and she entices him by murdering his tormentors. It’s a horrible bargain, made by the loneliness, rage and frustration of a child and the evil of a soul-less thing. The caretaker, a grown man, seemed more weary than anything. Had he the opportunity to go back and choose differently, I feel certain he would. But bound he was, by his own hand. I imagine a grown up Oskar feeling the same weariness and ties to her, a horrible mix of the blood on his hands and the guilt at what he has allowed her to do for him.

If there’s any pedophilia at work here, it’s that of an ancient supernatural creature grooming a pre-pubescent boy. My second thought was that the film is more generally about the horrid ways that we sometimes consume each other. I cannot imagine the American remake coming even close to the original.

To me, though, I’ve no idea why this scene was thought to be the best, or even particularly good. Heavy-handed foreshadowing, excessive pseudo-meaningful pauses and gloomy lighting. And then the overbearing music slams in through the overbearing silence. Yes, there’s a reason most directors would have got some more interesting shots in, and why having the “patience of a spider” isn’t a great thing for most directors or viewers. That way leads to diabolically stretched-out short-story-as-movies like Brokeback Mountain, There Will Be Blood, and others.

But I guess this kind of thing appeals to some. Me, I couldn’t watch Hostel because by the time they got to the hostel I was writhing with agony at the achingly slow buildup.

I don’t know if the USA version made the old man her dad.

It’s banal evil that’s interesting, oddly enough. The need for human companionship is a powerful motivation in such evil. I thought it was what motivated Oskar to bind himself to Eli. I would say that Eli doesn’t need a companion as much as she needs a willing instrument (she does eat people, after all). The author may have described her relationship with Oskar as her finding a soul mate, but isn’t that the same sort of black and white, hyperbolic language that psychotics use to describe those they favor (or find useful) at the moment? And Oskar is taken in by the favoritism and the power-by-association because he is frustrated and angry.

Obviously the author had very specific ideas that he wanted to explore and they may differ from what I supposed when I saw the film. I don’t have to like them though, much less find them interesting. That said, boring does not equal “low.” I’d reserve that to describe something genuinely devoid of meaning.

SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
1. Eli is a castrated boy in the book and the swedish movie. This was completely changed in the English version (it’s a girl and there is no gender obfuscation) to make the movie more palatable for the mainstream-horror-fans, I am assuming.

2. Oskar was different from the caretaker. Eli is supposed to have found a kindred soul in the pyromaniac-sociopathic Oskar. I am pretty sure there is an interview of the author where he stresses that Oskar does not take the place of the caretaker.

I preferred the original for the Swedish ‘flavor’ of the story. I don’t just watch a story unfold, no matter how engrossing, I’m also watching the background/backdrop. The choices the director and cinematographer made in framing the scene, the pacing, lighting and the film itself. I’m looking for and enjoying the elements that make that film unique in style.

There is no doubt that the U.S. can take any foreign film and ‘kick it up a notch’, probably several. But in the process, they seem to cook it to death. The flavor becomes something less appetizing to me – the tenderness is gone.

I also think the original filmmakers did very well within their budget constraints and the demands of the film scripting process to streamline/eliminate minor characters without losing much of the story.

That said, it still would be rather creepy to see the scenes of Eli’s flashbacks to the night of his murder, as well as Hakan’s mindless vampire in the basement. I also thoroughly enjoyed Oskar’s kinship with the older boy (can’t remember his name), who was such a pivotal influence on the story.

anyway, i never pegged the old guy as the vampire’s father. i just figured it was an older version of the boy. we’re just seeing a changing of the guards…out with the old in with the new. not her dad!

I adored the original, especially going into it without knowing anything about it. It was just a random pick because the cover looked interesting. Rarely do I get sucked into a movie so much I forget to smoke.

I take issue with the Salon added commentary- I would have like to turn that off.

*Possible spoiler from original*
Also, Salon keeps referring to the Richard Jenkins character as “Dad”. In the original, I assumed that the vampire’s caretaker was not its father. It was my take away that the caretaker was an older version of the boy, someone who had been attracted or had befriended the vampire and had grown into the protector/caretaker role. And he had aged, while the vampire had not. It had a certain symmetry that way, this cycle repeating through time. Anyone who saw the remake, was the caretaker ever referred to as “Dad” in the film?

As for this being the #1 scene of the year, I still think the ground-breaking use of jelly the Yogi VS greedy Mayor Brown piece is tops. ;)

However, the original movie was so understated that the suggestion was of a more sympathetic father character who met the vampire as a young boy and has simply aged while she remained young. So that’s what everyone seems to run with in their second-order assumptions about the story. Pathos!

Only one guy knows for sure, so Director’s Commentary or GTFO.

I refused to watch the remake because I felt my IQ was being assaulted by having a good movie remade for ADD prone Americans who feel reading subtitles is hard stuffz!
Now that I know the remake was as good as the original, I may watch it in the future if it pops up on netflix instant-watch.

Although, to swing onto yet another tangent, “Everything is Illuminated” might be another movie where there is a shift away from the book that makes for a better, more coherent piece of art, at least from my POV.

I don’t understand what the “pedophilia witch hunt” is in the original.

For a good example of this,consider the original “Hard Core Logo” by Michael Turner (book) and Bruce MacDonald(movie): depending on your reading speed, you can actually read the book faster than it would take you to watch the movie. However, the director, writers and actors just “get” the original book’s concepts and build on it quite nicely so it never disappoints.

Very good analysis of the scene, though. Were I teaching a film class, I would definitely reference this video. In fact, I’d probably show both Cloverfield *and* Let Me In back-to-back to illustrate how a director can employ different directing styles and shot compositions to complement totally different films.