5 Years ago! - Let Me In (2010) Discussion

[–] cassbtt 9 years ago

👍

After overdosing on this in 2013-2014, I haven't seen it for about a year now. My feelings since then is that it's too sad a movie to want to pull out to watch again, but we'll see.

http://www.themanyfacesofabby.ca

reply

[–] HarpoSpoke 9 years ago

It probably can be emotionally draining. Kinda like watching Schindler's List repeatedly. Great movie...but wow. All the layers to LMI kept me coming back over and over. Getting to the center of that onion was almost a quest. 😂

Much easier to rewatch Arrested Development. (Which I've been doing this week)

reply

[–] Bu54Lb 9 years ago

Geez, a half decade since we all got together and had a wonderful time discussing the film here and bemealittle.com...time sure does fly.

Happy Anniversary to my favorite film. 

http://flickr.com/photos/55196522@N05/sets/72157625135851207/detail/

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] HarpoSpoke 9 years ago

imo, "let me in" is one of the best movies ever made. I wish I had seen it in the theatre, although I don't think I would have been able too. I think the movie had a limited release and I don't remember it playing where I live (Victoria, bc, Canada).

Not sure about Canada, but it was a wide release in the States. It did go away pretty fast though after opening weekend. I was able to find it in my town up to a month later I think. One theater hung on longer than the rest. (I guess that's typical of a lot of movies)

reply

[–] cassbtt 9 years ago

Exclusive Media (aka Hammer Films) is quite proud of it though and presents it very highly on its sites.

http://www.themanyfacesofabby.ca

reply

[–] HarpoSpoke 9 years ago

Exclusive Media (aka Hammer Films) is quite proud of it though and presents it very highly on its sites.

As they should. It's my favorite movie they've done so far. The favorite of critics too. (though the rating keeps going down over time because Rotten Tomatoes adds dubious negative reviews....down to 88% now from the original 90%)

reply

[–] jamescraig2000 9 years ago

Aw yes I remember it well. Got to see it a week earlier because of Fantastic Fest. One of the best fan experiences I have had with this film.

Finding Abby auditions online - someone else unlocked them
Getting contacted by Hammer's legal - :)
Tweeting Chloe about the movie and getting responses. Before KA when she was tinypinkpoodle.
Getting a PM from her mother saying why they could not reveal she got the part haha. (cupcakecutie) on these forums.
Finding the New Mexico studio address and sending pictures to be autographed. Only to have nothing to show.
Then sending a Rubiks Cube to be signed by the cast members only to have it returned empty handed.
Sending a letter to Matt and being completely surprised by a signed Rubiks Cube (Matt, Kodi, Chloe and Richard) that may have been used in the film.
Having Matt Reeves and Overture films call and invite me to Fantastic Fest. Hanging out with other fans.
Meeting Matt Reeves, Elias Kosteas, Jimmy Pinchak, Dylan Minnette and Kodi Smit McPhee.

Not trying to brag really, some of you have gotten to go to the shooting locations which I am very jealous. I was really glad it was a quiet film that was done so well. It gave a chance for fans to feel a part of it. Unfortunate that it did not gain as much financial return for the studio.

-------------------------
This is my sig Not that ^

reply

[–] HarpoSpoke 9 years ago

Oh I'm jealous. 😀 I only wish I had known more about the movie before it came out so I could have taken a little drive to Austin myself.

reply

[–] realbullet 9 years ago

FWIW -- The new Goosebumps movie is coming out this week starring Dylan Minnette (Kenny). It is no Let Me In, but it looks pretty good for what it is.

👿 I know something you don't know ... I am ambidextrous!

reply

[–] treejam555 9 years ago

for old time's sake, I want to reiterate that no matter what I think of LMI as a whole, I have to say that Abby is a great villain: totally heartless and evil but still managing to fool a good chunk of the audience into thinking she's just a little girl.

reply

[–] HarpoSpoke 9 years ago

for old time's sake, I want to reiterate that no matter what I think of LMI as a whole, I have to say that Abby is a great villain: totally heartless and evil but still managing to fool a good chunk of the audience into thinking she's just a little girl.

