The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo – A Review/Discussion

Didion: There are two kinds of movies in the theaters right now: the highbrow ones seeking out Oscar nods, and the heartwarming Christmas ones.Then there’s The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo. In one early scene, Lisbeth Salander (Rooney Mara) greets Mikael (Daniel Craig) while wearing a t-shirt that says, FUCK YOU, YOU FUCKING FUCK.So with that in mind, perhaps you won’t be surprised that Didion ♡ GWTDT. The real question is, how did our friend JustMeMike feel about it?

JMM: Like you, I find Lisbeth compelling. At the same time, I’m a bit scared of her. She is fierce, as was Noomi Rapace in the same role. That comes from knowing what she’s capable of.

But while Lisbeth has that don’t fuck with me attitude, much of the time, she appears to be drawing herself back in, like a turtle might do.

Didion,  I knew you would be all over this one, which was probably why we agreed to do a joint review/discussion on this film all the way back in September, knowing it would be released just before Christmas.

To set some background, let’s briefly discuss how we independently came to the Stieg Larsson books and films.

I kind of fell into them by accident. In early November of 2010, I somehow lost the book I was reading in Riomaggiore – in Italy’s Cinque Terre area. The next day, back in Milan, I went to the American Bookstore to buy another copy of Nelson DeMille’s The Lion. Only they didn’t have it. The lady who ran the shop asked if I had read The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo. I hadn’t, so I took her advice. Within the following six weeks , I’d read all three books, and have since seen all three of the Swedish language films made from the books about seven times. So I was very eager to see this brand new version directed by David Fincher. How about you?

Didion: I’d never even heard of them when one of my best friends sent me a copy back during maybe February of 2009 — she’d read it while in Europe, long before it was released in the US, and knew that we shared a penchant for Scandinavian crime stuff. We now share an unholy love of Lisbeth Salander, one of the most unexpected and great heroines of recent history.

JMM: So your friend read it while in Europe just like me. I left my copy in an apartment in Bellagio when I was done, swapping it out for a Michael Connelly book. But back to the present. I saw the 7:00 PM show on Tuesday night. This was the opening night in Sarasota. The theater was about 90% filled. When did you see it and how was the crowd?

Didion: Just the opposite! We raced to the theater on Wednesday the 21st for the 7:30pm show, and when we walked into the theater 15 minutes early there was one guy — ONE! — who’d beaten us. By the time the film started there were maybe 12 or 15 people in a theater that probably holds 300. (Let me say: this was a very happy 12 people.)

JMM: My brother even sent me a survey a few days ago that stated that 75% of the women that were asked said they weren’t eager to see the film. Well then, there are reasons for that which we might explore later. Let’s look at a few headline reactions from some well known or outspoken critics before we get into the particulars. Roger Ebert wrote, “Hey girl, that’s a cool dragon tattoo”. A.O.Scott, wrote for the New York Times “Tattooed Heroine Metes Out Slick, Punitive Violence”. Kenneth Turan for the LA Times wrote, “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is too frigid.” One more – Kyle Smith for the New York Post called the film, “Rubbish”. So Didion, do you have a headline in mind?

Didion: How about, The Perfect, Laconic, Tattooed Heroine For Our Sins. First reactions: Rooney Mara was terrific and made this part her own; David Fincher teaches all filmmakers a lesson here in how to translate a sprawling book for the screen; and the scenery was spectacular. I’ve got some quibbles, but on the whole I was entranced. I don’t know what Smith & Turan are talking about.

I’m the worst of all possible viewers: I know the books really well; I loved the first Swedish film; I thought Noomi Rapace was amazing in the role. Mara and Fincher were really going to have to knock my socks off to please me. (My socks: knocked off.) Now I’m thinking that the Swedish film will pale in comparison when I see it again.How about you? First reactions?

JMM: Worst possible viewer? I would think just the opposite about you. Your experience would be an asset. At least that’s how I read Fincher’s intentions. My first reaction or headline? Loved It But Not More Than the Original.

Didion: Walking in, the first thing I wanted to know was whether I’d like Mara as Lisbeth, having loved Noomi Rapace in the role so much. Rapace’s black eyes did a lot of great work for her — she was so clearly angry. Mara has a little-girl face with big bluish/grey eyes, which made me fret Fincher would turn her into Little Girl Lost. But actually she was truer to the Lisbeth of the books: a kind of emotionless, blank expression, which reads to some people as if she’s autistic. And she’s also capable of incredibly vicious, economical violence when necessary.

