There's Something about Salander...

The world can't seem to get enough of Lisbeth Salander, the main character of Stieg Larsson's
books (The Millenium Trilogy; The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, The Girl Who Played with Fire, The Girl who Kicked the Hornet's Nest), whose adventures have resulted in international bestsellers, three Swedish films, and one new American remake (The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo or 'Men who Hate Women', as the book is titled in Sweden). Salander is one of the most interesting literary and film heroines to appear on the landscape in years, a goth hacker and Ward-of-the-State turned vigilante.

For those unfamiliar with the story, I will be careful not to reveal all its secrets - they are worth unraveling on your own. The first book/film tells the story of Mikael Blomkvist, an investigative journalist trapped at the epicenter of media scandal, accused of libel. He finds an unlikely ally in cyber hacker extraordinaire Lisbeth, who believes he has been set up. The duo team together to solve the mystery of a tycoon's missing niece, believed to have been murdered 40 years prior by a member of her family.

Author Stieg Larsson met an untimely death at the age of 50 of a heart attack, himself having been an investigative journalist like character Blomkvist. The books were written as a hobby and were published posthumously to massive acclaim (Larsson was in the middle of the 4th book when he passed, and had supposedly outlined 10 books total for the series, forever leaving audiences curious about Lisbeth Salander's future). Larsson witnessed the brutal gang rape of a young girl he felt powerless to stop, which haunted him for years and supposedly served as the basis for his creation of Salander, a youth who falls through the cracks of a broken system and suffers a lifetime of abuse at the hands of family, guardians, and doctors. Lisbeth Salander doesn't see herself as a victim, she chooses to fight back, and exacts revenge on those who have harmed her (or seek to harm others).

There are countless reasons audiences are so drawn to the mysterious female protagonist of the books and films; Lisbeth is altogether different. Unorthodox and unapologetic, Salander is in a class all her own. On the exterior, she is anything but conservative - her gothic design seems to be a reflection of a life of hardship - her dark clothing, piercings, and tattoos intimidate while offering an inner glimpse at Salander's physical and emotional pain and societal disdain. Described as "boyish", about 4'9", with small breasts, anorexic weight, and the occasional mohawk, Salander seems to defy convention yet is accepted whole-heartedly by the mainstream, who seem to overlook her peculiarities and love her, regardless - and despite being an unlikely heroine or sex symbol, finds her place in the public's favor as both, quite the accomplishment.

Salander's piercings and tattoos are her personal wallpaper - her war paint in a seemingly neverending battle of personal and societal torment.

In fact, Lisbeth physically dons war paint in both the American remake of Dragon Tattoo (in the infamous scene with character Bjurman) and in the Swedish film The Girl Who Played With Fire, while interrogating a suspect. It is as if Salander has to visually transform to mentally detach and work up the intensity to serve up her own dish of personal justice against societal predators.

How she is written in the books versus the Swedish and American screenplays differs slightly. Having seen all versions, my personal favorites are the original Swedish film trilogy -notably the first film, all portrayed to perfection by Swedish actress Noomi Rapace in one of cinema's most electrifying performances of recent years. I wondered if any actress could live up to such a tour de force - American actress Rooney Mara breathes an altogether different energy into Salander that while unique, does not quite capture Salander as pictured in my mind (I anticipate an Oscar nomination). Sweden's Rapace brings the unpredictability, uncertainty, frightening intensity, and a social awkwardness to this complex character while Rooney's Salander is overly matter-of-fact, perhaps a bit more designed for mainstream likability (telling the occasional one liner for audience kicks) and overall, more action hero than believable troubled girl. Both portrayals are noteworthy and intriguing, but Noomi Rapace seems to understand Lisbeth and inhabit her skin to an uncanny degree - her Salander is strong and guarded yet fearful - she reminds me of a squirrel - small but incredibly muscular, ready for anything, and convinced an attack is inevitable so she must be prepared - a ticking time bomb ready to detonate. The sculpting of Rapace's body for the role makes a great deal of sense and everything right down to her dragon tattoo is far more intense than the US remake.