Never change, Tree. 😊

Keep on believing that only you possess the real knowledge of what Abby is and everyone else is just being "fooled". 😎

reply

[–] drakkar 9 years ago

Abby being "This evil puppet master" (quoting Matt Reeves) is a valid interpretation, since he was the one bringing it about.
In Let the Right One In, there is this scene where Eli is playing with his toys alone when no one is watching, to show that Eli is mentally a kid.
That scene was cut in the remake, and there is a reason for that; Reeves didn't want to shut the door for the "Abby the evil puppet master" take.

For the heart life is simple. It beats as long as it can.

reply

[–] HarpoSpoke 9 years ago

Abby being "This evil puppet master" (quoting Matt Reeves) is a valid interpretation, since he was the one bringing it about.

I agree it's a valid interpretation. Reeves has refused over and over to claim any interpretation is incorrect. If you are aware of Tree's posting history, you'll remember that Tree claims anyone with a different interpretation from "evil puppet master" is wrong.

And you didn't actually quote Matt Reeves. You quoted the interviewer. Reeves didn't call her that.

Abby is this evil puppet master, who is still somehow sympathetic.

There's no question that she has an evil side. In fact, that's what's so interesting about Lindqvist's conception. It allows for the idea of the evil within all of us, yet he also finds the humanity. I love the idea of seeing Richard Jenkins as a serial killer to begin with, and then peeling the levels away until you realize the tragedy of his character. With Abby's character, people have said, "She's totally manipulative, and she doesn't have feelings for him." I actually don't feel that way. Why can't she both? Why can't she be incredibly lonely, see something in Owen, connect with him and really have love for him? At the same time, why can't she also have this primal side that is incredibly evil and vicious and a dichotomy to that? She also has needs. She needs to survive, and she does need help. In the book, I don't get the sense that she's a 12-year-old who has a 250-year-old woman inside of her who's like a schemer. Rather, she's someone who was attacked 250 years ago and so was stuck internally at the age of 12. She's stuck in that level of emotional development. She never really got past that. There's something sad about that idea she'd never fully mature, even her emotion and brain would not go past that point. She learned how to be a survivor and get by, but she's still vulnerable in the way that a kid is vulnerable. She can't control these things. I thought that was a great metaphor for adolescence, when your body starts to change and things are out of control. It's evident in the way we depicted her. She didn't have fangs. The idea is similar to how your teeth go crazy after you lose your baby teeth. We made those teeth look like adolescence gone wrong. Her skin has lots of acne. All of that was an attempt to show the state she's in. She has levels of evil, but she's also human. To me, that's what makes the story so provocative. The end of the movie is chilling, but it's also like the horror version of The Graduate. Boy gets girl. There they are together. There is a part of you that wants them to be together, but the big question is, "Now what?" That's the cool thing about the story. I don't like to wage one over the other. I like the gray, ambiguous mix of it all.

http://www.artistdirect.com/entertainment-news/article/let-me-in-director-matt-reeves-talks-technique-satan-and-taxi-driver/7638540

Reeves only does one thing here, he states his belief that Abby is NOT just purely evil and does care about Owen. Also he states definitively that Abby is mentally 12 and thus not fully in control of what she does to survive.

In Let the Right One In, there is this scene where Eli is playing with his toys alone when no one is watching, to show that Eli is mentally a kid.
That scene was cut in the remake, and there is a reason for that; Reeves didn't want to shut the door for the "Abby the evil puppet master" take.

I agree Reeves made it all very ambiguous and allows for any interpretation (Which Tree does not).

Since we are quoting directors, Tomas Alfredson said very plainly that Eli is "Also I wanted the vampire to be a very old woman in a 12 year old body". He even decided to replace the actress' voice with an older actress and also replaced her face with an older face at times to emphasis this. He didn't do all that by accident and of course his words back that up.

