The decision to remake a film that’s barely two years old and has already received critical acclaim in America—implying that it had a good deal of play here—is an odd one. Remakes have a tendency to use older films, or movies that weren’t popular outside of their original country, or stories that live to be told again and again, like Shakespeare. Using a new, popular film for inspiration instead invites the question: why is this even necessary? The newest version has to justify its existence in a way that remakes of older movies generally don’t. (Which isn’t to say they never do—for example, the remake of The Day the Earth Stood Still. That movie certainly had to try to justify itself.)
The best answer to the question of “why” is that the new film wants to go further into the textual source material of the novel than the original, that it wants to further explore and expound upon themes. That’s a pretty damn good reason to go for a remake.
Let Me In does the exact opposite. Instead of going further and doing more, the film backs off of anything remotely challenging or “icky” for the average film-goer and rips out the original thematic structure to replace it with a predictable moral quandary. Which isn’t to say that it was a bad film on its own—but it cannot exist on its own in the critical field because it follows so very closely on the heels of its still-talked-about, still-popular inspiration. (On the other hand, as I’ll discuss below, it wasn’t a particularly well structured movie on its own, either.)
I will very briefly get on my soapbox about the thing that made me the most irritated about Let Me In: the decision to erase the issues of gender and sexuality from the film. Abby is biologically female and identifies as female. There’s no real middle ground available to her in the remake. Eli, in Let the Right One In and the text, is not biologically female and, despite appearances, does not actually seem to identify as female, either. There are complex layers of commentary about performative gender and convenient socialization in Let the Right One In, especially considering that Oskar doesn’t quite care at all that his soul-mate is not biologically female. (Really, once the vampire thing is out of the way, there’s nothing much more shocking than that, and he handles that well.) The decision to wipe those issues completely from the movie—including Oskar’s father—was one I can at my most forgiving call cowardly. It’s the idea that American audiences are too prejudiced and too queer-phobic to deal with those topics in a movie. Admittedly, that’s probably correct, but it was still caving in on an issue that the director had the opportunity to work with. Hell, he could have chosen to make it even more obvious and actually deal with the questions of sexuality! Instead, he retreats to a comfortable hetero-normative position.
End soapbox, continue with content-review.
The word I would use to describe Let the Right One In is “quiet,” or perhaps “poignant.” The word I would use to describe Let Me In is “clumsy,” maybe even (and this is cheating) “trying too hard.”
What made the original film so engaging is that it’s not a horror movie, it’s a macabre and socially aware romance. It’s a story about two immeasurably damaged young people—even though one isn’t really young at all—finding each other and connecting precisely because of their strangeness and socially unacceptable behavior. Their deep connection and the outlet it provides them both is both sweet and frightening. Oskar and Eli are both well on their way to being “monsters” and are not redeemed from it. In fact, the audience is made to sympathize greatly with them at the same time as feeling intense discomfort.
Let Me In summarily abandons that—somehow, the main thematic freight of the original wasn’t satisfying enough.
Examining the characterization of Oskar versus Owen makes this point abundantly clear. Oskar is a severely socially inadequate person. (I refuse to call him a child, because Oskar is no more a child than Eli.) He’s developed as a sort of proto-serial-killer: he has a special scrapbook of gruesome delights, he fantasizes constantly about using his rather large knife to hurt other people, he’s unable to make social connections with even his perfectly normal and interested parents. His posture and self-affect are removed, he doesn’t understand basic conversation and doesn’t behave in any way like a normal person of his age. He’s frankly a bit creepy when you put thought into it.
Eli says to him in conversation at one point that he wants to kill people—Eli just does it because it’s necessary, for survival. Oskar is the perfect match for Eli precisely because of this. He’s never turned off by or even particularly concerned by the violence or death that seems to follow in Eli’s wake. It just doesn’t bother him, any more than her status as boy/girl or vampire/human. Not only that, I would argue that especially in the pool-scene at the end, Eli’s capability for violence pleases him and he feels properly revenged thanks to her. (Using the “she” pronoun for convenience.)
Owen on the other hand is a relatively normal kid. He’s constantly singing, goofing off, reacting to his parents like a predictable twelve-year-old including outbursts like “god, mom!” I winced more about Owen’s characterization than anything else, to be perfectly honest. The most creepy thing he does is spy on his sexy neighbor with his telescope, which is something I can honestly say most twelve year old boys would probably do. He’s social in a way that Oskar literally could not be, never managed or understood how to be. His posture is upright, his bearing is comfortable. The movie opens with promise toward his nature, as he’s shown wearing a Halloween mask and fake threatening someone with a kitchen knife (the phrase “little pig” is replaced with “little girl” in this movie for some reason), but that’s about it. He’s a normal kid, and that robs so much of what made him interesting and different as a protagonist in the first place. (Dammit, Americans love Dexter, why did the movie-folks think we wouldn’t love Oskar? Perhaps because he’s twelve, but still.)
The difference in the knives he owns between the original and the remake is a simple visual comparison: hunting knife versus tiny, tiny pocket knife the sort that most people use to clean under their fingernails or open packages. Owen behaves like a normal bullied child, and instead of the theme of the movie being a more subtle question about connection and strangeness, it becomes a question of “evil.”
And that’s where the film gets clumsy. It tries to very hard to make the audience see that Owen is torn up about his girlfriend eating people, that he worries she’s evil, and that the plot of the movie is supposed to be revolving around his moral struggle. The Ronald Reagan speech about evil is played more than once. You cannot possibly get more obvious than that. For me, this is a drastic mistake in tone. There are already hundreds of movies that deal with “is the person I love evil? Can I love them anyway?” It’s a staple of vampire or otherwise paranormal romance. It’s boring, it’s over-done, and it’s frankly unimaginative at this point. To have replaced a subtle, intricate plot about Really Bad People coming together and connecting, finally, in a way they could not with anyone else with a silly plot about “is my vampire girlfriend evil” is just—well, it’s not a good narrative choice, and that’s as nice as I can be about it.
The structure also suffers from the decision to try and market/film Let Me In as a straight-up horror movie. There’s a dissonance between the parts of the plot that try to turn a previously quiet, subtle film into a thriller and the parts that are trying to be subtle. Opening the movie with the burning and suicide of Eli/Abby’s protector-figure, loud ambulances and dramatic policeman then trying to build the rest of the story about their relationship (except the parts with the terrible, terrible CGI) creates a narrative fumble that loses tension. The original was never boring, not for me—it has constant intrigue and tension, even after multiple viewings. The way Let Me In is structured creates a drag between the two disparate types of movie it’s trying to be. (This is why I say I still wouldn’t have given it better than three-stars even if it had been a completely separate, unrelated movie.)
(Let me go back to the CGI for a moment, also. It’s bad. The choice to make Abby go all scary-face and many-jointed “monster” when she’s hungry is just utterly stupid. This is not supposed to be a monster movie, it’s barely supposed to be a horror film, and there was no reason to have such awful CGI anywhere near it. It’s tacky and ugly. It’s cool in Buffy, it’s not cool in this movie.)
