News|Movies|BD & DVD|Writings|Other

Shameless FOUR FLIES BD notes

10:48 PM / Blu-ray / 53 Comments

A few quick notes (and some screen captures) I've made for Shameless Screen Entertainment's BD release of Argento's FOUR FIES ON GREY VELVET, as I don't have time at present to type up a full review. In the meantime, let me know if you have any questions about the release and I'll do my best to answer them.

- On the whole, image quality is very good, streets ahead of anything we've seen before for this film and a marked improvement on noisy transfers like THE CAT O' NINE TAILS and Arrow's version of TENEBRAE. It's much better than I was expecting and it's really nice to be pleasantly surprised rather than let down. It's not razor sharp but at least in this case I think we can be reasonably confident that we're seeing the limitations of the source material rather than any fault in the transfer.

- There are a few minor flaws. First of all, there is some noticeable posterization in the first bedroom scene after Roberto "kills" his stalker. It's more distracting on a plasma display than an LCD.

- Second, in the park scene, like on the MYA DVD, there is an abrupt cut from day to night rather than the gradual fade that should take place over several shots.

- In attempting to correct the horizontal line that's visible during the slow-mo car crash at the end, they've ironically made the effect even more distracting. By the looks of it, they've simply cut the line out rather than painting over it, which means that there are several lines of vertical information missing, which really emphasises that the image is literally "chopped in two". In my opinion they should just have left the line as it was.

- Other than that, extremely good work on the video. Taking these flaws into account, it gets an 8/10 from me.

- Audio is, like the video, a vast improvement on the whole. The pitch problem that affected the MYA DVD is completely absent, though that's not surprising as Shameless seem to have used a different source - one that's much cleaner and almost completely devoid of any of the hiss, crackle or muffling often associated with films like these. Honestly, it's a revelation, and lines of dialogue that were previously hard to make out are now crystal clear.

- There are problems, though, all of which occur in the final 10 minutes. The snatches of Italian dialogue when Mimsy Farmer is confessing suffer from frequent ear-splitting cracks or pops. The tyres screeching and eventual explosion when the car hits the truck suffer from similar distortion. These problems are NOT present on the included Italian tracks.

- Also - and this is probably a more minor complaint - the sound cuts jarringly during the explosion at the end before the closing credits music ("Come un Madrigale") starts rather than fading between them as it did on the MYA DVD. And finally, after the closing credits, the music cuts out a couple of seconds before it should end, which is again jarring (though nothing like as bad as what happened on the Arrow PHENOMENA BD).

- Overall, an extremely welcome upgrade for a film that I automatically assumed would look average at best on BD (going by how many of these films have suffered from mediocre or poor HD transfers) but quite honestly it knocked my socks off. The audio problems in the final 10 minutes are sloppy and something I'd hope Shameless will look into - I'm not sure the pops and screeches in the final scenes could actually damage anyone's speaker equipment, but they're certainly not pleasant to listen to - but overall this is a very strong presentation and definitely one of the better-looking and -sounding gialli on BD.

Captures:

• http://www.landofwhimsy.com/funbag/flies1.jpg
• http://www.landofwhimsy.com/funbag/flies2.jpg
• http://www.landofwhimsy.com/funbag/flies3.jpg
• http://www.landofwhimsy.com/funbag/flies4.jpg
• http://www.landofwhimsy.com/funbag/flies5.jpg
• http://www.landofwhimsy.com/funbag/flies6.jpg
• http://www.landofwhimsy.com/funbag/flies7.jpg
• http://www.landofwhimsy.com/funbag/flies8.jpg
• http://www.landofwhimsy.com/funbag/flies9.jpg
• http://www.landofwhimsy.com/funbag/flies10.jpg
• http://www.landofwhimsy.com/funbag/flies11.jpg
• http://www.landofwhimsy.com/funbag/flies12.jpg

#1132: Four Flies on Grey Velvet

11:44 AM / Blu-ray / 14 Comments

(BD, Shameless Screen Entertainment, Region ABC, UK)

All credit to Shameless, this is a very impressive presentation. Visually it's close to being the best-looking giallo I've seen on BD - no noise-riddled CRT transfer, this - and the audio is streets ahead of any previous release. Expect my full impressions later, but so far colour me impressed. I'd be lying if I said I had massive expectations for this release, so it's nice to be so pleasantly surprised.

