Rooney Mara has got me by the balls. She’s tasered me, straddled my face, and inked her embodiment of Lisbeth Salander into my head. Unlike the scumbag recipient of her vengeance in The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, I’m honored that she’s left her mark on me. I’m tagged and branded as a fiend for this film, and I don’t care who knows it, Rooney Mara is the Lisbeth I had in my minds-eye when I read Stieg Larsson’s novel three years ago. Steve Zaillian’s script strips the story down to the lean machine I wish that book had been — but it was never about the story. The Vanger case is only the bait we bite so that Lisbeth can get her hook in us.
Rooney Mara takes that hook and sharpens the barb to deadly perfection. It’s my favorite performance by any actress this year.
For anyone who feels the same indelible attraction, The New Yorker‘s David Denby articulates Mara’s hypnotic appeal:
Mara’s eyes, mostly unlined and isolated in her face, which has been chalked into a pale mask, express need as well as anger. Despite the spectacular athleticism of the subway scene—a single, continuous line of action—her physical presence is more approachable, more womanly (in the conventional sense) than Rapace’s. When her Lisbeth has sex with Blomkvist, the connection moves a little closer to a regular love affair. It’s true that Mara straddles Daniel Craig and drives toward her orgasm like a teenage boy, but, afterward, she looks at him with something like tenderness. There’s a hint of something more… something like an open admission of need, something like a bond.
Critics have scattered in all directions this year, clutching to obvious choices like ants grappling for the biggest crumbs after their anthill was stomped by last year’s oxen. When the American Film Institute named The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo one of the 10 Movies of the Year, the film got a lot of prestigious traction. But then momentum seemed to spin away in more predictable directions. No matter. What we know by now is this: Critics are risk-averse this season. None of them want to be standing with their dicks in their hands like last year, so most of them have been playing it safe.
That’s fine. The critics groups have made some honorable choices — but where’s the challenge, where’s the tingle of fireworks in playing it safe? For weeks leading up to Christmas, awards season felt tamed, neutered and domesticated to me. All the contenders looked too neatly packaged and carefully coiffed. I was craving more excitement, yearning for dirtier thrills. Rooney Mara delivered the daring fearlessness I’d been waiting for, and David Fincher wrapped her in another package altogether — maybe not so tidy, but far more fascinating.
Jake Cole talked to Fincher for The Boston Globe:
“I’m more attracted to the pervert’s story,” says Fincher. “I’m not as positive what we’ll all agree on. I think I made a choice early on in seeing that other sandbox and going, `Everyone else wants to hit that home run in escapist entertainment. And yet I always sort of liked this stuff that sneaks in through the side window. So why not provide a viable alternative?
“That’s not to say I wouldn’t have loved to make a movie like `Jurassic Park.’ They all would have died, but …”
Fincher smiles wryly, but he has deep admiration for Steven Spielberg and even musical theater legend Bob Fosse. After all, his virtual film school was working at the effects house of another escapist master, George Lucas, at Industrial Light & Magic. Still, the filmmakers that made a bigger impression were Alfred Hitchcock and, particularly, Roman Polanski — both directors known for deriving pleasure in subverting audience expectations for wholesome entertainment.
“Hitchcock was more of a child playing with these ideas,” says Fincher. “Polanski, I don’t think, was ever a child. … I wish I was as confident to be as perverse as Roman has been.”
This is how a smart director behaves when he’s being compared to Hitchcock and Polanski. But I’m not quite convinced that Fincher lacks confidence to be perverse. If there’s more perversity in store for us, I’m glad for the ankle shackles. Can I get another jolt with the taser to relax me before we proceed with any greater confidence?
Though his visual abilities often overshadow his storytelling talent, Fincher, like Hitchcock and Polanski, might be best understood as a psychological filmmaker. He delights in describing, in great detail, a scene’s nuanced interplay of gesture, eye contact and emotion. “The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo” may not differ mightily from the Swedish original, but few would argue that, by way of a million subtleties, it’s better crafted.
“I genuinely feel like he’s the closest thing we have to Hitchcock,” says Craig of Fincher. “People kind of compare him to Kubrick, but there’s something else about him — something that he does with visuals and he does with actors. People kind of give career-defining performances in his movies.”
The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo is just that — a career-defining performance for Rooney Mara. What’s more, it utterly demolishes any grumbles that Fincher is less interested in character than atmosphere or that he doesn’t get women. Together David Fincher and Rooney Mara have given us the most thrilling female performance of the year.
“David won’t lie to you,” says Mara. “He just won’t. I don’t think he’s capable of it. He’s the most straightforward human being I’ve ever met. He always empowers you to have a choice.”
In a year stacked with seemingly mandatory overdue slots and Great Ladies many feel obliged to respect, is a rebel like Lisbeth Salander too furiously thrilling for the AMPAS to handle? Too perverse? Too sexy? Too violent?
Lisbeth inspires sexual rage in men. She is both a victim and an avenger, a woman damaged, abused, yet defiantly sexual—a woman prepared to hit back and to stay out in the danger zone, unwilling to change, ready for more.
The Goth regalia—black leather jacket and boots, tufted hair, spiked collar, piercings, an armory of rings—gives hints of dirty pleasures, harsh sexual combat, a readiness for pain. She’s already been through hell, pushed around a lot, and vulnerable (though no one could say innocent). With another push, or a period of weakness, she could slip into alcoholism or addiction; she could become a prostitute and then a corpse. Surely she’s close to being crazy, pathological. Or so it seems, at first…
Dealing with the world as it is, she accepts the bargain demanded by her history and temperament—that she will risk punishment as the price of insolence and always claim the freedom to retaliate. The exercise of righteous violence is what turns action figures into pop-culture icons. That, plus an aura of outlaw style and perversity.
