Film Forum Monthly Discussion Club #2

Sad Professor

This month's two films are:

Heavenly Creatures: Peter Jackson's somewhat forgotten 1994 fantasy-drama about a pair of New Zealand school girls who form a bond so strong they are willing to kill to protect it. Inspired by a true story, it's a dark, imaginative film featuring two remarkable performances from Melanie Lynskey and Kate Winslet. While only Winslet subsequently made it big, Lynskey has continued to impress in small parts over the years. This was basically the film that got Jackson the job directing The Lord of the Rings and remains arguably his finest film to date.

Let the Right One In: Tomas Alfredson's brilliant 2008 horror-romance about a bullied boy who becomes friends with the peculiar girl from next door who is actually a vampire. One of the finest horror films of the last 20 years, it's an extremely atmospheric, gruesome but also haunting and deeply resonant film about alienation. A Hollywood remake captured some of the scares but none of the subtlety.

Both films are available to watch on US Netflix. They are also available to rent on iTunes, or to buy on DVD/Blu-ray from Amazon.

The common theme we will be discussing is:

Sympathetic killers

Despite the grisly goings-on in both films, both Jackson and Alfredson consider their films to be primarily love stories. And one of the notable things about both films is their sympathetic portrayal of some potentially very unsympathetic characters. Characters who murder or kill innocent people. So - did you find the characters in question sympathetic and if so why?

That's it. Go watch the films, think about the theme, and the thread will re-open in a week or so.

Sad Professor

Okay, hopefully most people have had a chance to watch the films. Thread is now open!

johnny_ultimate

(spoilers below for anyone who hasn't seen the films yet - tags are a bit too restrictive for an open discussion IMO )

I watched Heavenly Creatures the other night after having seen it years ago. It's a film I'm a bit on the fence over - I can appreciate a lot of things in it, but there's something about it that left me a bit removed at the same time.

I'm not sure how I feel about Pauline and Juliet as 'sympathetic' killers - there's something a bit hyperreal about pretty much all the characters presented in the film that makes them seem a little like caricatures at times (particularly odd since its based on true events). On one hand I felt Lynskey particularly was excellent at capturing the mannerisms, awkwardness and obsessions of teenagers - from fidgeting in her seat at dinner to her reactions during the very funny (and suitably creepy) scene of John's nocturnal visit. Many of the core conflicts of the film are the type many teens experience - perceived as adults who 'don't get' what the kids are going through.

The adults are painted a touch unevenly I felt - sometimes ridiculous, illogical villains (the child psychiatrist, for example, or the teachers), others sympathetically portrayed as genuinely struggling to deal with situations. Juliet's parents are often shown as extremely selfish and misguided, but her father at other times illustrates genuine compassion. Similarly Pauline's mother - the eventual victim - reacts as many parents would react given an increasingly distant, unhinged daughter. In many ways Pauline and Juliet are completely out of touch with reality - not only the literally fantastical sequences, but also their excessive responses to 'real' situations. If it's a love story, it's one of blind, illogical passion - which I guess is the foundation of a lot of romantic tales.

One thing the film does get right, and with tongue firmly in cheek to Jackson's credit, is how Juliet and Pauline are victims of a repressive time. The mid-century Christchurch presented in the film is no place for rebellion or difference - it's not too much of a stretch to say the close mindedness of the various institutions they encounter play a significant role in the bloody conclusion.

As for Let the Right One In... I didn't get a chance to rewatch it, but having seen it twice plus the remake plus the book I already risk overexposure to it! But one thing I always appreciate about the story is the way it subverts vampire mythology with such elegance. Vampires are often shown as nothing more than monsters. The likes of Twilight farcically overcorrect this, but Let the Right One In shows Eli as an innocent child who has this 'evil' side to her. It's necessary for her to feed whether she likes it or not. It's a fascinating way of portraying the vampire myth, and could really be handled by showing a child, not yet fully matured, consumed by this bloodlust. Certainly one of cinema's more sympathetic creatures of the night. And yet at the same time there is the hint of something calculated about everything she does... How innocent is she really?

