Refuting "Never Let Me In."

For discussion of Matt Reeve's Film Let Me In

Moderator: LMI Moderator

Post Reply
User avatar
BurgerPrince
Posts: 78
Joined: Sat Jun 08, 2013 1:33 pm
Location: Antarctica

Refuting "Never Let Me In."

Post by BurgerPrince » Sat Jan 23, 2016 7:29 pm

Hot damn, this is long overdue. I've seen detractors of Let Me In flaunt around "Never Let Me In" and watched it over two years ago. I wanted to do this response back then, but being in my junior year of High School, I got too damn busy. It kept getting brushed back until I eventually lost interest and forgot about it. And here I am now, a few days from starting my second semester of college. Time flies so fast, but this site feels no different from how it did when I was 15, hooked on Let the Right One In and Let Me In, and first came here. Anyway, it finally snowed for once in my hometown the other night, and I felt like watching Let the Right One In again for old time's sake. It was great seeing it again, and it renewed my interest in doing this. Now let's get started.

The reviewers from the beginning of and throughout the video call Let Me In a shot-for-shot knock-off of Let the Right One In. The producers of the American film did work with the Swedish film’s production company, EFTI. They even straight up called it a remake before it was even being made – before they even found Matt Reeves, and he initially refused to do it before reading the book. Reeves said in the making of the film that it was to be based solely off book, only to admit in the credits that it was based off the “screenplay” of Let the Right One In. I’ll admit that this was slightly disappointing – some of the scenes could have fulfilled their potential by being more original. Some of the scenes borrowed from the Alfredson’s film did their job, while others were lazily, even sloppily, done. However, the film is only based in part on the Swedish version and has more than enough original content to let it stand on its own credit.
The review criticizes Abby’s caretaker (Thomas) as being a “retarded” version of Eli’s caretaker (Håkan). Thomas is, if anything, closer to the Håkan of the novel than the Håkan of the film is. His saying, “maybe I’m just tired of this,” is a mere taste of the novel Håkan’s breakdown to Eli after the first kill, where he explicitly refuses to continue murdering for him. His mistakes echo the novel Håkan’s, where it’s actually explained that they moved into Blackeberg because he kept screwing up at concealing the past few kills. His kill scenes were actually done better than Håkan’s were. Having him wait in the car for his prey and adding in cues such as the passing train all help to bolster the terror of the moment. His garbage bag looks scary, although I’ll admit, for purposes of stealth and safety, a ski mask would have been in every way more appropriate. Nonetheless, wearing a mask, as Håkan does in the novel when he approaches the bathhouse, is important in concealing his identity in case he is caught in the act. He could then get away without having to burn his face off. Furthermore, he is able to carry out his deed by sweeping him off to a secluded location where people aren’t as likely stumble from a stroll. While the scene where Håkan catches his first kill was well-done, it was offset by him failing to finish the act in a secluded location, while his novel counterpart carried the boy off into a hollow. On top of this, the film Håkan even does it all by a public lamppost to highlight the act!

In contrasting Owen to Oskar, the review characterizes the former as being weak and a failed attempt to mirror the latter. This is a far cry from the truth. Like Thomas, Owen is actually closer to his novel counterpart than the film Oskar is. (Lol, “film Oscar.”) One could characterize the film Oskar as different from his other counterparts – as the darkest character in the story, rivaling Jimmy. Owen, meanwhile, echoes how his novel counterpart is not a psychopath. Owen’s flinching after maiming Kenny pales next to the novel Oskar’s reaction – his feelings of worry and nausea are described, fearing what could happen to Jonny. He then takes off and offers his sock for the wound, and even kneels down to help his bully up and walking. In getting rid of Eli’s bloody clothes, Oskar wonders to himself if he actually would kill for him. He is clearly disturbed by the death of Lacke in the novel.