So if the vampire being mentally old proves they are an "evil puppet master"...well that's what Eli is then.

reply

[–] treejam555 9 years ago

OK, harpo, you seemed to have misunderstood me. I know that Abby being an evil puppetmaster is just one possible interpretation. That's just my favored interpretation, not absolute truth, I like to think of Abby as a brilliant evil mastermind the same reason that people like to believe that JarJar Binks is a sith lord, it makes the movie so much better.

What is not an interpretation though, but rather the one and only truth is Abby being heartless and evil-full stop. You seem to believe that if Abby cares for Owen that makes her not evil. That logic is backward: it is precisely because she "loves" Owen and Thomas that makes her actions so vile, her character so unredeemable.

Think about it this way: if you were saw starving orphans in Africa begging for food on TV and ignore them while eating your meal, are you really evil, or just average?

If your wife was starving and begging for food while you ignored her, wouldn't you be much more evil?

Same logic-if Abby didn't care about Owen or THomas at all and viewed them as insects, would she really be that evil for using and killing them? If she actually loved them and still used them and killed them, wouldn't Abby be worse?

And I keep telling you in cinema, evil is not an insult. Some of the most fascinating characters in movies are evil. At least Abby as an evil puppet master would have the dignity of being in control of her own destiny, instead of having all the harm and suffering she causes be a result of weakness.

The fact that Abby may "love" Owen and Thomas makes her much more evil than the average vampire. I just prefer that her love is a lie, because if she was lying, there's always the slim chance in the future that she will truly know love. If she was being sincrene in LMI, her "love" is worthless and she deserves to die.

reply

[–] HarpoSpoke 9 years ago

OK, harpo, you seemed to have misunderstood me. I know that Abby being an evil puppetmaster is just one possible interpretation. That's just my favored interpretation, not absolute truth, I like to think of Abby as a brilliant evil mastermind the same reason that people like to believe that JarJar Binks is a sith lord, it makes the movie so much better.

Now that's a better way to word it!

I also just saw that "Jar Jar is a Sith" theory and it cracks me up. I certainly wish that was true.

What is not an interpretation though, but rather the one and only truth is Abby being heartless and evil-full stop. You seem to believe that if Abby cares for Owen that makes her not evil. That logic is backward: it is precisely because she "loves" Owen and Thomas that makes her actions so vile, her character so unredeemable.

Well now you are right back to claiming your interpretation is the truth again. Tsk, tsk. 😂

What doesn't work about your interpretation for me is that Abby is mentally 12. Kids naturally lean on adults and are quite needy. They don't plan for the future either. We don't put 12 year olds in prison for a reason, they are not mentally capable of what you are accusing Abby of.

I don't see anything in LMI where Abby "uses and kills" anyone either. I've pointed out many times that Abby and Thomas have a more equal relationship than a lot of people want to admit. He is actually openly rude and vulgar toward her so that rules out any "slave" theory. Of their 4 scenes of conflict, Thomas is the aggressor in two of them and Abby is the aggressor in two of them.

reply

[–] treejam555 9 years ago

I don't care that she's mentally twelve. That doesn't mean anything because at 12, she should be old enough to understand Thomas's misery. It might be acceptable if she were six, but twelve is definitely old enough to take some responsibility.

Also, she's a vampire, she obviously plans for the future having survived this long. And we do put 12 year olds in prison, see the slenderman stabbings. Weren't they going to be tried as adults?

Finally, there is nothing equal about Thomas's relationship with Abby. He takes all the risks and dies for her. Like I said before, there was nothing to stop Abby from carrying Thomas out of the window with her at the hospital, nothing to stop her for dying with him, nothing to stop her from turning him. Instead she killed him when he was no longer useful. It doesn't matter that Thomas may have asked for it, what matters is that Abby was OK with the arrangement of having THomas die for her. That is evil no matter what Abby is, more evil if she considers herself "human," but didn't Reeves take out the explicit denial of being a vampire?