It’s high time women in film be empowered with same raw threat of danger we admire so much in men. What better way for the Academy to empower actresses for more roles like Lisbeth Salander than to honor Rooney Mara’s ferocious performance.
sandra fluke
I can relate to this article patricia heaton
Also, I had to say that I agree with this article. I don’t think Rooney Mara will get nominated but I hope she does. In my opinion she deserves it.
And about the critics of TGWTDT: I’ve read at least 6 glowing critical reviews and heard many, many more from just regular people who went and saw it. Plus, a lot of the criticism is doled out by people who refuse to consider that the American film may be better than the Swedish one. Sometimes foreign films are amazing, sometimes they’re not. In this case, I agree with Ryan. I thought the Swedish film was pretty bad. Actually, not as bad as he did but still very mediocre. And TGWTDT (2011) has an 85% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes, so apparently a lot of cricis like it.
And as far as the box office take, like was already pointed out it’s made 60 million solely domestically in 12 days. That’s without international sales and while competing against pg-13 blockbuster types such as Sherlock Holmes and Mission Impossible during a holday. So yeah, people are grossly underestimating the financial potential of this film in my opinion.
Sequel Update:
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo has earned just over $72 million worldwide since its release on December 20. Those numbers aren’t as high as studio execs would have liked, but a Sony rep insisted earlier today that the sequel is still moving forward.
Steven Zaillian, who adapted The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo from Stieg Larsson’s novel, is currently writing the script for The Girl Who Played with Fire. However, David Fincher has not decided yet if he will return to direct The Girl Who Played with Fire.
Stars Rooney Mara and Daniel Craig have deals in place for The Girl Who Played with Fire, and it is said that Sony is targeting a late 2013 release date for the sequel.
@Rob
I had to comment when I saw what you wrote. What are you talking about? What do you define as an “oscar type role”? Because I define a role as Oscar worthy by the strength of the performance and the ability of the actor to embody a character. And Rooney Mara was insanely good in both those categories. It doesn’t matter if you like the film or not, it’s undeniable. She deserves an Oscar nomination.
@Tony
Oh, please. The book had bad language too. People need to get over themselves. It didn’t detract from the perfomances or the plot. And it sounds to me like your a Swedish Dragon Tattoo fanboy which is the real problem you have with it, when the films are two completely different adaptation. You agree that Lisbeth is not an Oscar worthy role, yet praise Rapace’s perfomance? Interesting.
Anyways, in my opinion the film was great and Rooney was excellent. Go see it.
Let’s remember too — it’s a hard-R rated movie competing with a slew of PG family films during a holiday when kids are on break from school.
Definitely true. I was talking with the film critic at work and we discussed how R movies never have big box office blowouts b/c of the restrictions on who can see it….if they make money it’s a slower burn.
The film opened in the U.K. and five other smaller markets and collected $8.3M overall from 1,540 sites in 14 markets.
In its first full week of release across the Atlantic, the Rooney Mara and David Craig-toplined thriller grossed $6.7M from 920 screens, a take that already surpasses the $2.34M total that the version starring Naomi Rapace earned.
Looks like it’s gonna be the top movie overseas, it was this weekend and it’s not even in wide release over there, but was still the top-grossing film.
According to mojo, it picked up a hell of a lot of steam today. It was up 58% from yesterday and is third for the day. Good lord, The Chipmunks is falling fast….I can’t believe the public is done with such fine filmmaking!
I also notice that GWTDT is on significantly fewer screens than the other top 4 it’s been wrestling with.
Thanks Mel. I hadn’t seen the percentage uptick.
I also notice that GWTDT is on significantly fewer screens than the other top 4 it’s been wrestling with.
Let’s remember too — it’s a hard-R rated movie competing with a slew of PG family films during a holiday when kids are on break from school.
Oh, I’m not giving up on them. I really think this movie seems to be doing about what they thought. They expect it to have legs and I think it will. Though it does make me nervous that Sony isn’t committing yet.
The PR material Sony is distributing for The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo says:
“first of Columbia Pictures three-picture adaptation…”
That was the plan 2 weeks ago. Things can change, sure. But this movie will make a lot of money. A lot of people will get a lot richer from finishing the trilogy.
It’s false to think a movie is a failure if it doesn’t earn back triple its budget. $200 million or more flowing back into Sony’s coffers is not a failure. Trilogies mean box-sets of DVDs and blu-rays. The trilogy could conceivably generate $1 billion when all the income is added up 3 years from now.
The $90mil spent wasn’t burned in a bonfire. It paid a lot of salaries, made a lot filmmakers wealthier.
That’s why the Anne Thompson remark is so naive.
too bad there wont be sequels((( I really liked Daniel & Rooney together & the thought that we’ll never see the end of the 2nd book & other great Lisbeth/Mikael moments with them is killing me(((
Have you heard something I haven’t?
Don’t give up on the sequels just yet.
Anne Thompson made a good point in her comments about TGWTDT on Indie Wire. Why did the film cost $100 million to make? Where did the money go?
Anne Thompson made a good point in her comments about TGWTDT on Indie Wire. Why did the film cost $100 million to make?
How is that a “good point”?
oh my goodness! where did the money go?!
Anne Thompson is self-appointed Hollywood penny-pincher now? Ask her where did the money go for Tintin. I want to see the paperwork. Receipts! Show me the receipts. How else am I to know if the money was well-spent.
It has opened in many countries, but not the bigger ones (outside USA/UK), and they have not counted the box office yet. I believe it opened #1 here.
But we do know that it has to make something like 250M worldwide to break even. It was probably a bit too expensive. On the other hand, even Tintin is not making profit yet – and that has been out for two months in Europe.
@Ryan Adams kinda like (failed financially) Margin Call, A Better Life, Take Shelter, Martha Marcy May Marlene, Melancholia, and Win Win?
