March 24, 2009
Låt den rätte komma in “Let the Right One In” (2008)
Should I see it?
Yes - er, strike that - no.
Yes - er, strike that - no.
Swedish director Tomas Alfredson may have created one of the best films of last year and the best horror movie since 28 Days Later. It will be as influential as that genre redefining film as well. This is an atmospheric, creepy masterpiece. Its not often I can watch a film and see a genre shift. To put it simply, if you’re working in the horror genre, you have a new movie you must pay homage to. This praise in place, I cannot recommend it and that pains me to no end.
If I have any rules, any standards at all, there is one that I will simply not bend on: the inclusion of children in a sexual manner. It is not acceptable under any circumstances. In the case of this film the image is literally one second long. Oskar, a distraught, abused teen sparks a friendship with Eli, a strange new girl to the apartment complex. In one brief moment, Eli pubic region is shown when Oskar watches her remove her clothes. It is an unnecessary shot and in my opinion an exploitative one. The actress Lina Leandersson was 13-14 years old at the time of shooting – unacceptable. Even though it is a mere second long, it is still there. Like a finding a booger on your finely cooked steak, the fact that it is there spoils the whole effort. This is all a great shame since this film is one of the best I’ve seen a good long time. Alfredson delivers a moody, nihilistic film that is surprisingly touching. The portrayal of Oskar, who has to suffer the abuses of a smirking bully and endless nights of isolation, is fascinating. Fourteen year old Kåre Hedebrant plays Oskar and pulls out more from his role than most actors twice his age. Hedebrandt possibly gives the best performance in cinema last year, his work as Oskar is moving as believable as any performance I’ve seen. This is critical to the success of the production for without being drawn into the story by his plight, the whole narrative would fail to be more than a version of Twilight for smart kids.
Again, I can’t recommend this film because of the nudity. If you can get your hands on a version sans the child porn, you will find a masterful work.
WELCOME FACEBOOK FOLKS: If you read the review and find yourself all huffy and itchin' to comment - PLEASE READ THE COMMENTS below the post BEFORE you drop your own breathless missive. If you're feeling particularly generous, please try to have something new to add as well. The arguments are getting a tad tedious. Thank you - The Management
UPDATE: I reserve, and do exercise the right to reject any comments. I've have been and will continue to dump comments that:
1. Repeat items mentioned already without adding anything new. Honestly, if you disagree with me good. Bring it on. I can defend my position. But to repeat the same line after its been responded twice already is wasting time.
2. Go on for six pages. If you can't make your point in a few paragraphs then don't bother. I don't have the time to read comments that go on forever and don't feel compelled to force them upon my readers. C'mon, does it take twenty paragraphs to say "Scott, you've made a moral distinction and I don't like it"?
If I accepted every comment I've gotten from Facebook folks, the comment section would be twice as long as it is and be half full with some pretty lame stuff. This isn't a forum page, you don't have the right to have every thought of yours posted here. If you make a good point, I'm more than happy to publish your comment and respond to it - even if it blasts me. Look below, I don't have a problem with that. So, if I reject your comment, it doesn't mean I'm "scared of you", it means you either copied someone else or prattled on and didn't make any sense. Understand, when I publish a negative comment, I feel compelled to respond to it. Responding takes time and I'm a busy guy. I'm more than happy to discuss my opinions, I'm happy to trade jabs, but I'm not wasting my time repeating myself because you're too lazy to read the previous comments or too dull to say something worth responding to.
Related Reviews:
Vampire movies
30 Days of Night (2007)
The Lost Boys (1987)
Other Critic’s Reviews:
Beyond Hollywood
Film School Rejects
Labels: film, Kåre Hedebrant, Let the Right One In, Lina Leandersson, movie review, Tomas Alfredson, vampire
posted by Michelle Obama's Left Nut at 8:00 AM
Share
Previous Posts
Friends & Reads
Christian & Culture
Film Resources
Christian Sites
Faithcom
Featured On
Good News Film Reviews LLC 2004-2010 - used with permission
Images, video and titles are the property of their respective copyright holders. Good News Film Reviews LLC claims no ownership or connection to them.
The views expressed on this site are not the opinion of any advertiser or external entity.
While we take care to only link to responsible entities, Good News Film Reviews LLC takes no responsibility for the content linked from this site. There are sharks in the waters. Surf at your own risk.
The Template is generated via PsycHo and is Licensed.
61 Comments:
A friend and I went to see this movie to counteract all the Twilight insanity around (sparkly vampires, arrrrrrrrgh!) I haven't been able to get it out of my head since--definitely one of the best uses of the vampire mythos (except for the shot referenced in your review, and the CGI cats, which didn't work so well).
I look forward to seeing more from Alfredson.
The cats! I forgot to mention the cats!
You're right, that got a bit silly. Not the best choice.
Fortunately, the scene with the cats was short and forgivable.
Possibly my favorite touch was the subtle animalistic qualities that Eli displayed: cat-eye pupils for a split second, gutteral breathing, etc. Very very well done.
Lina Leandersson was eleven years old, when they did the film.
It gets worse. Thanks for the info.
I remember that flash of nudity, I thought, too, that it was gratuitous. But I presumed that they'd used a stand-in since you don't see the actresses face. Surely it was a stand-in.
