Let the Right One In vs. Let Me In

For discussion of Matt Reeve's Film Let Me In

Moderator: LMI Moderator

Post Reply
jetboy
Posts: 609
Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2009 5:22 pm

Re: Let the Right One In vs. Let Me In

Post by jetboy » Sat Mar 02, 2013 2:06 am

danielma wrote:I say this because that has always been my reading of the film as well and that is how I see them both differing. I think LTROI is not only a coming of age story but it is a story that deals with a socially aware and macabre love story of two pariahs accepting one another and healing each others wounds. While LMI is far more about the creation of the caretaker and what toll this life takes on the caretaker. Afterall, as you mentioned LMI opens up with the mystery of the Caretaker (he is literally the first character we see in the film as it is) and then the film plays out around that as it fills in the blanks of that mystery. Where as LTROI opens directly on Oskar and focuses on his story -- which is that mixture of Coming of Age and the love story.
I actually thought it was both. I just saw it for the first time since it came out in theatres and thought the love story was good and the love was genuine. It was also though about Owen becoming Thomas or not. In the birdseye view, I didnt see these two elements helping each other in making an emotional impact or having a cohesive meaning. What does Owen becoming Thomas do to the story artistically.

User avatar
danielma
Posts: 1057
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 10:38 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Re: Let the Right One In vs. Let Me In

Post by danielma » Sun Mar 03, 2013 8:48 am

jetboy wrote:
danielma wrote:I say this because that has always been my reading of the film as well and that is how I see them both differing. I think LTROI is not only a coming of age story but it is a story that deals with a socially aware and macabre love story of two pariahs accepting one another and healing each others wounds. While LMI is far more about the creation of the caretaker and what toll this life takes on the caretaker. Afterall, as you mentioned LMI opens up with the mystery of the Caretaker (he is literally the first character we see in the film as it is) and then the film plays out around that as it fills in the blanks of that mystery. Where as LTROI opens directly on Oskar and focuses on his story -- which is that mixture of Coming of Age and the love story.
I actually thought it was both. I just saw it for the first time since it came out in theatres and thought the love story was good and the love was genuine. It was also though about Owen becoming Thomas or not. In the birdseye view, I didnt see these two elements helping each other in making an emotional impact or having a cohesive meaning. What does Owen becoming Thomas do to the story artistically.
Maybe it is genuine love. For the record I don't take my opinion as fact in saying that. I do understand that the love may be seen as genuine by others, for me though, I don't know if that's the case and whether its more so a case of what looks to be greener on the other side. That Abby can provide something to Owen that he hasn't received elsewhere, which is attention and love. It's better then what he has at home which is being overlooked by his fighting parents. Same as maybe Abby sees the same in him, that it is better to be with someone (ixnay anyone) then what it is to be alone.

I'll borrow a quote from CMFireflies and try to build on it
Abby can't stop searching for a companion any more than Thomas can stop killing for her or Owen can stop from going to her. The characters do everything in their power to forestall the inevitable: Thomas with his pathetic tantrums when he comes back empty-handed, Owen with his call to a father that doesn't want him, even Abby with her warnings that "we can't be friends," but in the end, no one escapes the cycle, even if they all know what's going to happen. In this way, LMI is almost the opposite of LtROI: Oskar sees his future as a normal kid and he rejects it in favor of Eli, Owen sees his future as another Thomas and has no choice but to accept.
I think that goes back to what I was just saying about the grass being greener on the other side. Abby can provide Owen with something he doesn't get anywhere else, which is Love, Attention and even Parenting but it comes with a Cost. I think Owen accepts the role that is most likely going to be bestowed upon him simply because he views being Abby as being better then what he has right now. Same with Abby, I think Abby takes in Owen out of the love of the idea of having a short term companionship and that it too is better then being lonely. She maybe values the company more so then Owen but at the same time she knows it can't last.

Like I said, this is my own view on the movie and I know there are other opinions out there. But when its all said and done, I don't know if its so much love rather its love for what the other can provide in the short term.

