Stieg Larssen's novel "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo" (first published in Sweden in 2005, with the American edition following in 2008) is a fantastic read, well worth the attention spent on the multiple hundreds of pages of business espionage, intricate family history, computer intrigue and cold case mysteries that make up its story. Director Niels Arden Oplev's two-and-a-half-hour film adaptation manages to be simultaneously faithful to the content of the book and deeply, deeply problematic.Journalist Mikael Blomkvist has been convicted of libel charges against a prominent-but-shady titan of industry (the most scoundrelicious kind!) only to be hired by a prominent-but-upstanding titan of industry Henrik Vanger to investigate the forty-year-old murder of his niece. Initially hired to investigate Blomkvist prior to his engagement with Vanger, hacker extraordinaire Lisbeth Salander becomes fascinated with the research she uncovers in Blomkvist's computer and the two team up to unravel what begins to look like a decades-long series of ritualized killings.






I am by no means the "ZOMG MOVIES CAN NEVER MATCH BOOKS" dude when it comes to translating page to screen. I was the first of my group of pals to brave Peter Jackson's "The Fellowship of the Ring" and deemed it to be "awesome" when everyone else was predicting elf-flavored fantasy disaster. However, when the key source of tension in a story is derived from internal monologues and people looking up information on computers or in libraries, there are a lot of ways for a cinema adaptation to fall flat. Add in the fact that every storyline in "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo" involves the hideous abuse of women and a filmmaker has a very thorny path to navigate.

As is my habit, I'll address The Good Stuff first. For a movie that involves long stretches of characters researching stuff on computers and in libraries, "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo" isn't nearly as boring as it could be. There's a genuine sense of tension as Blomkvist pieces together grainy photos and unearths dusty documents. Any sacrifices of intricacy from the book aren't glaringly apparent, and are entirely excusable given the nature of the movie's run-time.

Noomi Rapace's portrayal of Lisbeth Salander is so pitch-perfect that I could swoon (I may, in fact, have swooned watching her on the big screen). Her character is deeply troubled and introverted, and could have come across as needlessly bitchy in the hands of a less skilled actress. Rapace conveys the sense of strength and pride that made Salander's character crackle in the novel. There are long stretches of text devoted to what's going on inside Salander's head in the book that make it a little easier to understand why she takes certain courses of action that seem a little--dare I say it--stupid on screen.

Which brings me to the bad. The original Swedish title of "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo" is "Men Who Hate Women," a title that really reflects the spirit and content of the movie. While the abuse suffered by Salander exists in both the novel and on-screen, there's a savagery to what she endures that's stomach-turning when put into visual form. Her voice is present in the book, as the reader begins to understand why she reacts to situations the way she does, but on-screen, she's made into a victim--a victim who gets suitably brutal revenge, but that doesn't erase her victimhood. In the novel, Salander's suffering sets up a chain of escalating suffering on the part of other women in the story, but the personalization of this violence on film makes what happens to her feel worse than the comfortably-distanced-by-time murders that are later revealed. Perhaps Salander's character, with her emotional volatility and extreme appearance, is Other enough for audiences not to resonate with her. I'm honestly a little surprised that more people don't react more strongly to this thread of storyline.