I don't think there was an edit - I could be incorrect however, given the actress was 11 at the time of filming (per a previous commenter) this seems likely. Let's presume there was a stand-in, the result is still the same - we are being presented with what is supposed to be a young girl's public region. The shot in context is still immoral. It is not how something is done in film it is what it intends to show - the end result is important (although sometimes the means are questionable as well).
The shot was accomplished with a fake torso. It was intended to show that Eli is a castrated boy.
Nudity is not pornographic, unless you have a very dirty mind.
Nudity is pornographic if it is a child.
That said, very good point. Thanks for sharing it.
Images of nude children are pornography? That's an interesting perspective. There's a lot of pornography in family photo albums, fine art and photography by that definition. Paintings of the nude baby Jesus are pornographic?
Pornography is the depiction of sexual activity made to arouse its audience. Nudity is not pornography. The human body beautiful. If someone can't separate viewing the human form in works of art and entertainment from a sexual context, that sounds like an unhealthy attitude to me.
Anyone who skips viewing "Let the Right One In" because of a one second, non-sexual, depiction of nudity is missing out on a fine film for a very silly reason. But it's their choice.
I don't know if I should cry or laugh. How can you write this when you don't know anything. Do you really think this was a shot of the actress gender? Are you for real? Is a girls crotch horisontal? You don't even know what a female gender looks like.
IT WAS THE GENDER OF A VAMPIRE. Or actually. No gender at all, because Eli is a castrated boy. It was a hrisontal scar.
And of course, a doll was used for that shot. My God. You're insane.
I have numerous of images of my children. Nude. Your're insultging me, suggesting I'm a pedophile.
But the movie is a mastepiece.
We really need to get into this? I know you're thinking you're being deep and defending some grand morals. I've been writing reviews for a long time, arguments like yours are just tedious. Seriously, I have someone exactly like you popping up here at least once a week, forwarding vague points buttressed by completely unfounded righteousness.
You position here is that you're arguing for the inclusion of nude scenes of children in film. Nice.
Images of children are pornography - why don't you download some and have them on your computer? Heck, frame some and hang them in your home if they're so wonderful. Of course you won't do this because you know this is wrong.
Your attempt to diminish the point by likening it to innocent family pictures or classic paintings is boring. Keep that sophomoric debating techniques for your friends. Pornography is the depiction of any sensational erotic behavior or imagery meant to push an emotional or sexual reaction. The image in this film certainly fits within that definition.
You are right, not all nudity is pornography - it is a matter of context. There is a difference between the shower scene in Porky's and the shower scene in Schindler's List. But, we both know that don't we?
There are many, many people who will skip a film for a myriad of reasons including the inclusion of even a second of nudity. Many of these people do so because they believe the human body is a beautiful thing and shouldn't be cheapened by being exploited in an unnecessary way. Me? As I say in my review, this is a fantastic film spoiled by an exploitative, wholly gratuitous and awkward shot.
Now shoo, troll.
"Nudity is pornographic if it is a child."
Yes, you have a dirty mind.
Please, Scott, can you tell me from which age a naked baby becomes child pornography? 6 month? 11 month? 18 month or 2 years?
Who is trolling? You're wrong and you know it. You were so upset about what you saw so you actually didn't look. You thought you saw the gender of a 12 yo girl. You got pissed but didn't realize that it wasn't any gender there at all, or the gender of a creature. Do you relly think they put that shot there, to get the chance to show the gender of a little girl. For no other reason than to upset people like you? Didn't it accure to you they put it there to tell you something?
I'll suspect you won't show any of my posts. It's a shame you can't take the debate.
Images of naked children ARE NOT child pornography. The shot was needed for the story, I think it was daring and fit perfectly into the story. And FYI it was a doll. How the hell is it exploitative? It was needed for the story, and it's completely non-sexual in its nature. You are an asshat.
*sigh* It's NOT her crotch you morons, it's a dummy! Do you really think they would be allowed to show those parts of an 11 year old? Does it seem reasonable to you that producers, the film crew, parents, finance people and everyone would just let that slide? Idiots!
Angry because we're wrong?
You're arguing for the nudity of children in film anonymously on a site, keep popping up like a bad rash, with lessening degrees of poignancy, and are insulting someone you don't know = troll
I'm confused by your accusation that I won't show any of your comments. How the heck do you think you're reading this conversation? You're right here, on my site. Open debate in public. But, unlike you, I have a name and people know who I am.
I understand what the show intends to show. Alfredson himself refers to the girl as being naked. The fact is that Alfredson held back on the pedophile elements out of deference to the audience but felt he could get away with this. The exposure of children in this fashion is wrong. Deal with it. Alfredson made a great film but also made a horrible choice along the way, well, that and the cats - two horrible choices. The fact is that the whole issue could of and should have been handled differently.
If you're willing to sit there and be indignant because you're for the exposure of children in film, knock yourself out.
OK - here's the deal, comments are sent to my inbox for moderation. At least they were. I stopped in to my site's admin page and found a pile of comments for this post that had not been forwarded. They're dumped here.
Since I have at least two, if not three people currently coming at me - lines will get crossed - in particular since we have anonymous sissies, too scared to use their names.