@Ryan Adams kinda like (failed financially) Margin Call, A Better Life, Take Shelter, Martha Marcy May Marlene, Melancholia, and Win Win?
OCO 300, you’re exactly right.
i’ll worry about how much money a movie makes when I’m a producer
until then what matters to me is seeing the budget splashed effectively all over the screen
it only costs me $8 no matter how much money the studio spends or earns. I’m grateful for the lavish extravagance I get to see for such small cost to me.
studios are rolling in cash. I appreciate that they reinvest in a few pricey productions with uncertain prospects of profit.
Ryan, the only year I really wanted to leave this site forever was the year of The Hurt Locker. I try not to post anything here without thinking about it first.
I never attack the poster which was why I was so taken aback when I mentioned I didn’t love The Hurt Locker I was told by Sasha I believe that I didn’t know what I was talking about. Which was extremely hurtful because I have been studying and watching movies for years. I’ve since decided to just let it go because things get posted here in the heat of the moment.
I’ve also written both of you through private e-mails how much I appreciate the site.
Anyhow I found your put-down of The King’s Speech interesting because in the same sentence you mention John Adams as a good example of TV filmmaking. Tom Hooper was behind both these projects and I think his directorial skills are apparent in both these projects. But because The Social Network was so beloved by some, Hooper was trashed relentlessly here for The King’s Speech for not being good enough, which I found puzzling and almost absurd.
As far as Mara goes, I don’t have strong feelings one way or another. But because Rapace was so good as Lisbeth in the Swedish film, it would be kind of a shame of Mara were nominated for the English language version and Rapace was overlooked for the Swedish film, mainly because she is foreign.
Anyhow I found your put-down of The King’s Speech interesting because in the same sentence you mention John Adams as a good example of TV filmmaking.
Here’s another thing you might find interesting. I can’t stand Gran Torino or Million Dollar Baby and yet I feel Unforgiven is one of the greatest westerns of all time. That’s not a contradiction or conflict.
Do you think I’m not aware Tom Hooper directed John Adams? I’m capable of distinguishing between his work that I like and his work that I don’t like.
Can you help me figure out how this discussion got hijacked into a therapy session thrashing me for my feelings about Tom Hooper?
I wrote this about Rooney Mara. Wasn’t expecting anybody to see it as an opportunity to dredge up past butthurt from 2 years ago.
It’s always puzzling to me how people can talk about bruised feelings over things Sasha and I have written — but it’s apparently fair game to throw shit in our faces, totally unprovoked, out of the blue.
That’s fine. What I find puzzling and absurd is a Best Director Oscar for Tom Hooper. Looks like we disagree. How about you try shrug it off as I’ve tried to do?
+
dont think she has a chance to be nominated(((
I want to believe in miracles but this year its hard…
agree with Mel 100% Im tired of traditional ‘polite’ celebs with traditional fake smiles & traditional answers to traditional reporter’s questions
She seems honest & speaks her mind. There are enough charming Clooneys & Tom Cruises.
saw the movie 2ce & it really even more amazing the more u watch it.
Thank U Ryan & Sasha. Its great u support this film .
almost totally agree with you about Swedish movies. though They were OK to me & I loved Noomi’s portrayal but it didnt feel like the book Lisbeth. She was too hit-womanish to me. Rooney brought what I loved in the book. She’s multidimensional, vulnerable yet fierce & evokes so many emotions while the previous girl mainly ‘Hell yeah! U go girl!’
again imho obviously ))
too bad there wont be sequels((( I really liked Daniel & Rooney together & the thought that we’ll never see the end of the 2nd book & other great Lisbeth/Mikael moments with them is killing me(((
I really hoped it could prove haters wrong& kick their a**es like Casino Royale did in 2006 with great BO & critics alike.
sorry my english is pooor)))
I just read the EW interview with Mara and I don’t see her coming off as arrogant at all. I hope she means it when she says she doesnt care about an Oscar nomination.
I’ve been reading and commenting on this site more years than I can imagine but I gave up trying to disagree with certain passions here the year of The Hurt Locker when I was told in no uncertain terms that I was a idiot for not liking the film. Fortunately a lot of wonderful talent gets championed here as well like Martin Scorsese and Hugo which would be my choices at Oscar time.
I gave up trying to disagree with certain passions here the year of The Hurt Locker when I was told in no uncertain terms that I was a idiot for not liking the film.
Daveylow,
then maybe you have an inkling what it’s like for me to be told I’m ignorant about Nietzsche, informed that I must have a problem with foreign films, told that I’m a venomous, patronizing sell-out because I like Rooney Mara’s Lisbeth better than I do Noomi’s
don’t get we wrong — I’m not bothered by attacks like that. But that’s a typical afternoon at Awards Daily for me and Sasha.
If you see anywhere in these 250 comments where I’ve been unfair to someone or didn’t brook any dissent, tell me which comment and I’ll cross out whatever I said that bothers you.
like this.So that everybody can see how awful I am.Always happy to see you in the comments. Sorry you feel you’ve been treated harshly. It’s a harsh environment here on the comment pages.
We play rough. But I think we all respect each other and find ways to stay friendly.
I don’t understand all the people saying she comes off bad in interviews. She comes off as genuine and honest and not putting on a publicity show. It’s refreshing. She just is who she is, let’s cherish that for now until the Hollywood machine changes her into everyone else. (hoping it doesn’t)
Mara is spoiled , her interviews a flawed and arrogant..only because she copied Noomi Rapace doesn’t mean she proved anything, maybe if she keeps her mouth shut …no..not even than.
.sorry about my english
^
your English is ok, fran
commented edited because it was too hateful
My guess it that julian is saying that he likes Fincher, but the sum of his parts, don’t add up to a consistent approach? He can’t read him and therefore questions his motives.