Part of the success of the Swedish films comes from the remarkable chemistry of actors Noomi Rapace and Michael Nyqvist. Both are actors who have the rare gift of saying a lot through mere glances, words are unnecessary to peg the complex relationship between the two. The backstory of the characters is more fleshed out in the Swedish film, where we come to understand the public's fascination with Blomqvist while Salander remains enigmatic. In the American remake, Daniel Craig portrays a far less charismatic Blomqvist [than Nyqvist] and plays the journalist as an extension of his character James Bond - an overly confident man with little vulnerability - and zero chemistry with Rooney Mara, though you'd never guess that from the racy promotional materials that seem to bring far more heat to the union than anything that materializes on screen. While the American version has a longer and more graphic intimate scene between the characters, the lack of screen chemistry, misconstrued relationship, and poor onscreen representation of their connection suggests that the point has been altogether lost in translation, as evidenced by the promotional materials.

Note the American poster of Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (I have censored it here). I can't recall an American poster for a mainstream film bearing this much nudity - which is often more of a problem for American audiences than European ones. Lisbeth Salander is an abused young woman yet here, she is being exploited by the very person who could perhaps be the only man in he life that would never harm her. If Lisbeth were a real person, she would never have allowed such an invasion of her privacy and would have been quick to kick the photographer - I'm certain this poster would NOT meet with her approval. The poster and subsequent photo shoots are completely out of sync with Larsson's brainchild and example, which sought not merely to entertain but also to draw attention to the societal issue of violence towards women (at the hands of men) and misuse of power by those in authority positions. The promos, like much advertising, use sex to sell Lisbeth Salander to an audience - cheapening her existence and dulling the point. The sex appeal Lisbeth harbors comes largely from the fact that she doesn't try to be sexy - her attitude, brains, and talents are enough to intrigue and attract. Compared to most of her contemporaries, Salander fascinates because what is inside of her is far more interesting than what is on the outside, so to see the poster and promotional materials err in such a fundamental way is tragic - Salander is about the prevention of abuse, not the encouragement or objectification of women, which her character detests.

In general, the Blomkvist/Salander connection was flubbed in the remake and their connection lacked credibility. In the Swedish version, one tends to see more of their personalities and backstory and can understand how such a seemingly mismatched connection (on the surface) could materialize in reality. Both Blomkvist and Salander are, in their own way, outsiders, both are sharp minds and intellectually curious investigators who oppose the establishment, and both find themselves in positions of vulnerability they don't simply accept - they are both defenders and speakers of truth, who believe in justice and understand it has an inherent cost and one they are willing to pay - both would die for their convictions. In the American remake they are wooden, cold and hollow cardboard cutouts trapped in an action movie who exude far too much confidence, ultimately making the characters less interesting and mysterious; The film is essentially an action movie peppered with sex to sell the characters, while the European version kept the focus where it needed to be and humanized its leads, while still allowing them to share a secret or two. The Swedish version focused more on Salander while never revealing too much, and the film enjoyed a more heroic ending for its lead. That said, both Mara and Craig's performances had impressive moments - even if at times misguided, and the American version is still quite good in an altogether different sense, especially if you have no point of reference for the story - and is an interpretation that, while entertaining, misses several points that made the Swedish films and books great, though it has its own strengths (notably the opening credits sequence, one of the best I've seen in a long time and the perfect way to set the tone for the film). Sexuality and violence are graphic in both films, yet the Swedish scenes appear to have purpose while the American scenes feel more exploitative. The books were written, after all, to draw attention to the plight of abused women - not to encourage it. As with many things in the American remake, the script also has misguided moments (When Blomqvist first meets Lizbeth, she threatens "if you touch me, I'll more than zap you" as she hides a taser, even though Blomqvist has pointed out "I'm the guy you know better than anyone." Indeed, Lisbeth knows no harm will come to her from Blomqvist, an innocent.)