The choice to turn Eli/Abby’s protector into a whiny, grumpy old man who loved her as a teenager is also enough to make me want to brain myself on a convenient desk. His scenes suffered almost as much as Oskar/Owen’s when it comes to characterization. One of the most haunting, quiet moments of the original is when he’s caught in the gym with the boy trussed up, ready to kill, and the boy’s friends trap him in the room. He sits with his head in his hands for a long moment as we watch, breathless, hating to sympathize with him but still sympathizing, and then continue to watch as he calmly walks into the shower area and douses himself with acid. I won’t deny the car-crash scene was cinematically interesting in Let Me In, it was damned pretty. But the screaming, in-a-hurry acid bath thing was so much more powerful.
That is really the thing at the heart of why I not only didn’t like Let Me In but found it extraneous and pointless. It is much less powerful, it is clumsy in its narrative and its themes, and it doesn’t know what kind of movie it wants to be. The only things that were kept were the unnecessary things—specific camera angles, for example. Aping camera angles after you’ve already yanked out the thematics and sense of subtlety just seems kitsch. It’s almost insulting. The film is a distant, dumbed-down and louder cousin of its original source material; it would have been much better to film it with completely original shots because that would have lent it more “credibility,” of a sort, as a different movie.
While it may seem in very, very basic terms to be a remake of Let the Right One In, Let Me In is a loosely inspired and much less fascinating attempt at using the similar characters to tell a fundamentally different story. It’s an all right movie as a stand-alone; not terribly great, though the acting is good and the scenery is gorgeous, because the themes are repetitive and it isn’t doing anything new. Let Me In doesn’t trust the audience to put any puzzle pieces together. From the setting to Abby’s nature (I was so tired of them overusing her dislike of shoes from shot one, it’s much creepier when it’s used sparingly) to the themes, it tries to bash you over the head with everything it wants you, the viewer, to know.
It’s a question of subtle versus loud, fresh versus rehash. I understand the argument that a strange foreign film about socially disturbed young people falling in love and committing acts of terrible violence wouldn’t be successful here. My answer to that, though, is that maybe the box office dollars shouldn’t be what guides decisions in film narrative. I know that’s a pointless and so-very-indie howl into the wind, but really, I would have been so happy with a movie that delved further into the issues of the book and the dark, twisty themes. I would have loved it if it had done those things. But it didn’t, and I don’t. I do, on the other hand, heartily recommend saving your money to rent a copy of Let the Right One In, or just watching it on your Netflix.
It’s quiet, it’s subtle, it’s interesting. Let Me In might be a fine three-star romp for a Friday night movie outing, but it’s not those things.
Lee Mandelo is a multi-fandom geek with a special love for comics and queer literature. She can be found on Twitter and Livejournal.
I must admit, I’m surprised you think so highly of Let Me In. Whoever thought letting the country that came up with Twilight near the intellectual property of the country that came up with Let the Right One In was a good idea probably should be shot. Or taught that money isn’t everything. Or something.
Don’t fix what ain’t broke.
After watching Let the Right One In, I thought, “it’s not a vampire movie. It’s a movie that happened to have a vampire in it“. As expected, it seems the US producers behind the remake heard the buzz about the original ad thought the opposite- that it was a vampire movie. And when the creators realized they were wrong, they had to change it into a vampire movie, because hey, all those crazy kids today love them some vampires, right?
@Rikka
Admitting confusion here–I didn’t think highly of it at all. I thought it was a clumsy mess that didn’t justify its own existence. That’s sort of the point of the whole essay?
@DontDriveAngry
Yes, this.
All of this is exactly what I said would happen when I heard they were remaking it. All of my predictions came true and I despise that it’s so. My friends and I saw Let The Right One In shortly after it was released in America. We could NOT stop talking about it afterwards. Hours of discussion were had. It was subtle, it was creepy, it was understated, it was just slightly perverse. It was touching, it was sweet, it was disturbing. It was beautifully shot, beautifully acted and one of the best movies I’d ever seen.
But it had subtitles and that’s just too much work in a magnificent movie. Unless it’s about a jew being scourged and crucified. I’m not bitter. I’m just cynical.
And while your indie howl is so very much an indie howl, it’s one I share with you and do so with gusto. Why can’t studios understand niche markets? Or genre films? The rest of the world doesn’t act like our studios do. If they did, we wouldn’t have The Fifth Element, among others. I have and will continue to hold my middle finger up to this movie.
PS- Oskar doesn’t look creepy but Owen does…
Since we’re allowed to be spoilery, then: The original Swedish film was so vague about Eli’s gender identity that I’m not sure it was successful in that respect either; one quick little flash and the use of a female actor more or less assures that the questions won’t even be asked (as opposed to the novel’s very clear, very LONG origin sequence. As well as the effacing all hints of pedophilia. Which was probably a smart choice). Does the film version of “Let The Right One In” *ever* identify Eli as anything more than a girl with an odd scar? I knew what was going on only because I had read the book. That bugged me for a while. (Granted, it’s entirely possible that some translation was left out of the subtitles, but the scene I’m thinking of did not have dialog.)
But I did like the Swedish film a great deal (where the book was quite scary, and messed with your expectations of who to sympathize with, the film suceeded quite well as cross between an atmospheric piece and an extremely dark comedy), which makes me think I should give this slicked up CGI remake a pass.
I’ve also been trying to figure out how they were going to remake this thing without the Swedish winter, which was almost a character in itself.
“Does the film version of “Let The Right One In” *ever* identify Eli as anything more than a girl with an odd scar?”
That should read “anything other than.”
Thank you for an interesting read. I hope your review will make me appreciate the original film better. It will in any event keep my eyes safely away from the remake or whatever “Let me in” really is. Will have to watch the original again now. I initially didn’t like it that much mainly because it paled in comparison to the fantastic novel.
I recently purchased the translation of Let the Right One in and then watched the Swedish version of the movie. The movie was haunting and beautiful in a way that left me unsettled. It stuck with me in my dreams that night and proded the back of my mind while I worked the next day. I was tempted to go watch Let Me In only to see the differences. I am not sure I should now, I don’t know if it will ruin my experience of the film. I believe I’ll read the book first, and then decide.
I respect your opinion, but I must disagree with everything you said. I loved the book, loved the original movie, and LOVED Let Me In. I think it did just as good as the first movie at keeping that balance between horrifying and innocence. I thought the cast was absolutely amazing as well. And the first movie never said Eli was a castrated boy. They show a scar and that is it. And In Let Me In, Abby does say multiple times she’s not a girl. So it’s the same, just without that shot of the scar, which was not necessary anyways. In terms of remakes, I’d say Let Me In is perfect. For me it’s tied for all-time favorite movie. But that’s just my opinion :)
Gonna have to disagree with pretty much the entire review. I’v watched both and the remake was really excellent.