Thanks, Ryan. I was trying to register for the forums. I’ve decided I like this website and the kind of chat that takes place here. It’s nice.
^
Please don’t think this particular discussion is an example of how nice the movie chat can be on the site.
there’s usually a whole lot less ass-rape going on.
[Beth Stevens is our forums pro. I’ll let her know you’re having trouble, ok?]
Can someone contact me about registering? I keep trying, but the same unclear “random question” that keeps me from registering is also required to send a message about having trouble registering.
mel,
hit me up at ryanadams.AD@gmail.com
I don’t know nuthin about the random question, but will try to help you sort it out.
meanwhile, your comments are coming through fine. I don’t know if there’s any great advantage to being registered.
Can nobody see how Tilda Swinton’s character is a little easier for Academy members to swallow than Rooney Mara’s character?
Yes, and I don’t understand why others don’t seem to get what you meant.
nihilistic – I’m too depressed to type with all fingers.
“I have huge respect for TV productions.”
I’ve been wondering what we would have ended up with had HBO or AMC secured the rights to all three books, same cast and director. A larger, more appreciative audience, for sure, and far less puritanical judgement come Emmy time. But that’s just my
nihisticnihilistic world view of the current American movie industry, I guess.I’ve been wondering what we would have ended up with had HBO or AMC secured the rights to all three books, same cast and director.
We’ll get to see what David Fincher does with long-form episodic narrative when he and Kevin Spacey bring us the new adaptation of House of Cards in few months — (Spacey in the Ian Richardson role, Fincher producing and directing the pilot episode — and maybe more to follow.)
I talked to Kevin Spacey a couple of weeks ago (!!) and he said they start filming in March.
It’ll be available as a Netflix original series.
You think you have a nihilistic attitude about the movie industry — you should hear Mr Spacey’s world view. I’ll post the pod-cast in a few days.
It’ll be really subjective, but still worth a listen.
Just got back from my third time….I feel the performance gets better each viewing as I have more time to dissect and digest it. And each time I am able to more fully appreciate what Fincher did with this. It is so far superior to the Swedish version that it blows my very mind some people prefer that movie.
Not sure why Sony hasn’t released the box office, maybe they wanted people to stop harping on it. I went to an 11:30am show today and the theater was at least 3/4 full. I noticed quite a few older people(60s-70s) in the audience too. I want it to do well b/c I want to see more of Mara’s Salander and I want Fincher to come back.
It’ll come close to meeting its budget, domestic.
Not necessarily. Its screen average will cause it to bleed screens at a very fast rate. Meeting the budget domestically is the best case scenario and hardly what Sony was hoping for when they gave this franchise this budget, this director and this sort of marketing. Unless the movie hits it off internationally, the sequels will not be happening – and if they happen I suspect their budgets will be scaled down. (Vancouver can pass for Stockholm, right?)
Really, there is no way to talk this up – this movie is not what it was supposed to be, not commercially, critically or awards-wise. It’s “fetch” and it isn’t happening.
Yeah, you are in your condescending mood today, Ryan…that’s fine. Still like you.
You find a single word (“subjective”) and a phrase (“coherent worldview”) and you have fun with it. That’s fine. Next time, we debate something, let’s talk about substance, ok? Otherwise, it’s to no use.
I could go into a discussion about what I mean about a “coherent worldview”, but for what reason? For you, to find a single word again and start another onslaught? No way. Pay attention to the substance of what I (and many others) have to say, instead of always picking out random words that don’t bear the whole meaning of what I am trying to say. I don’t do that with your posts, even though I could have gone nasty about your ignorance on Nietzsche and the real meaning of “the problem of nihilism”, according to him…well, I almost managed to refrain from that…almost.
Anyways, you are bound to win any discussion with me. English is my third language and I am doing the best with what I got, ok? Simple as that.
“coherent worldview”
Then just tell me what you mean. I’m clearly too thick-headed to understand. While you’re at it, please tell me why an artist or writer or filmmaker needs to have the burden of demonstrating a coherent worldview laid on his work.
Honestly, give me a clue what you’re asking. Give me an example — Hitchcock should be an easy one, right? How does Hitch satisfy your worldview prerequisite?
You throw all these criteria at me that I need to fill. I’m at a loss. I keep saying that. It means I need help understanding what sort of answer you’re looking for.
Fincher’s a nihilist (you say). And then I need to tell you, “What does it say about Fincher as a filmmaker?”
How about this. How about YOU tell ME what the heck it means for Fincher as a filmmaker that he’s a nihilist, because it’s not an urgent question that I’ve ever considered.
I feel like I’m on the friggen witness stand here, julian the emperor. You get to choose all the hoops for me to jump through, and when I balk, baffled, then you mock me for me being condescending?
I don’t feel like this is so friendly anymore.
even though I could have gone nasty about your ignorance on Nietzsche and the real meaning of “the problem of nihilism”
Please don’t hold back. Lecture the fuck out of me. Knock some sense into my head,
Buy me this book for Christmas so we can talk about this intelligently in a few weeks.
I have ALWAYS associated my very basic understanding of nihilism with 2 fuckin names: Nietzsche & Kierkegaard
I wish I had a buddy at the Richard Dawkins Foundation who would come help me understand — instead of belittling me as ignorant.
What sane person is devoted to being a card-carrying proud nihilist? Just because a nihilistic outlook might trouble us and we might abhor having that nihilistic abyss gaze into us — we might hate nihilism the same way Nietzsche was gloomed out about it and argued against it — but I don’t think our philosophical anxiety about that abyss can’t still qualify as nihilism.
but if it’s easier for you to smirk about me being ignorant, go for it. That’s really gonna make me feel all cuddly and un- nihilistic about how this day is going from the minute I woke up.
just keep slinging impossibly complex questions at me — because that’s the main reason I think Rooney Mara is terrific. I just love how she brings out the attack dogs and smarmy dismissals.
