Was reminded again how much I ultimately really dislike the Fincher version of The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo as an adaptation, and that the pacing and style choices undermine some of the characters, especially Lisbeth. Fincher's such a thriller icon and I love a lot of his work but the film was really disappointing, especially when there was so much hype about it in comparison to the 2009 Swedish film.
I know a lot of fellow Americans are allergic to subtitles, and there is no dub (to my knowledge) of the Swedish production, and truth be told this version is fairly hard to come by in hard copies. Undoubtedly the limited budget and smaller (international, or at least anglosphere) names attached to the project draws audiences to the Fincher film instead.
The music by Trent Reznor was also a major sell-point, but if I'm honest, the intro theme music of the Swedish film series is the best piece of music in either production.
So what about the Fincher one grinds my gears so?
On a minor level, I think the casting is a bit of a miss. I think Rooney Mara was excellent as the Lisbeth she was given. I also think everyone else's performances were really good! I just think Mikael and Martin both were miscast, especially in the time it was released.
I think Daniel Craig is too pretty and too cool of a Mikael. He was a bit too smart, a bit too suave, and it really moves away from Blomkvist just being a normal dude with the grit to not put something down. I don't think the character is uniquely clever, rather, he is just willing to do the grunt work and not be too afraid to pursue the truth. Ultimately, a lot of the tricky things to solve came from Lisbeth, and much of what Blomkvist uncovers is stuff other people knew but pretended not to. In the Fincher film, much more is uncovered by Blomkvist, almost to the point of Lisbeth being a minor assistant and not the one who figured things out.
I also think Blomkvist not facing prison time is a hard miss, because it lowers the personal stakes and does a bit more to shy away from critiquing the system, my ACTUAL biggest beef with this film.
The other misstep is Martin. I adore Stellen's acting, and he is phenomenal at villains and complex antagonists. Which unfortunately made him such an obvious suspect. Haber's Martin is such a plainly normal dude that his friendliness comes off as genuine and disarming. He's a Nice Guy, like many nazis.
And really that gets into the meat of the trouble. The pacing of the Fincher film is quick and snappy, whereas the 2009 film took its time, teased you, and developed the plot smoothly. I don't think it's the worst thing, but in comparison it seems pretty obvious that it rushed a bit. What got cut for time was both a bit more leaning into the horror of the body count AND crucially examining the ways the victims could be victimized by the system. The 2011 American film, by glossing over it, commits a bit of the sin that a lot of nazi-critiquing media does: turns nazis (and other killers, frankly) into some sinister genius that could escape detection instead of what the book and 2009 film imply: the crimes were done obviously and sloppily and no one gave a fuck because of who the victims were, and only when a member of the rich nazi family was missing did this stir concern, and even then only so far as it did not threaten the interests of said nazi family--which didn't get them very far.
The film is not about how clever and spectacular the killings were, but that it was extremely easy to get away with clear atrocity so long as the atrocity is committed by someone with support from the system. Blomkvist's initial court case is not just external pressure for his growth, it is a parallel plot. Harriet and Mikael both are not super-geniuses, they just looked at what other people refused to, and were both punished to varying degrees for trying to set things right. That's the story!!!
But the worst victim of softening the systemic critique is of course, the boss bitch herself, Lisbeth. The 2011 version waters her down a bit, sexualizes her a bit more, makes her solve less than the 2009 version, and then the character assassination cherry on the cake: they make her sane.
The book and 2009 film make it clear that something is wrong with Lisbeth. And it's predominantly the product of abuse, neglect, and trauma, but possibly not only. 2011 Lisbeth is odd, surely, but she's not as mentally ill, or not as clearly, and that hurts her arc, imo.
The 2011 version makes her nicer, softer, sadder, and ultimately ends up implying that she isn't really crazy and violent, just misunderstood, and so the system should not have treated her this way, because she doesn't BELONG in this environment.
The 2009 film, and book to a degree, says that Lisbeth is definitely the sort of person the system would categorize as a sociopath--be it due to personality disorders or autism or some other disorder. She IS what the system says she is, and this version argues "that is no reason to treat her this way."
I find "I am not REALLY crazy so institutional violence is wrong" to be a wildly weaker storyline than "everything I am does not make me deserving of systemic torture."
Again, it's a heavy criticism of psychiatry and how the system can allow abusers to wield control over people because deciding someone else's autonomy and personhood is a dangerous thing regardless of whether the person is "well-adjusted" to society. Something something the person well-adjusted to a sick society blah blah. The atrocity is not that this violence is done to someone who "doesn't deserve it", the atrocity is that we justify the systemic violence at all.
The story does such a good job of pointing out how systems of power enable abuse and death, and that they are only able to get away with it because people who care are silenced. It does nothing to gloss over that and replace the story with a battle of wits between super-sleuths and a sinister villain.
If the Fincher version was an original concept I think the movie would be fine, but it is a disastrous adaptation when it shies away from the systemic critique that guides the entire conversation the book (and 2009 film) is having with you. There's a reason the OG title was Men Who Hate Women, because the system benefits even the laziest oppressor every time they decide to flex, and it is difficult to oppose, not through the strength or smarts of the oppressor, but by the strength of the system upholding itself by finding these deaths to be necessary maintenance.
All of the characters, while deeply compelling, are not really unique. They are stand-ins for countless victims of a society that puts profit over truth, refuses to contend with its white supremacist past and present, and that weaponizes psychiatric and judicial processes to force dissent into submission.
Seeking justice within the "rules" of society doesn't work smoothly for those that society pushes to the margins.
