‘Let Me In’ Producer Talks Faithful Interpretation

Published 4 years ago by , Updated August 8th, 2012 at 7:02 am,

 

Let Me In header Let Me In Producer Talks Faithful Interpretation

From its inception, Let Me In has faced a good deal of opposition from fans loyal to its source material. While director Matt Reeves and co. have made an admirable go of assuaging fan fears and earning the benefit of the doubt, a basic resistance to the concept of a Let the Right One In remake has persisted.

In a recent interview (as relayed to us by Cinematical), producer Simon Oakes continued this campaign for the fans’ goodwill by speaking about the motivations behind Let Me In, as well as how it fits in with the Hammer Films idea of horror. However, Oakes also made it clear that Let Me In is not a “re-imagining,” a label frequently slapped on films that have a high chance of angering a preexisting fan base.

I was always of the view that this was a beautiful story. …It’s a story that needs to be seen by a wider audience. …Frankly, [you must] not muck about the basic tenets of the story, which is important. More than anything else, stay true to the imagery and mystique and the mythology of the original, and set it in the right time as well, not update it in terms of its timing.

And from later in the interview:

If you call it a faithful remake, I think that’s true to say that’s what it is. It’s not a re-imagining; the same beats [are there]. Maybe the scares are a little bit more scary.

Oakes goes on to discuss the issues of budget pertaining directly to the quality of the scares, which has some fans running up red flags, but which I choose to interpret as a reference to the CGI cat attack in the original and nothing else. This is probably because I’m still in denial. Let The Right One In was such a refreshing return to psychological horror, utilizing silence, stillness and long takes in ways that few genre films in recent memory have; the thought of an Americanized version constructed to appeal to a wider film-going audience has been unpalatable at best.

let the right one in eli Let Me In Producer Talks Faithful Interpretation

The decision to give the remake to Reeves, known for the kinetic and character-bereft Cloverfield (a fact pointed out on every Let Me In poster), has been of little reassurance, though Oakes speaks to this, too, describing Reeves as “a very sensitive, smart director”.

We immediately fell in love with Matt and his take; he loved the original, so we felt that he was going to honor it, which is very important. Secondly, I think there’s something, and I don’t know if he’d like me saying this, quite autobiographical of his own life in the life of Owen, in some respect — where he came from, and his background and so forth. That was important. …He’s astonishing. He has a fantastic intellect, a great imagination.

…really, I think it’s because he’s a storyteller, he knows how to tell a story. If you think of Cloverfield and you think of the technical difficulty in maintaining the focus of story in a film like that, the way he shot it, that was brilliant – to be able to do that, to keep us there, to keep us watching and engaged. I think one of Matt’s great qualities is that he’s a genuinely great storyteller.

It’s this focus on story, character and an avoidance of what Oakes has referred to as “torture porn” and “gornography,” which he believes makes Let Me In the ideal movie with which to relaunch Hammer Films, an aim that makes the venture doubly ambitious. Harboring what could reasonably be described as an abhorrent dislike of torture porn, myself, I have to admit to finding myself hopeful. In a Hostel world, a little Hammer would somehow be reassuring.

let me in cast header Let Me In Producer Talks Faithful InterpretationThe Let Me In cast (top) and their Let The Right One In counterparts

The interview in its entirety is lengthy, in-depth and gives an interesting look into where Oakes sees both Let Me In and Hammer Films going, as well as how they will be presented to the American audience at large. Read it in its entirety by going HERE.

Let Me In will be in theaters on October 1, 2010.

Source: Cinematical

Get our free email alerts on the topics and author of this article:
TAGS: let me in

19 Comments

Post a Comment

Comment With Facebook

Post a Comment

GravatarWant to change your avatar?
Go to Gravatar.com and upload your own (we'll wait)!

 Rules: No profanity or personal attacks.
 Use a valid email address or risk being banned from commenting.


If your comment doesn't show up immediately, it may have been flagged for moderation. Please try refreshing the page first, then drop us a note and we'll retrieve it.

  1. It seems like, no matter what the remake, directors are always promising theirs will be entirely faithful, right up until you get to the theater and have to wonder where the story you loved went. I really hope you're right about this one. The film industry in America is tragically bereft of true psychological horrors these days.

  2. Oakes talks about Chloe Moretz being remarkably self possessed- I'm willing to give her a chance- and with an expected 'R' rating, I'm sort of hoping that the odd nature of their relationship will be well received by the audience. I have that nagging feeling that if 'Let Me In' gets a PG-13, the sort of effeminate nature of the young male protagonist would earn some jeering from immature crowds who are hitting up the newest vampire flick, do you know what I mean?

  3. Agreed, on all counts. I think this film has a slightly better chance at remaining true to the spirit of the original than, say, 'The Italian Job' or 'The Day the Earth Stood Still' (It grates. It grates on my SOUL.), but I'm still a member of the “Really? Because you just can't read subtitles? REALLY?” camp. I also feel that film is a universal language, and so remakes very rarely have cause to be made.