"The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo" allows its audience to be horrified by violence against women at the same time as it revels in the sexualized depiction of violence against women. The scenes of personalized violence against Salander sat sour with me and, while they do exist in the book, ultimately made the film adaptation uncomfortable to watch.
All this makes me wonder how "Fight Club"/"Se7en"'s David Fincher (a director not known for putting women front-and-center in his films) will handle the material.
Ah well--we'll always have the book, won't we?
11 comments:
I had pretty high hopes for this one. Never read any of the books but the trailers for each of the movies look pretty gritty. I also have The Girl Who Played With Fire on deck but after deeming Dragon Tattoo boring, I'm not in any hurry to follow it up.
I just thought it took too long to get where it was going and the sadism directed, specifically, at women was a huge turnoff since it seems like Larsson's world is populated entirely by rapists and victims. It just seems needlessly dark to me and an exaggeration to aid the plot.
I'm on the third book now - just bought it this weekend. I'm really into the Larsson series. Although I haven't seen the movie yet, I'm inclined to pre-emptively agree with you that this is one of those times where the adaptation to film really loses a lot. I had the same problem with Let The Right One In because there was so much going ON in that book and to try to cinematize it would have made for an epic film marathon. Although many of my friends much preferred the film to the book on that one.
I think I am one of those people who is always going to love the book more. I'm trying to think of a case where it was the reverse, and the only one I can think of is your example - Fellowship of the Ring. I'll keep pondering.
As luck would have it, I just finished up reading the novel this weekend. My reaction was similar to Cinema Suicides wrt the feeling that "Larsson's world is populated entirely by rapists and victims," though I wonder if maybe that misgiving is the result of my being a male reader. To be fair, Larsson does use a lot of statistics to show the pervasiveness of violence against women in Swedish society, so I suppose he might not be so against that characterization.
Wondering about the difference between reading with a male vs. a female pov, I also got to thinking about whether the fact that the author is male has some bearing. Seems like it would have to, in a way, but I haven't had enough coffee or done enough research to formulate a hypothesis. It does seem that there's always a danger when a male writes about violence against women that he might be accused of either consciously or subconsciously reveling in it to a certain degree, however fair or unfair that might be. I can see how taking that from verbal imagery to visuals would only amplify that problem/conflict.
I was also interested in what you said about Lisbeth's status as "other" here. Talking with another (female) reader of the book, I commented jokingly that apparently in Sweden, 50-year-old bookish guys get all the babes. She replied that she didn't see Lisbeth as a "babe," or even an attractive person, despite her being so strong, smart, and brave, and her insistence of being who she is without bending to societal norms (qualities high on my own personal list). I would have thought of Lisbeth as a strong female hero who would be celebrated, but again, this other reader seemed to find her too "other" to relate to.
Of course I overgeneralize, which is always bad.
Enough of my rambling, though. I'll be interested to see the movie, but I can't help thinking the American version is going to lose quite a bit in translation.
I will say that I really liked the movie and after talking to quite a few people about it I have observed something. Everyone that I talk to that read the book first is very disappointed by the movie and everyone I know that sees the movie firsts really likes the movie.
I read the book after seeing the movie and I can kind of see why people were disappointed. There is so much left out of the movie but I think the movie stands on its own as a really good flick if it isn't being compared to the book.
There was definitely some pretty brutal stuff in the movie but honestly I thought the depictions in the book were just as brutal. It was definitely stomach turning in the movie but I didn't think it was exploitative stomach turning though.
Of course, this is why I try to see movies before reading the book they are based on. If I read the book first I am almost always disappointed by the movie.
I haven't read the book, but I loved the movie. I'm down with spending two more movies with these characters.
I don't agree that the the movie is populated entirely by rapists. Blomqvist is certainly not one. Nor is the guy who hires him, Henry Vanger.
The sexual violence seemed of a piece to me, truth to tell. Brutal? Sure. Hard to watch? Undoubtedly. But thematically right. I don't think it's pitched at titillation, either. I would certainly wonder about anyone who got off on the sexual violence in this movie. They would not be someone I would want to know.
A little bit of coffee later...
@Dr. Morbius:
>>I don't agree that the the movie is populated entirely by rapists. Blomqvist is certainly not one.
SPOILER
No, but isn't he nearly a victim?
END
Still, it's clear that not everyone is a rapist--maybe it's just that's what we take away from the book, because the characters who are kind of overwhelm the other characters who aren't. The villains/monsters are always the most memorable, as they say.
Also, my choice of words in my earlier post might need a little 'splaining--I realize that "babe" is probably not the best designation here, what with all its connotations and baggage. I didn't mean to imply that to be a role model one had to be a "babe." I just meant that I found Lisbeth's strength and bravery and intelligence to be positive, attractive traits. Also, I was taking a bit of a mick at the author's possible fantasy-fulfillment with the Blumkvist character--of course maybe that's just the way things are in Sweden. :P
I've neither read nor seen this one, but have been interested in both.
It is possible that Larssen's view (as someone mentioned earlier) is not what he deems acceptable, but rather prevalent. It is my understanding (and I am way out of school here) that Kipling's "White Man's Burden" is how he saw the world was rather than as he thought it should be. The same could be said of Sade, whose villains treat women horribly, yet Sade openly campaigned for women's rights as a Revolutionary pamphleteer (this is included as part of "Philosophy in the Bedroom").
Obviously, I am not a proponent of keeping women down, but it is true that gender inequality is alive and well throughout the world. Being turned off by the book and/or film just might be Larssen's/Oplev's way of shoving it our face. Rather than making us say, "oh that poor girl," when Valerie Bertinelli gets smacked around in some Lifetime Original Movie© we are disgusted, and do not want to watch or accept what is being portrayed? If art does not challenge us, is it art?