Abby isn't morally defensible, yet some people still try; that makes her a great villain, don't you think?

reply

[–] HarpoSpoke 9 years ago

I don't care that she's mentally twelve.

Well you tried to claim she wasn't a little girl in your original post:

totally heartless and evil but still managing to fool a good chunk of the audience into thinking she's just a little girl.

So that is a factor. There is a reason we so rarely put 12 year olds in prison. The brain is just not developed enough at that point. It's simple biology. Abby's brain is stuck at age 12 as Matt Reeves often points out. (And like the novel version)

The largest part of the brain is the frontal lobe. A small area of the frontal lobe located behind the forehead, called the prefrontal cortex, controls the brain’s most advanced functions. Thispart, often referred to as the “CEO” of the body, provides humans with advanced cognition. It allows us to prioritize thoughts, imagine, think in the abstract, anticipate consequences, plan, and control impulses.

Along with everything else in the body, the brain changes significantly during adolescence. In the last five years, scientists, using new technologies, have discovered that adolescent brains are far less developed than previously believed.

....

Researchers have carefully scrutinized the pace and severity of these changes and have learned that they continue into a person’s early 20s. Dr. Elizabeth Sowell, a member of the UCLA brain research team, has led studies of brain development from adolescence to adulthood. She and her colleagues found that the frontal lobe undergoes far more change during adolescence than at any other stage of life. It is also the last part of the brain to develop, which means that even as they become fully capable in other areas, adolescents cannot reason as well as adults: “maturation, particularly in the frontal lobes, has been shown to correlate with measures of cognitive functioning.”

....

“The evidence now is strong that the brain does not cease to mature until the early 20s in those relevant parts that govern impulsivity, judgment, planning for the future, foresight of consequences, and other characteristics that make people morally culpable…. Indeed, age 21 or 22 would be closer to the ‘biological’ age of maturity.”

http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publishing/criminal_justice_section_newsletter/crimjust_juvjus_Adolescence.authcheckdam.pdf

That doesn't mean anything because at 12, she should be old enough to understand Thomas's misery. It might be acceptable if she were six, but twelve is definitely old enough to take some responsibility.

Also, she's a vampire, she obviously plans for the future having survived this long. And we do put 12 year olds in prison, see the slenderman stabbings. Weren't they going to be tried as adults?

Biology says she does not fully understand all that nor is she capable of any long range planning...which as you point out would be necessary in order for her to be spinning some sort of trap for servants. It's not like Abby is happy about the situation anyway.

Of course the biggest problem with the whole "she seeks slaves" idea is that we know Abby has twice been friendly toward two boys who cannot fulfill that purpose for her. She is unhappy with Thomas when he is taking care of her and happy with Owen who can't take care of her. So she is most happy with boys who will require HER to be the caretaker. That's a pretty big problem with your theory.

Finally, there is nothing equal about Thomas's relationship with Abby. He takes all the risks and dies for her.

In other words, just like the father/daughter relationship normally works. But a slave is not allowed to call their master a *beep* b**ch".

Like I said before, there was nothing to stop Abby from carrying Thomas out of the window with her at the hospital, nothing to stop her for dying with him, nothing to stop her from turning him. Instead she killed him when he was no longer useful. It doesn't matter that Thomas may have asked for it, what matters is that Abby was OK with the arrangement of having THomas die for her.

Of course it matters that Thomas asked her to kill him. How could that not matter? I realize it's something which doesn't help your theory, but it's in the movie.

Two other problems with your claim here.
1-Abby was very unhappy about what happened at every step and even went to Owen's room because she didn't want to be alone.

2-And she went to the hospital in the first place. You'll definitely need to explain that one away. Why would she look so upset at what she heard on the radio as well?

You are looking at the last two weeks of a 40+ year relationship and basing everything on that. I find it not believable that they could have co-existed that many decades if they were that unhappy the entire time. Not to mention how it stretches credibility to suggest that Thomas did not want to kill for her all those years.

