Once
more with feeling
David
Fincher's The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is less a remake of
the 2009 Niels Arden Oplev movie than it is a 'reinterpretation' of
the Stieg Larsson books, for better or worse. Have not read the books
myself (I know, I know; should step out of the cave I stay in more
often), but from what I've seen of the Oplev movie and its sequels,
seems to me Larsson is driven more by passion than by any real skill
at storytelling, more concerned at following some fixed agenda (a
kind of ad hoc campaign against female victimization, with maybe just
a whiff of exploitation) than churning out a well-reasoned,
well-paced story.
We
know of the initial impulse that led Larsson to write his novel--the
girl whose assault he had witnessed at the age of fifteen, the
intense pity and self-disgust it inspired in him. You get
some sense of the emotional impact in the way he writes (or the way
Oplev channels Larsson's feelings to the big screen) of the assault
on eponymous protagonist Lisbeth Salander--and let's be honest, that
scene is one of the big draws of the story, on paper and onscreen.
Powerful scene, too, almost as powerful as Salander's subsequent and
no less violent response. You have to admire the way Larsson pushes
our buttons--we see the girl brutalized, we see her get a bit of her
own back. Feminism with a considerable dose of sadism, magnified by a
man's adolescent trauma.
My
problem with the scene (at least my biggest among many) is that it
occurs too early--after something like this you expect the story to
ratchet up the intensity, which it never really does: the rest of the
picture is a somewhat plodding procedural where Salander and
disgraced journalist Mikael Blomvkist slowly and painstakingly piece
together the clues leading to a serial killer. The relationship
between Salander and her rapist, actually her legal guardian, is
sidelined just when it seemed to be gaining momentum; instead of said
guardian functioning as the film's putative villain we get another
far more vague antagonist (a former Nazi, this being an
always-convenient label to hang on someone you want to present as the
bad guy). For the rest of the movie you wonder if Salander is
planning to pay her rotten legal guardian any more visits, give him
any more additional grief; as for the story's main mystery--well, I'm
not exactly paying attention, are you?
That's
pretty much what the movie boiled down to for me: Oplev's chilly
evocation of wintry Sweden, Larsson's erratically effective
storytelling, Noomi Rapace's larger-than-life rendition of
Salander. Rapace in my book is the best reason to see the movie: her
fire-breathing performance takes over the picture like napalm on
jungle growth and keeps one watching, no matter how attenuated and
overly complex the plotting gets.
Fincher,
I suspect, knew he couldn't find anyone who could match Rapace's
intensity, and went in a whole other direction. You get a different
vibe from Rooney Mara; she's altogether more frail, more delicate--a
deliberate choice, I'm guessing, as one is likelier to worry about a
heroine so evidently vulnerable than a heroine ready to kick ass.
Instead of a flawed, mostly tedious procedural upended by one actor's
larger-than-life presence, we have a more balanced effort where all
the elements come together in graceful harmony.
That's
the official agenda; Fincher's secret agenda, or at least the one I
saw (and enjoyed) watching this, is to modulate every
element--screenplay, cast, lead performance--so that the directing
will shine. Fincher was reportedly given the chance to adapt this
film, back when it was a relatively unknown Swedish thriller; now he
intends to do the right thing, and if not exactly wipe the memory of
Rapace off our collective minds, at least offer an alternate version
of what should have happened had he accepted the offer in the first
place.
Oplev's
film comes across as a bleak view of Sweden by one of its native
sons; Fincher's film comes across as no less bleak, but with the
unmistakable taint of beauty. The bridge; the falling snow; the
opaque, unyielding mansions housing opaque, unyielding people are all
there, yet somehow aestheticized. There is a color scheme--gray and
white for the wintry outdoors, warm fireplace glow for the indoors
and nostalgic past. And yet the scheme can be deceptive--in the
aforementioned past a young girl flees from her unknown tormentor; in
the cozily lit and heated house (Fincher uses vast panes of glass to
keep us aware of the surrounding cold), you hear a random sound and
the house-owner is forced to excuse himself, ostensibly to check on
some unfinished business...
That
unfinished business is of course a secret soundproofed chamber, lit a
clinical fluorescent white. Fincher quietly employs his lighting
scheme to illustrate one of the film's themes: inhospitable
environment besieging snug homes--said homes, in turn, housing hidden
corners of chilled corruption.
Against
this precisely constructed background Fincher presents his favorite
activity: intelligent men and women, indulging their obsessions (the
hunt for a serial killer). Fincher does what Oplev couldn't quite
manage: he makes the process of piecing together every news article
and photo, every interview and archival search, compulsively
watchable. He's pulled off this trick before on a larger scale, and
that 2007 film happens to be his masterpiece; repeating the trick
within the confines of an internationally best-selling story may seem
redundant...well, is redundant, but fascinating, nonetheless. Far
from Fincher's best work, but in my opinion superior to the Swedish
original, and worth watching.
First published in Businessworld, 2.2.12
4 comments:
Agree, better than the original. Although, I also have the extended edition of the original, which I haven't seen yet. Don't know how that cut will fare with Fincher's.
RSE
Can't see how an extended cut would make much difference. That said, you never know...
I didn't bother to finish the English version the Swedish I feel was much more true to life shows the lack of compassion and respect for women in European countries. the pace the atmosphere the conversations all let you feel what these characters felt as if you had been part of the investigation as well. not all audiences need a vulnerable female who is victimized then rescued by a man. we want lisbeth to exact revenge and the original film version gives us a lisbeth we believe capable of and satisfied by the actions taken against her aggressor. more interaction isn't necessary we are ready to proceed with the story In another direction.
I gotta admit, Rapace's Lisbeth was far more intense, far more feral. How vital that is to one's concept of the story, and one's own viewing experience depends. I do like Fincher's take for its style and not necessarily for its enhancement of the book; frankly he could have done better doing other material entirely.
Post a Comment