Glimpsing Eli's Groin


There's been a fair amount of commentary about Alfredson's translation of Eli's gender ambiguity in the novel into the half-second glimpse of Eli's scarred groin. Some viewers apparently were not even sure what they were seeing, or believed that they were seeing normal female anatomy. (A dummy was used to film this part.) In the novel, dialogue between Oskar and Eli makes it fairly clear that Eli is anxious for Oskar to know that he's not really a girl, and what that means; he finally takes an opportunity after showering in Oskar's apartment to drop his bath towel and reveal himself to Oskar. Eli jokes about it in response to a Oskar's question, but this exchange then segues into Eli showing Oskar his castration through the medium of a kiss.

If you were directing LTROI, would you have handled this aspect of the story any differently? Potential choices could include:

- dropping the whole thing entirely, and let the audience believe that Eli's statements about "not being a girl" mean that she's not really human

- including further dialogue between the characters about Eli's condition to make the fact of the castration clear

- including some version of the flashback scene

Or, are you okay with the film as it is?

Personally, I am satisfied with how the thing was handled. Placing too much emphasis on it could have proved a too distracting for American audiences, and even seeing the half-second shot was enough to upset some. And I am not sure whether including more of Eli's backstory would have made the film any better.

Carve every word before you let it fall. - Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

reply

As a comment, TA planned to show the castration scene as a close up of a knife cutting into skin. He planned to use a pig (similar skin appearance), but when "they" (Hoyte van Hoytema, presumedly) showed up with a living sedated pig, telling him the skin of a dead pig would not do, TA bailed out. It's in the dvd comments.

So, they kept what they got. The book was a highly acclaimed bestseller, so most people would know (or get to know) about Eli's gender anyway. But it is a bit under-communicated, imo.


For the heart life is simple, it beats as long as it can.

reply

I didnt know what it meant at the time. I think I thought that it was showing how because shes a vampire she has no use for it. In a way its symbolic for being non-sexual and so even though I didnt know it was saying Eli is a boy, the reason why Eli is a boy comes through symbolically. When Oskar peaked it was kind of like "oooh I wanna see a naked girl" which is a bit sexual in nature. When he saw what he saw its like "no, this is not one of those types of relationships."

So Im ok with keeping it the way it is.

reply

I saw it the way jidici saw it. The guy is trying to get a peak of his girlfriend naked and sees a whole lot of nothing. What's meaningful is that Oskar continues the relationship. Without this scene, people could come to the conclusion that Oskar was just putting up with stuff because he wants sex with the cute girl next door. Taking sex off the table entirely (Eli doesn't have breasts either) puts emphasis on the emotional aspect of the relationship.

I definitely misunderstood the relationship between Eli and Håkan. Rather than a pedophile vibe, I thought he was like Oskar. I assumed he met Eli when he was Oskar's age, he fell in love, and he took care of Eli ever since. Once Håkan is dead, Oskar starts to replace him and become Eli's new life partner. There is even a hint of jealousy when Håkan asked Eli not to meet with Oskar. This would make perfect sense if Håkan sees Oskar as his equal; his potential replacement. Everyone knows that feeling when your existing relationship is dying, and you know you're being replaced. Another thing that jumped out was the use of knives. When we first see Oskar, he has a knife. When he meets Eli, he's holding a knife. Then we get to see Håkan and he's holding a knife. It seems like that's Oskar's future.

reply

"When we first see Oskar, he has a knife. When he meets Eli, he's holding a knife. Then we get to see Håkan and he's holding a knife. It seems like that's Oskar's future." - Spungo1


And later in the film Oskar throws the knife away, symbolising his rejection of violence. A clear sign that he will not become another Håkan.

.

- - - - - - - - - - -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0e3tGxnFKfE

http://tinyurl.com/LTROI-story

reply

True Jameron.

reply

When I saw the film for the first time, I wasn't exactly sure what I had seen in that shot and by the time I'd worked out that it had been Eli's groin it was too late and we were into the next shot of a shocked Oskar. I guess I just wasn't expecting the film to go there because it had been totally unsexual leading up to that point it just came right out of left field. Not wanting to upset the flow of the film I decided against rewinding the DVD to check what I had missed, thinking that I could do it later. After the film had ended I had completely forgotten about that shot of Eli. I then bought and read the book completely unaware of Eli's true gender and the castration ... and I am extremely glad that I had missed the implications of that scene in the film because it would have ruined one of the best (if not the best) reveals I have ever read (even with the not-so-accurate English translation).