#1131: Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy

11:40 AM / Blu-ray / 4 Comments

(BD, Studio Canal, Region B, UK)

#1130: Drive

7:12 PM / Blu-ray / 13 Comments

(BD, Icon, Region B, UK)

Movie Matters #14 - Top 10 of 2011

11:46 PM / Podcast / 4 Comments

In this bumper length special edition of the Movie Matters podcast, co-hosts Lee Howard and Michael Mackenzie cast their eyes back over the previous twelve months, celebrating the best (and worst) of 2011. In addition to their own personal Top 10 lists, the duo also reveal lists submitted by listeners and pick out some anticipated titles for the coming year.

• https://rapidshare.com/files/1153234528/moviematters-episode14-26-01-12.mp3
• iTunes

The music sampled in this episode is from HANNA, DRIVE, TRUE GRIT, ARRIETTY, 13 ASSASSINS, ANGELS OF EVIL and BLACK SWAN.

Please note that we have NOT been able to play every single MP3 list we received. The response was far greater than we were expecting and some of the submitted MP3s were a little on the long side, which would have resulted in what was already a four-hour epic being extended to somewhere approaching the five-hour mark. As a result, we have played the first three MP3s we received and are holding the rest back for a standalone mini-episode to be made available in the near future. We hope you understand and are not too disappointed not to have had your clips featured in the episode itself.

Created by Lee Howard & Michael Mackenzie
Edited by Michael Mackenzie

http://moviematterspodcast.blogspot.com

Three Colours: Blue framing issue

10:20 PM / Blu-ray / 10 Comments

The audio problem on the Criterion Collection BD of THREE COLOURS: WHITE has been well documented and now addressed and corrected by Criterion themselves. However, I'd like to know what people who have this set think about the framing on THREE COLOURS: BLUE. I watched it last night, and throughout the entire film there seems to be too much head room and not enough... erm, "chin room". There's even a visible boom mike in one shot, and I struggle to imagine a filmmaker with as attuned a visual sense as Kieslowski allowing something like that to slip through, if this was an accurate rendition of his intended framing:

Click image to enlarge to full size.

I no longer have my old Miramax DVD set so I've no way of comparing it, but I don't remember having seen anything like this in the past.

In addition, it would be good if someone could confirm, but I would assume that the UK Artificial Eye release, said to be derived from the same master, is similarly affected.

And on the subject of image problems on BD releases, is anyone as horrified as me by the captures Studio Canal have released of their upcoming DRACULA: PRINCE OF DARKNESS BD? It looks very much like their horrid DON'T LOOK NOW release was no fluke and that there is something seriously wrong with their remastering process.

My top 10 films of 2011

9:20 PM / Cinema / No Comments

Going by UK theatrical release dates, these are my favourite films of 2011 (spoiler-tagged for those who haven't listened to Movie Matters #14 yet):

1. BLACK SWAN
2. ANGELS OF EVIL [Vallanzasca - Gli angeli del male]
3. SUPER 8
4. THE SKIN I LIVE IN [La piel que habito]
5. THE ARTIST
6. DRIVE
7. TINKER TAILOR SOLDIER SPY
8. 127 HOURS
9. FAIR GAME
10. HANNA

#1129: Melancholia

10:45 PM / Blu-ray / No Comments

(BD, Artificial Eye, Region B, UK)

I was NOT a fan of Lars von Trier's previous film, ANTICHRIST. We'll see how this one fares...

#1128: Angels of Evil

10:42 PM / Blu-ray / No Comments

(BD, Artificial Eye, Region B, UK)

This was an extremely pleasant surprise - so much so that, after watching a rental, I immediately went online and ordered a retail copy, and it found its way into the upper echelons of my Top 10 of 2011. Kim Rossi Stuart is fantastic in it.

#1127: Arrietty

10:30 PM / Blu-ray / 12 Comments

(BD/DVD combo, Studio Canal, Region B/2, UK)

#1126: Colombiana

10:29 PM / Blu-ray / 10 Comments

(BD, Entertainment In Video, Region B, UK)

Getting my yearly Luc Besson brainless action movie fix...