That is evil no matter what Abby is, more evil if she considers herself "human," but didn't Reeves take out the explicit denial of being a vampire?

Abby answered with "I need blood to live".

reply

[–] treejam555 9 years ago

My point is very simple: Abby would be evil no matter what she is. If she's a 12 year old girl, she's evil for repeatedly killing her loved ones. This would be true even if she has the mental capacity of a 12 year old and there's no evidence that she does. All that stuff you cite is pointless because I'm not even arguing that she's necessarily mentally an adult; all I'm saying is that the film heavily implies a cycle, and therefore Abby is evil.

It doesn't matter that she really loves her companions; in fact, part of my point is that she would be even more evil if she did love Owen or Thomas.

I'm not saying that the evil mastermind theory is 100% true, that part is debateable. What is not debatable is that Abby is evil, no matter what the reason for her actions.

But your points don't even counter the mastermind theory:
1. Human psychology has nothing to do with vampires, so all the scientific stuff is irrelevant.
2. Abby being unhappy with what she has to do to survive doesn't mean she doesn't plan to do it. Hell, sometimes I'd rather lie in bed all day than go to work, but I still do work. On the other hand, since you're such a fan of it could be both: Abby could actually like Owen's company and still plan to seduce him into a lifetime of servitude, in fact, that's what makes her evil.

Maybe Thomas wanted to die for Abby, maybe he used to be happy 30 years ago. None of that makes Abby any less evil. It's like dealing heroin, maybe the customer likes it, maybe he was happy with his first high, maybe he willingly brought the drugs to overdose and commit suicide. None of those makes the dealer less responsible for hooking a kid on drugs.

I literally can't make it clearer.

reply

[–] HarpoSpoke 9 years ago

My point is very simple: Abby would be evil no matter what she is.

That's one interpretation. Myself and Matt Reeves don't see her that way.

If she's a 12 year old girl, she's evil for repeatedly killing her loved ones.

I'm not aware of this ever happening. Where did you see this? I saw her "kill" Thomas reluctantly upon his request. But I've seen that in a lot of movies where one character asks another character to kill them. Not sure where you get "repeatedly" even on that "kill".

This would be true even if she has the mental capacity of a 12 year old and there's no evidence that she does.

We know she plays with toys (it's subtle...you may have missed it), she actually said she was 12 in the movie when Owen asked her how old she was, and Matt Reeves came right out and said she is mentally 12. That's a lot of evidence.

All that stuff you cite is pointless because I'm not even arguing that she's necessarily mentally an adult; all I'm saying is that the film heavily implies a cycle, and therefore Abby is evil.

You wouldn't get very far as a lawyer with that tactic! 😊 You jump from "implies" immediately to "therefore". That's a huge leap. And that's without even proving that a cycle equates to evil. People can get stuck in a cycle without any evil intent at all.

You first have to prove that Abby has planned a cycle...and that's why her being mentally 12 rules that out. 12 year olds are not capable of long range planning. The mental age is not "pointless"...it's a vital piece of the puzzle. Not only would Abby be incapable of planning over several decades, she would not even be able to plan years in advance when she got attached to two kids.

Of course that's the biggest problem with the whole thing to me. We know of no case where Abby has become attached to anyone who could care for her. In both instances, she has become attached to boy who can offer her only companionship and will require HER to be the caretaker. That is actually when she appears most happy. So if any assumptions can be made about her, it's that companionship is really what she is seeking.

1. Human psychology has nothing to do with vampires, so all the scientific stuff is irrelevant.

Except that the guy who wrote the character says she is mentally 12. So with this particular vampire, it is relevant. We know the rules of vampires vary widely from movie to movie. In this more realistic version, the fact that Abby physical frontal lobe stopped developing at age 12 is a part of the story.

2. Abby being unhappy with what she has to do to survive doesn't mean she doesn't plan to do it. Hell, sometimes I'd rather lie in bed all day than go to work, but I still do work. On the other hand, since you're such a fan of it could be both: Abby could actually like Owen's company and still plan to seduce him into a lifetime of servitude, in fact, that's what makes her evil.