Unlike you, I have things I got to do. I will be back later today to respond. Do me a favor, don't bother with the "you know you're wrong so you don't answer" comments or crap like that. I've heard it all before. I will get back to you, kick your butts and then go have a Coke in a little while. Please be patient.
Something tells me you folks know one another.
Horizontal scar = Eli was a castrated boy. This is not subject to argument.
I completely agree that I don't think it was necessary to the story, but there is NOTHING pornographic about a horizontal cut across a doll's (also a fact) non-gender.
Oh, and I would appreciate it if you didn't call me a pedophile in your response.
how can it be pornographic when you can't see a slit nor a penis? the point of showing that crotch shot was to show that Eli has 'no gender'... which means that the relationship between Eli and Oskar is in fact non-sexual... which means that the love they share is so pure that no sex gets in the way with it. Now tell me, was it really pornographic in nature?
How can it be pornographical in nature when what is shown is a genderless doll? The scene is ment to show us that its not your typical boy-girl relationship but actually a deeper friendly relationship, as the girl isn't actually a girl but instead genderless.
I have a moment so I'll try to catch up on all the comments:
I don't know if I should cry or laugh. - cry
And of course, a doll was used for that shot. My God. You're insane. - I don't assume that, I hope its the case, but it is foolish to assume they did the right thing in particular when they're going through with this kind of shot in the first place.
Horizontal scar = Eli was a castrated boy. This is not subject to argument - OK, then stop arguing. I said public region in my review -
Please, Scott, can you tell me from which age a naked baby becomes child pornography? 6 month? 11 month? 18 month or 2 years? - it is intent, context - that should be obvious - now, granted I don't know the circumstances of how you take pictures of your children, so your unprompted defense involving the issue of pedophilia will need to be handled by someone else.
I completely agree that I don't think it was necessary to the story - you're right to agree
but there is NOTHING pornographic about a horizontal cut across a doll's (also a fact) non-gender. You admit the shot is unnecessary - ergo it is gratuitous in particular given what the shot is showing. Indeed, it is a shot of a prosthetic (thankfully) but my opinion still stands because it is the representation that counts. Although fake, it still intends to shockingly show the pubic region of a child.
*sigh* It's NOT her crotch you morons, it's a dummy! Do you really think they would be allowed to show those parts of an 11 year old? Does it seem reasonable to you that producers, the film crew, parents, finance people and everyone would just let that slide? Idiots! - yes, many would under the guise of it "being art". You'd be surprised what people are willing to do. As far as it being allowed in distribution? Sure, worse things have been distributed in r-rated films.
Images of naked children ARE NOT child pornography. The shot was needed for the story, I think it was daring and fit perfectly into the story. And FYI it was a doll. How the hell is it exploitative? It was needed for the story, and it's completely non-sexual in its nature. You are an asshat. - as much as I love the term asshat - ok, your indignation over images of naked children not being pornography is silly. Adults understand that obviously something like family photos is different than a widely distributed work of fiction. Use a little discretion in your debate - simply because I say "killing is wrong" doesn't mean you have to go off the deep end and assume I'm against killing in self-defense. Apparently, I've made the error of assuming you'd be able to handle the rational end of the debate. BTW, it is sexual you goofball.
I have numerous of images of my children. Nude. Your're insultging me, suggesting I'm a pedophile. - as I've stated above - it really depends on the pictures and a ton on you. Pretty strong protest for no reason.
Well, that should wrap it up. How about leaving your names?
Ok, they used a dummy, not Lina or any other actress, and it wasn't even a vagina. Anyone who has ever even had sex-ed would know that. It was a scar, just a little reference for those of us who read the book. While I agree it didn't really fit in the film for those of us un-familiar with the book, it certainly wasn't gratuitous kiddie-porn like you label it being.
It certainly wasn't gratuitous kiddie-porn like you label it being.
And that is your anonymous opinion.
Again, it is a brief shot and on the scale of pornographic imagery, it is certainly tame. That doesn't mean it isn't pornographic in nature - taking the full definition of pornography which I am intending.
Not scat, you repetitive troll
Scott, I think what you are calling pornography is not the definition most of us would use. I assume you've seen what is legally designated as pornography, so you can probably differentiate between the nudity in mainstream movies and the explicit sexual activity depicted in real pornography.
Your mention of the nudity in "Schindler's List" is appropriate however. I would posit that the nudity in "Let the Right One In" is no more provocative than the nudity in that film.
Even though you appreciate the merits of the film, you say you can't recommend "Let the Right One In" to your readers because of the one second shot. Do you believe that seeing those 24 frames would have some negative effect on others that your warning will protect them from? What negative effect do you think these people are susceptible to? Were you negatively impacted in some way as a result of seeing this brief image on the screen?
What a ridiculous review. Pornography is defined as images intended to illicit arousal and sexual desire. That you consider that shot to be guilty of this shows your own perversions, not the filmmakers.
The shot was there to to show that Eli is, as she says herself, "not a girl". It's there to show Oskar's own curiosity about his new found friend. You can argue that it was unnecessary, yes, but not for the reasons you claim.
I think you need to take a long hard look at your own sexual repression.
Yes, of course, we disagree on the morality of displaying a child's public region; so therefore I'm riddled with sexual repression. Makes sense.