I love Bergman!
“I can see we have a problem here with people — even smart people — confusing a dark psychological horror like We Need to Talk About Kevin with a rougher genre film like The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo that’s violent, sexy, perverse.”
I like Ryan, but this is borderline condescending. WNTTK is just a superior film
I like you too, Benjamin Forestieri. I don’t know you, but you’re being gentler with me than some people I thought were my buddies.
Heck, I’m grateful that half your sentence is nice — before you pile on.
Please believe me when I say I think you’ve misunderstood me. In no way was I weighing the relative merits of WNTTAK and TGWTDT.
My point — if anybody cares to scroll up — was simply that I don’t think it’s valid to say, “If the Academy can handle the darkness of Kevin then they can handle the darkness of Lisbeth.”
— because for one thing, it’s not KEVIN who’s being considered for best actress. It’s his mother. And his mother wasn’t dark. She was just enveloped by her son’s darkness, right?
Tilda Swinton’s movie does not have to overcome voters’ recoil at Tilda wielding an ass-rape dildo and a tattoo gun, right? Tilda is the tormented victim in her dark movie.
Rooney Mara doesn’t get to have a nervous breakdown and see her world collapse like Tilda Swinton does.
Can nobody see how Tilda Swinton’s character is a little easier for Academy members to swallow than Rooney Mara’s character?
That’s all I meant, ok? I mean that Dragon Tattoo is a whole ‘nother kind of darkness from the darkness in Kevin.
I wasn’t ranking the two movies side by side in terms of quality — (although obviously, for me, I’ve already said they’re both in my Top 5 of the year.)
You don’t have to agree about my Top 5, Benjamin.
But please don’t think I’m being condescending by my frustration at trying to explain the darkness thing.
You’re a smart person, right?
You didn’t get my meaning, right?
Is it condescending for me to say that?
Or Fanny and Alexander, which is one of your favourites – yes.
yes! Mattoc, thank you! Fanny & Alexander has endless depth. Will probably never stop discovering all it has to offer.
And Bergman’s Scenes from a Marriage, while we’re at it, right?
and the TV cut of Das Boot
and the TV cut of The Last Emperor
I have huge respect for TV productions.
Downton Abby and Mildred Pierce and John Adams and Band of Brothers make The King’s Speech look like a sausage hors d’oeuvre on a toothpick.
David Lynch’s coherent worldview – do until others as this is not a pipe. Square, chicken, decaying teeth and the like.
@ ryan
just because swedish movie was a television film and fincher’s film is for cinema doesn’t make it any better. maybe you have a problem of mindset that television or perhaps european work cannot out do american cinema.
swedish film got better reviews, even at metacritic. It’s fine if you didn’t like the swedish version but there was nothing to be bored about in forty minutes and majority would say that. that film won BAFTA and BFCA, it wasn’t bad at all and neither was noomi rapace.
as for steven zaillian, he’s not at all an exemplary craftsman. his best work to date is schindler’s list and awakenings rest including gangs of new york, american gangster were strictly okay. not to mention his hideous credits for mission impossible, hannibal and god awful all the kings men which he also directed pathetically. so i guess it isn’t too difficult to believe that zaillian saw the mediocre movie (as u say it was) which won awards around the globe and got tremendous acclaim and even if he didn’t see it he failed to overshadow the original one by a considerable margin we all thought he would. maybe for you he did but not for many, maybe that’s why the film is not getting heavy nominations anywhere.
maybe you have a problem of mindset that television or perhaps european work cannot out do american cinema.
No.
If that were true then I wouldn’t think Von Trier’s The Kingdom or Forbrydelsen or Berlin Alexanderplatz were so genius.
maybe some of you guys have a problem with me having my own taste whenever it doesn’t exactly match yours.
“…or perhaps european work cannot out do american cinema.”
please gimme a break.
take a look at my top 20 favorite movies of 2011. Half of them are international films.
1. Drive
2. The Tree of Life
3. The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
4. Hugo
5. Mysteries of Lisbon
6. We Need to Talk About Kevin
7. A Separation
8. Moneyball
9. Certified Copy
10. 13 Assassins
11. Margin Call
12. I Saw the Devil
13. Clash (2009)
14. Attack the Block
15. Rise of the Planet of the Apes
16. City of Life and Death
17. Melancholia
18. Pariah
19. The Double Hour
20. Rampart
Well Ryan, since you asked, it’s clear what Lady Gaga’s world view is — stop bullying, accept people for who they are and practice embracing what makes you “you” — in other words, self-acceptance and affording the same to everyone else.
Lady Gaga’s world view is — stop bullying, accept people for who they are and practice embracing what makes you “you” — in other words, self-acceptance and affording the same to everyone else.
I hate to bicker, but shouldn’t that be every normal human’s attitude?
seems more like just simple civilized behavior rather than a Coherent World View.
I’d hate to have to concoct a PhD thesis around Do Unto Others.
If the answer is that easy, then I know Fincher’s world view: Thou Shalt Not Kill.
FilmFatale,
I see what you’re saying. But to me probing an artist’s Coherent World View seems to demand a deeper answer than “stop bullying” yes?
like, whoa, that’s some weighty terminology. I could not even begin to define my OWN Coherent World View. Much less Fincher’s or Warhol’s or Mozart’s.
“Coleman and Mara would brilliantly round out the slate of Best Actress nominees.”
If only we could vote, Ryan! 😉
But I would also like to question Streep and probably replace her from your wish-list. I mean, there are so many great female performances this year, and I can only take Streeps pantomime acting style every second of her movies (I liked her very much in “Julie & Julia”)…
Ah, ok…huggz right back at ya!:)
I learned my lesson. Better just be quiet next time.
But welcome back COCK 3″.
