MovieChat Forums > Sauna (2008) Discussion > Eerik (spoilers)

Eerik (spoilers)

posted 15 years ago by jankkinen
28 replies | jump to latest

********SPOILER ALERT******

I have watched this movie two times, and on first watch I was so thrilled about the disturbed and grim atmosphere of the movie and truly enjoyed it.

On second watch I started to put the puzzles together and would like to share them on this forum, to make a creative conversation.

So here we go.

In my opinion, mainly this is a story of Eerik's life, the sins and crimes of his past. It is said many times that Eerik has killed 73 people on his life. When we are watching we witness a few:

The girl at the cellar and his father for example. But there's something strange about the girls father killing. At later on the movie, theres a dialog which goes something like :

Knut:"You killed that girls father."
Eerik: "I was defending my life. and yours. Didn't you see the axe he had?"
Knut: "No. I didnt."

Is it that Eerik was put to pay his sins because he killed innocent people too?

So, lets say that girls father was the victim number 73.

Victim number 74 is the girl at the cellar. This comes pretty clear at the dialog near the ending of the movie:

Eerik: "Where have you been?"
Knut: "...."
Eerik: "I will leave with you tomorrow. Lets go and get that girl out of the
cellar. But Knut, maybe its too late."*and so on*
Knut: "74?"

Number 75 is not a victim, but a sin. His brother, Knut. We can see in the early beginning of the movie the strange birthmark on Knut's back, and the same mark is written in a piece of parchment which Eerik discovers, and then flips it a few times and you can see "75" on it. But what was the sin he committed against Knut? I have listened to bits and pieces about the directors commentary, and there is a theory said, that "If you have committed many sins, you cant pay for them by yourself. You have to give more." Some sort of innocent casualties. And this is witnessed at the ending, when the little girl is killed by the strange faceless creature.

But the biggest question which have puzzled me, is the strange town, what they found.

At the town there are 73 people living, and I cant just put it out of my head that this is a coincidence. So is this strange town a ghost town, where habits all the ghosts, which eerik has killed?

In the ending of the movie everyone at the town disappears and there are only clothes left, and it is said that "they are waiting for you at the sauna". And when Eerik steps in to the sauna, he sees every 73 killed, and also his brother and the girl, which are the "innocent casualties" (Well, in the movie only the thing we ACTUALLY see is his brother with some sort of monks rope, but perhaps..)

It's pretty hard to put all these thoughts and things to words, but I hope I make even slightly sense.

Any thoughts?

There are many hints and answers on the directors comment track, I recommend

[–] Frisil 15 years ago

I think the village is hell, Eeriks personal hell where he comes to atone for his sins. The village is not real, as we can see by the cement sauna. Two interpretations are possible: the supernatural (hell) or the mundane (Eerik went mad because he could no longer cope with what he did).

The boy in the village was a girl in disguise, I think it's the girl Eerik said he left in the cellar to die, but the ending hints that he actually raped and killed her instead. Eerik only killed one child, so she is the only child in the village. In war times, village girls often pretended to be boys to avoid being raped, so her disguise is another hint/symbol of what Eerik did to her when she was alive. Also, Eerik wants to let her/him go (a symbol for "forgetting", his usual way to cope with his sins) but when in the Sauna, he cannot run from himself and his memory/guilt any longer, he realizes he is the facless creature killing the girl in the end.

[–] spisok_korablei 15 years ago

Very probable interpretation, Frisil. But what role does Knut play in all this? When he sees the long-haired girl's ghost and hears her whispering "Come back", what does this mean, bearing in mind that the girl was actually murdered? Why come back to her then?

One more point to add. Eerik says that Knut is the only decent person in the whole family and he's the one who shall survive at any cost. Knut seems to represent the most clear and unspoiled part of Eerik's personality, yet the sins are too heavy for them both to be saved.

