|
Post by joanne28 on Jul 25, 2010 14:41:23 GMT
I shudder to think of the American remake where ‘the English language films will be a more international story than the Swedish ones’. Why? Any standard Hollywood movie will make a mess of the story, in my opinion. I completely agree, Jazz, why? Plus, I don't find Hollywood movies very international, I find them rather parochial in their approaches. I suspect the quote simply means the movie will be made to feel more American. This would be a great pity in my opinion. There are excellent American directors but they wisely stick to what they know.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2010 14:42:03 GMT
The real buzz for the American cast is not quite as bad as I feared -- George Clooney as Michael Blomkvist and Kristen Stewart (of the Twilight movies) as Lisbeth Salander. At least she is the right age.
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Jul 25, 2010 18:13:16 GMT
That still makes me think of stuff like Michael Bolton having the misguided gall to record "When a Man Loves a Woman". What -- he was somehow going to improve on perfection?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2010 7:54:04 GMT
New changes in the American movie cast -- David Fincher is supposed to direct and Daniel Craig will star. Léa Seydoux might play Lisbeth Salander...
|
|
|
Post by bjd on Jul 29, 2010 9:20:40 GMT
Are the movies still going to be set in Sweden, or are they going to set them in Minnesota?
Why can't they just leave the originals and dub them if absolutely necessary to attract American viewers?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2010 10:32:34 GMT
"They" just don't do things that way. They have decided that Europe and Japan make rough drafts for them.
|
|
|
Post by fumobici on Jul 29, 2010 18:01:46 GMT
There is a Hollywood way of film making that is so universal and most people are so enured to that I doubt they are even consciously aware of. It is everything- every stylistic aspect of the films from the opening credits to the lights coming on. The Hollywood convention pervades the camera work, the lighting, makeup, hair, costumes, casting, screenplay, dialog and especially the musical scores with their well worn and clichéd orchestral arrangements. Obviously it works, people eat it up and given the money invested in these juggernauts, nobody wants to tinker with convention, lest some innovative or unorthodox artistic choice costs the investors a few mill. I personally find this Hollywood convention, trite, worn out, mindlessly conservative and risk averse. I find the slick Hollywood gloss of the sets, costumes and make-up phony and unconvincing. I find the unrelenting attractiveness of the actors cast ridiculous- even the ones consciously cast to buck the convention have a saccharine screen friendly look. And whatever authenticity has slipped through the cracks is killed by the heavy make-up they wear. The camera work and overall technical level is impressive but I've seen it too many times, the tricks just don't register with me any more. I hate being forced to watch the advertising trailers, the overpriced crap they serve for food, the bland corporate sameness of the multiplex theaters.
I've probably watched three or four movies big screen or small as a result the last four years. The medium- like almost every other putatively artistic endeavor that has been heavily commercialized- just leaves me bored and unimpressed. So many of the elements have become so formulaic to placate the risk averse money people that the remaining variables where some truly innovative, original or artistic content could be exercised have been pushed out to the margins. At best.
Fuck Hollywood, even if it was all shot in Vancouver.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2010 18:22:52 GMT
It is interesting, however, that a few movies scare them. In view of the success of something like "Amélie" they should have wanted to remake it -- but no one has dared to touch the subject yet.
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Jul 29, 2010 20:06:59 GMT
In line with what you all are saying, I have to ask, "why does it take them so long to catch up?"
Remember when Easy Rider turned out to be such a surprise hit? And that was after some non-Hollywood films had already been embraced in the US, such as Georgy Girl (b&w!). It seemed to take ages for Hollywood to say, "duh, we could do something like that".
Well, we can't claim that Hollywood got all artsy, but they've sure backslid into a contemporary version of the Hollywood vision.
