The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo

[bcholmes]

It's interesting to look at the changes that they've made between the book and the movie. At one level, the actual "mystery" element of both stories are very similar. They've kept most of the same discoveries, with only a few changes. Mostly, the changes make some of the discoveries more visual, and therefore more interesting on film.

The death of Martin is different in the movie -- in the book, Martin seems to take his own life by crashing into a truck, rather than be caught alive. In the film, he clips the end of the truck while he's trying to get away, and pleads with Lisbeth to help him out of the wrecked vehicle when it becomes clear that there's a real danger of it lighting on fire. That gives us a moment in which we see that Lisbeth is not at all the sort of person who would help save a monster like Martin, and also gives a flashback to (what the book refers to as) All That Evil. I was mildly surprised that the book declined to clarify exactly what happened during All That Evil, whereas the movie broadcast it fairly clearly. I assume that the details come from the second book, The Girl Who Played with Fire.

The movie omits almost all of Blomqvist's lovers. He develops a sexual relationship with Lisbeth, which she appears to drop at the end of the film. Erika Berger is mostly a walk-on part in the film, and the movie only hints at their (poly) relationship. His ex-wife and daughter don't appear at all. Interestingly, the movie shows Cecilia Vanger seemingly making a pass at Mikael, which he rebuffs. Their relationship doesn't happen in the films. Far less nookie for Mikael.

Lisbeth's cast of characters is also seriously gutted. Plague appears, but Armansky is nothing more than a walk-on part. Bjurman is almost exactly as he appears in the book. In the movie, it's implied that, at the end, Lisbeth visits her mother for the first time in a long time, whereas in the book, she visits her mother regularly (albeit infrequently), and the mother passes away just before the truth about Harriet Vanger emerges.

The two most striking differences are, first, the difference in the character of Lisbeth. In one way, she's the same: goth-dressed, tattooed, capable, photographic memory, super hacker. But the book reveals a lot more damage and vulnerability (and perhaps even self-loathing). A central element of the book -- the extent to which people underestimate her -- never seems to happen in the film. In many ways, she is completely in control.

In the film, the first time Mikael visits Lisbeth is much as it appears in the book, but early in the conversation, he essentially forces her to talk to him by threatening to tell the police that she hacked his computer. I think that Book!Lisbeth would never have trusted him after that. In fact, Book!Lisbeth spends a long time pondering how his easy-going nature is the only thing that succeeds in getting through her defences. Book!Mikael jokes about the fact that she hacked his computer; he was safe precisely because he never seemed to make a big deal about it.

The second striking difference is all the stuff that happens after the truth about Harriet emerges. Movie!Mikael serves his prison sentence after the mystery is solved, and while he's in prison, he writes his scathing expose about Wennerström. The consequences are spelled out in a montage-y denouement. Henrik Vanger's financial aid to Millenium is never touched on in the film. And, importantly, we are never given cause to dislike the old man.

In the book, after Martin dies, we are confronted with the Vangers' jockeying to bury the truth about all the people that Martin and Gottfried had murdered. In many ways, this is presented as something that rich, powerful capitalists do because they want to remain rich, powerful capitalists. Book!Mikael agrees to go along with the cover-up -- partially, he concedes to their arguments, but is also compromised because the Vangers are keeping the magazine afloat. Nonetheless, he feels this decision as a fundamental corruption of his journalistic integrity. That whole aspect is totally absent from the film.

Similarly, Book!Vanger's carrot -- his promise to provide Mikael with material to discredit Wennerström -- that turns out to be more promise than carrot, is never shown. The film never gives us a reason to dislike Henrik Vanger, and I think that's kind of interesting. Exceedingly rich old man with a heart of gold wants to solve the mystery of his niece's disappearance, but never resorts to anything shady or underhanded to get what he wants. In essence, the politics of the book are lost: we need to treat these powerful corporations and their leaders with suspicion.

(There's an especially apt line in the book: "Wennerström was devoting himself to fraud that was so extensive it was no longer merely criminal -- it was business.")

At one level, you can look at the film and call it a faithful adaptation of the book, but on another level, there are some really striking omissions. And, hey, I get why films need to be different than books. But it's interesting to look at precisely what was lost.

I also fear what'll happen when Hollywood remakes this. Blomqvist will become square-jawed and probably be played by some early-thirties actor. Or maybe they'll get Aaron Eckhardt to play the role. (Ooops. I just Googled. It's Daniel Craig.) They'll almost-certainly make Lisbeth more girly. A younger Trinity from The Matrix, I'm sure. And I bet that a lot of Lisbeth's strength will be lost. (I love the scene in which Mikael is tied up by the villain, who's speechifying his master plan, which Lisbeth jumps in at the last minute to rescue her lover. Don't get that reversal in many stories).