Oh dear, we’ve been infected.
TOO LATE TERO!!!
Roney Mara has nothing on Harry Potter. Is her film named Best Film of the Century, best reviews of all time. grossed 14billion worldwide and the final film in the greatest film series anyone has ever seen. it deserved to be nominated to the Best Picture Oscars. Its so better than The Girlm with the Dragon Tattoo
OCO 300 upgraded to COC 5000?
great. Open the pod bay doors, HAL.
Just wanna say — thanks to everybody for the great discussion. Nice to see all the support, and the disagreements were friendly.
As far as We Need to Talk About Kevin vs. The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo — they’re both in my Top 5 this year.
And we’re all looking forward to Noomi Rapace in Prometheus, right? Huggz all around.
Exactly, Tero, that’s one clearly good thing about this thread; it hasn’t been hi-jacked by the HP mafia yet…:)
Inctredible….215 posts and no one about Potter (that must be a record this season on AD)
“Enough with this flop.”
Not really a right thing to say ON a Dragon Tattoo themed thread.
Aren’t we glad this was not hijacked by boys with magical wands and wizard hats?
Enough with this flop. It failed financially (only 40 millions from 100 budget. And who knows how much they spend of promotion. And it will not cross $100 millions mark at the end) and if failed at awards nominations. Only one ridiculous Golden Globe nomination. And we know who they nominate. They nominate the ones who are in the press.
And I really don’t think that sequel will happen. For who will it be? They gave that aggressive promotion. And still it failed. It did not turn out like some Sherlock or Mission blockbuster. And it did not turn in Social Network. It was ignored by critics. Sure they gave good reviews. Like they gave good reviews to Mission Impossible. But that was it. Basically movie failed on on accounts. And if they couldn’t bring viewers now then I don’t think they will get them in second part. I don’t believe trilogy will happen.
And it looks like Rooney Mara will not become Jennifer Lawrence and Carey Mulligan. Simply because Rooney is boring and empty for people to care about her. Take out that Lisbeth make up and look at her in premieres and interviews and it’s just emptiness.
(only 40 millions from 100 budget0
$90 million budget
$40 million in 1 week is fine.
It’ll come close to meeting its budget, domestic.
It might earn another $200 million or more overseas.
So you have no idea what you’re talking about.
oh no!
It failed financially (only 40 millions from 100 budget.
$90mil budget
$60mil box-office in 12 days
hasn’t even opened internationally yet
Well, most people don’t get Nietzsche….Nietzsche was not a nihilist, he was an anti-nihilist advocating an uprooting of contemporary society’s mindless neutralizing of basic values…he vouched for a return to values, it was just a different set of values than what conformist society stood for.
But let’s not go there. Read Nietzsche and you will see. He is the most misinterpreted philosopher ever.
“I have a borderline nihilist outlook on life myself. Not many directors immerse themselves in that attitude in a way that feels sincere to me, but Fincher gets it.”
That’s an evasive answer, at best.
Let’s have this discussion some other time when you feel up for it. I was not trying to criticize Fincher, as much as scrutinizing his motives. He is hard to fathom for me, which might be a good thing. I think he is brilliant, don’t get me wrong. I just don’t see a coherent worldview, that’s all.
I just don’t see a coherent worldview, that’s all
…**
I’m at a loss. Not trying to weasel out, but yeesh.
What’s Hitchcock’s coherent worldview?
What’s Warhol’s coherent worldview?
What’s Lady Gaga’s coherent worldview?
I took a helluva lot of film classes and Orson Welles’ coherent worldview never came up on an exam.
That’s not accurate, Ryan. The first movie was made for cinema, the last two for TV (which Arden Oplev had nothing to do with).
Oplev worked with an ounce of Fincher’s budget, so naturally there is a difference, but the original is an effectively shot thriller, especially considering the budget. I would like to see what Fincher could have achieved on Oplev’s budget…it would have forced him to think out of the box, at least!
Because no way would he have been able to do a significantly better job with that small amount of money than Oplev (who won a BAFTA for his work).
How you can think ill of Rapace’s performance is simply beyond me…especially when you didn’t care about the book in the first place? How could she ruin it for you, if that’s the case…?
How you can think ill of Rapace’s performance is simply beyond me… especially when you didn’t care about the book in the first place?
I didn’t care about the clumsily constructed and lurid little “mystery” . Lisbeth is an amazing creation. Interesting enough to follow through all 3 books. She tells her guardian that all she does is fetch coffee and xerox. I’d read 3 books about her doing that.
10 minutes into the Swedish film, I was shutting down. I didn’t want to let Rapace replace the Lisbeth I had envisioned.
Had my defenses ready to lock down for Fincher’s version too, but in 10 minutes I could see that Rooney Mara was going to be the Lisbeth I knew.
And then I wrote this post.
@ Ryan
Don’t bother checking out the other two films, btw. The third one is on par with the first, but the second one was dreadful. The theatrical edit was incomprehensible – central characters with only one scene, subplots which are intensely dwelt upon for five minutes and then never mentioned again, a bumbling pace, no visual flair to any degree and stock characterisation which failed to develop either lead any further than the first film had. I haven’t read the books, but even I could tell that there was a hell of a lot of unnecessary stuff left in and necessary stuff left out.
Paddy M! gosh, thanks.
I wake up this morning and made to feel like I’m a leper because the Swedish film failed to knock my socks off.
I haven’t read the books, but even I could tell that there was a hell of a lot of unnecessary stuff left in and necessary stuff left out.
What the book has that Zaillian and Fincher’s movie doesn’t: Twice as many red herrings in the form of a bunch more weird relatives.
Also, 100 pages in the beginning where nothing happens.
There may have been a short break between the first film and the next two – but not a long one. A couple weeks?
