Best Lisbeth Salander: Rooney Mara or Noomi Rapace?

Azdak

OK, the heck with all this existential BS, let's get to something real.

Has anyone seen both "Girl With the Dragon Tattoo" movies? The Swedish version from 2009 and the latest from David Finch? Mrs Azdak and I ventured out into the real world this week to see our first two movies of 2011--GWTDT and "Hugo" (also superb).

Many fans of the first movie trashed GWTDT/2 before it even started filming. Having seen both, and read all the books, I have to say I preferred Ms Mara in the latest version (and what's with the weird names--is that a prerequisite?). I thought she presented a much more in-depth and nuanced character. I thought Rapace spent most of the first film staring into the camera looking alienated.

Anyone else care?

BrettPGH

I just got it for Christmas so I still have to read it. But Rooney Mara is Steelers royalty, so she wins automatically.

VeganInTraining

Haven't seen the movies but read the books. I do not plan to see these movies b/c of the rape scenes HOWEVER, I think that David Finch was a good choice and from the preview Mara looked like a fitting Lisbeth but then again so did Repace so I guess I'll have to let you know after the sequels come out

macpatti

My 20 year old saw the movie last night and said, "Mom, don't go see it. You won't like it".

california_peach

OK, the heck with all this existential BS, let's get to something real.

Has anyone seen both "Girl With the Dragon Tattoo" movies? The Swedish version from 2009 and the latest from David Finch? Mrs Azdak and I ventured out into the real world this week to see our first two movies of 2011--GWTDT and "Hugo" (also superb).

Many fans of the first movie trashed GWTDT/2 before it even started filming. Having seen both, and read all the books, I have to say I preferred Ms Mara in the latest version (and what's with the weird names--is that a prerequisite?). I thought she presented a much more in-depth and nuanced character. I thought Rapace spent most of the first film staring into the camera looking alienated.

Anyone else care?

I have read the books and seen both the extended Swedish version on DVD and the new American version. I must say I tend to agree with you about Rooney Mara. She completely embraced the role and I fully believed that she was Lisbeth Salander. There is one key scene in the movies/book, which for me is a very important scene that sets up the relationship for Lisbeth and Mikaell for the next two books/movies (not going to say more than that for those who have neither read the book or seen either film). Noomi in that scene, it was like whatever. Rooney in that scene was heart-wrenching and incredibly touching. She nailed it with that scene alone.

Getting off topic, but I thought Danile Craig did a great job as well. I was more upset with him being cast at Mikael Blomkvist because I though he might be too physically polished for that character, but he came across as very human in the role, and not so James Bond-y.

I did not like Robin Wright Penn as Erika and I wanted the same guy from the Swedish version to play Plague, but I am probably the only person in love with the character Plague.

All in all I was very pleasantly surprised by the American version and with a few exceptions it followed the book very closely.

AtticusFinch

They both do the role justice I think but Mara has the edge, partly down to makeup and script, but she was excellent. Rapace was as emotionally detached as she needed to be, but she also nailed Salander.

I watched Dragon Tattoo, the Holywood version, last Thursday (hadn't read the books so it was fresh). I then watched the Swedish version of Played with Fire the followng night online. I can honestly say despite the language difference and change of cast, there was a seemless continuity of character.

futiledevices

I haven't seen the Swedish version, but I did go and see the American one.. also haven't read the book. It was a good movie, but extremely sexist and, at times, disturbing.

Azdak

I haven't seen the Swedish version, but I did go and see the American one.. also haven't read the book. It was a good movie, but extremely sexist and, at times, disturbing.

Given the theme of the books, the prominence of the feminist antihero, the background of the author, and the political and journalistic work done by the author during his lifetime, the term "sexist" seems rather out of place, but I guess everyone sees something different.

futiledevices

Yup. Hollywood took the character of Lisbeth and sexualized her. Why did she ask permission to kill that guy? That seemed out of place to me.. she needed permission from a guy. Also, what was with her and the daniel craig character hooking up.. and so soon after she'd been brutally raped? Made no sense at all. I'd also like to point out the scene where she was in the hotel in lingerie. That scene was unnecessary. its only purpose was to satisfy male gaze.

AtticusFinch

Yup. Hollywood took the character of Lisbeth and sexualized her. Why did she ask permission to kill that guy? That seemed out of place to me.. she needed permission from a guy. Also, what was with her and the daniel craig character hooking up.. and so soon after she'd been brutally raped? Made no sense at all. I'd also like to point out the scene where she was in the hotel in lingerie. That scene was unnecessary. its only purpose was to satisfy male gaze.

You raise interesting points that, as a man, largely passed me over. I would counter the following though in terms of script :

Sex straight after that brutal rape scene. A demonstration that Salander isn't wired the same as most other people?

"Can I kill him" - not permission seeking from a superior male, I think the sex of her employer/lover wasn't really important. More along the lines of "has he hurt you enough yet for me to kill the *kitten*?", and the dialogue was put there to raise a laugh. I think it did that in the cinema I was in.

The lingerie - I must have noticed that but I don't recall it. If it was during the re-appropriation of bank funds from Blomqvist's opponent, I think that was just to show a contrast of character, ie now she's a really girlie girl instead of the bi/*kitten* biker punk she usually is. But you could be right, it might have been there just for male titillation

VeganInTraining

Yup. Hollywood took the character of Lisbeth and sexualized her. Why did she ask permission to kill that guy? That seemed out of place to me.. she needed permission from a guy. Also, what was with her and the daniel craig character hooking up.. and so soon after she'd been brutally raped? Made no sense at all. I'd also like to point out the scene where she was in the hotel in lingerie. That scene was unnecessary. its only purpose was to satisfy male gaze.

actually for many rape victims having consentual sex is a coping mechanism, it helps them reclaim their power and feel like their body is their's to give rather than other's to take. I did not see the movie but did read the books and based off of the books I didn't get that it was sexist at all. However you did mention that the movie was a times disturbing as was the book, that is why I chose not to see if, I may see it and ff through the rapes but I probably will bypass this movie and see the other two

futiledevices

Yup. Hollywood took the character of Lisbeth and sexualized her. Why did she ask permission to kill that guy? That seemed out of place to me.. she needed permission from a guy. Also, what was with her and the daniel craig character hooking up.. and so soon after she'd been brutally raped? Made no sense at all. I'd also like to point out the scene where she was in the hotel in lingerie. That scene was unnecessary. its only purpose was to satisfy male gaze.

actually for many rape victims having consentual sex is a coping mechanism, it helps them reclaim their power and feel like their body is their's to give rather than other's to take. I did not see the movie but did read the books and based off of the books I didn't get that it was sexist at all. However you did mention that the movie was a times disturbing as was the book, that is why I chose not to see if, I may see it and ff through the rapes but I probably will bypass this movie and see the other two

Those scenes are incredibly brutal.. I had an extremely hard time watching them. I had to look away and it almost brought me to tears, that's how bad it was! I'd ff if I were to watch the movie ever again.

Hollywood movies propagate sexism. Things were kind of progressive for women in the 20s, but haven't been quite the same since then. I'm not saying the movie sucks, though. It's just the reality of it. I know most people aren't seeing the same things I see. A lot of people are just not aware.

VeganInTraining

Yup. Hollywood took the character of Lisbeth and sexualized her. Why did she ask permission to kill that guy? That seemed out of place to me.. she needed permission from a guy. Also, what was with her and the daniel craig character hooking up.. and so soon after she'd been brutally raped? Made no sense at all. I'd also like to point out the scene where she was in the hotel in lingerie. That scene was unnecessary. its only purpose was to satisfy male gaze.

actually for many rape victims having consentual sex is a coping mechanism, it helps them reclaim their power and feel like their body is their's to give rather than other's to take. I did not see the movie but did read the books and based off of the books I didn't get that it was sexist at all. However you did mention that the movie was a times disturbing as was the book, that is why I chose not to see if, I may see it and ff through the rapes but I probably will bypass this movie and see the other two

Those scenes are incredibly brutal.. I had an extremely hard time watching them. I had to look away and it almost brought me to tears, that's how bad it was! I'd ff if I were to watch the movie ever again.

Hollywood movies propagate sexism. Things were kind of progressive for women in the 20s, but haven't been quite the same since then. I'm not saying the movie sucks, though. It's just the reality of it. I know most people aren't seeing the same things I see. A lot of people are just not aware.

I'm glad to have you insight, I needed a little extra nudge not to see it so thanks for that.

Azdak

Yup. Hollywood took the character of Lisbeth and sexualized her. Why did she ask permission to kill that guy? That seemed out of place to me.. she needed permission from a guy. Also, what was with her and the daniel craig character hooking up.. and so soon after she'd been brutally raped? Made no sense at all. I'd also like to point out the scene where she was in the hotel in lingerie. That scene was unnecessary. its only purpose was to satisfy male gaze.

Often when books are adapted to movies, context is left out in favor of narrative. The job of "making sense" is that of the moviemaker--it's not the responsibility of the moviegoer to understand the context , nor should it be a prerequisite that the moviegoer first read the book to understand all the background information. OTOH, knowing that a movie is being adapted from book, I don't think it is unreasonable to at least allow for the possibility that there might BE other reasons (e.g. being faithful to the book) before jumping to an ideological conclusion.