Let me In is just a passable movie
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ukk5TJL27pE
So this youtube clip really sums up the problem with Let Me In.
I enjoy the Nerdwriter's descriptions and criticisms of movies, but you are misinterpreting his vision there. He is saying that movies should do more than just tell a simple narrative. Movies should not use cliche's or poor dialog which explains motivation rather than let us interpret it from the context. He is saying that the movie's plot should be tightly entwined, thematically, character development, and tonally.
If Let Me In is a passable movie, then so is Let the Right One In. Neither one is -- they are both good films.
๐ฟ I know something you don't know ... I am ambidextrous!
My point is that LMI is a simpler narrative: it takes the complexity of LtROI and settles on the easiest interpretation: the cycle.
For all of Reeves talk about adapting the book, the theory that Abby's caretaker had been with her from 12 was something that was absolutely not part of the original story. It was only suggested by LtROI. And ultimately, that was something the author never intended. I guess the fact that Eli and Oskar may be happier together, that they could make a better future for themselves alone was too subversive to Reeves-he had to add the photo, show how terrible the Owen's future will be.
The story of LMI is awash in cliches-nothing says the 80s like Reagan's evil empire speech. Poor dialogue abounds: THomas's point-blank declaration that he's tired and wants to be caught. Owen's non-sequitur about whether there is evil in the world. That clip caught my attention because it perfectly encapsulates LMI taking shortcuts and relying on cliches.
The basic story is doesn't break new ground: it's as old as Romero and Juliet, but LtROI has few (if any) cliches. It trusts the audience to make the connections instead of spelling out everything. And the story isn't some obscure puzzle, it doesn't start in the middle of things only to jump back begging the audience to ask "why did this happen?" -and then wrap things up-"oh, his vampire girlfriend found someone new and that boy is going to end up the same way."
To me LtROI really said something new about love and loneliness. The most I got from LMI was a PSA about the dangers of 12 year old vampires and the importance of strong social institutions. Reeves's stated goal was to make it different from Twilight. I guess he cleared that bar at least.
Two things are going on in that video.
1-He's an elitist douchebag.
No easier way to say it. For the past 3 years, there have been over 700 movies released. (probably more...that's just the ones tracked by box office)
That guy somehow wants every movie to conform to his tastes. He's picking out the movies that he didn't care for and complaining about them while ignoring literally hundreds of movies in every style and genre that he could pick from which will be more to his liking.
Of course his main sin is assigning his taste to the entire planet and decreeing that it is the "right way to make movies". It doesn't get more arrogant than that. All rooted in the flawed idea that you can measure "quality" in art.
2-He's gotten old.
It happens to everyone. You grow up watching movies and eventually things start to get repetitive because there are only so many ways to tell a story. Really only 7 basic plots: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Literature/TheSevenBasicPlots?from=Main.TheSevenBasicPlots
Most people start in with the grumpy old man syndrome and proclaim "they don't make them like they used to". It happens with everything...music, movies, politics, sports, products. People always believe things were best when they were young and that everything since then is inferior. Meanwhile a young person is seeing it all for the first time and thinks it's awesome. In 20 years, they'll fall for the same thing and believe those movies, music, and sports are "not as good as they used to be".
So a person can go with this illogical behavior or try to enjoy new things without trying to tell everyone else their taste sucks. Stay young and embrace it. There are new things to see if you remove the stick from your rectum.
For all of Reeves talk about adapting the book, the theory that Abby's caretaker had been with her from 12 was something that was absolutely not part of the original story. It was only suggested by LtROI. And ultimately, that was something the author never intended. I guess the fact that Eli and Oskar may be happier together, that they could make a better future for themselves alone was too subversive to Reeves-he had to add the photo, show how terrible the Owen's future will be.
Which means you believe Reeves did something different. I thought lack of originality was one of the complaints in the video? ๐
Of course you are still ignoring all the LMI fans who don't see your interpretation (and that's all it is) at all. You still say "will be" instead of "can be". There are a ton of things in the movie that don't support your interpretation at all. People normally gravitate toward a happy ending. I feel it was necessary for Reeves to put in things to give both interpretations equal weight.
I can count about 14 different reasons why things won't work out exactly the same as Thomas/Abby.
1-Owen is a different person. Change one person in a relationship and things will change. We don't know what, but some things will be different. "Exhausting all options" for Thomas doesn't mean someone else wouldn't come up with new ideas. I feel Owen is smarter than Thomas. Why not choose vile human beings for Abby to kill ala Dexter? It's a great idea and would alleviate some of the guilt she feels. And why not try sedating victims like Thomas...only drain a "blood donor" amount? It would take more than one of course.
2-Owen/Abby will take place in a different time period/era than Thomas/Abby. That effects everything. Police methods will be different. The willingness of the public to believe in vampires will be different. (The US has become less religious over time) There are more people for Abby to choose as victims than existed when her and Thomas met. By the time Owen is grown, the internet will have become a tool.
3-Owen is a different person part 2: Owen demonstrates a severe distaste for violence. That hardly makes him serial killer material. Thomas did it for perhaps 40+ years and he only became "tired of it" at the end of that time. He had to have had no qualms about killing in the beginning to make it that far. It's not a small thing that they do not share that trait.
4-Abby will be doing her own killing for perhaps a decade after 1983. She could keep doing her own killing once Owen grows up as well. We have no idea why Thomas started killing for her after he grew up.
5-Owen could leave Abby after he grows up. They will have started to grow apart by that time. This seems very likely to me.
6-Owen could leave Abby before he grows up. Even a year later Owen could have grown away from Abby to the point where they will have little in common. We change dramatically during our teenaged years. Kids often find new friends along the way as they mature in different ways....just imagine how much more likely that would happen if one of the kids did not grow any older! When you are 15, a 12 year old is a "baby".
7-Owen could return home the next day, the next week, or the next month. Kids run away from home all the time and return home very quickly. I find this to be the most likely outcome. It's boring...but that's how life is most of the time.
8-The police could capture Abby.
9-The police could capture Owen.
10-The police could capture Abby and Owen.
11-Owen could be killed in any number ways.
12-Owen could decide Abby is "evil" and kills her.
13-Abby could be killed in other ways. (A potential victim, the sun)
14-Owen becomes a vampire. That's the way JAL sees it. That would obviously change everything.
The future is a blank slate...nothing is set in stone.
Plus...since when is a happy ending "subversive"? That's usually seen as the easy way out. ...Usually by hipster douchebags like the guy who made that video. Don't they usually long for the tragic ending?
The story of LMI is awash in cliches-nothing says the 80s like Reagan's evil empire speech.
A great use of 80s culture along with the "Satanic cult" fad of that time. I thought it was brilliant and original.
Poor dialogue abounds: THomas's point-blank declaration that he's tired and wants to be caught. Owen's non-sequitur about whether there is evil in the world. That clip caught my attention because it perfectly encapsulates LMI taking shortcuts and relying on cliches.
Another example of how you can't measure art.
Ask me and that's great dialog that provides backstory for Thomas and illustrates Owen's struggle in understanding the nature of good and evil. Another problem for your interpretation is that struggle. If Abby were so clearly evil, then that sub plot would not be in the movie. This is probably why you don't like it being there? ๐ Reeves put it there on purpose...and obviously not because there was no question about Abby.
It trusts the audience to make the connections instead of spelling out everything.
Seems the opposite to me. Any time LMI doesn't make something obvious, LTROI fans jump on it.
For example, LMI let us figure out that Abby hates killing with a light sob and fleeing from the body while LTROI had to have Eli collapse and sob after killing.
How about actually replacing the actresses voice to make Eli seem older?
Hakan actually stopping and explaining to the audience why he had acid?
There was even a difference in how violence was handled. LMI let us figure out that Thomas hit the ground from the hospital window while LTROI had to show it.
In LTROI, we get a nice closeup of Eli bleeding while LMI gets the same effect with a regular shot. No need to emphasis the blood...we get it.
