Too Faithful

Posted by: Melinda

Tagged in: Movies

Just got home from watching THE GIRL WHO PLAYED WITH FIRE, same Swedish cast from the first film, but a different (and inferior) director, and the script was not good.  It was two and half hours of plodding plot points, and unimaginative direction.

The second book by Larsson is complicated and convoluted, relies a great deal on coincidence.  It would have worked really well as a multi-episode series a la HBO or Showtime.  Instead this film is long, it's dull, and if you hadn't read the books I think it would be incomprehensible.

The screenwriter cut out all the intricate back room dealings with the police, but what went on with the police was pretty essential to ultimately solving the mystery, so that wasn't the best choice.  All of the sex trafficking case was kept, but it ultimately didn't really help with the resolution.  They showed me a lot of pointless scenes that were in the book, but were neither visual nor exciting they were just vehicles to impart information.  They worked in a book.  They didn't work on film because there _are different mediums_.

Some really hard choices, and deep cuts and changes needed to be made for this to work as a two plus hour movie, and they didn't make them.  They tried to stay very true to the book, and made a bad movie.  It's the same complaint I had about the first two Harry Potter films that were just endless and plodding, and Watchmen which was reverential, and as a result didn't work as a film for me.

Books two and three in this series would make a boffo series if you could get a network to commit to thirteen to twenty episodes.  There would have been time to get to know the young investigative journalist and his girl friend who wrote the thesis on sex trafficking.  Then when they died you would have cared.  You could have seen the good cops beginning to realize that there is something really rotten higher up in the command structure.

Somethings aren't meant to be movies without making profound changes.  Other things aren't meant to be series.  Art can sometimes occur when you can tell the difference, and then convince someone to finance your vision.  Never easy.

Trackback(0)
Comments (5)Add Comment
0
Yep
written by Ian, August 14, 2010
Sometimes, too much reverence for the source material can be a bad thing.
0
I wonder....
written by Chris, August 18, 2010

I wonder how David Fincher's version of the books will work out. Perhaps he'll find a way to be faithful to the series and add some fresh ideas that will help the movie at the same time.
0
...
written by rand, August 19, 2010
@Chris: Fincher's adaptation of "Fight Club" is an excellent example. DF is a filmmaker 1st & foremost. While he does respect source material, his main objective is exemplary film storytelling. This aesthetic is evident in his treatment of the "Alien" franchise (that the studio recut-- DF's version was much better), "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button" (based on the short story by F. Scott Fitzgerald) & "Zodiac" which was based on a book by Cean Chaffin. Barring any studio meddling, the Larrsen books are in very capable hands. Not the nicest person (though I've heard he's mellowed w/ maturity), Fincher is 1 of the most underrated filmmakers working.
63
...
written by Melindas, August 19, 2010
Not underrated by people in the industry. My manager thinks he's a genius, and rightly so. I loved The Curious Case, and I'm usually pretty intolerant of three hour long movies. I was just enthralled.
0
...
written by rand, August 20, 2010
Absolutely. But in the industry he's considered more of a complicated artist (coupled w/ his reputation as an abusive a-hole) as opposed to a director who has the overall attention of a Cameron or a Scorsese. Which is to his credit, in a way (because it means his work is considered serious). People outside the biz are more familiar w/ his movies than him personally. But his movies have all made $ (even Alien cubed & The Game), are in the cultural consciousness (everyone's still trying to copy Se7en & quoting Fight Club), yet he doesn't have the same brand recognition as those other helmers. Despite how I feel about him personally, I think he's on par w/ directors like John Houston (passion), David Lean (scope) & Stanley Kubrick (intellect). I've never met any director more dedicated to perfecting his craft & the attention to detail in which he composes every shot; (we still have mutual friends who tell me) he's just as enthusiastic & focused now as he was when he was 22 directing music videos for Propaganda Films where he set the standard for how videos were constructed & shot (Aerosmith's "Janey's Got A Gun" & Don Henley's "Boys Of Summer" et al are excellent examples).

Write comment

busy