So I thought Mara was fabulous. What did you think of Daniel Craig as Mikael?

JMM: In the featurette about the film, Fincher called the Blomkvist character middle aged. I thought that Craig did not appear as middle-aged as did the Swedish actor, Michael Nyqvist. But that wasn’t a negative. Craig seemed less vulnerable than Nyqvist. He was slimmer, and seemed tougher physically even though he didn’t play the role that way.

Didion: …and Craig took his shirt off far too often?

JMM: Well then, far too often? Not really. He did have the body for it.

Didion: I kept thinking of a silly line from the film Galaxy Questin which one of the side characters says to the Capt. Kirk-type lead, “I see you got your shirt off.”I’m with you on Craig as a far more glamorous Mikael. Which I didn’t mind eye-candy-wise but I don’t know about his acting choices in certain spots, either. I liked Nyqvist in the role much better.

JMM: Bingo! My take is that between Craig and Fincher – they decided to make Mara’s Lisbeth the star. In fact Fincher stated that while Lisbeth begins as a secondary character, she quickly rushes to the forefront of the movie even though Craig’s character is the lead actor (story-wise).

Didion: Okay, can I burble for a moment? There are a couple of things I thought were done really well and which need to be highlighted. Spoilers ahoy!If you don’t want to know about plot details, get your butt off NOW.First, the rape scene. And lordy, how I hate a rape scene. I have a whole series of rants about how they should be eliminated from film altogether — the gratuitousness of the violence, the vision of a helpless woman…don’t even get me started.

JMM:  Sorry – you started this one yourself – but go for it —

Didion: So how does a director do this one, which is absolutely necessary to the story? The scene in the Swedish version was hard to watch, not less for Lisbeth’s painful walk home after being victimized.

I thought this one was handled really well — considering. (Maybe I was dreading it, so it didn’t seem as bad once I saw it?) It shows Lisbeth writhing around on the bed and doesn’t underplay the violence in the least. But it also doesn’t feel as gratuitously detailed and humiliating as the Swedish original, or the rape/violence in some other films like Monster or Boys Don’t Cry. So kudos to Fincher for including it in a way that moves the story along to Lisbeth’s quick and utterly satisfying revenge (ahhh, a good revenge scene). And second (quickly): this film did a fabulous job of highlighting what was so great in the book — a crazy fascinating mystery. The story is always front & center in this film.

JMM:Well, as for the rape scene – Fincher gave us a built in break – which allowed us to prepare ourselves. For those unfamiliar with the story it was key – and for those of us who knew what was coming it was still an excellent decision. After Bjurman slaps the first handcuff on, Fincher backs the camera out of the room, even has the door closed. So we don’t see the real violence needed to get her on the bed and completely shackled. I thought that was a marvelous choice.

Didion: And another thing: This film did a fabulous job of telling a feminist tale. It’s a story about how she saves him. And that’s after she saves herself after being raped. The ending is all about Lisbeth racing off to rescue Mikael, who’s been chained up by the bad guy.

I could probably count on one hand the number of movies where the girl saves the guy (in most of them, she doesn’t even help). So hooray for GWTDT.

My quibble: the film undermines that a bit at the very end by having Lisbeth appear to get jealous of Mikael’s relationship with Berger, his editor (Robin Wright). Which is an odd time to put that in, and different enough from the book that I bristled a bit.

JMM: Hold on a bit – you lost me. You referenced how “she saves herself after being raped”. Not right after – it took a while for the revenge scene to come. But as for the girl saving the guy – you’re right on that score. But I’ve a small quibble about how that was set up.

I believe that in the original, Lisbeth didn’t set up the spy-cams until after Mikael was shot – when they realized how dangerous this really was. In Fincher’s version – she had the spy-cams already set up when he stumbles back in after nearly being killed.

As for Lisbeth’s jealously at the end – this is a matter of interpretation, no? I read it differently. I thought that Lisbeth saw them and thought he’s moved on, so I guess I have to as well. So she tossed the leather jacket she’d bought into the trash, and rode off. Question – is this a clue that makes one think there will be a sequel?

Didion: I wondered that too. I haven’t heard anything either way (and IMDB doesn’t list them on Fincher’s page). If I were Fincher, I don’t think I’d want to commit to the whole series, especially since Lisbeth kind of becomes more unknowable by the 3rd.