That said, I’m sure most of the people that have and will be commenting made the right decision in not seeing the movie.
The enjoyment you get from seeing a good film will never equal the enjoyment you get to feeling superior for not seeing it.
Thank you so much for the heads up. I saw half of the TV preview for Let Me In last week and thought it couldn’t possibly be a remake of Let the Right One In, it seemed far too different, and I had never thought of the original film as a horror movie. However, the preview did manage to remind me of the original movie, which sparked a conversation with my wife about what made the Swedish film so interesting. I should have known I was right to see the connection… This is the only way American filmakers could have interpreted it. More is More. Less is Less. We can’t even let ourselves just be quiet in our own homes, how could we ever let ourselves see a quiet film?
Re: Junior…
There’s this strange paradoxical thing going on these days, where it’s really cool to dislike people who think it’s really cool to dislike things. I knew I wasn’t interested in Let Me In, and this was confirmation. It’s just not my kind of tone.
As Maac noted, LTROI was very coy about Eli’s gender. Is the scar – shown extremely briefly – female genital mutilation, male genital mutilation, or a syndrome associated with vampirism? The second, of course, but it’s not explained without reference to the book. Same with Hakan being a pedophile.
As far the vampire face transformations in LMI, do you think that effects like the abrupt replacement of the young actress with an adult male body double in LTROI during the blood-lapping scene was more successful? How about those extremely long fake-looking talons when Eli is in the tree? And some of LTROI’s wirework is glaringly obvious.
Yes, LTROI’s Oskar has a flatter affect than LMI’s Owen, and hence is more abnormal-seeming. But Oskar is still more sympathetic and more good-looking than the Oskar of LTROI the novel. In both movies he’s more palatable.
LTROI, like LMI, shies away from some of the more unsavory aspects of the novel. And honestly, some of the events in the novel are best left out of any cinematic adaptation.
I don’t think that LMI tries to make up the audience’s mind for it on the nature of evil. Are Reagan and Owen’s mother full of it with their Jesus-flogging rhetoric, and Abby and Owen’s survival and friendship matter above all else? I thought that Reagan’s appearance represented the simplistic dichotomizing mentality of the US Cold War era, not something that the audience is supposed to see as a moral compass. According to its critics, either LMI is too slavishly faithful a remake or goes off in its own direction too much. Well, here it’s going in its own direction.
Improvements in LMI compared with LTROI: the bullies are a more dire menace, no terrible CG cats, no drawn-out barfly gang subplot, more self-contained.
Two years ago, ardent fans of the book were complaining that the ’08 Sweden film was watered-down, simplistic, sentimental, and prettified compared to the novel. But now that movie is canonical and any new adaptation suffers in comparison with its standards, often with the same complaints used against the first film in comparison with the novel. To paraphrase Reagan, there they go again.
John Lindqvist on Let Me In:
http://moviesblog.mtv.com/2010/10/04/let-me-in-let-the-right-one-in-john-lindqvist-note-matt-reeves/
“I might just be the luckiest writer alive. To have not only one, but
two excellent versions of my debut novel done for the screen feels
unreal. ‘Let the Right One In’ is a great Swedish
movie. ‘Let Me In’ is a great American movie.
There are notable similarities, and the spirit of
Tomas Alfredson is present. But ‘Let Me In’ puts the emotional pressure
in different places and stands firmly on its own legs. Like the Swedish
movie, it made me cry, but not at the same points. ‘Let Me In’ is a dark
and violent love story, a beautiful piece of cinema and a respectful
rendering of my novel for which I am grateful. Again.”
“Improvements in LMI compared with LTROI: the bullies are a more dire menace, “
This in particular I think is a very good thing, and more true to the book. I found that in the book, I took the danger Oskar and Eli were in more seriously — in the film, I was not able to really feel Eli was menaced by any of the humans, especially Hakan, and therefore I wasn’t feeling Eli’s character and story arc quite as strongly (even though I can’t find it in my heart to fault Lindqvist for strongly toning down the pedophilia aspects in the film script. That sort of thing — for me — is much more difficult to deal with in visual than in reading). Heightened danger makes the bully children’s ultimate fate less… one-sided? (Trying not to spoil too much.)
I also agree about the cat scene. I haven’t seen LMI, so I can’t discuss that version, but where I mentioned “dark comedy” above — the movie made laugh-out-loud funny (to several audience members) a section that had been kind of heartrending, originally — a woman completely out of her depth, utterly terrified, and incapable of understanding what had happened to her.
Now I’m wondering if Lindqvist got as much script control for LMI as he did for LTROI? I kind of envy him his chance to write his story several diferent ways for different media! :-) (I could go look this up. I think I will.)
(For the record, so as not to obscure the original article’s point, I do think that both films could have found a way to make it clear Eli/Abby is a boy**, even using a female actor, and even if less graphic than showing off scars or going all-out with the mutilation flashback. And I did like the understated, dark, and yes, low-budget look of the Swedish film. For me, the suggestion of much of the horror worked quite well where blantant dipiction might have messed with the overall feel.)
** I’m engaging in that binary only because I’m not quite sure what gender Eli identifies with, and I don’t think I’m meant to be — I don’t think it’s made clear in the text that Eli ever stopped identifying with birth gender, especially considering the traumatic nature of the events that would have obscured it, and the predilictions of Hakan, who had finally found his dream of an “eternal child.” Oh ew. Sorry.
Thank you. The gushing reviews from people who claim to have seen Let The Right One In and even read the book were making me waver in my commitment to not see this travesty.
Oh my god, THANK YOU.
I had these very same issues with this film, but you expounded upon them much, much, better.
Fantastic review.
I see you’re a subscriber of Gross Generalizations. Very important publication.
Didn’t know that about the gender confused original character, that explains some scenes in the movie I was marvelling about ever since I saw it.
Now, the remake:
I knew that they wouldn’t dare to use the highly anti-social nature of the original characters and would shy from showing the all to natural ease with which children turn to violence against each other. That was one of the few parts of the movie I really liked, that and the creepy abusive relationship between them that really drove home the point she makes when she talks about him wanting to and her needing to.
Excellent comments & discussion–thanks back to everyone saying thanks! And I want to be clear–I’m not down on you if you liked the movie. I’m not trying to convince anyone who enjoyed it to dislike it, but I had critical issues with it, and there they are. A few responses:
@Maac
Interesting thoughts–I’m beginning to think the gender-issues and how obvious it seemed depends on the watcher. I felt like it was right in my face, but so many other commentors didn’t notice or, like you said, found it coy/ambiguous that it might have been less obvious than I thought.
@Brian C.
Yes, they do re-use the “I am not a girl” line. The difference? Oskar’s answer is that he would still like Eli. Owen’s answer is “but no, I guess not.”
