MovieChat Forums > Let Me In (2010) Discussion > Is Abby a pedophile? (Spoiler warning)

Is Abby a pedophile? (Spoiler warning)

posted 6 years ago by Krool1969 (2)
16 replies | jump to latest

I just watched this film again, but with the knowledge that Abby is not a 12 year old girl. I started seeing things that I hadn't noticed before.
Even though Abby looks like a preteen girl, she would have the emotional maturity of an adult. With that in mind, I saw Abby's interactions with Owen in a very different light. She was grooming him, just as an expert pedophile would.
At their first meeting Abby tells Owen they can't be friends. She is dirty and she smells bad.
Only after her caretaker fails to bring her enough blood to sustain her do we see her become friendly with Owen. She is cleaned up with her hair brushed and no longer smelly. It is clear that she has decided to replace her caretaker.
Her "Father" was in Owen's place 50 years before, and it is likely Owen will be in his place 50 years from now.
I'm not sure it was deliberate on the film maker's part, but Abby is incredibly insidious.
They never say how old Abby actually is, but when she was looking at the Romeo and Juliet book, I almost expected her to say, "I remember old "Willy". And she could have been quite old even then. How many times has she taken a new caretaker in? And Owen is exactly the find of kid Abby needed. Someone with no friends, the target of bullies, and weak.
She uses her appearance to lead these boys into a life they would not have gone into by choice.

[–] Otter (24464) 6 years ago

Not necessarily.

She may actually be trying to avoid adult pedophiles, which is what she'd attract if she went around trying to ensnare adult males. Or maybe it was just for the sake of convenience, the earlier she gets a new caretaker, the longer they're likely to last.

[–] Krool1969 (2) 6 years ago

It's entirely possible that she is completely non-sexual. However, this doesn't change the fact that Abby groomed Owen in the same way a pedophile grooms a child.
At the end of the film Owen is on a train with a box that contains Abby, clearly running away. I think it likely that Abby was quite wealthy, meaning money wouldn't be a problem, but two 12-year-old kids living on their own would be a problem, not to mention, Owen is going to be murdering people for Abby. Without a gun this would be extremely risky as Owen couldn't depend on his strength, and even with a gun, shooting attacks attention.
Abby should be seeking out adult pedophiles, old enough to pass for her father, or at least a much older brother. Protecting herself wouldn't be a problem for Abby as she is much much stronger than any adult.

[–] Starduster (268) 6 years ago

Have you read the book?
Abby is NOT a girl. She states that early on.
Abby, in reality WAS a boy who had all genitals removed. He was prepubescent and now has no gender at all. Therefore since he can not grow or mature in any manner, he/she cant be an "adult" or function as one and would lack the development physically or emotionally to act as an adult.
The character is presented to us as a girl and with a girls name but again he/she has no actual gender identity.
Owen would be a person of her peer group. She may find him "cute" or attractive in her own way or simply regard him as a friend although she says "we cant be friends". She knows that friendship comes with responsibilities.
Nevertheless she cant really be a pedophile as she isnt and never will be an "adult" except chronologically.
She needs a "provider". Apparently the boy who grew into a man was able to provide for her needs over his lifetime. It IS however a new era and time and that doesn't mean that Owen can do the same for her.
We will never really know.

[–] Shibez (931) 5 years ago

The book may state that Abby was not a girl but the movie does not...this is movie chat not book chat. I agree with the OP that Abby is definitely a pedophile. She can very easily attract older men (or women) who are attracted to prepubescent children .... but she chooses kids.

