Girl With a Dragon Tattoo (the American version) is based on the wildly popular book of the same title, written by Stieg Larsson.
I’ve heard rave reviews about the movie, but I found it rather tedious for a thriller. I also thought it was more than disturbing and rife with nihilism. Of course evil and darkness exist and should be discussed, but there are different ways of doing that. This movie seems to celebrate darkness even though the main characters are trying to catch a killer. (Also, the rating probably should have been NC-17 rather than R.)
Lisbeth Salander, the “heroine,” calls herself insane, and she’s at least disturbed. I’m sure some people like her because she can take care of herself, in the sense that if people mess with her, they will pay. But she is also not concerned about legalities or morality. Of course, not many of the characters seem concerned about morality.
I came away from the movie thinking about a quote I discussed with my mom recently. It’s one that seems applicable, perhaps especially because it has many interpretations. It is, ”The best revenge is living well.” In the words of Sherlock Holmes, “Food for thought!”
18 comments
Comment by Jean on January 14, 2012 at 11:00 am
The movie is based on a Swedish book, so it has Swedish morality in it. they have a different standard than the US. Please do not judge other people. What is OK for Sweden may offend people in other countries. If you had read the books and gotten a glimpse of life in Sweden, then don’t be offended.
Comment by Laurel on January 14, 2012 at 12:47 pm
I know the book is originally Swedish, and was translated into English. I also know there’s a Swedish version of the movie. I did try to read the book, but wasn’t able to finish it at that time.
I was not offended by the movie, and I am not judging Sweden or Swedish people. My comments are about the American version of the movie and not intended to be seen as judging Swedish morality.
One thing that stood out to me, though, was Salander’s bugging of private lines and hacking e-mail. This is a big issue in America, since there is debate about whether even the government has the right to bug people to catch criminals.
Comment by Katherine on January 14, 2012 at 3:57 pm
Not sure if you knew this, but the Swedish title of the book is “The Men Who Hate Women,” which is much more descriptive of the story than the American “Girl With The Dragon Tattoo.”
My mom got me a copy of the first book last year for Christmas, and I immediately loved it, although it is quite graphic. I had to read the next two.
This year, my dad borrowed my copy of the first one when they visited for Thanksgiving. I told him to take the next two with him, but he refused, only to ask for them at Christmas.
I think that the violence in the book is justified. I haven’t seen the American movie, but I did watch all the Swedish films. I think people need to realize how horrible their fellow human beings can be.
And I’m so glad a female character like Lisbeth Salander exists, we need women who can take care of themselves and come to the rescue of men, even after living through horrible atrocities.
Comment by Laurel on January 14, 2012 at 5:11 pm
I did know that about the Swedish title. As I said, I tried to read the book but stopped after 100+ pages. It’s not that it started slow, as some people say (after all, I love classics, many of which “start slow”). I found the mystery to be rather predictable, and I did not find the characters particularly compelling.
It is important that people know how vile others can be, but it’s also important to see how kind people can be. Humans are, after all, complex and multi-faceted, which is why it’s such a mistake to try and label people.
Comment by seaofstories on January 16, 2012 at 9:07 am
“Humans are, after all, complex and multi-faceted, which is why it’s such a mistake to try and label people.”
It seems like this is precisely the point of the two main characters, Salander and Bloomquist.
Comment by Laurel on January 16, 2012 at 11:32 am
I do not get that from those characters. I find Blomkvist to be rather ineffectual and even shallow. And it’s his daughter who cracks the case for him.
Salander is more complex, but the character is also predictable. And it has become rather commonplace to tattoo and pierce oneself to show that one is “different.”
The character like Peter Mickelsson in John Gardner’s book Mickelsson’s Ghosts is far more complex.
Comment by seaofstories on January 16, 2012 at 1:20 pm
“But she is also not concerned about legalities or morality.”
While Salander is certainly not one to get hung up on legalities, given the way the legal system has treated her, why would she?, I beg to differ with your characterization of her morality. She’s a vigilante. By definition she operates outside the law. That doesn’t necessarily make her choices morally incorrect. No one has much of a problem with the concept of Bruce Wayne/Batman acting extra legally in pursuit of justice. There’s narrative tension created because you know that the only check on his behavior is an internal one.