  4. How popular culture has changed – in their day Hammer movies were considered shocking and graphic, now they are considered downright genteel! But of course that was before torture movies went mainstream in the form of Hostel. In the 70s it was crap like Bloodsucking Freaks being made on a shoestring and shown in Times Square, now its Eli Roth's crap being made with millions and shown in the big cinemas, if that isnt a good sign of a culture in decline i don't know what is.

    Give me Lucio Fulci any day – everyone died horribly bu they didn't take hours to do so, thats whats so sick about Hostel and its ilk – the prolonged suffering of the victims.

  5. This disqus thing is really annoying, my name is not porky its mickeyc

  6. How popular culture has changed – in their day Hammer movies were considered shocking and graphic, now they are considered downright genteel! But of course that was before torture movies went mainstream in the form of Hostel. In the 70s it was crap like Bloodsucking Freaks being made on a shoestring and shown in Times Square, now its Eli Roth's crap being made with millions and shown in the big cinemas, if that isnt a good sign of a culture in decline i don't know what is.

    Give me Lucio Fulci any day – everyone died horribly bu they didn't take hours to do so, thats whats so sick about Hostel and its ilk – the prolonged suffering of the victims.

    Please remove the pig one.

  7. I liked the fresh take of Let the Right One In, and while it did hold my interest throughout, it did test my patience at times.
    Im betting the remake will do much better. But that girl actress doesnt look right for the part – she looks bratty.

  8. I do always wonder about that 'faithful' moniker they slap down; if you're making a remake, you're changing things, and then they go and start claiming 'oh but it's exactly the same it's just in English now.' Especially in a horror movie, where theoretically that means people who've watched the original (I haven't yet; I know, I know, slap on the wrist) know everything that's coming, which essentially removes all the wondering dread from the experience, doesn't it?

    So, clearly, what they need to do is in the last half hour have it change into a feel-good spoof comedy without warning anyone beforehand. It would be HILARIOUS.

  9. I agree it needs to be seen by a wider audience, the ORIGINAL needs to be seen, not a dumbed down Americanized piece of crap for the masses. This is just an attempt to make an easy buck, there is no artistic integrity in the producer or director. It is just about the green. Matt if you want to honor the original, don't remake it.

  10. Hammer Films' Hound of the Baskervilles was my favorite movie as a wee lass, because my dad had most of the control over what I was watching before bed, ha ha.

    He also gets my therapy bills.

  11. What, like Twilight?

    (Badump-CHING!)

  12. I don't know, pretty sure Twilight is a four movie fake-out before they spring the xenomorph baby its way out of Bella on audiences. Oh, how I hope it's graphic…

  13. A faithful interpretation would be to take the original movie, call it “Let Me In” and then launch it upon the American masses in all it's original glory. I can't imagine someone who's claiming a faithful interpretation would even remake a movie not even three years old yet.

    Part of the thrill for me watching the film was that I didn't understand what they were saying. The subtitles only added to my experience watching the film. It is the only film I would say was practically perfect. You can't beat it so why even try?

  14. I, too, absolutely adore the original. However, if you really take a look at the history of LTROI it's already been remade and changed once.

    In my opinion, the novel and film are two very different experiences. The novel containing much darker material, there are more characters, and the relationship between Eli and Hakkan adds a more disturbing level of victim and victimizer.

    It doesn't sound like that Matt Reeve's take is going to address any of this, which could mean that there's room for a more 'accurate' depiction of the events of the novel. I'm just saying that if 'Let Me In' is successful, don't be surprised if 10 years later someone is once again remaking LTROI, but this time a very hard R rated version.

    'Let Me In' may just be the first of possibly many takes on the overly rich source material.

  15. I found the subtle way LTROI raised questions about the darker sides of relationships to be intriguing, I liked that nothing was overt. Reading the interview with Oakes has really piqued my curiosity, and I plan on reading the book veerrry soon.

    Except DAO: Awakenings comes out on Tuesday. Well, we'll see.

  16. remmber you can always go back and watch the original

  17. I, too, absolutely adore the original. However, if you really take a look at the history of LTROI it's already been remade and changed once.

    In my opinion, the novel and film are two very different experiences. The novel containing much darker material, there are more characters, and the relationship between Eli and Hakkan adds a more disturbing level of victim and victimizer.

    It doesn't sound like that Matt Reeve's take is going to address any of this, which could mean that there's room for a more 'accurate' depiction of the events of the novel. I'm just saying that if 'Let Me In' is successful, don't be surprised if 10 years later someone is once again remaking LTROI, but this time a very hard R rated version.

    'Let Me In' may just be the first of possibly many takes on the overly rich source material.

  18. I found the subtle way LTROI raised questions about the darker sides of relationships to be intriguing, I liked that nothing was overt. Reading the interview with Oakes has really piqued my curiosity, and I plan on reading the book veerrry soon.

    Except DAO: Awakenings comes out on Tuesday. Well, we'll see.

  19. remmber you can always go back and watch the original

Be Social, Follow Us!!