All three movies were shot back-to-back thinking they would be 3hrs each, making it a 6-episode miniseries. TV funding was crucial. Only the first one (Dragon Tattoo) was made with a bigger budget cause that was meant for theaters before DVD and TV. Depending on its success, they were to decide whether or not the last two will be seen in theaters or just on DVD, and eventually on TV.
So, they made longer versions of all three, but obviously edited them shorter for theaters.
The longer versions had been aired on TV here (in all Nordic countries) before the first one even got its DVD release in USA.
TV funding is important here. In the case Dragon Tattoo alone (15M euro budget), you need that 500,000 euros from Finnish National Broadcasting Company, for example. Sweden has less than 10M people, it would make profit only if ALL Swedes saw it – and that is not happening.
whoa, Tero. Thank you.
I shouldn’t even have tried to grope around for an answer to TV/theatrical question. Should’ve passed it right along to you.
Why must the supposedly much-sought-after breakthrough actress always be white? I never understand that. As America gets browner, taste-makers considerations remain decidedly Caucasian.
Where’s the love for Adepero Oduye in Pariah?
Ryan-
Why so much venom for the original film? I may be wrong, but I believe the original film was theatrical and the second two, both inferior, were made for television.
I agree with those above that the original film has real, and very dark, evil in it, a better sleuth story with the pair is leads who felt much more like a team, and more importunely a gutsier, more feral and more fascinating Lisbeth — who was really like a “don’t fuck with me” cruise missile ripping through the movie. Also found it highly cinematic and it is shot in widescreen with superb lighting and framing.
Why so much venom for the original film? I may be wrong, but I believe the original film was theatrical and the second two, both inferior, were made for television.
I believe all three novels were optioned for broadcast TV in Sweden and other Scandinavian countries. It was only after they became such a sensation that the 3-hour TV version was edited down for a theatrical cut for international distribution.
Venom? I just don’t care for it. Is that ok? It wasn’t what I wanted. It’s not the Lisbeth I had imagined. The 40 mins of the movie I first endured threatened to ruin whatever regard I had for the book. So I stopped watching it. I didn’t like it. I don’t think that’s poisonous venom.
Lots of people like the original. You’re not alone.
Niels Arden Oplev is a television director. Check his credits on IMDb. Looks like 95% or more of his projects have been for broadcast TV.
To me, that’s easy to see from looking at the movie.
Ok, fair enough. You got that right. I don’t like it.
One last thing: the nihilistic streak that is so apparent in this film, what do you get from that? What makes it interesting to you? What does it say about Fincher as a filmmaker? Is the nihilism just a marketable proposition because it fits so nicely with his visual style? Or is there any kind of substance behind it, do you think? Does he want to communicate some kind of worldview? And in that case, how has that “worldview” (if a nihilist frame of mind deserves that labeling), evolved within his entire oeuvre?
It is one thing, that Mara/Salander “kicks ass” (a prime heroine for the goth girls out there, the teenage girls who tire of Twilight…), but what about the rest? I would like to know what a fan of the film thinks about these things instead of always focusing on Mara’s performance…
What makes it interesting to me, personally, is pretty simple. I have a borderline nihilist outlook on life myself. Not many directors immerse themselves in that attitude in a way that feels sincere to me, but Fincher gets it.
I don’t know how to answer that. I’m not even sure he’d like to think of himself as a nihilist or to be viewed that way.
I’m not trying to being evasive. but I really don’t understand the question. That’s like saying, “Nietzsche is a nihilist. What does that say about him as a philosopher?”
dunno, you mean other than he was genius at it? Do we need more than that? Nietzche’s expression of his nihilism is breathtaking. Glad he took the time to express it. His nihilism is a fascinating cultural treasure.
sorry, baffled again. Nihilism as Marketing Proposition. Least popular course at Rotterdam School of Management.
I’m gonna try not to be insulted that you might be suggesting it’s all some superficial affectation, like heroin chic.
Ryan-
The orog
Subjectivity accusation: I have never read anything on this site that wasn’t subjective, including those bloody metacritic numbers that are based entirely on someone else’s subjective take, or the box office ratings, based on the paying audience’s very subjective choices about what they want to see. Isn’t that the whole point, subjectively speaking?
Pulp novels into film: Gone with the Wind, The Godfather, From Here to Eternity, The Maltese Falcon, Jurassic Park, The Thin Man, James Bond (pick one), Planet of the Apes, Doctor Zhivago, etc. Doesn’t mean the film will improve on the material, but often, it does.
Thanks, steve50
More pulp novels into film:
The Silence of the Lambs
The Postman Always Rings Twice
Double Indemnity
Mildred Pierce
James M. Cain, master of tightly crafted pulp. Even though he wrote Mildred Pierce as a social-realist domestic melodrama, it was a bestseller sensation because it was dripping with sex and perversity. (the violence was added for the movie.)
Ryan, come on, I randomly wrote the word “subjective” once, you don’t have to make a big deal out of that, do you? That’s patronizing, frankly…
I randomly wrote the word “subjective” once, you don’t have to make a big deal out of that, do you? That’s patronizing, frankly…
That was your argument. Telling me my opinion somehow doesn’t carry much weight for you because it’s subjective.
To me, that’s patronizing.
Maybe I’ve figured out why we don’t see the same value in this movie:
I think I like the movie and you don’t.
I think we can both agree that two adaptations of the same source material is probably more suitable for comparison than Bridesmaids and IB…but, yeah, you are right: we should not use metacritic numbers as the holy grail of any discussion, it is just interesting to notice in this case, I think. But, ultimately, futile, indeed.
If what Fincher and Zaillian wanted to do with the source material was to emphasize the relation between Salander and Blomkvist, it is odd that the remake spends suspiciously less time on establishing Blomkvist as a character than the original. It is almost like Blomkvist becomes obsolete; we get no real sense of his history (unlike in the original), which is a problem that the film never recovers from. We don’t get to care for Blomkvist in Craig’s bland portrayal of him (granted, he has precious little to do with, because Zaillian finds him not so important…).
