Not-Smart Criticisms of LMI

[DavidZahir]

Very much in the vein of certain articles and lists online, here is my list of not-smart (insert the synonym of your choice) criticisms of LMI, uttered or written here as well as elsewhere.

1. It is different from LTROI. Think about this for a second. Different actors. Different crew, designer, and different setting (addendum--I really find it odd those who think LMI was set in a different time period than the Swedish film, because that is just plain false). Wouldn't it have to be different? Plus, it was in a different language! One of the (few) reasons I prefer the American film (albeit only slightly) is that I understand the nuances of what people are saying without thinking about it. Simply, I speak English, not Swedish. Likewise since the cast and crew are Americans, and the setting is in the United States, things change, just as they would if the film had been made in Japan or India or Mexico. One obvious difference is that Chloe Grace Moretz and Kodi Smitt-McPhee are little less children and a little more budding teenagers, which informs their performances. But while I can go on and on (and probably have) about how necessary, even inevitable differences must be, the real issue remains--why is difference bad in any way? This is the kind of reactionary thinking that keeps the US from adopting the metric system, often based on the most absurd 'reasoning' (such as "We won WW2 and Germany lost! So there!"). Any mature adult knows that difference is neither inherently positive or negative. Not in and of itself. Yet plenty of negative reactions to LMI (and let us be fair, other filmed adaptations of other works) essentially come across as lists of where it diverges from the book or the first film--as if that were in and of itself a valid criticism.

2. It was made too soon. An interesting premise lies behind this when you really think about it. Why is this a criticism at all? Really--why? Seems to me there for the most part only two ways this makes sense. First, the idea (expressed by T.Alfredson) that a second version implies there is something 'wrong' with the first. Well, depends on what you mean by 'wrong.' The folks who paid money to make a new film did so for a fairly obvious reason--to reap a profit. A brutal (and frankly understandable) fact remains that few foreign-language films do well in the American market. But the story captured an intense, loyal following. Producers hoped to cash in on the appeal of the storyline but aimed at a larger audience by making a second film, in English and with an American setting. This is in no way a disreputable or wrong thing to do. It even succeeded, albeit not on the scale that they had hoped (if post production costs for US films weren't so absurd, LMI would likely have been considered a minor hit rather than something of a cult film). But the standard of what was 'wrong' with the Swedish movie has nothing to do with artistic merit and everything to do with marketing. Another assumption behind this might be the notion that favorite novels should only be adapted for a given generation or era, which frankly seems an odd premise in many ways. Mostly, though, it also misses the point--artistically, LMI was a retelling of the novel for a different cultural audience, exactly as Throne of Blood (a universally acknowledged masterpiece) is a Samurai version of Macbeth.

3. LMI is American. A lot of people voiced this complaint loudly and often, long before anyone designed the first costume! This automatic disdain of an entire nation and a people I am frankly doing to dismiss. It is the despicable and stupid piece of bigotry it seems.

4. The American version is less obviously a love story. This seems invalid in at least two ways. First, go visit fanfiction.net and look up stories about LMI. Then go to Youtube and do a search for "Let Me In" with "Abby" and "Owen." You will find love story after love story derived from this movie. Clearly in the eyes of many audience members, LMI is a love story. But that it is more than a love story, that undercurrents of really disturbing images and situations flow throughout the film--how is this a bad thing? One might prefer a particular type of love story than another. In fact, you almost certainly will. But that the filmmakers aimed at a different angle involving one of the main themes of the book (as confirmed by the author!) doesn't seem like a valid complaint in and of itself. I honestly think this is more code for "LMI portrays a more mature love story than LTROI" which is true--simply because the lead characters end up slightly but profoundly older. Again, though, that a story is more mature seems like a odd reason for condemnation, or even hatred (a word more than one person has used).

5. LMI is a carbon copy of LTROI. Simply. Not. True. They are versions of the same story, just as is every single version of Dracula or Sense and Sensibility. But the differences are many, including the unrelenting focus on Owen's POV, the hint of sexuality between him and Abby, the nature of the relationship between Abby and Thomas, the use of sound and music as opposed to silence, the color palate of the film, the cultural setting (Reagan, talk of religion, assumption of a satanic cult, etc.), the increased size and viciousness of the bullies, the very different killing scenes, the 'look' of Abby as opposed to Eli, etc. Usually, what people refer to when saying this are scenes intrinsic to the plot or directly from the novel. Really, that is like complaining every single version of Moby Dick has a great big whale. More subtly some go on about the stuff unique to first motion picture, like the morse code on the train at the end. Maybe that makes some sense. On the other hand, Linqvist wrote both novel and the first screenplay--so isn't it all coming from his story?