Maybe Thomas wanted to die for Abby, maybe he used to be happy 30 years ago. None of that makes Abby any less evil. It's like dealing heroin, maybe the customer likes it, maybe he was happy with his first high, maybe he willingly brought the drugs to overdose and commit suicide. None of those makes the dealer less responsible for hooking a kid on drugs.

This is a good way to illustrate how you reasoning is flawed here imo. Heroin dealers are not unhappy about dealing and they certainly don't have to deal heroin to continue living. They are also not typically 12 years old. Now...tell me a story about a 12 year old heroin dealer who hates dealing heroin, but is forced to do so in order to keep breathing and then you've got a good comparison.

reply

[–] treejam555 9 years ago

hmmm, perhaps we just have very different world views. But I'm not the one defending a demonic serial killer :)

reply

[–] HarpoSpoke 9 years ago

hmmm, perhaps we just have very different world views. But I'm not the one defending a demonic serial killer :)

I'm not either. 😙

That's where you again let your interpretation become a "truth" which you feel must apply to other people. I'm defending a 12 year old girl who has been cursed for 300 years.

Interesting use of the word "defending". Didn't you claim you weren't attacking Abby before? hee hee...

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] drakkar 9 years ago

Fair enough about what Matt Reeves says, but we also have to notice what he does.

In Let the Right One In, there is this scene where Eli is playing with his toys when no one is looking, to show the audience that Eli really is a kid, mentally.

Matt Reeves made an equivalent scene, but then he proceeded to delete it in Let Me In, meaning that he didn't want to show to the audience Abby as a kid, mentally. From what we see in Let Me In, Abby might very well be an old evil puppet master in a young girl's body.

For the heart life is simple. It beats as long as it can.

reply

[–] HarpoSpoke 9 years ago

Fair enough about what Matt Reeves says, but we also have to notice what he does.

In Let the Right One In, there is this scene where Eli is playing with his toys when no one is looking, to show the audience that Eli really is a kid, mentally.

Matt Reeves made an equivalent scene, but then he proceeded to delete it in Let Me In, meaning that he didn't want to show to the audience Abby as a kid, mentally. From what we see in Let Me In, Abby might very well be an old evil puppet master in a young girl's body.

Here is where a LTROI fan should be able to appreciate "subtle".

We clearly see Abby's toys in LMI. How is it worded?....Reeves didn't have to "hold the audience's hand" or "shove it down their throat".

http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s2/HarpoSpoke/Let%20Me%20In/Abbystoys_zps579650cb.jpg

We've just stumbled upon another instance where LMI is more "subtle" than LTROI! 😁 So there's your reason for the deleted scene...it's already there if you look. No need to belabor the point.

reply

[–] drakkar 9 years ago

We clearly see Abby's toys in LMI. How is it worded?....Reeves didn't have to "hold the audience's hand" or "shove it down their throat".

We both know that Matt Reeves also wanted the possibility for Abby to come across as "this evil puppet master". In order to do that he simply had to tone down the toys, which he did.

For the heart life is simple. It beats as long as it can.

reply

[–] HarpoSpoke 9 years ago

We both know that Matt Reeves also wanted the possibility for Abby to come across as "this evil puppet master". In order to do that he simply had to tone down the toys, which he did.

He definitely wanted to leave open the possibility for any interpretation. But "toning down the toys" does not remove them. Those who notice details know that Abby is still a 12 year old kid. Reeves made that aspect of Abby's character very clear too. And if that aspect proves a character is not an "evil puppet master", then that proves Abby is not that.

The movie Orphan shows the difference. A character which looks like a kid is really an old woman. Thus the evil intent and manipulation is easy to believe. But a 12 year old just does not have that capability since the brain has not developed the ability for long range planning.