CS, I'm inclined to agree with the observations of others here that Larssen isn't taking pleasure in creating a fictional universe where women are abused. It's a pulp world that turns on gender issues, and while it might not be the most enlightened/enlightening commentary on the topic, I think it works in novel form. Salander is such a fully-fleshed character that you begin to understand *how* she functions in this messed-up world. I also liked the mystery/crime procedural stuff enough that it balanced out the grimy bits. That having been said, if you found the book to be unrelenting in its world view, I really would advise avoiding the movie--it doesn't improve on that outlook one bit :/
Costuminatrix, I think you're like me in that you recognize the innate difference between the reading process and the movie-viewing process, and love each medium for what it has to offer. Books and films bring unique experiences to their respective audiences. I think this is why I have a hard time with the contemporary trend towards movies that are over two hours long--if I want that kind of scope, I'll read a novel! I prefer films to be concise and *visual*--take advantage of my eyes, please :) It's not so much a value judgement (better vs. worse) as it is a legit observation. I like adaptations of "Dracula" *in spite of* their being based on a novel that I like, not *because of*.
Vicar, you've left a lot to consider here--thanks for that! I think my own experience with the film is best characterized by your statement here:
"I can see how taking that from verbal imagery to visuals would only amplify that problem/conflict."
That's the crux of it. With everything *described* on the page in the novel, your imagination fills in the gaps of sadness/gruesomeness/badness for each character's experiences. It would be difficult indeed to bring grainy crime scene photos to life on the screen the same way as the brutal rape of a main character, while in the book, there's a very real impact to both.
You're absolutely, 100%, spot-on correct about readers vs. non-readers of this particular novel, Rick. I noticed that myself while browsing reviews on IMDb. For me, it wasn't so much the *plot elements* that were left out of the movie as it was the complexity and texture of certain character-related stuff. As a dear pal recently observed about "Dune" WRT the topic of "Unfilmable Novel," so much of the tension takes place inside the brains of the respective characters that it's really challenging to bring to the screen.
Doc M, I think I was most put off by the fact that there was nudity and--for lack of a better word--"posing" during the assault sequence. I hate unleashing what can only be called The G Word here, but it felt gratuitous to me. I agree completely with your assessment that you'd hate to meet the person aroused by that kind of violence, but I worry that this would be found too-appealing to a certain audience (if only from a "you know how THOSE people live Dangerous Lifestyles" perspective re: Salander's appearance & attitude).
Darius, believe you me I would never blow the horn of censorship or even of the ringing-ill-to-my-ears term "Going Too Far." I just felt that, within the context of this story with these characters, there were some missteps taken in taking page to screen. That having been said, the majority opinion of folks who've seen this movie is that it's a taut thriller--they're not wrong! The middle portion of the film, when the mystery really gets cracking, is great. Unfortunately, it resonated to me as a taut thriller with some sour notes that prevented me from being able to enjoy it as thoroughly as its novel counterpart.
TK, Really appreciate this review. I saw an interview with the director and I know enough about the book (which I have not yet read) that I had some concerns about the film that you addressed specifically.
Very difficult to handle sexual violence well in movies, particularly non-exploitation films (where for various reasons I think it often gets dealt with much better). I recall the director saying with great pride that he was unwilling to stint on the graphic nature of the main assault because he wished not to shy away from the horrific reality. Well, that sounds very high-minded but it's such a slippery slope.
I was quite concerned that it would all end up as you say - unrelenting and unfortunately somewhat visually-lovingly-portrayed, if you know what I'm saying. I say this as a guy, I know, but I just think that many male directors are not canny enough to execute the difference between sensualizing sexual violence and exposing it for the horror that it is. It's a very tough thing to be cinematically righteous about.
I gather from your review and all the comments that there is much to appreciate and enjoy about this film but I think I'll eschew it for the reasons you touch on and read the book instead. Cheers.
I saw this last night (never read the book/s) and am sitting around in my robe eating cereal, traumatized. I agree with you, Kate, that the violence against our Lisbeth is so stomach-churning as to stop the narrative dead in its tracks. When we cut from her brutalization at the hands of her parole officer to our dopey hero's investigations of a decades old disappearance, it's like "what?" almost insulting to presume we could care about the case when such horror is fresh in our minds.
What I like is the obvious debt to Thomas Harris, as Lisbeth is a kind of love child to Hannibal and Clarice (and cousin to 'the Red Dragon' obviously) but what made the Harris books so much easier to deal with was that the killing and abduction wasn't sexually assault motivated. It's much more palatable (at least for me as a male) to deal with killing girls for their skins or census takers for their livers than it is to see abductions and brutalizations 'for sexual kicks.'
Just as you described VAMPIRE LOVERS being a boilerplate for Eurosleaze vamp films, I'd say LAMBS is the same for 'lone heroine navigating a terrain of dysfunctional misogynistic males" films (THE GIFT comes readily to mind) but again, rape takes it to a whole other level. I kept thinking 'well she may have solved the problem of this guy attacking her again, but what about all the other girls under his control?' And the idea that these atrocities could go on and on, and we hear about them in such detail, makes a mere retributionary death just a drop in the bucket compared to what is owed in order for us to feel the least bit of closure.
Anyway, I was glad I read your post in advance, so I knew I wasn't alone in feeling this misandric post-traumatic stress! J'taime! xoxo
Hi TK- Nice to find your blog-
I read the book then saw the film.
I felt the film did a wonderful job of squeezing in a lot of details into a 2.5 hour slot.
I am going to see the American version but have already resigned myself that it cannot possibly be as good.
If you are interested here is the post I wrote:
http://ladyofthearts.blogspot.com/2010/08/girl-with-dragon-tattoo.html
Post a Comment