The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2011)

Whether it is due to financial gain, artistic idealism, or whether it is born out of a necessity to bring alternative stories to wider audiences, Hollywood has a knack for remaking films made before a certain date or made by another society. Recently a Swedish book, made into a Swedish film, was remade, Let Me In (2010) is, despite some very good performances, one of the most pointless remakes to date. The film is so visually similar to the original Let the Right One In (2008) and the only plot differences (made in an attempt to tone down the perversion) only succeed in making the film more depressing.

David Fincher’s The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2011) succeeds where others fail because rather than a remake of a recently made film, it goes straight to the source (Stieg Larsson’s internationally acclaimed posthumously published novel by the same name) and is treated like a literary adaptation. 

The now well known narrative follows Mikael Blomkvist (Daniel Craig), a disgraced investigative journalist as he attempts to uncover the mystery surrounding a 40 year old murder. He is assisted by the eponymous Lisbeth Salander (Rooney Mara), a ward of the state, computer hacker and personal investigator. Fincher doesn’t wait to impress but dives straight in with the opening credits. Accompanied by Led Zeppelin’s Immigrant Song performed by Trent Reznor, Atticus Rose and Karen O, the tone (along with the expectations) is set. Steven Zaillian’s screenplay is a great adaptation of the novel, including many set pieces that the original Swedish film missed out on, as well as making some subtle changes so that audiences well versed with the original book and film will still have some surprises awaiting them. Although the language is changed, the setting of Sweden is not, creating a very familiar aesthetic, but due to the other differences, this is more of a testament to Larsson’s book than a degradation of Fincher’s originality. This is by no means Fincher’s first literary adaptation, or his first film about serial killers for that matter, and he should achieve the same accolades as he did with Fight Club (1999) or Se7en (1995).

The setting of Sweden demands accents in an attempt not to ‘Americanise’ the film, and in general the accents (a second best to using the original language) don’t falter, Craig is the only actor not to attempt an accent. He has proved in previous films that he is able to adapt his voice sufficiently, so the choice not to attempt one is rather odd. Film-wide Swedish accents would have been better although he plays Blomkvist well enough for this not to be too heavy a problem. Also, audiences have already extended their belief to include Swedish nationals speaking English, so one failed accent isn’t too much more for them to accept. Craig’s Blomkvist is a great portrayal, he’s not a hero, he’s a normal human being, and so he’s easy to emphasise with. The film is full of fantastic actors in minor roles, who all step up to fill the film with great performances. In a strange exception to the rule, the remake is better than the original in almost every way. The one difference however is a major one.

With no disrespect to Rooney Mara, who transformed magnificently into Lisbeth Salander and had performed brilliantly, but the portrayal of Salander let the film down. The appeal of the book and the first film was Salander, most films rely on stereotypes so that audiences can understand them with little backstory, ‘The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo’ is part of a trilogy and so is able to prolong the exposition of the characters and have the audience or reader wait to find out more about them. Salander is supposed to be a withdrawn, mysterious character, drawing the curiosity of the audience, instead she’s open and hides very little about herself. She’s also supposed to be (despite being a ward of the state) independent, instead she comes across as needy and dependent, she not only cares what people thinks, she asks permission to do things that in the other portrayals, she just does. In a patriarchal society (The original Swedish title means ‘Men who Hate Women’) it was an independent woman who drew the interest from the audience, not the murder mystery or her male counterparts. In the American adaptation Craig’s Blomkvist is the more interesting character. This single disappointing fact stops Fincher’s adaptation from being incredible and stops it from being a better film than the original Swedish adaptation.

The way that it was adapted and the over-all film, however, show what can be done with the second and third installments of the Millennium trilogy and it will be interesting to see how those can be compared.

Written by Edward L. Corrigan on 31/12/2011

The Adventures of Tintin: The Secret of the Unicorn

Robbie Collin of the Telegraph reported of Steven Spielberg:

“There’s not a lot of films I’d watch that are made over the past 20 years, because I’m much more of a romantic,” he said in a recent interview, adding later: “I think producers are more interested in backing concepts than directors and writers. I don’t think that’s the right way of making a decision about whether you’re going to back a film or not.”

