It is not left ambiguous

Obviously it is. Since we do not see a pee-hole(she would have to still pee after all)...

That's an assumption you make, it is unknown as to whether or not Eli needs to urinate, or even pass solids.

...and the scar is above her pubic hair.

What pubic hair? Eli is a prepubescent twelve year old.

What about the remains of his scrotum? Did you even look at that scene?

Cutting off a boys penis is not going to make him look like a girl anyway, so it doesn't really make any sense.

I'm going to be charitable and assume that you've never heard of the Castrati, and are uninformed about the effects of removing a prepubescent boy's testicles. However, as far as the film goes, all of that is irrelevant as Eli's body hasn't changed since the day he was turned. He is still a prepubescent boy whose penis and testicles have been removed, as evidenced by the lack of a vulva, and the remains of his scrotum.

That's JAL's view. It's not like TA is going to fight with JAL on the commentary track.

I'm sure Tomas is capable of disagreeing with someone without it becoming a "fight". Don't forget that Tomas is the man who has refused to watch Let Me In, he's not always reasonable.

Also I wanted the vampire to be a very old woman in a 12 year old body. And I think we found her...Lina...who played that...she has...she could be my grandmother or something, y'know?"

I'm sure JAL and TA didn't agree about everything. TA had his vision of the character on film and cast accordingly. He actually emphasized the world "old" in that interview. And he was specifically talking about Eli...not Lina. He wanted the vampire to be a very old woman in a 12 year old body. He didn't put in the shots of Eli as a "very old woman" for nothing.

The DVD commentary describes what we see on screen in those shots...

01:07:59,089 --> 01:08:11,209 TA: Here you see Eli for a short glimpse how she maybe would have looked if she had been her proper age.

01:08:11,730 --> 01:08:22,162 TA: I think she's... Well the timelessness shows when she's in between human and in between being this monster.

01:08:23,203 --> 01:08:29,153 TA: So there is this critical line where maybe you could see a mixture.

...timelessness; ergo, Eli has existed for over two hundred years, but is timeless. That is what Tomas was going for when he used an older actress in those scenes, timelessness, not aged.

The reason a woman (Susanne Ruben) was used to show a timeless Eli is because an emasculated boy would not grow up to look like a typical male, full of testosterone, his androgynous softer features would remain.

If Tomas wanted the vampire to be a woman why did he arrange to film the emasculation scene using a pig? Surely that scene wouldn't even be considered if his Eli was female from the beginning?

That's an assumption you make, it is unknown as to whether or not Eli needs to urinate, or even pass solids.

Obviously it was done before she was a vampire, otherwise it would have healed, wouldn't it?

I'm going to be charitable and assume that you've never heard of the Castrati, and are uninformed about the effects of removing a prepubescent boy's testicles

It stops them going through puberty. It does not make a prepuscent boy look like a prebuscent girl somehow magically. And neither does it make a boy start producing estrogen. You make a lot of assumptions. This conversation might be less tedious if you stopped doing that.

Obviously it was done before she was a vampire, otherwise it would have healed, wouldn't it?

Or maybe it was done just prior to him being turned, and it didn't have chance to heal. You shouldn't assume things.

I'm going to be charitable and assume that you've never heard of the Castrati, and are uninformed about the effects of removing a prepubescent boy's testicles

It stops them going through puberty. It does not make a prepuscent boy look like a prebuscent girl somehow magically. And neither does it make a boy start producing estrogen.

Male and female humans produce both testosterone and oestrogen. If you remove the source of the testosterone that leaves only oestrogen. Guess what happens when a person only produces oestrogen ... that's right, their development tends towards a female's development, even if they were born male. No magic involved.

You make a lot of assumptions. This conversation might be less tedious if you stopped doing that.

List the assumptions I've made, not including the assumption I announced I was making.

Here are yours...

1. [Håkan] had given his whole life to Eli (nothing in the film backs this up, "it's obvious" is not an argument)
2. She goes directly from Håkan to Oskar (you're assuming that Eli wants the same thing from both Håkan and Oskar)
3. She needs him to survive (why do you assume that?)
4. she would have to still pee after all (huge assumption)
5. Cutting off a boys penis is not going to make him look like a girl anyway (your assumption here was that emasculation means removing only the penis)
6. Obviously it was done before she was a vampire (nothing in the film supports this)
7. And neither does it make a boy start producing oestrogen (although this might just be lack of knowledge, rather than an assumption)

So, you are saying that it was done either just before, or after she turned. In which case, it would have had no effect on her appearance whatsoever, since her appearance has obviously not changed since she became a vampire.

