Unlikely Innocence: Character Analysis of the Youngest Slaughtered

Upon watching this film, we can immediately tell who the innocent, youthful protagonist is. After her death it is obvious what emotions are supposed to be evoked- sadness, pity, and the like. There is another youth in this film, however, whose death leaves the viewer with mixed emotions. What exactly is the purpose of this character? He does not particularly add to the development of the film. In fact, he is not even given a name and is only referenced as 'Boy'.

Let's begin by recognizing why this character is an important one in the film. He is the only other child in the film besides Karin. Ironically enough, he shares in her youthful innocence. Their differences in upbringing has caused a definite distinction between the two. However, the boy did not knowingly assist in the act of Karin's murder. In the beginning he does as his brothers do, but when the the situation takes a turn for the worst the boy is mortified.

In addition to this, the boy is the only one of the three brothers who shows genuine remorse for the death of Karin. When he is left alone with her he does something bizarre- he throws dirt on top of her. Seeing her as a human being instead of an object as his brothers do, he makes a vain attempt to bury her. What an odd thing to do for someone of his upbringing. He has been taken care of by two people who seemingly have no moral principles or good virtues. So why is it that this boy has done something so genuine and quite frankly so innocent? 

Finally, the boy shows remorse. Yet another distinction between him and his brothers. He is also the only one who begins to realize that this is the home of the girl his brothers killed. Although it is not directly shown, it can be implied through the boy's actions while eating the soup. This is the same soup that Karin had shared with him beforehand. In his confusion and his guilt, he spills the soup on the table. Again, why is this action so important? What is it that makes the boy's character so significant? Finally, I'll get to 'splainin (that's country talk for 'explaining').

Karin's father maliciously kills the boy's two older brothers in his blind rage at the death of his daughter. There is not hesitance in the taking of their lives. However, when Karin's father throws the boy at the wall and subsequently kills him, there is a moment where the father feels remorse. We can relate the death of this boy and the wrath of Karin's father to Girard's viewpoints on sacrifice and vengeance. 

Within the presence of the boy in the film, the father would have never recognized the error of his ways. The viewer quite probably sees the death of the two elder brothers as 'justice served'- however, there are mixed feelings about the death of the boy. By Girard's standard, sacrifice is "an act of violence inflicted on a surrogate victim." Furthermore, "all victims... bear a certain resemblance to the object they replace." The boy's death juxtaposes the death of Karin. Karin's father immediately realize that he is no better than the men who killed his daughter. He has taken the life of someone so full of youth and so oddly reminiscent of his daughter. 

Without the sacrifice of this boy Karin's father (and much less the audience) would have never felt the consequences of his actions. Without this boy's presence in the film Karin's father would have never felt the remorse he needed in order to plea forgiveness to God and to promise to build a church in His name. 

Although the boy's death serves as sacrifice, Karin's father's actions serves as an act of vengeance. "The only satisfactory revenge for spilled blood is spilling the blood of the killer." "Vengeance is an interminable, infinitely repetitive process." This repetitive process of vengeance started with the death of Karin and would have continued if not for the sacrifice of the boy's life- which put a stop to Karin's father's vengeance, for "sacrifice is primarily an act of violence without risk of vengeance." Although the boy's death was caused by an act of vengeance, his final sacrifice was what quelled the infinite repetition found in vengeance. It is in the blood of this innocent that God can be found once again, much like the sheep so often written about in the Bible (and how coincidental that the boy was a herdsman- or maybe it was not coincidental after all... hmm...).

In short, the death of this boy caused a moral turnaround. Without his presence in the film (which is very under appreciated) the plot would have not been allowed to progress as it had. "The purpose of sacrifice is to restore harmony to the community." This is exactly what the death of the boy (not necessarily Karin) was able to do.