Really, really big difference. (Also, there’s way more than just the scar-scene in the original. Eli’s voice is deeper than a normal young girl’s, no breasts at all, ambiguous facial structure (which was achieved with intentional makeup, the actress herself is very feminine and round of face out of character), even at some points ambiguous clothing, ESPECIALLY in the beginning. I actually thought Eli was a biological & identifying straight-up boy to start with in my first viewing, before I read the book.)
@Haeckel
To clarify: my problem with the CGI wasn’t necessarily that it was bad CGI, though I might have phrased that badly, it’s that it was so monster-movie, same-old-tricks CGI from every newish American horror movie. It didn’t fit. The cats scene in the original wasn’t great, either, but it would have been pretty unsafe to have real cats attacking a real actress, so at least there was a reason for it to be there. The CGI in LMI is extraneous and kind of goofy.
And this is going to sound quible-y, but I never, ever trust a writer’s quotes on adaptations of their work. I can count on one hand the number of writers I can remember who honestly trashed their adaptations–Stephen King being one of them. I’m pretty sure you have to be a special level of famous and/or acting like an arrogant jerk to publically denounce your adaptations, because the directors and actors really were trying in most cases. Also, a nice paycheck tends to gloss some things over. You don’t bite the hand that feeds.
@Gerd D.
I knew they wouldn’t do it, deep down, but I had really hoped they would, or I wouldn’t have bothered going to see it in theaters. I had hopes. Sigh.
Thank you so much for addressing the issue of their erasure of the vampire’s sex. I came here spcifically to see ifI could find out if they kept it in this version, not wanting/needing to see the remake otherwise. I won’t waste my time seeing this, the edited down version of the film in that case as the first version was more than good enough to watch over and over.
Soap box away, please. It’s good to see this worded not only elegantly and with matter-of-fact calmness but as the first issue addressed. Thank you again.
I agree with everything that was said about the original movie except for this one line “A subtle intricate plot about really bad people coming together and connecting”. Personally I didn’t view Oskar or Eli as really bad people at all. I understand that Oskar was a bit disturbed but he seemed to be driven towards that state of mind by his overly cruel peers and Eli was just standing up for who he/she cared about. Those kids and that cat lady won’t be missed. I think its time that I read the book.
As for this standard Hollywood practice where they feel the need to remake a popular film just because it’s foreign and has subtitles is insulting to anyone with half a functioning brain. The oddest example that I can draw on is the remake of “Funny Games”. I mean, they even used Michael Haneke (who I love) to re- direct his own film in english and the art direction and cinematography were almost a carbon copy. The scary thing about the first film was the simple fact that I had no idea who the actors were and that lent it a feeling of reality that you can never get with using mainstream high profile american actors. I think Michael Pitt is great but the entire time that I was watching the remake of Funny Games I was aware that I was watching Michael Pitt in a really sadistic role. I realize that this is something you must contend with in any movie but when an equal if not better version is already in existence and you have that component of anonymity, that makes the story even more believable, why bother with the remake other then to make a larger profit by presenting it to an audience thats to lazy to be bothered reading the subtitles. There’s more and more evidence every day of how stupid and lazy our fellow Americans have become.
Watch more movies and don’t talk to your neighbor. Stupidity rubs off.
John Lindqvist had no script control of LMI.
I haven’t read the book but I have seen both movies and liked both of them on their own merits. I’m not convinced either movie made strong enough efforts to muddle Eli/Abby’s gender. Both movies used girl actors although the actress who played Eli was well chosen for her enigmatic appearance. I find Mandelo’s distinction about the differences between the two movies only interesting to me in that they emphasize more to me that they are two subtly different movies based on the same material. I understand the original book is more disturbing with its child abuse, molestation and poverty. Anyway, the Swedish movie is a creepy story of friendship set in depressing drama of life in poverty. The U.S. movie is a creepy love story set in a murder mystery or true crime story. It’s the fact that the subject is a vampire that makes either story interesting to me. I do like how the U.S. movie does hint more at the immortal child aspect of Abby.
As for the CGI, how might one portray a strong and fast 80 lb predator that can take down men that weigh more than twice as much and lift weights? I liked the creative take.
Quickly:
My wife (who was worried that LMI would make all the mistakes you think it made, is a huge fan of LTROI & the book) and I saw LMI and were relieved that it did such a good job adapting the material without the normal pitfalls seen in many of these American-remakes-of-fresh-foreign-films, such as adding bizarre new subplots, adding/combining central characters, et cetera.
Also, we both felt the gender issue was equally covered by LMI as it was by LTROI, and we read the look on Owen’s face & his reaction when he peeked at her changing clothes to be the equivalent-for-MPAA-ratings-board of the (quite brief) scar-viewing scene in LTROI. Also, I think either you or both my wife and I mis-heard the conversation in LMI; we think he was confirming that he’d still like her if she wasn’t a girl.
This romanticism about vampires is just bizarre.
We all see movies differently, so I’m sure your criticisms are perfectly valid. As far as the issue of gender, my wife, friends (male and female) and I who all saw Let the Right One In before anybody read the book were all confused as to the sexual nature of Eli. A micro-second long flash of a scar plus a female actor saying “I’m not a girl” didn’t clarify it to us. I took the character’s statement at face value, but that statement is not equal to “I’m a boy”. We thought perhaps it was an issue of female mutilation, or just a statement of identity. None of us guessed he was a eunuch (I mean, given the rarity of that condition nowadays, it’s not something one’s mind leaps to). I don’t feel that the original movie went to any great lengths to explain it. On top of that, us open-minded folk don’t object to people with testicles going around saying they’re not men (although we may not understand them) so why would we object to a person with a vagina and ovaries saying she’s not a girl? Or maybe we were just over-thinking it.
I’ve just spent a little while searching for what Swedish people had to say about the movie and from what I can tell (using Google translations), it seems there were plenty of Swedish people who identified Eli as a girl or were also confused about it.
On the other hand, for some reason all my female companions (and one male friend) thought that the father gave off a gay vibe. I didn’t agree with them, but that’s what they thought. The Swedish director later said he got that a lot from American audiences and he wasn’t sure why (you can read the interview here). http://twitchfilm.net/interviews/2008/07/nifff-2008-let-the-right-one-in-interview.php Note that he also says he didn’t care for Hakan’s nature in the book. He preferred the interpretation that Hakan had been what Oskar became.
So maybe the original film wasn’t quite that brave after all. I still enjoyed it quite a bit.
