Let the Right One In (Tomas Alfredson, 2008)

[TedW]

<sigh> Yes, dad. I forgot that American remakes are usually as good as the original. I also forgot that studios and producers are more interested in putting out a good product than in making a buck.

Well, I'll sigh right back at you, how's that?

I've read the script, I know the director, he's talented and his intentions are serious. Like I said, you might be surprised. But hey, since you know everything...

[Antoine Doinel]

Is the script actually bringing anything new or interesting to the table, or is it merely transplanting the story to Colorado?

[TedW]

The script is an improvement, narratively, and the overall sensibility is personal and particular to its writer... as you would want any adaptation to be. That said, I also found it to be scary and creepy in the way a genre-based picture should be. I'm looking forward to it.

[Antoine Doinel]

Can you be a little more specific about how this script is an "improvement narratively"? I think that many of us who are fans of the original see no major issues with the narrative so it would be interesting to know how it will differ in the remake.

[TedW]

Unfortunately, no. This being the Internet, I don't know who's reading this forum... and I don't feel comfortable commenting further. If you were in my living room, we could talk all day about it. Films that I have knowledge of through knowing the participants come up all the time here and my usual policy is to not say shit, though a lot of posters run off at the mouth constantly about work they haven't seen and people they don't know. But this time I wanted to say something in response to jbeall's certitude -- at least give the film its chance. Not everybody in Hollywood is a hack.

You'll just have to wait until the movie is done. Hope you understand.

[Antoine Doinel]

Thanks Ted. I understand your need to keep your information confidential, but certainly you can understand the concern from fans of the original about a remake. The original was very well received from critics and audiences, and unless the new script brings a truly fresh angle to the story the exercise for many people (myself included) feels redundant. Given Hollywood's track record with contemporary remakes (ie. the glut of J-horror retreads) and their need to court a large audience (eg. teenage audiences which means simplified narratives and PG-13 ratings), you can understand that the cynicism that the proposed American remake is being greeted with.

I would love to be surprised, but the original is already so great, many of the reasons being that its approach to the material in general, is something that is largely foreign in American horror or genre filmmaking. Frankly, the remake would have to be nothing short of a miracle to even match the original. The fact that Matt Reeves, who made a solid if unremarkable film debut with Cloverfield, is the writer/director attached certainly isn't filling most people with confidence.

[TedW]

Matt's debut was actually The Pallbearer and he and J.J. did the TV show Felicity together. Then the Cloverfield idea came up. Plus many other TV projects -- the excellent pilot for a short-lived show called Miracles was very much in the horror/suspense style. As I said, Matt is talented and as serious a filmmaker as any other.

To the fans of Let the Right One In, I can only say that whatever Matt does, well, you'll always have Paris. And I actually mean that seriously: the movie you like exists and will continue to exist. If they make a thousand bad versions in a thousand different colors why should that make any difference? You are certainly free not to watch any of them. If somebody remade, like, The Godfather Part II, I wouldn't lose a minute of sleep over it, because I already have, and will continue to have, my version.

And to the cineastes here, yourself included, I should respectfully pose this question: is it not what you want, to have a director assert an authorial vision over a given piece of material? Is Matt (or any other director) not free to make a film, even (or perhaps especially) a genre film, in any way that he or she feels expresses a personal vision? Including altering, changing, emphasizing or de-emphasizing, etc. aspects of the source material? This is the very thing the Collection celebrates, no? The fact that Matt is an unknown quantity in cineaste circles actually, I would think, makes this movie an exciting prospect, not a cause for concern.

[Antoine Doinel]

I'm aware of Matt Reeves' work previous to Cloverfield (I'm sorry I forgot the David Schwimmer vehicle The Pallbearer) and it's not really much to write home about. I have no problem in theory with remakes, and of course I will always have "my version". And of course, authorial control over material is key in applying a personal vision to source material. It's just too bad that Reeves' supposed personal vision has to be attached to a celebrated film before it's even had a chance to be regarded historically. The entire process of acquiring the rights and fast-tracking the remake seems less to do with ensuring a respectful and personal sequel, than to capitalize on the buzz of a foreign hit.

As for Reeves', he's not an unknown quantity in cineaste circles at all. There is a dedicated thread for Cloverfield on this very forum and frankly his track record thus far speaks to a journeyman rather than a craftsman. Nothing in his CV that I've seen indicates a personal style worth noting at all. I hope I'm wrong, but if all I have is Cloverfield, The Pallbearer and Felicity to go on then God help us all.