LMI lets us figure out where Abby got money without it being explained.
LMI doesn't need a Virginia character to explain again and again that it sucks being a vampire.
I figured out that Abby and Owen learned Morse Code in LMI without being shown a scene explaining that like in LTROI.
I knew it was Abby at the pool. Didn't need to see her face.
I know LMI takes place in a town without the need for drunk townspeople to explain it to me.
LTROI fans complain about anything that LMI doesn't explain to them so that "subtle" claim is pretty weak coming from them. share
Their is nothing "impassable" about a simpler narrative just like there is nothing necessarily right about a complex narrative. I'm sure that he would criticize the quote from Richard Jenkins being too tired, but he wouldn't condemn the entire movie for it.
Thematically, LMI is a tighter movie than LTROI. If you watch his videos, this is what Nerdwriter appreciates about good films. For instance, one of the themes of both stories is the isolation of Owen/Oskar. Every shot of LMI supports that theme from watching the neighbors to never seeing his mother's face clearly. LTROI breaks this wall of isolation which distracts from the theme.
If you watch his video on Harry Potter's Prisoner of Azkhban movie, he describes how Alfonso Cuaron develops this exact same theme. He's a big fan of Cuaron.
To me LtROI really said something new about love and loneliness. The most I got from LMI was a PSA about the dangers of 12 year old vampires and the importance of strong social institutions. Reeves's stated goal was to make it different from Twilight. I guess he cleared that bar at least.Your opinion has no bearing on the video by Nerdwriter. You've decided that LMI is passable, now you are trying to imprint your perspective on to his writeup without even understanding it. If Oskar is so lonely, then why does he have fun moments with his parents? If the filmmaker is trying to develop that theme, then he has significant moments where he breaks from the theme. By definition of the video, that is "passable".
๐ฟ I know something you don't know ... I am ambidextrous!
share
Their is nothing "impassable" about a simpler narrative just like there is nothing necessarily right about a complex narrative.
True, and a more complex narrative isn't necessarily better.
Thematically, LMI is a tighter movie than LTROI. If you watch his videos, this is what Nerdwriter appreciates about good films. For instance, one of the themes of both stories is the isolation of Owen/Oskar. Every shot of LMI supports that theme from watching the neighbors to never seeing his mother's face clearly. LTROI breaks this wall of isolation which distracts from the theme.
I haven't watched any of Nerdwriter's other videos, what struck me about this one is his point that some movies rely on well-worn cinema cliches to convey a point becoming not a reflection of life, but a reflection of other movies. I think the examples he uses-a hapless main character buying the services of cooler character and then telling them how empty their lives are-is meant to show something that never happens in real life but is endlessly repeated in movies. I.e., it makes no sense that someone paying another to be their friend would be angry that the friendship is fake, but the movies have to condemn falsity and celebrate sincerity so you have the angry speech scene, followed by some introspection and a expression of "true friendship" with a life lesson learned (or something, I never actually watched those movies)
The point is that nothing in those movies would actually happen in real life, but the story beats are so familiar that we accept them for plot purposes. The endpoint is movies that are less and less about life and more a reflection of movies we've already seen.
Although both movies are about vampires, I just thought LtROI was more true to life than LMI. Case in point, Lacke vs. the policeman. Two side characters but one was more human, the other a cliche. You may not like Lacke, but he has an understandable motivation: to avenge his lover and friend. He may not have been the most well-developed character, but you get a sense of his flaws and hopes. This was a guy who completely blows off his girlfriend in his grief, but dreams of starting a new life with Virginia after her attack, but by then was too late and he stumbles to his death in a half-hearted attempted to kill the monster.
What do we know about the policeman? I really can't think of much. He's good at his job? Spares a kind glance at Owen? Then he dies. Really he's not even a "realistic" policeman because he would have seriously screwed up any criminal case against a satanic cult by barging into the apartment without a warrant or probable cause. THere's just too little about him to form a coherent character. So to "understand" the character, I have to think in terms of horror tropes. And he's easily explained as the hapless law enforcement that gets killed halfway through a horror movie to raise the stakes.
