
Movie vs. Book Comparison
Watching the
movie never substitutes for actually reading the book. This remains true for The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. First,
to my dislike, the movie was extremely graphic. They even added content
regarding the scene when Lisbeth Salander is raped. I feel as if this part isn’t
crucial enough to the plot that the directors would need to include such
detailed scenes. Audiences could get the picture if they were told what
happened and left the rest to their imagination.
I felt that the book was more concentrated on the murder case and Salander was a background story adding towards a secondary plot. I think Salander’s life was a much larger part of the movie, but this was not the author’s intention.
Another problem in the movie, like most, is the time scheme. Everything happens extremely quickly. The books illustrates countless obstacles Blomkvist had trying to solve the murder and he dug for weeks to dig up the tiniest lead. I felt like the movie was handing out clues left and right for him to easily stumble upon. Elaborate descriptions of each member in the Vanger family were written in the book. I can see why these could be considered a waste of time by the movie directors, but I enjoyed thoroughly getting to know the characters. Giving an unbiased report on the characters allowed me, as a reader, to start drawing my own conclusions. I imagined each one of them being guilty and created situations for how they could be involved. This made every character seem like a suspect. When I watched the movie, even though I already knew what happened, I didn’t suspect as many people. It made it clear who the shadier characters were and concentrated more and their descriptions. The movie never revealed the back story behind two long-term lovers, Blomkvist and Berger. I don’t understand why some minor details like those were omitted when others, like a dead cat on the front porch, became important to the plot.
At the end of the movie, Blomkvist instantly remembers Harriet from his past. He remembers Hedeby Island and recognizes a family necklace. This never occurred in the book and Blomkvist had no memory of Harriet being a part of his childhood. Blomkvist solves the murder by connecting several complicated clues, like pictures and bible verses. A small detail in one picture led him to believe that Martin and Haralod Vanger were to blame. But the movie just describes these two men as Nazis who exploited young Jewish women, immediately causing Blomkvist to break into his home, which started a whole new set of events including shootings and character deception. Of course, these are much more captivating to a film audience who need suspense and action to keep their attention. It advances the plot much quicker. Readers experience the murder being solved in tiny steps, each having its own importance. I like reading this much better because it can hold a reader’s attention when clues are slowly dispersed over time. You’re unable to put the book down.
I thought that
the movie actually did a good job with characterization. Characters like
Bjurman and Blomkvist were relatively accurate. Lisbeth was portrayed almost
exactly how the books described her: a small, scrawny girl with a gothic style.
She had a dark and shielded personality. She kept to herself, but was a very
bright individual.
I felt that the book was more concentrated on the murder case and Salander was a background story adding towards a secondary plot. I think Salander’s life was a much larger part of the movie, but this was not the author’s intention.
Another problem in the movie, like most, is the time scheme. Everything happens extremely quickly. The books illustrates countless obstacles Blomkvist had trying to solve the murder and he dug for weeks to dig up the tiniest lead. I felt like the movie was handing out clues left and right for him to easily stumble upon. Elaborate descriptions of each member in the Vanger family were written in the book. I can see why these could be considered a waste of time by the movie directors, but I enjoyed thoroughly getting to know the characters. Giving an unbiased report on the characters allowed me, as a reader, to start drawing my own conclusions. I imagined each one of them being guilty and created situations for how they could be involved. This made every character seem like a suspect. When I watched the movie, even though I already knew what happened, I didn’t suspect as many people. It made it clear who the shadier characters were and concentrated more and their descriptions. The movie never revealed the back story behind two long-term lovers, Blomkvist and Berger. I don’t understand why some minor details like those were omitted when others, like a dead cat on the front porch, became important to the plot.
At the end of the movie, Blomkvist instantly remembers Harriet from his past. He remembers Hedeby Island and recognizes a family necklace. This never occurred in the book and Blomkvist had no memory of Harriet being a part of his childhood. Blomkvist solves the murder by connecting several complicated clues, like pictures and bible verses. A small detail in one picture led him to believe that Martin and Haralod Vanger were to blame. But the movie just describes these two men as Nazis who exploited young Jewish women, immediately causing Blomkvist to break into his home, which started a whole new set of events including shootings and character deception. Of course, these are much more captivating to a film audience who need suspense and action to keep their attention. It advances the plot much quicker. Readers experience the murder being solved in tiny steps, each having its own importance. I like reading this much better because it can hold a reader’s attention when clues are slowly dispersed over time. You’re unable to put the book down.