[kiddish]

I want to see Thomas Alfredson remake Cloverfield.

[Antoine Doinel]

I want to see David Schwimmer remake Cloverfield.

[TedW]

Well, here we get into a little bit of how Hollywood actually works as opposed to how it is thought to work. The Pallbearer, whatever one might think of it, is not a "David Schwimmer vehicle" -- i.e., conceived as a commercial enterprise to trade on the marquee value of the star. Schwimmer was hired because of his then-current popularity on a TV show in order to get the film made. Changes to the film's original conception were later forced on the filmmakers, as happens all the time, and these changes did not reflect the initial intent. Just for the record.

It's just too bad that Reeves' supposed personal vision has to be attached to a celebrated film before it's even had a chance to be regarded historically. The entire process of acquiring the rights and fast-tracking the remake seems less to do with ensuring a respectful and personal sequel, than to capitalize on the buzz of a foreign hit.

You want the film to be both celebrated and "regarded historically" (not sure what that even means) before a remake is attempted? Can I get you anything else -- a drink, a pillow for your back? Seriously, what difference does it make?

As far as your second statement... uh, yeah, welcome to Hollywood. Films are made to make money, and capitalizing on buzz (or whatever else you can) is part of the strategy. Thought we all knew this. But the remake (or new adaptation, actually, for there is source material) is not required to be "respectful" of anything. It should stand or fall on its own merits.

I hope I'm wrong, but if all I have is Cloverfield, The Pallbearer and Felicity to go on then God help us all.

You don't need God's help, 'cause it's not that serious. Look. If he makes a bad movie, so what? I fail to see the crime against humanity. Go see his version -- you'll either like it or you won't. His CV is what it is, and that's Hollywood. My only argument here, which I'll repeat, is judge the work when you see it, not before. You might be surprised.

Or you might not, whatever.

[domino harvey]

Cloverfield and the Pallbearer were both more successful products than Let the Right One In. Hollywood is not remaking some new masterpiece of cinema-- The film is a flawed little vampire movie that has a lot of problems, problems that have a good chance of being addressed and fixed by a more mainstream approach to the material.

[Antoine Doinel]

My only argument here, which I'll repeat, is judge the work when you see it, not before. You might be surprised. Or you might not, whatever.

Yeah, I definitely might not. For totes.

[TedW]

Cloverfield and the Pallbearer were both more successful products than Let the Right One In. Hollywood is not remaking some new masterpiece of cinema-- The film is a flawed little vampire movie that has a lot of problems, problems that have a good chance of being addressed and fixed by a more mainstream approach to the material.

I liked both movies, too, so there.

My only argument here, which I'll repeat, is judge the work when you see it, not before. You might be surprised. Or you might not, whatever.

Yeah, I definitely might not. For totes.

Yeah, that's the attitude.

[mfunk9786]

If Reeves is such an auteur, though - why is he remaking something that was JUST made a couple of years ago? My issue with remaking this film is that it's not necessary whatsoever. Certain [particularly SFX-heavy] films are just asking to be remade because they've become outdated over the years. But this one just happened, instead of wasting time making the Quarantine to its [REC], why not make something original, adapt a book, or remake something that needs a fresh coat of paint?

[TedW]

If Reeves is such an auteur, though - why is he remaking something that was JUST made a couple of years ago? My issue with remaking this film is that it's not necessary whatsoever. Certain [particularly SFX-heavy] films are just asking to be remade because they've become outdated over the years. But this one just happened, instead of wasting time making the Quarantine to its [REC], why not make something original, adapt a book, or remake something that needs a fresh coat of paint?

Nothing is "necessary." Not one goddamn movie is necessary. Each one is purely elective. So I don't buy that argument at all.

But more to the point, your premise is flawed, because it assumes he (or any other director) can simply do whatever he wants, pursue his artistic ambitions without interference -- because if he was really an auteur, surely he would be afforded that luxury, right? Again, real Hollywood versus the imagined Hollywood of the Internet. To answer your question, he is trying make an original (ever try to finance a movie in Hollywood, my friend?), this is a book adaptation (less a "remake"), and many would agree the first film is far from perfect. So a job gets offered, he sees a way to do the thing that is personal to him and isn't merely hackwork, he takes the job. That's how life in show business works -- it's called a career.

[knives]

Nothing is "necessary." Not one goddamn movie is necessary. Each one is purely elective. So I don't buy that argument at all.

