Let me in

[Qalbert]

It's presented in a way that suggests but is purposefully ambiguous.

[Kuya]

First of all, what would be the point to insist, twice, with scenes saying that she's not a girl, and then a scene where her naked scarred crotch is shown while the original book from which the movie is based off has her being a boy that was emasculated? Let's not be silly here. Furthermore:

EditHistoryDelete
In the Swedish movie, the vampire Eli (Lina Leandersson) was shown to be an emasculated boy, but that part was dropped from this remake. There are scenes where Abby (Chloe Moretz) is sounding cryptic, with statements like "would you like me if I'm not a girl" and "I'm nothing" that could be taken that way by Owen (Kodi Smit-McPhee) since, at the time, he isn't aware of what she is. In the novel, there is a flashback to hundreds of years before the story, which details a strange ritual in the banquet hall of a castle filled with children. It is revealed in this scene that Eli had originally been a boy but was castrated by a vampire who then, presumably, turned Eli into a vampire. In this film, Abby is the daughter of a wealthy plantation-owning family somewhere in American during the late 18th century. Her uncle is a vampire who is kept in isolation in a shack on the family's property. One night, her uncle lures her into his home, where he tortures her and turns her into his vampire companion.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1228987/faq#.2.1.3

Most people didn't get she was a former boy because the movie wasn't explicit about it, so i understand that, but searching around you quickly find out that eli was in fact a former boy.

[Kuya]

This should put it to rest:

The novel presents Eli as an androgynous boy, castrated centuries before by a sadistic vampire nobleman. The film handles the issue of Eli's gender more ambiguously: a brief scene in which Eli changes into a dress offers a glimpse of a suggestive scar but no explicit elaboration.[11] A female actress plays Eli's character, but Eli tries to tell Oskar "I'm not a girl" when Oskar asks that Eli be his girlfriend. According to an interview with the director, as the film was originally conceived, flashbacks explained this aspect in more detail, but these scenes were eventually cut.[17] In the end, Ajvide Lindqvist was satisfied with the adaptation. When Alfredson showed him eight minutes of footage for the first time, he "started to cry because it was so damn beautiful".[18] He subsequently described the film as a "masterpiece".[18] "It doesn't really matter that [Alfredson] didn't want to do it the way I wanted it in every respect. He could obviously never do that. The film is his creative process", he said.[11]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let_the_Right_One_In_(film)

[Qalbert]

I BET YOU EDITED THAT YOURSELF SIR

[Kuya]

More info, since for some reason Eli being a boy gets a lot of resistence from people:

What was that shot of Eli's crotch about?
EditHistoryDelete
To demonstrate that Eli lacks either a penis or a vagina and is not a biological female.

What was the "Be me a little" scene about?
EditHistoryDelete
It was meant to be followed by a flashback of Eli's backstory, but the filming of the flashback was not completed because it required the castration of a live pig for the scene. Director Tomas Alfredson objected. As he put it in the Bright Lights Film Journal's interview, "That's bad karma."

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1139797/faq#.2.1.18

[Blarg]

I don't agree with kids altering their sexuality so I choose to believe you are making these quotes up and she is actually a heterosexual christian girl.

[archibaldcrane]

If they wanted us to think she was a castrated boy...they probably should've cast a boy in the role.

We arent even talking about gender identity disorder or transsexuality here. We're talking about a boy who had his genitals cut off. Casting a long-haired, obviously female girl in the role and then not showing the "hundreds of years ago genital mutilation flashback" means they aren't adapting that portion of the book.

Tl;dr if you didn't know it was in the book, you wouldn't assume she was a boy with his cock and balls removed from watching the movie. That would be one hell of a reach given the info present in the film.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Kuya]

I don't know why you're so adament about this. The authors of the film intended eli to be an emasculated boy. What you're saying is that they didn't do a good job of getting the point accross that eli was actually a boy. That's different from saying that eli wasn't meant to be a boy in the film, which is untrue.

[Qalbert]

you can't seriously be surprised that he's being this stubborn about how he thinks he's right.

[archibaldcrane]

I don't know why you're so adament about this. The authors of the film intended eli to be an emasculated boy. What you're saying is that they didn't do a good job of getting the point accross that eli was actually a boy. That's different from saying that eli wasn't meant to be a boy in the film, which is untrue.

as a person with two film degrees, having taken classes specifically in novel to film adaptation, as well as having first-hand sexual experience with transsexuality, I think that if they were trying to communicate that idea (which is explicit in the book) with a throwaway line and this

Spoiler: show

[img]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_AhI1rbsbon4/SVA_E27itmI/AAAAAAAAAQY/gyzBZemAx5c/s320/vlcsnap-117414.jpg

for a half-second, they either did a piss-poor job or, much more likely, either didn't consider that element important in the slightest (hence the backstory omission) or didn't want to interface with that aspect in the slightest (hence casting a female in the role of a male) either because of politics or funding or thinking it's gross or weird or whatever.

Basically, the argument seems to be "omg I can't believe the American version omitted something that the swedish version obviously didn't give a fuck about" and I find that disingenuous.

If the Swedish filmmakers honestly thought they did a good job of making that character a castrated male, they are deluding themselves.

I completely understand that the character in the novel is a castrated male, and a film could be created where that would be an additional interesting idea, but I understand why they would chuck that idea to the curb as well.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Kuya]

I don't understand what the problem is. I mentioned that perhaps they did a bad job of getting that plot point accross; a point you don't seem to see as implausible. I also made a point of saying that the lack of castration subplot probably will not ruin the American version, but that i personally liked that subplot, and am dissappointed in it not being presented. I never claimed the subplot was important.

So, what's the problem then?

[Souj]

You guys sure do love penis.

[Kuya]

Are you being ironic

[Qalbert]

You guys sure do love scarred tissue where a penis once was.

ftfy

[Souj]

and young androgynous boys who loves to suck

Spoiler: show

blood

[archibaldcrane]

I also made a point of saying that the lack of castration subplot probably will not ruin the American version, but that i personally liked that subplot, and am dissappointed in it not being presented. I never claimed the subplot was important.

So, what's the problem then?

I just feel that, given how careless and cursory the presentation was in the Swedish film, I would not expect additional disappointment regarding the treatment of that idea in the American version.

I'd prefer no attempt over a half-assed attempt personally.

And I say this as a huge fan of the Swedish film. I personally think it was neck-and-neck with No Country for Old Men as best film of the year in 2008.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk