Men (Directors) Who Hate (Don't Really Understand) Women

Welcome back to Hello Mr. Anderson. I have two things I wanted to say to my faithful readers today One: I hope you all had a Merry Christmas and will have a happy New Year. Two: you don't need to spend your well-earned money and see David Fincher's adaptation of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. Why not? Wasn't this one of my more anticipated film releases, as it had been for thousands of fans of the literary trilogy by Stieg Larsson? Well, I guess you can say that I feel as though I've been spoiled. The Millennium Trilogy of books, consisting of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo and its sequels The Girl who Played with Fire and The Girl who Kicked the Hornet's Nest, have become international bestsellers, and it was back in 2008 that I read the first in the series and understood why. Though one could argue that Larsson was not perhaps the best fiction writer on the planet, his ugly look behind the scenes of Swedish society and his obvious vocal activism against violence against women made him a one of the more unique authors of the modern age. The success of his novels was followed in 2009 by the Swedish film adaptation of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, directed by Neils Arden Oplev. The film was not only a near-perfect retelling of the novel, but it was also one of the best movies of 2010 when it came to the United States in limited release. It made superstars of Noomi Rapace and Michael Nyqvist in the leading roles, and both have been seen in American cinema thanks to their starring turns in that trilogy. Between the great read and the excellent movie, there was really little reason to think David Fincher could bring anything new to the table in his quickly-made follow up to his overrated-but-still-good The Social Network that could really surprise me. He does, but perhaps not in the way that was best for reintroducing the series to an American audience.

Sure, she's a little odd, but she's a freakin' genius

Michael Blomkvist (Daniel Craig) is in trouble. The co-owner and also a writer for Millennium Magazine in Stockholm, Sweden, has just been found guilty of libel after being tricked into reporting with falsified evidence, most likely planted by the company he was trying to expose in the first place. Losing his life's savings and scandalized in the press, Blomkvist has no choice but to go into hiding while he tries to figure out what to do next. That is answered quickly, as the estate of Henrik Vanger (Christopher Plummer) hires Blomkvist to delve into a forty-year-old murder mystery. Henrik's great niece Harriet disappeared from the island home of the Vanger clan while just about every member of the family was in attendance. Sure that she could not have simply run away (an accident had rendered traffic to and from the island impossible that day), Henrik wants Blomkvist to dig deep and discover which of his unsavory brood is responsible for her murder. In return, he will provide evidence proving that the company Blomkvist had been investigating was indeed corrupt. As Blomkvist delves into the history of the Vanger family however, he realizes that he needs help. And so he is introduced to a fierce, strong-willed and brilliant researcher named Lisbeth Salander (Rooney Mara)...

As James Bond triggers the trap... oh, right...

Obviously, the biggest challenge for this film was to take a character so iconic as Lisbeth Salander (and in such a short period of time, too) and match her with a performer worthy of that level. Don't be surprised if you're not familiar with Rooney Mara, whose biggest roles to date have been in 2009's Youth in Revolt, and 2010's Nightmare on Elm Street reboot and The Social Network. Don't remember her, or don't recognize her in the photos here of Lisbeth? That's because Rooney Mara looks in real life like she's about twelve years old; thirteen at most. Besides the major aesthetic transformation turning Mara into the dark, tattooed super-heroine, Mara had to get to an emotional understanding of Lisbeth in order to convincingly BE her, and the actress does a fantastic job in pulling it off. It's impossible to describe exactly what she does in becoming this character, but when Lisbeth Salander walks into a room, all eyes are immediately drawn to her presence. This allows Mara to steal just about every scene in which she appears. She's certainly deserving of the Golden Globe nomination she just received, though time will tell whether she'll be able to completely avoid comparisons to Noomi Rapace's 2009 Salander.

There it is, folks

Besides Mara's casting, Finch's version of the film does do a few good things right. The rest of the cast were mostly well-picked, most notably Plummer and Stellan Skarsgard as the major players in the Vanger family. Robin Wright also appears briefly as Erika Berger, Millennium's co-owner and Blomkvist's main love interest. The problem is that most of these minor characters get little face time outside of introduction scenes. If they're important, they'll come back. If not, well... Craig himself seems slightly out of sync as Blomkvist, as while the character's serious investigative nature is obviously playing to Craig's strengths as a performer, his charisma is not to the level I would have liked for the role he played. Fincher also tries his hardest to get in every last major detail from the novels, and with only minor trimming he churns out a still-long 158 minute film that doesn't lack for the information you need to understand exactly what is happening. The clues are parceled out evenly, and even if you have memorized the book cover to cover there are a few surprises waiting to make your acquaintance. And don't worry, people; I'm not forgetting the soundtrack by Trent Reznor and Atticus Finch. To say it's awe-inspiring would be an insult to sunsets and rainbows, but it's a damned great collection of music that perfectly captures the mood of the story.

