LTROI vs LMI Podcast

[seigezunt]

I've currently been searching through iTunes for podcasts that discussed the movie, and came across this fairly decent and lengthy discussion about the films, though heated at times. I don't seem to be able to find reference to it here.

I think Devin Faraci goes a little overboard in his defense of LTROI at the expense of the American film, IMO. While I agree it is a superior film and is a classic which did not need to be remade, I'm not sure if I'd bother to defend the CGI cats, for instance.

[not to moderator: I wasn't sure if this warranted being in the "media" forum. Please move if necessary]

http://thecanon.wolfpop.com/audio/39424 ... -let-me-in

[cmfireflies]

this podcast is great. I feel that both sides really understood their respective favorite movie.

I feel like I understand LMI fans a little bit more now. It's fascinating how different the viewpoints are.

Especially about the emotionally beats, for LtROI fans, it's maddening that LMI bashes people over the head with obvious.
For LMI fans, LtROI is probably muddled and confusing. I love the podcast really expressed the gulf of disagreements between two very intelligent people.

[dongregg]

I've currently been searching through iTunes for podcasts that discussed the movie, and came across this fairly decent and lengthy discussion about the films, though heated at times. I don't seem to be able to find reference to it here.

I think Devin Faraci goes a little overboard in his defense of LTROI at the expense of the American film, IMO. While I agree it is a superior film and is a classic which did not need to be remade, I'm not sure if I'd bother to defend the CGI cats, for instance.

[not to moderator: I wasn't sure if this warranted being in the "media" forum. Please move if necessary]

http://thecanon.wolfpop.com/audio/39424 ... -let-me-in

I love your Andrew O'Hehir quote, but I can't find the article on Salon. Any ideas? I also can't find archived articles by Camille Paglia, a writer/thinker whom I adore.

[jetboy]

I've just listened to about a third and her biggest argument for LMI is the improvement of their being a connection between Owen and the Jenkins character. This isn't an improvement because this possibility was in LTROI first, and its much more effective. Its more effective because its harder to see therefore much more devastating because the positive side is at the forefront for most of the movie.

[a_contemplative_life]

I've just listened to about a third and her biggest argument for LMI is the improvement of their being a connection between Owen and the Jenkins character. This isn't an improvement because this possibility was in LTROI first, and its much more effective. Its more effective because its harder to see therefore much more devastating because the positive side is at the forefront for most of the movie.

I agree. She seems to think that LMI is the better film because it is more certain that Owen will wind up being Abby's slave. I have never been able to see how that's an improvement over the bittersweet love story that LTROI offers. IMHO, LMI cheapens Abby's character because it suggests that she is proceeding with dishonest motivations vis-a-vis Owen from the get-go...he's just another Renfield.

[jetboy]

I've just listened to about a third and her biggest argument for LMI is the improvement of their being a connection between Owen and the Jenkins character. This isn't an improvement because this possibility was in LTROI first, and its much more effective. Its more effective because its harder to see therefore much more devastating because the positive side is at the forefront for most of the movie.

I agree. She seems to think that LMI is the better film because it is more certain that Owen will wind up being Abby's slave. I have never be able to see how that's an improvement over the bittersweet love story that LTROI offers. IMHO, LMI cheapens Abby's character because it suggests that she is proceeding with dishonest motivations vis-a-vis Owen from the get-go...he's just another Renfield.

I also think that she likes it better because the manipulative take is a neater package. Its all encompassing. LTROI did one of the best book to movie translations ever IMO in that by slimming it down you really get super intimate in this budding relationship. The relationship is by far the most important aspect of all three versions, but by doing that there might be some aspects, like the nude shot, that throws you off because it wasn't explained as much as the book. In that aspect I don't disagree with her. However by going for the neater package you get a more negative story, as you said, but also you get a less exotic, less weird and less unsettling story. For instance in LTROI they don't say Hakan is a pedo but we still get that icky feeling about him and the questions mount about who this freak is. All these questions also can make you wonder about Eli and what kind of hell she came from. Its a question smorgasbord.

To me LMI is a neater package, which is good, but also more negative and more safe. Its not out on that edge like LTROI.

[Wolfchild]

I had a hard time listening to this podcast. It was indeed interesting listening to the woman talk about why she preferred LMI to LTROI. However, when she wanted to defend her choice by criticizing LTROI, it was maddening listening to the guy do a poor job of rebutting her criticisms. I almost wish I could have participated in their podcast, but it is a probably a good thing that I wasn't there. I would have destroyed the woman's points by calmly, cogently explaining how in many instances her criticism springs from something in LTROI going over her head.

Case in point: the woman criticizes Tomas for "being mean" to Virginia. Yes, things do turn out poorly for Virginia. However, the film shows Lacke treating Virginia poorly because it is telling us about Lacke. While he openly appreciates his friendship with Jocke while he is still around, once he loses Jocke the film shows us how he does not appreciate good things in his life until they are taken from him. He abuses Virginia and drives her away in his frustration at losing Jocke. He only appreciates his relationship with her once the film begins the process of taking her away from him with Eli's attack. Then we find that at any time he could have sold a valuable stamp for a life-changing amount of money and begun a new life with Virginia, but he only talks about it when it is too late. Instead, he has been happy getting drunk with his friends every night and urinating in public. The whole point of this is that Tomas did not want Lacke to be a hero. He wanted us to feel ambivalent about him so that we could feel conflicted at his death. "Being mean" to Virginia served this purpose. It was necessary for Lacke to be "mean" to Virginia so that he did not come across as Van Helsing.