In summary, I applaud the efforts of both the European and American cinematic attempts to tell this story - which I consider to be an important one, and I am grateful for Larsson's contribution and wish he would have had more time to tell this unique story. Salander is an incredibly empowered, capable, and brilliant young woman who uses more than just fists to fight against societal corruption. She gives abused women a voice and options and I find her story heartbreaking and her journey compelling. I admire her, as much as you can any fictional character, and while I am personally glad I am not Lisbeth Salander, it gives me hope that there are women out there who can learn something from her. She doesn't simply accept circumstance or that she is "unlucky", she does what she can with what she has and uses her skills to try to find solutions to her most vexing problems (and those of society). She is also a reminder that you can't judge a book by its cover.

I am most reminded here of the jury's assumptions of her in The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet's Nest and how she uses her ingenuity in the most horrid of human conditions to expose the truth and prove she is more than they can ever assume.

Indeed, Lisbeth Salander is a character that both men and women can respect - and they better, she won't have it any other way.

Thumbs Up for 'Paranormal Activity'

As an avid movie watcher (all genres, all time periods, all countries), I have to count horror among my least favorite genres. Not because of the gore factor or subject matter so much as the difficulty of finding a horror film that actually gets under my skin. I can honestly say no movie has ever scared me since Poltergeist when I was 5 years old. My favorite horror films are more psychological thrillers than sheer terror, including Jaws, Rosemary's Baby, and Alien. I can't stand slasher films, they aren't intelligent enough to capture my interest. A climbing body count will do nothing for me unless there is a tight script and fascinating characters to follow, as in The Silence of the Lambs.

There are several elements I consider necessary to create a great horror film and "Paranormal Activity" had too many slices of genius for me to deny it a shout out. Let me start off by saying that docu-reality in horror hasn't worked for me prior. I rolled my eyes at the Blair Witch (though I did appreciate we never saw her). Cloverfield did nothing for my imagination. The only time I saw docu-reality working recently in a somewhat effective way was in District 9, where I thought it blended well with the storyline. Paranormal Activity on the other hand could not have been filmed any other way.

One of the most effective tools in the creation of a horror film is a fantastic villain. And by that, I mean one that is virtually impossible to get rid of. When I think back to Alien, I see all the elements in place for a terrific sci-fi horror extravaganza. You have the Nostromo, a salvaging ship, and its crew passing through the voids of deep space, essentially mimicking a gang of truckers in space. Their job is not to discover and fight aliens but rather do their contracted work, collect galactic trash and go home. They are stuck in the middle of the universe where 'no one can hear them scream' and confined to a large ship with no shortage of nooks and crannies for a species to hide. Not to mention, this is no ordinary creature and something they are completely unprepared to handle, and it has acid for blood. With respect to Paranormal Activity, what better predator is there than one you can't even see, nonetheless begin to comprehend? And if you need a hand, sorry - your only help is on vacation.

A favorite weapon of mine in the filmmaking arsenal is the skillful use of allowing the audience's imagination to wander as opposed to showing the audience everything in the screenshot. What one can't see is far more terrifying than what one can. In 'Signs', M Night Shyamalan masterfully employs this concept by hiding the alien from our view. We feel its presence in the wind blowing through the trees or the dog barking outside. The brief glimpses of its hand popping out from under the door or running in the background of a children's birthday party *cringe* are enough. These techniques were so perfect that seeing the alien was a massive letdown. Our imaginations conjure up far worse. (Remember Rosemary's Baby?)

Throughout the course of Paranormal Activity, we encounter an average couple who have just moved in together. Unlike most actors employed in docu-reality (always unknowns, of course) these two were completely believable as the ordinary couple they appeared to be. Docu-reality takes a risk as the characters aren't often developed or fleshed out enough to pull me into their personal story prior to the involved plot, and if this isn't successfully accomplished, we fail to care about the character's inner experience. We can all relate to Micah and Katie; we've all been in a close relationship and if we don't see ourselves in these two, we certainly know someone just like them.

Like The Blair Witch Project, we are observing an experience after-the-fact, captured on film. We already know it didn't end well. We come to learn that Micah and Katie are not the only inhabitants in their new house. This is news to Micah but apparently not to Katie, who has felt an entity with her since she was a girl she was powerless to explain. Micah is the stereotypical young male, more curious than fearless, more concerned with his new camera and filming the possibilities than his girlfriend's emotions. He is convinced he is in full control and can handle any situation that arises, if there's anything to even be concerned about in the first place. His camera rolls non-stop, capturing the mundane details of his domestic life with Katie. While they sleep at night, the camera vigilantly captures every detail.