Oskar? Well if Heavenly Creatures is a story of wildly illogical adolescent romance, I'm not sure the central couple in Let the Right One In even have the capacity to fully comprehend the friendship that forms between them, although it's ultimately something more complicated than mere puppy love. There is the reading of Eli taking advantage of Oskar - that's definitely there. But there's definitely a 'spark' between them too. There is always the niggling concern that Oskar will be consumed by the relationship just like Hakan was, but there is something pure and innocent about it all. If anything, it's a very bittersweet film - moments of tenderness contrasted with horror and violence. And in scenes like the pool climax, a lot of both.

Sad Professor

I agree that many of the adult characters in Heavenly Creatures come across as caricatures, but I think that was deliberate as Jackson was trying to present the story from the POV of the girls. Both of whom are basically alienated from the people around them. Part of the point is that their fantasy world became more real to them than the real world, hence why they found it so easy to kill to protect it.

However, I disagree about Juliet's father showing compassion. In fact, he's probably the most devious and manipulative adult character in the film, though Pauline is oblivious to it and mistakenly believes that he has their best interest at heart. He's the one who initially becomes disturbed at the possibility that they might be lesbians and suggests breaking them up. Juliet's mother, in contrast, seems far less concerned about their relationship and later allows them to spend the last few weeks together.

One of the good things about the film, though, is that Jackson doesn't try and blame anyone but the girls for what eventually happens. He certainly shows the various social class and repression issues that were factors in their alienation, but he also shows the extent to which they both simply became lost in their shared fantasy world. The irony is that the act that they believed would allow them to stay together ultimately ensured that they would never see each other again.

johnny_ultimate

I definitely agree there's a lot of scenes implicating Juliet's father as close-minded and misguided. But during others I got the sense of a real world-weariness about him, especially the scene where he sits down and talks 'honestly' to the two once their emigration has been confirmed. The adult characters just seemed a little all over the place - with scenes attempting to add depth not quite gelling with their more exaggarated portrayals elsewhere.

I do like the film overall, and Jackson directs boldly with lots of welcome blackly comic touches. Just overall something uneven about the film that left me cold - although as you say that could well just be the disconnect between reality and fantasy inherent in the girls' increasingly deluded viewpoint.

adox

One of the things I love about Let The Right One In is it is basically a love story, two lonely marginalised characters finding each other and instantly bonding.
There is very little sentiment in it and its beautifully acted by the two child characters. Its like a ying and yang relationship. She fills the roll of standing up for the boy who cant stand up for himself against the bullies, whereas he provides real companionship for her, a true friend who is probably one of the few people she has met and sees her as a child first and a vampire second.

The servant to the vampire always reminded me of the likes of the nanny character in The Omen for some reason. Different sex I know but same sort of total devotion.

To answer the question on sympathy for the killer, I certainly did feel sympathy for her. An immortal trapped in the childs body, having to kill or at least have someone kill for her to survive. Painted a very lonely figure.

pixelburp

Going to try and space the two films out & give myself time to mull over them. So, first up: Let The Right One In (watched on Sunday)

I had never seen this, nor its American remake; closest I got was reading another novel by John Lindqvist, the author who wrote the book on which this film was based. Given the films popularity though, I already had a base idea of its general themes & reception, having read plenty of opinions talking about it as an unconventional love story & subversion of the vampire myth.

So my first response to seeing it would be to completely disagree with that suggestion of romance right off the bat, not to mention the idea of the sympathetic killer. I didn't see the relationship between Oskar & Eli as a bittersweet love-story between two outcasts, I saw a cunning predator grooming a new vassal in a confused & obviously disturbed young boy.

I thought Hakan was the clearest indicator of this. He was a vision of Oskars future - utterly besotted and willing to debase his humanity for tenuous affection (completely unrequited too by the looks of things) The little moment where he asks her not to see Oskar again was an obvious mix of jealousy coupled with his own realisation of what Oskar would become if she had her way

Nor did I find Elis actions particularly endearing or innocent; quite the opposite. It's fairly explicit, albeit in a slightly off-hand way, that she is old. Decades old at least: and her actions can't simply be taken as that of a child looking for friendship, but of a calculating adult who uses psychology & her innocent appearance to find a replacement (a manipulation also used to find a meal, when she killed that man under the bridge). The same concept can be seen in other interpretations of vampirism in film, with a young Kirsten Dunst playing an adult trapped in a childs body in Interview With a Vampire. Again, the little moment that gave the game away was when she spoke to Oskar of staying just friends, while lying naked in bed with him. Or her anger when Hakan returned empty handed from the botched murder. She knew what she was doing the whole time.