But here’s another gushing bit of praise: Christopher Plummer. This is the second great role I’ve seen him in this year (last summer’s Beginners). As the head of the nightmarish Vanger clan and the one who hires Mikael to figure out the mystery, he’s both funny and ominous about the details of the family history. It wasn’t necessarily a big role for him, but I thought he nailed it. Actually, considering how few Swedish actors they used — Stellan Skårsgard was the only major one — everyone, including Robin Wright, looked satisfyingly Swedish to my American eyes.

JMM: Okay – let me catch my breath for a second and gather my thoughts …. okay – First I agree that Fincher, Craig and Mara would be wrong to do sequels. Even though I’d love to see them again. But I’ll let go of that.

Second Plummer – I can still hear that line inside my head – “You’ll be investigating thieves, misers, bullies. The most detestable collection of people you will ever meet- my family.”. Yeah, Plummer was marvelous. Nailing the role as you say – and a complete departure from the original. The Swedish Vanger seemed meeker, frailer, and less dynamic.Third – the non-Swedish cast? Once the decision is made to do the American version, then the necessity of more Swedes in no longer necessary. They’re going to be speaking English, so anyone is in play.Okay, I’ll toss one to you – Lisbeth seems to pick up the girl in the bar – She sits there, sending out a visual ‘I’m interested’, and moments later she has her hand between the girl’s legs. Did this surprise you – did you see her as the sexual aggressor?

Didion: Actually, that completely worked for me. It’s a bit of a fantasy, I think, that a woman might recover from being brutally raped that she’d engage in sex so quickly (and with a man, later, when she seduces Mikael). But that’s a fantasy that belongs to Steig Larsson, the book’s author.Larsson wanted a heroine who was absolutely iconoclastic. She heads to that gay bar because she likes sex and wants to enjoy herself. It’s a nice scene in which she takes back her own sexuality and has sex how and with whomever she pleases. Again, just because most women would be traumatized after what Lisbeth has been through doesn’t mean that this scene didn’t work; for me it seemed yet another instance of Lisbeth taking control of her life, not letting other people rule her.

JMM: Lisbeth didn’t ‘seduce’ Mikael. It was more like she jumped on him. He crawls into bed, unaware that she’s taking off her clothing, and to me, he was genuinely surprised. I also didn’t think it was a gay bar. But I agree that she was taking control, if not of her sexuality, than  certainly of her emotional state.

Didion: Fair enough!

You mentioned above that you thought it wasn’t better than the Swedish version — and on that we disagree. I thought this one had a more disappointing Mikael, and told a better tale. I also liked it that this one showed more of Lisbeth’s dogged pursuit of Wennerström’s money at the very end. Why didn’t you think this one trumped the earlier version?

JMM: First of all, they solved the case far too easily. Did Mikael figure the Old Testament angle in the book or in the first one? I didn’t like that he moved right ahead – after his daughter gave him the clue when she said – the bible references as she was boarding the train.

Didion: I think in the book it was Mikael’s religious daughter who solves the bible verse question; in the first film it was Lisbeth. A quick note: I don’t know my bible very well, but this aspect of the story never seemed persuasive to me. Does anyone refer to bible verses in telephone-number format? But that’s a side issue.

JMM: Okay – And I disagree about Lisbeth’s ‘dogged’ pursuit of Wennerstrom. She said she’d already dug into him, and when she asked Mikael for the money, she already knew everything. What was left was the execution of stealing the money – not the pursuit of finding it.

As for the actual references – it was a short hand – she left out the book, the chapter, the verse. But back to why I didn’t think the new version trumped the old one. The ending – I kind of liked that he had to go to Oz (Australia) to find Harriet in the old one. This new ending was a nice twist – but maybe it was a cost saving twist, as well as being  completely new.

Didion: I liked that twist too. And goddamn, if Joely Richardson as the London financier/Vanger relative wasn’t amazing. It’s fabulous that she’s such a ringer for her gorgeous mother, Vanessa Redgrave; but here she uses a slight twitch in her eye to convey that big emotions are passing through as she hears news of the family. Amazing. And I was fooled — that’ll teach me for being such a Larsson completist.If I were going to quibble, I’d point out that there’s something a little too easy about the idea that Harriet assumed her cousin’s identity. But whatever.Here’s a more valid quibble (but it matters to me, anyway): the chess scene! Early on Lisbeth is bringing a copy of Bobby Fischer’s book on chess to her former guardian, indicating that she knows from chess. But at the very end when they play a game, their first moves — to shift the rook pawns (at the edges of the board) into play — are the dumbest of all possible first moves. Was there no one on that set who’d ever played chess??