For me, missing the implications of that scene didn't really damage the film. True I thought Eli was a girl throughout the film, but it was such an innocent love the gender of the two leads wasn't really a thing. Having read the book and then rewatched the film I can now appreciate the true beauty of their relationship, so that knowledge definitely adds to the film but the lack of complete knowledge of Eli's situation doesn't destroy the film at all.

I'm happy for it to be left as it is, although dropping that scene wouldn't destroy the film. Exposition to explain that shot would have been a mistake IMHO, it is not the job of the director and screenwriter to cater for the people that didn't 'get it' on first viewing (like me) ... exposition is extremely difficult to get right and should be used only when absolutely necessary, as far as the film is concerned Eli's gender is not a central part of the story.

Whenever I think of Eli, I always see a girl even though I know better. I blame Lina for being so perfect in that role, lol.

.

- - - - - - - - - - -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0e3tGxnFKfE

http://tinyurl.com/LTROI-story

reply

Some people complain that Lina's performance was too girlish if Eli was a boy, some even say that the fact that authors chose a girl for the role makes this gender issue either irrelevant or misguided.

However, praising Lina's acting like you do, I think that deciding to use actress for a role of a boy was correct: being castrated 200 years ago Eli hasn't gone through pubertal hormonal changes, and after been treated as a girl by humans during the rest of Eli's loooong life, the female look and behaving has to be expected.

reply

Not correct, the author asked them to consider a boy playing Eli's part, but director/casting people opted for Lina.
Which turned out to be an excellent choice, even if she was a tad too girlish.

For the heart life is simple. It beats as long as it can.

reply

But what did say that was not correct? It seems to me that we have 100 percent same attitude about this subject.

reply

No big deal, only that you wrote that the author chose the (girl) actor, when it was the director. It is a difference; Listen to the dvd director's comments track, where both the author and the director is in it together, and you will notice the slight difference in approach between the two. It sheds a lot of light to the film, and is highly recommended.



For the heart life is simple. It beats as long as it can.

reply

This is again a difference between you and me. No matter that you discuss about a movie, for you the author is still the author of the book and for me it is the author of the movie - the director...

reply

Still, you are going too simple about this, because the author of the book also is the screenplay writer. In essence, the book and the film is very much the same, it is the director's suggesting ways of expressing himself that marks most of the difference.

Have you seen one of his other films - Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy? Same thing there, you can rewatch the film again and again, and still you find another small detail that you hadn't seen before. It's really down to film making philosophy; should a film be just face value, or should it be complex, so you need multiple viewings to thet the full picture?

reply

If I was a person that watches the surface and doesn't care for anything else, would I be here?

But I could watch this movie dozens of times and I wouldn't understand the meaning or even the importance of this second-long scene. It would probably always be interpreted as a part of coming-to-age story, a sign of Oskar's hormones awakening. I don't have experiences in castrated boys and they are not the first thing in my mind when I see something. Even if I discovered that there was a scar (and most likely I would have to press the still-button, but first I would have to know there is something so important that I should do it!) I would most likely think that Eli, as a girl, had some bad moments and events in her long history, maybe being brutally raped, or suffered some other injury (or a disease), these things can lead to tissue damage, to infertility, so "I am not a girl" still wouldn't necessarily mean "I am a damaged boy" but rather "I am a damaged girl besides being a vampire"...

reply

How important that is is debatable. It IS another turn of the screw, but it doesn't change the main plot substantially if you don't get it.

I like this detail because Oskar "is getting back" at the audience; For the entire film Eli keep telling Oskar "I'm not a girl", and the audience think we know why - then the "Be me a little" and "same as you" sequence comes where Eli regards himself a person more than a vampire, meaning that his "I'm not a girl" means exactly that.
And for once Oskar is ahead of the audience - he must have learnt about the castration in the "Be me a little scene", we don't see it until Oskar wants to have a peek.

reply

It irritates me to bring in the "Be me a little" explanation for anything about the film, especially Eli's emasculation. It's just not there. At best, he may be seeing that Eli is pretty old, but that isn't clear just by showing her as old. She's asking him to accept that she kills because she has to and for Oskar to see that he'd kill, too, if it would rid him of the bullies.