Collin continues to point out the hypocrisy of this statement considering the amount of shocking remakes and terrible sequels that Spielberg has backed, produced or directed in recent history. No amount of bad films will ever be able to take away from the grandeur of some of Spielberg’s previous films: Saving Private Ryan (1998), Schindler’s List (1993) or the film that coined the term ‘blockbuster’ Jaws (1975). Having said that the list that Collin collates is large and in many cases irrefutable. Notably that list included Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008) and The Adventures of Tintin: The Secret of the Unicorn (2011). Audiences and critics agreed that the final Indy installment was shocking, but they disagree on the adaptation of Herge’s young hero. With the possibility of sequels, people have dubbed Tintin as Spielberg’s new Dr. Jones. But will Tintin get the same treatment, or has he already?

In regards to topics such as film, an entertainment medium so widely accessible by such a wide range of demographics, that critics look too heavily into topics and are too academic. Are the opinions of critics too far removed from those of the general public? In the case of Tintin it would appear so. It topped the UK box office in its opening weekend taking £6.7 million and yet it failed to get any outstanding reviews. The majority of the reviews were in fact incredibly damning. The more probable reason for the difference is fandom. Thousands of fans of the original comic books would have gone to see it in droves and judging by the reviews, the critics were all fans. Fandom can be a blessing and cause many problems for filmmakers. The blessing is in the box office sales, the problems come afterwards with opinions. Whereas fans of sports teams support that team through all challenges it faces, once a film is released, it faces no more challenges. With no more challenges, opinions of it shouldn’t change; it doesn’t get better or worse. So if or when a remake or sequel is released it is judged comparatively by the high regard fans have for the original (whether that high regard was earned legitimately or not). The reasons for fandom of the original brings up the question of auteur-ship and who made it as good as it was. Was it the director, the screenwriter, the original writer or the star? The quality of the original product will grow with nostalgia until it is often not possible to out-do. The opinions of fans are never unbiased and therefore are possible to be swayed. If filmmakers can get fans on-board early during the production process, this will affect their opinions when the film comes to be released. In this age of internet blogging and twittering opinions fans can make or break a film. In this case, all critics seemed to be massive fans of the original Herge comics and Spielberg couldn’t live up to the hype. 

Tintin started life as a figment of the imagination of Belgian comic book creator Herge (real name Georges Remi). Tintin was a young investigative journalist who constantly found himself in troublesome adventures with, or because of his friends. He was always accompanied by his dry-witted dog Snowy who regularly came to his aide and as the comics progressed he accrued more friends, a grumpy alcoholic sailor Captain Haddock, a half deaf scientist Professor Calculus and the dim-witted detectives Thomson and Thompson.

The film spans three of the comic books: The Crab with the Golden Claws (1941), The Secret of the Unicorn (1943) and Red Rackham’s Treasure (1944).

The film was animated using the technique of motion-capture, which due to the involvement of producer Peter Jackson and actor Andy Serkis isn’t much of a surprise. Motion capture (capturing the motions made by the actors and animating it from there) adds more human movement than the comics had while not fully taking away from the animation.

Spielberg’s directorial projects cannot be boxed into any particular style, and even if they could, animation would not be part of that box. However this film has his stamp all over, even to the point that it makes references to some of his previous work. While Tintin does not have much of a fan-base in the States, a comic was given to Spielberg on the set of Indiana Jones after somebody connected the similarities of the two characters, it was only a matter of time before he, the one director that Herge would have wanted to adapt Tintin, did just that. Peter Jackson, the producer and another big Tintin fan, was the man who persuaded Spielberg to use the mo-cap animation technique which, which although upset die-hard fans of the original art, worked far better than the originally planned live action adaptation.