[–] Frisil 15 years ago

"Very probable interpretation, Frisil. But what role does Knut play in all this? When he sees the long-haired girl's ghost and hears her whispering "Come back", what does this mean, bearing in mind that the girl was actually murdered? Why come back to her then?"

I think I can answer that: Knut wanted to protect her from her brother, that's why he locked her in. He knows what his brother is capable of. The voice of the ghost whispering "come back" does not say "come back and save me", only "come back", imho meaning "come back and see what really happened". I think it's the voice of his conscience urging him to find out out what his brother did. As he ask Eeerik all the time if he really let her out, I think he already suspects (or at least fears) far worse.

[–] argontus 15 years ago

Very bright ideas, Frisil. Gave me some insight, too.

Regarding the number 75, Knut is definitely the victim number 75, and the fact that his birthmark bears the number 75 gives it some creepy connotations. Remember the scene with Knut furiously clawing his back? What Eerik finds is not parchment, but a piece of Knut's skin. Note the bloodstains on the back of Knut's shirt in the sauna. In a way, Knut's fate was tied in birth to his older brother. He tried to protect the village girl from Eerik, and later on he realized that by sealing the girl in the cellar he actually condemned her to Eerik's whim.

So in a way, Eerik had destroyed his brother, too, thus the number 75 - Knut didn't survive the wash of his sins in the sauna. Eerik knew that, and I think he tried to save himself by letting the little girl (no doubt portraying the one left in the cellar) go - he tried to save his brother by correcting their sin. And in the end, well, it didn't go exactly as planned. It is quite a grim ending to a grim film, and I can't think of any other word than a masterpiece...

[–] Guto313 15 years ago

That's also all the ideas and interpretation I had after seeing the movie.

But one question : if the girl in the village is the one left behind, why don't we have 74 people living in the village ?

[–] Frisil 15 years ago

I think we do - maybe the girl is just not yet counted because Eerik is still in denial of what he did to her. Only in the end he realizes it. So the number of people counted seems to be the number of victims Eerik acknowledges, but there is one more.

So the girl is victim 74 and Knut #75.

[–] waltercronkite 15 years ago

Great post, but I thought 75 was the village guy they locked in the weird monk building? You have a dvd with commentary? I would love to hear that. Mine only had the trailer as a bonus. Is yours blue ray?
As a side note watching REC a couple days ago and then this after watching a slew of American crapfests like Unborn and The Haunting in Conneticut has given me back hope that good horror movie can still be made just not in the US.

[–] wellfunked 15 years ago

Did they kill they chap that they locked in the monks building? i wasnt sure if he was dead or if he was the man that the village nurse showed Erik a little later that had scratched his eyes out and "chewed his tounge to pieces".
I agree about US horror movies, maybe its something to do with the mindset of us Europeans, being scary *beep* comes naturally to us!, but there is still plenty of great cinema coming from the US. Gonna try and find a DVD with commentary and pray that its not in Swedish!
Oh yeah, REC scared me sh**less too, the bit towards the end when you saw that skinny girl in the nappy, terrifying.

[–] Theodine 15 years ago

Spoilers

I had a different idea for why the girl could not escape at the end. She was born on the way to the new village from the old one. They say somewhere in the film that new-borns are washed in the sauna to wash away the traces of the old life. This may be similar to the Catholic idea of baptism washing away original sin (Finland had been Catholic until the 1520s). Since the girl was not washed in the old sauna and apparently had never been washed in the new one, that meant she still carried the taint of sin or the old life. It also could mean that she's never been properly initiated into her community. Without that, she has no determined identity which may be why she can dress as a boy; she has no role she's been tied to. Is she ever given a name in the film? I've read in some cultures a baby doesn't have a soul until it's given a name. This may be why she's still around after all the other villagers have disappeared; she's somewhat invisible to whatever forces lurk around the sauna, because in some ways she's not a culturally defined person. However, she can't leave either because she doesn't have a place in living society. She belongs to the halfway place of the village, somewhere between life and death, in the exact middle of a swamp which is not quite land or water. Or she may have been doomed by the fact that Eerik tries to give her an official identity by making her the official bearer of the treaty and giving her a place in his family. He even offers to write her a letter recognizing her as something earlier in the film. Also, according to wikipedia, the underworld in Finnish mythology was usually either underground or at the bottom of a lake. That may be why the sauna is in a body of water; it's the gateway to the underworld and you have to wash your sins away before you can enter. The girl who Knut locked underground may be haunting him in part because she's a living person who has been trapped in the land of the dead where she doesn't belong. Just some thoughts.

"Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe"
Lewis Carroll

[–] JankaJaakari 15 years ago

"(Finland had been Catholic until the 1520s)"

and had been so only 300 years before reformation and Catholism actually had much less influence than eastern orthodox church had. The idea of bathing ones sins away in finnish culture does not come from Catholic faith since Catholism never really had change to fully root it self in Finland but it comes from much earlier paganic traditions as well as from similar tradition with paganic origins used in Easter orthodox faith.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] kurtmaurice 12 years ago

All great posts. But I'm still stuck in getting the picture.
Seems nobody mentions the fact that Knut was sure having (almost) reached the place of destination... He's the map-expert ... but he seemed to be extremely surprised when the people of the village told him that "here" is just HALFWAY the track.
Maybe this is a clue to something...

But too many unanswered things for me to get it.

1. how did the first person in the village die (old man, white hair)
2. when eerik entered the cabage with the boy/girl, where he let her escape, they both didn't pay attention to the dead man on the chair, killed by the russian... why didn't they check him being dead or not ...
3. why did the other poked out his eyes and chewed his own tongue
4. why do the villagers die in the village and not in the sauna ...when they are already dead (victims of eeriks past)

hummm... i like this movie...

any thoughts ?

[–] surfrac 14 years ago

Just wanted to thank all the posters in this thread. This is a beautiful movie. There have been some great insight here that has helped me appreciate this movie even more.

[–] arbnnd 14 years ago

Good thread, I had thought a bit along the line of Theodine that more than hell or earth that they had found there way into a type of symbolic purgatory in the village. No one really knew anything about those that had come before or really where they were from...as they stated no one had really lived since they came...just were stuck..not necessarily bad or good just stuck. The delegation was not north of the swamp as they thought...but right in the middle. The compass to me was their morality...the brother (Knut) was the "north" with his virtue but when he became lost himself, torn with what had happened to the farmer and having left his daughter in the storage cache after being torn with his feelings for her (lust) the compass no longer guided them....as was said in the movie "the compass doesn't lie" but in the movie it no longer showed them the way as the moral guide, the goodness amongst them was lost...the maps were no longer accurate in all their splendor and the compass no longer showed them the way....lost souls wandering in the abyss of the swamp.

I don't think that Erik had raped and killed the farmer's daughter as some eluded to...merely that he did not care enough to go out and get her and/or want to deal with the consequences of having to deal with her after killing her father. Knut thought all was well in his mind but when he realized his actions to protect her from his brother led to her likely death...he was lost as well...while he did not have the number of his kills in his mind like his brother he was tainted as his actions led to the death of the girl that he loved/lusted after.

To me while the sauna was perhaps made of concrete it seemed to have a look of a solid stone with a door chiseled out of a single piece...giving the surroundings making it stand out as out of place as mentioned by other threads and posters. Some people found this as a fault of the movie (time period correctness of concrete) but either way I think that it was well used to show that it did not belong and was very ominous. The sauna had always been there. Played well into the theme of water in the movie...Erik at times was shown seeing bodies in the water...a gateway in his mind to those who were waiting to revenge their killing at his hand...hence his constant swirling of the water to break up the reflection. Played as well into the glasses that he wore "refracting the light" and the nurse maid mentioning to make sure they did not refract evil, even though in his mind they were good as they helped him to see.

