Review: The Girl in the Spider’s Web
Directed by Fede Alvarez, written by David Lagercrantz.
The Girl in the Spider’s Web is already a diversion in terms of its original source material, it was written by David Lagercrantz, not the original creator Stieg Larsson. The film was also written by Lagercrantz. As a fan of the original Larsson books and of the Swedish films, I went into this one with a very open mind. I also enjoyed and appreciated David Fincher’s adaption of the first film, so one cannot say that I am biased to American adaptions. It also cannot be denied that those of us who are fans of the originals are going to be more difficult to please than any regular audience member. However, this film was a bit of a disappointment, whether you’re a fan or not. I will start off with saying Fincher is dearly missed. Alvarez, best known for Don’t Breath (2016), had few memorable shots in the film (the photos I have chosen for this piece are a few of the ones that stayed with me personally). He also really should have taken a page out of Fincher’s book in terms of cinematic pacing. Fincher’s version only felt Americanized to an extent. This film though has been Americanized, sanitized, and worst of all, commercialized.
The camerawork is clean and well executed, but I can’t help feel that it’s uninspired, like something was held back, like we were ‘spared’ something as an audience. It was cold and lacking in shot variety (the image of us looking up at Lisbeth in the bath water surrounded by golden glowing flame stands out, thus it was heavily peddled in the trailers). This also goes back to pacing in a way. We aren’t given interesting shots, and then we are denied the breathing room to enjoy those that we are given. This is a matter of European versus American cinematic styles, one of the most noticeable differences being pacing. If the film had even just partially abandoned it’s commercial pacing the result would have been so much better. I must say that there are some truly beautiful (yet gritty) close-ups in the film. One can argue their motivation or placement, but it cannot be denied those shots are raw and stunning (See below). It’s in these moments where we finally feel connected to her character, these close ups are redemptive. I found myself breathing such deep sighs of relief when a close up came upon the screen, I finally felt connected. It was in those moments where the film grounded itself in the real.
We are not given much down time to absorb these characters, their traits, or to understand what drives them individually. There is a lot of tell-not-show. This is probably the biggest flaw. Going in with an understanding of Lisbeth and Mikael (Sverrir Gudnason), I knew their motivations, but the actual film gave us very little in terms of character development. The plot however was neatly packaged and given to us. I feel bad for those going into to this with no prior knowledge of the characters or series. But of course this film was obviously made for a more commercial audience, so I suppose I shouldn’t feel too bad for them.
I would not be doing the film honest justice without mentioning its actually disturbing/raw moments. Towards the end of the film Lisbeth and Camilla Salander (Sylvia Hoeks) have their face-off moment. Prefaced, at the beginning of the film, where the Salander sisters are about to be abused by their father. We see a latex bag attached to a vacuum (used for asphyxiation) sitting on the bed next to their father. The device makes a return appearance at the end of the film, Camilla uses it on Lisbeth. The scene is drawn out and can easily make one feel claustrophobic. Lisbeth is stuck inside the bag, her whole body encased in oxygen deprived black latex. We see the outline of her mouth as she gasps for air. The camera looks straight down on her as she struggles. This was the only instance where I truly felt nervous. I liked this scene because it elicited these emotions inside me, it gave me a glimmer of the original films and their inescapable rawness. It was in this moment that the film finally showed its teeth.
The acting in the film was good, carried by the truly dynamic Claire Foy. I enjoyed watching every second of Foy’s performance, she is truly the redeeming factor of the film. While it is impossible to replace Noomi Rapace, I would gladly watch Foy in the role of Lisbeth again.
Curious, as always, of other critic’s opinions, I found two interesting points I’d like to highlight and expand upon. The first comes from Manohla Dargis, “An amalgam of gender stereotypes distilled into one rough, yet slippery package, she isn’t fragile or ferocious, victim or predator, feminine or masculine. She’s both, which means she’s neither, one reason it has been hard for mainstream cinema (with its his or her boxes) to turn her into a coherent cinematic brand” (Dargis, The New York Times, Nov 7, 2018). This statement struck me, for one, because of its poignancy, and secondly it points out the beauty of the Lisbeth character while also explaining why its hard to commercialize her. This is not a dig at the difficulty of the character, it’s the highest compliment that can be given about a character. The problem lies in our attempts to commercialize her. So we should just stop trying to do so. Characters should not fit into neat little comfortable boxes that commercial cinema insists upon shoving into our hands. This is one of her character’s issues in the film, we aren’t given a chance to see her many facets. Instead she was forced to stay within the four walls of that box. A lot of this dynamism and depth is best portrayed in that ever so critical breathing room. Space, which a majority of American films still refuses to give, thus the character of Lisbeth suffered under the strangle holds of our supposedly short attention spans.
The second point comes from Variety’s Jay Weissberg, “Soft-pedaling her feminism, practically eliminating her queerness, and tossing in an American so the U.S can save the world” (Weissberg, Variety, Oct 24, 2018). Weissberg is highlighting the points of sterilization and Americanization that occur in the film. Those of us who have seen the original films know one is spared no suffering. Fincher’s film is also graphic and pushes the envelope considerably for a commercial film. While The Girl in the Spider’s Web holds the audience’s hand lightly through its entire runtime. The degree to which Lisbeth’s feminist attributes are fleshed out is highly debatable. I feel they run extremely thin throughout the film. It’s certainly a powerful aspect of her character that was not given full dues. Again this is another missed opportunity for deeper development. They show Lisbeth sleeping with another women (the scene is of decent length), but this is as far as that facet of her life is taken. So with that in mind I don’t know if one can say Lisbeth’s sexuality is eliminated from the film. I would think marginalized is a better word (but maybe I’m splitting hairs here?).
It’s always more disappointing when a story/character that has such great social relevance/significance falls to the wayside of commercial sterilization. Never in a million years did I assume this could happen to a character as strong as Lisbeth, but then again I thought she would remain in the safer hands of David Fincher, I was wrong. With all its flaws, I still recommend the film (however lightly). I will say it certainly did not meet my expectations. No matter how much I dislike something, I would never encourage people to not see a film. It’s the variety of opinions that make film theory and criticism so interesting and engaging.
The original version of The Dragon Tattoo series is currently available on Netflix as per the publication of this article.
SOURCES:
Images from Imdb.com