Can't have it both ways.

You are right I can't "prove" that Hakan was with her since he was a child, or that Oskar will have the same fate. It wasn't spellt out for you. The director left a lot of things unsaid. The fact that he left them unsaid does say something in itself though.

If you want to reduce the film to cheap teen romance porn, then that's your perogative. I think my intepretaion makes the film much more poignant and beautiful. But you'd rather argue about irrelevant and pedantic points about whether Eli is "he" or "she".

So, you are saying that it was done either just before, or after she turned. In which case, it would have had no effect on her appearance whatsoever, since her appearance has obviously not changed since she became a vampire.

Can't have it both ways.

I'm not having it both ways, I have never said that Eli has changed his appearance. Eli was born a boy, he was later turned into a vampire, he still looks the same, he hasn't changed, he always looked like he does now. This whole discussion came from you claiming that the "older" Eli being played by a woman proves that Eli is female, I was illustrating that even if he had aged normally he still wouldn't look like a standard male because he would have no testosterone in his system; ergo, he would look more like an old woman even though he is male.

If you want to reduce the film to cheap teen romance porn, then that's your perogative. I think my intepretaion makes the film much more poignant and beautiful.

Seriously? You think a story about a boy becoming a murderer and blood collector for a manipulative vampire that'll just throw him away when he is of no more use is more "poignant and beautiful" than two lost souls finding true acceptance and love in each other? Wow.

It might interest you to know that when this film was released in Sweden it was categorised as a "Drama/Thriller", it was the international distribution companies that added the "Horror" tag to it. It was not originally made as a horror film, as Tomas has said on many occasions.

But you'd rather argue about irrelevant and pedantic points about whether Eli is "he" or "she".

I simply corrected your error, you chose to deny and argue the point.

Seriously? You think a story about a boy becoming a murderer and blood collector for a manipulative vampire that'll just throw him away when he is of no more use is more "poignant and beautiful" than two lost souls finding true acceptance and love in each other?

Do you by any chance like the Twilight series?

I don't.

And the anwser is yes.

Something that is poignant affects you deeply and makes you feel sadness or regret. ...a poignant combination of beautiful surroundings and tragic history. ...a poignant love story.

A horribly clicheed "two lost souls finding true acceptance and love in each other" is not poignant in any way. It's a happy meal. It's a lie.

Do you by any chance like the Twilight series?

No. Stop assuming things.

And the anwser is yes.

Something that is poignant affects you deeply and makes you feel sadness or regret. ...a poignant combination of beautiful surroundings and tragic history. ...a poignant love story.

Your version isn't poignant, it's straight up "horror". Your version is not a love story and it certainly isn't beautiful even if the cinematography is.

A horribly clicheed "two lost souls finding true acceptance and love in each other" is not poignant in any way. It's a happy meal. It's a lie.

The way you frame your points is extremely childish. Let The Right One In is not a happy story, it is an extremely sad love story. Don't believe me? Here is what Tomas says in the commentary track...

00:46:59,581 --> 00:47:08,370 TA: So that was also one of the reasons that we really tried to concentrate on the love story because that's how film works.

I never said it's not a love story. She loves him to the extent that a woman can love a man. That is, she loves what he can do for her. And he loves her. But it's bitter sweet, not sugary sweet.

Do you remember the scene?

"that was the first thing I heard you say..."

"I don't kill people"

"No....but you'd like to"

That was why she chose him. Can I prove it? No. I can just put all of the pieces together than the film has left for me.

I never said it's not a love story. She loves him to the extent that a woman can love a man. That is, she loves what he can do for her. And he loves her. But it's bitter sweet, not sugary sweet.

I'll let the casual misogyny slide.

If the measure of someone's "love" is what the other can do for them, that's not love, that's a usury relationship. Love is an emotion, not a thought process. It's funny in a way, but Håkan and Eli have a similar conversation in the novel.