Although I will say in slight defence of her that while she is totally at the mercy of her urges & can't really help herself, Oskar is the greater monster here, potentially anyway. His secret knife, the practising of revenge on the tree (a scene immediately following Hakans own attempted murder elsewhere, yet amongst similar trees), the quiet admission that he'd like to kill his tormentors - I got the sense that given a few more years Oskar could very well commit heinous acts of his own, with or without Eli. Cinema loves giving its psychos a backstory, and the usual trope is fulfilled with a damaged childhood.

That's not to say I didn't enjoy the film - I thought it was a great subversion of a really tired genre - and it's a shame that subversion didn't kick on from there, Twlight has seen to that - but I find it odd there are many who see it as some dark romance.

Visually, the film was great, and thinking on Tinker Tailor, I can see a line of descendance between it and this previous effort by Alfredson (literally really; both are set in the 70s in and around mainland Europe, and both seem infused with the same moribund atmosphere)

johnny_ultimate

One of the most effective things about Let the Right One In IMO is how it carefully walks that tonal tightrope. It can be read as both dark romance and full-on horror, and it's really up to the viewer to decide what side they fall on or indeed whether they'd place themselves somewhere in the middle of that spectrum. It's a film ambiguous enough that it leaves an awful lot up to viewer interpretation (the infamous crotch shot, to pick the most obvious example). In this way it's a significantly more elegant and artful story than the original novel was. It cuts out an awful lot of the more graphic, objectionable or merely tangential material and it makes for a much richer film. As far as adaptations goes, it's one of the best contemporary examples.

podgemonster

Sorry for the delay. Really enjoyed Let the Right On In the second time and intrgued by Heavanaly creature (despite their accents, ah my ears!)

Anyway...

Alfredson succeeds in making us sympathetic of Eli in LTROI by keeping the audience at a distance from her killings. They are shot from a far distance (the bridge), off-screen (the pool) and behind closed doors. Oskar depite being human is even protrayed as creepier than the vampire in parts, his stabbing of the tree, his newspaper clippings and the scene where he gleefully slices open his hand is unsettling. Only in very brief instances does Alfredson allow us to think about what Eli's really doing to Oskar but most of the focus is on seeing Oskar connect with someone.

Jackson allows us to feel sympathy also by allowing us to see the true bliss the girls feel when together and the beauty of their imaginary world. Their seperation is cruel, unfair and we see how hollow their lives become without each other. However their final kill is bloody, loud and brutal, parts shot almost from the perspective of the mother as Juliet grabs the brick. I found my sympathy dimish immediately following the mothers death. A simple narrow minded woman of the time never protrayed as bad just stern and concerned for her daughter and the choices Pauline was making.
Two girls whose unique imagination had transformed them into cold killers, believing they were capable of such an act and gloat about it in their diarys but most of all justify it with their twisted reason.

I never saw Eli and Oskars relationship to be romantic. Plus romance is also not the main driver to Pauline and Juliets bonding. In both cases its the a bond of reliance on each other and a strange friendships of beings that do not belong in their current worlds.

While not romantic, the two films are love stories but not love in the same fashion as Romeo and Juilet. Heavenly creatures is a powerful, intense mind-bending love of two soulmates, two equals and that once the love is formed its actually destroys them to be apart so much so they will kill for it.

The love in Let the Right one In is not equal, Eli is in charge. While I understand pixelburp comments that she is grooming another vessal, I felt that Eli did care for Hakan much like some one would care for a loyal dog (but it eventually had to be put down). Her relationship with Oskar is stronger, she does care for him, he intrigues her and she enjoys his company but to her that is because he is a new puppy. If push came to shove and she had to, Oskar would be lunch. If it was true love and a love equal to Juliets and Paulines then Oskar would be a creature of the night also but Eli does't want that, nay Eli doesn't need that.

johnny_ultimate

Thanks to bnt in the TV Recommendation thread for pointing out that Heavenly Creatures is on TG4 tonight for anyone looking to watch it!