Let the Right One In
2008 (Sweden)
Director: Tomas Alfredson
Viewed: December 28, 2008
Format: Theatrical Print
A - Tomas Alfredson’s chilly, provocative vampire tale, Let the Right One In, is not for the faint of heart. It spatters blood and gore with the ugly abandon of a child’s vengeful dream. It dabbles at the edges of sexual norms, and dares to do so with characters on the cusp of adolescence. It plunges into the icy waters of schoolyard memories that cut to the quick: bullying, humiliation, loneliness, and that first crush, so unbelievably sweet and painful. Although it snuffles in the countless musty corners of the vampire myth and revels in camp horror silliness at times, Let the Right One In is no mere horror paint-by-numbers exercise. Rather, director Alfredson and screenwriter John Ajvide Linqvist—who adapted his own novel—take up the genre for its purest purpose, engaging a host of personal and social anxieties with a quiet, distinctly Scandinavian cunning. Serving as a parable, allegory, and hideously gleeful dose of wish fulfillment all rolled into one, this is an astonishingly powerful vampire film, in that leaves a thousand whirling thoughts in its wake, none of them about vampires.
We begin with a striking twelve-year-old boy, Oskar (Kåre Hedebrant), who dwells with his mother in a sad block of apartments in a lower-rent Stockholm, Sweden suburb. Bookish and retiring, the towheaded Oskar is a tempting target for bullies, but there is a veiled longing for violence coiled in the lad’s heart, as evidenced by his scrapbook of lurid news clippings and his knife-punctuated threats (part Taxi Driver, part Deliverance) to a tree trunk. The late-night arrival of new renters in the apartment next door turns Oskar’s head, partly due to the cardboard the older father tapes over the windows, but mostly due to his oddly beguiling daughter, who at least appears to be Oskar’s age. The girl, Eli (Lina Leandersson), emerges at night, perched on the jungle gym wearing only her pajamas, despite the cold. She is pale and “smells funny,” as Oskar says, but he is drawn to her immediately. Apropos of nothing, Eli declares, “We can’t be friends,” but eventually she warms to Oskar, despite her misgivings and her inability to consume his penny candy without vomiting. At night they tap out Morse code messages on the wall shared by their bedrooms.
Meanwhile, Eli’s “father” Håkan (Per Ragnar) trudges through the bleak snows by night, abducting passersby and slitting their throats to collect fresh blood. He’s not terribly good at this nocturnal butchery, and is nearly caught on several occasions, perhaps due to his age, or perhaps his heart just isn’t in it anymore. Regardless, Eli’s hunger is growing, but fortunately Oskar’s neighborhood is well-stocked with portly, gregarious Swedes with a preference for stumbling home alone after dark. Fates both ghastly and bizarre befall the film’s characters, while Oskar’s life rolls on. Admirably for a horror film, Let the Right One In doesn’t suspend its protagonist’s daily travails once the supernatural enters his life. Even as the bodies and enigmas pile up, Oskar shows up for swimming practice, attends a class field trip, and heads into the country to spend the weekend with his father. His thoughts, however, are always with Eli, with whom he yearns to “go steady.”
Alfredson eschews that most obnoxious of genre tropes, Our Vampire Are Different, littering the film with seemingly every morsel of “traditional” cinema folklore to surface since Max Shreck first took up the cape. Eli is burned by the sun, animals shriek at her approach, and she is unable to enter a house uninvited. (”What would happen if you did?” asks Oskar. She shows him.) She is stronger and faster than your average twelve-year-old girl, and can skitter up walls like an arachnid. Only the fangs are absent, and yet their absence is never mentioned. Where Let the Right One In errs, it tends to trace over sins endemic to the genre: some needlessly foreshadowed scares, sketchy makeup and computer effects, campy violence that at times seems ridiculously out of place, and the brutal murder of thinly drawn secondary and tertiary characters. While none of these concerns defeat the film, they are distressingly obvious pitfalls that Alfredson nonetheless cheerfully blunders into.
Quibbling over such matters seems shameful, however, given Let the Right One In’s searing cinematic language and startling sensitivity to pre-teen alienation and longing. Summoning a bleak mood of hushed desolation and grubby fear, the film finds a perfect counterpoint to its themes of vengeance, delusion, connection, and revilement. Alfredson masterfully conveys a child’s fatalistic resignation in the face bullying, their ritual humiliation (by kids and adults) for the crime of exhibiting intelligence, and most of all the wondrous possibilities that seem to blossom when love first seizes the heart. The director keeps the dialog between Oskar and Eli sparing and frank, tightly framing his actors, ever alert for the marvelous nuances that flicker across their faces. In this way, the bliss and lacerations of an evolving adult relationship are compressed and condensed, realized in one semester of friendship—and then something more—between Oskar and Eli.
Alfredson and Linqvist exhibit no qualms about engaging the sexual components of their story, but their approach is more hormonal and fantastic than strictly erotic. One night Eli enters Oskar’s bedroom through the window and slips into his bed, naked. “You don’t have any clothes on,” he observes, and then they hold hands, tentatively. Such sexualizing of preteens, even in this admittedly sweet context, will likely provoke discomfort among some viewers weaned on Hollywood orthodoxies about what constitutes exploitation. However, Alfredson’s gentle, achingly poignant depiction of adolescent loneliness and devotion is unquestionably a finer thing than crassly objectifying teens in the same unfortunate manner as adults. Perhaps more provocative still is Let the Right One In’s unabashed gay subtext. Witness: Eli murmuring, “Would you like me if I wasn’t a girl?,” a man searching for the monster that made his girlfriend “that way,” and a dribble of gender-muddling details. A queer reading of the film seems to offer another tantalizing level to its thematic riches.
Near the conclusion of Let the Right One In, the story of Oskar and Eli seems to end, and yet the film rolls on as an unresolved subplot rears it head with nasty results. This final sequence, brilliantly shot and bubbling with terror and gruesome wit, will polarize viewers, some of whom will regard it as a pointless and implausible coda. Not so. Rather, it serves as an exultant and perfectly natural flourish to an all-too-familiar fantasy, whether we are twelve years old or not: the dream of a companion who will accept us, adore us, and above all save us.
C - It’s never been clear to me why the 1977 interviews between talk-show host David Frost and disgraced ex-President Richard Nixon necessitate a dramatic narrative. I haven’t seen Peter Morgan’s play Frost/Nixon, but Ron Howard’s thoroughly unspectacular adaptation does little with the premise. Howard’s Frost/Nixon is a determinedly momentous dollop of prestige film confection, surprisingly witty and wistful in the moments when it stops earnestly clenching to its historical crib sheet. Unfortunately, it rarely coalesces into anything more profound than the immediate drama of the dueling journalist and politician. Frank Langella is grandly watchable, as always, as Dick Nixon, although it takes a minute to settle into his deliberately off-center stripe of mimicry. The film is most compelling when it plumbs the shared class resentments in Frost and Nixon, and its finest scene involves a drunken late-night phonecall where all the bad dreams of a decade boil out in one monologue. More often, however, it just plods along, a curious mix of reliable plotting and obscure context. Blessedly, I recently read Rick Perlstein’s epic political history, Nixonland. How might another thirtystomething fare with Frost/Nixon’s breezy treatment of Watergate’s minutia?
C - The appeal of Doubt is that of a slick, addictive puzzle. Shrugging off the more undemanding prospects within a tale of (maybe) Catholic pedophilia, John Patrick Shanley’s adaptation of his play creates something perplexing and remarkably vast within the fine grains of gestures and dialog, self-consciously provoking water-cooler mulling of the film’s legion of possibilities. Shanley’s disciplined and occasionally too-clever-by-half commitment to narrative ambiguity is Doubt’s selling point and its most irksome flaw. Ultimately, the film is a knickknack engineered to spark conversation, or at best a Rorschach test that will coax the viewer’s prejudices to the surface like so much greasy film. It’s ingenious in its way, but not really a film achievement, especially given Shanley’s preference for a decidedly flat theatrical presentation with the odd bit of visual punctuation. (Count the Dutch angle shots!) However, even a miscast Philip Seymour Hoffman rarely distracts from Doubt’s main attraction: a fierce, invigorating Meryl Streep as Sister Aloysius, whose withering glares and surprising vulnerability lend the film both a vividness and a dose of needed thematic depth. The veteran’s actress’s casual ease with such a contradictory protagonist bestows on Doubt its most fascinating tensions, particularly between vigilance and bigotry.
A - On the surface, The Wrestler is as dissimilar to Darren Aronofsky’s prior films as one could imagine. Assembled with an unflashy aesthetic and a mood of agonizing immediacy, Aronofsky’s camera hovers over the shoulder of waning (waned, really) professional wrestler Randy “The Ram” Robinson, absorbing the sad details of his life with a quietly pitying gaze. Can this really be the same film-maker that gave us the grainy paranoia of Pi, the diabolic carnival of Requieum for a Dream, or the ecstatic mourning of the underrated The Fountain? Never mind the stylistic chasm that lies between those films and The Wrestler. Aronofsky’s pet themes are all present and accounted for: obsession, disintegration, and the sour mingling of bliss and misery, nostalgia and hope. Unquestionably, this is the director’s most emotionally intricate work to date. It’s hard to say whether this is in spite of, or due to, The Wrestler’s near absence of Aronofsky’s academic doodling, grandiose gestures, or relentless cinematic punctuation (which, I should add, aren’t unpleasant features in and of themselves). What is undeniable is that The Wrestler’s sorrowful heft rests on the director’s emergent sensitivity and particularly on a breathtaking performance from Mickey Rourke, for whom the phrase “perfectly cast” seems an understatement. It may be the performance of the year, and given that this year also gave us stunning turns from 
C - There’s a frustrating ordinariness at work in Gus Van Sant’s Milk. Hewing to the narrative conventions and rhythms of a thousand undemanding, “uplifting” biographical films that have gone before, it invites a viewer sympathetic to the struggle for gay rights to mutter in outrage and nod appreciatively at the right moments. Excepting Sean Penn’s riveting performance as activist, politician, and martyr Harvey Milk, as well as Van Sant’s modest but invigorating visual daubings, Milk rarely strays from pedestrian biopic territory. The faux-shocks of male-on-male kissing and tastefully lit intimacies aside, this is easily Van Sant’s most determinedly accessible film in years, surpassing even Good Will Hunting. It’s a touch disappointing that Van Sant–one of the boldest and most sensitive living American auteurs, and an openly gay one at that–has created a work mostly indistinguishable from any other biopic. Forgoing thematic richness for simplistic, feel-good messaging, Milk asks merely that we follow along and shed a tear or two.
C - Quantum of Solace is not the sequel that the refreshing, gripping Casino Royale deserved. Director Marc Forster has created a routine whoosh-boom contraption that reflects the bruised dazzle of CR, but unfortunately doesn’t generate much glint of its own. As a action film generically and a Bond film specifically, it’s serviceable. There are elaborate action sequences, a couple of beautiful women, a little bleeding-edge gadgetry, and a global conspiracy. However, Forster is merely spattering the Bond signifiers onto the screen without much grace or consideration for the quality of the components. The script—mangled by a committee of writers—is just wretched, so it’s a blessing that Daniel Craig carries on the pitch-perfect, smoldering portrayal he delivered in Casino Royale. His Bond is just as watchable in Quantum, despite the ludicrous lines he and his fellow performers are saddled with. It’s revealing that while the action in this twenty-second Bond film is mindless and colorless, Craig’s almost rebellious need for both evocative nuance and ferocity seduces us once again.