Month: November 2010

No More The Book Is Better

books3.jpg

I‘m going to make a vow right now to never again say in print or in conversation the words: “The book is better.”

Not because the book isn’t better, not because I don’t think the book is better in many cases, and not because I don’t think it’s ever valuable to compare a film adaptation with its literary original. But because the statement “The book is better” is too easy a gut reaction, too simplistic a critical statement, and too cliched a response. It doubles as an elitist phrase, both revealing that you’ve read the book in question and that you, being literary, prefer it to its pop-art cousin the cinema. Now, of course not everyone who uses the phrase intends those elitist connotations and I don’t mean to suggest that they do.

Instead, when dealing with a film adaptation of a book, I will seek to compare how they differ, what specific things the book did better, and what specific things the film did better. Sometimes I can’t be that specific, because the difference is more ephemeral than that, but I will be specific about that, too, as specific as I can.

I already try to do this, recognizing that the film, though based on an existing work, is also its own work of art and ought to be treated as such rather than merely a copy/shadow of the original. But I will make it explicit. Hold me to this. If any time after today, you hear me say the words “The book is better” or see me write them, call me on it. Remind me to think more carefully about the relationship between the two works, and tell me to rewrite or expand what I wrote.

Review: Change of Plans

STILL-2.jpg
[Rating:3.5/5]

“Everyone pretends they’re fine.” So says one of the characters toward the end of Danièle Thompson’s new ensemble comedy Change of Plans. It’s not a particularly profound statement or one that can’t be found in plenty of other movies, but it does describe pretty accurately the state of affairs among the characters in the film. They first meet attending a dinner party put on by Marie-Laurence (nicknamed ML) and Piotr, a married couple struggling a bit with their marriage. The other guests include ML’s sister and her new beau, a potential new boss, some old friends, and a flamenco teacher – in other words, various backgrounds, degrees of connection to ML and Piotr, and a wide range of intimacy with them.

As they gather for dinner, it becomes clear that potential boss Lucas and his wife Sarah are very not happy together, that friend Melanie is about to leave her husband Alain, that one of the guests has had an affair with ML, and that sister Juliette’s new beau is as old as their father – who, by the way, drops by nearly unannounced, much to Juliette’s chagrin. She hasn’t spoken to him for years. The dinner party continues, focusing on building character, relationships, and drama through dialogue. Dialogue which both hides and reveals each character’s unhappiness, joy, and desire – the ways they’re pretending to be fine and the ways they really are not.

STILL-6.jpg

About half-way through, the film jumps forward a year – ML is planning another party and trying to get the same group together again. Many things have changed, others haven’t, and as the film continues, it jumps back and forth between the two time periods, gradually revealing how circumstances have changed in between. It’s quite a good structural device, allowing us to adjust our point of view on the earlier dinner party as more things are revealed from the future time period, while also encouraging us to care about the changes that have happened to the characters we’ve come to know from the first half of the film.

There’s a lot to like about the film, especially if you like almost comedy-of-manners sort of films, built on dialogue and small character reveals rather than overt drama or major events. There are a few big dramatic events, but most of them – a car accident that affects one character for the second half of the film, the events that drove Juliette and her father apart, etc. – occur offscreen and are talked about rather than seen. It’s tough to make that effective, but Thompson (and her son Christopher, the screenwriter) do a fine job of keeping interest up without straying far from their chosen mode of subtle conversational development.

STILL-9.jpg

I’ve actually warmed to the film a little since seeing it, but though I enjoyed its quiet way of going about its story and appreciate that style in comparison to so many films’ dependence on bombast, it still strikes me as not particularly memorable over the long run. Which is pretty much how I feel about Thompson’s earlier film Avenue Montaigne, which I quite enjoyed and generally recommend to people who enjoy cute, meandering ensemble films with a French sensibility, but of which I remember very little actual plot or character points. They’re nice films, but they don’t really grab you in any lasting way, which I think is due more to the fact that they kind of just stop without giving you any feeling of insight (I do not mean a message or a “point”, just to be clear – I mean some sense that you’ve felt or understood something, even something that you can’t put into words, that you hadn’t before) out of all these people’s lives.