I wish we could be content with what the film is and let the gender issue remain ambiguous and unclear. And as you day, Drakkar, it doesn't change the main plot substantially. The main conflict is, can two unlikely candidates for any kind of relationship end up together? Can Eli recover the humanity of her childhood, and can Oskar accept that a child who must kill can also be a good person?

So gender shmender. If we can't accept it as ambiguous and ultimately not clear, then it is a rare fail in the extraordinary film.

reply

Firstly, the gender issue is not ambiguous. Alfredson tread lightly on it, of reasons he explains in the film (director’s comments track). The castration scene was put there by him on purpose, whether someone notices it or not doesn’t change that.

Secondly, why does that irritate you? It’s right there in the words - "Be me a little"- in this scene Eli shows him who he is. Even if we just see an old Eli, it doesn’t take much imagination to se that Eli shows him his past. And the castration, as we learn a moment later, happens to be part of that. Why do you think Oskar is sitting in his living room, stunned? Because he has seen an old woman? Come on - it is more likely that it is because he has seen horrible things.
...Then curiousness takes over, and Oskar takes a peek to see how it looks like, to be castrated.

"At best, he may be seeing that Eli is pretty old, but that isn't clear just by showing her as old."
You are of course entitled to your personal opinion, but this interpretation is not shared by the director of the film (BD/DVD director's comments track again). Alfredson even complains about how he wasn’t able to "solve" the Be me a little scene better, as he had wanted to show the castration scene more explicitly.


For the heart life is simple. It beats as long as it can.

reply

There is a difference in understanding the film from having read TA and JAL discussing it and from just watching it with no additional knowledge. What the director and script writer wanted didn't make it to the screen in every case. So, yes, the things making gender unambiguous needed us to see what Eli was projecting. Eli's disavowal of not being a girl is submerged in the viewer's experience of watching a very girly girl playing Eli.

Additionally, just showing an old Eli in the basement scene and in the "Be me a little" scene just raises the question of whether or not that is the real Eli and the 12-year-old Eli a projection.

We don't see Eli being 200+ years old, just 12 "for a very long time." We don't see her being sexually mutilated. Those are projected into your mind outside the film by a sort of "be me a little" discussion by TA and JAL and the many interviews that are available.

reply

The problem is that you fail to see the subtle moves of the director, even when it is pointed out to you, and then you start seeking outside the film for answers (it must be something someone has read etc.)

From your post it appears that you're used to being spoon-fed your films, taking everything you see at face value. This film is part of a different culture and everything but that, so I'm afraid some of the director's efforts have passed under your radar.


For the heart life is simple. It beats as long as it can.

reply

Drakkar, could you be more general?

I don't see anything out of line with what I wrote. In fact, I think it is a thoughtful and knowledgeable analysis.

Is this what your vague post was addressing?

There is a difference in understanding the film from having read TA and JAL discussing it and from just watching it with no additional knowledge. What the director and script writer wanted didn't make it to the screen in every case. So, yes, the things making gender unambiguous needed us to see what Eli was projecting. Eli's disavowal of not being a girl is submerged in the viewer's experience of watching a very girly girl playing Eli.

Additionally, just showing an old Eli in the basement scene and in the "Be me a little" scene just raises the question of whether or not that is the real Eli and the 12-year-old Eli a projection.

We don't see Eli being 200+ years old, just 12 "for a very long time." We don't see her being sexually mutilated. Those are projected into your mind outside the film by a sort of "be me a little" discussion by TA and JAL and the many interviews that are available.


Edits. Can't type.

reply

I'm still addressing your earlier post, where you wrote

It irritates me to bring in the "Be me a little" explanation for anything about the film, especially Eli's emasculation. It's just not there. At best, he may be seeing that Eli is pretty old, but that isn't clear just by showing her as old. She's asking him to accept that she kills because she has to and for Oskar to see that he'd kill, too, if it would rid him of the bullies.

