Superwomen: Cinema's new fetish?

Rating: 6/10 (30 December 2011)

Before the opening credits rolled up, I noticed something unusual, which I don't think was the projectionist's error. Leo the Lion's roar, the roar which signifies the start of an MGM picture, is muted. It's a portent, which sets us up for something. Shame it wasn't anything interesting.
Despite missing Stieg Larsson's trilogy and the Swedish film adaptations, I was optimistic going into this screening because of last year's 'Let Me In', another American retelling of another Swedish original ('Let the Right One in'). I should say that I purposely avoided the books because I have a phobia of the term 'international best seller'. Like the many IMDb-ers who have shared their honest opinion, I left the cinema unsatisfied.
Daniel Craig plays Mikael Blomkvist, a top journo recently disgraced for trying and failing to expose a Swedish magnate. His investigative skills are famous and attract the attention of Henrik Vanger (a typically superb Christopher Plummer). Henrik, another magnate, hires Mikael, ostensibly to write his memoirs, but actually to help uncover why a niece of his mysteriously disappeared 40 years ago.
Henrik doesn't prevaricate. He tells Mikael to be weary of his family, who he unhesitatingly calls 'the worst people you will ever meet' (two are 'ex'-Nazis), and to suspect everyone, including Henrik. Mikael works from one of Vanger's outhouses, keenly trying to keep warm in the arctic weather (the film is painted in shades which reflect the bone-numbing cold).
Most of my memory of this film is how tedious the storytelling is. Mikael alternates between his Apple Mac and his wall of notes, interviewing people in between. I confess I quickly lost track of all the names, dates and events, which is never as good compared with knowing all the details and guessing the culprit. Mikael realises he will not solve the case alone, so requests help. Enter Lisbeth Salander.
The only interesting part of this film, the only reason to part with your money, isn't to find out whodunit, but to see Rooney Mara's unfettered and courageous take on Salander, the film's eponymous heroine. Salander is the ultimate Private Eye-come hacker. Give her two minutes and she'll bring up a list of all your indiscretions, even the ones you forgot about.
As a character, Salander is a fascinating creation. She's a multi-layered enigma. Institutionalised from a young age, she passes through life as a ghost. Her sexuality is ambiguous. Is she a lesbian? Bisexual? Judging by the blasé, almost mechanical way she stands in front of her desired match – male or female – and simply undresses, I'd say she is asexual.
A big distraction was Daniel Craig. I don't see him as a cerebral actor. I would have given the part to Viggo Mortensen, who was considered. But Craig is Bond, so that means he is second only to God. The film tries to both American and Swedish. Sweden may be the setting, Swedish may be the characters' ethnicity, but English, bizarrely, is the language. Plummer, although spot on, was replaced by Max Von Sydow, a true Swede, who would have brought authenticity to the artifice.
I felt the ending was an anti-climax. Will I be spoiling anything by saying it's the one you suspect from the beginning? I also couldn't understand why Vagner waited 40 years before revisiting the case. Those sorts of details spoilt it for me. Except for a vicious rape scene and a macabre torture sequence, you couldn't tell this was by Fincher.
What is it about this story that attracts so many people? It can't be plain old retribution: that would be plain and old. Maybe we're attracted by the notion of superwomen in cinema. Is this a new fetish? I hope so.
www.moseleyb13.com