#1125: Troll Hunter

11:49 AM / Blu-ray / 5 Comments

(BD, Momentum, Region B, UK)

Call for Top 10 lists

12:01 AM / Podcast / 4 Comments

It's nearly that time of year once again: Lee and I are gearing up to record the first Movie Matters episode of 2012, which, in the tradition of 2011's first episode, will be a countdown of our favourite films of the previous year. We'll each by revealing and discussing our personal Top 10 Films of 2011, and as with last year's episode would like to read out as many of our listeners' Top 10 lists as possible.

So, get in touch with us with your favourite films of 2011. Either list the films in order of preference or not, and use whichever criteria you like (e.g. theatrical release dates in your country, home video release dates, etc.), just as long as you let us know what they are. Also, feel free to let us know about your most hated and/or most disappointing film(s) of the year, and anything else that takes your fancy. Either post your comments here, or email them to moviematterspodcast[at]gmail[dot]com. Alternatively, feel free to get creative and submit your nominations in MP3 form. We've had a couple of these already and would love to feature more, time permitting.

Deadline is Saturday, January 21.

#1124: The Naked Gun

10:34 PM / Blu-ray / No Comments

(BD, Paramount, Region ABC, UK)

#1123: Airplane!

10:33 PM / Blu-ray / 1 Comment

(BD, Paramount, Region ABC, UK)

Do you like movies about gladiators?

New Year's resolutions

11:40 PM / General / 8 Comments

I'm not really that big a believer in New Year's resolutions - generally, I think that if something's worth changing about your life, you should do it as soon as possible rather than waiting for some arbitrary day on the calendar.

That said (hypocrite that I am), here's a quick list of a few of the things I'm hoping to achieve over the course of 2012.

Watch 100 new films

In 2011, I watched a total of 90 films for the first time (although technically the final film, A LONELY PLACE TO DIE, didn't finish screening until about half past midnight on the 1st of January). A reasonably impressive number, but one that I hope to beat this year, taking a leaf out of BadBlokeBob's book and watching a full one hundred. With 52 weeks in the year, that's an average of approximately two films a week - more than doable if I discipline myself. I'm a little ahead of myself already, having already watched six new films within the first week of the year.

In terms of what I actually intend to watch, I'm famously ill-disciplined, generally going for what grabs my attention and/or gets released on BD instead of working through a list of specific films I feel the need to see... which probably explains why I've missed out on seeing so many classics. (Still, that's probably a resolution for another year.) Still, though...

Go to the cinema more

Despite professing to be a film fan, the number of times I actually go to the cinema in the year is pretty downright tragic. This is primarily because I live in the suburbs and a visit to the cinema tends to mean a two-hour round trip (plus the requisite train or bus fare). I must admit, though, that the advent of Blu-ray, which at its best offers an unparalleled viewing experience in a home environment, has ever so slightly put a damper on the wow factor of a big screen presentation. (That said, I maintain that a proper theatrical screening remains the optimal way to experience a film.) As a result, I tend to rely on BD releases to catch up with the latest films, which invariably leads to my viewing being caught in a 3-6 month time warp.

This year, I'm going to make a point of going to see more films theatrically. Given the cost and logistics, I doubt I'll be going multiple times a week or anything like that, but even once a month would be a good basis on which to build. In any event, there are quite a few high profile releases this year that I will be making it a priority to see on the big screen - Ridley Scott's PROMETHEUS and Pixar's BRAVE, to name two. I've already started out as I mean to go on by making a trip today to see Michel Hazanavicius' celebrated THE ARTIST - which, if not quite the masterpiece the critics have made it out to be, was still an immensely enjoyable experience.

Finish my PhD

I'm finally in the home stretch as far as my PhD thesis is concerned, having recently submitted the first draft of my final analysis chapter... a good three months later than originally planned, though that's not exactly unreasonable, given that (a) I took a three-month voluntary sabbatical a couple of years back in order to concentrate on my screenwriting (more on that in a bit) and (b) about a year ago, my supervisors and I made the decision to add an additional chapter to the thesis, which threw the schedule we'd previously drawn up completely out of whack.