JMM: I missed the eye twitch. Very good on your part to have noticed. The whole guardian gambit was a bit confusing. When she visited him I wasn’t sure who he was. In the original Lisbeth got a call announcing that he had a stroke, and was being replaced – did she get this call in the Fincher version?

Agree on the chess  – but if we consider that (Palmgren) made the first move, and he had the stroke, maybe it was rationalized that way….

Didion: That raises a really good question: is this film, as well as the Swedish version, written and produced for fans of the books? I may be so inside the box that I can’t rightly tell.

It seems to me that Fincher was in a tight spot. I mean, look at the film versions of popular books with millions of crazed fans — shall we call this Harry Potter syndrome? or, at the risk of alienating many of my own readers, Pride and Prejudice syndrome? — directors are left trying to figure out how much of the original plot elements and/or dialogue to include.

Fincher had to explain how Lisbeth ended up with that appalling Bjurman as her guardian without distracting us from the real story, which was the mystery inside the mystery. So, JMM, do you think this film is intended for fans of the books, or is it also just a great stand-alone film?

JMM: I think you are asking a series of questions. The motive for making the film. That’s easy – the producer Scott Rudincould easily see that book sales (65 million copies) far exceeded the amount of money that the Swedish film and sequels took in. That could mean but one thing – many more people would see the film if they didn’t have to bother with subtitles.

Didion: Here’s my own opinion: Fincher is a total top-shelf director who gets to choose his projects. And although he’s best-known for his films that deal with manliness on interesting levels — Seven, Fight Club, The Social Network, even The Curious Case of Benjamin Button — he’s also regularly done film projects about some awesome kick-ass women (Panic Room, Alien III).

I wouldn’t be surprised if he read the book and/or saw the Swedish version and said to himself, “I love this Lisbeth Salander. I can turn this into a phenomenal film.” That is, I doubt mere ticket sales entered into his thinking, because he doesn’t need to care a whole lot about that, especially after the crazy success of The Social Network — and I’ll bet he just started to imagine how to make a great film with a great heroine that tells a great story.

JMM: Okay, I have to back off then because I don’t really know who first got the idea. But back to your other thoughts. Bjurman being added was a decision made by the authorities in Sweden. If we think about that – Lisbeth would get whoever was assigned. She’s have no part in that decision. It was her bad luck to get one of those ‘Men Who Hate Women’.

Finally – the third part of your question – Yes the film does work as a stand alone. It isn’t necessary to know the story or to have seen the originals to enjoy this one. Although knowing the story certainly helps you. Didion, have a look at this image – and tell me what you think when you see it —

Didion: I’m struck by how giant Craig appears next to the teeny Mara, and how trepidatious they both appear.. And I’m embarrassed to say that I can’t quite remember when this scene took place in the film. What do you think this scene conveys?

JMM: I don’t recall the when either. But I think it is clearly before they had sex. But maybe not. But I just like the look of it. Mara seems a bit more closed in than Craig does in the shot. But maybe it was just a scene in the transitional sense. And only that.

Didion: Okay, I’ve got a scene for you:

Mikael has been shot at, and there’s a lot of blood coming out of that head wound — especially because he’s been running away. I loved, lurved this shot, and it makes so much sense that it immediately precedes the sex between them. In any other film this would have been a tender moment of clarifying their gender roles: brave, injured man allows gentle, care-giving woman to care for and heal him. But this one is vintage Lisbeth: she takes a reel of dental floss, “sterilizes” it with some vodka, jams the bottle into Mikael’s hands, and starts stitching him together in the most efficient, unsentimental and brutal way imaginable. No bedside manner whatsoever. Loved it — because it jars your memory of all those other fixing-wounded-men scenes, and imprints Lisbeth on you in the most vivid way.

JMM: Wow. I loved that scene too. The physicality sets us up for the sex that followed (even though Blomqvist was still surprised). When you mentioned other films about a female care-giver, I immediately dredged up Lara from Dr. Zhivago in her war nurse time. But you‘re right about it establishing and clarifying Lisbeth. To me it WAS standard Lisbeth. Full throttle – no concern about to how to do it – only that is was necessary and needed to be done asap.

Didion: Actually, your thoughts there make me think about the sex in a slightly different way, and you’ve reminded me that when she unceremoniously jumped him, he’d been in the middle of fretting about the case, their safety, his own pain. I remember thinking, as she climbed on top, “Well, that will get his mind off the pain.”That is, I don’t think she jumped him as a Lisbeth version of caregiving — I really do think she just wanted some sex (after all, stitching him together may have been the first human contact she’d had since much earlier with the hot woman from the bar), but it was also helpful to get Mikael to shut up already about the pain/the case/their safety.