So it’s a good film, and one that certainly you’ll enjoy if you like films of this sort, and that’s about as far as it goes. I won’t say it left me unsatisfied, because that’s about what I expected, but I feel that Thompson and Thompson are quite good at weaving ensembles together and at writing dialogue-heavy scenes that work, and I feel like they could create something profound if they’d push things a little further and go for real depth instead of superficial metaphors.

STILL-4.jpg

Review: The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet’s Nest

girlwhokicked6.jpg

[Rating:3.5/5]

Originally posted on Row Three.

The Millennium Trilogy of films has been a bit of a rollercoaster for me – first chapter The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo remains among my favorite films of the year, while its follow-up The Girl Who Played With Fire left me cold and disappointed. Going into the final film in the series, I was pretty much just hoping I would like it better than I did The Girl Who Played With Fire. And I did, though how much of that is due merely to tempered expectations I’m not entirely sure. In any case, if you did like The Girl Who Played With Fire, you’ll probably quite enjoy The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet’s Nest, as it’s a really good sequel to that film, though still not up to The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo for me in either story or style. Okay, enough with the trilogy comparisons. I’m tired of typing these titles out.

The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet’s Nest picks up right where the previous film left off, with a badly injured Lisbeth Salander being taken off to the hospital by a medivac crew. But her troubles aren’t over yet – she’s to stand trial for the murders pinned on her in the second chapter, plus the attempted murder of her father Alexander Zolochenko. Yeah, he didn’t die, though he’s in pretty bad shape, too. While she recovers in the hospital before her trial, Mikael Blomkvist returns to Millennium to put together a special issue intended to prove Lisbeth’s innocence as well as reveal her mistreatment at the hands of the state throughout her life. In a way, it covers similar plot ground to the second film, but more so, and to an actual conclusion.

girlwhokicked4.jpg
girlwhokicked1.jpg

A lot of this film is taken up with a conspiracy within the Swedish government to protect Russian defector Zolochenko, and the lengths the remaining members (most of whom are aged, as the group was formed in the sixties) go to in order to maintain their cover and silence both Zolochenko and Lisbeth. I’m not sure if I missed some important subtitles somewhere along the line or if there’s a bunch of exposition somewhere in The Girl Who Played With Fire that I forgot, but I had some trouble figuring out exactly what this whole conspiracy was about, what they were trying to do, and why Lisbeth was so important to them. I’d be curious if this is any clearer from the books, but I haven’t read these two – perhaps someone who has could at least let me know if it’s worth reading them to answer all the “but…why?” notes I wrote while watching.

In any case, it may be a positive sign that I still found myself invested in the film and caring what happened. All the courtroom scenes are fantastic, and perhaps show Lisbeth’s particular way of handling herself when she’s forced to interact with other people better than anything in the whole series. She’s sporting a new look for them, too, as you can see in the screencaps (she only adopts the punk look for the trial, part of her general no compromise stance – and it looks awesome). I also quite liked the subplots dealing with Millennium itself and Mikael’s relationship with Erika, which was kind of skimmed over in the other films. The callbacks to previous events are nicely handled as well.

girlwhokicked5.jpg
girlwhokicked2.jpg

However, as this one does follow right on the heels of The Girl Who Played With Fire, it still has many of the same elements that disappointed me in that film – it’s still wholly focused on Lisbeth, while I preferred the first film’s thematically-related but distinct mystery, and it still has Lisbeth and Blomkvist working largely separately throughout the whole film. In addition, I wanted Lisbeth to have a little more agency than she does – unfortunately, she’s fairly passive this time around, only given some real action toward the end. On the other hand, some of her character moments shine the brightest here, and I really appreciated some of the quietness after the almost comic-book-action-hero Lisbeth we got in the second film.

In addition to the conspiracy not really being that clear, there are other plot issues that had me scratching me head a time or two wondering how exactly we got from there to here, but like I said, lowered expectations probably helped a lot, and it finished off the story begun in The Girl Who Played With Fire pretty well. I still don’t think either film compares with The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, but perhaps thinking of that one as a standalone and these two as a separate two-part story will make all three of them rate a little higher. In any case, Noomi Rapace and Michael Nyquist continue to play their characters with conviction that makes them rise above whatever issues the film has, and they will be what you remember.

girlwhokicked3.jpg

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén