Creative Differences

The obvious thing with any book-to-movie adaptation is that there are going to be changes... Even when the book is a graphic novel, in the case of Watchmen. Thing is, sometimes those changes are for the better (apologies to Mr Alan Moore, but I thought that the giant interdimensional squids were a bit too much, and the movie was far more sensible about its 'world-uniting threat').

With traditional novels, the changes generally amount to great swathes of plot being entirely removed, and the story being rewritten to plug the gaps. Look at the Lord of the Rings trilogy. Never having read all the way through any of the books, I thought the movies were great, and told a nice, complete story. Everyone I know who has read the books, however, complained about some key plot point that was either missing or truncated or generally glossed over.

Even newly written novels - which, all too frequently, are obviously written with a movie adaptation in mind - aren't safe from Hollywood's plot shredders.

OK, Stieg Larsson's Millennium trilogy probably aren't in that particular category... But, having just finished The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo - which I started reading a week or so before seeing the movie - it's fresh in my mind for the sake of comparison.

Most of the US version is remarkably close to the text, but a couple of great chunks were either removed or rewritten, with a few odd lines of dialogue revised. For example:

• The movie begins after Blomkvist loses the libel case brought by Wennerstrom, and he's been fined, but has avoided prison time.
• I don't recall reading anything about Blomkvist going to London to meet Anita Vanger quite early on in his investigation... Maybe it was just so brief that it's slipped my mind...
• There's no physical relationship between Blomkvist and Cecilia... which struck me as rather odd, because they'd cast Geraldine James. I mean, come on... I would.
• In connection with the second point, there's no trip to Australia at the end of the movie... which leaves me puzzled as to what the movie did with Anita Vanger. I honestly don't recall.

I was given the trilogy by a friend, who read the first book, but gave up on the second because she didn't like Blomkvist as a character, citing amongst other things his "sexual incontinence". Now that I've finished the book, I kind of take issue with that assessment.

Rightly or wrongly, men will frequently accept the advances of any woman they find attractive (enough... one must have standards, after all), whether they're in a relationship or not. Blomkvist isn't in a relationship, as such, he just has an understanding with Erika, his editor/partner in the magazine (and her husband). During the course of the book, he falls into a sexual fling with Cecilia (separated from her husband - no Vanger ever divorces - and lonely) which ends after Cecilia meets Erika. Once Salander turns up on the scene, she basically decides to pounce on him because she likes him. At the beginning of both of these 'relationships' Blomkvist is essentially passive.

Now, OK, when a man does this, he's considered... well, he's considered to be a lucky bastard by just about any other man and, sadly, all too often considered to be 'hot stuff' by teh wimminz. Sure, there are those - on both sides - who will think he's just stupidly promiscuous, but there's probably an element of jealousy in there somewhere. Worse still, a woman who behaves the same way is automatically branded a slut - easy pickings for certain kinds of bloke, and universally loathed by women.

And isn't it funny that, in this age of 'equality' between the sexes, it's more frequent for women to match men in terms of boozing, rowdiness and promiscuity than it is for them to match men in the employment/earnings stakes, or even in genuine self-confidence?

But I digress...

To me, Blomkvist came across as a bit of a chancer. When Salander made her first move on him, he did try to dissuade her. After that, his only crime was in not understanding what Salander herself didn't initially understand - that her feelings for him had developed beyond the purely sexual.

Moreover, it would have seemed to him that she was probably incapable of developing into whatever he would recognise as a 'friend' let alone a lover... Not least because Salander herself only considered him a sex partner right up until she realised she actually liked him.

Salander comes across better than I'd expected. I'd read comments to the effect that she was a walking deus ex machina, who basically became whatever the situation required of her (she only really pulls of a clever bit of - well-planned - acting right at the end), or somehow had access to the relevant equipment to accomplish whatever task was required of her. She is far better written than that and, since the narrative often switches to her perspective, one gets a greater insight into her mind as the reader than she (or Larsson) grants to any other character. She's very naive - particularly about Blomkvist - but that's completely consistent with her character - strong, resourceful, quick-witted... and a touch socially retarded.

Story-wise, it's one of the more interesting thrillers I've read (not that I've read many), and the revelation about the true origins of the pressed flowers sent to Henrik Vanger after Harriet's disappearance is almost heartbreaking.

I've now started the second book - The Girl Who Played with Fire - and it's already very different... Like the first book, it starts off slowly.... but I'd imagine it picks up the pace soon enough.