[–] Starduster (268) 5 years ago

I dont give a &^%$&* whether this is moviechat or bookchat. This is simply a ploy to deflect the issue away from the storyline itself which is WRITTEN.
Im not about to get into stupid semantics of this venue.
What is more disturbing is WHY is anyone so obsessed in pedophilia and how it relates to this movie (which it doesnt)
Abby states in the movie that she is not a girl. She is not a boy either. She is not an adult. She will never and can not mature into adulthood of any gender. She shall remain someone that is essentially prepubescent for eternity. Pedophilia is an adult (which Abby is not) having sexual feelings toward a child (which she doesnt) and even if she did, would have very limited abilities to fully act on those feelings. I am not about to get into various perversions and I see no indications that was a matter of the relationships anyway.
Since this IS a fictional movie about a vampire who is a child, what is the real need to sexualize the movie beyond that of childhood attractions and take it into a realm of pedophilia?
You have further controdicted the OP's issue as to whether ABBY is a pedophile or if pedophiles are attracted to HER which is a separate issue.

[–] PaladinNJ (21772) 5 years ago

Not a girl is another way for her to say she's not human. She's a vampire not a 400 year old transsexual.

[–] [email protected] (2042) 5 years ago

After the reveal, I felt a revulsion towards her and a sympathy for her 'father' and every little boy she used I. Her lifetime and threw away once they got too old for her.

[–] Starduster (268) 5 years ago

Moviechat is being overtaken by the same sort of lunacy that plagued IMDB and eventually lead to the demise of the ability to share rational thoughts there.
Do you actually READ what you write?

[–] Shibez (931) 5 years ago

Calm down starduster...everyone is entitled to their opinion...
As for IMDb..I miss it. Moviechat will never grow to the size IMDb forums were in the day..and I don't see any lunacy in this thread. If anything you will scare away people from this site coming on so strong like this.

You said it was mentioned she wasn't a girl in the movie..well I honestly don't remember it. I don't ever remember anything in the movie about her once being a boy and having her genitals removed. All I know is from the countless vampire movies I've seen is vampires are frozen in time the moment they are turned.. PHYSICALLY... But mentally devolping they still age. Everyone knows this. And whether she was a boy or a girl doesn't change that she is not the age of s child. She doesn't act like it as she tries to seduce the boy...girls that are truly that age don't act like her.

[–] Starduster (268) 5 years ago

I typed this at 3:30 in the morning when I am likely to say just about anything.
I was rather shocked when I saw the subject of pedophilia being resurrected again in relationship to this movie. The subject itself is distasteful enough. I see no reason to inject it into this movie and I intend to stand by that.
I feel that your closing remark is out of place in relationship to the movie. She didnt find a young boy and throw him away. The man that we regarded as "her father" started out as a young boy but she stayed with him until he was an old man which is not really the trademark of a pedophile. We really dont know what she did with previous males.
From the standpoint of Owen, and basing things in a more current situation and grounding things in a somewhat realistic world, Owen is VERY ill equipped to be a good "provider" for her and I dont see him as a person who would last long without getting caught omitting a murder and in a more modern society, there are avenues to find missing children more easily. In other words, its a very different world than when she recruited the last boy who grew into an adult man.
In my other post here I said that it seemed more like the men were attracted to a young "girl" who never aged, but then again, there was no real indication of this being anything sexual. Once again she was not a girl biologically or physically and she wasnt a boy either.
The foreign film "Let the right one in" gave us a quick glimpse that she had no male or female sex organs.
Neither movie offers any sort of suggestion as to why a boy would not be freaked out by this when he saw it but then again we dont really know what OWEN saw or didnt see.
The bottom line its a movie and its fiction. We may try to "read into" certain things but I dont see how we can actually back up these assumptions. And YES I still find this one distasteful and unnecessary.

[–] Shibez (931) 5 years ago

Fair enough.

[–] moralityplay (4) 5 years ago

"I was rather shocked when I saw the subject of pedophilia being resurrected again in relationship to this movie. The subject itself is distasteful enough. I see no reason to inject it into this movie and I intend to stand by that."

"The bottom line its a movie and its fiction. We may try to "read into" certain things but I dont see how we can actually back up these assumptions. And YES I still find this one distasteful and unnecessary."

It's been a decade since this movie was released. In a way, I'm delighted that it continues to conjure debate ten years later. But I'm also dismayed by what I see on this board. If this constitutes the depth of thinking about the artistic dimensions of the film or the novel that have been provoked, then it might be better to just forget them.