So I could definitely see someone seeing Abby that way if they do not notice subtle details. We all love "subtle" though, right? 😎

reply

[–] drakkar 9 years ago

Then we agree, what I wrote was that Matt Reeves brought forward the valid interpretation of Abby being This Evil Puppet Master".
You posted the quote yourself, Matt Reeves using several hundred words not denying it.

Abby is this evil puppet master, who is still somehow sympathetic.

There's no question that she has an evil side. In fact, that's what's so interesting about Lindqvist's conception. It allows for the idea of the evil within all of us, yet he also finds the humanity. I love the idea of seeing Richard Jenkins as a serial killer to begin with, and then peeling the levels away until you realize the tragedy of his character. With Abby's character, people have said, "She's totally manipulative, and she doesn't have feelings for him." I actually don't feel that way. Why can't she both? Why can't she be incredibly lonely, see something in Owen, connect with him and really have love for him? At the same time, why can't she also have this primal side that is incredibly evil and vicious and a dichotomy to that? She also has needs. She needs to survive, and she does need help. In the book, I don't get the sense that she's a 12-year-old who has a 250-year-old woman inside of her who's like a schemer. Rather, she's someone who was attacked 250 years ago and so was stuck internally at the age of 12. She's stuck in that level of emotional development. She never really got past that. There's something sad about that idea she'd never fully mature, even her emotion and brain would not go past that point. She learned how to be a survivor and get by, but she's still vulnerable in the way that a kid is vulnerable. She can't control these things. I thought that was a great metaphor for adolescence, when your body starts to change and things are out of control. It's evident in the way we depicted her. She didn't have fangs. The idea is similar to how your teeth go crazy after you lose your baby teeth. We made those teeth look like adolescence gone wrong. Her skin has lots of acne. All of that was an attempt to show the state she's in. She has levels of evil, but she's also human. To me, that's what makes the story so provocative. The end of the movie is chilling, but it's also like the horror version of The Graduate. Boy gets girl. There they are together. There is a part of you that wants them to be together, but the big question is, "Now what?" That's the cool thing about the story. I don't like to wage one over the other. I like the gray, ambiguous mix of it all.

For the heart life is simple. It beats as long as it can.

reply

[–] HarpoSpoke 9 years ago

Then we agree, what I wrote was that Matt Reeves brought forward the valid interpretation of Abby being This Evil Puppet Master".
You posted the quote yourself, Matt Reeves using several hundred words not denying it.

Except it was the interviewer who brought forward "Evil Puppet Master"...not Reeves. So I posted the quote from the interviewer. Reeves of course explains in great detail why it doesn't have to be one or the other and any interpretation is valid. He actually directly said he doesn't see her that way personally:

With Abby's character, people have said, "She's totally manipulative, and she doesn't have feelings for him." I actually don't feel that way.

reply

[–] drakkar 9 years ago

Of course, he is the interviewer, it is his job to ask questions!

And Matt Reeves grabbed the opportunity to elaborate about Abby as the possible Evil Puppet Master.

For the heart life is simple. It beats as long as it can.

reply

[–] HarpoSpoke 9 years ago

Of course, he is the interviewer, it is his job to ask questions!

So that's not Matt Reeves' quote. Interviewers can ask any question whether the interviewee agrees or not.

And Matt Reeves grabbed the opportunity to elaborate about Abby as the possible Evil Puppet Master.

Mostly he went on and on about he doesn't see her that way.

reply

[–] drakkar 9 years ago

Nope, why can't she both, he says:

With Abby's character, people have said, "She's totally manipulative, and she doesn't have feelings for him." I actually don't feel that way. Why can't she both?

So, Abby is this evil puppet master, AND is still somehow sympathetic.

When you hear her voice through the wall berating the Father, it is easy to interpret Abby as the Spawn of Satan. And then you have Reagan's speech on the Evil Empire...

For the heart life is simple. It beats as long as it can.

reply

[–] HarpoSpoke 9 years ago

Nope, why can't she both, he says:
With Abby's character, people have said, "She's totally manipulative, and she doesn't have feelings for him." I actually don't feel that way. Why can't she both?
So, Abby is this evil puppet master, AND is still somehow sympathetic.

Interesting how you reworded his answer there. You changed the "has feelings for him" to "somehow sympathetic". Matt gets misquoted a lot around here! 😉

What he really said was this:

There's no question that she has an evil side. In fact, that's what's so interesting about Lindqvist's conception. It allows for the idea of the evil within all of us, yet he also finds the humanity. I love the idea of seeing Richard Jenkins as a serial killer to begin with, and then peeling the levels away until you realize the tragedy of his character. With Abby's character, people have said, "She's totally manipulative, and she doesn't have feelings for him." I actually don't feel that way. Why can't she both? Why can't she be incredibly lonely, see something in Owen, connect with him and really have love for him? At the same time, why can't she also have this primal side that is incredibly evil and vicious and a dichotomy to that? She also has needs. She needs to survive, and she does need help. In the book, I don't get the sense that she's a 12-year-old who has a 250-year-old woman inside of her who's like a schemer. Rather, she's someone who was attacked 250 years ago and so was stuck internally at the age of 12. She's stuck in that level of emotional development. She never really got past that. There's something sad about that idea she'd never fully mature, even her emotion and brain would not go past that point. She learned how to be a survivor and get by, but she's still vulnerable in the way that a kid is vulnerable. She can't control these things.

So Reeves is saying there is evil in all of us and that Abby is a cursed 12 year old who is not really in control of her situation.

I actually agree that there are two sides to Abby. Just like the novel where it is pointed out that the vampire side is a separate entity. Virginia can feel it urging her to do things she doesn't want to do. Same with Abby and Owen in the basement where she has to flee to keep from attacking Owen. Clearly Abby would never do something like that. That urge is the vampire side that she doesn't control. The physical changes in both the novel and LMI illustrate this perfectly.

reply

[–] drakkar 9 years ago

In this thread I'm more interested in Reeves' ideas about the evil within Abby, and not so much about what he thinks about the humanity.

The way he portrays her vamped out points many in the direction of interpreting Abby as the Spawn of Satan, reflecting Reagan's Speech of Evil:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-yh1HvLsPNlg/VX4LRRSqm6I/AAAAAAAAT5o/0cXY7ueFSJA/s1600/Let-Me-In-vamped-out.png

For the heart life is simple. It beats as long as it can.

reply

[–] HarpoSpoke 9 years ago

I agree there are two distinct entities inside Abby. I believe Reeves got that idea from the novel where the older vampire points out where it is growing inside Eli and when Virginia talks about how there is something urging her to do things she doesn't want to do.

reply

[–] drakkar 8 years ago

The presence of Satan in Let Me In is rather the work of Hammer, a horror film company with titles like "The Two Faces Of Evil" and "The Mark of Satan".

The voice Owen hears trough the wall when Abby berates Thomas, is a voice from Hell, together with the face of Satan's Spawn on Abby when vamped out. Everything subtly wrapped up by Ronald Reagan in his Evil Empire speech.

For the heart life is simple. It beats as long as it can.

reply

[–] HarpoSpoke 8 years ago

No way of knowing where the idea came from of course, but it does match up nicely with the novel.

reply

[–] mywhychromosome 9 years ago

Yeah, I love the ambiguity. For me it's obvious that is she confused and susceptible to human emotion despite her immortal, powerful state, but I LOVE the fact that it's grey.

reply

[–] HarpoSpoke 9 years ago

Yeah, I love the ambiguity. For me it's obvious that is she confused and susceptible to human emotion despite her immortal, powerful state, but I LOVE the fact that it's grey.

That's what I love about it too. I went back and forth on several theories for a while.

reply

[–] HarpoSpoke 9 years ago

FWIW -- The new Goosebumps movie is coming out this week starring Dylan Minnette (Kenny). It is no Let Me In, but it looks pretty good for what it is.