Realistically, there's not really much of a choice about this: I'm in my fifth year of study, which is the standard length for a part-time PhD, so I'm not really in a position to say "Oh well, I can always finish it next year." I'm including this as a resolution, though, in the rather faint hope that it will serve as motivation. In many respects I suspect this is going to be the most intensive year of the bunch as far as studying and of course the actual writing are concerned: although the thesis can now be read from beginning to end (minus the conclusion chapter), the first couple of chapters are going to have to be more or less redone from scratch, and all of them will require substantial revision before submission.

Get somewhere with the screenwriting

It's not something I post much about, but I'm continuing to plug away at the screenwriting. I can't really go into specific details (non-disclosure agreements and all that), but my industry contact continues to be very supportive of my ramblings, and it would be very nice if this turned out to be the year that I finally managed to make some real headway. The two story structure courses I went on last year have, I feel, done me a world of good and stand me in good stead for my writing ventures this year. Last year I took part in Script Frenzy, a challenge held every April to write 100 pages in 30 days (the script I turned in wasn't exactly great by my estimation, but at least I got it done), and I intend to do the same this year.

Sorry for not going into any more detail here, but the moment I get an actual commission I guarantee I'll be shouting it from the rooftops.

Read more

Discounting books read for PhD research purposes, I read 16 novels in the last year: in order, THE GHOST by Robert Harris, NEVER LET ME GO by Kazuo Ishiguro, FATHERLAND by Robert Harris, BLEED FOR ME by Michael Robotham, 1977 by David Peace, THE END OF THE WASP SEASON by Denise Mina, THE DEVIL RIDES OUT by Dennis Wheatley, PROOF OF LIFE by Karen Campbell, EYE OF THE NEEDLE by Ken Follett, ENIGMA by Robert Harris, LITTLE GIRL LOST by Brian McGilloway, AFTERWARDS by Rosamund Lupton, HORNET FLIGHT by Ken Follett, A DEAL WITH THE DEVIL by Martin Suter, THE DEAD WON'T SLEEP by Anna Smith and ARCHANGEL by Robert Harris. (Every year, I tend to discover a new author whose output dominates my reading. 2011, obviously, was my Robert Harris year.) Obviously, that count very much falls short of my film viewing, and while obviously the average book takes considerably longer to consume than the average film, I still reckon I could do better. I'm not going to make any promises except "more than 16", so we'll see.

First book of 2012: ABSOLUTION by Caro Ramsay.

So what about you guys? Anything you want to achieve within the next 12 months?

#1122: Zodiac

10:29 PM / Blu-ray / 1 Comment

(BD, Warner, Region ABC, UK)

My brother had this on HD DVD, but I never got round to picking it up on either format. I'd normally have gone for the US release by Paramount for the lossless audio (plus the fact that, in a straight-up fight, I'd expect Paramount to trump Warner in the encoding stakes), but that version appears to be out of print and only available for silly money.

#1121: Road to Perdition

10:09 PM / Blu-ray / No Comments

(BD, 20th Century Fox, Region ABC, UK)

#1120: Y tu mamá también

10:06 PM / Blu-ray / No Comments

(BD, Icon, Region ABC, UK)

#1119: Battle of Britain

10:04 PM / Blu-ray / No Comments

(BD, 20th Century Fox/MGM, Region B, UK)

#1118: Boogie Nights

10:02 PM / Blu-ray / No Comments

(BD, New Line/Warner, Region ABC, UK)

#1117: Robin Hood

10:00 PM / Blu-ray / No Comments

(BD, Universal, Region ABC, UK)

Went shopping, bought films

8:34 PM / Blu-ray / 8 Comments

I don't have high hopes for ROBIN HOOD, but it was only £6.

Salander vs. Salander: some thoughts on David Fincher's THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO remake

4:30 PM / Cinema / Reviews / 16 Comments

CAUTION: Massive spoilers ahead. You have been warned.