In case anyone’s interested, here are links to Ebert’s reviews (he gives both of them 3.5 stars out of 4):
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081111/REVIEWS/811129995
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100929/REVIEWS/100929983
I already bought LTROI, but was waiting to get hold of a copy of LMI before I watched both in succession as a sort of “double bill” so I could compare and contrast the two. I see that most people who’ve read the article and commented above seem determined now to not see LMI. For me, the article and comments have served to pretty much ensure that I will see both. I’ve never given a damn for what others think, especially when it comes to books, movies etc. One’s reaction to these is just so personal that I simply have to see both and judge for myself. Sure I might end up agreeing with the article’s author above. But why shouldn’t I have an open mind and decide for myself? I agree with what junior above was trying to say, i.e. most people seem to have a sheep’s mentality – read a bad review and they immediately make grand statements about how they won’t be caught dead reading/watching such and such a thing etc. Makes me pity them more than anything else.
Can’t comment on the movies in detail obviously since I haven’t seen them, but I must say I’m looking forward eagerly to the experience. Maybe I’ll even toss a coin to decide which one to see first. ;-)
P.S. I know it’s simply impossible for anyone (unless they have a medical condition) to forget the book they’ve read or the movie they’ve watched previously, so I wonder what folks (Americans as well as others) with no prior knowledge of the book or LTROI thought of LMI? How does it stand on its own?
These people who all say that they don’t see Eli and Oskar as bad people brings to light the fact that we have become horribly desensitized to the value of human life in cinema and literature. Comments like “the cat lady won’t be missed” are a bit sad. She was missed actually, by her ex-boyfriend, who went on a noble crusade to avenge her death. He’d of been successful too if it weren’t for Oskar helping the monster. Just because he’s poor and a drunk doesn’t make him a bad person.
Most vampires in LTROI don’t last long because they’d rather commit suicide than kill thousands upon thousands of people. This view is pretty realistic if you ask me and the vampires that continue to exist in this novel become completely sadistic and/or uncaring of humanity.
Eli is a rare exception though, as a child he has a will to survive that outweighs morals. Also, he grew up in a time and place where human life was considered less valuable. He has a child’s lack of understanding of consequences and is able to close his eyes to where his blood comes from so long as its brought to him by a provider.
Oskar is willing to kill for his friend and is destined to be just another serial murderer provider so far as Eli is concerned. Just because he’s not a pedophile doesn’t make him a decent person. I feel bad for Oskar since he grew up with a lack of social skills bordering on a disability but I still have to consider him a reprehensible character based on his actions. Same goes for Eli, who in all honesty, preys on misfits and outcasts for his own manipulative purposes (so they will kill for him) as much as for friendship and “love.” Eli’s love seems sincere, but he’s still a sociopath and I never trust vampire scum.
End of my own little soapbox rant. Sorry, I just don’t think its right that people completely romanticize those two murderers lol. Loved the original movie and the book.
While I came to appreciate the gender identity issue more after reading the book, honestly, my first thought when I heard Eli say, “I’m not a girl,” was, “oh, she’s admitting she’s not human…very clever.”
For those skeptical that Lindqvist is being sincere in praising Let Me In, here is an expanded comment to a Let The Right On In fan site / forum.
http://www.let-the-right-one-in.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1911
Excerpt:
John Ajvide Lindqvist
“I really enjoyed Let me in.
I had seen clips
and trailers beforehand, read some reviews and I was prepared for a
good movie. But I liked it even better than I had anticipated. …
My love for LTROI is unflinching. It was my first, it was my own script
and it will always have a special place in my heart that nothing done
from my writing will ever replace or eclipse.
But there is room for LMI, too. A smaller chamber in a different location. But definitely there.”
And another noted author:
Stephen King: “Let Me In is a genre-busting triumph. Not just a horror film, but the best American horror film in the last 20 years. Whether you’re a teenager or a film-lover in your 50s, you’ll be knocked out. Rush to it now. You can thank me later.”
http://hollywood-elsewhere.com/2010/10/good_shilling.php
I read the book yesterday, haven’t seen either film yet (but intend to soon). I think including the device of Eli being a castrated boy was a mistake by the author. His first novel, and he make a mistake. I can’t see any point to it, i doesn’t explain anything, advance the plot in any way, or even shed significant light on the characters except perhaps to show that Oskar wanted companionship rather than a specifically ‘romantic’ relationship.
It raises a lot of questions that are not further addressed. If Eli was a castrated boy why would he even present as a girl at all? Using a feminized version of the name (originally Elias) and showing a preference for dresses does not suggest a masculine identification. I have a strong interest and understanding of gender issues (I’m transsexual) but in this novel it seemed pointless except maybe for a bit of extra spice (unnecessary as its a great book).
Another issue in the book – is Eli simply planning to use Oskar? She explains that her lifestyle involves long periods of hibernation, after which she is very weak and needs help to survive. Hence Hakan/the Father. But she appears to have recovered her strength by the end of the book. The implication is that she doesn’t need Oskar to survive, only to feel human. The brief exploration feeding without killing or infecting (buying Tommy’s blood) was an interesting side-issue also.
Excellent essay, and I think the comparison between the two films is dead on. (Vampires? Dead? See what I did there?)
Honestly, though. Rather than try to articulate my own thoughts about the two films, I’m just going to point people here.
@ITregillis
Thanks. *g*
I saw the first film when it came out in the year 2008 and enjoyed it tremendously, so much that I have had a hard time figuring out where to place it in between my all time top favorite movies. I am a avid movie watcher and thought that the Swedish movie was great. To me it felt like a fresh breathe of mountain air in a industry overfilled with vampire movies. I went in with little knowledge of the movie I was about to see and expected nothing special. Oh boy was I ever proved wrong! To me the atmosphere throughout the film matches the dark love/friendship story extremely well and I think the acting is top notch. It really helped the “realism” of the movie that I had not seen the actors portraying the roles from the book in any previous movies. The script is really well written and builds the suspense up perfect from the start to the finish, so much so that when the film ended I felt sad that it was over and overjoyed that I had seen such a great film by chance (I had not intended to go to the theater that day, but bumped in to a friend and then we decided to go).
Today I saw let me in. I had been looking forward to this for a some time since the trailer seemed promising and I was happy with the choice of actors having watched some of their previous work (The Road and Kick Ass). Ten or five minutes into the movie I suddenly realized that my fear had came true. They really where going to go in that direction with the film (an edited stupefied down remake version who cuts out vital parts of the original story), much like the curse of good movies having shitty sequels I almost knew this was going to happen but I endured and watched the rest of the movie. I came to the conclusion that It is worth a watch and would stand o.k on it`s own (although for me it will always be overshadowed by it`s predecessor). Sure, it`s not epic like the first one, but worth viewing if not for anything else then for the fun of comparison. It`s has much more emphasis on the thriller and chase element then the deep back story of the original movie, but it also pays great omage to the original and stays original enough not to be boring or feel like a frame by frame remake. All of the car senses where spectacular, and the shoot lasting merely three seconds when they are on the buss to go ice skate was really cool and well done. Small details like that always makes me appreciate a movie more. The use of camera in the film sometimes comes off as odd, but other times it`s well shoot. I have not read the book, but will definitively do so after reading the comments about it. For me the language barrier that many people may have with the first one does not exist since I’m from Norway and understand Swedish to the extent that I can speak it almost fluently. I am aware of the huge plus that was in watching the original movie since I did not have to be distracted by subtitles. But then again I really love foreign films (specially Japanese ones). I feel sorry for people who turn down movies because of language barriers. They miss out on so much good stuff. Ehem! Okey, so I got a bit of track there. Now for the conclusion: I don`t think people should shy away from Let Me In, but rather see it themselves as it is an interesting watch and so that they can make up their own opinion about it. It`s always good to have reference points rather then to pre judge.