It's true that the worst are full of passionate intensity. You are just so damned sure of yourself. You know (just _know_) what is 'necessary' to an adequate reading of this narrative. Petulantly demanding to know if others have actually _read the novel_! Yet, you have conducted a comically facile, superficial 'reading' of the original novel's text. You're as bad as that legion of gay LTROI enthusiasts who earnestly believe Oskar's father is having a homosexual love affair with his drinking buddy!

Predation is probably the single most important facet of Lindqvist's interrogation of the state of nature. It manifests itself throughout the novel in different ways. Sometimes as allusion to animals in the wild. Sometimes as usury. And it's not an accident that two of his central characters include a vampire and a pedophile! The dimension of _sexual_ predation is essential currency to the philosophical concept he seems to be tracing. It can't be compartmentalized and disposed of as neatly as you seem to want.

[–] Starduster (268) 5 years ago

WELL! CONGRATULATIONS!
How nice of you to revive this trollbate subject and even change the narrative to continue it. You even came up with an identity to weigh in on this one. It must be very important to you to get the last word on this. Even to the point of breaking up this post into 3 parts.
WOW!
Enjoy your "win".
Im sure it makes you happy. Im not going to try to take that happiness away from you. You must be very proud.

[–] moralityplay (4) 5 years ago

"I was rather shocked when I saw the subject of pedophilia being resurrected again in relationship to this movie. The subject itself is distasteful enough. I see no reason to inject it into this movie and I intend to stand by that."

"The bottom line its a movie and its fiction. We may try to "read into" certain things but I dont see how we can actually back up these assumptions. And YES I still find this one distasteful and unnecessary."

Jesus... There's an entire chapter where Hakan goes trolling for middle-schoolers at the Stockholm public library. My recollection is that Linqvist crafts his description of Hakan in this episode as if he were in a kind of fugue state. As if his agency had been compromised by his biology. A state he is able to re-enter later as 'zombie Hakan.' And having been led to a restroom stall in a docile, suggestible trance by his sexual proclivities, to await service by a ten year old boy... What finally rouses him from the trance???

The realization that the boy's _teeth_ had been removed... to make him better at his work.

Upon my first reading of this chapter, I don't believe I had even yet observed that the author was using the boilerplate mythology of vampires (that everyone knows) to dramatize the moral-philosophical themes he was charting. And still, this bit of theater managed to register with me as _essential_ to Lindqvist's idea.

You've had _ten years_ ! If you haven't worked this out by now, it's easy to see how you could mistakenly suppose that all attempts to 'read into' the author's meaning are futile. When the quality of your own reading is this poor, how could you hope to penetrate this text?

[–] moralityplay (4) 5 years ago

"The bottom line its a movie and its fiction. We may try to "read into" certain things but I dont see how we can actually back up these assumptions. And YES I still find this one distasteful and unnecessary."

I would stipulate to the idea that Reeves' treatment reimagines the Jenkins' character in a way that obviously renders him as longtime companion instead of latter-day, pedophilic sidekick. But the specter of sexual predation _looms_ in the scenes featuring Jenkins and Moretz anyway. By Design! "Don't see that boy again." The direction of the performers is specifically contrived to be _oppressive_. It puts me in mind of Lucile Hadžihalilovićs 'Innocence.' The film tortures you with the premonition of some kind of sexualized violence waiting to befall a little girl. But what Hadžihalilović conjures as misdirection, Reeve's conjures into a sense of dread, always at the periphery. Moretz's hand recoiling from that frayed sweater when Jenkins makes his pronouncement on "that boy" is calculated to elicit a particular protective instinct in my primitive ape brain.

[–] ADBruno1985 (3579) 3 years ago

I think it's more because it makes sense to prey on those who are similar in age to how she appears. What I find interesting is that at first it feels age-appropriate for the boy, but as time goes on, he ends up being a pedo.