MÄN SOM HATAR KVINNOR

DIRECTOR: Niels Arden Oplev; SCREENPLAY: Rasmus Heisterberg & Nikolaj Arcel; COMPOSER: Jacob Groth; CINEMATOGRAPHER: Eric Kress, DFF; EDITOR: Anne Østeurd; PRODUCTION DESIGNER: Niels Sejer; CAST: Michael Nyqvist (Mikael Blomkvist), Noomi Rapace (Lisbeth Salander), Lena Endre (Erika Berger), Sven-Bertil Taube (Henrik Vanger), Peter Haber (Martin Vanger), Peter Andersson (Nils Bjurman), Marika Lagercrantz (Cecilia Vanger), Ingvar Hirdwall (Dirch Frode), Björn Granath (Gustav Morell), Eva Fröling (Harriet Vanger), Michalis Koutsogiannakis (Dragan Armanski); RELEASED: February 27, 2009 (Denmark and Sweden)

THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO

DIRECTOR: David Fincher; SCREENPLAY: Steven Zaillian; COMPOSERS: Tent Reznor, Atticus Ross; CINEMATOGRAPHER: Jeff Cronenweth, ASC; EDITORS: Kirk Baxter, ACE, Angus Wall, ACE; PRODUCTION DESIGNER: Donald Graham Burt; CAST: Daniel Craig (Mikael Blomkvist), Rooney Mara (Lisbeth Salander), Robin Wright (Erika Berger), Christopher Plummer (Henrik Vanger), Stellan Skarsgård (Martin Vanger), Yorick van Wageningen (Nils Bjurman), Geraldine James (Cecilia Vanger), Steven Berkoff (Dirch Frode), Donald Sumpter (Gustav Morell), Joely Richardson (Harriet Vanger), Goran Visnjic (Dragan Armanski); RELEASED: December 20, 2011 (USA)

The other day, I went to see David Fincher's version of THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO with some degree of trepidation. I'm uncomfortable with the notion of remakes at the best of times, particularly when the original version is (a) only a couple of years old and (b) already of a very high standard. I'd far rather see a filmmaker, particularly one of Fincher's calibre, either tackling new material or at least revisiting an idea that was either flawed to begin with or can be tackled in such a way as to bring something new to the table. All the evidence suggested that this was not going to happen here. True, the material, with its dark themes and general sense of misanthropy, seemed tailor made for Fincher, but then there was already something decidedly Fincher-esque about the original Swedish adaptation, with director Nils Arden Oplev citing Fincher's SE7EN as one of his strongest influences. Similarly, the Swedish version was so true to Stieg Larsson's original novel that, by opting for a similarly faithful approach, Steven Zaillian's script for the American version was destined to mirror Rasmus Heisterberg and Nikolaj Arcel's adaptation almost by default.

In the end, Fincher's adaptation more or less conformed to all my expectations about it. The short version: it's a decent enough film in its own right, and if it was the only version that existed, I might be inclined to view it more favourably. The fact of the matter, though, is that this is NOT the only version that exists. I know certain viewers have chosen to indulge in a form of wilful ignorance by deliberately avoiding the Swedish version, while others have come up with all manner of reasons why comparing the two is a no-no, but the fact of the matter is that I can't unsee the Swedish version, and nor do I see any reason why I should want to. Like it or not, the Swedish verison came along first, and as such any subsequent version needs to do something radically different in order to make its existence seem worthwhile.

And the simple fact is that the Fincher version does no such thing. There is no real reason for it to exist, beyond the obvious money-making considerations and a desire to appease those who can't bring themselves to watch (gasp!) a foreign film, let alone one with subtitles. It's a long way from being as pointless as the American remake of LET THE RIGHT ONE IN, which did little more than shift the action to the US and translate the dialogue into English, but that's merely damning the film with faint praise. That's not to say that there aren't individual moments that improve on the Swedish version: in particular, I like Joely Richardson's turn as Anita/Harriet Vanger (even if she is far too young to be playing a character who was supposedly an 18-year-old 40 years ago), and the "what happened to Harriet?" mystery is resolved considerably more elegantly than it was in the Swedish version (both variants help streamline, in their own ways, what was a decidedly muddled situation in the novel). Similarly, I think Zaillian made the right decision to omit Blomkvist's prison sentence, which always felt like little more than a distraction in both the book and the Swedish film. The Fincher version also makes considerably more of Salander's previous guardian, Holger Palmgren, who was entirely absent from the theatrical version of the Swedish film and only briefly glimpsed in the extended TV version. But none of these small improvements elevate the material enough to come even close to justify doing it all over again.