My opinion is that films in general should be open to interpretation. Now you can say that your statement above also was an interpretation, it was just that it didn't look like one.

For the heart life is simple. It beats as long as it can.

reply

Yes, Drakkar, you can say that what I wrote is an interpretation. Or you could say that viewers do not see anything of what Eli is supposedly showing Oskar. You could say we don't see the sexual mutilation. You could even say we don't see anything but Eli's face as an old woman.

reply

It's just semantics, really. It was the way you put forward your interpretation, which could be mistaken as trying to state a fact, that needed correction.


For the heart life is simple. It beats as long as it can.

reply

I maintain that TA had a slightly different notion of Eli and wanted to keep the possibility of Eli being an old soul open to show that love is bit dangerous.

reply

Sure, iirc Alfredson visualised Eli and Oskar as opposites, yin/yang dark/bright, predator/prey old&composed/young&goofy etc. And then during the course of the film, those opposites start to converge.
I think this was the reason Alfredson cut the playing scene in the snow heap (due just before the candy scene); Eli's playfullness came too early, it was out of character at that stage of the film.

For the heart life is simple. It beats as long as it can.

reply

I like that.

reply

I talked to John's editor, she was part of a test watching panel balancing the film. During the early viewings, she was seriously concerned about the whole thing, because the film didn't function properly. So they did a very good job putting the scenes together.


For the heart life is simple. It beats as long as it can.

reply

I would have at least included the bit where Eli tells Oskar that 'her' name is Elias. Maybe a brief glimpse of a flashback. Not really concerned what Americans would think tbh.

reply

Yeah, me too, i would've loved that. Maybe they wanted to. They showed the part where Oskar hits Eli (in the deleted scenes), which lead to Eli telling Oskar. Who cares what Americans think, who cares if it makes people uncomfortable, it's art/film. I would've liked it more if they showed the fun side of Eli and Oskar's relationship. Like when Eli and Oskar goofed about the guy at the newspaper stand being an escaped monkey from the zoo. I thought that moment was quite compelling and beautiful



****************
If the rule you followed brought you to this, of what use was the rule?

reply

What about this. Watching a movie does not require previous or subsequent research on the original source material. from simply viewing the movie, Eli is a girl. The character is played by a girl and acts like a girl throughout the film. The only on screen reference to her gender is the quick flash of a latex groin which, in the movie theatre context is,at best, inconclusive. Freeze framing that scene on disc for detail is not a valid argument and could even be seen as a bit creepy.

Much of the discussion of this title on these boards seem to revolve around the "real meaning" of the book. The book is a work of fiction. The film is a work of fiction adapted from the book and should stand alone. If anyone wants to beat me up over this try referencing just the movie to justify yourself.

And one other thing. has anyone else noticed that Swedish appears to be remarkably similar to English.

reply

What about this. Watching a movie does not require previous or subsequent research on the original source material. from simply viewing the movie, Eli is a girl. The character is played by a girl and acts like a girl throughout the film. The only on screen reference to her gender is the quick flash of a latex groin which, in the movie theatre context is,at best, inconclusive. Freeze framing that scene on disc for detail is not a valid argument and could even be seen as a bit creepy.


You don't need to freeze-frame it to see it. Even before I read the book and when I saw it in theaters I knew that it wasn't a normal vagina and the idea. The idea that she was a boy had also crossed my mind.

reply

Me, too. Looked like a scar and I thought the film had taken a very unsettling and surreal turn.

Carve every word before you let it fall. - Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

reply

What about this. Watching a movie does not require previous or subsequent research on the original source material. from simply viewing the movie, Eli is a girl. The character is played by a girl and acts like a girl throughout the film. The only on screen reference to her gender is the quick flash of a latex groin which, in the movie theatre context is,at best, inconclusive. Freeze framing that scene on disc for detail is not a valid argument and could even be seen as a bit creepy.
I agree, a book adaption should stand on its own. I don't know if I would've pieced her being a boy if I hadn't known. I first saw it as a DVDRip and from where I was sitting her groin looked like a vagina with pubic hair starting to grow.

And one other thing. has anyone else noticed that Swedish appears to be remarkably similar to English.
I did, but I wouldn't say "remarkably" similar.