(Unrelated but the killing of Lacke is brilliantly muddles the morality of killing fin LtROI which isn't translated to LMI: Lacke was a guy who broke into Eli's home to kill her while sleeping vs. Abby killing a cop who (as far as we know) had no intention of killing her and didn't even know she existed.)
If you wanted to talk about theme, LtROI conveyed the same isolation without the heavy-handedness of LMI. A kid can be lonely without literally blurring out the mom's face, which just reminded me of Peanuts. It can be argued that the scene with Owen eating candy alone in the yard in the middle of winter established his isolation better than the blurring ever did. I'm not saying that LMI was bad because it reinforced certain themes; I had no problem with LMI bashing us over the head with the fact that Abby was Owen's LAST CHOICE but in doing so, it really can't claim to be a love story, after Owen chose Abby only after being rejected by his drunk mom and absentee dad.
If the devil is the only one giving you the time of day, you have to go with the devil really. (This is also why I really wished that LMI made it clearer that Abby was evil-the story set up a pretty believable abusive relationship, but it really muted that payoff by not showing Abby without her mask.) That's why LMI's themes were not as "tight" as LtROI. share
You mean like someone trying to get revenge for the death of a drinking buddy? That's more realistic than a police officer investigating crimes?
I haven't watched any of Nerdwriter's other videos, what struck me about this one is his point that some movies rely on well-worn cinema cliches to convey a point becoming not a reflection of life, but a reflection of other movies.
I have watched a number of nerdwriter's videos, and I like most of them. I particularly enjoy his videos on Snowpiercer, The Prestige, and Pan's Labyrinth. Whether you agree with him or not, he's passionate about movies, which is worthwhile.
Yes, he does not like ham-fisted cliche's in movies -- but, having a detective investigate crimes is not a ham-fisted cliche. It's what they do. Few movies are perfect, but I'm sure he would appreciate both of them. Based on what I have seen, he would appreciate the tighter focus on the major themes in Let Me In. He says, "In good movies, everything points to everything else."
What he means is that each shot & each line often serves several purposes -- both to advance the story and to reveal something deeper about the themes. This is why Owen is isolated throughout the movie, because isolation is one of the deeper themes (of both movies.) Plus, the images he includes help reinforce the themes. In Let Me In, you have the kids touching the wall at the same time -- and you have Owen eating the candy with a knife (a parallel to the cigarettes.)
If you watch his video on The Prestige, you'll notice how Nolan builds on the theme of duplicates with birds and hats -- if you've seen the movie, you can tell how these images fit the overall theme of the film (especially the boy who is not fooled by the magic trick with the birds.)
It's no secret that I did not care for the drinking buddies in LTROI. I'm sure it has something to do with the translation, but it all felt fake to me. (I forget the exact words, but the subtitle was something like, "I've enjoyed another night of mirth and merriment with my best friend." (tears and hugs and urinary incontinence for everyone.) The dialog is brutally forced. Then, he basically ignores his fiance until she is attacked. Once again, he's upset after the attack, but the emotions felt forced. Cliche -- they have a fight just before one of them is murdered.
๐ฟ I know something you don't know ... I am ambidextrous!
share
It's no secret that I did not care for the drinking buddies in LTROI. I'm sure it has something to do with the translation, but it all felt fake to me. (I forget the exact words, but the subtitle was something like, "I've enjoyed another night of mirth and merriment with my best friend." - Realbullet
I'm not going to get involved in another slanging match, but I'd like to point out an inaccuracy. You were quoting half remembered lines from the awful Magnolia release of Let The Right One In, not the Swedish release. This is what was in the Swedish film...
00:23:13,625 --> 00:23:17,152
Thanks for tonight.
141
00:23:17,195 --> 00:23:19,129
Bye, old pal.
142
00:23:21,166 --> 00:23:23,760
- See you tomorrow.
- Yeah.
143
00:23:23,802 --> 00:23:26,999
- You're the best.
- You too.
The Magnolia release is lambasted for a reason.