And it also sucks if it flops. That makes it harder and harder for R-rated films once again. Seems to me that only comedies fair in R today.
If I want an Alien prequel, I don’t want a PG-13 Prometheus, I want it to be in line with the 1979 film.
I don`t get it why EW cover story is now taken seriously as Mara being the contender that can push out hopefulls who did much better with precursors than she? It`s no rocket science to see that she got GG nom because Williams is competing in comedy.
Also, considering that the movie is underperforming, this is a desperate attempt to raise interest in the movie where relentless 24-7 overmarketing failed. I guess that Best Picture miracle is the only hope for GWTDT to get legs and break even domesticlaly cause it`s clearly not gonna happen otherwise.
Finally, world`s coolest heroine? LOL. Can`t wait to see EW forget that come March and Jennifer Lawrence takes center stage on the cover for Hunger Games. These guys write the same stuff for everyone, so should we put J-Law among 2012 contenders based on that?
@Kt re Young Adult: There’s a good film in there somewhere but the script was not ready for filming. Theron’s character came off flat because she focussed on playing depression, which doesn’t work unless you add something to it. It may have been real (“all-too-real,” as you say), but in the case of playing depression, an actor needs to add something else to make the character interesting.
And how does he elevate it? As I said, it is very literal take on the source material (which as far as literary quality goes, is unintentional pulp, yes). And if what you are saying is true, tell me, what attracted Fincher to this project in the first place? Th fun of working with a bad novel?? How gracious of him…!
And how does he elevate it?
In my eyes. Fincher made a movie that is better than the book. To me.
(do I have to say this is my subjective opinion, or is that understood now?)
tell me, what attracted Fincher to this project in the first place?
I’m supposed to look into Fincher’s mind for you now? Here, hold onto my subjective thingy.
Remember that? From two comments up?
the “tedious” Swedish movie you are talking about got better reviews than Fincher’s version, so that is a very subjective take, Ryan. Roger Ebert gave it a four star review, among others.
^
yeah, and Bridesmaids got better reviews than Inglourious Basterds.
you win! your numbers defeat me!
so that is a very subjective take, Ryan.
Do I really need to preface everything I say with “I feel — and this is only my opinion — in my view….”
Your views are fairly subjective too, right?
So are Ebert’s opinions: Subjective.
Guess whose subjective opinion matters to more to ME than Roger Ebert’s subjective opinion.
“…er…
one of them harms the mind? then i’m fucked.”
Haha. I meant the mother-son-kinda thing. Not the normal kind.
Ryan, that scene in WNTTAK will probably stir up the Academy a lot more than the anal rape scenes in TGWTDT (which is really just yet another example of the kind of graphic violence Hollywood delivers on a daily basis, I think most people are pretty used to it, even within the Academy). But I could be wrong.
The scene in WNTTAK is much, MUCH more subversive and “dangerous” (and, yes, perverse!), and much more uncomfortable for most viewers, I would think.
Yes, there is a difference between the kind of psychological horror that Ramsay is getting at and Fincher’s “pulpy entertainment”. True. One is subtle, intelligent and though-provoking, the other is just…well…pulpy entertainment. Or is it? Do you think Fincher would agree on that, btw? Labeling his work as pulpy?
Don’t get me wrong: I LOVE pulpy movies. Drive was my number one movie of the year. But if Fincher’s film is pulp, then I STILL don’t really get it, I must admit. The pulp of Drive invigorates the movie, it has an apparent, but ultimately misleading, anti-substance feel to it (because the style and what it references, is so obvious), but with TGWTDT the pulp aspect is only there when you think about the “pulp fiction” of the source material (a book that fails as great literature, but compels as a page-turner).
Fincher doesn’t deliver pulp to me, he delivers a very LITERAL take on the dark/perverse thematics of the novel (he is not as interested in the narrative, i.e. the whole Vanger family business as Arden Oplev, granted). But it is a bleak, nihilistic perspective on humanity that permeates almost every frame of TGWTDT. To say that is just pulp and it is supposed to be like that, is really just another way of dismissing it.
In that case, Drive is visionary, playful pulp and TGWTDT is thought-less, nihilistic pulp. And I don’t see the value of the latter.
“Do you think Fincher would agree on that, btw? Labeling his work as pulpy?”
I think he absolutely KNOWS the original novel was pulpy.
Then I think he elevated it beyond the pulp elements.
Can we at least stop pretending that Stieg Larsson’s books are fine literature? They’re pulp. Packed with perversity, sex and violence. That’s why they’re bestsellers. (Don’t kid yourself). They’re a step above Dan Brown, as far as literary quality. So what? Mario Puzo never won the Pulitzer Prize either. Trashy novels often make awesome movies.
I’d like to know what did you think about Eva (Swinton’s character)? Did you feel for her like I did? She was not your average mother. Was she partially the reason why Kevin became such a fucked up person? Not spoiling much by saying how much he loved his father (played brilliantly by John C. Reilly).
I need to see this again to start really analysing it. I am not familiar with the book.
My sister has eight children. I will show this film to her once it gets its blu-ray release in a couple of months. I want to see how a mother sees this.
Is it a horror film? No. A drama filled with horrifying events.
I was not comparing rape and masturbation, other than both had sex-shock value. You already admitted that ‘Kevin’ was perverted. Both would be mentioned in the year’s top ten bold moments.
I do know the difference that one only harms the mind whereas the other harms the mind, soul, body, everything. You know which is which.
I do know the difference that one only harms the mind whereas the other harms the mind, soul, body, everything. You know which is which.
…er…
one of them harms the mind? then i’m fucked.