Monday, January 9, 2012

A Great Movie Moment You Never Even Noticed

WARNING: Contains Spoilers

David Fincher knows a thing or two about embedding subliminal messages into his films. In Se7en there are some carefully framed/boxed shots of Gwyneth Paltrow’s head leading up to the climax. But most notably is Edward Norton and Brad Pitt’s not-so-subliminal discussion of those “little cigarette burns” in Fight Club, referring to the circular marks in the corner of the screen when the film stock is changed over. Pitt’s Tyler Durden embeds pornographic images into such transitions, which then occur so quickly upon screening that people are not exactly sure what they just saw. Sure enough, such moments happen in the actual film, as we get little snippets of Tyler subliminally invading Edward Norton’s (and our own) psyche throughout.

I wasn’t readily thinking about subliminal messages when I went to see Fincher’s latest film, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, but I nonetheless noticed a gem of one relatively early on. I should note that I’ve previously read Stieg Larsson’s excellent trilogy and have seen all three Swedish film versions as well, so I was very aware of who the killer was going into it and thus much more apt to pick up on the big clue/reveal. However, since I’ve only seen Fincher’s film once, I’m approximating the time frame and exact dialogue that accompanies the scene. It nonetheless stands out as a brilliant moment of storytelling, and if you did happen to notice it (and are like me) then you had to fight every instinct to keep from jumping up in a packed theatre to shout, “DID YOU SEE THAT?! THEY JUST REVEALED THE KILLER!”

So here it is …

The scene occurs shortly after Blomkvist arrives at Hedeby Island to investigate the mysterious disappearance of Harriet Vanger. Henrik Vanger (who has hired Blomkvist) gives him the lowdown of who’s who in the family, indicating that Blomkvist will have to investigate each of them in order to solve the “murder” because they’re all suspects. One of the first places he visits is the home of Martin Vanger and his wife, who have him over for dinner. The conversation that takes place is back-story about Harriet, the family, the island. However, what you probably don’t notice is the ever-so-barely-audible noise going on in the background. If you listen carefully, you can hear the extremely faint and muffled screams of a woman! In fact, the only other person who does seem to notice is Martin, who (while his wife is talking to Blomkvist) politely gets up and excuses himself, saying something to the effect: “Must have left something open.” Of course, the background noise/screaming stops while he is gone and when he returns (maybe 30 seconds later) he is carrying a new bottle of wine (or something) and jumps right back into the conversation.

The whole thing happens about 30-40 minutes (best guess) into the film. Very subtle and ballsy move by Fincher for embedding such a blatant message so early in the film! But it works wonderfully and here’s why:
  • The screams are barely audible and if you’re not listening very very carefully, they actually do sort of sound like wind coming through a cracked window (reinforced by Martin’s throw-away line).
  • There is background static/noise in other scenes as well. For example, in Salander’s very first scene at Milton Securities there is a subtle background electronic hum throughout the whole scene. It simply feels like eerie background music. Thus if you pick up on any background noise in Martin’s house or subsequent scenes, you’ll unconsciously assume that it’s just more eerie ambiance.
  • At the time that it occurs we are not looking for a killer. At this point in the film, all we know is that there has been a disappearance that occurred 40 years prior. There has yet to be any indication that other crimes are related to Harriet’s disappearance. We do not yet know that Martin is a killer and still actively killing women, nor that he has a torture chamber in the basement of his house where he keeps women locked in cages. In fact, the audience is instead trying to closely follow the conversation because that’s where we assume the clues are … Need further proof? At the end of the film Martin admits to Blomkvist (just before he's about to kill him) that he had a girl locked up in the hidden torture chamber while he was serving him dinner.

So, in any event, Martin clearly forgot to close the upstairs door to the torture chamber when he had Blomkvist over for dinner. Just think of how much mischief he could’ve avoided if he would just remember to lock that door! Oops! … How did this guy get away with it for so long? Or how did his wife not know?! He must’ve had the Enya cranked super loud, or else I guess you just have to know what to look for.

2 comments:

Adam Johnson said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Adam Johnson said...

Finally saw Fincher's Dragon Tattoo last night and remembered you'd written this post (which I carefully avoided reading until now as not to spoil the plot).

So I'm coming at the film as someone with little more than a basic understanding of the plot (haven't read the books or seen the Swedish films, though Amanda read all three).

I have to say that, while the film was executed very well technically, I was pretty disappointed. I have two main beefs:

1. This isn't a problem for anyone who knows the twists in the plot in advance, but the movie suffers right off the bat with what I'd call "Law and Order spoiler casting". When I saw that Skarsgard was the only familiar face (other than Plummer, of course) I assumed he was cast to distract the audience, because it would be WAY too obvious to cast him as the killer. So ... I guess (?) in that regard I was surprised.

2. They made a 500+ page novel into a movie. There was a really good AVClub discussion on this topic about The Hunger Games, but it applies much better here, I think. The question is whether (or how much) a filmmaker owes it to a hugely popular book to make a movie that's as close to the book as possible.

In this case, I think the screenwriter would have been wise to condense or at least juggle some of the elements. At 2H 38M, it's at least 20 minutes longer than feels right for the story. To me, anyway. And the denouement was straight out of Lord of the Rings: important for the characters, yes, but a tangent from the "main" plot.

I can only assume it was left as-is (I'm going on Amanda's word as to the accuracy of the adaptation, which she thought was spot on) with an eye to making the sequels. The irony is that they might not all get made because this one didn't do so well. I've gotta think that if they'd made a few hard choices (or better yet, found a way to make the globe-tripping embezzlement happen before the climax - fans of the book would be angry, but for moviegoers, once the car blows up and we see Harriet reunited, we've already got closure for the primary story thread) it could have worked better for non-fans of the series.

That AVClub article made a great point: if the filmmaker isn't bringing something new to the table, you might as well be reading the book. I find it especially ironic as I think of Fight Club is Exhibit A in great movie adaptations: the extremely rare movie that's better than the source material (again, to me, anyway) by making a few cuts and other liberties with the source material.

It would be way too harsh to compare this to The Da Vinci Code (the acting and direction in this were superb, though I'm not so sure about the James Bond-y CGI opening credits) but that was an example of a book that I read and thought "despite its weak prose and many flaws, this is a really solid foundation upon which to build a great movie", and then the screenwriter just spewed the book onto the screen with little to no changes. A big mistake in that case, and I think here, too, though obviously I'm going out on a limb since I haven't ready the book.

Though I'm more curious than ever to see the Swedish version and compare the two ...