The true prodigy of this film is that it capitalizes on all of humankind's biggest fears harking back to our earliest nightmares as children: Things that go bump in the night, what might be hiding in our closet, attic, or under the bed, what our eyes can't see, what really happens when we are asleep and helpless in a dark room, our sleepwalking activities, and why we always have that incessant urge to keep our toes hidden underneath a blanket. Like a good Stephen King production, we are inherently disturbed because the piece has tapped into the dark recesses of our psyche to dance with our most instinctual disturbances.

I can't say I was truly terrified (movies just don't do that to me), but lets just say I was more disturbed than anything I have seen in a long time. I truly enjoyed it as a picture as the cleverness was too pronounced to ignore, not to mention it was mad fun to listen to the audience gasp and squirm in their seats. I especially loved walking out of the theater to nervous chatter among grown men who wanted to wet their seats. Now that's entertainment.

Snakes On A Plane

I'm so happy that 'Snakes On A Plane' didn't do as well as the studios expected. Well, the fact that it was even number one at the box office briefly is a sure sign that something is wrong with the entertainment industry.
Audience money dictates what Hollywood decides to make, and seeing as Hollywood has been chosing to make horrible movies that people continue to pay for, it's not surprising that the trend continues.

Maybe it's because modern audiences forgot what good entertainment was as a generation raised on reality television and effortless lazy production. It's frightening to think of where their creative inspiration will come from, as todays directors study the classics and the next generation has Britney Spears as an influence.

The industry is being leveled and it's credibility being destroyed by current public demands. I feel sad and ashamed. A lot of people wanted to see 'Snakes' specifically because it was supposed to be bad, I'm sure you can go to the movie theatre and buy a ticket for just about any movie released right now and you'll find yourself in the same boat. People also cited Samuel Jackson as "the man" and another reason to see this film. I'd love to see audiences try going to a movie for an actual script or one of quality as a deciding factor. And frankly, Samuel Jackson is not the man. I'm not saying he doesn't have his badass moments, but did everyone fail to notice that his performance as Mace Windu in the Star Wars series ranks among one of the worse performances I've seen an actor give in history? His performance and line delivery was as unconvincing, horrible, uninspired, and flat as Tom Hanks's in 'Da Vinci Code'.



These people are NOT bad actors, yet they can't muster up enough faith or belief in their role or character in either of these films to make them enjoyable (or believable) for a second. If an actor doesn't believe, then an audience can't believe. I've never seen such forced uninvested performances being delivered by talented actors.

I guess given the state of the industry, a film of this magnitude of badness was inevitable. Reality television has destroyed job opportunities for people with actual talent, particularly writers and performers. Not only have these shows cheapened the quality of the entertainment business as a whole but they have also stolen jobs away from people that have actually trained and worked hard to perfect their crafts. As someone who is still actively part of a union, I know how few jobs there were available to me when I was actively auditioning for projects because 90% of casting calls were for non-union regulars with no resumes or professional training. Already, the amount of projects SAG actors alone can audition for that aren't "reality television" is next to nil, their jobs and dignity have been stripped from them, and now reality TV people are not only taking away their sources of employment but also want the same pay and benefits people have in unions, people who put everything on the line and worked their asses off to become union in the first place. Being union is a privilege, and it is earned. This is why you have people like Paris Hilton now being a movie star. Anyone can be in films now. No training, no preparation, no effort. It reminds me of Mickey Rourke's quote, "It's like the word 'actress'. You know. Cate Blanchett is an actress. Paris Hilton is not… I mean, how can they use the same word?" Acting and writing aren't easy. Contrary to popular belief, they aren't things everyone can do. They take skill and are art forms like any other, though apparently the public doesn't want art and talent and sophistication.I really hope movie and television audiences start thinking for themselves and make smarter choices and cut out some of the fat in their entertainment diet.