I’ve never seen so many idiots not bother to watch a remake before bashing it… Oh wait, morons do that all of the time. But hey, I guess broccoli tasted just as bad as you thought it would too.
Let Me In was fantastic on its own in my opinion. Yes, it’s a hollywood remake, but it’s a damn good one.
just stumbled onto this after watching the swedish version.
to clarify, today i watched both movies for the first time, and have never read the book that they are adapted to. i searched the internet looking for clarification (like many) about the changing scene.
now to my comment:
personally i got to disagree with what this article is saying.
the american movie improved on the original in every way. some say it sugar coated the film. i think different. i feel the transgender nature of the character as well as the stuff with the father, just complicated the story. the american version is simpler, and for that i believe its superior. without all the secondary stuff complicating the story, you get a much better feel for the characters relationship.
for me i felt that the relationship felt much more pure in the american version. the main scene i felt ruined it for me in the swedish version was when they first slept together they held hands, but they did it in a way i associate with intimacy, the american version keeps more of a childlike innocence to their relationship.
as for the older companion. learning about him being a pedophile by others comments, it just makes me appreciate the american version more. i really really liked the character and what he signified to the story. basically he was a tragic foreshadowing of what owen had to look forward to. that someday he would be old and worn out, and she would just toss him aside, finding a replacement companion.
i also prefered the non linear story telling of the american version, as well as the police officer side story (for me the swedish version felt really unrealistic in the lack of an investigation taking place after multiple people were murdered in the area around the apartments)
all in all i really liked both films, but felt the american version was superior. this is the only american adaptation i have ever thought was the better movie, and the fact that it didnt ruin the essence, to give a glossy hollywood, jumpscare riddled mess of a movie should be commended.
While I didn’t read through every single comment here, I believe there is one facet of the original film’s thematic content that everyone seems to be missing. Perhaps I’m just seeing things that aren’t there, but, for me, the real question is whether or not Eli is manipulating Oskar to replace her human servant. Perhaps “she” entrapped him the same way. I don’t see this as a love affair at all because one partner is far older and more mature than the other.
I do agree that the American film is far inferior to the original. Even the lighting choices make the world more stark than the world of LTROI. I had a hard time finishing the film. I wonder if I’d have felt differently if I’d seen the American version first.
Completely agree Thomas. This film is about power relations (whether they be sub-conscious or not) as opposed to ‘love’. But then, one could suggest love is power.
I think the review was spot on. The american version was clumsy and didn’t leave anything up to the imagination. What made the Swedish film so great was the use of suspense and subtlety, which was utterly lacking in Let Me In. And yes, the CGI was a tacky and arrogant touch. Having said that, Let Me In was exactly what I expected, and I wasn’t surprised or impressed. Let the Right One In wipes the floor with it, hands down!
Ok, I do respect all the points that everyone mentioned about Let The Right One In being deep and more of a drama than a horror movie, but there is something that I need to say, I hope I don’t sound shallow, but I saw both movies, and honestly, I HATED Let The Right One In. I’m sorry, but it was too quiet! It was really painfully boring to watch. I couldn’t wait for the movie to end and when it did I was like, this movie is reallllly creepy and SOOOOOOOOO BORING. The part with Eli’s sexuality was not clear at all. I did not read the novel, so I only understood what that “scar” meant was right now after I read the review I thought so that’s what the scar was all about? Besdies, in both movies, no matter how creepy a child is, it’s creepier to accept that a 12 year old child should be ok with all that violence. He’s a child! Even if he is creepy, but he is a child! Oskar was acting like a child after all. I agree that Let Me In is more commercial, but over all, I liked watching it. I wasn’t impatiently waiting for the movie to end.
I’d like to clarify that the recent vampire movie hit Let Me In is not a remake of Tomas Alfredson’s terrific Swedish thriller Let the Right One In. They are both adaptations of the novel by John Ajvide Lindqvist. So all of your comments about it being remade are completely erroneous. And for that matter, the article is as well, especially since the author’s premise explains the purpose of films remade. Just to toss it out there “Let the right one in” is a better film. “Let me in” was made in Hollywood and they obviously have a formula that caters to American audiences and the potential to make profit. Everybody knows this already so stop crying about it. If you don’t like the lame Hollywood formula then don’t watch Hollywood movies. Most of you who are idiots. As for the author, do your research next time buddy.
Brit,
I was just wondering if you meant “more” instead of less in the sentence:
“I won’t deny the car-crash scene was cinematically interesting in Let Me In, it was damned pretty. But the screaming, in-a-hurry acid bath thing was so much less powerful.”
Because I thought that, that scene in LTROI was far more intense when he knew that he had no way out, compared to the one they completely remade in Let Me In, which paled in comparison.
@cyberathlete
Oh, hell, you’re right – that’s a typo. The scene in LTROI was my preference by far.
Great post, spot on. I had LMI on my Netflix Instant Queue and was notified recently that it was expiring so thought maybe I should watch it. I was hesitant though because of how much I loved LTROI. I watched part of LMI and began to not only feel that it was inferiour to the original film, but also to worry that it was going to replace it in my memory.
So I just scanned through and watched a few of the more iconic scenes to see how they were redone; then I went back and watched those in LTROI to “record over” the new “memory imprint” if you will.
One thing I noticed that might be a small detail, but which was emblematic of the “Hollywoodization” of LMI, was a difference in the scene near the end of the film when the protagonist is at the swimming pool and forced to go underwater. In LMI, I sort of rolled my eyes at how he was, despite having been warned to “take a deep breath” (though not really given time to by the bully), spewing air bubbles madly in classic movie-melodrama fashion.
That wasn’t how I recalled LTROI, and indeed when I went back to look, I was relieved to see my memory was right. The bully actually counts down to warn him when exactly he needs to take his deep breath, and he *does* take a deep breath and holds it quite deliberately while underwater. In LTROI he’s surrendering to his fate but trying to make the best of it, trying to succeed at the “game” the bully has established. In LMI it’s just generic filmic head-dunking violence, not nearly as interesting nor establishing nearly as much tension IMO.