Other criticisms are made of the direction of the kids, their relationship, and the theme of the film. Both films do a terrific job in terms of acting. In truth, Abby’s voice easily fits that of a very nervous or fearful kid. (This, of course, nonetheless remains a subjective issue.) The film’s emphasis on nurture does not cheapen the theme, as the reviewers would complain, but rather harks back to an important theme of the book. All of the young protagonists grow up without a consistent father figure in the picture. (Eli happens to be in the worst case where the closest he has to a family is some old guy who wants to molest him.)

The critics view Abby and her relationship with Owen completely cynically – as if she was just a simplistically evil character who merely manipulates him in an ill-established relationship. Here again, I disagree. I think, as another user on this forum pointed out, that suggestions made such as by the revelation of Abby’s history with Thomas, serve not to spoil, but rather to complicate the dynamic. The ambiguity is thus retained as these suggestions are conflicted by, as another user (Lee Kyle, I believe) pointed out, Abby’s expressions when not seen by Owen, such as of abandonment while he’s playing Pac-Man; of infatuation when they’re both on opposite sides of the wall. Abby and Owen are both kids of good nature who are in bad situations and have nobody to go home to, with Owen’s parents drunk and Abby’s caretaker old and pissed at her. They are both survivors. What separates them is that Owen is the stable one. Abby suggests he uses his knife on the bullies (which her novel counterpart does as well.) Owen is quiet and stealthy as he steals his mother’s money to buy his junk food and weapon. He conceals the cop’s body, yet she shrieks and leaves her victims in a welter of gore – likely out of recklessness or perhaps an emotional unwillingness to take full responsibility for herself. She clearly demonstrates remorse and love respectively when she says, “I’m nothing,” and when she shows softness for Thomas when she finds him in the hospital, even showing reluctance to put him down. The American film is certainly not flawless, but neither is the Swedish one. Eli breaks down after killing Jocke – a complete stranger – despite that she has been killing people for a long time, which would have, especially considering her age, desensitized her, at least to an extent, to her own actions. Yet after this, when she kills Håkan, she does not seem as distraught. (On top of this, the entire left half of Håkan’s face is still intact in the movie. “Difficult to determine his identity,” my arse.)

Reeves actually made a good point of omitting the “be me” scene – the kids’ acting voided the necessity for it, thematically depicting Abby’s desperation and Owen’s willingness to do anything out of love for her, even if it means his own decay. In the Swedish film meanwhile, it’s important for the protagonists to reconcile that Eli kills out of desperation as opposed to Oskar out of anger. However, the successive flashback sequence makes no sense – it’s important to the book and readers would understand it, but as the film doesn’t explicitly show what she does, non-readers would not. It’s important for a film (unless it’s a sequel, historical fiction, or satire, but that’s another story) to convey a story without requiring the audience to have background knowledge to understand it. Yes, Eli’s a vampire, but nothing in the Swedish film hints or leads one to reasonably suppose that she has literal mind control powers. To someone who wouldn’t know this, it would appear as if the kids were on drugs. (I’ll admit though that the bleeding itself was shot much better in the Swedish version. Humorously enough, director Alfredson actually wanted to tread very carefully in making the scene, fearing that it would be too “American.”)

It’s funny how they cite Mark Kermode in his saying, “Let Me In is just a vampire movie that happens to feed you kids.” (Earlier I mentioned the first time I saw it – it was actually not long after I finished the eighth grade. Being a horror fan even then, I won’t deny having enjoyed the carnage. However, it really struck me on an emotional, nostalgic level, particularly concerning the aspect of the characters’ age. Considering how profoundly it resonated with me as so at that age, I think I have the right to judge that statement. Anyway, I digress.) This is where, what they may see as a half-assed attempt to cram morality into the fray, the film’s evocation of evil becomes of importance. This is essential to the movie’s coming-of-age narrative as it illustrates the demystification of evil that comes with the loss of innocence. Growing up as a child in the suburbs of the US, you think of evil very abstractly – all of it you see is in “the bad guys” on TV. Upon the onset of adolescence, however, you start to think more critically of society and differently of evil (depending, of course, on your religious or philosophical beliefs) – as something part of human nature that everyone is capable of, even you and people close to you. Ironically, when Owen calls his father out of his existential confusion, his father is the one committing evil – he refuses to help his son with his crisis and further tries taking advantage of the situation to swipe at the mother. (On that note, I’ll further argue with the reviewers when they say Owen’s parents don’t care about him – they do, but they aren’t willing to take up their responsibilities for him.)