****************
If the rule you followed brought you to this, of what use was the rule?

reply

It's not obvious from the film that Eli is a boy, but I am fairly certain that keeping Eli's gender ambiguous was the intent. I'll admit that I wasn't sure at first exactly what was depicted in that scene, I just knew what I didn't see.

I originally watched the film in a theater with a large screen, so I didn't need a freeze frame, I just needed to think back to when Eli said straight out that "I'm not a girl". It was reasonable to conclude at first that Eli was referring to being a vampire, but that statement, along with an earlier scene ("Would you still like me if I wasn't a girl") and the quick reveal was enough for me to question Eli's gender. A second viewing more or less confirmed my suspicions. I think you can appreciate the film without realizing what was done to Eli, but personally I think it added to my appreciation for just how tragic Eli's life must have been.

If it had been my choice, I would have went with a scene similar to the one in the book where Eli reveals himself to Oskar. I would have had Eli open his towel to Oskar (but with his back to the audience), with Eli saying "Just so you know". Oskar would then look downward and have the shocked expression you see in the film. In this way you could still retain a little ambiguity, without using the poke-in-the-eye method that is in the film. :)

Swedish and English are both Germanic languages, so yeah, the two definitely share some common traits. I've found it a relatively easy language to learn, although speaking it well turned out to be a challenge.

reply

You can't leave the ambiguity in such an important issue. Try to erase all you know about Eli and the movie, and imagine yourself watching it for the first time if filmed the way you suggest. Now try to imagine all the possible ideas that could go through your mind when you see shock and horror in Oskar's eyes and you don't know the exact reason.

First, he could be shocked by the very fact she had opened the towell and showed him her privates. OK, it's 1980's and it wouldn't be so shocking for Oskar, but we in the 2010's live in a different world and especially younger audience would think that Oscar should have been shocked.

Second idea, vampires might not look like humans. Why not? I don't know, but it is possible. I don't know much about young vampire's anatomy, and probably most of the viewers don't know either. So, it is possible that Oskar might see something totally unespected. A third eye, a snake, a volcano, a reflector?

Third idea, less to be expected, is that somebody understands that Eli is a boy. No real reason why, but someone with quite an immagination, and remembering "I am not a girl" line, could imagine Oskar seeing what Eli as boy could have showed.

But even in this last possible idea, why would anybody who hasn't read a book, I mean literally anybody, less than one in million viewers imagine that Oskar saw a lack of genitals, a scar and nothing else. And if there was no verbal or flashback explanation later, how would anyone understand it?

You can't just make hints. There have been so many discussions if Oskar's father was gay or just an alcocholic, and it is completely irrelevant for the story; how can you leave people ambigous about the major issue?

reply

Ambiguity isn't a word I would use, rather attention to detail.
Eli repeatedly tells Oskar he's not a girl, and we do see the castration scar.
We also see horny Håkan when Eli touches his cheek, and just after he's standing outside the gym window eyeing the young boys. One plus one is two.
And then we have Eli's hunting technique - killing Jocke and just before that approaching Oskar on the jungle gym, when the rubik's cube saves his life - indicating that passing as a girl makes the hunt easier.


For the heart life is simple. It beats as long as it can.

reply

I don't think that everything in the movies has to be clear and open as a Swedish table (buffet), but also I don't think that the purpose of a movie is looking for details that form a puzzle, so instead of watching and enjoying the movie audience is expected to play association as in puzzle/riddle championships.

The castration scar scene is so brief that it can stay unnoticed if you are not fully concentrated - you might not see the scene at all, and even if you watch carefully it is almost impossible to notice the scar unless you previously know what to expect.

And Håkan could be watching boys like any kind of prey, enjoying Eli's touch not being necessarily connected to what he was watching before. This scene would be important if we already knew all about Eli, and important not to understand Eli but to undestand Håkan. Until we find Eli's true gender we can think that all he sees in boys is food he could bring to his protégé.