JMM: Well we won’t have an answer to the why – shutting him up, easing his pain, or just that she needed the sex. All or any worked and fit.Taking us back away from sex for the moment – I liked both Stellan Skårsgard and Steven Berkoff as Frode. I considered both a vast improvement over their predecessors in the original.  What about you – about Berkoff as you’ve already mentioned Skårsgard…

Didion: Oh yeah — he was fabulous. I especially liked it that as the Vanger family lawyer he appeared somewhat inscrutable, even suspicious at times. He really helped to add to the general atmosphere of the film as full of memorable faces and shadowy motives. Really, the entire supporting cast was amazing.I’ve always loved Fincher’s films for their use of lighting and atmosphere. One of the other reviewers you quoted above complained that the film was overly cold; but I loved the sets (that Vanger family compound-qua-island was just perfection) and the fact that so much of the film takes place in winter, with snow falling.

(There’s even a lovely scene in which Lisbeth says, “It’s Christmas again,” and you think to yourself, wow, that’s the weirdest Christmas moment in film history.) And let me say how much I liked it that the scenes from 1966, when Harriet Vanger disappears, scenes during which Fincher uses a washed-out Kodachrome-style color that looks old but cutesy or fake. The original Harriet was also a perfect casting decision.

JMM: The supporting cast was indeed terrific. Even Armansky was an upgrade.

Didion: Yes! Good for Goran Visnjic, who also made a great move from Beginners to GWTDT! He looks excellent in grey hair, IMHO.

JMM: As for the winter aspect – that’s what makes the story great. This couldn’t have worked on a Caribbean island. As for the flashback to 1966 – this had to be done that way – the washed out look seems to takes us back in time. At least it does for me.

But to bring you back to the winter – and this will be a philosophical question about Larsson’s motives – When  Skårsgard’s character is discussing (maybe ‘bragging’ about his earlier victims) he uses the term ‘immigrant women’ and says that no one will care for or miss them. And when Mikael is talking with Harald – it is Harald who describes himself as the most honest man in Sweden – is this Larsson taking his countrymen to task for their not so hidden racial and ethnic philosophies – and is this an off-shoot of having to endure long and severe winters – that the Swedish society had more indoor time on their hands … ??

Didion: I wish I could say for certain — sadly, I know just enough about Swedish cultural politics to make me dangerous. With the hope that Scandinavians will write in to comment and correct me, I’ll say that Swedish crime fiction seems to me fascinatingly obsessed with the theme of how a vision of “traditional” Swedish culture is having to come to grips with a new reality of multiculturalism, immigrants of many colors, and social change. And all of this has dredged up truths about the Swedish past that many people would prefer to keep buried — the the large number of open Nazi sympathizers among the population, etc. Anti-immigrant action and violence has reminded many Swedes of an ugly past they wish would go away. In that respect, I think Larsson’s GWTDT is of a piece with contemporary anxieties.I’m not convinced this has anything to do with the long winters. And I’m not sure Swedish winters are any harsher than those in Massachusetts or Chicago (many Europeans are appalled by what New Englanders/North-Midwesterners live with). Swedish winters are darker, though, that’s for sure — much closer to the North Pole.Interesting that this anti-immigrant posture comes up in a European context. I hadn’t considered that perhaps Fincher is also slipping in a warning to Americans about their own anti-immigrant tendencies, and where they lead. This isn’t altogether convincing, but who knows?

JMM: Okay. Maybe this is too far reaching a topic for us to go any further with it. Just thought I’d ask. Back to the film – and we can begin our descent towards closing – What was your favorite scene?

Didion: Whew. This is a tough one, but let me say three things: 1) the scene in which Lisbeth stitches Mikael up, natch. 2) The scene in which she enacts her revenge on Bjurman. Which requires some explanation: it’s a tough scene to watch, but what I liked was how clearly she had planned out every possible way to prevent him from ever, ever touching her again. She laid out the new terms for their relationship in an almost unemotional way and had covered every single possibility for his resisting. I could live without the scene of her tattooing him, but who doesn’t love the idea that such a man is now permanently scarred with details of his own crimes?

And third: I loved the fact that this film was so creepy, so thrilling, so nerve-wracking that I shivered through the entire thing and walked out of the theater in serious need of some yoga. It’s the perfect filmic version of a creepy, thrilling, can’t-put-it-down book.