Of course most characterizations of Batman don’t get anywhere near the anti-hero line that Salander walks all over.
Also, there are some structural challenges with the source material which are further complicated by the transition to film and as a result the origin story of the heroine and the full extent of what she’s up against isn’t really revealed until the second installment. As a result if a viewer doesn’t find her inherently compelling they’re not going to engage with the work.
I get where you’re coming from. There’s a lot of unplesantness layered on top of an imperfect structure so I can’t strongly disagree with people who didn’t enjoy the book or the films. But I do think that they have important things to say about women and society, the nature of law and justice, morality, corporate and governmental power, etc.
There’s the whole title change thing from “Men who Hate Women” to “The Girl With the Dragon Tatoo.” The original title asks a very big social question, Why do these men behave this way? while US title asks a very personal one, Who is this Girl? If you liked the first installment, that mystery will bring you back for the second. If you didn’t, it’s probably the biggest flaw in the story.
Comment by Laurel on January 17, 2012 at 7:14 pm
As I stated in a previous comment, I am aware of the original title. Whether or not I like a story is not going to change based on what the title is.
One of my problems with a character like Salander is that there are people, real people, who have gone through terrible experiences and managed to turn it out for good and not become vigilantes.
I’m also interested by the comparison of Salander and Batman/Wayne. Comic books superheros are supposed to be larger than life, in some sense or another. And Wayne initially becomes a vigilante to revenge his parents’ murder. However, he turns from his selfish plans and works to help others. Does this excuse his working as a vigilante? No, and that’s part of the tension of the story.
I cannot speak to this about Sweden, but in America there is no longer a real inequality between men and women. So to justify the actions of a character like Salander simply because she’s a woman who has been mistreated rings false to me. If the intent is to show how abuse can warp a person–man, woman, or child–that makes more sense.
Comment by seaofstories on January 18, 2012 at 9:28 am
If we’re actually going to draw distinctions between comic book characters and fictional characters who are somehow more ‘real’ – In what way is Salander not a comic book character? I mean besides the fact that she’s female and her breasts aren’t exploding out of the front of her costume. Which kind of speaks to the idea of the difference between legal equality and actual equality.
To your last point: I think the story is trying to work on both levels, personal and social. Whether it succeeds is up to the viewer/reader. The social issues get bigger in the second installment and we’ll learn that we don’t know the half of what Salander has been put through personally as well.
Comment by Marc on January 18, 2012 at 10:14 am
The added dimension I think Fincher brings to this story has to be pointed out especially the psychology of his frame.
For example: The office rape sequence contains an unusual high angle shot where a character appears upside down vertically. This shot that happens only one other time in the film but within the same visual passage and forms a visual melody.
Fincher had a choice to plant the camera anywhere in that room — behind either of the characters, on the side, in the corner, etc. The choice brings a deeper psychology to the character in the event creating the effect that they are lying down and the act is happening willingly from a perspective of the perpetrator.
Another high angle shot soon follows with first reveal of the dragon tattoo — one of the characters own self scars perpetrated on herself.
There’s deep examination from visual to sound design the ugly layers that lie in the dungeon of beautifully designed modern architecture. The film focuses on two people who fight despite their worlds — worlds that exist possibly because of each other.
Kubrick once said, “How could we possibly appreciate the Mona Lisa if Leonardo had written at the bottom of the canvas: ‘The lady is smiling because she is hiding a secret from her lover.” Nothing is written on the bottom of the film. In that way, visuals like the close up of the semi circular hook of an earring in an office to an expensive earring tumbling of one down the drain in the film’s final act bring a poetry that only moving pictures have.
Comment by seaofstories on January 18, 2012 at 2:37 pm
Marc,
I appreciate your thoughts. I’m a reader first so I tend to come at films from that perspective first. Strangely, when listening to music I don’t tend to “hear” the lyric’s first, but that’s another story.
Anyway, since I’m basically ignorant about cinematography, it’s nice to hear someone’s take on that technical relm and the choices the director is makeing because if I’m absorbing that at all in my viewing it’s very much a subconscious thing for me.