Nothing may be 'necessary' at inception, but a work can develop into something necessary and important culturally. It may be a dammed example, but look at Birth of a Nation which has had such large effect on society that calling it anything less then a necessary piece of American history is ridiculous.
Also by saying necessary I think mfunk was trying to say that a remake, or re-adaptation if you must, of the material will nto present a new story, further film either technologically or in story. It is basically a film with no purpose even if it is better then the original unless they drastically change things.

[swo17]

uh, yeah, welcome to Hollywood. Films are made to make money, and capitalizing on buzz (or whatever else you can) is part of the strategy. Thought we all knew this.

Well I think we all know that films cost money to make, and so in theory, have to make enough money to cover these costs, but I think we all also know that there is a difference between a film that makes money and a film that was made to make money. Most of the people who are going to be leery of a remake are probably suspicious of this being the latter, so it might be wise to leave money out of the discussion altogether.

Also, I'm not sure what buzz this could hope to capitalize on. I wouldn't think the core audience for the remake even has LTROI on their radar. I mean, are there really that many pale suburban teenagers out there saying: "Oh, great! That Swedish vampire movie I've been hearing so much about--they're making it in English. I can finally watch it now!"

That being said, Ted, I appreciate that you're friends with the director, and that this is how he makes his living. I personally haven't seen any of his work (though my wife is quite the fan of Felicity) and have nothing against him. Hopefully you won't take our criticisms too personally. It's not so much who's directing it as the fact that it's being made at all that has some of us frustrated. And you're not likely to convince us otherwise.

[TedW]

Also by saying necessary I think mfunk was trying to say that a remake, or re-adaptation if you must, of the material will nto present a new story, further film either technologically or in story. It is basically a film with no purpose even if it is better then the original unless they drastically change things.

To which I say, again, that the "purpose" of the movie, or its inherent value, cannot be determined until it is seen. Which no one has, yet, because it hasn't even been made.

... but I think we all also know that there is a difference between a film that makes money and a film that was made to make money.

All films are made to make money. Once we agree to this premise, then we can leave money out of the discussion, because it's a given. Creative intent or approach is another matter, and we're free to judge the value of the work once it is completed. I think we agree here... but maybe not...?

Also, I'm not sure what buzz this could hope to capitalize on. I wouldn't think the core audience for the remake even has LTROI on their radar. I mean, are there really that many pale suburban teenagers out there saying: "Oh, great! That Swedish vampire movie I've been hearing so much about--they're making it in English. I can finally watch it now!"

A question for the financiers, certainly.

That being said, Ted, I appreciate that you're friends with the director, and that this is how he makes his living. I personally haven't seen any of his work (though my wife is quite the fan of Felicity) and have nothing against him. Hopefully you won't take our criticisms too personally. It's not so much who's directing it as the fact that it's being made at all that has some of us frustrated. And you're not likely to convince us otherwise.

Oh, I'm not taking it personally. And neither is Matt -- he's well aware that the knives are out from certain quarters (this one included, clearly). But he's a grown man and doesn't need me to defend him. My point is, again, what difference does it make whether this movie gets made or some other movie? Either you will enjoy it, if you care to see it, or you won't. The fact of its existence, should it get made, is of neutral consequence to anyone. Since I am totally indifferent to the idea of it being made -- and can't fathom why anyone else would care one way or the other -- I just don't see the source of "frustration," as you put it. I am only interested in getting my money's worth, as I define that, should I elect to go see it. As I would with any movie. But obviously, in this case, I'm rooting for my old friend to make something great. We can come back in a year or so and see if the proof is in the pudding. But there's a judgmental quality here and elsewhere that is dispiriting -- but that's the story of the Internet, I suppose.

[tajmahal]

Gee, I liked the original. It doesn't need to be remade. Sure, it isn't perfect, but there is a wonderful atmosphere to the film, and it looks wonderful.

As for the inevitable dumbed-down US remake, you already have the dumbed-down subtitles from the US dvd to work from.

Hey presto! Instant screenplay.

Oh, and I thought Cloverfield was unwatchable. Still, I hope your friend gets to make a film on his terms.

[swo17]

All films are made to make money. Once we agree to this premise, then we can leave money out of the discussion, because it's a given. Creative intent or approach is another matter, and we're free to judge the value of the work once it is completed. I think we agree here... but maybe not...?

Perhaps we are just arguing semantics here, but I don't think it's quite as simple as you put it. Yes, making back the cost of the film and then some is a concern, among many others, that can inform various decisions in the filmmaking process. But the extent to which it is allowed to do so can vary vastly. Do we keep getting more takes, no matter the cost, until we get it right? Do we hire name actors because it will increase the box office? Do we make foreign characters speak English to ensure a bigger audience?