Reducing the adult residents’ (Virginia, Lacke, and the others) role actually bolsters this coming-of-age narrative. Keeping their exploits largely isolated to Owen’s perspective has the effect of depicting the confusion and chaos that comes with the transition into adolescence as everything around you – even the bonds between people you grow up and live with – withers away. The film already depicts the disparity between young and old killers, and as I discussed earlier, the theme of how far you would go for somebody you love. Thus, while those characters are important and fulfill their roles for the Swedish film, their absence does not really subtract from the film, as their subplot is replaced by that of the police officer (which is taken straight out of the book.) (By the way, it seems people don’t really get the significance of his suspicions of Satanic activity. On top of Officer Staffan having similar suspicions toward the end of the novel, the western world was swept under the Satanic ritual abuse panic from the 80s and into the 90s. The public was paranoid that Satanists were lurking about looking to sacrifice or otherwise abuse their kids, and then came countless accusations, even convictions, of Satanic ritual abuse, such as in the McMartin Preschool and West Memphis Three Trials, which weren’t even handled on proper evidence and procedure.) His plotline is handled pretty well up until the apartment raid, and the importance lies in that scene of offering another perspective on whether or not murder can be justified. Lacke, although sympathetic, is a drunken, vengeful lover with intent to murder Eli in his sleep. The policeman, however, is the only innocent character in the fray – although Abby would have died in the arrest, he did not directly threaten her life and she probably did not yet need immediate blood. (On that note: it really isn’t an exhausting stretch of the imagination to think that, in the elapsed time between the mornings of Virginia’s death and of his own, he contacted a landlord, found out the apartment, and had a search & arrest warrant issued. I will concede, however, that the scene was undermined by careless direction and could have been saved by multiple tweaks, such as at least having him mention that procedure in the hospital scene, giving him some backup, and having him clear the entire premises as part of standard search procedure.)

The critics dismiss the American rendition of the climactic pool scene as well. Hilariously, it was actually the best example of the American film outperforming the original one. While the Swedish scene is handled with a beautiful blend of violence and softness, it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. It begins with a bully telling the coach of the fire. He then bolts out of the room, only to be just grumpily walking fast as he heads for the door outside. His (Russian-) American counterpart, on the other hand, is consistently frantic throughout the ordeal. In the Swedish film, the bullies then casually tell the kids to leave and the kids casually leave. The American bullies, meanwhile, scare them out of the water (just as their novel counterparts did, yet they used their knife to do it, and the kids, despite leaving the water, remained in the room.) The Swedish film Jimmy then draws his knife, makes his threat, and Oskar, not only frozen, comes forward and complies with him. Now, Oskar depends completely on Eli for his strength. When Eli leaves, Oskar gazes into his own bodily reflection as he did in the film’s opening, thus clearly he is essentially “back to square one.” Understandably, he is depressed and lost his will to live at this point. However, this doesn’t erase aversion to and fear of pain, in this case torture. And despite slitting his hand open for Eli, Oskar does not strike me as a habitually self-injurious or masochistic type. Just as before meeting Eli, he would sooner freeze than flee or fight – but would not comply. In the book, where his depression is illustrated the most vividly, Oskar at least makes an escape attempt, as does Owen. The most important distinction is the kill order (which isn’t specified in the book, where Eli kills only the two brothers as they were ready to take his eye out after pulling him out of the water.) In the film, Eli first kills the boy in the shorts, whose hands were empty at that moment. Then she kills Conny, who also was technically doing nothing (or maybe screaming/fleeing for his life.) Finally she kills Jimmy, the one drowning Oskar. The last thing she does is save him. If she was really worried about Oskar, wouldn’t she take out the one directly harming him first? That is essentially what Abby does instead – she beheads Jimmy first, and then moves on to the rest. Owen, being the practical survivor he is, hauls himself the fuck out of the water once he gets an idea of what is going on. She then comes over to comfort him after the carnage is complete as he is struggling to catch his breath.