6. Abby is a girl. The basis for this is that LTROI gives us a tiny hint to the (horrific) back story in the novel. A very tiny hint indeed. I know plenty of folks who missed it. Small wonder, when all it takes is a blink at the wrong time not to see that scar. So again, why is this much to made of? Frankly, it smells of an excuse to me, since the first film just barely touches on this subject at all.

[sauvin]

Very much in the vein of certain articles and lists online, here is my list of not-smart (insert the synonym of your choice) criticisms of LMI, uttered or written here as well as elsewhere.

1. It is different from LTROI.

It is, but this isn't legitimately "criticism" as mere statement of fact. The "critical" part comes from many people disliking difference or change.

2. It was made too soon.

I'm getting fed up with re-imaginings, updates, reboots and other remakes for a variety of reasons, but a greybeard can afford the luxury of this kind of arrogance. In many cases, we were there, we saw the originals and we often liked the originals more than we do the remakes. This won't necessarily be true of the younger generations, though, who never experienced the times in which we saw those originals, and so don't have the "feel" or the "cultural context" in which to enjoy them; the remakes, presumably a bit more up to date and more in touch with contemporary thought and feeling, would tend to have greater appeal.

LMI is an American movie made by an American for American audiences, pure and simple. As you pointed out in the text I rudely snipped out, we're not Swedish. My personal feelings towards the story's foundations being "re-imagined" in the form of a Thomas having remained with Abby those many years are a bit ambivalent, but Reeves may have shown some wisdom in knowing the American tolerance for a Hakan-like interest in preteens. 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.

3. LMI is American. A lot of people voiced this complaint loudly and often, long before anyone designed the first costume! This automatic disdain of an entire nation and a people I am frankly doing to dismiss. It is the despicable and stupid piece of bigotry it seems.

Nevertheless, it remains true that Hollywood isn't Europe, Japan or Korea. Worse, there was an initial strong misgiving that LMI was being made by the guy who horked up the Cloverfield turkey. It's not true that Hollywood cannot crank out a good movie, but it remains true that it seems unlikely, and seems less and less likely as time moves forward.

4. The American version is less obviously a love story.

Nobody says "Love means never having to say you're sorry" in LMI. Nobody gets smoke in his eyes or suddenly sore throats.

In fact, is it a love story at all? People point to Abby's relationship with Thomas and say "Look at how they interact. This is love? They can barely stand eachother!", and their positions are not completely indefensible. Given this perception, even we on the LTROI board still looking into LMI seem to have mix feelings about Owen's frame of mind on the outbound train; he may not be so much "in love" as at least partly resigned to a life of misery that will hopefully prove just a tad less miserable than the life he's leaving.

I wouldn't describe fanfic as being fairly representative of the general population's reaction. Fanfic, after all, tends to be written by fans, therefore people moved deeply enough by the movie in a particular way to wanting to spend time exploring what they saw. The fans might poo-poo the general population as being uncritical, insensitive and too prone to confusing appearance for meaning, where the general population might accuse the fans of being overly appreciative of parts of the movie, selectively perceptive and too prone to imbuing too much meaning on flimsy appearance. In all cases, de Tocqueville, as I recall, is also quoted as saying that 90% of anything is junk, and this includes human intelligence.

The American version is indeed less obviously a love story. It's grittier, grimier and an order of magnitude or two darker - if it is a love story, it can't compare to LTROI's sweeter, simpler, clearer - and brighter - message.

That's not a criticism, though. This, too, is simple observation.

5. LMI is a carbon copy of LTROI.

Nope. This "criticism" has no foundation.

6. Abby is a girl.

Yes. For people who caught the peek scene and understood the "intended" significance of the scar, it added depth to the difficulties a straight Oskar had to surmount in order to accept Eli fully enough to flee with her. The "impossible love" that came into being anyway was just one more subtlety present in LTROI that's missing in LMI.

This might be a criticism, but it depends on how much you buy into LMI being "essentially" a love story (which I don't), but it can be counter-argued that LMI's having Owen running away with a preteen girl who is at least hypothetically capable of doing certain things for or with a growing boy, and is at least hypothetically capable of understanding their import, lends their futures together a complexion that Oskar and Eli can't realise. It also Americanises the movie just that much more because most folk can't imagine a consuming but completely platonic love between unrelated people.

Furthermore, I rather suspect that Reeves may have shown some insight into the American people again in avoiding anti-homosexual backlash.

[DMt.]

I have gone from being reflexively snide about LMI to admiring it as a damn good shot at the story in an American context, and I meant it in the best sense when I said that it could have been a great deal worse. Its only real crime is not being LTROI but that was always going to happen, for the LTROI-imprinted anyway.

[CyberGhostface]

Some thoughts on some (not all of the points).

1. Not an issue with me. I thought some of the differences were poor, but differences in and out of themselves don't bother me. The film wasn't different enough.