BTW... I haven't connected these watching/touching scene so far... It brings Eli in new light: it seems that Eli not only understands Håkan's nature but even supports him being what he is; teases him, (ab)uses him, seduces him, offers him himself enough to stay, offers him others to have benefit... and all this being in the same time almost hundred years younger and more than hundred years older... an age difference never seen in movies so far... No wonder Håkan is so confused...

reply

Agreed about the castration scar scene - the second post in this thread is about that.
It is several hints about the Eli/Håkan relationship - their dialogue points us in the direction that they have not known each other for long, Håkan's ineptness also underlines that. The very first scenes (Eli&Håkan moving in and Eli yelling at Håkan) shows us who's in charge. Then comes the "horny Håkan" scene showing us what's in it for him - he's a paedophile. Eyeing the young boys is just another turn of the screw.

I agree that the film is about unconditional love rather than gender - so it wasn't elaborated too much upon.

"BTW... I haven't connected these watching/touching scene so far... It brings Eli in new light: it seems that Eli not only understands Håkan's nature but even supports him being what he is; teases him, (ab)uses him, seduces him, offers him himself enough to stay, offers him others to have benefit... and all this being in the same time almost hundred years younger and more than hundred years older... an age difference never seen in movies so far... No wonder Håkan is so confused..."

It's a barter game. I urge you to read the book, it's heartbreakingly delt with there.


For the heart life is simple. It beats as long as it can.

reply

I understand that people who wave read a book have much broader view on the subject. However, this movie isn't just an appendix to a book and isn't sold within book covers, so it is a separate, unique piece of art. Therefore there shouldn't be necessary to read a book or even to be aware of its existence, as well as it wouldn't be logical to look for explanation of (any) book in the movie that was made after it. It reminds me on Kubrick's 2001 which I considered to be maybe the best movie ever, but was very dissapointed after reading Clark's novel (that I still find to be the bottom of his career). There are so many ideas and so many explanations that 2001 offers, but if you use a book everything suddenly becomes so poor and so profane. On the other hand, there is Donnie Darko that is so weird, so complicated that you simply need some keys, and the author himself created a whole (parallel) world to place the movie fans in it, they have to read encyclopaedic amount of literature to be able to discuss the movie from "right angle", the one that the director had in mind.

So, I'd like to watch, feel, understand our topic movie without any previosly or afterward written material. It is simply too good to be depending on anything else. But it seems that - probably during editing - somebody forgot what we, who haven't read the novel, can be deprived of due to certain lack of information.

reply

Agreed, and the examples I mentioned are taken purely from the film.

But it seems that - probably during editing - somebody forgot what we, who haven't read the novel, can be deprived of due to certain lack of information.

Unfortunately, the English translation (subtitles, and lack of subtitles) also deprives you from some information. The conversations between Eli and Håkan in the beginning of the film is an indication that Håkan is a new acquaintance to Eli, but these small nuances are plain lost in the translation. So no wonder why the interpretations of this film differ so much.

The indications about Håkan being a new acquaintance to Eli is to be viewed together with how inept he is in getting blood. Then, Håkan's horny looks when Eli touches his cheek is part of the explanation WHY a guy like Håkan would go with Eli.

And, I urge you to read the book. It is mind-blowing good, and it is certainly not profane!

For the heart life is simple. It beats as long as it can.

reply

Well, I guess you are right when you mention translation. I am surely not familiar with Swedish, and I can't make my own correction of translation mistakes (or sometimes it's not a real mistake but some expressions simply can't be translated well). As I didn't have English translation but Croatian that was most likely made after English one (usually small countries use English or German or, less frequently, French translations because it is not easy to find a person able to do it from another not so worldwide-spread language like Swedish) I guess that the second translation even added some more mistakes or at least inaccuracies to those that English translation contained.

reply

I'm fine with it. Got it the first time; didn't need to be spoon fed that Eli is an emasculated boy.

_Richard

reply

I wouldn't add anything either. That would just be overstating it. An audience should never be spoofed.

I like it just he way it is. Not to much, but definitely enough to know that Eli isn't a girl. Together with few brief clues dropped earlier it should be enough to draw own conclusions.
It was also a bit ambiguous and makes us start to think. And that's always a good thing for films.

reply

[deleted]

I'd have included further dialogue to explain it. I think this is absolutely essential to Eli's character and the depth of the film. As a result of removing it, Let Me In became a mere cutesy little romance film like Twilight.

---
"Pride is not the opposite of shame, but its source. True humility is the antidote to shame."

reply