Hollywood of the mid-sixties was like Detroit of the same period -- they watched in dumbfounded frustration as the public snapped up compact imports, standing there like dinosaurs being consumed by a glacier, not realizing they could follow the swift ones to a new successful incarnation.
|
|
|
Post by Jazz on Aug 21, 2010 21:06:21 GMT
There is a Hollywood way of film making that is so universal and most people are so enured to that I doubt they are even consciously aware of. It is everything- every stylistic aspect of the films from the opening credits to the lights coming on. The Hollywood convention pervades the camera work, the lighting, makeup, hair, costumes, casting, screenplay, dialog and especially the musical scores with their well worn and clichéd orchestral arrangements. Obviously it works, people eat it up and given the money invested in these juggernauts, nobody wants to tinker with convention, lest some innovative or unorthodox artistic choice costs the investors a few mill. I personally find this Hollywood convention, trite, worn out, mindlessly conservative and risk averse. I find the slick Hollywood gloss of the sets, costumes and make-up phony and unconvincing. I find the unrelenting attractiveness of the actors cast ridiculous- even the ones consciously cast to buck the convention have a saccharine screen friendly look. And whatever authenticity has slipped through the cracks is killed by the heavy make-up they wear. The camera work and overall technical level is impressive but I've seen it too many times, the tricks just don't register with me any more. I hate being forced to watch the advertising trailers, the overpriced crap they serve for food, the bland corporate sameness of the multiplex theaters. I've probably watched three or four movies big screen or small as a result the last four years. The medium- like almost every other putatively artistic endeavor that has been heavily commercialized- just leaves me bored and unimpressed. So many of the elements have become so formulaic to placate the risk averse money people that the remaining variables where some truly innovative, original or artistic content could be exercised have been pushed out to the margins. At best. Fuck Hollywood, even if it was all shot in Vancouver. Fumobici, I agree with you. Just one example, “…I find the unrelenting attractiveness of the actors cast ridiculous- even the ones consciously cast to buck the convention have a saccharine screen friendly look. And whatever authenticity has slipped through the cracks is killed by the heavy make-up they wear….” ‘unrelenting’ is the perfect word. Each time I see an actress waking up in bed totally made up, depresses me. (then, I think back to all those times when Hair and Makeup rush in for ‘final touches’.) ......."I've probably watched three or four movies big screen or small as a result the last four years. The medium- like almost every other putatively artistic endeavor that has been heavily commercialized- just leaves me bored and unimpressed. So many of the elements have become so formulaic to placate the risk averse money people that the remaining variables where some truly innovative, original or artistic content could be exercised have been pushed out to the margins. At best. Fuck Hollywood, even if it was all shot in Vancouver...." It sounds like you are limiting yourself. I admit that it takes more ‘work’, but there are some remarkable films available to watch. Rent them, or, explore some of the online rental sites, Bixa has noted many of these in the Screening Room Board. The foreign film market provides some excellent work, some independent American films, some (few, I admit) US mass market films. There is a treasure of filmwork available in classic films, foreign and some American, dating back to 1930. I am continuously discovering small masterpieces, often 60 or 70 years old. The ‘film noir’ area has some remarkable films. I confess to a weakness for foreign films.
|
|
|
Post by bjd on Oct 11, 2010 19:33:43 GMT
I am now working my way through volume 3 of the Millenium books. I don't know what it's called in English, The Girl Who ..., but the title has nothing to do with the Swedish title. I am however reading it in French.
I admit I skipped chunks of Vol 2 a few months ago, and even a few parts of Vol 1. I just don't like gore enough, I guess. Anyway, I just found this wonderful article by Nora Ephron:
The Girl Who Fixed the Umlaut by Nora Ephron July 5, 2010
There was a tap at the door at five in the morning. She woke up. Shit. Now what? She’d fallen asleep with her Palm Tungsten T3 in her hand. It would take only a moment to smash it against the wall and shove the battery up the nose of whoever was out there annoying her. She went to the door.
“I know you’re home,” he said.
Kalle fucking Blomkvist.
She tried to remember whether she was speaking to him or not. Probably not. She tried to remember why. No one knew why. It was undoubtedly because she’d been in a bad mood at some point. Lisbeth Salander was entitled to her bad moods on account of her miserable childhood and her tiny breasts, but it was starting to become confusing just how much irritability could be blamed on your slight figure and an abusive father you had once deliberately set on fire and then years later split open the head of with an axe.
