Draken tattoo irl4/30/2024 The relentless pace of the movie, its mercurial combination of amazingly precise and crystallized shots, is like the inside view of a souped-up biomorphic CPU. What Fincher captures is the inner sense of a pair of minds-Lisbeth Salander, the genius punk survivalist hacker, and Mikael Blomkvist, the intrepid investigative journalist-that run faster than others. In “Dragon Tattoo,” the tempo, instead of contemplating or examining the fascinating idea at the movie’s core, exemplifies it. “Zodiac,” “Benjamin Button,” and “The Social Network” are all, in their way, movies about development over time-indeed, about time itself-and their balance of tempo is integrated with the subject. (One time when they are-involving the organization of still photographs by computer into a sort of ex-post-facto Zapruder film-makes for one of the movie’s best scenes.) Fincher’s relentlessly fast tempo doesn’t allow much mental space for gradual unfolding, and he and the screenwriter, Steven Zaillian, didn’t include or make up the backstories or the interstitial stories about how their characters’ dazzling skills arise and are deployed. In “Dragon Tattoo,” unfortunately, the protagonists’ skills are a given and their use of them is, for the most part, merely illustrated, not unfolded. Fincher delivers the material with a cool and sober straightforwardness that leads inevitably to the question: Why? And, putting aside Alfred Hitchcock’s famous response to actors’ queries about motivation (“Your salary”), I think that the film bears out the surmise that I posted in October along with the movie’s trailer: Fincher is fascinated by the computer-whizdom that makes the story run, and he conceives the movie as a Dionysiac double of “The Social Network.” That film was about how nice people use the Internet “Dragon Tattoo” is about how tough ones use it.īut one of the best things about “The Social Network” is its emphasis on process-the very development, step-by-step, of the site that the movie’s about. Nonetheless, the movie lacks an element of the symbolic or the exuberantly garish. ![]() ![]() First, movie-and-video-steeped viewers are more perceptive than ever, more able than ever to extract salient narrative content from an image at a glance second, Fincher is himself able to deliver that content with a superbly analytical eye and synthetic sense of composition third, viewers are understood to be likely to see the movie many times, after its theatrical life, on home video and, fourth, the book on which it’s based is so familiar that the details of its story can be flicked with a light brush and yet be fully and quickly grasped. It isn’t a hyperkinetic movie but, rather, one of a dazzling proliferation of precise moments organized around a point of stillness, and its speed depends on a quartet of notable recognitions. It’s a sort of Classics Illustrated-variety pictorial digest, but one that’s executed with great visual solidity-its hundreds, perhaps thousands, of shots are not sketches but fully realized canvases.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply.AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |