There must be something unifying in our globes collective consciousness, as 2011 saw two films that looked back at the cinematic past. Strangely, it took a French film maker, Michel Hazanavicius, to release a movie that pays homage to early, silent American cinema (The Artist). Conversely, Martin Scorsese, a well-known cinephile, delights with his love of early European silent cinema, in his often beautiful 'children's' film, Hugo.
Set in 1930's Paris, the main focus of this cinematic love is the work of the first movie magician, Georges Melies. We are introduced to Hugo (Asa Butterfield), a young man whose father left him a automaton after his death. It was a project that they worked on together, but never finished it. Hugo's main mission is to get the object working. As an orphan, Hugo hides in the rafters of a train station, maintaining the clocks that his drunken uncle used to do. After befriending a young girl, Isabelle (Chloe Moretz), he finally gets the automaton working, and it opens up a mystery that leads to the forgotten cinema of Melies (Ben Kingsley), now working on a store in the station.
The film shows love for silent cinema, and particularly the magic of Melies. Sacha Baron Cohen's station inspector is occasionally funny, and his character seems to be filtered through both Peter Sellers' Inspector Clouseau, and Jacques Tati's Monsieur Hulot, but he just doesn't seem to really progress at all, and feels almost like a filler character. Scorsese, like Robert Zemekis and Bob Gale before, reference that iconic Harold Lloyd moment in Safety Last! (1923), as Hugo hangs from a clock face.
Like so many others who speculate about the choices of Oscar nominations, Hugo, I feel, is not a contender for the best picture Oscar. There were some far better films produced in 2011. That said, the film is beautiful, accomplished , and often fun. Also, the resurgence of interest in a forgotten father of cinema, is completely touching, and leaves a warm feeling in the heart. Unfortunately, I did not see this in 3D; as far as I am aware, Scorsese uses it to brilliant degrees, so perhaps this would have made the experience perfect (despite the fact that I care not for the dimensions of 3.
12 year-old Owen (Kodi Smit-McPhee) lives alone with his divorced mother. He is bullied at school and leads a generally lonely existence, until a man and what looks like a little girl moves in to the flat next door. The man (Richard Jenkins) kidnaps a young man, hangs him up by his feet and slits his throat, catching the blood. He slips on the ice, causing him to drop the blood which spills onto the floor. Later, we see the young girl Abby (Chloe Grace Moretz) shouting at him for doing this. Abby and Owen start a strange friendship, and it soon becomes clear that Abby is a vampire. Owen shows Abby what it is like to be human, many things she has forgotten, and Abby teaches Owen that he must stand up to his tormentors.
Matt Reeves' second adaptation of John Ajvide Lindqvist's Swedish novel Let The Right One In faced a backlash from fans of Tomas Alfredson's brilliant original when it was announced. Reeves was adamant, however, that this was not a re-make of Alfredson's film, but a fresh adaptation of the book, relocating the action from Stockholm to New Mexico. This film would keep the same focus on the central friendship between Owen and Abby (originally Oskar and Eli), and this would be a film in its own right.
I'll try not to mention Alfredson's 2008 version too much as this is a novel adaptation, but it is hard to ignore it given that it is one of my all-time favourite films, and, in my opinion, the greatest vampire film of all time (including Muranu's Nosferatu (1922) and Dreyer's Vampyr (1932)). Let Me In introduces the character of the Policeman (Elias Koteas), who does not appear in the original (I'm not sure if he is in the novel), and he seems to be there to play the moral centre of the film. This choice I could have lived without, as it is almost like they were worried that the whole film may seem amoral to an American audience. Well, it is about good and evil after all, and what defines it, so the addition seems wholly unnecessary.
Thinking about it, the more I write about this film the less I'm liking it. I know I said I wouldn't mention the original too much, but even though Reeves said this was a fresh adaptation, there are a lot of shots and scenes that are exactly the same to Alfredson's original. Only here, they are devoid of any atmosphere or heart. The original's perfect pace, and creeping atmosphere really got to the heart of Oskar. It emphasised that he was a troubled child with a worrying obsession with crime, knifes and voyeurism. Let Me In tones this down, making him a much more innocent character. Everything that was dark and different that the first film explored - the revelation that Eli/Abby is a castrated boy; the hinting that Eli/Abby's protector is a paedophile - are wholly ignored. It's like Reeves and the producers felt the Western audiences would be stupid to grasp these dark themes.