This whole string of comments is like a textbook of middle school debating techniques.
David, if the shot is not necessary for the reasons I lay out here, then what is your reason?
I honestly appreciate your using your name - anonymous commenters should be displayed in stocks.
I've explained my stance on multiple fronts. It doesn't matter it wasn't a "real" vagina - I didn't call the display of a vagina disturbing, but the display of a child's public region. I've also clearly explained that I do not believe this is a critical aspect of the story. If anything, it muddies up the narrative with a distracting element in the same way the father's homosexuality or the pedophilia aspects would have taken away from the success of the film.
In all honesty, the display of a child's pubic region is a game ender for me. I suppose I could apologize to you but what would be the point? I wouldn't mean it and you wouldn't accept it.
Again, the purpose of the scene is purely to elicit a stark emotional response and the scene itself is sexual in nature. These can't be denied. I'm not reading pornography into anything, it's there. Do I use a wider definition of pornography than what many people are used to? Yes. Most people consider it to be active and frank sexual acts - I use the older, more correct version (correct in my estimation).
If you read more of the site, you would see I am hardly someone who runs away from eating crow. When I am wrong, I admit it. Just as when I am right, I don't back down. Finally, My veiled joking about people being perverts is mocking their ridiculous leaps of logic where they assume I think they're pedophiles for simply having family pictures of their children. They are being absurd so I'm treating them as such.
Next....
You were told it wasn't Lina Leandersson's vagina.
The child molesters who rent this movie are going to be soooooo disappointed to hear that. Or maybe not, they can just pretend can't they?
****************************************
I think what you are calling pornography is not the definition most of us would use.
Right you are. Majority opinion on moral issues is the only way to fly. I await another 10 years of progressive, incremental conditioning when the majority will consider NAMBLA a civil rights organization.
********************************************
What a ridiculous review.
Ridiculous like a fox. The review is cleverly emulating the Hollywood "artistes" - who generally drop some nasty, controversial scene into the recipe, necessary to validate the movie as "art","adult" or "cutting edge". A necessary ingredient for the arty film review consumer as it creates the necessary feelings and ego boo that one must be cultured and sophisticated to be able to enjoy what any normal bumkin would scoff at.
Scott has accomplished that brilliantly as dozens have rushed here in feverish haste to defend their bourgeoisie dogmas and taboos.
As a fan of Scott's avante garde review work, I'd give it 4 stars out of 5.
Wow! This review really brought 'em out of the woodwork, didn't it?
I know your position on this film and I think it's perfectly valid. All any film reviewer is doing is giving his or her opinion of a film. If that shot was a dealbreaker that ruined the movie for you, you should say so.
I think people have a tendency to see reviewers as elementary school teachers who are handing out grades ... so they protest with this much vitrol because they think an injustice has been done. No injustice ... just one man giving his opinion. People should be adult enough to realize that.
As you know, I somewhat disagree with you on this movie. I do think that shot was gratuitous, but not enough to ruin the film. I took it as a given that the shot was a trick; either and adult model or a prop, whatever.
Having said that, yes, the shot was clearly sexual in nature ... Oskar's reaction to taking that peek was the reaction of an adolescent boy seeing a girl naked. Period. Of course it was sexual, and in that context it certanly would be enough to ruin the film for many folks.
There have been other films (some good ones and some bad ones) that have had nude "native" children in them ... but there's a clear distinction between nakedness and nudity, I totally see your point.
Some people have implied that the shot was important because it revealed that the vampire child was a castrated boy or a sexless being or whatever. If so, the director made a piss-poor call when he decided to reveal a crucial plot twist in the movie with that shot. Most normal people will react to that split-second scene by thinking "Oh, my God, a naked child!" rather than "I better examine this child's genitals for signs of a scar or other information that will dramatically change what I know about this character... and I have a split second to do it."
I think that you and I agree, overall, that the film is outstanding. That one gratuitous shot ruined the whole movie for you. I can understand that. It made me wince, but I assumed that editing and a stand-in were used to create the scene, so I merely withheld one of the stars in my five-star system. But there are plenty of people who'd see this movie and feel the exact same way that you do, Scott, and your review does them a service by warning them about an upsetting shot in the movie.
I'll let you get back to pest control now. ;)
I believe this is the point where K steps back and drops the microphone. A chest thumping boom erupts as it hits the floor. Then K walks offstage, intentionally not looking back to the crowd.
Oskar's dad was an alcoholic, not gay. You're thinking to much about sex, Scott.
Wavesoflight - the father's homosexuality is inferred, I'm not the only one who believes so.
Richard had a comment above, but it was removed. Here is what he had to say:
"Oh dear, Scott had to get his friend to back him up. I'm pretty sure, 'K', that child molesters aren't going to rent a movie for a one second shot of a dummy's mutilated vagina.
And insinuating that this one second shot is going to lead to some kind of world-wide acceptence of pedophilia is laughable: there's a reason they call it the slippery slope FALLACY.
I'm going to close by pointing out the general problem with attitudes such as yours. You deplore the film for showing a childs 'pubic region', and Oskar's reaction to it, but did you ever stop to think: hey, that's kind of like real life? That 12 year old boys are curious and sometimes peek on girls that are changing? That filmmakers have a right to show things that are real?
