Not-Smart Criticisms of LMI

[jetboy]

That much quite aside, references to the times that we can remember ground the movie in a particular time with "I'm burning, I'm burning, I'm burning for you", the Pacman game at the arcade, and others. Twentysomethings today can't identify, but they know very well their parents CAN, and even twentysomethings will have heard the music and seen the game laying about here and there. This gives a vast American audience the feeling that "Hey - this story happened HERE!"

I find this a valid reason for a remake, and it's much more marked (IMO) in LMI than was the case with, say, the Ring or the Grudge.

I dont think its valid. What were the alternatives? If it was made in modern times someone could say that it was valid that they did it in modern times. LTROI was a beautiful movie and any way it is repeated without any ones knowledge of an original will look like a good reason to make it, but thats because of what was already done. What Im saying is that there is no originality in putting it in the eighties. The originality was already done for them. The only problem is people dont quite know the original exists.

I didnt need Blue Oyster Cult or Miss Pacman to enjoy the story and Im an American who grew up in those times, I just needed an appreciation of foreign movies. As Ive said before LTROI was made for the whole world. It has universal themes that were excellently executed. It deserved to be the sole version of the story for awhile.

[DavidZahir]

It deserved to be the sole version of the story for awhile.

This makes no sense to me at all. But then, I come from a theatre background. If a play opens on Broadway, no one minds if it opens on the East End at the same time. Musicals are not put on tour when they open on Broadway for financial reasons, not artistic ones. A production of a play in one place in no way interferes with another production going on at the exact same time. When I lived in NYC it wasn't unusual to see two different productions of the same play in the same year, especially classics (methinks I saw three Twelfth Nights one year, not including the one I was actually in!)

In Ancient Greece, all the tragedies were based on one of about a dozen or so plots. It was how the playwright interpreted the tale that made all the difference. Something similar (please not that word--similar NOT identical) happened in Shakespeare's day. His Richard III was one of many on that subject, just as there were multiple Hamlets and King Johns.

My own view is that this is one of the things I so dislike about cinema as a medium. We don't get to see alternate versions of wonderful stories, the way we routinely can see various actors and directors tackle Chekhov or Williams or Ibsen or Albee. Okay, there have been fistfuls of Sherlock Holmes and Jane Eyres, but why only two Hannibal Lecters? Wouldn't it be great to see someone else's take on Princess Leia? Back in the 1930s we were fortunate enough to see three different adaptations of The Maltese Falcon within a few years of one another--and it was the last one we all remember, despite a very successful earlier version with Bette Davis!

Were the two released simultaneously, that would be different. Look at how Dr.Strangelove almost certainly hurt the box office of Fail-Safe. Likewise the film Valmont would probably have done much better if not released within months of Dangerous Liaisons. But all of those were aimed at the identical primary audiences as well, which doesn't apply in this case.

[sauvin]

What Im saying is that there is no originality in putting it in the eighties. The originality was already done for them. The only problem is people dont quite know the original exists.

I didnt need Blue Oyster Cult or Miss Pacman to enjoy the story and Im an American who grew up in those times, I just needed an appreciation of foreign movies. As Ive said before LTROI was made for the whole world. It has universal themes that were excellently executed. It deserved to be the sole version of the story for awhile.

And therein the nub. The original, well, I can't watch it with the English dubs. They were just bloody daft. I also can't watch it with the non-theatrical English subtitles. They were just bloody awful. Honestly, it's something of a wonder I came to appreciate the movie at all because I didn't happen across a copy with the theatrical subtitles until quite a while after having watched the butchered versions a few times. Truth be told, I downloaded Swedish subtitles and watched it a few times with the Swedish audio seeing just how much my German background could give clues.

What's worse, though, a foreign movie with no English audio and relying on subtitles to convey dialog is almost guaranteed to be commercially stillborn in the US. Americans just don't like to read, and if people I know personally fairly well are any indicator, they certainly cannot read fast enough to be able to follow the movie.