This Review to me was deeply insullting i loved Let Me In and after seeing Let the Right one in my opinion will not change but has only made it stronger, Let Me In pushed my buttons in a way where it made me cry many times because of it’s beautiful way of telling a story, to me the Vampire side of the Story is very Important, cause it shows that Owen still Loves Abby even after he finds out what she is, His Innocoent Nature makes it even better then Oscar’s Sociopathic nature as you yourself described him to be, an important part of that makes this film, Let Me In is very haunting, chilling, Emotional and Heart Breaking to watch cause i could feel my Heart tearing it self to shreds at many points in the film whilst let the right one in made me laugh at how much it just made me cringe, i think matt reeves not only made a great movie that made my heart break into Microsocpic pieces but vastly improved on the Original in so many ways, Mnay Re-makes are never good, but this Remake changed my view on such a matter and gave me a wide berth in future, i loved Let Me In and will continue to do so until the day i die
Okayyyyy, we get it. Everybody thinks they are better than Americans. At this point, your superiority complex is nearing racism. And personally, I liked Let Me In just fine.
You are pretty much spot on in your comparative analysis here. I agree with you on virtually all points, however I feel as though you should have given more attention to points like execution. I mean, yes you are all right with your symbolic dot connecting and breakdown of this and that BUT… and a big but… I believe there needs to be some emphasis on the performance. Chloe Grace Moretz and Kodi Smitt McPhee were just sublime in Let Me In. The performance put on by those two was just out of this world. This point alone elevates LMI an order or magnitude or two above what it would or could have been if the child actors were not so amazing talented and inspire in their performances.
The only thing better about LMI vs LTROI is the performances, the acting. I’ll repeat myself again, maybe just to toot my own horn or maybe because its just that relevant…. The child actors in LMI MADE that movie. Their performance just conveyed SO much emotion, feeling and power unmatched by the stellar work in the original.
Putting things further into perspective here, for an American/Hollywood film, Let Me In is pretty top notch in my book. If you are into film as an art form then don’t expect much other than disappointment from anything that every comes out brainwash depot 101 aka Hollywood other than subtle political, social, racial and other outright disgusting implications embedded deep in every single scene and characterization.
To summarize: LTROI was, for sure, a much better film as compare d to LMI. However, the performances of Chloe and Kodi in LMI were beyond anything LTROI could offer, beyond world class… out of this world acting from those two….and as a general rule, Hollywood is about maximizing profits and shaping minds and anything it produces couldn’t possibly be less artistic if they tried.
Well, I was surfing the movie channels, and stumbled across Let Me In. The description was “… Brilliant remake of Swedish chiller Let the Right One In”.
So, I watched it, without really knowing what to expect. When the vampire kid rocks up, I was all “Oh, it’s the girl from Kick Ass. She’s a great actress, this’ll be good”. I’ve never seen anything the boychild was in. But, you know, he holds his own. Anyway, came away thinking “What a great film”, and came to the web to read about the differences between this and the other film. I ended up buying the book just moments ago based on the discussion here, because I’m curious about the original, and books have so much more room to fill out backstory.
I actually thought if anything, Owen’s initial violence and weirdness (tree-stabbing? pig mask?) was underplayed. It seemed to dissipate far too quickly once he met her.
And the rubik’s cube thing – she loves puzzles, but has no idea what a rubik’s cube is? Hmmm. Could she be playing him?
Interesting to read about the castration issue. I took the “I’m not a girl” line to mean that she couldn’t ever offer him the human relationship that he so desperately sought, rather than she was a mutilated boy. The thought she was anything but a little vampire girl never crossed my mind. If that was the case (and perhaps the book will make it unflinchingly clear), as CrazyChristina says, you have to wonder why s/he wears girl’s clothes. Perhaps precisely because s/he is simply manipulating the boy to be her new hunter.
It’s not clear to me if the addition of the old photo that Owen finds in the american remake was meant to tell us that Owen is just being played, but that’s the feeling I was left with. That being said, while I was under the assumption that Eli was a girl, I did believe it was a love thing. And the father asking her not to befriend the little boy was simply to try and save Owen from the life he had ended up with. And there’s always the possibility she could vampire him. It’s one of the few films I’ve seen that I’ve been happy has been left open to interpretation.
As for the original, it’s unlikely I’ll ever see it. I watched the pool scene on the YouTubes (different, arguably less powerful, but that might be harsh in isolation), and read a couple of direct comparison sites. And the book should give me what I crave anyway. In addtion and to be frank, I just hate subtitles. They’re either demanding you look away from the action to grasp the plot, and/or having to reduce the content that’s being spoken, because it’s quicker to hear than read. Either way, they suck. Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon is just a different film with dubbing vs subtitles. Unless I speak the language fluently (French, German, English), I want to hear the voices, not read the script. Anyway, I digress. I’m off to the forums to read what others have said.
All I really meant to say was that Let Me In stands up as a great film on its own merits, assuming no knowledge of the previous book or film, since someone else asked that way up there.
I like let the right one in because it has more of a nuance to the atmosphere and characters. Let me in is like hot dogs and burgers compared to something more exotic and interesting/subtle. But that is just my opinion.
LMI is an improvement over LTROI. Here’s why:
The “father”: The murder, and the attempted one, in LTROI are implausible to the point of distraction. A jogger is no sooner off screen when Hakan attacks someone coming the other way? And then hoists him out in the open in intense artificial light? That scene and the other attempted murder pulled me right out of the movie. In LMI, the attempts to harvest blood are bumbling but at least plausible.
The character development of Owen: Reeves did a better job of establishing a motive for Owen to form a bond with a vampire. Never showing the mother’s face, her alcoholism, her religious fervor, and the absence of the father all provide a better character foundation. The increased intensity of the bullying also helped. The bullying in LTROI was a bit weak.
The ambiguity of the Abby’s gender: In LMI, Abby says she not a girl. In LTROI a hyperbolic genital scar is briefly seen. The scene was a distraction and only served to make their bond less tenable. LMI hints that Owen may have seen the scar by his expression when he peeps at her at she changes. Reeves left more to the imagination and it helped the film.
The vampire attacks: There are four attack scenes in each film. All are done better in LMI, except for the tunnel attack, in which the CGI was poorly done. The LTROI attack in the bathroom just looked like a kid clinging to someone’s back – not believable at all. Some thought the final pool scene was better constructed in the first movie, but I beg to differ. The simplicity of it was a little better, but it could have benefited from subdued lighting, like LMI.
LMI was a tighter film: LTROI was too loose and empty and could have benefits from more ambient sound and music. Usually I think sound is overdone in films but it was underdone in LTROI.
Hints that the relationship was a manipulation: LMI hints at a possibility that Abby may simply be recruiting a replacement. It’s presented perfectly. Overall Reeves did a great job leaving to the imagination was what was best left to the imagination, and making the violence and bullying a bit more intense – both improvements over LTROI.
And don’t forget that car crash. Wow.