This is particularly true in view of the fact that they don't even shift the location: despite this being an American remake, the action still takes place in Sweden, using the same locations as the Swedish film (as described in the novel). Most of the main players are English or American, and there's something a little farcical about watching a bunch of English and American actors wandering around Sweden speaking English with put-on Swedish accents... with the notable exception of Daniel Craig, who for some inexplicable reason retains his normal speaking voice and therefore seems out of place. This is probably going to sound sacreligious, but I honestly think I would have been more open to the idea of a remake if they'd done something drastic like moved the action to, say, America. It would have given the material a different flavour, and the themes of corporate corruption, institutionalised misogyny and a nation's refusal to come to terms with its chequered past (not to mention the more generalised debates about free will and "nature versus nurture") are universal enough that it could have worked. Instead, by remaining in Sweden, the film almost seems to be keeping the uncomfortable questions it raises at arm's length: it implicitly gives the impression that these problems are exclusively Swedish, thereby making what the story says about us as a society somehow more palatable.

LISBETH SALANDER

Take one look at them and there's no doubt about it: stick them in a room together and Noomi Rapace's Salander would knock seven shades out of Rooney Mara's Salander. Rapace's version of the character is a smouldering, battle-hardened warrior, while Mara's is a fragile, child-like waif whose face, complete with bleached eyebrows, bears an uncanny resemblance to that of Ralph Fiennes in the HARRY POTTER films. Both are, I feel, legitimate interpretations of the character, and there can be little doubt that VISUALLY, Mara more closely resembles the Lisbeth of the books, frequently mistaken for a child and using her unassuming appearance as her most potent weapon. Rapace, on the other hand, looks both older and far tougher - not the sort of person most would assume they could take advantage of.

In terms of performance, though, there's no contest: Rapace mops the floor with Mara. The greatest strength of Rapace's acting lies in her ability to communicate paragraphs with a look here and an arch of her eyebrow there. Mara is far more reliant on make-up and costume design to convey the character, giving a considerably more one-note performance and coming across more as an angst-ridden teenager than someone truly destroyed through years of systematic abuse. It's not by any stretch of the imagination a bad performance - in fact, it's a very good one and I'd go as far as to say that it's considerably better than what I expected from the star of the NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET remake - but it's limited by Zaillian's desire to keep the character a closed book. I read an interview a couple of weeks ago in which he explained that he wasn't interest in giving the character a back-story - as far as he was concerned, only what could be conveyed about the character in the present tense mattered. It's certainly true that the Fincher version makes the relationship that develops between Salander and Blomkvist more tender than that of the Swedish version, but at the same time there's something altogether more human about Rapace's take on the character. Her performance just seems more natural and less affected. With Mara, I'm more aware of her acting, and of the fact that I'm watching a conventionally pretty girl made up to look like Voldemort's little sister.

MIKAEL BLOMKVIST

Whereas Rapace gives the better performance as Salander despite Mara's Salander being physically truer to the novels, the situation is to a certain extent reversed for Blomkvist. It's hardly a secret that Blomkvist, the tireless crusader for justice and publisher of a small left-wing magazine, is a stand-in for Stieg Larsson (albeit a somewhat sexed-up stand-in who appears to be irresistible to women), and the casting in the Swedish version of Michael Nyqvist, who bears something of a physical resemblance to the author, helps underscore this. Whereas Nyqvist easily convinces as a middle-aged journalist who smokes too much and doesn't get enough exercise (again, completely true to the book), Craig not only carries the baggage of being the incumbent James Bond but is far more of a conventional Hollywood leading man, meaning that he never fully convinces as the character as written. Apart from occasionally dangling a pair of spectacles from one ear, he comes across as too slick and unflappable - but that's presumably what Fincher was going for when he cast Craig in the role. Nyqvist's Blomkvist came across as scruffy and slightly clumsy - a bit of a schlub and the more relatable of the two. However Craig, for my money, gives the more nuanced performance. That's not to say Nyqvist was bad, but despite looking the part, there was always something slightly bland about his take on the character, who rarely seemed to react to events with the sort of intensity you would expect under the circumstances. It is, like everything else in this review, a purely personal reaction, and the more I think about it, the less convinced I am that what Craig brings to the table is actually superior. The trouble is that Nyqvist's Blomkvist is instantly likeable (which I assume was the way the character was meant to be depicted) whereas Craig's is rather cold and aloof, a slick operator who you don't really relate to... and given that we see the vile Vanger family and the oddball (understatementof the century) Salander through his eyes, I'm inclined to think that relatability is a fairly important quality for this character to have.

