Let Me In (2010)

Let Me In is the 2010 English-language adaptation of the book Låt den rätte komma in. It is the second adaptation of the book and is often mistaken for a direct remake of the first Swedish adaptation, with the international title Let The Right One In.

The film set in Los Alamos, is about a friendship that develops for Owen, a lonesome young boy- a bully magnet, living with his divorcee mother and often left to be by his lonesome. This friendship is with an odd new neighbour, Abby, who claims she is not a girl, is often barefoot and even more alone than Owen appears to be. When a mysterious series of killings begin to happen in Los Alamos, Owen slowly realizes who Abby really is, and why she is as odd as she seems.

Spoilers below.

Since both Låt den rätte komma in films originate straight from the source, perhaps it will be interesting to compare the two. The Swedish and English versions stay as close to the original films as possible, but at the same time latch on to cultural meanings where each belongs. The Swedish version appears contemporary, while the English version recalls the 80’s, even constantly reminding you of it through advertisement, product placement, musical cues and the like. The lighting also differs, as well as the overall behaviour of the characters surrounding the two protagonists.

Home Alone

The family orientations of the two characters are also slightly different in the two films and play off a bit differently. In the Swedish version, Hakan (Father), the guardian remains the guardian, with any clues to a backstory left unshown- thus the concept of Hakan being a pedophile that Eli (Abby) took to be her protector and consort was left undiscussed. In the English version, this is radically changed. It is revealed that ‘Father’ (Hakan) is actually a boy who loved Abby  (Eli)from years back, and such a pure bond was developed. In the Swedish version, Oskar (Owen) was a product of a broken home, living in two houses. In the Englsih version, the issue of separation was even more painful and served to highlight Owen’s (Oskar) aloneness. In fact, viewers never seeing Owen’s mom’s face and only ever hearing his dad’s voice lends so much weight to the idea that Owen is a deeply solitary young man who is deathly disconnected. Even the adults around him don’t interact with him or are rarely shown to the audience, unlike their fleshed-out versions in the Swedish film. The rest of the characters: the parents, neighbors, especially, serve only to frame Owen’s singularity.

Ambience

While the Swedish version went for a well-lit environment in almost all scenes, which to my eyes signifies the sight of a child, the English version went for a more contemporary approach to American Horror lighting. I enjoyed the change as it volleyed Abby (Eli) and Father’s characters back and forth from being a pure relationship to a duo which each their own brands of carnage. Even Father was given a more serial killer vibe (as per Richard Jenkins, the actor’s, idea) with a plastic bag over his head and a creepy new M.O. that involves cars. The locations in the two films are almost similar, but the lack of interaction between the audience and any adult makes for a better frame for Owen as well.

Is she or is he?

Another thing that intrigued me is the concept of androgenousness that appeared to be missing in Let Me In. The first time I watched the Swedish version I actually DID NOT know whether Eli (Abby) was male or female. Her words suggested she wasn’t but her clothing WAS sort of girly. But the actress herself looked androgenous enough to warrant me questioning the gender the whole time. Of course when she flashed her ‘parts’, it cemented in my mind that she was female. In the English version, Abby was obviously female from the very beginning. I mean, hello, her name was Abby! Her lines wherein she suggests otherwise all seem to sound like she’s referencing not being human at all. Of course later I learned that Lindqvist, the author actually had the title changed from Let Her In to let Me In because of the gender issue, but no dice- Abby gives you  no reason to think she is male. When I learned that the book version of Eli had been castrated and the ‘parts’ scene showed not female genitalia but a sewn up area- THAT’S when it became clear to me that the Swedish Eli was a castrated boy, while Abby was definitely a girl. Barring all issues of sexuality of course, factoring in the naked bed scene, and several other concepts, I believe that the film is talking about pure, unadulterated and even asexualized love. Something kids know more about than any good adult.