In addition, cultural references specific to North America can be very important. Americans don't like difference - they don't like what's not familiar. While it's true I don't recall much in the LTROI movie that'd qualify as "different" enough from what we're used to seeing in my own little remote little corn patch, including references to American popular culture of the 80's gave it a subjective edge.

And what's familiar to Americans? Owen's mother's drunken religious mania strikes a disconcertingly consonant note, and so does the bullying Owen experiences and the "meeting" with school authorities after he defends himself. It could be argued that what Oskar experienced qualified much more as psychological torment rather than overt physical abuse, even with the deleted scene wherein Oskar is forced to squeal like a pig. Maybe Swedish kids aren't as brutal as American, who knows? - but what's shown in LMI is a little closer to what I, for one, experienced from later grade school right on up to graduating high school.

As for setting it in "modern times", you'd like to have seen a laptop instead of a 13" TV on Owen's dresser? Would you have liked Owen to be talking to his father on his Blackberry while sitting on the jungle gym? (Would Owen's family have been able to afford such luxuries?) How would this have improved the movie any?

Maybe the fact that either movie had been set in the 80's is a part of its message, and part of its demographic targeting. It's not happening now, and it's not necessarily a movie for younger people. Maybe it was meant to be a movie to haunt primarily American greybeards. What was her name - Silk Spectre, maybe? - in the Watchmen movie who commented that with every passing day, tomorrow started looking darker and darker, but all her yesterdays got brighter and brighter, even the grimy parts?

[gattoparde59]

In addition, cultural references specific to North America can be very important. Americans don't like difference - they don't like what's not familiar. While it's true I don't recall much in the LTROI movie that'd qualify as "different" enough from what we're used to seeing in my own little remote little corn patch, including references to American popular culture of the 80's gave it a subjective edge.

I guess I just don't like sweeping generalizations. Over 300 million people live in the United States. Some of them like seeing things that are different. Some people in other countries hate anything even slightly unorthodox.

[sauvin]

In addition, cultural references specific to North America can be very important. Americans don't like difference - they don't like what's not familiar. While it's true I don't recall much in the LTROI movie that'd qualify as "different" enough from what we're used to seeing in my own little remote little corn patch, including references to American popular culture of the 80's gave it a subjective edge.

I guess I just don't like sweeping generalizations. Over 300 million people live in the United States. Some of them like seeing things that are different. Some people in other countries hate anything even slightly unorthodox.

As a matter of sweeping generalisation, then, would you characterise the bulk of European population as hating anything even slightly unorthodox? My own experience living and working with Americans in Boston, Detroit and Chicago both in their respective metropolitan areas as well as in surrounding rural areas leave me with a profound distrust of Americans in general in their willingness (or even simple ability) to understand or tolerate what they're not used to.

[PeteMork]

As a matter of sweeping generalisation, then, would you characterise the bulk of European population as hating anything even slightly unorthodox? My own experience living and working with Americans in Boston, Detroit and Chicago both in their respective metropolitan areas as well as in surrounding rural areas leave me with a profound distrust of Americans in general in their willingness (or even simple ability) to understand or tolerate what they're not used to.

Do you think that this 'handicap' may be because America is not only isolated geographically, but compared with Europe and it's hundreds of years of history, war, and conflict between cultures, relatively homogenous? Europeans, IMO, have a real advantage because of this forced merging of different ethnic backgrounds and ideas, and have decided, and rightly so, that such differences are better met with understanding than disdain.

In other words, such differences are more of a daily experience to Europeans. They've, generally, learned to deal with them more maturely.

[jetboy]

What Im saying is that there is no originality in putting it in the eighties. The originality was already done for them. The only problem is people dont quite know the original exists.

I didnt need Blue Oyster Cult or Miss Pacman to enjoy the story and Im an American who grew up in those times, I just needed an appreciation of foreign movies. As Ive said before LTROI was made for the whole world. It has universal themes that were excellently executed. It deserved to be the sole version of the story for awhile.

