DÉJAME ENTRAR

Película enigmática donde las haya, se ha tendido a clasificarla dentro del género de terror, pero no hay nada más engañoso. Se trata más bien de un thriller psicológico, donde el realismo del formato se funde por completo con lo fantasioso de la trama hasta crear una homogeneidad inusitada que trasciende cualquier etiquetado. Es una de las mayores y solapadas virtudes de este film: la sublime fusión de contrarios en multitud de ámbitos: en el artístico (realismo descarnado con solapada ficción gótica), en la trama (retrato psicológico de la marginalidad y el acoso a través de la amistad entre un niño y una vampiro), en las emociones (horror y pureza, brutalidad y ternura), en la moral (constante fusión y confusión del bien y el mal)... De este modo se resquebrajan todos los maniqueísmos establecidos, dejando al espectador en un estado de perplejidad emocional.

La película presenta una perspectiva arquitectónica del espacio vital. En este escenario escandinavo, las vidas transcurren en una multitud de ámbitos aislados. Los espacios se multiplican y se esconden unos de otros. El espacio intermedio, siempre nevado, resulta fronterizo. En ese espacio vacío de actividad vital se conocen los niños, de noche: como si el encuentro tuviera que darse en un mundo intermedio entre la realidad y la ficción. Un espacio como vacío de vida que hay que atravesar para llegar a otro espacio cerrado, protegido, encerrado en sí mismo. Cada edificio, cada habitación, separa acontecimientos, vidas e intimidades. Un retrato sencillamente realista crea la atmósfera adecuada para hablar del aislamiento, de la sensación de burbuja, de mundo interior, una atmósfera que culmina en la escena final de la piscina, en la que todo el horror se presenta de forma absolutamente aséptica, de golpe, eliminando todo sonido al introducir el plano en el interior del agua. 

Con tal escenario el espectador está ya anímicamente introducido en la soledad del niño, en su miedo incomunicable. Si de algún modo es una película de terror no lo es tanto por el tema del vampirismo, sino sobre todo por el de esa soledad impotente producida por el acoso que sufre. Miedo y deseo, soledad y relaciones imposibles, urden la temática profunda de la película. Todo ello fusionado como piezas indivisibles, como caras de la misma moneda. La vida se alimenta de la muerte; la amistad que aquí surge se alimenta de la marginación. Especialmente impactante resulta la mirada beatífica del niño en las dos escenas en que consigue superar los ataques a que se le somete. No hay crueldad en sus ojos, ni expresión de triunfo, desafío, venganza... Sólo una profunda expresión de beatífica paz. Esa imagen del brazo mutilado lanza de una sola vez al espectador una sensación de terror y de alivio por su salvación. No da tiempo a juzgar lo que se ha sentido.

El tema del acoso es abordado desde la perspectiva de la imaginación infantil. La niña vampiro parece cumplir el papel de ese amigo imaginario que crean muchos niños para llenar su intimidad. El deseo de liberación, más que de venganza, puede llevar a soñar con que los enemigos son destruidos, desaparecen... Un protector desconocido por todos, con poderes especiales, responde a ese esquema de imaginería psicológica creada por las circunstancias de aislamiento y pánico a que está sometido. Pero no se retrata con tanta explicitud: a ese amigo imaginario se le da una identidad y se le crea una vida, unas circunstancias que resultan paralelas a las del propio niño. Un protector cuyo papel los demás desconocen, una persona que desea su amistad y que la salva previamente, como luego ella le salva a él. Al amigo imaginario se le da una identidad real, o casi real, porque se introduce el elemento fantasioso (el vampirismo) en una atmósfera cargada de realismo, tanto estético como psicológico. Todo con la ambigüedad moral del sacrificio ajeno, de la muerte de gente (salvo excepciones) inocente, factores inevitables para la supervivencia de la niña.

En definitiva, una película inusitada, realmente original y con una profundidad sin estridencias, de las que te hablan desde rincones profundos del alma sin que uno se dé cuenta de los intersticios por los que se ha infiltrado ahí.

SOLUCIONES A LA CRISIS.
Lo primero, abrir los ojos. Qué necesario es que haya gente en áreas de poder que pueda declarar ciertas verdades...