It only takes a brief glance at the credentials of the writing team to see their personal influences. Steven Moffat, a Scottish writer, has been writing for television for decades but his most recent acclaims include Dr. Who and the BBC adaptation Sherlock. Edgar Wright, and English writer and director, wrote the hit television series Spaced and wrote and most notably wrote and directed the first two installments of the ‘Blood and Ice-cream trilogy’ Shaun of the Dead (2004) and Hot Fuzz (2007). The final writer is Joe Cornish, one half of the comedy team Adam and Joe who has recently transcended to film by writing and directing the critically acclaimed Attack the Block (2011). The script succeeds where many adaptations fail, it allows for personal influences and inspirations while keeping the key characterisation. The film is by no means entirely faithful to the original texts, but when trying to fit three comics into one film that would never have been possible. It does beg the question why try to fit three stories into one? What’s wrong with the individual stories?

However the key in a series spanning over 20 comics is the characterisation, and the writers captured the heart of the characters. The comedy elements all seemed childish and slapstick, but again, that fits with the comedy of a comic book series aimed at a young demographic.

Tintin, the earnest young reporter is brought to screen by Jamie Bell. Bell retains unfaltering moral compass and keeps Tintin on the straight and narrow. Andy Serkis, as ever, jumps head first into his performance as Captain Archibald Haddock stealing the show from under Tintin’s nose with shouts of “Blistering Barnacles” and “Thundering Typhoons”. Although Serkis plays Haddock with a Scottish accent this fits with the rest of the British cast keeping very English accents. Thomson and Thompson are played by the inseparable Simon Pegg and Nick Frost. This proven partnership isn’t given enough time to shine. While Herge primarily used them as comic relief from some of the more serious issues he brought to light, their clumsy slapstick comedy seemed outdated and unnecessary. Captain Haddock and Snowy provided more than enough comedy next to the straight-laced Tintin.

Daniel Craig hasn’t seen many villainous roles in recent years, and when they have been villainous, they’ve often had a good side. The quality and enthusiasm of Craig’s Sakharine/Red Rackham makes you wonder if he’s bored of playing the hero and relishes the chance to be the villain again.

The film achieves a very European aesthetic while the writing team and cast create a very British feel. The film opens in an unnamed European marketplace which looks a lot like Brussels, Herge’s hometown, while the dialogue (and specifically, the use of the word ‘quid’) alludes to an almost cockney London. The film opens very strongly with a credit sequence that recreates scenes from a number of the original comics followed by the aforementioned marketplace scene which features more than just a Brussels-esque backdrop to reference the origins of the story. Little time is wasted before diving straight into the narrative; Tintin buys a model of the 17^th century ship The Unicorn which, only after the purchase, is highly sought after. After taking it home he finds a cryptic scroll inside it, but before he can act on it he’s pick pocketed and kidnapped. His craving for the truth behind a possible story drives him from being a prisoner on Captain Haddock’s mutinied ship (along with Haddock himself), to the African desert and after a short stop in the fictional city of Bagghar, he finally back to the unnamed European city. Although the end starts to drag on a bit there are some truly remarkable scenes. While in the desert Haddock starts to sober up and begins to remember the story of his ancestor Sir Francis Haddock and Red Rackham’s treasure. Haddock’s mad re-enactment of this relived partly through him and partly through flash-backs brings excitement and an extra level of adventure to what was starting to become a rather linear story. Although die-hard fans will be annoyed that this action was relived in the desert as opposed to in the Marlinspike Estate, it featured at the right time for the film.

Realistically this film was never going to please everyone. Nostalgia will either have put the original comics on a pedestal, or will help you find childish slapstick humour funny again. The film will have either deviated from the original texts too much to satisfy, or you’ll find that what excited you as a child no longer does. However it works well as a children’s film and the big question, is how will it be received in America? American audiences who didn’t grow up with Tintin will not have the pre-conceived nostalgia that European audiences have. There won’t be Herge fans running to the cinema in their thousands or turning their noses up. 

Will The Adventures of Tintin: The Secret of the Unicorn work as a stand-alone film to an audience unaware of the adaptation? Will a new generation of previously unknowing Americans find the original comics and be as enthralled as we were growing up in Europe? The answers to these questions will determine whether or not Spielberg succeeded in making Tintin as a film, and we won’t know the answers until the State-side release later this month.

Written by Edward L. Corrigan on 1/12/2011