And therein the nub. The original, well, I can't watch it with the English dubs. They were just bloody daft. I also can't watch it with the non-theatrical English subtitles. They were just bloody awful. Honestly, it's something of a wonder I came to appreciate the movie at all because I didn't happen across a copy with the theatrical subtitles until quite a while after having watched the butchered versions a few times. Truth be told, I downloaded Swedish subtitles and watched it a few times with the Swedish audio seeing just how much my German background could give clues.

What's worse, though, a foreign movie with no English audio and relying on subtitles to convey dialog is almost guaranteed to be commercially stillborn in the US. Americans just don't like to read, and if people I know personally fairly well are any indicator, they certainly cannot read fast enough to be able to follow the movie.

In addition, cultural references specific to North America can be very important. Americans don't like difference - they don't like what's not familiar. While it's true I don't recall much in the LTROI movie that'd qualify as "different" enough from what we're used to seeing in my own little remote little corn patch, including references to American popular culture of the 80's gave it a subjective edge.

And what's familiar to Americans? Owen's mother's drunken religious mania strikes a disconcertingly consonant note, and so does the bullying Owen experiences and the "meeting" with school authorities after he defends himself. It could be argued that what Oskar experienced qualified much more as psychological torment rather than overt physical abuse, even with the deleted scene wherein Oskar is forced to squeal like a pig. Maybe Swedish kids aren't as brutal as American, who knows? - but what's shown in LMI is a little closer to what I, for one, experienced from later grade school right on up to graduating high school.

As for setting it in "modern times", you'd like to have seen a laptop instead of a 13" TV on Owen's dresser? Would you have liked Owen to be talking to his father on his Blackberry while sitting on the jungle gym? (Would Owen's family have been able to afford such luxuries?) How would this have improved the movie any?

Maybe the fact that either movie had been set in the 80's is a part of its message, and part of its demographic targeting. It's not happening now, and it's not necessarily a movie for younger people. Maybe it was meant to be a movie to haunt primarily American greybeards. What was her name - Silk Spectre, maybe? - in the Watchmen movie who commented that with every passing day, tomorrow started looking darker and darker, but all her yesterdays got brighter and brighter, even the grimy parts?

Well I think you have to bring in the part of my post that says, "It deserved to be the sole version of the story for awhile". This is the crux of my argument. Its more about respecting the original movie than it is about making all these different things more relevant for different cultures. Catering to Americans who are willfully ignorant is not a good enough reason to disrespect the original. If they want to be ignorant, let them be ignorant. As I said also, LTROI was made for people of all different cultures. Nobody would have known that the bullies werent as extreme as they could have been. Nobody, as far as I can remember, ever said "I'd like this movie if the bullies were meaner" before LMI came out. Quite the contrary, they were depicted as the real monsters in the movie. Now it seems to be a weakness in LTROI, which I find laughable but sad.

As for modern times, the only reason that LTROI was set in the eighties (but was downplayed in the movie to good effect) was because of the personal connection to JA Lindqvist. It had alot to do with the socialist environment and these plastic buildings they were putting up like they were going out of style and how that whole atmosphere brought a certain lethargy (how these adults could go so long without working) that seemed to be passed on to the kids. Sweden in the eighties was the catalyst for the whole story.

USA in the eighties had nothing to do with the eighties in Sweden. The themes though, that of love, are universal so it really doesnt matter what era you put the movie in because it will be relevant.

[DavidZahir]

The 1980s also had a personal resonance for Matt Reeves, the writer/director of LMI. Bottom line--it made perfect sense for both films. Was it utterly necessary for either film? No. Did it work? Yes.

Well I think you have to bring in the part of my post that says, "It deserved to be the sole version of the story for awhile". This is the crux of my argument.