I think (as CM Fireflies said) it is kind of opposite to Oskar and Eli and I think it is the nature of the cycle that LMI presents. That its only going to be somewhat happy for the short term.
My Blog: Toxic Culture
Neon Maniacs: Link

User avatar
Daniel Ether
Posts: 709
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2013 7:58 pm

Re: Let the Right One In vs. Let Me In

Post by Daniel Ether » Sun Mar 03, 2013 1:58 pm

in my case...
LTROI is my favorite Movie (obvious :D ) but i also really really like LMI. Not at least because LMI brought me back to LTROI which i saw like 2010 and than FORGOT ABOUT :oops: (i will never forgive myself)
Maybe most of you already saw the Kermode Uncut review but i thought it fits well on this thread, a view of the things he points out was discussed here.
I nearly know nothing about Kermode (i think its his name) but i thought he has view good points about LMI and LTROI and he is kind of funny too. Even he is very very confident in his point of view :D
Image

User avatar
cmfireflies
Posts: 1152
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 7:39 pm

Re: Let the Right One In vs. Let Me In

Post by cmfireflies » Mon Mar 04, 2013 8:01 am

So if I'm reading you correctly then you're essentially saying that LMI is a movie about the creation of a Caretaker??? And in doing so, its a story about Abby's search for someone to be that companion?
Well, I think so, but only because Reeves isn't one of the Infected. By that I mean, he sees the story cynically, and not the fun, Kaizer Soze masterplan type of cynical but more of the horror-of-the-mundane type of cynical where all the characters are halpless victims of circumstance and all "evil" flows from a series of selfish, short-sighted decisionmaking where people face problems greater than themselves the best way they can but fail because the solutions, by definition, are out of their reach.

Ltroi (the book) is sort of an against-all-odds story of finding happiness. LtROI, the film, is the story of the book, shaded with a light ambiguity and complexity. LMI the remake is an entirely predictable story of characters faced with insurmountable odds who goes on to fail to surmount the insurmountable. You might argue that the one-in-a-million succeeding has become cliche but the one-in-a million failing is boring to start with.

For Oskar to find happiness, JAL had to create a vampire, for Owen to be miserable, no vampire was needed, the supernatural elements seem wasted: and when you boil the story down, it's almost absurd: so, ok, don't be a vampire's caretaker, got it. I'll keep that in mind when a vampire moves in next door. I mean, LtROI's message could be said to be the opposite and that has bite because the vampire Eli becomes a symbol for the dark side of "true love." Does LMI say anything similarly thought-provoking or is Owen's story just a supernatural spin on the "neglected child finds loves somewhere he shouldn't: gangs, drugs, vampire, take your pick.
"When is a monster not a monster? Oh, when you love it."

User avatar
DavidZahir
Posts: 694
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2011 4:24 am

Re: Let the Right One In vs. Let Me In

Post by DavidZahir » Wed Mar 06, 2013 10:41 pm

I've seen Kermode's video before. I disagree with virtually everything he says, including the snide comments about people who "can't be bothered to read subtitles." Just addressing that for a moment--language has a texture, a nuance, a feel which contributes to the overall impact. Saw an interview with Christopher Plummer a few weeks ago about playing Cyrano de Bergerac. He (goodnaturedly) bewailed the fact his French wasn't good enough to play Cyrano in its original language. One term he pointed out--chez dieu--which simply cannot be translated properly. It doesn't sound right. The play is filled with such, including Precieuses which too often ends up rendered as "Intellectual" or "Avante Garde." Bleh! In fact Swedish and English feel fundamentally different, especially if one does not speak one of them! So "Are you a vampire?" sounds and feels different than "Är du en vampyr?" most especially if you hear these two sentences side-by-side.

This remains true of the entire film. I love both movies, but one reason I prefer LMI is that I simply understand all kinds of nuances far better in my own milieu.

Kermode reminds me of the kind of myopic "critic" I come across all the time, and he displays most of the symptoms of such--especially the oh-so-arch turn-of-phrase as well as the half-closed eyes, giving a languid air of pseudo-authority.

