Fincher's Grey World

This weekend I decided to sit down and watch my DVD of David Fincher’s newly released The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (a steal at 40% off at Barnes and Noble!), a film adaptation of Stieg Larsson’s novel of the same title.  I had already seen the movie in theaters a few months ago, but decided on buying it because my “date” that night did not go as planned.  Who knew watching a movie with a graphic rape scene could make the night so awkward!?  Not I.

Upon viewing Fincher’s film for the second time I was able to appreciate things I missed out on originally because I spent thirty percent of the film blushing horribly behind my popcorn.  For starters, the cast is amazing, with performances by Rooney Mara (Lisbeth Salander), Daniel Craig (the sexually charged and tabloid celebrity, Mikael Blomkvist) Christopher Plummer (Henrik Vanger), and Yorick van Wageningen (the Sadist Pig, Nils Bjurman) to name a few.  I am half way through reading the second installment in Steig’s series, titled “The Girl who Played with Fire”, and I can safely say that these actors are Steig’s characters in the flesh.  Mara plays an amazing Lisbeth, and captures every bit of her socially incompetent, but wildly smart personality down to the bone.  The actresses’ movements almost become one with Lisbeth’s as she moves across the screen, wary of her presence in places she ought not to be.  But while Lisbeth is cautious of her surroundings, she is also surprisingly comfortable, or so she appears to be.  In one of the beginning scenes of the film, Lisbeth follows an elderly woman to the front of her apartment building and pretends to be interested in her cigarette while she listens to the pass code being typed into the security system.  Ever smart, Lisbeth punches in the same code in succession and gains entrance into the building.  With her signature black clothes and baggy style, she is able to slip through almost anything.

Whereas Lisbeth is the hard-hitting character in the film, Mikael, is the opposite.  While Craig delivers a true performance, his character, like in the book, seems to be easily disposable.  Anyone could have taken the place of this tabloid, scandal-ridden character.  We spend a good amount of the beginning of the film focused on Mikael, a journalist, and we learn that he has become involved in a huge scandal.  Without any real work, Henrik Vanger hires him to solve the murder of his niece that is believed to have gone unsolved for decades.  But the clues don’t start coming together until Mikael insists on having a research assistant, which is when Salander comes into the picture.  A sleuth and hacker, Salander is able to put together pieces that Mikael has overlooked.  This is when the film starts to veer and we are now torn between the two storylines of both Salander and Mikael as they  both work to solve the mystery.  Mikael becomes almost secondary, a character that can’t keep up with the new-age, savvy, wildly sexual Salander.  It is, after, Mikael who relies on Salander to save him after he is captured by the serial killer.  And let’s not forget who helps Mikael get out of the scandal and back into being a respectable member of society (brownie points if you guessed Salander!).

            Like other films directed by Fincher, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo takes place within a grey world.  Characters that aren’t so seemingly normal wind up in a place where right and wrong can blend, and someone else’s view of what constitutes these terms will almost certainly not be the ones you believe in.  Much like the serial killer in Se7en, Martin Vanger (Stellan Skarsgard) in The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is methodical with his killings.  What he deems as “right” (murdering young girls based on Bible passages) cannot be based on the illegal activities that both Salander and Mikael have committed in order to solve the mystery.  Surely their acts of breaking and entering, prostituting, and hacking computers, to name a few, are also wrong.  But weren’t they justified acts?  Vanger definitely believes his were.  It’s this knocking around of judgment, this grayness, which allows the film to be pulled in different directions.  It’s the contradicting terms (the hacking into someone’s computer, only to get mad when they hack into yours) that perhaps pulls this film down to us, because surely we also live within moments of grey.

Walt Disney Out for World Domination

       I missed Dr. Gerald Peary’s symposium presentation because I was presenting a film during my night class.  To make up for it, I attended two other smaller paper presentation events.  The first one I attended focused on a variety of 1962 films: Dr. No, King Kong vs. Godzilla, Gypsy, and The Sword in the Stone.  What intrigued me most was Danielle’s discussion on The Sword in the Stone.  When it comes to film, I adore Eastwood, I’m well versed in Hitchcock, and I could spot a Tim Burton film with my eyes closed.  But I know nothing about animation.  Absolutely nothing.  And until Danielle’s presentation, I didn’t think there was any reason for me to become acquainted with animation, its history or its influence.

            I know Disney makes up a large part of the animation world.  I’m aware of this; I’ve been to Disney World.  Like most girls, I grew up watching Lady and the Tramp, Cinderella, The Little Mermaid, or my personal favorite, Aladdin (shirtless Arabian? Need I say more?).  Danielle’s presentation on The Sword in the Stone opened my eyes to all of the history that not only surrounds Disney’s animation, but other production companies as well.  She talked at length about the attention to detail that Disney’s animation studio did not give to the film.  This was evident in the film clip Danielle played.  Obvious drawing lines can be seen, which should have been hidden from the audience.  Danielle also pointed out the backgrounds, which were painted sloppily instead of detailed. 

            

        Danielle’s presentation made me realize the lack of attention I give to animated films.  Before, I never would have paid attention to things like the mise-en-scene of an animated film.  To open my mind a bit I decided to review a few Disney clips.  First I checked out the opening scenes in Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, the first animated film Disney created.  I can clearly see the attention to detail that went into the background of this film.  In the scene where Snow White sings to the bird in the forest I can make out individual trees and shadows and lines.  All of the color looks like it was placed meticulously, and it is not sloppily done like the backgrounds in Sword.

           

        Next I checked out The Lady and the Tramp (1955) and I saw the same elements in this movie as I did with Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs.  In the opening scene of Lady the family is opening gifts on Christmas.   In this scene the background is clear; all of the images of the Christmas tree, the mantle, and the wall paper are perfectly colored.  It is obvious that there was more attention to detail than in The Sword in the Stone.  The characters, like in Snow White are drawn well, and I’m no animation artist, but there doesn’t appear to be any of the visible lines on screen that Danielle mentioned in her presentation.

            

        After I watched bits of these two Disney films I checked out Rotten Tomatoes to see what they considered the top fifty animated movies of all time.  Disney dominates the list entirely.  I flipped through and saw The Lion King, Lady and the Tramp, Beauty and the Beast, Monsters, Inc., among others.  No surprise, either, the number one animated movie according to Rotten Tomatoes is Toy Story 2, which is slightly disappointing because the first Toy Story is the best one and I’d be willing to dispute this with anyone.  Other than Disney there were movies on the countdown that looked out of place next to wholesome animation.  Namely, South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut (1999).

            If anything, Danielle’s presentation helped me become more aware of films in other genres.  Animated films can’t be neglected, because they are after, still films.  There’s even a spot for them at the Academy Awards.  It also made me wonder how people view animated films, and whether there is a narrower outlook on them in comparison to films starring live actors.  This made me think of Rango, an animated film which involved the actors actually acting out scenes as they did their lines.  This in turn had me thinking of other things.  I could go on for days, so I think I’ll leave it at this: how do you view animated films and do they hold the same in comparison to other films?