I’m still debating whether or not to see the newly reformed Hammer Films’ first wide release, Let Me In, a remake of Tomas Alfredson’s widely acclaimed 2008 Swedish flick Let the Right One In. Unfortunately for Hammer, their remake absolutely bombed at the box office (doing worse than Case 39, a film that was made in 2006 and was thrown into theaters to try and make a quick buck, capitalizing on the October spirit) but it made me wonder: how good is this movie, really? With that in mind I went back and took a look at the original film which has really gone without any serious critical interpretation. It’s sort of coasted on its “greatness” since its release (even winning 4 Splatcademy Awards including Best Film a couple years back). Let’s see how it holds up…

Let the Right One In is a very straight forward story. A young, depressed Swedish boy who gets picked on and bullied by his classmates (Oskar) strikes up a friendship with his new neighbor who happens to be 12 year old vampire (Eli). People start dying, people start getting suspicious, Oskar and Eli become as close as pre-pubescent kids can be with each other and then Eli saves Oskar from his tormenters. The story is fine but one would not be ostracized for calling it a bit cliche. The novelty here is that it’s a couple of little kids in the lead but the basics of the plot, the nuts and bolts, isn’t anything you haven’t seen before. It’s a love story. Make Oskar and Eli four or five years older, switch the roles, and you’ve got yourself a very Twilight-ish relationship. There’s nothing inherently wrong with that. Some of the best horror films ever have been love stories (ex. The Mummy (1932) d. Karl Freund and The Fly (1986) d. David Cronenberg), but I wonder if this renaissance of the “sexy” vampire (Twilight, True Blood, etc.) has led to die hard vamp fans trying desperately to find a safe, non main stream vamp film that they can put on a pedestal and say “See! This makes me feel good about myself.” It’s a vampire love story that doesn’t involve dreamy men sweeping a woman off of her feet while simultaneously wrapping itself in indie trappings and credibility. Do people love this movie because they honestly love it, or because they want to love it?

Supporters of the film use the cinematography as a major defense for the film. “It’s breathtaking to look at!” If you are going to offer a vigorous defense of a film, the go-to examples are cinematography and story. If you can justify their “greatness” then it’s difficult for an opponent to argue, hence the film is “great” because you “can’t really deny it”. I’m going to go against the grain here and posit that the style and photography of the movie is, for lack of a better term, ugly. If that’s too strong for you, maybe you’ll settle for plain, boring, or lazy. I’ll explain this in a moment, but there is a curious analogy to Dead Lantern’s own movie making that I find pertinent to my argument.

One of the benefits of going to college to study film is that you get exposed to theories and techniques that you might not otherwise have thought about on your own. One of these theories is Bazin’s notion of mise-en-scene, that is, everything within the film frame. Long story short, Bazin argued for a technique known as Deep Focus Photography, wherein, everything in the frame is in focus. This allows the viewer greater control and freedom over what they look at. For example, in Outpost Doom, just about every shot is clearly in focus, whether it be the foreground or the background (unless there is an extreme closeup of a pillar, or something). So as Jeff is talking in the foreground, you can see Tina further behind him doing whatever blind girls do. When we began filming Isabelle, the new expensive cameras that we have don’t have that capability. So if we were to shoot the exact same shot, Jeff would be in focus, whereas Tina would be slightly, if not completely, out of focus. This changes how you see a film. When the focus is only on Jeff, it naturally takes your eyes to him, and only him. You are only “allowed” to see what the director wants you to see (because who wants to look at something out of focus in the background?). This was a staple of classical Hollywood cinema and what allowed for story and character to become so ingrained into the viewing experience. I absolutely hate that. It’s not that you can’t do it, and there are plenty of examples of it being done well, I just subscribe to a different theory. I like to be able to see everything in the frame. I like to be able to look  in the background and go “Oh look, there’s Reginald.” Deep focus not only gives more information to the viewer, but it enhances ambiguity. I don’t like my eyes to have their hand held and “told” what to look at when I see a movie. Which means I have to fundamentally reevaluate how I see a movie for me to be able to use the snazzy new cameras that Spooky and Deejay have.

