THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO (2009)

For my Mum’s 60^th birthday I had arranged a surprise that involved watching the Girl that Played with Fire, the Swedish film adaptation of the second book in Stieg Larsson’s record breaking novel trilogy. This put me in a very difficult position, I had not read any of the books and I had not seen the first film in the series. Would I be able to waltz in to the saga 33% of the way through with no knowledge and still enjoy myself.

I decided not to risk it and would have to watch the first film beforehand. However, I only managed to finally watch it on Saturday morning, the same day as I was due to be surprising my mum. Cutting it a bit fine....but I succeeded and got away with it.

I settled down to watch it and realised that I had no idea what to expect. I had somehow managed to avoid the phenomenon. I saw a different person reading it every day on the train, swimming pools on holidays were surrounded by copies of the books, you couldn’t look anywhere without seeing the cover. Somehow, I had battened down the hatches and I had no idea what it was about.

I believe that my ignorance made the film more enjoyable so I won’t go into too much detail when describing the plot. Blomqvist, famous journalist for political magazine Millennium, is sentenced to 3 months in prison for printing a factually incorrect article about a Swedish businessman. He has 6 months to wait until his sentence begins and is offered a job by a rich businessman to look into details of his niece’s disappearance 40 years ago. A separate storyline runs alongside this – the story of Lisbeth Salander. Professional hacker and very ‘alternative’ individual.

The first thing to say is that it is a very tough watch. There are a few scenes that are very graphic and the director doesn’t hold back from showing some really awful things in full view. I do think that these scenes are necessary though, they really do help in building a really dark atmosphere in a world where everything seems ok on the surface with homely rural communities, but when you scratch the surface, little is as it seems.

The lead performances are fantastic, particularly Noomi Rapace's portrayal of Lisbeth Salander. As I have already mentioned, I’ve not read the books but I have spoken to many people who have and they all say how spot-on the casting is for that character. She is easily one of the most interesting characters, male or female, that I have seen in a film in a very long while. She is a bundle of contradictions, seemingly wanting to do the right thing, but never wanting to get too close to anyone - ‘Falling in love is the worst thing you can do’. She gives very little away but you know deep down that there is a simmering darkness to her personality that could erupt at any moment and almost certainly will. She has the resourcefulness of Bourne, the ruthlessness vengeance of Michael Caine’s character in Get Carter but in the next scene will have a child-like innocence about her. Truly incredible stuff.  

Blomqvist is the ying to Salander’s yang. The difference in their personalities, characters and the worlds they inhabit make what is essentially a straightforward murder mystery all the more interesting. The clues and progression in the plot are a sideshow to the development of the characters and gives the cast the opportunity and scope to add flesh to these already complex personas.

The supporting cast are all excellent providing more than able support. Its a real treat to see a film where not every person is great looking with chiseled chins and immaculate hair. Real people. It all adds to the gritty reality of the adaptation.

Another character that needs mentioning is the country. There are some wonderful sweeping shots of the landscape, making the cities look colourless and the rural settings are shown to ramp up the feeling of isolation. Inspiring. The director clearly knows what he's doing. Another example, and another reason why I liked the film so much, is the use of flashbacks. So often this device is used as a way of explaining a missing plot element to the audience. Not here. Instead, Niels Arden Oplev uses flashbacks to allude to a character's history, not to spell it out. He clearly doesn't think that the viewer is an idiot and is confident that we can either fill in the gaps, or, even more impressively, use our own thoughts to form views on what is happening and what is making these people react in this way.  

By the time we get to the pay-off at the end I was so invested in the characters that I really cared about what would happen and had no idea how it was going to play out. However, the one criticism is that once this pay off is over, there is another ending that makes the film feel overly long – I suspect that it was a vital plot point in the book and the film makers felt that they could not leave this out otherwise they would feel the wrath of the Larsson-ites.

I can’t recommend it enough. It is an intelligently paced (it felt very similar in tone to Let The Right One In, methodically creeping through the plot as it gathers pace to it’s conclusion), fantastically acted and thought-provoking thriller that constantly keeps you guessing. I’m not sure whether it’s as good as the books, but on this occasion I don’t think that matters. I’m happy to have experienced the film as a newbie and I’m interested in seeing what David Fincher does with the material  in the Hollywood version, because there’s plenty for him to work with here. He could learn a thing or two from this film though. Less is more.