Ok. I did not know Gabrielsson was a co-author. I am sorry. I did not know she saw both films and stands by her original statement. Is that something you can find online? I am interested in learning more.
Why do you think it was so disgusting Larsson's father and brother possess Larsson's estate including all his literary works? It's because of the disgusting inheritor laws in Sweden. A partner cannot inherit, only a spouse can. But the reason Gabrielsson couldn't as Larsson's partner is because to be able for her to, Larsson would have had to publish her as his inheritor. Considering his political writings in his magazine, that would have put her at risk. So he didn't. She was also not allowed as co-author on the work because of that also. So she is not allowed to even call the work her own.
But look, you can disagree with an interpretation of a scene from Fincher's film, but you can't do it by analyzing a scene from Opalev's film. They are two different scenes in two different adaptations. What the scene means in Opalev's film is - we agree - different than what it means in Fincher's film. Both films, after all, have two completely different focuses. Fincher's film, by his own admission, is much more interested in exploring the relationship between Lisbeth and Mikael, rather than delving deeply into socio-political issues.
Full stop there: See, when Fincher says it's all about the relationship between Lisbet and Mikael, that's not what the scene is about at all. It's about Man VS Woman. As both Larsson and Gabrielsson originally wrote it. Opalev with what he depicted in his version was the correct one. Why? Because it was about Man VS Woman and therefore the gender issues included in the background of the story where women are generally hated by these men. And to take it away from the socio-political aspects is wrong. Completely wrong because that takes away from the intent of the author(s).
Along it's way, though, it definitely doesn't stop and promote the message that men are above women. Case: the Bjurman outcome is the exact same. Lisbeth later rides Mikael just as you want, and is portrayed as the sexually dominant partner in their relationship. Lisbeth saves Mikael, and is the harbinger of Martin's death.
See above. And the Bjurman outcome was different. The scene in Opalev's version was brutal. In Fincher's, it was more titillating. Two totally different interpretations from one director who is foreign to the country the work is a part of. The other is from a director who lived the situations the film depicts. The point of it all is that Lisbet in Fincher's version is not the driver of her own future. In Opalev's version, she is. Two fundamental outcomes. One that is as the author intended. One is not.
We were not talking about these films' feminist messages, however. We were discussing the characterization of one of it's protagonists - her look and behavior. You want to tell me the Lisbeth in Opalev's version is closer to the Lisbeth in the books, here's how you do it: you compare the characterization in the movie with the characterization in the book. That's all. You don't:
We are discussing characterization according to two different actresses one of who completely understands the socio-political aspects as well as the background of the character as it pertains to that paradigm. The other clearly who does not understand the aspects of that culture and quite frankly, doesn't understand the character whatsoever.
-say the author's partner likes her better
-misinterpret the other lead actor's off-camera comments to invalidate her onscreen performance
-attack the other lead actor's lifestyle to disparage her abilities as a professional actor
-shift the discussion to which film's theming you preferred
-attack the book's translated title (wtf....is Rooney Mara responsible for this??)
Arguing those things only tell me how much you hate the very idea of the English film. I already know that, and accept your reasons for it.
Let's whittle this all down to this: Let's say Lars Von Treir decides to make a film in Switzerland based on the Underground Railroad and the slave trade existing in the United States during the 1800s up to the early 1900s. Let's say some African American people in the United States see the film and call him out on his obvious mis-steps regarding the socio-political aspects and clearly gets aspects of that wrong in terms of not telling the actual story of their plight. Let's say the original author of the book Treir took the source material from was upset because Treir got all the beats wrong including the characterization of his/her characters wrong? Wouldn't that author be allowed to call Treier out on his mis-steps and be able to call foul on say the casting? Let's say clearly a NOT African-American actor like Keisha Castle Hughes is cast as the main female character and everything she says about the lead female character gets it all wrong in what she's saying about the character? Wouldn't the original author be able to take umbrage with Hughes for those mistatements? Bank on it. That would cause an uproar within the entire African-American community and the film would be derided as well as Treir and Hughes.
Transfer that to David Fincher and Rooney Mara. The original work is about the socico-political aspects of the post-war Sweden's continued adherence to the Nazi movement. And it is also about a young woman who is at the heart of all of that by being the daughter of one of those men who was at the heart of the political story being told. The story is not about Mikael and Lisbet's personal story. It's about Mikael and Lisbet's place within the political story where Mikael was put in prison for staying something about Wennerstrom in his magazine. If it hadn't been for Wennerstrom's suit against Mikael, he and Lisbet would never have come together. So the umbrella of the story is political.
In answer to your question, "Is Rooney Mara responsible for it?" I submit YES! Why? Because, if an actor or actress are preparing to do a film like say "Good Night, And Good Luck". Actor David Strathairn as he prepared to play the part of Edward R. Murrow, went to the Murrow library and was shown kinescopes of Murrow's work, and shown his writings and other aspects of Murrow's work. He talked to Murrow's son Casey, as well as other people who knew Murrow. That was Strathairn's HOMEWORK. Same with actress Sigourney Weaver when she played the part of Dian Fossey. If in the case of a film that takes place within a certain historical epoch, the same research is not only expected, but mandatory.
In the case of the Showtime series "Penny Dreadful", all the principle actors on that show read the original works of Bran Stoker, Mary Shelley, Oscar Wilde and Robert Louis Stevenson regarding the characters they're playing as they are literary characters. Harry Treadaway read "Frankenstein" to get a handle on his character Victor. Reeve Carney read Wilde to get a deeper understanding of Dorian Gray. He also visited Wilde's haunts to get an idea as to who Dorian might have been. All of the principle actors including Eva Green, Timothy Dalton, Josh Hartnett, etc. all read the book "Inventing the Victorians" which was the original source in which showrunner/creator John Logan took his inspiration from for the series. When Josh Hartnett starred in the film "Black Hawk Down" he read the book by Mark Bowden, then talked to most of the Rangers and military people who took part in the raid of October 3, 1993. See where I'm going with this?
From what I have understood about Mara and Fincher, there was a huge bit of laziness from both in their failure to understand the political aspect, as that is the bubble in which these stories take place, both Mikael and Lisbet are a part of. Daniel Craig was the only one who seemed to do his homework and from all the interviews I saw of him, understood the work. Can't say the same for the other cast members... all of whom I love IN OTHER PROJECTS.
So if after all of this you still can't understand where I and Eva Gabrielsson are coming from, don't bother answering me back.
Sometimes my ruminations are too confusing for someone not inside my head. -Anon
reply
share
Hiphopotamoose
9 years ago
If this thread was titled, "the American version is a disgrace to the book's commentary on male/female power disparity in Sweden" I would never deign to engage you in debate over it. That's not my opinion, but knowing that Fincher's version is focused more on the characters themselves, I can see why people would be upset by the shift in focus. That's not the thread, though; it's about Mara's portrayal of the character, and most of your post content has been devoted to elaborating on a distinct bias against her. No, she's not Swedish, but as other posters have detailed, you are totally out of line for saying she had no concern with preparing for the role. It's on record that she read the books, and that she threw all of herself into the role physically and emotionally. She had trouble getting out of it, for chrissakes. You think a woman needs to be steeped in Swedish history to empathize with a rape survivor? You think gender struggle is the exclusive domain of Sweden? You think Larsson didn't attempt to tell a human story within his socio-political narrative? You think it wrong that ANOTHER adaptation chose to bring this aspect of his novels to the forefront? Isn't that the whole point of different adaptations? You equate an American playing a Swede to black-face?
I'm sorry you feel like Mara's portrayal was heinous because she went missionary. I'm not marginalizing your last post, it's just that this is the only reference to the film content that you've made. In all sincerity, please elaborate on other things in the film that you found distasteful concerning her performance. That's this thread. That's what I've been saying this whole time. Deriding the film itself for it's messages says nothing of the character of Lisbeth Salander. Think Huck Finn, and how completely different The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn was from the Tom Sawyer novels, and yet the same character still exists in each. A character is not bound to its narrative's theming. Think of characters as elements in a piece of art. The same color can be used to paint two different paintings. The same chord can be used in two different songs. I don't think the American film diverges from the book's messaging as much as you do, but even assuming it does, that doesn't preclude the film from being faithful to its source's characters. You still have to get in there and show where the portrayals err.
In theory, I would love for the discussion to go there, but I don't know if I can trust the conclusions you draw. What I mean by that is, how can you honestly say the rape scene in Fincher's film was titillating? As a woman, did YOU find it titillating? I could barely watch it. I bloodied my lip enduring it. People in my showing walked out on it. If that really is your honest position, that that scene was designed to titillate, then yeah, let's end it here.
Even so, give me that link. I've found stuff on the Larsson inheritance dispute but nothing about her role in co-authoring the novel, and nothing about her opinions after watching Fincher's film. I'm sorry, but I know you've made things up about Fincher and Mara (he made a SERIES of demands of her, and she DID read the books), so I can't take your word on anything. Like, seriously, I ask what should be a rhetorical question: "is Rooney Mara responsible for the English book translation being called The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo," and you respond "Yes!"? Yeah, totally trustworthy...
reply
share
Hiphopotamoose
9 years ago
Rooney is only saying that Lisbeth is not likely to identify herself with any particular movement. I agree with her. That doesn't mean she can't embody a movement through her behavior, though
Just because Salander's behavior shares feminist values does not mean she considers herself a feminist. Mara's comment is meant to indicate that Salander's moral code is entirely personal, and not the product of dogma
That's how I explained Mara's quote. Actually, no, let's for once get the actual damn quote up here:
She almost sputters when I ask her whether this is a feminist book.
“I think maybe the feminists see it that way,” she says. “I don’t know what Larsson’s intentions were. But I don’t think Salander does anything in the name of any group or cause or belief.
Her comment about Larsson comes out of modesty and respect for the dead author, not ignorance; here's from Larsson's novel:
"The last dealing she had with the police was in May of the previous year when she was walking past Gotgatan on her way to Milton Security. She suddenly found herself facing a visor-clad riot police officer. Without the slightest provocation on her part, he had struck her on the shoulders with his baton. Her spontaneous reaction was to launch a fierce counterattack, using a Coca-Cola bottle that she had in her hand. The officer turned on his heel and ran off before she could injure him. Only later did she find out that "Reclaim the Streets" was holding a demonstration farther down the road."
That's who Lisbeth is in the books. This is what Mara is talking about. She knows the source material, and you and Eva Gabrielsson are flagrantly misrepresenting her.
reply
share