The Russian soldier to me killed his commander out of love to from what he saw as an evil place to "save" him from a doomed fate. He perhaps felt trapped to the fate of his lover (the other Russian soldier) and the Russian commander seemed to be somewhat righteous compared to the other characters...at peace with what he had to do during the war and had lead with honor and integrity to his men.

Though some say this as more a paganism versus christian theme I felt it more of a good versus evil, fire versus water...etc. I found the ending very interesting as where he felt he had perhaps saved the one person that could redeem him...what he had tried to do and failed with Knut...in the end his act of kindness and goodness was met again with failure...pain for pain, with a sense of vengeance. No good would come to him and his sins were not washed away...no one escaped from the purgatory. At the same time the border papers which he had set up to ensure no one would come to this place again made it through so the concept that the village was there for him makes more sense...he died as well as everyone there that would of known what had happened there.

I did not understand the significance of when they were in the house with the old papers and the wooden painted boards from those he had come before...if you remember when he got to the one of the hooded figure it steamed his glasses so he could not see (as if he were in a sauna)...in the end it is his brother when he enters the sauna to confront his "sins" head on, washing him in the sauna with the same robe and then crushing his eyes and showing his brother the death of the girl and so he knows that his attempt to redeem himself has failed.

There are alot of interesting ideas here in this movie. I am sure that I have missed alot of them...the fact that the number is 74 is credited by Knut to his brother in my mind shows that he blames his brother for the farmer's daughters death...has decided that it was Erik's fault that she died and not his...that his intentions though posed by Erik to rape the girl were more innocent...to merely steal a kiss...for a man who has seen great hardship that longs to be close to the innocence of the young girl...to forget the past. The fact that he has 75 on his back shows to me that he sees himself as the final sacrifice...that while he was not necessarily directly responsible for the killing of the girl that he was too late in taking a stand to save her...and he is atoned through the death of his brother in the end.

The killing of the old man in the room was not their doing as well as the other Russians so they did not receive a number in Erik's mind. They were the victim of the non descript evil force in the village. I did not get alot of ideas on the tooth in the mouth and the see no evil eye coverings of the villagers as seen with the little village girl covering her eyes, the nurse maid blowing out the candle so she could not see, the Russian soldier blocking his commanders eye, etc...maybe the concept that they were just and if they did not see the evil they would be spared....not sure. These seemed a little off the scratching the eye out there posed in the rest of the movie...as seem with the fox in the swamp and then with the man in the "hospital".

So this is my two cents. I appreciate all the other comments...I know I jumped around in my assessment. I really liked the movie...the pace mentioned by some as being very slow...I thought it moved well, the pace gave credence to the overall feel of the movie and it built up to interesting culmination points over and over again, never seemed to go to long without either introducing a new plot and making you ask yourself another question...once you thought you got it..they went in another direction to keep you thinking. The movie is one of those that makes me read through the threads here at IMDB versus coming to a direct conclusion in my mind of what things meant...the feeling that some parts of the morality play were intended to be ambiguous to make you come to your own conclusions or to debate it. I like that as long as they don't leave you hanging at the end (which I don't think is the case here). I think the rating of 6.5 here on IMDB indicates it is well worth a watch and based on how the rating scheme works here an indication of a great movie that was enjoyed by the majority of us who watched this film. I actually surprised at all the haters of this film...I loved it! Didn't get it all but liked the look and feel of it as well as the characters and themes.

[–] Tremor-Devoid-Clinic 14 years ago

"The Russian soldier to me killed his commander out of love to from what he saw as an evil place to "save" him from a doomed fate. He perhaps felt trapped to the fate of his lover (the other Russian soldier) and the Russian commander seemed to be somewhat righteous compared to the other characters...at peace with what he had to do during the war and had lead with honor and integrity to his men.

Musko killed Semenski because he was influenced by forces of the village and Knut to do so. He even said that as he stabbed Semenski, that he wants to be with Knut. I can't remember exactly whether he refered to Knut or Eirik, but it was one of the brothers. It's been foreshadowed earlier in the movie.