Transcribo tal cual este artículo del Times, muy interesante, con la convicción de que es extremadamente urgente un debate público racional, y no meramente emocional, interesado y sesgado, como suele ser habitual. El conflicto generacional del que habla tiene unas repercusiones económicas muy serias. Pero además abre los ojos a una necesaria revisión de valores de quienes hasta ahora monopolizan una determinada forma de interpretar el sentido de la vida.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From Times Online June 2, 2010




This is the age of war between the generations

Never mind the credit crunch, it’s all those retiring baby-boomers who threaten us with national bankruptcyAnatole Kaletsky 167 Comments

Recommend? (95) Yesterday was my 58th birthday. If I were a Greek worker I could retire. Although pension payments in Greece normally start around 61, special provisions allow anyone to retire at 58 if they have been in employment for 35 years. That, as it happens, is how long I have been at work. My index-linked pensions from the Greek Government would be worth 75 to 90 per cent of the average salary in the country, guaranteed for the rest of my life by the State.
If you want to know why Greece is going bankrupt and why the euro seems to be on the verge of disintegration, look no farther. The best argument I have ever heard for a break-up of the euro was this observation in a German newspaper: “The Greeks go on to the streets to protest against an increase of the pension age from 61 to 63. Does this mean that Germans should extend the working age from 67 to 69, so Greeks can enjoy their retirement?”
This, however, is not another article about self-indulgent Greeks and self-righteous Germans. The battle over bailouts in Europe is only a sideshow compared with the great social conflict that lies ahead all over the world in the next 20 years. This will not be a struggle between nations or social classes, but between generations — and it is a conflict that, in Britain, begins in earnest this year. The end of the Second World War in May 1945 marked the start of the baby boom, which lasted until the mid-1960s. Now, 65 years later, the corresponding retirement revolution is about to shake up our society, economy and political institutions.
If the word “revolution” sounds like an overstatement, consider the most important issue in British politics today — and then let me draw your attention to the most important book about this issue, written, as it happens, by a senior minister in the new Government. The issue is, of course, the unsustainable size of the public deficit. The book is called The Pinch by David Willetts, the Tory Minister for Universities, and its subtitle conveys his main message with his characteristic clarity and directness: “How the baby-boomers took their children’s future and why they should give it back.”
Mr Willetts shows how the overwhelming size of the baby boom generation, in comparison with the generations just before and after, allowed people born in the two decades after VE-Day not only to dominate culture, fashion and morality, but also to accumulate wealth, monopolise employment and housing and reduce social mobility for the next generation.
But strangely, however, nobody — least of all an active politician like Mr Willetts — seems to make the connection between long-term intergenerational tensions and the present controversies over public spending and taxes.

Why, for example, are governments everywhere running out of money, not just in Britain and Greece, but also in America, Germany, Japan and France? Why are taxes relentlessly rising in all advanced capitalist countries? And why is public spending being cut on schools, universities, science, defence, culture, environment and transport, while spending on health and pensions continues to rise?
The populist answer to these questions is that we are all about to pay for the greed of the bankers. But this is not true. According to IMF calculations, the credit crunch, bank bailouts and recession only account for 14 per cent of the expected increase in Britain’s public debt burden. The remaining 86 per cent of the long-term fiscal pressure is caused by the growth of public spending on health, pensions and long-term care. The credit crunch and recession did not create the present pressures on public borrowing and spending. They merely brought forward an age-related fiscal crisis that would have become inevitable, as by 2020 the majority of the baby-boomers will be retired.
The rational solution to this fiscal crisis would be for governments to reduce their spending on pensions, health and longterm care. Yet these are precisely the “entitlements” protected and ring-fenced by politicians, not just in Britain but also in America and many European countries, even as other government programmes are ruthlessly cut.
The politics of the next decade will be dominated by a battle over public spending and taxes between the generations. Young people will realise that different categories of public spending are in direct conflict — if they want more spending on schools, universities and environmental improvements they must vote for cuts in health and pensions.
Schools and universities are more important for a society’s future than pensions. Yet every democracy around the world has made the opposite judgment. While many politicians claim to be obsessed with education — recall Tony Blair’s three priorities were “education, education and education” — in reality they support health and pensions to the point of national bankruptcy, while squeezing universities. The same applies to the many fiscal benefits heaped on pensioners over the years. Is it, for example, better for society to offer free bus travel to wealthy 80-year olds rather than students or impoverished youngsters looking for their first job?
Why are such conflicts of interest between old and young never debated? Partly because of the myth that pensioners are “entitled” to their many benefits because they have “paid their dues” through national insurance and taxes. This is simply untrue. The true value of the average baby-boomer’s benefits is 118 per cent of the taxes they paid, according to Mr Willetts — and higher according to other calculations.
Second, and more importantly, the baby boomers are so numerous that no politician dares to campaign against their interests. Moreover, older people are more likely to vote. As a result democracies will increasingly be held hostage to the special interests of “grey panthers”, whose power will steadily grow as more baby-boomers retire.
Will politics therefore degenerate into a conflict between the dwindling number of voters with children, who care about education and the future, and the massive power of pensioners with shorter time horizons? Here is a modest proposal to avert this awful outcome. Since children under 18 are not allowed to vote, perhaps pensioners could be deprived of the right to vote after 75 or 80. An equally effective alternative would be to give mothers an extra vote for every child under voting age. Since no such reforms are ever likely, I look forward to the Greek Government being forced to sell the Parthenon — and to Oxford and Cambridge being turned into luxury old people’s homes.