At last but not least, one of the chief aspects of the film they deprecate is the lack of subtlety. I certainly won’t dispute that Let Me In, at least in certain aspects, is not that subtle. I could understand someone’s anger toward a film if it forces you to think or make connections about it rather than let you do it yourself. One film where I think the reviewers and I would totally see eye to eye on is the remake of Carrie. In all honesty, it wasn’t that bad of a movie, but the most ruinous part for me was the ending. It ended with a girl (whose decisions in the plot are implausible) summarizing the plot and saying, “we pushed her. We can only push someone so far before they break.” Not only does this make the film feel like it’s made for the lowest common denominator, but in addition to having Carrie not kill everyone in the dance hall, it waters down the theme. Instead of the story being an allegory to the wrath of God, it’s just another trendy movie about bullying. However, nothing is watered down about Let Me In’s themes, and it doesn’t break the rule of “show, don’t tell.” It should be understood that the movies have their own personalities. One exemplifies subtlety and the other brutality.

Whether or not to use one or the other, or a blend, is a discretionary matter. They both have their place in horror to achieve effect, as well as overdo themselves. American horror cinema is pretty much the epitome of brutality in the all of right and wrong ways. A film that really come to mind here is Rob Zombie’s remake of Halloween. It had great potential to be terrifying with its frantic kill scenes, but wound up numbing itself by doing things such as panning the camera on the bodies immediately afterwards (along with just having bad thematic direction.) Let Me In, however, for the most part is brutal in the right ways to achieve the right effect. (I’ll admit again though that some parts could have been done better, such as when Abby kills the jogger – they could have kept the effect, saved FX money, and stayed consistent with her killing-profile by not directly showing what she does to him.) Movies such as Ring and Let the Right One In, on the other hand, rely much more on subtlety to achieve their horrors. And they do a great job at that – I won’t dispute it. However, sometimes the horror can be underwhelming without enough brutality. Ring is not really guilty of this – it achieves horror very well, but the American film, admittedly not as great, features a much more terrifying climax by revealing Samara’s ghoulish face. Let the Right One In’s film adaption, however, is in some scenes, such as when Eli licks the blood off the floor – he sounds more like a puppy then a vampire.
Please do not misconstrue my words. Let the Right One In is a beautiful film and completely deserving of all its praise. It’s not perfect though, and neither is Let Me In. Both of them, however, are amazing motion pictures, and the latter deserves its credit as well.

On another note… Image
Last edited by BurgerPrince on Sun Jan 24, 2016 6:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
...But if you meet a friendly horse, will you communicate by Morse?

User avatar
dongregg
Posts: 3937
Joined: Sun Jul 21, 2013 10:58 pm
Location: Atlanta
Contact:

Re: Refuting "Never Let Me In."

Post by dongregg » Sat Jan 23, 2016 8:14 pm

Gang busters, BurgerPrince! Great post. Glad you got snow. Glad we (mostly) didn't. Now it's just wind and COLD.
“For drama to deepen, we must see the loneliness of the monster and the cunning of the innocent.”

User avatar
BurgerPrince
Posts: 78
Joined: Sat Jun 08, 2013 1:33 pm
Location: Antarctica

Re: Refuting "Never Let Me In."