Did you ever think about why you find the one second shot so offensive to the point that you would recommend others not to see the film, yet register no problem with the 15 second shot of 3 recently dismembered children? Is a pretend-naked child more offensive than a pretend-dead child?"
Richard, I allow anyone to post. K posted voluntarily and is allowed to do so, just like you.
I understand that children are curious in real life, but that hardly means it needs to be overtly depicted on film. The fact is that the shot should have been handled in a different way. The information given to the audience in a smarter fashion. Are you so jaded that you can't see that questionable material should be handled with care?
As far as being put off by this image but giving a pass to the violence - the violence was necessary to the story. This shot was not. It doesn't get much simpler than that. Not that I can conceive how this shot would ever be relevant to the story in the way that it was done - meaning, the information could have been relevant but the presentation of it was just sloppy film making.
Next...
I'm really disappointed that the nudity in the film is even a talking point, let alone something that people found shocking, although I'm not surprised by it.
I actually really enjoyed everything about this film and feel the nudity shot was completely beneficial to it. The feeling of surprise that is produced by it completely puts you in the shoes of Oskar and I think it's a nice touch. Imagine the rest of the scene intact without that shot, it would have looked completely ridiculous. We know Eli is undressing, then we see the look of shock on Oskar's face without actually knowing what he saw, it would have looked like something from a Carry On film.
I don't see the shot as sexual in nature at all, the fact that somebody else would seems a little worrying to me. Why would you find such a scene sexually arousing? This should provoke more questions relating to you, not the director. And your statement that the film includes "child porn" is far more offensive to me than the actual shot being in there.
I'm really disappointed that the nudity in the film is even a talking point, let alone something that people found shocking, although I'm not surprised by it.
I actually really enjoyed everything about this film and feel the nudity shot was completely beneficial to it. The feeling of surprise that is produced by it completely puts you in the shoes of Oskar and I think it's a nice touch. Imagine the rest of the scene intact without that shot, it would have looked completely ridiculous. We know Eli is undressing, then we see the look of shock on Oskar's face without actually knowing what he saw, it would have looked like something from a Carry On film.
I don't see the shot as sexual in nature at all, the fact that somebody else would seems a little worrying to me. Why would you find such a scene sexually arousing? This should provoke more questions relating to you, not the director. And your statement that the film includes "child porn" is far more offensive to me than the actual shot being in there.
I'm touched by your concern for my well being.
I didn't say it was arousing - I said it is sexual in nature, which it is. These are different things. But you already know this.
As for your opinion of my claim that this counts as pornographic - your embrace of the shot as being beneficial (without really explaining how) shows you have no idea what you're talking about. You like the movie and sheepishly take what is given without any discernment. The shot is not beneficial - it adds nothing - it is a voluntary shot which, if anything, cheapens the moment.
You know, there are times when I'm reminded what a litigious and neurotic era we live in; an era when the faked depiction of grisly violence with no emotional impact whatsoever propels many an average film to box-office success, while a stellar, thoughtprovoking film like Let the Right One In either fails to get noticed, or has its merits disregarded by a prudish adult's projection of pedophilia onto a shot whose tone is more of innocent surprise than anything else.
I read the book. I know that in the novel, Eli is a castrated boy. I think the film is a different creature, and I think the ten-second fleeting nature of this shot makes it more a '12 yr old boy peeping in on his girlfriend changing and seeing more than he should'. It's a far cry from the similar scene in the novel, in which Eli walks out into the living room and drops his towel in front of Oskar, saying simply 'Just so you know,' as he reveals a smooth, unscarred 'Barbie doll crotch' to Oskar. The scene in the film is one of adolescent revelation to be sure; its the moment when boy glimpses girl and realizes that 'the other' is really among us.
In an age before DVD players and VCRs, no one would be making this big a deal out of this scene, I don't think. It's here and gone quickly, and I don't think an ADULT would view it as erotic. I didn't. OSKAR may, in some respect. It did make me remember when I was twelve...if I'd caught a glimpse of my girlfriend naked in the bathroom, my face would likely have carried the same mix of wonder and dismay on Oskar's.
I don't think we're meant to see this scene through adult eyes. It's yet another part of a larger world opened to Oskar (however unknowingly) by Eli. It's not lingered on (unless you used your pause button, which *i* did not). It's there and past before you know it, much like childhood itself.
Is it unnecessary? Probably. It's the only clear corollary to Eli's emasculated nature in the book, and probably should have been done away with entirely.
Is it pornographic? If you think so, you need help.
Clay, I'll try to water down your pompous overstatements into a small line of thinking. Wish me luck. You first say you don't think the shot was to be seen through adult eyes - but you also say that Oskar, who's eyes we are experiencing this through, would have seen it as erotic. Thus, making my point. When you compact this with your admission that the shot is indeed needless - it falls into the realm of exploitation and therefore porn.
Next time just type "Scott, I agree with every point you make but I still sheepishly follow the non-think I was taught in school and can't cope with my own unstable moral framework." and be done with it.
You need to spend more time thinking about the way you think.
BTW, in time before VCRs (1970's) this shot wouldn't have been allowed because the culture hadn't coarsened to the degree where it would have been so broadly distributed. It would have been cut. You're right, no one would have been making a big deal out of it because it wouldn't have been there in the first place.