How ‘bout you? Do you have a favorite scene, or three?

JMM: Of course, I wouldn’t have asked if I hadn’t. The first is within the revenge scene – when she says, if the terms weren’t met or if she was harmed that the video would be uploaded to the net. Second, when Berger is at the cottage and she heads off to the bedroom, strips down, and asks Mikael if he’s coming to bed, and he gets up and heads in instantly. And Three – I think when Bjurman gets into the elevator and finds he’s locked up in a small space with Lisbeth. He correctly figures she’s already got the stun gun in hand, so he can do nothing. It is here that Lisbeth tells him that if she finds him with another woman, she will kill him. That was my single favorite moment.

Didion: Oh! you’re too right about that elevator scene. My favorite part: that he was literally shaking in his boots during it — yet again the scene reversed the typical gender dynamics of such a moment, as it’s usually it’s the raped/traumatized woman who’s got to face her victimizer, which feels yet again like a kind of assault. Loved it.

So if I had to conclude, I’d say again: loved the film, loved Mara’s Lisbeth, loved the story-like-a-house-on-fire, loved the scenery/moodiness, loved the feminism. I’m so-so on Daniel Craig, chesty as he is. I’m not sure I’ll buy the DVD — I rarely do — but I’ll probably watch this film three more times when it comes out on DVD. One final thing: go see it in the theater, because it’s worth seeing all that snowy dark creepiness on a big screen. After seeing with only 12 other fans, I’m concerned it’s not going to hit the box office numbers it needs/deserves.

Any final thoughts?

JMM: I attribute the sparse crowds in your theater to the fact that it just a few days before Christmas. However that doesn’t explain the nearly packed theater that I saw the film in.  I expect the numbers to increase post Christmas. But my brother did state that the survey stated that ¾ of the women surveyed were NOT hot to see the film. Quite possibly the reason for that is that they won’t or can’t go to a film that includes a very graphic rape. Even though Lisbeth has her revenge later on.I’m sure I will buy the DVD.I will also say that I loved the film too. Whether or not I think it is better than, same as, or less than the original is really a separate question. My last thought was that the opening imagery was truly creepy – maybe this was a part of the reason you have used the word ‘creepy’ so often.

Didion: So, JMM, here’s to a film that gets us all off to a very interesting start to the holiday season! Hope yours is full of eggnog and spice cookies and fattening foods, and less inflected with the rape/revenge/Nazism/terror of a Swedish winter with Lisbeth. I, for one, found this film to be a refreshing palate-cleanser for all the saccharine holiday movies and Little Drummer Boy music I’ve been hearing. And now I’m fully prepared for a happy visit with the family.

Feliz Navidad! and enjoy what I hope are easy travels, as this is a terrible time of year for travelling.

JMM: I wish you a happy holiday too. I’m hoping to avoid snow in Northern Connecticut. As for the holiday fattening foods, I probably won’t be able to avoid them. But I’m fairly certain I won’t seen any rapes or Nazi’s in Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy, or The War Horse, or Ghost Protocol.

Didion: That’s the best holiday wish of all: that we both might see some excellent new films. I’ll drink to that. (And I hope to do a very great lot of drinking for the holidays.) Cheers, and I’ll see you on the flip side.

JMM: See ya!

15 thoughts on “The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo – A Review/Discussion

  1. Industry reports so far indicate that the first draft of the screenplay for the sequel has already been written . Last week Fincher said that if he directs a sequel, he’d prefer to film both the second and third films back-to-back in Sweden next year. Of course, Fincher has also committed to several other projects, including a remake of 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea and an original miniseries for Netflix, so I think it all depends on how well this Tattoo fares at the box office.

    About the review, I wasn’t sure who said what…but your joint reviews are usually in agreement on most aspects, so it’s no big deal. I would like to see at leat one split decision in the future.

    • Oh, awesome! let’s hope Fincher’s involved. He’s got a great touch for this material, and I can only hope that Mara’s willing to suspend her life to throw herself again into a pretty painful role. Noomi Rapace has discussed how difficult it was to come out of that very dark place of being Lisbeth for three full films.

      And I’d like to insist that we disagreed quite a bit on last summer’s Larry Crowne, which I only begrudgingly did not quite call “garbage.” But I’m thinking now I was not nearly obstreperous enough about it, and promise to be as obnoxious as possible on the next film we review jointly! I look forward to thinking of myself as Bad Cop.

      • Mara would be involved — you can’t really change the main character. Fincher’s a maybe (waiting to be asked), Craig is willing if they can work around his Bond committment.