Me, I think great stories and great novels should be adapted (if feasible) many times by different groups of artists. How many different versions of Shakespeare have there been? How many adaptations of Jane Austen?
O let my name be in the Book of Love. If it be there I care not
For that Other great Book above. Strike it out! Or write it in anew--
But let My name be in the Book of Love!
-- Omar Kayam

User avatar
PeteMork
Posts: 3781
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 9:56 pm
Location: Menlo Park, California

Re: Let the Right One In vs. Let Me In

Post by PeteMork » Thu Mar 07, 2013 12:16 am

DavidZahir wrote:I've seen Kermode's video before. I disagree with virtually everything he says, including the snide comments about people who "can't be bothered to read subtitles." Just addressing that for a moment--language has a texture, a nuance, a feel which contributes to the overall impact. Saw an interview with Christopher Plummer a few weeks ago about playing Cyrano de Bergerac. He (goodnaturedly) bewailed the fact his French wasn't good enough to play Cyrano in its original language. One term he pointed out--chez dieu--which simply cannot be translated properly. It doesn't sound right. The play is filled with such, including Precieuses which too often ends up rendered as "Intellectual" or "Avante Garde." Bleh! In fact Swedish and English feel fundamentally different, especially if one does not speak one of them! So "Are you a vampire?" sounds and feels different than "Är du en vampyr?" most especially if you hear these two sentences side-by-side.

This remains true of the entire film. I love both movies, but one reason I prefer LMI is that I simply understand all kinds of nuances far better in my own milieu.

Kermode reminds me of the kind of myopic "critic" I come across all the time, and he displays most of the symptoms of such--especially the oh-so-arch turn-of-phrase as well as the half-closed eyes, giving a languid air of pseudo-authority.

Me, I think great stories and great novels should be adapted (if feasible) many times by different groups of artists. How many different versions of Shakespeare have there been? How many adaptations of Jane Austen?
I do agree with your comments about the language problems. This forum has brought many of these non-translatable nuances to our attention in many different threads, thanks to our long-suffering Swedish members. But IMO, far more important than the subtleties lost in translation, are the subtleties that are still present in the original despite the subtitles, due directly to the talents of Lina Leandersson, Kåre Hedebrant, augmented by the beautiful score by Johan Söderqvist and the direction of Tomas Alfredson (And of course the screenplay by John Lindqvist himself); in my opinion, a perfect storm. (Especially if you ignore the cats :D ).

The subtitles merely allowed me to understand what they were saying. How they were saying it (the facial expressions, the emotional presentation, the beautiful lighting, the timing…I could go on and on) was the heart of the matter, and in fact was what stole my heart away. :wub: What was lost was insignificant compared to what remained. It easily crossed all language barriers with its basic humanity and its story of innocent love; more innocent yet because it was untainted by an explicit suggestion of a cycle.
We never stop reading, although every book comes to an end, just as we never stop living, although death is certain. (Roberto Bolaño)

jetboy
Posts: 609
Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2009 5:22 pm

Re: Let the Right One In vs. Let Me In

Post by jetboy » Thu Mar 07, 2013 1:50 am

cmfireflies wrote:For Oskar to find happiness, JAL had to create a vampire, for Owen to be miserable, no vampire was needed, the supernatural elements seem wasted: and when you boil the story down, it's almost absurd: so, ok, don't be a vampire's caretaker, got it. I'll keep that in mind when a vampire moves in next door. I mean, LtROI's message could be said to be the opposite and that has bite because the vampire Eli becomes a symbol for the dark side of "true love." Does LMI say anything similarly thought-provoking or is Owen's story just a supernatural spin on the "neglected child finds loves somewhere he shouldn't: gangs, drugs, vampire, take your pick.
Interesting and you may be right. Owen finds Abbey and thats great but then Owen might become Thomas and thats not so great. The only other option is if Owen goes home and then the whole thing becomes a big so what. I mean is there a message or angle Im not getting here?
DavidZahir wrote:Me, I think great stories and great novels should be adapted (if feasible) many times by different groups of artists. How many different versions of Shakespeare have there been? How many adaptations of Jane Austen?
Havent seen this name in awhile, howdy. Im going to disagree with you right off the bat though. Shakespeare like most plays were meant to be done by different actors and directors, thats their whole purpose.

Also LMI was a remake of the movie not the book. It took cues from the book true but it obviously took the structure from the movie, which, considering how much was taken out of the book was a huge convenience for Matt Reeves. I dont know of a better movie from book adaptation around and Reeves pretty much copped it. From there he changed things but he certainly didnt start from the book.
PeteMork wrote:I do agree with your comments about the language problems. This forum has brought many of these non-translatable nuances to our attention in many different threads, thanks to our long-suffering Swedish members. But IMO, far more important than the subtleties lost in translation, are the subtleties that are still present in the original despite the subtitles, due directly to the talents of Lina Leandersson, Kåre Hedebrant, augmented by the beautiful score by Johan Söderqvist and the direction of Tomas Alfredson (And of course the screenplay by John Lindqvist himself); in my opinion, a perfect storm. (Especially if you ignore the cats :D ).