In addition, Tomas wanted us to feel ambivalent about Eli, which would also make us feel conflicted when he kills Lacke. Virginia chose to end her life rather than to do what Eli does to survive. She illustrated an alternate path for Eli. Why doesn't Eli make the same choice? Why did Lacke (and Jocke, and Virginia, and Håkan, and the boy in the forest) have to die so that Eli can continue? "Being mean" to Virginia by bringing her to point of suicide also served this purpose.

All of these interesting conflicts would be lost if I could only focus on Virginia and on how Lacke, Eli, and ultimately the filmmaker, had been "mean" to her. Indeed, it sounds like all of these things were lost on the woman in the podcast. Most of what makes LTROI a beautiful are its subtleties. How do you politely tell someone they are criticizing a film because it went over their head?

I've just listened to about a third and her biggest argument for LMI is the improvement of their being a connection between Owen and the Jenkins character. This isn't an improvement because this possibility was in LTROI first, and its much more effective. Its more effective because its harder to see therefore much more devastating because the positive side is at the forefront for most of the movie.

I agree. She seems to think that LMI is the better film because it is more certain that Owen will wind up being Abby's slave. I have never been able to see how that's an improvement over the bittersweet love story that LTROI offers. IMHO, LMI cheapens Abby's character because it suggests that she is proceeding with dishonest motivations vis-a-vis Owen from the get-go...he's just another Renfield.

I didn't interpret Abby as being dishonest. She loves Owen just as she loved Thomas. Being twelve, she can't see past the moment. She can't see how her love destroyed Thomas nor can she see how her love will destroy Owen. These are adult perspectives. However, Abby is twelve and like most twelve year olds, doesn't look into the future. Also like most twelve year olds, she doesn't look too far beyond her own immediate desires. She honestly loves Owen. Have you ever been or thought you were in love when you were that age? You will pursue that love with passion and abandon. I didn't see any dishonesty in Abby doing that. Just tragedy. The woman in the podcast states right up front that she likes the tragic aspect of Matt's film. I agree with her that LMI is a Romeo and Juliet-esque tragedy.

[Drakeule]

I'll go as far as to say its like Hillary Clinton using Chloe Moretz for votes. As soon as she is used up, that bitch is gone. Now that's a blood sucker (blood being the nice word to use) And yes Abby may have told the truth to Owen, but he never asked if he was the replacement. Maybe he figured it out, maybe he hoped for the best. But Abby was using him. Pain and simple. She mearly had to protect her investment.

[jetboy]

I have to agree with Wolchild, there is evidence that Abbey gives Owen fair warning. Also considering the caretaker never leaves its not as if he and therefore Owen are ever trapped. This is different than LTROIs possibility of a manipulative take where Hakan starts realizing he was being used and now he is used up and there never was any love. The explanation of everything in LMI shows that Abbey and the caretaker have open communication about everything.

I also agree that neither debaters were very good for their respective movies.

[seigezunt]

I've currently been searching through iTunes for podcasts that discussed the movie, and came across this fairly decent and lengthy discussion about the films, though heated at times. I don't seem to be able to find reference to it here.

I think Devin Faraci goes a little overboard in his defense of LTROI at the expense of the American film, IMO. While I agree it is a superior film and is a classic which did not need to be remade, I'm not sure if I'd bother to defend the CGI cats, for instance.

[not to moderator: I wasn't sure if this warranted being in the "media" forum. Please move if necessary]

http://thecanon.wolfpop.com/audio/39424 ... -let-me-in

I love your Andrew O'Hehir quote, but I can't find the article on Salon. Any ideas? I also can't find archived articles by Camille Paglia, a writer/thinker whom I adore.

http://www.salon.com/2008/10/27/right_one/

I don't recall Camille Paglia discussing this movie.

Edit to add: I agree with several posters here that the reviewers don't make a great case for either film ultimately. As I said, I think Faraci goes overboard defending every element of LTROI (which, despite being almost a perfect film, does have some flaws, or at least elements that I think some viewers could find fault with) at the expense of LMI. I continue to maintain that, seen on its own, LMI is not a bad movie, and has merit over many typical horror movies, probably by virtue of the source material. For me it becomes a complicated matter of distraction: LMI is good, but seeing it first could ruin the joys of LTROI for some, or worse, lead them to conclude that they don't need to see it at all.

That said, I agree that the woman (I'm sorry I forgot her name) makes a mistake in finding ambiguity a liability in LTROI, when it is precisely its ambiguity which makes it strong. I think Faraci is unfair in dismissing her view as "hollywood" and shallow, though. It's just a perspective. I'm a big fan of strong narrative storytelling which ties up its loose strands: I think there are too many films that fail in this regard, both US and foreign. But it's not an absolute rule IMO.