Eli and Oskar VS Abby and Owen. This comparison shot from awesome shot-by-shot review at Fear.Net

Let Me In added a couple more layers to the lore. The police officer, who had not been in the Swedish film was a very good replacement for the vampire victim’s husband, as he provided a constant threat throughout the film, but at the same time he offered a tiny glimmer of hope for fans that may have wanted an opt-out option for Owen, from the life he was leading. The police officer symbolized a very detached, very lonesome symbol of goodness for an otherwise ambiguous setting. His death at the hands of Abby signified the necessary annihilation of goodness in order for the amorally pure love story to flourish. As for the Father’s transformation into a past form of Owen, it added a reverberating new layer to the story, that might’ve been missed out on by those who’ve seen the Swedish film- was Owen to be the next father?

Not everything was an addition however. Something I missed in the English version is how Eli (Abby) emphasized how she/he had to kill in order to survive, and that Oskar (Owen) had no reason whatsoever to do so.  In the English version Owen (Oskar) stands still, frightened while Abby (Eli) jumped the police officer who had discovered her. However in the Swedish version Eli (Abby) jumped his/her assailant  (this time the husband of the vampire victim) after he/she’d seen Oskar pull out a knife, seemingly keeping him from killing the man. The lack of Abby (Eli)’s stance against murder, at least when living through Owen (Oskar) may lend more credence to the idea that she could eventually have him do his killings for her, something I doubt Eli would ever do.

Both films are superb and deserve multiple viewings. I myself am very curious to dive more into the lore by reading the book. It’s certainly a more interesting take on vampires and serial killers than we’ve been exposed to of late. Til the next review!

Kisapmata (The Blink of an Eye)

You know what’s awesome about classic Filipino suspense thrillers? They are sufficiently creepy. Mike de Leon’s classic Kisapmata (The Blink of an Eye) is such an example. Starring future ABS-CBN Head honcho Charo Santos as well as an all-star-for-the-right-reasons cast of Vic Silayan, Charito Solis, Jay Ilagan, Ruben Rustia and Juan Rodrigo, the film takes its inspiration from the equally creepy book Reportage on Crime. Of course, since this is basically my second review of the film, I decided to do a standard review as well as a mini photo recap in the style of TV.com.

The film bears a strong resemblance to the true story portrayed in the book with certain licenses taken to make the story ‘tighter’ and add to the thrill factor. (Characters such as the bride and groom’s brothers were removed and the time span was lessened from months to mere days).

Beware spoilers after this…

…okay. The film starts with Charo’s family discussing her upcoming marriage with her father and mother. She states how she’s pregnant. Now you have to understand that THIS particular father is not the type that seems to be at all cool with giving his daughter away AT ALL. It wasn’t til the second screening that I realized what gave, that he let his daughter get hitched in the first place.

Dad Vic Silayan supplies all the sufficient creepiness I discussed earlier. In fact he is the black center of the entire film. Soon we realize just how double-faced he is and how this duality seems to also reflect on his wife and daughter. Clue #1 he talks to his future son-in-law as if he’s the most special guy in the world, as well as ignores him all in the span of two minutes-going back and forth.

His parenting of course, is not at all unique. In fact, on the surface he is the definitive Filipino patriarch, scary as that may seem. And he exudes command with his mere presence.

His power over his family is overwhelming and the weight of his presence causes any person in his house to buckle.

The book didn’t flat out detail an incest angle on the story but it’s something Kisapmata didn’t shy away from. While the point where most people noticed it was the blink-and-you’ll-miss-it hand-holding scene. At that point, I did consider the option but I didn’t let myself jump to the conclusion just yet. I tried to understand the film from the point-of-view of the outsider, in this case the groom-to-be Jay Ilagan. Besides, like I stated earlier, on second viewing, the hand-holding wasn’t after all the very first real clue.