“I respect your opinion, but I must disagree with everything you said. I
loved the book, loved the original movie, and LOVED Let Me In. I think
it did just as good as the first movie at keeping that balance between
horrifying and innocence. I thought the cast was absolutely amazing as
well. And the first movie never said Eli was a castrated boy. They
show a scar and that is it. And In Let Me In, Abby does say multiple
times she’s not a girl. So it’s the same, just without that shot of the
scar, which was not necessary anyways.”
It wasn’t ‘just the scar’. For Let The Right One In, they let both boys and girls audition for the role of Eli. They always wanted the actor/actress to be transgenderish: either a girlish boy or a boyish girl. The girl they chose definitely had something tomboyish, both in her attitude and in her looks. Wide shirts, skinny posture and flat chest, only half-long hair. They also dubbed her with a lower, gruffer voice to make her sound more like a boy. In Let Me In, Abby is so obviously female all the ambiguity is taken away. She looks like a normal young teenage girl in every way: her body already shows mature female curves, she has long hair, wears skirts and boots, acts more flirtatious and her voice is sweet and girlish.
These are both deliberate choices in how to present the character. For some reason Let Me In chose to wipe out any hint that Abby might be anything other than a girl. They could have chosen a more transgenderish looking actor/acress, but they didn’t, they even emphasized her female qualities. And as the reviewer says, they could even have chosen to delve deeper into it and get into the theme of identity more. After all, this is a sort of coming of age story, and the beautiful thing about Let The Right One In is that they don’t turn their back on the fact that some people are different, that some people aren’t simply to be put in the category of either boy or girl, that some people are outsiders. Oskar and Eli don’t care about these things with each other. They just find understanding in one another: vampire or not, girl or not, potential killer or not.
It just seems ‘easy’ to avoid the gender issue. Like they thought: “the big audience won’t like it, too difficult, too weird. They’re probably too closeminded and/or homophobic for it, so let’s just turn her into a girl completely. No question. Much easier.” The reviewer said it. Cowardly.
Original – using a more masculine/foreing (for Sweden) looking girl, they even used someone with a lower voice
Remake – uses a blonde, girlie girl who hands out kisses (did they kiss in the original?)
O – much better score
R – cheesy score
O – parents and a father as part of the story
R – cheesy special effects and more violence
I’m not sure if Jesus pictures, talk about religion and reading of Romeo and Juliet were shown in the original or if they were added to make sure American audiences get the message.
Indeed cheesier and dumbed down. One scene I quite liked was when she/he dispatched of the old slave, it looked quite creepy, I can’t remember if the original was similar/better/worse.
Interesting article.
I saw Let Me In first, and I tough that was better. Probably exactly for the reason that I saw it first I guess, because they are very identical. When I saw Let the Right One In it felt like seeing the movie for the second time, and it’s just not the same. I guess that’s why most people like more Let the Right One In, because they see it first. I believe I would do the same. Anyway I think that both are very very good films.
I had never heard of “Let The Right One In” or the book, so when I saw “Let Me In” last week(Feb 2015) on the SyFy channel, I saw it from an unbiassed viewpoint. I was blown away by the story and especially by the terrific performances of the two young lead actors. Chloe Grace Moretz and Kodi Smit-McPhee should have been nominated for something. I have seen it now 4 times and am still mesmerized by it and the acting. It is a totally unexpected take on a vampire movie.
On the gender identity issues: First, when Owen peeps and sees Abby naked dressing, I don’t think his reaction showed that he saw anything unusual or unexpected. On the contrary, he appeared to be quite pleased and happy with what he saw. Remember, Owen does like peeping at naked women, like his neighbor. Second, when Abby is in full vampire, she has a very male voice. However, the DVD contains the scene (referred to as the “be me” scene by the director) where Abby “shows” Owen how she is turned into a vampire 250 years eariler and she is a girl then. It’s one adaptation of a book, and this director was free to interrupt the book as he wanted. I do see all the gender issues now that I came online, but one should not be so close-minded or biassed to outright dismiss “Let Me In” just because this one version is not explicit in exploring those issues. They are clearly still there if one bothers to look. Or go read the book or see the first adaptation if gender issues are your major concern in life. All three works can exist and still each be great. One work does not diminish the other.
Unlike Brit Mandello, I did not have any personal issues that I wanted(needed?) to be included in the movie, so “Let Me IN” worked on all levels for me. Brit’s personal bias SO OVERWHELMED him that he INCORRECTLY stated above that Owen said he would not like Abby if she wasn’t a girl: Owen: “But no. I guess not.”(Brit’s wrong interpretation of Owen’s response to Abby)
However, the actual scene is:
Abby: “Owen, would you still like me if I wasn’t a girl?”
Owen: “I don’t know…I guess.”
I interrupted Abby saying several times to Owen that she wasn’t a girl as her way of letting him know she was really a monster, not totally human, or as she finally says in bed to Owen, “I’m not a girl”…”I’m nothing.” But is there still some humanity left within Abby that can still love Owen, not because he will provide for her vampire needs, but because she “really likes”/loves him?
Some of Brit’s other points make me wonder if he really watched “Let Me In” carefully. For example, he stated: “The movie opens with promise toward Owen’s nature, as he’s shown wearing a Halloween mask and fake threatening someone with a kitchen knife (the phrase “little pig” is replaced with “little girl” in this movie for some reason).” The reason is that Owen’s bully calls him a “little girl” and children that are bullied often mimic their bully’s words/actions against others. This is emphasized when Owen’s bully is himself bullied by his older brother, who calls him a little girl. Bullies beget bullies and vampires beget vampires.
Abby’s relationship with Father is already broken when she meets Owen. Abby shows total contempt for Father in her disobedience to his requests to not see Owen and not to go outside to kill/feed, and in her disrespectful tone toward him, demanding him to “move!” and “get out” of her way so she can wall-talk to Owen. Father says he’s “tired of this” and maybe “wants to get caught” to end it all, but his loyalty to Abby is too strong and he has no “choice” but to keep going. He’s relieved to finally end it with Abby’s willing help. Abby immediately goes to Owen, but she is still grieving over Father, his blood still on her face.
So, Owen is a very isolated, sad, disturbed child. Abby comes in, senses that, just like any predator would, and goes for him to replace her broken relationship with Father, just like she has done with many others before. However, I believe that Abby is also tired of having to recruit boy-Fathers over and over, only to watch them age and get “tired ” of the unrelenting demands of human/vampire relationships and the inevitable conclusion. When Owen finally accepts Abby as a vampire, we she her smile and laugh for the first time. She acts like a girl that is totally in love. When Owen helps protect her from the policeman, that seals their relationship from his end; and, when Abby dispatches Owen’s bullies, that seals it from her end.
Owen is definitly in love with Abby. Does love beget love? Does Abby finally find mutual love with Owen? Does Abby turn a willing Owen into a vampire so their young love can last for an un-dead eternity, just like Romeo and Juliet share their young love in dead eternity? I hope so on both counts. Owen would not only receive the love he wants, but also the physical power he craves. And Abby would no longer be “nothing.”