Also, the extremely poor CGI deserves a special mention. While it was used only when necessary in Alfredson's version, here it is used a number of times, especially when Abby is in her vampire mould, attacking a person or climbing up a tree before the hunt. It does nothing except take away the 'reality' of it all. This is a story that needs to be grounded in a believable setting, in order to emphasise the social themes, and to make the coming-of-age story more real and easier to relate to. But this is seriously damaged, and the film feels ever more like a fantasy horror, rather than a drama, which at the story's heart, it ultimately is.
The good, there is very little of to be honest. The acting, especially by McPhee and the always-impressive Moretz, is very good, although it is a shame they weren't given the whole of their characters to explore. But everything the original made subtle, atmospheric and scary, this Americanised version makes obvious, loud and jumpy. I don't know when directors will realise that loud noises aren't scary. Overall, very disappointing, but wholly expected. This is not a re-imagining, but a re-make. And a very average one at that.
Platinum Dunes production company was formed by Michael Bay, Brad Fuller and Andrew Form in 2001, with the prime proposal of re-making, predominantly 1970's "classic" (albeit well-known) horror films. Their first was The Texas Chain-saw Massacre (2003). They messed around with Friday the 13th (2009), -as if it really needed to be done after nine sequels - and A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010), after producing a "modern" take on 1979's The Amityville Horror. I state modern only in the time of production, as the film is set in the 1970's. After all it is "based on a true story" (I will come back to this later).
The film begins, - as does it's predecessor - with a dramatically edited prologue of the "actual" event that occurred in the house in 1974, when Ronald Defeo systematically shot his parents and siblings whilst they slept in their beds. This did actually happen, and Defeo is still serving a life sentence for the horrific crime. The crime was blamed by Ronald on voices that told him to kill them. Several years later, Kathy (Melissa George) and George Lutz (Ryan Reynolds) purchase the Amityville "dream home" cheaply. They move in with Kathy's three children (from a previous marriage). This is clearly a new arrangement, as - particularly the oldest - child is suspicious of the new father figure.
Well, the film has no build-up of tension at all, as moments into occupying the house, they begin to see things. Now traditionally in the haunted house genre of horror films, ghosts are not really physically seen. However, in this movie, they are simply there! George goes "crazy" practically instantly, and the tensions within the family are automatically tumultuous. The "ghosts" of the Jody, one of the little girls killed, are seen by youngest child, Chelsea (Chloe Moretz - in pre-Hit Girl, use-of-the-word "cunt" mode), and communicates through her.
The opening sequence is endemic of these Michael Bay produced films. Snappy, flash editing; the layering of images, and particularly dirty pen-scribblings on paper. Essentially a title sequence, post-Seven (1997). It does benefit from contemporary footage of news-reels shot at the time of the Defeo murders. These "funky" openings are also quite stylist, and for production value, lends an almost artistic flare to proceedings. However, it does not save a very run-of-the-mill film, that ticks all the boxes of a remake/ghost-horror movie.
So, we come back to the "based on a true story". This is a story that I have been fascinated by from a very early age, when I saw the film, and read the Jay Anson book of the same name. The Lutz family did purchase the house, knowing that it was the scene of the Defeo crime. 28 days later they fled the property, leaving all of their belongings (never to return). They reported the strange and horrific occurrences. Well, they did to a writer, who promised a lucrative publishing deal (ghost stories were hot in the '70's). this obviously led to the money-making deal of Hollywood movie-making. So their story of haunting, Indian burial grounds, and possession, was a highly profitable for the family, who were not well-off at all. With the knowledge of the houses history, it would be easy to conjure up a ghost story in 28 days. "Fuck the possessions, eh?"
As an "after thought", there have been many families that have occupied the house, who have never reported any strange "happenings." The only reason that any of them have left, was simply due to "sightseers" who trample over the grounds, due to the popularity of the film. The grisly statement of "Get Out", becoming simply a "Get off my land".
Set in 1930's Paris, the main focus of this cinematic love is the work of the first movie magician, Georges Melies. We are introduced to Hugo (Asa Butterfield), a young man whose father left him a automaton after his death. It was a project that they worked on together, but never finished it. Hugo's main mission is to get the object working. As an orphan, Hugo hides in the rafters of a train station, maintaining the clocks that his drunken uncle used to do. After befriending a young girl, Isabelle (Chloe Moretz), he finally gets the automaton working, and it opens up a mystery that leads to the forgotten cinema of Melies (Ben Kingsley), now working on a store in the station.