The scene however DOES firmly establish Charito Solis as the woman of the house, bequeathed with what seems to be the holy responsibilty of marrying her family and its darkest secrets into a functioning household. She knows EVERYTHING that happens in the house, and though she claims to have no power over it, in fact it is her resolve to keep the family together that is  nurturing their own private hell.

The sanctity of the family is so firmly established in this film that Charo’s character even refuses to completely tell her own diary everything! I mean, this is the girl’s most treasured keepsake! And the lack of information in her diary couldn’t possibly stem from a worry that her father might see it (given her conveniently broken doorknob lock)- after all, she still spoke of him in a hateful manner, albeit merely portraying him as anal retentive, neurotic and controlling. Her thoughts apparently remain the property of her dreams, wherein symbols portray a very dark, telling picture of what it is that is truly going on.

I really enjoyed the post-wedding sequences, especially the ones involving Jay Ilagan. After all, it was layer upon layer of ‘oh sh*t’ moments. From locked gates, to barred doors, an ignoring Father-in-Law, lights off and a missing bride. It really established how powerless Jay would be throughout the entire film almost, when it comes to the life of his new bride.

Of course, the groom should be lauded for not giving up right away. There were some attempts made at getting his way, but if you’re blocked at every turn, sometimes by your wife, no less, you sorta run out of options.

The way father and mother act, soon, it is seen that marriage is nothing serious to this family, at least not when put up against familial bond, or in this case patriarchal control. The groom soon finds himself inching further and further away from his wife and the house until eventually, he’s out of the house himself.

That duality/double-facedness I spoke of? It showed in Charo’s character as well. Her groom never felt an ounce of support during his entire ordeal, despite the fact that she obviously wanted things to be different than they were.  This goes back to the concept of familial bonds, even in the strictest highly-disturbed sense. She does eventually work out her troubles on her own. You might want to have told your husband you were on his side all along, missy! But then again, there were secrets to protect.

She even has her own action-escape scene where she goes all ALIAS on her dad and slips away unnoticed. (Though next time you might wanna not linger so long behind him if you’re trying to get away).

Dad’s resulting outbursts which involve firing the help and waving a gun around at his in-laws’ place are classic (unfortunate) Pinoy incidences. I mean who hasn’t heard a gun-waving story here anyway. Again, minus all the subtext, if he was merely Mr. Controlling Dad, many may view it as justifiable or at least incredibly common behavior. This just goes to show us how high a pedestal the Filipino patriarch sits on- that any action, in the name of family is somehow acceptable.

As the film draws nearer to a close, we get a glimpse of the future as designed by the bride and groom. Their destiny ends with her mother in the hospital and the couple up in flames. This film was rocking creepy audio effects and washed out black and whites way before Ring made it big!

 

Throughout the film you just really get that feeling that the father is lord of all he surveys, including his wife, his daughter, his helper and now his son-in-law, and that he may do with them whatever he sees fit. This lordship (as I’ve spoken about in a previous review of the same film) almost brings the Filipino father up to the level of a God figure. Now I’m torn with the overlaid image of daddy Vic Silayan over a Jesus maquette either being a cheesy on-the-nose representation of the message he wanted to send, or if it was a bold comparison that deserves applause. Either way, the message came through loud and clear.

The ending is predictable. But I do not at all mean that in a bad way. There are movies that somehow you just know where they’re going- but it’s how it gets there that interests you. I mean hello, every single time we saw Daddy open his door or stay downstairs in the dark, we expected him to draw his gun. However, the emotional buildup and the ultimate revelation to Jay Ilagan’s character at the end were definitely worth the watch.

Of course, how we actually GOT to the ending still left many heads with the desire to be scratched. Really? You think it’s a good idea to reassert yourself in the devil’s den, given how you’re already in the clear? And for what essentially? A suitcase? Oh well, it DID actually happen somehow so we can’t fault the writers for it. 

Overall this film deserves all the praise and accolades it had gotten and is worthy of your viewing time. It takes you back to the years when film was still a TRUE art in the Phillippines, in a widespread sense.