THE REST OF THE CAST

Elsewhere, it's swings and roundabouts as far as the casting goes. Christopher Plummer's Henrik Vanger lacks the frailty of Sven-Bertil Taube in the original, and as a result the emotional intensity surrounding Harriet's disappearance feels lacking (their eventual reunion also feels like a damp squib in comparison with that of the original). Conversely, Joely Richardson makes far more of an impression as Harriet than Ewa Fröing in the original, although that has a lot to do with the increased amount of screen time she is afforded. Michalis Koutsogiannakis is far closer to how I imagined Armanski when reading the books than Goran Visnjic in the new version; ditto Lena Endre versus Robin Wright as Erika Berger. I'd be hard pressed to pick a favourite between Peter Haber and Stellan Skarsgård as Martin Vanger - they're somewhat similar in appearance and both give powerful, understated performances. That said, Martin's confrontation with Blomqvist is botched quite spectacularly in the Fincher version, revealing Martin's guilt far too soon and then completely fudging the central message (namely the notion of a collective Stockholm syndrome, mirroring Larsson's view of society's relationship with those it victimises) during the scene in his torture chamber.

PICTURE AND SOUND

The Swedish version was shot in Super35 for under $10 million (some sources put the figure closer to $7 million). The American remake was shot using the Red Epic and Red One MX digital cameras for $100 million. As such, there were always going to be major differences between the two from a visual standpoint, although the fact that, as previously mentioned, the Swedish film already owed something of a debt to Fincher's distinctive visual style narrowed the gap somewhat. As an unabashed film purist who has yet to see a digitally photographed movie I truly love the look of - and has been underwhelmed by the visual side of all Fincher's prior digital productions - it was probably always a foregone conclusion that I'd end up preferring the look of the Swedish film, but what really surprises me is how little of the 10-fold budgetary increase appears to have made its way on to the screen. (There's little in the plot - ostensibly a traditional Agatha Christie "locked room" scenario - that calls for a massive budget anyway.) There are isolated moments that impress from a visual standpoint - a shot of Salander watching a burning car is particularly striking in terms of both its composition and colour palette - but overall the look of the remake is nothing special, characterised by the usual slick digital video aesthetic and suffering from Fincher's overuse of the "urine filter", something that has plagued his work ever since he moved to digital after PANIC ROOM. The cinematography in the Swedish version, courtesy of Eric Kress, has a more neutral aesthetic, going for understated where Fincher and cinematographer Jeff Cronenweth (who also shot THE SOCIAL NETWORK and FIGHT CLUB) tend to go for obvious. (Case in point: most of the outdoor scenes have a heavy blue tint, presumably to hammer home how cold it is. The Swedish film was able to convey that with a natural colour palette.)

As far as the music is concerned, I can't remember anything specific from the Fincher version except the god-awful screeching during the opening titles, if indeed that counts as music. Meanwhile, I have the central theme from the Swedish version deeply rooted in my brain. In the original, the music is of a traditional orchestral variety, working in tandem with the visuals and dialogue to evoke a mood. In contrast, the remake has Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross's sonic wallpaper fighting with the dialogue, frequently (and especially in the first 45 minutes, I found) overpowering it and rendering Daniel Craig's mumbling nigh on incomprehensible. People raved about this duo's work on Fincher's previous film, THE SOCIAL NETWORK, when I couldn't see what the fuss was about, and I predict the same will be true of their contribution to this film. As one reviewer put it, more succinctly than I ever could, "How can a director who's worked with proper musical composers like Howard Shore, Elliot Goldenthal and David Shire possibly have signed off on this ambient soundscape of droning and plinky-plonk noises?"

So yeah, aesthetically speaking, the Swedish film comes out on top for me, despite having been made for buttons compared with Fincher's remake. Others can and will disagree: I've seen plenty of comments in various places that describe the Swedish version as looking like a TV movie, to which the only response I can muster is "Did we watch the same film?" If anything, it's the Fincher version, with its flat, grain-free appearance, that reminds me of television.