When did I say it was sugary sweet? It's a tragic love story.

Do you remember the scene?

"that was the first thing I heard you say..."

"I don't kill people"

"No....but you'd like to"

That was why she chose him. Can I prove it? No. I can just put all of the pieces together than the film has left for me.

And the rest of that scene is...

If you could. To get revenge. Right?

Yes.

I do it because I have to. Be me a little.

What that scene does is differentiate the thought processes of the two children; one wants revenge, the other wants to survive. If it tells us anything it is that Oskar is not the ideal person to be Eli's caretaker, as he wanted to kill for selfish reasons not a selfless act for someone else's need. Besides, we're talking about a twelve year old child, how many people can he kill for Eli in the next few weeks alone, never mind the years it will take before he is physically on similar ground to his "victims"?

There is another scene, where Oskar symbolically throws the knife away after partially seeing what Eli does to Lacke in the bathroom. This is a rejection of a possible future that you seem to think is all but guaranteed.

If the measure of someone's "love" is what the other can do for them, that's not love, that's a usury relationship. Love is an emotion, not a thought process

No, love is neither of those. Love is an act.

There is another scene, where Oskar symbolically throws the knife away after partially seeing what Eli does to Lacke in the bathroom.

We wouldn't expect him to suddenly turn into a cold blooded killer without any internal struggle.

@Infected By Eli said:

The DVD commentary describes what we see on screen in those shots...

01:07:59,089 --> 01:08:11,209 TA: Here you see Eli for a short glimpse how she maybe would have looked if she had been her proper age.

01:08:11,730 --> 01:08:22,162 TA: I think she's... Well the timelessness shows when she's in between human and in between being this monster.

01:08:23,203 --> 01:08:29,153 TA: So there is this critical line where maybe you could see a mixture.

...timelessness; ergo, Eli has existed for over two hundred years, but is timeless. That is what Tomas was going for when he used an older actress in those scenes, timelessness, not aged.

The reason a woman (Susanne Ruben) was used to show a timeless Eli is because an emasculated boy would not grow up to look like a typical male, full of testosterone, his androgynous softer features would remain.

If Tomas wanted the vampire to be a woman why did he arrange to film the emasculation scene using a pig? Surely that scene wouldn't even be considered if his Eli was female from the beginning?

The scene he didn't use you mean?

You are having to do a lot of guesswork and "ergo" to disregard his very plain and clear explanation of the Eli character in his own words. The gender thing was almost completely excised from LTROI. There is a 1 second shot of a crotch with no explanation...that's it. Not only did he not use the castration scene, he also didn't bother to elaborate on that story line in any other way either. So it didn't seem like a very important part of the story to TA to me. It looked like he just put that part in for readers of the novel.

Here is what he said about the mental age of the Eli character. It's not vague, there is no guesswork required about what he might be thinking. He made it very clear. This isn't him asking JAL to clarify JAL's thoughts. This isn't guessing about what "timeless" means. (all vampires are timeless)

"Also I wanted the vampire to be a very old woman in a 12 year old body. And I think we found her...Lina...who played that...she has...she could be my grandmother or something, y'know?" TA even paused to emphasis the word "old".

(3:34)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqNo5akbMjo&feature=related

If he thought of the character the same way Reeves does, then he could have said that....instead of saying the opposite of that.

No, love is neither of those. Love is an act.

Who hurt you?

There is another scene, where Oskar symbolically throws the knife away after partially seeing what Eli does to Lacke in the bathroom.

We wouldn't expect him to suddenly turn into a cold blooded killer without any internal struggle.

Oskar throwing the knife away was the conclusion to his internal struggle.

He's a twelve year old kid that can hardly bench press 5kg, he's not turning into a cold blooded killer any time soon, which he would need to in order to be "useful" to Eli in your scenario.

The ball is in your court, where is your conclusion to this internal struggle? Leaving with Eli is not a conclusion, if Oskar is still undecided as the film ends then your theory that Oskar becomes Håkan's replacement is just you continuing the story after the film has ended and therefore isn't part of the film.

I think you misunderstood me. Love is an action.

Oskar is not undecided a the film ends. She brutally massacred 3 young boys, and he was fine with it.