2. It was made too soon. I simply can't agree with remaking a film only two years after its release. You yourself admit that it was made largely for money. It's a shoddy thing to do from a creative perspective. It's because of things like this that the American horror genre is in such a state of disrepair with every other film being a remake, reboot or sequel. And Let Me In wasn't a retelling of the novel, it wasn't like someone readapting Shakespeare for a new generation...it was a remake of the Swedish film. Retelling of the novel implies that Reeves went back to the source material, which he didn't. Also given that the film made no profit at all in theaters (when you take into mind that the theaters take some of it), I'm not sure how that's a success. At best they broke even.

5. It's as close to the Swedish film as you can get without being a direct copy. Yes it's not a carbon copy but it's pretty damn close. If we're listing the color palate as a valid difference then that shows how similar the two films were. If you're going to copy a work of art right after it comes out, I expect something considerably different. Not something that is 'subtly' different with different colors and music. The book is considerably different, use stuff from that. Didn't Reeves gush about how much he fell in love with the novel? Otherwise I'm wasting my time.

6. To me, cutting out this scene was yet another predictable element of the remake. I think we all knew that the producers would balk at something that A.) showed (fake) child nudity and B.) hinted that the story was a romance between two boys. I don't think the briefness of the original shot is a valid excuse to remove it; if Reeves was honest in his claims in going back to the novel, there is no reason as to why he couldn't have just made it clearer. Have the dialogue exchange in the book--"But that's a boy's name." "Yes". Given the photograph scene, Reeves is not averse to spelling things out for the audience.

[Tom]

Here are some of my thoughts.

2. It was made too soon. How soon is too soon? What about "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo" remake? Not many people complain about that one, given the fact that it's also "too soon". The Swedish film was released in US theatres in March 2010, and the Hollywood remake in December 2011. Yes, the remake is directed by David Fincher, who has a much more impressive resume than Niels Arden Oplev and Matt Reeves. But can that justify everything? Because with that logic, Neill Blomkamp should never be given a chance to direct District 9. I mean, the guy was almost unknown before the movie!

3. LMI is American. I like the remake to be set in America rather than in Sweden, because I just can't picture Owen and Abby running around in blackeberg, speaking English with Swedish accent.

5. LMI is a carbon copy of LTROI. This is not true. If you watch these two movies on a split screen at the same time, you will notice there are many scenes in LMI that weren't in LTROI.

For Example,

a. The long opening scene in which you see an ambulance rushing on the snowy highway and a policeman visiting "The Father" in the hospital.
b. Owen sitting in the courtyard eating Now and Laters, singing the song. He then buried the candies in the snow when his mom called.
c. Owen wearing a mask in front of a mirror, with a knife in his hand.
d. Owen spying on his neighbours with his telescope.
e. Owen watching Kenny bully a little girl in the swimming pool.
f. "The Father" Kills a victim in a car near the railway when a train passed by.
g. Owen sitting in the courtyard, suddenly "The Father" came out of the building. The two had a brief eye-contact. It was a very intense scene. For a moment, I thought "The Father" was about to harm Owen.
h. The gas station scene.
i. The car crash scene.
j. Owen telling Abby that someday he will leave the town and never come back.

[crazychristina]

LMI was made for a different audience, for people who were unlikely to ever have seen LTROI. With cultural references more familiar to the target audience. None of my family or colleagues had ever heard of LTROI, and given that it's a Swedish cult movie, were never likely to. Also it's a very different style. I actually found it amazing that two movies telling the same story could be so different. The American cinematic style is very different from the European style.

[cmfireflies]

LMI was a victim of LtROI's success. It's fault was not being LtROI> I'm leaving it at that.
...
...
...
And Reeves made Abby evil! And Owen just another lackey!
<men in white coats come and starts dragging me away
It's the truth I TELL YOU!! I'M NOT CRAZY!...Hmmmppf...mmmm..<smack..thud>

[EEA]

Let Me In was done too soon. As for it being a love story I just do not see it. I think is more about escaping and running away from that horrible existence that Owen is living. With Abby at least he wont be alone. When I see a movie I am not thinking on what country it was made. To me its about finding a connection with the characters. I just take Let Me In as another different story even if some scenes still are like Let The Right One In.

[crazychristina]

Too soon? Was Avatar made too soon? Was Watchmen made too soon? The concept of too soon is irrelevant for those who haven't read the book nor watched LTROI. Most people

[CyberGhostface]

Too soon? Was Avatar made too soon? Was Watchmen made too soon? The concept of too soon is irrelevant for those who haven't read the book nor watched LTROI. Most people

But it's relevant to those who did know about the first film, and considering how many people ended up seeing Let Me In in the end, I'm pretty sure they made up a sizable chunk.