9. Thou Shalt Improve Upon The Failings Of The Original
Let The Right One In and Let Me In are the same movie, in theory. In practice, they are completely different films that manage to tell similar stories that hit upon similar messages. Both tell the story of outsiders who befriend each other and develop a strong bond during the 1980′s, and one of them just happens to be a vampire. Unlike most remakes of foreign films, this one manages to take the Swedish original and flesh it out a little more. The film begins with the caretaker’s hospital room suicide, and proceeds to highlight the implied plot point that the caretaker was a little boy when he too met his immortal companion. This, of course, was in addition to re-writing the film so it was easier for American audiences to culturally identify themselves with the setting of the story.
Let Me In doesn’t change anything major to the plotline to Let The Right One In, but instead respectfully reshuffles some details and culturally rewrites itself for its American audience so as to give them an easier window of perspective. This is a good example of a remake changing itself so as to be better understood by another audience, as well as be better understood in general.
While the original was beautifully haunting, it danced around a lot of details and didn’t firmly solidify the divorced nature of Oskar/Owen’s parents, or the relationship between Eli/Abby and her caretaker. While it’s one thing to let the performances of your actors organically drop exposition throughout a film, it’s another to leave such important themes vague in the telling and then expect the same payoff as you would in a better developed story. The makers of Let Me In didn’t pretend the other film didn’t exist, nor did they succumb to “stupid American syndrome” and overtly spell the whole film out for domestic audiences. They made a good film great, and that’s what all remakes should aspire to do.
We are currently seeking Film contributors on WhatCulture. To find out more about the perks of being a Film contributor, click here.
13 Comments
I’m still waiting for a good adaptation of The Bourne Identity.
I love the Bourne Series that Gilroy and company fostered, minus that crap Legacy picture that was just released on DVD.
That said, I would be interested to see them, maybe in eight years or so, revisit the books and start doing straight adaptations. It would yield more material, and it would also set itself up perfectly for a long running television series, if they wanted to.
Agreed, agreed. No. 6 even had me nodding furiously. Great article.
Why thank you, Ms. Maggy. :) I had to highlight The Addams Family because I think people forget too often that it was based on a pre-existing franchise, and it was so different from the original that had it been in someone else’s hands, it would have failed.
I’ve always wondered why there hasn’t been an attempt to hijack and sully Jaws’ good name. I guess whoever owns the rights has a bit of integrity, but that could just be wishful thinking
There was. It was called “Jaws: The Revenge” =P.
Seriously, I don’t think Spielberg would let any of his films get that type of treatment, as I’m sure he has some sort of stake in the proceedings. Although, they can feel free to remake the sequels all they want, because they couldn’t be as bad as I’ve heard those dogs are.
My worst nightmare is either a remake of the original Jaws or another horrid sequel. Also this list was spot on and if the studios followed it our world would be a much better place
Now I want you to picture this…Jaws: The Musical! Starring Justin Bieber as The Shark, Russell Crowe as Quint, Andy Samberg as Hooper, and Justin Timberlake as Brody.
Are you screaming yet?
The Amazing Spiderman was five years after Spiderman 3, not six. (Which helps your case…)
Thanks for that. That was a slip on my part, and I thought I checked it. I don’t know how I lumped Spider-Man 3 into 2008, which would have put it up against The Dark Knight (and totally obliterated any memory of its existence).
Spiderman 3 was in 2007, five years before the Amazing Spiderman. Not four.
This author obviously didn’t bother to proofread. So I can’t be bothered to read. Abandoned.
Due to popular demand (and the fact that there was that ONE typo nagging away at my mind), the Spider-Man section was corrected to reflect that it had been five years, not four, between Spider-Man 3 and The Amazing Spider-Man. Apologies to those of you offput by minor, correctable errors; and thanks to those who spotted the mistake.