In most cases, here at my blog, you’re able to read posts about American or Russian movies (since I know the language, I can easily watch them). But when you think about, there are so many countries where films are created too. France, Italy – these are the countries known for their very charming and with specific sense of aesthetics made films. We know that from Canada come pretty good films. Eastern Europeans and Asians are doing well in this industry. But today I’d like you to invite you to Scandinavia – Sweden, as I’d like to discus a famous film “The girl with the dragon tattoo”.
I’m not going to compare this film with the book (I’ll discuss the book sometime later), because it’s obvious that book always gives you more (details, story, character) than a film of its time limit. Neither I’m going to compare Swedish movie with American version of “The girl with the dragon tattoo” simply because I haven’t seen the American version.
You know, as not being a huge fan or vivid watcher of Scandinavian movies (though I’ve seen a few) it’s a pleasure to do it once in while. It’s strange though movies are movies, but watching movies from other countries is really a pleasure. It’s like a sip of something different, yet so tasty. Maybe it’s because we don’t get a chance very often to see Scandinavian films, especially those that would interest massess. But if we would, American film industry would face a challenge.
7-8 years ago “The Millenium trilogy” was like an explosion of a bomb. Everyone was talking about it, everybody were reading it, it was as huge as secret documents leakage via Wikileaks. So it’s not surprising that films were made about the same time. When there’s such a rush you might think that things won’t go good, however I should say those who were working on cast selection did a really good job: Michael Nyqvist who played Mikael Blomkvist, Peter Haber who played Martin Vanger, Peter Andersson who played Nils Bjurman were very good. And the image of Lisbeth Salander (played by Noomi Rapace) was recreated perfectly, as I read the book I imagined her exactly the same.
Since this movie is an adaption of a book, I enjoyed that Swedes made this film, because it gives you, first of all, a lot of authenticity related to the book and, second of all, it gives you a lot of authenticity of the the country – it gives us the ability to observe beautiful nauture and places of Sweden. Argue if you want, I don’t believe those from other countries could render all this that good and accurate.
Another thing I liked, was that this time I could meet different kind of aesthetics used in a movie, not that common for, let’s say, American cinematography, or, at least not that widly used. Some scenes, best example would be those horibble, like rape scenes – here, they were shown as openly as it is possible. This primitivness, straightforwardness of them gives you different kind of emotions. The same I could say about how differently you feel about certain characters as you read the book and when you watch a movie.
For example, my perception of Blomkvist was completely different when I read the book and watched the movie. As I read the book I thought of him as more slutty person, who can’t abstain from sleeping with women even though he could be in relationship with someone. In the movie I perceived his character as more interested in and concentrated on his job. Here he was softer, more of a father figure. But I guess this dual perception of a character depends on who is portraying it, so it’s pretty normal.
At the end, I’d like to say that sometimes, two people, completely different and at first glance having nothing in common, can match and work perfectly in a team. And it probably shouldn’t surprise, though sometimes it does.