Wow, this whole conversation is incredible.
A girl changing clothes in a boy's apartment when his mom is out is pornographic, but two 12 year olds lying nude in bed and talking about going out is not worth mentioning. (!?)
The "crotch shot" is not meant to titillate, it is meant to horrify. There is no gender there. Eli is telling Oskar the truth when she insists "I am NOT a girl!"
She is a monster who used to be a human being. Nothing new for film there. But being closer akin to an alien robot than a human being (one who kills human beings for it's sustenance) she, and I do mean She, nevertheless retains more human feelings than most of her 'victims.'
I feel that the film is ultimately saying that the human race requires monsters, predators in it's midst, to feel really interested in their own brief existence.
Oh ,BTW, Oskar's dad is clearly not gay, but an alcoholic. It is a distinctly American stereotype that anyone who is gay must have it made.
Wow. This whole conversation is just incredible.
A girl changing clothes in a boys apartment when his mom is not there is pornographic but two 12 year olds lying in bed nude and talking about 'going out' is not worth mentioning? (!!!)
The 'crotch shot' is not meant to titillate, it is meant to horrify. There is no gender there. Eli is telling Oskar the truth when she insists "I am NOT a girl!" (And I do mean She)
She is a monster. Nothing new to film there. It is closer akin to a boy befriending an alien robot then another boy or girl. One who must kill human beings in order to survive. And yet, she retains more of her human feelings than do most of her 'victims.'
And, BTW, Oskar's dad is not gay, he is clearly an alcoholic. it is a distinctly American stereotype that gays must have it made.
I didn't bother reading all the posts, but I thought I would make this point, you are a reviewer of film, and there for I believe
understand how movie ratings and certificates work, in the UK
they are done by age 12, 15, 18 etc, in America, I am not so sure.
I do know that if there was the genitalia of an 11 year old girl,
the film would either not be shown at all, the shot cut, or the
certificate rasied to it's maximum.
In the UK Full Frontal Nudity gets a film an 18 certificate,
and this film doesn't have that. Do you think that the censors
wouldn't notice this shot when you and every one else did?
Also, the point has already been made that it isn't the actress
in the shot, to be more realistic than her wearing some sort
of costume or make up effect.
You see, the character isn't a girl to begin with.
If it was infact a shot of her, then I agree, it would be
totally wrong, to have done it. The point is, it wasn't.
So to call the shot pornographic is wrong.
You are evidently used to people just lying down and agreeing with you. The mere fact that Oskar, a twelve year old boy with awakening hormones, would likely have seen the naked form of his twelve year old girlfriend as something to be excited about, doesn't translate to pedophilia. Oskar and Eli are both twelve (no matter how long Eli's been twelve). Do you remember what being twelve was like? The scene doesn't project any ADULT air of eroticism. It's staged with the 'omgIjustsawmynakedgirlfriend' kind of eroticism; the kind that happens when that sort of thing can still have innocence about it because we haven't lived for years in a society that vilifies sex and yet is obsessed with it.
The innocence and fleeting nature of the scene excuses it from any charge of pedophilia. This isn't Lolita, Scott. This is a kid looking at another kid.
And do I really need to remind you that Stanley Kubrick's film version of "Lolita" came out in the mid-Seventies, and was probably far more widely seen than LTROI. And the pedophile qualities in Lolita are part of the storyline, not just something to be debated about and speculated on.
How old are you, Scott? I'm 38 years old. I haven't 'sheepishly followed' any kind of thinking for quite a while, and I spend a great deal of time, in my job as a professor of English literature, encouraging my students *to* think for yourselves.
I find it amusing that you tell me I need to 'spend more time thinking about the way I think', and yet you accuse *me* of pomposity. But I like being amused, so you just keep it coming, if you feel the need.
Gavin here. Please stop arguing with Scott because he is obviously one of those people who responds to points by insulting the point maker's intellignece and then just restating everything he has already mentioned previously. So it's not a debate, just a slagging match.
Hmm, so based on your logic, child nudity = perversion. I guess I need to throw out all of my anatomy text books. Here I am thinking that I'm training myself to help children, and all I am is looking at pornography. If only I had known that it was not possible to show nudity without sexual innuendo... wow some of my professors are actually perverts! All those nude statues of children I've seen in art galleries and even in the fountains of public parks area all child pornography!
I always thought the director included that scene to show that Eli was not a girl and to additionally demonstrate the NONSEXUAL love between Oskar and Eli... when in fact it was just the opposite! Thanks for clearing that up for me.
This movie clearly went way over your head didn't it?
Okay, I've stepped away for a while - I'll nab a couple of these while I have a moment. I'll get to the rest of you in time.
thaumielx72:
There is a stark difference between the exposure of a pre-teen girl's public region and a mild discussion of "going out."
The dad is gay - I'm not the only one who thinks this is the case.
David:
To take your line of thinking, and let me know if I have this wrong - since the body part in question is fake it is devoid of any power. You admit that the exposure of the pubic region of a preteen girl on film is wrong - so your point is that since it is a prosthetic it makes it safe.