Salander opened the door a crack and spent several paragraphs trying to decide whether to let Blomkvist in. Many italic thoughts flew through her mind. Go away. Perhaps. So what. Etc.
“Please,” he said. “I must see you. The umlaut on my computer isn’t working.”
He was cradling an iBook in his arms. She looked at him. He looked at her. She looked at him. He looked at her. And then she did what she usually did when she had run out of italic thoughts: she shook her head.
“I can’t really go on without an umlaut,” he said. “We’re in Sweden.”
But where in Sweden were they? There was no way to know, especially if you’d never been to Sweden. A few chapters ago, for example, an unscrupulous agent from Swedish Intelligence had tailed Blomkvist by taking Stora Essingen and Gröndal into Södermalm, and then driving down Hornsgatan and across Bellmansgatan via Brännkyrkagatan, with a final left onto Tavastgatan. Who cared, but there it was, in black-and-white, taking up space. And now Blomkvist was standing in her doorway. Someone might still be following him—but who? There was no real way to be sure even when you found out, because people’s names were so confusingly similar—Gullberg, Sandberg, and Holmberg; Nieminen and Niedermann; and, worst of all, Jonasson, Mårtensson, Torkelsson, Fredriksson, Svensson, Johansson, Svantesson, Fransson, and Paulsson.
“I need my umlaut,” Blomkvist said. “What if I want to go to Svavelsjö? Or Strängnäs? Or Södertälje? What if I want to write to Wadensjö? Or Ekström or Nyström?”
It was a compelling argument.
She opened the door.
He handed her the computer and went to make coffee on her Jura Impressa X7.
She tried to get the umlaut to work. No luck. She pinged Plague and explained the problem. Plague was fat, but he would know what to do, and he would tell her, in Courier typeface.
<Where are you?> Plague wrote.
<Stockholm.>
<There’s an Apple Store at the intersection of Kungsgatan and Sveavägen. Or you could try a Q-tip.>
She went to the bathroom and got a Q-tip and gently cleaned the area around the Alt key. It popped into place. Then she pressed “U.” An umlaut danced before her eyes.
Finally, she spoke.
“It’s fixed,” she said.
“Thanks,” he said.
(Thanks to the New Yorker.)
|
|
|
Post by Jazz on Oct 11, 2010 21:03:03 GMT
;D ;D ;D (oh my god, I actually googled for the definition of an umlaut...)
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 15, 2010 7:28:32 GMT
And it is Daniel Craig in the end who is playing Michael Blomkvist (replacing Brad Pitt ) with David Fincher directing. David Fincher might do a good job. I'm going to see The Social Network tomorrow. (And actually I understand why Brad Pitt was planned for the film, considering that Fincher made Seven, Fight Club and Benjamin Button with him, and none of them was a shabby performance.)
|
|
|
Post by mich64 on Oct 15, 2010 15:36:47 GMT
I am intrigued and have written down the titles and as soon as possible I will be at the book store to purchase or order all three.
|
|
|
Post by bjd on Nov 10, 2010 19:53:44 GMT
For those of you who read the books, here is an article about the US version and a picture of the actress who is to play Lisbeth Salander. Doesn't look the part, if you ask me, but then again, I'm not planning to go and see it. www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-11726615
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 10, 2010 20:58:40 GMT
She hasn't been made up and pierced yet. Noomi Rapace doesn't really look like Lisbeth Salander in real life either.
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Nov 11, 2010 2:18:40 GMT
This is a photo of Noomi Rapace, who looks wholesome, unwary, and unlike Lisbeth in every way: The way that Rapace totally channeled the persona of Lisbeth was just brilliant. Of course the make-up helped with the illusion, but that sidelong stare, that trippy, skinny-kid way of walking, and the skittish yet aware way of holding herself that Rapace created and maintained throughout the movie made the fictional character real in a way that's seldom seen to such perfection.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2010 20:06:47 GMT
However, one quirk of Noomi is that she is not a blonde, unlike many Swedes.