Actually, Mara had to change for everything else she's done; in GWTDT, she just plays herself

It's those few right things that make the rest of the film's missteps all the more painful. The limited CGI use is extremely fake-looking, and Fincher's continued insistence on its use can easily be described as a gross irresponsibility on his part. But the worst mistake the film makes is the depiction of the developing relationship between Salander and Blomkvist. I remember reading the book and thinking that when these two characters got together, great things happen. That was most of the book's second half, and it's a feat Stieg Larsson never really recaptured in the subsequent novels. Unfortunately, Fincher seems to have missed that idea, as the film does its best to keep these two characters apart, only bringing them together for truly kinky sex scenes. And of course, the lack of character interaction between the two means that said sexual relations have no basis in reality. It's almost as if it was a vehicle designed to film Mara topless as much as possible. There are also some character inaccuracies, most notably one (SPOILER!) in which Salander asks Blomkvist's permission to kill the bad guy, an act the literary character would never abide. Even when Salander warmed up to Blomkvist, she would never ask for permission from ANYONE to do whatever she thought was necessary. (SPOILER END). The film's end is also over-long, as what should have taken no more than five minutes is instead spread out over the course of about three times that many. It's a poor finale to a relatively exciting main story, and when the final credits roll you'll be shaking your head and asking what happened.

And that's where the crazy girl makes the incision...

It's not that I think The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is a bad movie. I don't; It's a perfectly okay movie, with the slick visuals that Fincher is known for and an excellent acting lead in Rooney Mara. There however exist about a dozen errors between her and what could have been an excellent film. It's even a relatively faithful adaptation, right down to the visceral sexual assault scenes, which I wasn't sure I could expect from this director. Unfortunately, there's just too much wrong for me to tell you that this is a "must-see" film, when the "must-see" adaptation of this film was available to you just last year. Considering that the original Swedish film is available on Netflix as we speak, you'd be much better off paying 8 bucks a month to see that and others than paying four bucks more to see the newer interpretation on the big screen. Of course, the story isn't the only reason I've heard people are interested in seeing this title. Yes, I'll say again that the soundtrack is amazing. So buy or download the soundtrack, skip the film, and I promise you; you're not missing much.

The Facebook Film

I don't go a day without checking my Facebook page. Several times. In fact, it's safe to say I'm pretty addicted to checking up on the status and info of others. Heck, I'm on Facebook RIGHT NOW, and a good chunk of people who read this blog are those of my friends who click on the links I put on Facebook whenever I put up a new post. To be sure, it's a huge part of my life, and for that matter for millions of people around the globe as well. Isn't it hard to think of a time before Facebook, with the impact it has on society today? And another film I recently posted about, Catfish, was about how Facebook and social networking had influenced affected communication between distant parties. So it was only a matter of time before a movie dedicated to Facebook's impact was released for general consumption.

Would you distrust these faces?

Director David Fincher doesn't want you to call The Social Network "the Facebook movie", and there's actually a good reason for that. Though the film does in fact chronicle Facebook's birth and rise to maturity from "humble" beginnings as an exclusive networking site for Harvard students to the worldwide phenomena we now know it as, it's far from the movie's main focus. That focus is squarely on Facebook co-founder Mark Zuckerberg, whose genius birthed this creation and whose relationships between both friends and enemies set the drama for the story. Starting with Zuckerberg's girlfriend breaking up with him due to his ability to be an insensitive asshole (a theme throughout the film), Harvard undergrad Zuckerberg, played by Zombieland's Jesse Eisenberg, goes home, rants about how his ex is a bitch (on LiveJournal; Is that still around?), and on the spot decides to create a program that allows participants to vote between photos of two female Harvard students (hacked from Harvard's multiple limited social networking sites), for the purpose of deciding who was hotter. Shortly after crashing Harvard's limited computer network due to so many people using the program (Harvard, by the way, is portrayed by several school campuses that are NOT Harvard), Zuckerberg is approached by members of one of Harvard's elite cliques with the idea of creating a Harvard-exclusive social networking site that would essentially be an elite dating site for the men of Harvard. The site would eventually be known as ConnectU. Initially taking them up on the offer, Zuckerberg instead uses the idea of an exclusive site to create Thefacebook with best friend and fellow Harvard student Eduardo Saverin (your new Spiderman, Andrew Garfield) providing the financial backing. The film is told in flashbacks, with the current time showing Zuckerberg being sued not only by the ConnectU men who allege that Zuckerberg stole their idea, but also his former best friend Saverin who has been forced out of the management group at what has now become Facebook.

That's the future Lisbeth Salander on the left

The film is helped by the fact that the story is charming to a fault. While one can (and should) question a ton of the "facts" presented here, the story itself is compelling and interesting. It's a shame that it doesn't get into the nitty gritty of the actual program itself, as the scenes that do are some of the best scenes in the film. But the human interaction is the meat and gristle of the story, and thankfully that aspect of the film is masterfully manipulated. The use of the flashbacks from two legal battles to Facebook's founding and rise is excellently done, and sets the pace of the film well. While the product may in fact be less than entirely honest, if those sacrifices were made to create a more interesting film, I'm okay with it.

The mathematical code to attending Harvard? Maybe...

