Pages

Wednesday, June 27, 2012

002: "Dragon vs. Dragon"




002: "Dragon vs. Dragon"
From international best-selling novel, to Swedish and American film adaptations, Steig Larsson's THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO gets the ultimate Salander dissection, exploring the differences and similarities in adapting the book to the screen in two very different and successful ways.






11 comments:

  1. Just finished listening to the podcast. Holy crap this was good. I don't know where you get all of the background info on these films and books. I really like hearing about the screenwriter and his previous work and also his screenplay writing style. I don't know much about screenwriters other than the ones that are also directors but nevertheless it was fascinating to hear about the film that Zaillian learned his screenwriting chops from. I remember reading about Walter Hill's comments on the script for Point Blank. He said that the Point Blank script showed him a new way to write and he applied the terse and athletic writing style to his early scripts. Anyway, I'm rambling now as usual. Great show. I'll probably have to listen to it again because I'm sure I missed some things.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Good, not great. It was long, which was nice but the content at the times was way too familiar since it's only couple of weeks that I listened to Fincher's commentary track - which this podcast uses a lot. At some points it seemed that there was much more material from the BD-extras than from the podcasters themselves. Having said that, I still liked it quite a lot. Professionally edited and informative.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thanks for listening. Actually there is 2hr10m of conversation with us and 50m of clips/etc. About 12m came from the commentary and nothing from the making-of features, the rest were from about 15 different interviews -- all on YouTube - although many of the same things are covered. Hopefully the breakdown of the differences between all three make the rest of the show unique.

    ReplyDelete
  4. So I read the book (only the first one) and watched the Swedish film (also only the first one) back in 2010 or so when the book was inescapable here in the U.S. And while I found the book gripping, I really didn't feel like the movie was anything special. Like the podcast pointed out, one of the things that makes the book work is its pacing. Yes, it's a sort of trashy, pulpy mystery/thriller, but its plotted and paced masterfully that you can't help but have to keep reading it. I think John's comparison to stuff like the Jaws novel is spot-on.

    The Swedish film, which does a nice job focusing on the characters, I think loses a lot of that pacing. Its paced like a more typical European film, which is to say slowly. The character stuff works well but I always felt like the procedural bits kind of drag and we lose the sense of momentum that's in the book. It's a subtle thing, too, because the book actually takes place over a long period of time but feels like events move very quickly.

    (Part of my frustration with the Swedish film may be that I'd already read the novel so the mystery wasn't a mystery to me.)

    I think what I love about the U.S. film is the way the screenplay and Fincher's direction give it a sense of momentum. As mentioned in the episode, the two films are roughly the same length but the U.S. film actually contains a lot more plot (specifically a lot more time is spent on the Wennestrom Affair). I think this compression of story material really forces the film to move at a faster pace, which makes the pulpy mystery work better. Because honestly, when you have time to sit there and dissect the mystery elements the way you do in the Swedish film, it becomes pretty clear that it's all kind of silly in the best tradition of pulp mystery.

    Right from those opening credits, Fincher is telling us: "Buckle up, you're getting a ride. Here we go." The heightened style -- again pointed well in the episode with the deliberate dark, moody vibe -- adds to this. The movie feels much less like a slow, psychological detective story, and more like the weird, twisted story the book is telling.

    What's really impressive is that the American film does this without losing what makes the characters work. In fact, as a small example, the American film gets my favorite part in the book correct. If you compare the scene where Mikael confronts Lisbeth in her apartment and brings bagels, the American film plays much closer to the book: Mikael is downright cheerful and friendly. I love that bit of insight into his character in the book, that he's not angry or confrontational with Lisbeth, which helps explain why he would be a man she would trust. The Swedish film, for some reason, changes the tone in a subtle but important way, where Mikael is much quicker to threaten to call the cops and seemingly coerces Lisbeth. It's a small change, but as it was my favorite bit in the novel I was delighted to see it handled the same way when I saw the Fincher film.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Holy Crap, the STUDY guide?!!! John Jansen you are a genius. It always felt you like you were my film professor at the Hollywood Saloon, now I'm just speechless. Absolutely fantastic. I was dumbfounded when I opened up that study guide. Incredible.
    For anyone that has not downloaded the study guide, do so. Anyone that has not donated...do so, because I would gladly pay for this assemblage of material. I'm still crying myself to sleep at night due to the loss of the Saloon...perhaps now though, I might be able to sleep again. Thank you John Jansen.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I have to say I'm completely amazed by the "study guides". They are incredibly professional and thorough, with lots of info I didn't have access to before. I hope the "educational purposes" of these guides register as fair use in terms of copyright.
    Well done, John Jansen and the rest of the Gauntlet. Your generosity and willingness to share won't go unnoticed.
    *bows*

    ReplyDelete
  7. This is a truly fantastic podcast. The process of "Adaptation" (and the potential for different decisions) is something that I find particularly interesting.

    I can't wait for the next episode.

    Well done to John and the gang.

    ReplyDelete
  8. A big GAUNTLET round of thanks and gratitude to Ken Stachnik for help in expanding the STUDY GUIDES for each show.

    Check out his website here:

    www.KenStachnik.com

    ReplyDelete
  9. At 01:01:29 John says The Chemical Brothers scored Fight Club, but it was the Dust Brothers. it's a funny lapse, because in 1995 The Chemical Brothers were forced to change their name from Dust Brothers because it was already taken. Interesting that both groups would eventually score for movies (Fight Club / Hanna).

    ReplyDelete
  10. I am really enjoying this podcast. It's like hanging out with your buds and talking about film, except said buds really know what they are talking about. I also love the teasers at the end of each episode. Excellent way to build excitement. I cannot wait to hear the next discussion.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Hey Ricardo...Nice catch of the Chemical/Dust mix-up. I was wondering who was going to be the first to point this out. Send me an e-mail to collect your prize. I actually recorded a fix for this, but missed it in the final mix. I noticed it while I was on vacation and had to cringe and wait to get back to upload the correct file. Thanks again for listening with a close ear to detail. You're first in line for Fact Check in the Gauntlet.

    ReplyDelete