The subtitles merely allowed me to understand what they were saying. How they were saying it (the facial expressions, the emotional presentation, the beautiful lighting, the timing…I could go on and on) was the heart of the matter, and in fact was what stole my heart away. :wub: What was lost was insignificant compared to what remained. It easily crossed all language barriers with its basic humanity and its story of innocent love; more innocent yet because it was untainted by an explicit suggestion of a cycle.
Wow PM, beautifully put. I agree with you but more than that love the way you say it.

User avatar
DavidZahir
Posts: 694
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2011 4:24 am

Re: Let the Right One In vs. Let Me In

Post by DavidZahir » Sat Mar 09, 2013 12:03 am

I love both films and applaud both their similarities and differences. Lindqvist himself put it best, saying he cried watching both films, but at different times.

Me, I think the cast of LMI is quite markedly superior to that of LTROI, which is very high praise indeed. And cannot tell you who tired I am of folks whining that LMI was both too similar yet too different from LTROI, coupled with all kinds of snide comments about the filmmakers. It is wearying, especially since so much of the criticism of the American film literally comes down to "IT IS AMERICAN."
Havent seen this name in awhile, howdy. Im going to disagree with you right off the bat though. Shakespeare like most plays were meant to be done by different actors and directors, thats their whole purpose.
Howdy right back. ;)

We're talking adaptations in a dramatic form. Each time that is done you get something new. I mentioned Shakespeare but I also said Jane Austen. More, I'll go further--how many versions of Jane Eyre? Wuthering Heights? Dracula?

Me, I think there's nothing wrong with anyone making a new version of LIndqvist's story for a new medium (there've been three counting the play in Lapsala) nor with anyone professing a preference for one over the others. For me, LMI works a little better--especially when judged for what it is rather than rigid expectations.
O let my name be in the Book of Love. If it be there I care not
For that Other great Book above. Strike it out! Or write it in anew--
But let My name be in the Book of Love!
-- Omar Kayam

User avatar
PeteMork
Posts: 3781
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 9:56 pm
Location: Menlo Park, California

Re: Let the Right One In vs. Let Me In

Post by PeteMork » Sat Mar 09, 2013 12:49 am

DavidZahir wrote:I love both films and applaud both their similarities and differences. Lindqvist himself put it best, saying he cried watching both films, but at different times...
I certainly have no quarrel with the acting in LMI at all. They were both wonderful in their rolls. I do believe Cody's part was a bit more challenging than Chloe's but her scenes with Richard Jenkins are almost certainly among those that made JAL cry. Their doomed relationship, quite different than in LTROI, was heartbreaking at times, and one area in which Reeves could never be accused of copying LTROI.
We never stop reading, although every book comes to an end, just as we never stop living, although death is certain. (Roberto Bolaño)

jetboy
Posts: 609
Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2009 5:22 pm

Re: Let the Right One In vs. Let Me In

Post by jetboy » Sat Mar 09, 2013 7:03 am

DavidZahir wrote:We're talking adaptations in a dramatic form. Each time that is done you get something new. I mentioned Shakespeare but I also said Jane Austen. More, I'll go further--how many versions of Jane Eyre? Wuthering Heights? Dracula?
All the adaptations you mentioned are taken straight from the book or if not of a remake of a movie that everyone knows exists. Its the remaking of a movie that isnt well known, in order to take advantage of it not being well known,that bothers me.
DavidZahir wrote:Me, I think there's nothing wrong with anyone making a new version of LIndqvist's story for a new medium (there've been three counting the play in Lapsala) nor with anyone professing a preference for one over the others. For me, LMI works a little better--especially when judged for what it is rather than rigid expectations.
Plays are great, fan fiction is great etc.. I dont like LMI as much but Reeves was inspired too, great. The difference though is the plays were inspiration first hoping to make money too. Hammer was looking to exploit LTROI's lack of English.

As for LMI "working better", in what way? I gave an opinion above as well as others, how do these cross with your perspective?

Post Reply

Return to “Let Me In”