So, under this thinking, the exposure of Dirk Diggler's penis, since it is a fake, is fair game to show and has no sexuality connected to it. The exposure of the penis in Boogie Nights has less of a sexual overture than what is shown in this film - he's exposing himself to himself while here a pre-teen girl is exposed to a boy. You can argue that since it is Digger's genitalia, and we're talking about her public region, these are different - that is true to a point. But you admit you think the exposure of a pubic region is wrong. If the prosthetic nullify the reaction of the audience and remove sexual context - then why shouldn't these images be shown on television, or impact ratings at all?
Gotta go. Be back to take the rest of you on in a while.
Gavin says:
'Gavin here. Please stop arguing with Scott because he is obviously one of those people who responds to points by insulting the point maker's intellignece and then just restating everything he has already mentioned previously. So it's not a debate, just a slagging match.'
Spot On. Although I do agree with Mr. Nehring's beleif that Eli's exposure was wholly irrelevant to the narrative of the entire film, it does not detract from the fact that this is an disturbingly brilliant experience and one not to be missed for the sake of 25 frames. Scott has made his bed, let him lie in it - his blatant obstinateness means that I doubt very much he will be getting out of it any time soon.
I have a moment, so I'll continue down the list - and we're back to good ol' Clay.
First item - Lolita - its a disturbing work (released in the 60's not 70s). This said, the relationship of the characters and the difference in age is the whole point - it is within context of telling the story. It is needed to make the point Nabokov and Kubrick were making. This is completely different given the circumstances. Again, this shot was not needed and ultimately added nothing to the film. Even most of the commenters here readily agree with that.
The issue of the shot being within the context of "a kid looking at a kid" diminishes the interaction happening between the characters, the framing of the shot and the context of what is going on in the scene. Yes, it is a "omgIjustsawmynakedgirlfriend" kind of eroticism (to use your phrasing) but it is still eroticism - involving children. Given that this eroticism involving children is completely unnecessary it delves into the pornographic.
Gavin,
You're right, this is a slaughter. I'm like Bruce Lee throwing punches and kicks while the faceless mobs drop before me - twitching thanks to their mishandling of logic and useless, broken self-made morality.
You will also note Gavin, that for the most part (I don't pretend to be 100% compliant) I am nice until the commenter gets snarky. Thus the insults. You deal with the morally retarded and see how far your patience takes you. Arguing FOR gratuitous child nudity in film - brilliant.
Nick,
We agree that it is a great film. I simply balk at the child porn. You don't think its pornography to include that shot? Okay, knock yourself out.
There's no stubbornness on my part other than holding my opinion. No one has offered anything that would possibly change my mind. I'm responded to everyone and explained why they are wrong. There's no fear or regret on my end. I state what I think. I can defend it - and do. Have someone come along and untie my argument and I'll be more than happy to relent. Throwing out strawmen or simply insulting me isn't enough. I'll relent if I'm proven wrong. I've done it before.
I think this whole discussion goes to show just how oversensitive we've become when it comes to anything relating to children these days. We're becoming more and more overprotective of our children because we're more aware than ever of issues such as paedophilia. We've become unnecessarily obsessed with the fear that anybody who looks at our children is a paedophile. And anything related to a child's body must be seen as suspect or something more devious, when in fact we're clearly reading into something that really isn't there.
I think as times change and we grow and learn more as humans, we will probably become less offended by such things. I really think in years to come people will look back and laugh about the fact we're even having a discussion about such a thing. Basically that someone took a picture of a prosthetic doll and presented it as a 12 year old in a non sexual manner.
I think this whole discussion goes to show just how oversensitive we've become when it comes to anything relating to children these days. We're becoming more and more overprotective of our children because we're more aware than ever of issues such as paedophilia. We've become unnecessarily obsessed with the fear that anybody who looks at our children is a paedophile. And anything related to a child's body must be seen as suspect or something more devious, when in fact we're clearly reading into something that really isn't there.
I think as times change and we grow and learn more as humans, we will probably become less offended by such things. I really think in years to come people will look back and laugh about the fact we're even having a discussion about such a thing. Basically that someone took a picture of a prosthetic doll and presented it as a 12 year old in a non sexual manner.
This shot was necessary for the story. And it was especially necessary for people like you. I'll tell you why:
If Eli is a 200 years old vampire, stucked in a 12 yo childs body, s/he HAS to be as sexual innocent, or even more sexual innocent than a castrated cat.
Why? Because if s/he ISN'T, people like you will suggest that Eli is a grown up woman seducing Oskar even in a sexual sense (I've seen posts about this).
The author knew this and to avoid that, he HAD to make Eli as a former boy, with all sex organs removed, just because the total lack of sex organs can be SHOWN. The sexual innocense of Eli is fully exposed. The total lack of sex organs is fully exposed. The groin of androgynous vampire is fully exposed. The damaged croth of an animal i fully exposed.
That's why these 22 frames was essential and important.
But, unfortunately, the shot was to short. I actually think, and I'm very frank here, that if you could see this shot for, say 3 seconds, then you've realized what it was and you wouldn't have been upset.
The twelve year old Brooke Shields was shown nude in the 1978 movie Pretty Baby
...and?
Am I supposed to fly off the handle or something? What's your point? I haven't seen the film. What's the context of the nudity?