Film is fascinating to me, at least in part, because it’s such a collaborative combination of multiple arts and crafts: writing, acting, construction/design, photography, music, editing, etc.
I’m going to tangent to Holmes for a second because I found the choices there interesting. The music and the use of slow motion are jaring and over the top but, at least in my opinion, they serve the story perfectly. To me the music is a personification of the increasing industrialization of Holmes’ world, a very prominent plot point.
The disconnect between Holmes’ slow-motion analysis of future action and the ultimate reality that plays out illustrate his narcissism, remind us that there’s a difference between the story we’re told or that we tell ourselves and reality (we’re inside Watson’s type writer for all but the first and last scenes of the entire film), illustrate the futility of one man trying to control the future (much to Moriarty’s profit), and provide a way to explain the actual events above the falls without actually showing them on screen.
Comment by Laurel on January 18, 2012 at 8:57 pm
Marc:
There was some excellent cinematography in the movie, and I did note the odd camera angles in the scenes you mentioned. However, I do not believe that even the most beautiful cinematography can make a movie with a poor plot a good movie. If there is no story behind it, what is the point?
I’m not saying this movie was that bad, but I am saying that amazing camera angles and other tricks of cinematography are not going to make me like it. It is not a movie I can ever enjoy.
Comment by Marc on January 20, 2012 at 4:16 pm
Agreed, I do not believe that “tricks” or “style” make a good film. But I am a defender of artistic expression especially when done in the commercial constraints of Hollywood. Coincidentally, the Artist, a film I like and many others are applauding is full of stylistic “tricks” without depth or psychology.
On the Film’s Structure: On repeated viewing, it becomes clear that the film’s structure is more character: (1) characters apart in their worlds/ mystery is introduced
(2) characters together/mystery solved (3) the affect on the characters as the enter back into their worlds.
With this in mind, the heavy plodding in the first hour can be enjoyed as intentional in that they are less about plot than character studies. Blomkvist, as a journalist who has lost his reputation, is as lost as Salander is oppressed. And in the unveiling of the modern Sweden through it’s most influential family their worlds are revealed to exist because of each other.
Gender Reversals: One interesting aspect is the non moralistic depiction of a non monogamous relationship with Erika and Mikhal. His relationship to Lisbeth is on her terms and without any emotional attachment as seen later in the film. Salander is introduced to a vulnerable Mikhal through investigation. She sees him shot and dresses his woulds. She comes to his rescue in the dungeon and in his professional life.
Of course, it isn’t my job to defend any film or force anyone to respect or like anything. But I am a defender against shallow criticism against artistic works especially when a painting or work of literature can be written off with a thoughtless “meh, I didn’t like it.” I’d point to the two oppsing articles for/against this film on ctzine, formalistic analysis of this film from the scanner suntimes blog, or numerous pieces by Sasha Stone.
Comment by seaofstories on January 23, 2012 at 7:59 am
By the end of the film I don’t believe that Salander’s emotional attachment to Blomkvist is zero.
Comment by Laurel on January 23, 2012 at 3:28 pm
Marc:
I agree with Seaofstories. While the relationship between Salander and Blomkvist begins on her terms, it would say it ends on his (for this movie at least) when he lies to her face and betrays her. She has saved his life and his career and yet he lies to her and goes back to what for him is probably safe and comfortable, as if their whole interlude meant nothing to him. I felt that the end of the movie–when Salander buys him the jacket as a present, then throws it away when she realizes he’s lied to her–is the moment of strongest genuine emotion in the movie. It was striking because he’s supposed to be one of the “good guys,” yet he lies to her without hesitation. It is yet another act of betrayal she must deal with.
Comment by seaofstories on January 23, 2012 at 5:26 pm
I’m sure she felt betrayed but I’m not sure he lied to her exactly.
Comment by Laurel on January 23, 2012 at 6:19 pm
Doesn’t she ask him what he’s doing later, and he says, “Seeing my daughter,” or something like that? Then when she goes back, she finds out it’s not his daughter that he’s seeing.