sallysfriends.net

Swedish wonder-actress Noomi Rapace as Lisbeth Salander (as if you didn’t know already!)

The US remake of Millennium is set for December 2011 premiere with David 7 Fincher.

But … is it then ‘our best nightmare come true’ as one of my Facebook-friends put it? We shall see.

In any case, I really want to share some thoughts with you about this, as I have been very much in two minds about whether or not a US remake would be a good thing. (What’s next: Salander-action figures??)

Now, I want you to know that I’m not per se against Hollywood remakes. Or remakes of any kind for that matter. Some times remakes can be better than the original. But in the case of Hollywood remakes of European movies, they can sometimes go excruciatingly wrong! Witness for example the horrible US adaptation of the Danish horror-flick sensation Nattevagten …  also known as Nightwatch! Or what about Bridget Fonda desperately trying to be Anne Parillaud in Codename: Nina – the US version of Luc Besson’s unforgettable Nikita?

[Shivers]

Anyway, what would it take to actually make a succesful movie remake of Stieg Larsson’s Millennium series?

Well, we have the ‘good fortune’ that the original Swedish movie adaptations of Fire and Hornet aren’t actually that good, in my heretic opinion, because the were copy-pasted together in all haste from a planned TV-series twice the length in order to make more bucks. So the competition is not necessarily as hard as with that Luc Besson-remake.

Of course, the goal for Sony would also be to cash in on the Stieg Larsson phenomenon, but that doesn’t mean they’ll go for a hopelessly cheap and toe-cringingly shoddy version of The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo. Because the company Sony Pictures alone probably has more money to invest in second-tier movie projects like Millennium than the whole Swedish and Danish movie industry have – put together. A Lot More Money. So they can buy the talent they need to make it good. It is just a question of will.

But what exactly would ‘good’ mean?

Well, I’m sure there’ll be as many opinions about that as there are Stieg Larsson-fans out there, but here are my propositions:

1) Casting must be top priority – as always

Director Niels Arden Oplev made two brilliant choices for Tattoo: Nyqvist and Rapace. No more, no less. Nyqvist IS Mikael Blomkvist and Noomi IS Lisbeth Salander! It goes beyond saying that casting is essential for success. Especially Salander must be someone who possesses the rare combination of being able to look tough, ugly, beautiful, vulnerable and dangerous – all at the same time.

2) Character development is crucial

Lisbeth Salander is not just a poor Scandinavian replica of Ripley from Aliens+ some sword-schtick from Kill Bill!! She is a deeply traumatised young woman, who at the same time has unique skills, unflinching courage in the face of danger and an introvert personality to boot. She needs to learn to trust other people again and open up, but not too fast. She needs to go beyond her limitations in all respects.

Blomkvist on the other hand needs to be sufficiently heroic from the outset, but during the trials and tribulations to learn his own limitations better, and learn to trust the Swedish court, police and political system.

The character development was the weakest point of Fire and Hornet (the movies) and Mr. Director from Sony had better get that right, or we’ll end up with another empty action movie with somewhat-kewl-but-ultimately-soulless characters.

3) The heart of the Millennium story is social critique

Stieg Larsson was engaged in the Swedish communist party in his youth and actively committed to fighting right wing extremism, excesses of capitalism, corruption in business-life and political abuse of power; and – of course – abuse of women. These issues are usually not those at the forefront of Hollywood movies for a broad audience, and when they are the movies tend to become so wild and unbelieavable that you don’t really get the feeling they have any relation to real life.

So: Sony needs to look at what George Clooney – (just to give one example )- has done in terms of making good, realistic political thrillers and then spice this recipe  up with some more action and spirit. But not so much that it overshadows the underlying themes about social critique!!

The John Grisham movie adaptations could also point the way in this regard, but only because Grisham understands the importance of building court room dramas around social injustices and ‘David vs. Goliath’-story-telling.

4) Tight storytelling is a must

Larsson’s weaknesses was piling up one irrelevant sub-plot after another and not really tying everything together at the end. This is especially true for Erika Berger’s ‘detour’ as editor of major Swedish newspaper in Hornet. One of the things director Daniel Alfredsson actually got right in adapting Fire and Hornet were to cull the irrelevant subplots. Keep it that way, but don’t keep it tighter than that!

5) Millennium is ugly – most of the time - not Hollyw-eautiful!

Millennium takes place in Stockholm, a lot of the time. Although we don’t hear much about it in the books, the films go some way in order to display the depressing atmosphere of the city. Also the great, empty, bleak and dangerous forests are the real ‘star’ of much of Tattoo and should not be forgotten. Set the movies in a lesser known US city (in Hollywood terms) and have a lot of the action take place near or in desolate, wide forests. Seattle near the Canadian border might just fit this bill.

6) Tie themes together – don’t split them apart

One of the true strengths of Millennium was Larsson’s ability to tie together themes (notwithstanding those aforementioned detours). In Tattoo it is most prominent: The Vanger family, Larsson strongly suggests, is a dysfunctional family that breeds fascists and murderers of women, because they have sold their souls to the purpose of making more and more money and building this huge financial empire. Disrespect for women – for the ‘gentler values’ to be somewhat trite – can be likened to disrespect for life in general.

And men’s lust for power and control results in abuse, not just of money and political power, but also of women. Martin Vanger embodies this mindset, so does Peter Teleborian, Alexander Zalachenko and many other Larsson villains who simultaenously abuse power, money and women. Make sure this parallel is clear, and that the different elements – power, money and women abuse – of the story are mutually reinforcing. Make sure that we understand, without being spoon-fed the message, that Lisbeth embodies all the female victims of the world, and at the same time their potential strength to recover and be free. Same for Mikael Blomkvist who, although not without flaws, embodies the best a real man has to offer: Respect for women.

So … there. My two cents for now.

But of course I have to ask:

What are your thoughts on Michael Bloom-quist and Elizabeth Saylanderr? (Or whatever they are gonna call them )

*

Related stuff you might like:

Millennium Movie Trailers

Movie Rant: The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo

Movie Rant: The Girl Who Played With Fire

Movie Rant: The Girl Who Kicked The Hornets’ Nest