Let’s talk about The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo (Män som hatar kvinnor). I decided to see it, on a lark, the other night and found myself uniquely positioned to experience what I’ve been told is an modern literary-classic-turn-film-turned-American-adaptation. Let me first point out that my foreknowledge of this film was nonexistent. I’ve never seen the original nor read the source material. I hadn’t seen any of the trailers or been told the synopsis. I actually had no intention of seeing it until someone invited to pay for my ticket to go. So I went in with a clean slate.
She's got tats, piercings, the eyeliner, and died hair. This could have gone either way. screenrant.com
And I have to say that I’m thoroughly impressed. Granted, I had no idea what I was in for when I entered the theatre and all of my suppositions were based on the posters of the Swedish films with the angsty girl. When I first heard about the movie some months ago, my thought process was something like this:
So there’s a girl. And she’s got a dragon tattoo. Does the tattoo come alive or maybe give her powers? Maybe that’s why she wears the mohawk in all of the posters… because she’s got a dragon tattoo curse?
That was seriously my thought process heading in and it turns out the truth is weirder than fiction. Stieg Larsson, author of the books, has been dead since 2004. Apparently, if Wikipedia can be trusted, Larson’s three novels were posthumously printed. As if that’s not crazy enough, the author was driven by the guilt of witnessing a gang-rape when he was fifteen. The victim, Lisbeth, is who the main character is named after. Wow.
Interestingly enough, the dragon tattoo was not often featured in the film. I don’t know if it had some literary significance that was lost in translation or if it was more making a statement on the title character, Lisbeth. My money is on the latter. I can’t speak for Swedish social norms, but people make assumptions about a girl with any kind of tattoo. Whether she is meant to embody them, exceed them, or fall somewhere in between is for the viewer to decide.
Anywho, this movie is looooooooong. Clocking in at a staggering 2 hours and 40 minutes this film has a noticeable girth. Fortunately it’s in the best way. Without spoilers I can say that the film is a crime-thriller. We find ourselves introduced to Mikael, a journalist for an independent magazine that has just lost a libel suit against a CEO he investigated. Depressed and jobless, Mikael takes on a private job for a former industrialist: find out who killed his grand niece in the 1960′s. It’s a fascinating tale of unfolding secrets and characters studies as Mikael connects the dots. I could tell that this movie was based on a novel. Its plot twists really feel like it was meant to be given the kind of detail you usually can’t afford on the big screen.
This is where the films length turns out to be an advantage. I was concerned that I wasn’t going to get a conclusion to the story until the second or even third film. Keep in mind that all I knew was this movie was based on the first book in a series and since it was a full hour before the protagonists were even introduced to each other, I had my concerns.
Concerns allayed. I got to have a complete beginning, middle and end. Daniel Craig was fantastic. Still, Rooney Mara’s Lisbeth stole the show. Strong, proactive, and not afraid to kick some ass when necessary. All in all I thought it was very well put together. While there is more than one naysayer out there willing to trash talk American remakes, you have to give credit where credit’s due. David Fincher has a winning record (Seven, Fight Club, The Social Network) and the source material gave him a lot to work with.
I recommend this film to everyone, children excluded. The film is rated R for a reason. There is strong sexual content and at least one act of sexual violence. Even outside of that the subtext about what men do to women is pretty blatant. Still, all of it makes for a better film.
I find it interesting that the original title translates to “Men Who Hate Women.”
The title is spot on for the content of the film. There is a lot of misogyny happening here. Not just sexism, but straight up men who hate women. Some of it is pretty graphic too.
I enjoyed the movie too and the director took earnest efforts to follow the book plot with few exceptions. I appreciated the Swedish version too. I find this Lisbeth has a bit more sex appeal (as do all the characters) in this version. I felt a certain weariness at points though (speaking of the girth of the film), but perhaps that is because I am so familiar with the plot, it periodically felt like I was having a conversation with that friend who keeps telling the same story over and over. I will say they did a very good job with that end scene where Blomkvist is walking off with his long-time partner and Lisbeth rides away on her bike. Your heart sinks in the book and the snowy dark setting was great for that clench of the heart.
You know, I was thinking the same thing about the sex appeal. From the photos I’ve seen of the original Lisbeth did seem sexier. And when she puts on the blonde wig she even pulls off super-model sexy. I guess that’s just what we do when we bring on the American goodies.
*Spoilers*
Also, I kind of got the feeling that it was going to turn out that way for Lisbeth. I got the sense that what they were doing was temporary because of the extraordinary circumstances of the investigation. Like when there is a huge storm and you have to hide in a strangers house or a school gym. It’s was a totally unnatural (though touching) connecting and the status quo was gonna kick in. At least that’s what I felt like. Honestly, it probably would have made less sense to me if they had stayed together (even though I secretly wanted it).
I just saw it last night and LOVED it. I’m a fan of the books and I’ve seen the Swedish film versions, which are very good, but I liked this one better. I think this casting of Lisbeth is superior because she’s more petite than Noomi Rapace (whose picture you have on your post – do you know that’s not the actress in the American version) and generally fits the novel’s description of Lisbeth better. It does drag a bit in the beginning, because there is so much to set up, but Fincher doesn’t skimp on important and interesting details like Oplev.
I also enjoyed the underlying critique of Sweden and a look back at their Nazi past. I can’t wait for the next two movies, which will get into this in a big way.
Yeah. I used Repace’s photo because that’s what I knew going into the film. Also, I saw her in Sherlock 2 and I wasn’t impressed. Was she better with a dragon tattoo on?
I enjoyed it as well. A good treatment of the Swedish version, it didn’t go over the top as so many American remakes will. The ending was slightly different and I preferred the Swedish one. Not as sentimental.
Re: Your thoughts about why the tattoo wasn’t featured very much
TJ mentioned the original title – I don’t think “Men Who Hate Women” could have been marketed well enough in the US or UK, which is too bad. The tat wasn’t featured very much because it’s not primary to the story (unlike the misleading, translated title would have you think.) You are right – misogyny is incredibly central to this book/movie, and becomes an even more important foundation for the plot in the next two.
Pingback: 2011′s Ten Best Films. Well, According to Rob Anyway.