I agree that a film should be judged on its own merits. And we do have past examples of reputable directors breaking through by adapting a recent foreign work (Leone's take on Yojimbo springs to mind). But this is the internet, where opinions are born and live the life of a mayfly. Could the remake turn out to be good? Of course. But that doesn't stop me from having the gut reaction that it can't be. And with all respect, your notions that filmmaking is just another job or that no film is "necessary" are pretty much fundamentally at odds with everything I value in film.

My point is, again, what difference does it make whether this movie gets made or some other movie? Either you will enjoy it, if you care to see it, or you won't. The fact of its existence, should it get made, is of neutral consequence to anyone. Since I am totally indifferent to the idea of it being made -- and can't fathom why anyone else would care one way or the other -- I just don't see the source of "frustration," as you put it. I am only interested in getting my money's worth, as I define that, should I elect to go see it. As I would with any movie.

This is hardly the only movie whose mere existence I find "frustrating." Though perhaps a better term would be "disillusionment with how little the moviegoing public seems to demand from its entertainment." I'm sure there are plenty of films that I don't even keep on my radar that if I did, I'm sure would aggravate my valve to no end. However, for this one, these same people who make the movies I don't normally pay attention to have reached into my grabbag of movies I actually like and decided to have their way with it. So I know about it, and so I protest. And yes, I know, I still have the original (ahem, sort of...still waiting for Magnolia to sort out the subtitle situation) and the remake doesn't necessarily taint this. But to use your example, if someone were to remake Godfather II, are you telling me your honest reaction would be "good for them--I hope they are able to successfully infuse their artistic vision to a cinema classic" and that you would not for one moment think "now why would they want to do that?"

[knives]

... but I think we all also know that there is a difference between a film that makes money and a film that was made to make money.

All films are made to make money. Once we agree to this premise, then we can leave money out of the discussion, because it's a given. Creative intent or approach is another matter, and we're free to judge the value of the work once it is completed. I think we agree here... but maybe not...?

Paths of Glory: When Douglas, and others, agreed to finance it, they said it will never make a penny. Many films are financed with the thought they won't earn a cent. Yes these are in the minority, but they do exist. Even major Hollywood fare such as Angels and Deamons sometimes are not made for big money in the US, but foreign territories.

[rs98762001]

Cloverfield and the Pallbearer were both more successful products than Let the Right One In.

That's quite a statement. Now kindly turn in your license to post about films on the Internets.

[Fiery Angel]

What about those of us who don't like any of those 3 films?

[TedW]

And with all respect, your notions that filmmaking is just another job or that no film is "necessary" are pretty much fundamentally at odds with everything I value in film.

I said no such thing about filmmaking being "just another job," which implies hackwork. And I'm sorry, but nothing is necessary about any individual potential film, which is the context in which I said that. I'm sure you will have to defend or re-consider many values in your life as you get older, not just cinematic ones.

This is hardly the only movie whose mere existence I find "frustrating." Though perhaps a better term would be "disillusionment with how little the moviegoing public seems to demand from its entertainment."

Well, those two aren't the same thing, are they?

However, for this one, these same people who make the movies I don't normally pay attention to have reached into my grabbag of movies I actually like and decided to have their way with it.

What are you talking about, man? Nobody has had their way with Let the Right One In. Nobody is gonna cut the negative, film new scenes, confiscate your DVD or your memories, force you to watch something else. I mean, c'mon.

But to use your example, if someone were to remake Godfather II, are you telling me your honest reaction would be "good for them--I hope they are able to successfully infuse their artistic vision to a cinema classic" and that you would not for one moment think "now why would they want to do that?"

I'm forty years old, man. I could give a fuck what somebody else does with their movie. Honestly.

... but I think we all also know that there is a difference between a film that makes money and a film that was made to make money.

All films are made to make money. Once we agree to this premise, then we can leave money out of the discussion, because it's a given. Creative intent or approach is another matter, and we're free to judge the value of the work once it is completed. I think we agree here... but maybe not...?

Paths of Glory: When Douglas, and others, agreed to finance it, they said it will never make a penny. Many films are financed with the thought they won't earn a cent. Yes these are in the minority, but they do exist. Even major Hollywood fare such as Angels and Deamons sometimes are not made for big money in the US, but foreign territories.

That's your example? A movie that is, like, a thousand years old, made in a totally different time and place and partially financed by the star? Try again. And if you think Angels and Demons wasn't intended to suck up every dime from everywhere possible, then I don't know what to tell you.