Post by BurgerPrince » Sat Jan 23, 2016 8:30 pm

dongregg wrote:Gang busters, BurgerPrince! Great post. Glad you got snow. Glad we (mostly) didn't. Now it's just wind and COLD.
Thanks!Long Islander reporting. We've been getting hammered for the past few winters. Until now, thanks to El Nino, it's pretty much just been what you're describing here. I actually heard that the mid-Atlantic and upper south actually got hit pretty hard by this weekend's storm.
...But if you meet a friendly horse, will you communicate by Morse?

User avatar
dongregg
Posts: 3937
Joined: Sun Jul 21, 2013 10:58 pm
Location: Atlanta
Contact:

Re: Refuting "Never Let Me In."

Post by dongregg » Sat Jan 23, 2016 8:56 pm

BurgerPrince wrote:
dongregg wrote:Gang busters, BurgerPrince! Great post. Glad you got snow. Glad we (mostly) didn't. Now it's just wind and COLD.
Thanks!Long Islander reporting. We've been getting hammered for the past few winters. Until now, thanks to El Nino, it's pretty much just been what you're describing here. I actually heard that the mid-Atlantic and upper south actually got hit pretty hard by this weekend's storm.
Yeah, mid-Atlantic and upper South got hit pretty hard. Atlanta got that three times -- BAD -- the last two years, but so far it's a miss.

There was a very special miss in February last year for the four us who met to watch the play in Brooklyn. Got there just before flight cancelations. Had cold but okay weather the night of the play.
“For drama to deepen, we must see the loneliness of the monster and the cunning of the innocent.”

User avatar
BurgerPrince
Posts: 78
Joined: Sat Jun 08, 2013 1:33 pm
Location: Antarctica

Re: Refuting "Never Let Me In."

Post by BurgerPrince » Sat Jan 23, 2016 9:04 pm

dongregg wrote:Four us who met to watch the play in Brooklyn.
You mean four of you from this forum?
...But if you meet a friendly horse, will you communicate by Morse?

User avatar
dongregg
Posts: 3937
Joined: Sun Jul 21, 2013 10:58 pm
Location: Atlanta
Contact:

Re: Refuting "Never Let Me In."

Post by dongregg » Sat Jan 23, 2016 9:07 pm

BurgerPrince wrote:
dongregg wrote:Four us who met to watch the play in Brooklyn.
You mean four of you from this forum?
Yep. It was way cool. From NY, NJ, San Antonio, and Atlanta.
“For drama to deepen, we must see the loneliness of the monster and the cunning of the innocent.”

User avatar
BurgerPrince
Posts: 78
Joined: Sat Jun 08, 2013 1:33 pm
Location: Antarctica

Re: Refuting "Never Let Me In."

Post by BurgerPrince » Sat Jan 23, 2016 9:12 pm

dongregg wrote:Yep. It was way cool. From NY, NJ, San Antonio, and Atlanta.
Eyy.
...But if you meet a friendly horse, will you communicate by Morse?

User avatar
intrige
Posts: 4208
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2010 5:20 pm
Location: Norway
Contact:

Re: Refuting "Never Let Me In."

Post by intrige » Sun Jan 24, 2016 5:54 am

Here's the video it's all about!
Bulleri bulleri buck, hur många horn står upp

User avatar
intrige
Posts: 4208
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2010 5:20 pm
Location: Norway
Contact:

Re: Refuting "Never Let Me In."

Post by intrige » Sun Jan 24, 2016 5:57 am

The only thing I disagree with in this video btw, is that Oskar is evil. I don't think he is, nor is Eli but yeah. Oskar is not evil. GAAH
I don't think Abby is evil either, just manipulative. But that's my way of seeing it.
Bulleri bulleri buck, hur många horn står upp

User avatar
sauvin
Moderator
Posts: 3410
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 5:52 am
Location: A cornfield in heartland USA

Re: Refuting "Never Let Me In."

Post by sauvin » Sun Jan 24, 2016 6:50 am

Could not Oskar (and/or Owen) be seen as reason on the brink of slumber?

Image
Fais tomber les barrières entre nous qui sommes tous des frères

Post Reply

Return to “Let Me In”