        Yes, it would be OK if you guys continue on as the odd couple of film reviews, but the good cop/bad cop partnering would be even more irrisistable.

      • Yes we could do a good cop bad cop review – but we usually pick in advance a film we both want to see – meaning we are both pre-disposed to review it favorably. What we need is an independent selection – not necessarily one that requires that one of us be dragged kicking and screaming in protest to a theater. Lets wait for the early spring releases – then see what could be intriguing.

  2. Thanks for the update on a possible Fincher involvement in Hornet’s Nest, and Played With Fire.

    How about a quick bit of dream casting of the roles – Kelsey Grammer based on his recent Boss series on the Starz network as Teleborian, Tim Roth as Zalachenko, and Emma Thompson as Blomqvist’s sister – the attorney Annika Giannini? I don’t have any idea about who could play Niedermann.

    BTW – In the original trio of Infernal Affairs films from Hong Kong – the second and the third came out a scant few months apart. And didn’t Peter Jackson shoot the Lord of the Rings trio back-to-back-to-back?

    As for ‘split decisions’ – we can’t plan for them. But it will happen one day… seems inevitable..

  3. Great discussion here, I’m glad I stopped by.

    On the filming of the rape scene: I actually saw it a little differently. I did not consider that Fincher is avoiding showing the violence of Lisbeth getting tied up. I actually felt as though Fincher was teasing his audience with the possibility of not showing the scene at all. I thought that the scene would end with the cut away from the door. The second cut even has a fade out. But he steals away the luxury almost cruelly. After the fade, it’s a relief that I don’t have to watch the scene, because the scene is over. But of course it was not over. That, to me, significantly intensified the scene for me.

    Either way, I really enjoyed this discussion.

    Chris (Gutenfilm)

    • Thanks Chris – I didn’t mean exactly that he was avoiding it – although some part seemingly was skipped – but instead my thought was that he took the camera out of the room intentionally – if only for a ‘break’ in the action.

      If anything we had to see what happened to Lisbeth, in order to know the why and what that was part of the revenge scene.

      Thanks for stopping by and commenting.

  4. That was an incredibly distinctive move, wasn’t it? And yet look at how even just the two of you disagree — JMM seems it as possibly a veiling of the violence, if only temporarily, and Chris sees it as a tease that makes the violence more intense.

    I wonder if what’s going on there is that Fincher is saying to us viewers: look, I know this is tough. That one moment — breaking away from the rape scene to show us the closed door — gives us a breather but also shows that the director is aware of how hard this stuff is to see. When he comes back to it, there’s nothing less awful about what we have to see, but somehow that little tap on the shoulder from the director (“I know, I know, but this is crucial to the plot”) makes the visual horrors just a little easier to watch.

    Please tell me what you think, and let me know if you’ve ever seen anything like this before. I’m thinking about writing more at length about it.

    • Well – the interrupted violence can actually be as Chris describes it – a way of teasing the viewer. My brother says it is a standard technique to heighten the visceral impact. You think you might see it, then you think maybe you won’t see it, then you do see it and it is all the more intense because of the interruption rather than seeing it straight through.

      In the Swedish version which I just looked at again before responding – Bjurman threatens to notify the authorities that if Lisabeth doesn’t accede to his wishes, he’d submit a report that would likely cause Lisabeth to be institutionalized. So she was between a rock and hard place. But since she brought the concealed camera with her, she had already set her plan in motion and now she had to allow herself to be raped which was her plan all along..

      Bjurman waits for her to set down her bag (in the right place), then she takse off her jacket, then she turns around. Bjurman punches her in the face, tosses her onto the bed, reaches into the drawer, applies the handcuffs then gets off of her and backs away. Lisabeth remains in the shot while Bjurman backs out of camera range. It isn’t a closed door, but the effect is the same – it is a temporary break.The camera REMAINS in the room and we watch Lisabeth struggle on the bed. When he returns into the camera’s view, he has the ropes and he proceeds to tie her legs and now she’s immobilized. All of which is shown. Then he commences the rape.

      Fincher took the camera out of the room and the door closed. I didn’t think that it wouldn’t happen, but I thought we might not see it. I guess I meant that compared to the Swedish version we did get a break… and it did veil some of the violence. But it is also true, that it did make it even worse of what followed and what we did see. My point was/is that it was a break to see ‘less’. But the fact is that it was essentially the same set up as what Fincher did only without the closed door.