Not only did I bring it in, I answered this very point. My point--this argument is meaningless. It is an excuse to complain about LMI being made at all. See the name of this thread. I would also point out Lindqvist himself saw no problem with a second film, expressed deep appreciation for the result, and then okay'd a theatrical adaptation of his novel about the same time. And he's said he'd like to see a graphic novel version.

[sauvin]

Well I think you have to bring in the part of my post that says, "It deserved to be the sole version of the story for awhile". This is the crux of my argument. Its more about respecting the original movie than it is about making all these different things more relevant for different cultures.

Nothing "deserves" to be the "sole version" of anything irrespective of span of time. This isn't argument, it's not even opinion, it's sentiment, and it is not universally shared.

Catering to Americans who are willfully ignorant is not a good enough reason to disrespect the original. If they want to be ignorant, let them be ignorant.

Yes, let them, if that's what they want. Still and all, if you slam the door on LMI, you slam a gateway to LTROI for those who've seen the re-imagining and might be interested enough to want to see its original. LMI did not do well in the US; the movie screened for only a single week in my area, and not in a theater less than an hour's drive away. The DVD was available at Walmart for all of maybe two months. If you want to buy it now, it's time for Amazon, Ebay or just maybe the FYE an hour's drive in the opposite direction. In the US, the movie is dead and buried. It won't be "discovered" easily by anybody anytime soon, its very existence won't even be suspected.

So, the question is: your love, is it for the story, or is it just for a particular telling of it?

As I said also, LTROI was made for people of all different cultures.

It was made by a Swedish director from a script written by the story's original Swedish author. I get the impression the target audience had originally been intended just to be European, chiefly Scandinavian. I err? If so, produce links.

Nobody would have known that the bullies werent as extreme as they could have been. Nobody, as far as I can remember, ever said "I'd like this movie if the bullies were meaner" before LMI came out. Quite the contrary, they were depicted as the real monsters in the movie. Now it seems to be a weakness in LTROI, which I find laughable but sad.

It's not a weakness, it's a difference in focus. LTROI stated: "Oskar was bullied." It said a lot of things about Oskar without dwelling on them. The net effect was mostly of giving the kids a backdrop to operate against and develop a relationship within. LMI's backdrop is more horrific. That's OK; so is Abby.

As for modern times, the only reason that LTROI was set in the eighties (but was downplayed in the movie to good effect) was because of the personal connection to JA Lindqvist. It had alot to do with the socialist environment and these plastic buildings they were putting up like they were going out of style and how that whole atmosphere brought a certain lethargy (how these adults could go so long without working) that seemed to be passed on to the kids. Sweden in the eighties was the catalyst for the whole story.

I'm still pondering the significance of maintaining the 80's in LMI. It seems to have religious and political implications, with some considerable economic influence. I wonder what it means that Owen meets his personal goddess just a short drive away from where Oppenheimer mourned over a newly glassed over desert and his new identity as Death, the destroyer of worlds.

USA in the eighties had nothing to do with the eighties in Sweden. The themes though, that of love, are universal so it really doesnt matter what era you put the movie in because it will be relevant.

And it doesn't really matter what country you put the story into... but LMI isn't really LTROI, is it? It's very similar, but it's not exactly the same.

Did not Lindqvist say he felt blessed having two movies made from his novel? Did he not say he'd been pleased with LMI?

So, what is the basic [BEEP] problem here?

[drakkar]

As I said also, LTROI was made for people of all different cultures.

It was made by a Swedish director from a script written by the story's original Swedish author. I get the impression the target audience had originally been intended just to be European, chiefly Scandinavian. I err? If so, produce links.

As Scandinavian but not Swedish, I view LTROI as a very Swedish film, in that it takes out the full potential of what we Norwegians sometimes call "Swedish melancholy".
Now this feature has appeal far beyond the Swedish society, a bit like Irish folk music influence music beyond the Irish borders.

..and sauvin; I nicked one of your expressions - LMI is an american film...