1. Musko commented on Knut's mapdrawing skills, remarking how he hasn't seen more beautifully drawn maps. So far, pretty harmless, but he got a displeased/suspicious look from Eirik.

2. Whilst crossing the first distance around the swamp-areas, after the first time Knut saw girl's apparition, Eirik openly insulted Musko, saying something to the extent of "The captain is angry, he didn't get to prove his manliness in this battle. But he can get some gay action provided he finds the right company. And that will not be my brother/Stay away from my brother."

3. When Knut's mapdrawings were scattered by the windcast, he encountered the apparition of the girl for the second time. He panicked and ran, and almost fell down a very sloped hill. Musko grabbed him, told him that it's alright, and dragged him out. Eirik took Knut aside and confronted him about the incident, asking if there was an altercation between him and Musko. There clearly wasn't, Knut just freaked out because he was haunted by a horrible apparition of a dead girl he felt guilty about, but Eirik wasn't too keen on ghost-stories and too suspicious about Musko's interest still. (You have to give Eirik a credit though, he practically outed the man simply by interpretting a compliment on mapdrawing as an interest. Guess they didn't hand out much praise on artistic esthetique on daily basis.)

4. Finally, Musko practically admits his fascination and devotion when he stabs Semenski. It had nothing to do with Rogosin, the other russian soldier.

"I did not understand the significance of when they were in the house with the old papers and the wooden painted boards from those he had come before...if you remember when he got to the one of the hooded figure it steamed his glasses so he could not see (as if he were in a sauna)"

I assumed it was a sign that death (robed figure) was watching him, and that it's lurking around.

"I did not get alot of ideas on the tooth in the mouth and the see no evil eye coverings of the villagers as seen with the little village girl covering her eyes, the nurse maid blowing out the candle so she could not see, the Russian soldier blocking his commanders eye, etc...maybe the concept that they were just and if they did not see the evil they would be spared....not sure. These seemed a little off the scratching the eye out there posed in the rest of the movie...as seem with the fox in the swamp and then with the man in the "hospital"."

Maybe they knew they couldn't handle seeing "it". Perhaps it would result in their eyes tarring/bleeding out, like the girl's, Eirik's and Musko's. Remember Rogosin's suicidal writings? It's like he was serving as a medium for that girl's spirit, those were her writings. One of them said something along the lines of: "There is food here, even some drink, but I'm drinking my own blood, because I'm scared. For there is someone in here with me, and I'm afraid I'll have to face them." Perhaps she even died in the same way, and this whole tarry force is just a metaphor for ominous death and grief/guilt, who knows?

Huh, signature? What's going on with that signature? This thing broken...?

[–] screwluce48 13 years ago

Very good appraisal! I think the covering/taking of the eyes was the "see no evil" the whispering in his ear we didn't hear "hear no evil" and the chewing of tongues "speak no evil"? I think it could have also leant towards "an eye for an eye" and a "tooth for a tooth"? As in he had to kill his brother to atone for all that was done as in the end the brother turned "a blind eye" towards everything his brother was doing. 73 people he saw killed at his brother's hands and yet did nothing to stop him.... So he wasn't really innocent after all!
The shadowy figure who steamed up the glasses could have been the Devil? As after all, saunas are very hot

Also, perhaps this means that Knut's final futile effort at trying to save at least one of his brother's victims (when it was too late to atone for everything done) was later echoed in the girl not making it out of the village later on...

[–] metro_west_dude 14 years ago

I will admit that the comments here make me want to re-watch the film.

[–] USCSS_Ulysees_Nostromo 14 years ago

According to director's comments on DVD, the faceless man in the end is actually russian soldier Musko, who killed his commanding officer Semenski just earlier.

Even in commentary track it is not quite clearly explained why Musko is the faceless man, as well as motives or meaning (symbology?) of this scene remains unexplained. So it really is up to us - the viewers - what is the meaning of it ;-)

Also, commentary on DVD reveals director's kind of dissatisfaction or frustration to some scenes. Actually it is some what annoying to listen to those parts of commentary, because in the movie I did not see the faults (mostly editing, time line and duration issues) the director is whining about. Like always, the difference between the original intention and the final result is considered as faults and errors only in the mind of the designer.