Let the Right One In relies on this tactic almost exclusively. There are very few instances, aside from establishing shots, that use deep focus. Three quarters of the frame are almost always blurry with one thing in focus, usually the character. In many ways, you could argue that this isn’t an indie film at all, but rather a Swedish take on the Classical Hollywood Style. Couple that with the very flat,  monotone color scheme (grays, light browns, and blues), the lack of set design (do Swedes hang anything on their walls?), and a lack of creative shot selection and to me that adds up to an ugly viewing experience. Sure, it might be well done on a technical level, but on an aesthetically pleasing level? I don’t think so. In fact I’d go so far as to say that anyone claiming the cinematography is “stunning” or “breathtaking” is getting a boner for snow. Because we all know horror fans love snow in their movies.

So after rewatching this with a truly critical eye, I find a very cliched film with uninspiring visuals. Now I’m not saying that the movie is horrible and that anybody who enjoys it deserves to jump in front of a moving bus. I’m not saying that at all. Let the Right One In is a good movie. It’s put together well, its got excellent performances, and the idea of little vampire kids in a story of mature themes and subject matter is novel (plus that underwater shot in the pool is just aces). What I’m arguing is that it’s merely an ok movie, above average even, that is getting way more slurpage than it honestly “deserves”. It is certainly not “One of the ten best horror movies of the decade” and it certainly isn’t the greatest vampire film ever. It has some serious flaws and I think horror fans, vamp fans in particular, are so starved for something that is “not Twilight” that they can pad their cred (bonus: it’s foreign and relatively obscure, two points for the cred padding right there) with that they get lost in the headlights a bit.

I don’t have anything against the people who like this movie. None of us are immune to overreacting to the quality or lack of quality of any film. It’s just good to remember that when we praise a film, when we build a monument for it and make it the next big thing, when you support a film like that it’s important to do the responsible thing, take a step back, and make sure you’re on solid footing. It might not be as ridiculously amazing as you think (I’m looking at you, Inception.)

Famed filmmaker Jean-Luc Godard has thrown a pile of euros into the pot for some French dude’s defense re: downloading mp3s. I’d be lying if I said I knew much about Godard’s work; I only know that he’s considered to be an important filmmaker. I like seeing content creators’ takes on the issue.

boingboing notes, Godard is often credited with having once said, “It’s not where you take things from—it’s where you take them to.”

I am against Hadopi [the French internet-copyright law, or its attendant agency], of course. There is no such thing as intellectual property. I’m against the inheritance [of works], for example. An artist’s children could benefit from the copyright of their parents’ works, say, until they reach the age of majority… But afterward, it’s not clear to me why Ravel’s children should get any income from Bolero… 

Kind of interesting to read this link about Salo being rated for release in Australia. Note that it would be illegal to screen the film theatrically without also screening the DVD’s special feature materials, as their presence apparently puts the film in a somewhat less distressing context.

A five-member panel of the Classification Review Board (the Review Board) has in a majority decision determined that the film Salo is classified R 18+ (Restricted) with the consumer advice ‘Scenes of torture and degradation, sexual violence and nudity’.

In the Review Board’s majority opinion Salo warrants this classification because the inclusion of additional material on the DVD facilitates wider consideration of the context of the film which results in the impact being no more than high.

…

Screening this film in a cinema without the additional material would constitute a breach of classification laws.

I cannot recommend Serbian Film to anyone. It is a movie that hard-core horror fans will be daring each other to endure for years to come. On an intellectual level, I think I can see and appreciate what it’s trying to do. But if I could unsee it, I would.