I have learned that the American remakes are indeed being filmed in Sweden. I can't imagine that they will use the time-honoured gimmick of old films ("You'll have to make believe we're all Swedish but we're all speaking English so that you will understand."), at least I sure as hell hope they won't. So I would assume that they will make Daniel Craig an English journalist to whom everybody will speak English out of courtesy.
(That angers me, when I think of the Venus Hottentot movie which took a long time to prepare because the Cuban actress had to learn to speak Afrikaans first. American movies almost never worry about such 'insignificant' details. They wouldn't want anybody to be speaking Afrikaans in a movie anyway... or Swedish.)
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Nov 12, 2010 21:16:59 GMT
I'm surprised at you, Kerouac. Everyone knows that people in foreign countries all speak English, but with different kinds of funny accents so you'll know that zhou ar' een Frahnce or Sveeeeden or wherever.
|
|
|
Post by lola on Nov 13, 2010 14:58:55 GMT
I was surprised when watching In Bruges to learn that no one in Bruges speaks French, German, or Dutch.
I just got to the top of the library list for the first book, and can tell from the first few chapters that it's going to be fun.
|
|
|
Post by cheerypeabrain on Nov 15, 2010 16:33:35 GMT
I've only read the first book, it was difficult reading in places...not my sort of thing at all! however...once I'd started it I had to finish I have the other 2 because my sister gave them to me...I've put off starting them tho as I found the first one so harrowing! Reminds me of the Wallander series (Hanning Mankell)...I enjoyed the Swedish tv programmes (with subtitles) much more than the BBC version. I don't want to see the films...not if they're as violent as the books...
|
|
|
Post by onlymark on Nov 15, 2010 17:02:45 GMT
Cheery, if it was difficult reading in places, just don't read in those places again.
|
|
|
Post by cheerypeabrain on Nov 15, 2010 17:10:12 GMT
AHA! cunning plan Baldrick....
|
|
|
Post by lola on Nov 15, 2010 18:11:38 GMT
I buzzed through the first book, and the second one's waiting at the library, but I'm not going to continue. It moves right along, and Salander is an interesting character, but I don't enjoy reading about or seeing movies with torture and mutilation. The subject doesn't speak to me, basically.
Though the books want to have a feminist slant, inviting us to contemplate this kind of violence against young women tips it in the other direction for me.
|
|
|
Post by cheerypeabrain on Nov 15, 2010 19:34:26 GMT
It did make quite uncomfortable reading, I thought it was just me....
|
|
|
Post by bjd on Nov 15, 2010 20:02:53 GMT
I "read" volume 1 after skipping the first 40 or so pages because it was boring, then ended up skipping a lot of the gruesome bits too. I read vols 2 and 3 after about a year, but there too, I tended to skip lots. Just went in and out trying to figure out where the story was going.
I don't read James Ellroy either -- I find that kind of gruesome violence (against anybody) unreadable.
|
|
|
Post by bjd on Jan 17, 2011 14:36:36 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Kimby on Jan 10, 2012 18:34:08 GMT
www.imdb.com/title/tt1568346/The American remake is out, and receiving somewhat positive reviews, though I don't expect it to be better than the swedish version. Interestingly, the actress playing Lisbeth is Rooney Mara who looks so wholesome and was last seen as the girlfriend dumping Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg in Social Network.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2012 19:04:27 GMT
I confess that I have not read the books yet, but I have the firm intention of doing so.
|
|
|
Post by nycgirl on Jan 11, 2012 16:11:06 GMT
I'm the opposite, I read the books but haven't yet gotten around to watching the movies.
When I was reading the novels, I pictured Viggo Mortensen as Blomkvist, so I was disappointed when Daniel Craig was cast. Oh well, I'm sure he'll do fine.
I'm glad they went with a relative unknown for Salander. As an audience member I like to be introduced to new talent once in awhile.
|
|