The acting is also exceptional here. Though it's unlikely any of the actors included will be up for major awards when the season arrives, it seems a shame that none would be recognized for their portrayals of these modern-day giants. Eisenberg was at danger of Zuckerberg being like most of his former nervous and antisocial persona, but while those elements are still in play here there's an aura of insensitivity here and also a tiny bit of humanity, which actually does a great job of rounding out the character. Zuckerberg is never fully vilified in The Social Network, but while he is not put in a generally good light Eisenberg does somehow maintain a bit of in-over-his-head confusion that manages to make the character at least somewhat sympathetic. Garfield is probably the only actor in this troupe who has a shot at some supporting actor nominations come this winter, and that's because he plays the most human character in the cast. As the spurned Facebook co-founder, Garfield has to run the gamut of good friend to reluctant financier to screwed-over former friend in one two-hour film. Garfield is also the one we're supposed to feel most sympathetic for, but there's a problem there that I'll get to later. Garfield certainly earned no demerits, however, and his performance is a revelation for those out there who didn't know he existed before now. And Justin Timberlake is charming as former Napster-founder Sean Parker, who becomes an advisor to Facebook and later it's president. Timberlake is someone who (in my opinion) has made his career in music and acting on the firm basis of his considerable charm and personality, rather than on actual talent. Parker is portrayed as a fast-talking, slick-thinking genius always on the lookout for the next big thing, and one whose extravagance and inflexibility led to being kicked out of two former companies that he founded. The character was practically written for someone of Timberlake's talent set, and Parker also creates the most turmoil in the friendship of Zuckerberg and Saverin that leads to their split as friends and partners through his seemingly-phony charm and obvious personality clash with Saverin.

Revel in your popularity while it lasts, Eisenberg

The film has a few issues, though they are big ones, mainly stemming from the ego of the director. Finch is usually known for his stylistically-shot films like Seven, Fight Club and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, but when he directs a biopic like this you would expect that he shouldn't even need CGI to tell this particular tale. Well, he didn't get the memo. In an early scene featuring two characters outside in what's supposed to be twenty-degree weather, it's plainly obvious that the steam coming out when they breath is computer generated, and plainly takes you out of the scene. But the big dereliction of director duties is staggering. Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss are twin brothers and Olympic rowers who are the main part of the ConnectU brain trust who sue Zuckerberg for stealing their idea, and are played by Armie Hammer. No, that's not a typo. Using a body stand-in and digital recreation, Fincher had Hammer play two parts while seamlessly inserting him into the scenes to play both parts (and neither twin is seen apart from the other). Hammer does a commendable job (and has the funniest line in the whole film), but Fincher could have saved a ton of trouble by, you know, hiring twins to play the parts. Though Hammer was good, it's not like he wasn't expendable, and it has to be chalked up to Fincher to make the job more difficult than it had to be. Yes, the job was seamless but he did it not because he had to, but because he could. Taking in this film means also taking Fincher's ego trip, sadly not a surprising development.

Sticking it to the Corporate man

The film's biggest problem, however, lies in the audience's inability to really sympathise with the characters. This is no fault of the actors, who all put on award-worthy performances, but instead in the characters they are asked to convey. We're supposed to feel most sorry for Garfield's character, but we're specifically told that Saverin had made $300 thousand dollars the previous summer in oil ventures. Though he's screwed out of major Facebook ownership over the course of the film, it's really hard to feel sorry for him because you know he's smart enough and knows the right people, so he'll be okay. Same with the Winklevoss twins, whose idea is obviously at least partially stolen by Zuckerberg, but who came from a rich background to begin with. In fact, let's face it: most of the characters in this film are in attendance at Harvard, which means that they either come from rich families or their families know influential people (or both). I've never really lacked, and have been both fortunate and lucky to have the support of loving parents and have never gone hungry or without necessities. I firmly believe myself to me middle-to-upper middle class, and have only been to one year at college and acknowledge my shortcomings from not finishing. However, I've also been accused of being or growing up "rich" from those who grew up with less than I did, and so if I can't find much sympathetic with these rich people who fight over stock options and millions of dollars, I can only imagine how true blue-collar audiences would feel about these same people.

The asshole at work... or is he at play?

Which still is not enough to derail what is a VERY good film. Fincher's hits outpace his misses in The Social Network, and while the ego trip and unsympathetic characters drag down the film a bit, it still manages to place #9 on my Top 10 Films list. In closing, I'm reminded of the Tina Fey bit when she showed up on Saturday Night Live in support of Hillary Clinton for the Democratic primary in the 2008 Presidential election. Admitting that Clinton was "a bitch", Fey went on to utter one of the more memorable TV lines of that year: "Bitches get stuff done." For Zuckerberg and others of his ilk, like id Software's John Carmack (creator of legendary games Doom, Quake, and Wolfenstein 3D), the same principle applies. Facebook was created by Zuckerberg because he was the right type of person to create it and he turned to Sean Parker to help expand it because Parker was the same type of person. If assholes get stuff done, I can at least respect them for having the audacity to do it.

It doesn't mean I have to like them, however.