      In Fincher’s Se7en – we didn’t see what had happened to Brad Pitt’s wife. Well they couldn’t show it because they couldn’t physically do that specific act. We only discovered what had happened to her for ourselves when the box was opened. In that case without showing us the specific act – we were still horrified.

      It’s not quite the same but it proves both points – you don’t have to see ALL the violent action to make it all the more intense. But you do appreciate NOT seeing it all.


  5. About the rape scene, I’d forgotten that Fincher moves the viewer away from the physical violence against Lisbeth, but he does not move away from the sexual violence; in fact, if I’m recalling this correctly, he moves the camera in really close.

    Also, what’s your take on Lisbeth asking Blomkvist’s permission to kill Martin Vanger?

    A very interesting and insightful discussion, and thanks for the “Like” on my post.

  6. Hi Neil
    you are correct – he backed away from one kind of violence then got closer for the other.

    The request by Lisbeth seemed to take me by surprise – I’m not positive about what was the point – but it does occur to me that this was how Fincher solidified the bonding between Lisbeth and Blomqvist as if the sex and she saving him from the killer were not enough. That’s my interpretation. What’s yours?

    Thanks for signing on to follow !!!


  7. I guess one interpretation would be the perspective of the surrogate father-daughter relationship between Blomqvist and Lisbeth. But I also think it can be viewed as Lisbeth showing the lengths to which she will go to protect the man she has come to love (she also delivers justice to Blomqvist by stealing from the magnate, which is reinforcement of this idea), or Lisbeth’s asking of permission could be a sign of her seeking Blomqvist’s approval, a need to please the man in her life (but this doesn’t sit well with me as it diminishes the power of her motivations).

  8. Although I’m a fan of Fincher, having just watched both his version and the original Swedish version back-to-back within a few days, I have to say that the Swedish version is not only more faithful to the book, it’s a more satisying film in virtually every way (to paraphrase a line from the movie).

    Since Fincher had the advantage of remaking an existing film, it’s hard to understand why he didn’t do a better job. Compared to the original film,
    Fincher’s version, which adds a cliche concocted dead cat, a bible scholar daughter who solves the key clue instead of Lisabeth (as in the Swedish movie), fails to follow the clues all the way to Australia (as in the book), and does not provide the key backstory of why Lisabeth was originally committed to a psychiatric hospital, seems watered-down .

    Most disappointing of all, my wife and I found the Swedish subtitles much easier to follow than the English version, which is quite a feat of bad direction. Although Roony Mara delivered an excellent performance, which I’m sure Fincher deserves some credit for, the Swedish actress did even more with the role. The same is true for Daniel Craig’s performance, Very good, but inferior to the Swedish actor who originated the role.

    To summarize, the Girl with the Dragon Tattoo in Swedish is a masterpiece. Fincher’s version is an excellent example of why a foreign film that’s remade in English does better at the box office domestically, even though it may be FAR inferior in quality. A sad commentary on American movie audiences.

    • Of course satisfaction as well as what gives satisfaction differs from person to person.

      I felt that the daughter solving the biblical clues was a mere shortcut. If anything it allowed Blomqvist and Lisbeth to solve the case far too quickly. Which was a bit of a downside. So I agree with that.

      The tortured dead cat may indeed be a concocted cliche – but it was basically a throwaway moment in the film designed to show something about what kind of evil Mikael and Lisbeth were facing. So it wasn’t a big minus for me.

      The fact that the Fincher version did not find Harriet in Australia made it different but not necessarily worse. I liked seeing the Outback in Oz where Blomqvist found Harriet in the original, but once again we shouldn’t make more of that choice – than it is. If you want a strict adherence to the original source material than it does count as a missing item toward your satisfaction. But I didn’t watch the Fincher film for that.

      Last – the fact that Lisbeth came from a broken home and that when she tried to burn her father was in the first of the Swedish films – but by doing that, the impact of the same scene in the second film was watered down. So maybe one might think that this was a mistake of the original film.

      As far as the original film not doing big box office here in the states, that is disappointing. But that’s a whole different item. It seems as though English speakers in foreign locales or English subtitles is inherently a lose/lose situation.

      Not everyone likes the chore of reading subtitles, and quite often actors are taken to task. I always recall Leonardo Di Caprio being criticized for his South African/Rhodesian/Zimbabwean accent in Blood Diamond. The alternatives are subtitles, actors trying to emulate, or why not just up and change the whole film’s location – like Scorsese did when he moved Infernal Affairs from Hong Kong to Boston and called it The Departed.

      How did you react to that transference?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s