But one truly interesting piece of info was that there should've been a long monoloque spoken by Musko during the killing of Semenski. This monoloque scene was of course deleted or dramatically shortened. I bet, there might have been some connection or a hint in the storyline between this monoloque and the faceless man, so that the personality of the faceless man would have been clearer.

But now, in this version of the movie, the connection is (not lost, but) removed, and the trivia-question whether the faceless man is or is not Musko, is not relevant anymore.

During the film making process AJ Annila surely had to make compromises - some good, some bad. The final timeline of the story was created when cams were rolling already, or at least during the editing, but anyways the original script was more chronological. Maybe the decision to mix up the timeline lead to situation, where it was necessary to delete / cut off some scenes. Anyways at the end of the day, AJ was happy with this decision because due that the film start is more powerful and more interesting as it forces viewers to concentrate on the "mystery" in hand... what has happened?

What AJ says in commentary, one can presume his "own" vision would have been more detailed and explained (compared to visions of editor/writer/production crew). It is very obvious that another version may come. Director's Cut. But then again, is it really necessary?

For some reason, in this western culture of ours, more west you go, less loose ends you accept. And when the movie ends, and you walk out of the theater, if there is one question in your mind (like "WTF was that?"), it's better to say "What a dumb movie!" than to think and use your brains, and to find your own answers.

Do they really - as movie makers - have to remove all loose ends in the story? As a viewer, do you really need to have all things explained, all questions answered? In this kind of genre (or: horror subgenre)the unknown **is** the most important effect. For me that's the beauty and the horror of this movie. Explain the unknown, and you'll lose the effect.

[–] Vera_Luna 14 years ago

I'd like to thank you all, for not biting each other's heads off and keeping up an open-minded conversation. You don't see much of that these days.

Here are a few things I've been thinking about, after seeing the movie for the first time today...

**SPOILERS**

The final scene, the faceless man (Musko?) says something along the lines of "my beloved" to the girl before he (probably) kills her.

I think I remember, in the very beginning of the movie, Knut picking up the fur-wrapped bundle from the river, and opening it to read the border contract and the final warning Eerik had written. Then it says "11 days ago", and the story begins.

The ghost of the farmer's daughter appears only to Knut, and that's even before he begins to really suspect she's dead.

When Knut is looking for Semenski in his cottage, he hears something horrible inside, and closes his eyes (see no evil, I guess); that's when someone puts a tooth in his mouth. When Semenski and Musko find him a few minutes later, he says something like "she is perfect; save yourselves".

The statue in the boarded-up hut, where Eerik and Knut find all the faceless idols and the idol of the hooded figure, drips black stuff from its face right before the older man...we'll say he's touched by the presence there, since I'm not sure if he died then or not.

These are all things I find brilliant and interesting, but I'm not sure how they fit in yet. I've only seen it once, so I'll give it another watch tomorrow in the light of day, since it sincerely creeped me out.

I can say this; listening to the beautiful music during the end credits somewhat alleviated the feelings of dread and hopelessness the movie left me with.

[–] pftm 14 years ago

What a great thread. The movie starts making sense to me and the tread makes me, just like metro_west_dude, want to rewatch the movie.

One thing that bugged me hasn't been addressed yet: the cleanliness of the villagers. It made me think of the purgatory. The child wants to wash Eerik's clothes, but he doesn't allow him/her. Could the washing of his clothes have been his last chance to redemption?

[–] jeffscsr 13 years ago

going back to the point about musko. in the writing by the dead soldier (from the girls pov)it mentions someone else being in the cellar. when knut leaves her he notices torches in the distance seemingly heading in his direction. is it possible musko did something that night? wasn't giving it my undivided attention at the start so i could be way off base.
______________________
Eric C 4 Prez