I do agree with you that the scene in its current form had no part in the story, but I actually agree with a former poster that it might have worked better had the scene been longer. And perhaps not incorporate a scar, but be completely smooth, as in the books. But I presume you would just have protested even more then, because the shot was not brief.
But, this is of course also a matter of cultural differences. The country that the movie was made in, and I live in, has very different views on nudity than for example the US.
Some of our most loved classic movies and shorter TV series, written by Astrid Lindgren, almost all have some kind of child nudity. The most prominent example might be "Madicken". I could only find a clip from the German dubbed trailer, but http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUbcilyy3Y0 at about 0:20 shows a scene, that in the movie is well over a minute long.
In that time, Madicken and her sister sits on the bed with the camera at the front so that you see their pubic regions for quite some time, and then they play around and then jump on the bed. And these are no doubles and nothing covered up.
Perhaps it does not raise any eyebrows over here because it is such a classic piece of movie that almost no one has not seen. But I doubt a movie with similar scenes would be made again because of how distorted opinions have polluted our culture.
The crude way of putting it, is that it does not matter if there were a few shots of nonsexual nudity. It will not create more pedophiles and it is probably not as if they have a lack of other material to do with whatever they do.
A doll with a horizontal scar will not make a difference to anyone that is a pedophile, or anyone that might have tendencies to become one. It is purely in the eye of the beholder for this one.
There is nothing wrong with child nudity if it is done in a nonsexual way, which was the case for LTROI.
When I read the news and I hear about people getting arrested because they have naked pictures in their photo albums, it scares me. Because I am not just talking about this scene in this movie, I am speaking generally. I actually find it scary that we are oppressing and tabooing nudity as much as we are, while allowing other things to increase and flourish: like drug use, promiscuous sex and senseless violence. The documentary "This Film Is Not Yet Rated" comes to mind.
The main point is that, no matter what way you look at it, the nude body of a person, with really no regard to the age, can not be worse than someone killing another human being. Being so focused on natural nudity, just shows that it is your morals that are off but you are just following everyone else, and you do not think.
But maybe it's just us Scandinavians who are pedophilic brutes.
Just to set the record straight, in an on-line interview, Director Alfredson was asked whether or not American audiences responded to the movie differently that European audiences. He noted how surprised he was that a large number of American viewers thought "one of the characters" (the father) was gay. He stated that neither he nor the author (who also wrote the screen play)intended to portray either of those two characters as gay. They were only habitual drunks.
So far as Eli's brief frontal nudity scene is concerned, my only objection to it is that it was so brief that it confused many people as to what they had really seen. If it had been longer and people had clearly seen the scar, it would have been even more confusing, because, if you had not previously read the book, it was such a disconnected scene that no one would be able to figure it out. I also feel that Oscar looked, not because he was "sexually" curious, but because Eli had already told him several times that she was not a girl and he wanted, out of real curiosity, to see for himself. Perhaps that what the author and director were trying to say with this scene. Frankly, the movie was too innocent and beautifully written for me to feel that they would have deliberately added an exploitive pornographic scene.
Scott, to answer your question about the movie "Pretty Baby" with 12-year-old Brooke Shields: It was a film (out in 1978, I believe) about life in a brothel in New Orleans in 1917. It addressed child prostitution, among other things. Brooke played the daughter of a prostitute and appeared nude in many scenes, including one where she was bathing and her towel was removed by the Madame so a "customer" could decide whether or not he wanted to have sex with her. Later in the film (she is still about 12 years old), she marries a middle-aged photographer, and is shown nude in many non-sexual scenes with him, including scenes where she poses nude so he can take pictures of her.
I am fairly certain that this film could not be remade in this same manner today, at least not in the U.S. It would be far too controversial. The director was Louis Malle and the film was put out by Paramount Pictures.
When I saw the movie, I thought that shot was gratuitous. But after reading this thread, I realize that I had misunderstood its meaning, because the shot was too brief -- I didn't notice that the genitals had been excised.
Not having read the book on which the movie was based, I had no idea that Eli had been a castrated boy, and I am not sure how the filmmaker could have conveyed this information more discreetly. IMHO, I do think the information is important to the story. But this opinion is incidental to the principles debated here.
As for the debate (about whether or not the shot is pornographic), many of the comments would be improved with a little more attention to typos. For example, Scott, you vacillate between "pubic" and "public" (that "l" changes the meaning drastically), though I am sure you mean the former in all cases. And your opponents' comments are chock full of typos too. This sort of debate can never be resolved, based as it is on differing opinions (as opposed to facts). But comments such as, "the shot is not beneficial - it adds nothing" are a bit strident, IMHO.
HA - I will attempt to catch my typos. In particular ones like that. Fair criticism Henry. This is up to the individual. I do hold a stricter, perhaps more old-fashioned view of these things.
The shot itself was unnecessary because it didn't convey the intended message. Someone with no prior knowledge of the book would not have walked away with the castration element. Moreover, that aspect of Eli was not relevant to the way it and its relationship with Oskar was presented in the film.
If the mention needed to be in the film then it could have been done from behind, indicating Oskar was walking in and seeing something. Two, three lines of dialog would have covered.
OK, Scott, that's a reasonable response to a reasonable point of view. Thanks.
Post a Comment
<< Home