.
- - - - - - - - - - -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0e3tGxnFKfE
http://tinyurl.com/LTROI-story share
I pretty much figured the translation was poor, but I did not know that there was any other translation. The version I watched several times was cringeworthy -- a parody of human conversation. That's the only translation I have seen.
I'm not going to get involved in another slanging match, but I'd like to point out an inaccuracy. You were quoting half remembered lines from the awful Magnolia release of Let The Right One In, not the Swedish release. This is what was in the Swedish film...
It wasn't just that one line that was bad. It was also the dialogue in the diner before Virginia bolted. Lacke was the worst example of self-centered dialogue. "My best friend in the entire world, gone." or something to that effect. I kept thinking that Jocke was friends with everyone else at that table, too.
๐ฟ I know something you don't know ... I am ambidextrous!
share
Although both movies are about vampires, I just thought LtROI was more true to life than LMI. Case in point, Lacke vs. the policeman. Two side characters but one was more human, the other a cliche. You may not like Lacke, but he has an understandable motivation: to avenge his lover and friend. He may not have been the most well-developed character, but you get a sense of his flaws and hopes. This was a guy who completely blows off his girlfriend in his grief, but dreams of starting a new life with Virginia after her attack, but by then was too late and he stumbles to his death in a half-hearted attempted to kill the monster.
What do we know about the policeman? I really can't think of much. He's good at his job? Spares a kind glance at Owen? Then he dies. Really he's not even a "realistic" policeman because he would have seriously screwed up any criminal case against a satanic cult by barging into the apartment without a warrant or probable cause. THere's just too little about him to form a coherent character. So to "understand" the character, I have to think in terms of horror tropes. And he's easily explained as the hapless law enforcement that gets killed halfway through a horror movie to raise the stakes.
Not sure who this "you" and "we" is since you are talking about the way you feel about it.
I know Lacke is a drunk who gets a Van Helsing complex. I think he mistreats Virginia so I don't like him very much. I don't like that his character takes up screen time I would rather see devoted to the kids.
The Cop is a cop. His motivation is that he is a cop so there is no need to go off the track to explain what he is doing. So right there you save valuable screen time and that screen time went to the kids in LMI.
So it's easy to figure out that the Cop is doing his job and I also learned that he has an obsession with his Satanic cult theory and is a religious man. He has every reason to go back to the one apartment that did not answer his knock earlier in the movie which also has the windows blocked off. Hearing someone behind the door hiding when he knocks sounds like cause when you think you are searching for a "little girl" who could be a captive. I wouldn't want the cop to call for backup to save my kid....act quickly!
The Cop is also smart enough to go in armed. Lacke just bumbles in even though he actually knows he is hunting a vampire. One of those dumb characters that pop up in movies to provide a victim or move a narrative. Those characters irritate me a lot more than a "hapless cop".
(Unrelated but the killing of Lacke is brilliantly muddles the morality of killing fin LtROI which isn't translated to LMI: Lacke was a guy who broke into Eli's home to kill her while sleeping vs. Abby killing a cop who (as far as we know) had no intention of killing her and didn't even know she existed.)
I see the exact opposite.
The Cop is a character that helps to blur the lines between right and wrong. He was not there to hurt Abby while Lacke was there specifically after Eli the vampire. The Cop would have tried to help Abby if he encountered her sitting in a chair in the apartment. So it's a great little touch that I was tricked into rooting against him.
It's not a character who is struggling with the question of good and evil...it's me. I had no issue rooting for Eli to kill Lacke. Pure self defense against someone wishing to harm him.
I had no problem with LMI bashing us over the head with the fact that Abby was Owen's LAST CHOICE but in doing so, it really can't claim to be a love story, after Owen chose Abby only after being rejected by his drunk mom and absentee dad.
1-Being a last choice does not eliminate love. It's not that black and white.
2-That's not really the choice in LMI. You are transposing the choice from LTROI to LMI. There was a "right" choice in LTROI. The choice in LMI is about good and evil....and Owen still hasn't made that choice when the credits roll. share