THE ADAPTATION

As previously mentioned, both adaptations stick pretty closely to the source material, although of course, given that Larsson's novel is a veritable doorstop, some streamlining was always going to be necessary. It probably helps that a lot of Larsson's description is ultimately redundant - he has a tendency to describe in minute detail what a character is eating and how the room in which he is eating is decorated. (He is also, to borrow an observation made by a critic whose name I've forgotten, the only author I can think of who will tell you the dimensions of a room BEFORE seeing fit to mention that there is a mutilated body lying in the middle of it.)

It's not really a case of one version being substantially more faithful than the other: each makes slightly different decisions as to what to include and what to leave out, without ever straying from the path laid out by the author. Both omit much of the background to the Wennerstrom case (in the novel, much of the first chapter details Blomkvist's fateful meeting with an old friend who passed on the information later used to entrap him) and nearly all of the admittedly tedious back-story of the Vanger clan. Both also greatly pare down Salander's back-story, although more of it remains in the Swedish version than the American. The Swedish version omits Blomkvist's daughter, who in the novel and the remake is the one who identifies the list of names and numbers as Bible references, as well as Blomkvist's trip to London to meet Anita Vanger. On the other hand, the remake jetisons Blomkvist's trip to Australia, where he finally locates Harriet Vanger, as well as the character of Janne Dahlman (whose role as Wennerstrom's mole within Millennium is admittedly sidelined in the Swedish theatrical cut but reinstated for the extended TV version), while the role of Blomkvist's colleagues Christer Malm and Malin Erikson is reduced to that of non-speaking extras.

I think it's tempting to allow oneself to become tied up in knots trying to chart and critique every deviation from the novel, but of course a screenwriter's first duty is not to slavishly retain every minor plot element but rather to tell a compelling story within the constraints of a different medium. And in that regard, both Heisterberg/Arcel and Zaillian do a fine job. Both versions are, for the most part, recognisably Stieg Larsson's THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO, and in each case the alterations and omissions, while often very different, are sensible. The Fincher version drags more in the first half than its Swedish counterpart, but once Salander and Blomkvist cross paths things heat up nicely, as indeed they did in the novel. On the other hand, Heisterberg/Arcel had the good sense to greatly simplify and compress events following Martin Vanger's death (in the novel, the action continues for a good 100 pages or so, despite the mystery having ostensibly been solved already), whereas Zaillian allows the film to continue to meander along for another half-hour or so, resulting in a flabby final act that becomes sidetracked by the specific details of Salander's embezzlement of Wennerstrom.

There is, however, one moment that I find unforgiveable: the moment when Salander asks Blomkvist for permission to kill Martin, which is so spectacularly out of character for both Salander and Blomkvist that it makes me wonder if Zaillian truly understood either of them. Salander would never ask Blomkvist for permission to do anything, and Blomkvist would never condone her doing it, let alone give her the go-ahead: both the book and the original film contain a lengthy discussion between the two characters after the fact in which they set out their radically different world views.

CONCLUSION

I suppose what it all comes down to is whether the fact that the remake is closer to the book in terms of certain details really matters. Does the fact that Mara looks more like Salander as described in the book actually matter in the face of Rapace's superior performance? Does having Blomkvist's daughter rather than Salander decipher the Bible references amount to a hill of beans? I'm inclined to think not. I've made it clear that I think the American version is, on the whole, the inferior film. However, the fact is that, even if the two had been neck in neck, that still wouldn't, in my mind, have been sufficient justification to make the same movie twice, let alone with so little time having passed between the two iterations. When it comes down to it, Fincher is far too good a director to be wasting his time treading ground that's already been covered. Here's hoping his next film (and it doesn't look like it will be THE GIRL WHO PLAYED WITH FIRE, given the combination of the DRAGON TATTOO remake's failure to set the box office on fire* and his supposed "creative differences" with Columbia Pictures) will be more worthwhile.

* The film is currently being beaten at the box office by SHERLOCK HOLMES: A GAME OF SHADOWS, starring Noomi Rapace, and MISSION IMPOSSIBLE: GHOST PROTOCOL, featuring Michael Nyqvist. There's irony for you.

Happy New Year 2012!

4:03 PM / General / No Comments

More posts