I have so much I could say; I was thinking about my little girl (she’s 4) and this picture she just drew for me. It’s me, and her and her little sister-to-be (my wife is due in about 2 months). In the picture, we’re all smiling and it’s just a cute little thing, you know? Typical thing a little kid would draw. She draws little cats and bunnies and fairies, etc. I’ve had this thought often: I love that this is what’s in her little head. Her mind is full of good things. Of course, you can’t shelter a kid forever; she’ll learn that sometimes some people are cruel and sometimes bad things happen and all that jazz. But mostly, it’s just bunnies and fairies right now. And that’s wonderful.

Now we, as adults, have a lot of control over what we put into our heads. I’m not saying horror movies are going to influence your behavior, like you’ll head over to the nearest summer camp and start chasing teens with a machete – I don’t really buy that at all. I am saying, though, that it just can’t be very good for your heart, mind or soul to watch some certain things. I mean, how can it be a net positive, in any way, to elect to put this into your head?

I’m not swearing off horror, of course not. However, I may spend the next few weeks reviewing my daughter’s Hello Kitty DVDs on the Splattercast, instead of whatever genre stuff we had on the docket.

I know it’s pretty lame to quote song lyrics on the internet, but the Bad Religion song, Marked, came to my mind:

if I’m a monster,
I am a willing one,
this roller coaster ride is an enticing one,
on the tip of a continuum flowing wavelike
through disorder carry me like a vessel to water

everything you see leaves a mark on your soul,
everything you feel leaves a mark on your soul,
everything you touch leaves a mark on your soul,
everything you make leaves a mark on your soul

if I can touch it,
I can destroy it,
if it’s imaginable to some degree,
I can become it,
like a hungry turning vortex that just flickers to existence,
consuming bits and pieces until I’m finally extinguished

everyone you see leaves a mark on your soul,
everyone you bare leaves a mark on your soul,
everyone you touch leaves a mark on your soul,
everyone you love leaves a mark on your soul

everything you take leaves a mark on your soul,
everything you give leaves a mark on your soul,
and all the fear and loneliness that’s impossible to control,
and every tear you cry leaves a mark on your soul

I love Fist of the North Star so I hope this game gets released outside of Japan (it comes out there this month). I did a quick search but couldn’t find a confirmation of any American release.

It reminds me of seeing a cool trailer for a PS2 Berserk game a few years ago. Berserk is another of my favorite anime/manga properties and, sadly, I don’t believe the PS2 game has ever been localized for us gaijin. I suppose I could import a Japanese copy and fight through the foreign menus and text but that doesn’t sound very appealing.

I don’t think I’ve done anything important or magnificent. I’m a worker, and the thing I prefer in my life is cinema. When I’m working in cinema, I’m happy. And that’s all, you know?

With that in mind, I’m going to keep my eye out for subtitles that even Deejay can enjoy. For example, here are a couple from the recent Japanese film, Grotesque. I have not altered these subtitles in any way.

Speaking of Grotesque, I just watched it and you can read my review here. I wanted to take a look at the film after Explodey Jo mentioned that it had been (effectively) banned in Britain. No surer way to evoke interest in a film than to ban it. I found this link that contains some information on the banning.

The British Board of Film Classification said giving the film a rating would involve a “risk of harm” to those viewing it.

The BBFC rejects films only rarely, preferring to give advice on cuts to achieve the preferred certificate.

BBFC director David Cooke said: “Unlike other recent torture-themed horror works, such as the Saw and Hostel series, Grotesque features minimal narrative or character development and presents the audience with little more than an unrelenting and escalating scenario of humiliation, brutality and sadism.

“The chief pleasure on offer seems to be in the spectacle of sadism (including sexual sadism) for its own sake.

“Rejecting a work outright is a serious matter and the board considered whether the issue could be dealt with through cuts.

“However, given the unacceptable content featured throughout, cutting the work is not a viable option in this case and the work is therefore refused a classification.”

Honestly, I think the BBFC is working against themselves by giving an invaluable promotional boost to a movie that, as I describe in my review, really isn’t that remarkable.