7 Reasons to See Argo

Don't let this movie give you the slip. Here are seven reasons you should go see Argo.

7. The Spies!

It doesn’t take a secret agent to know that America is obsessed with spies. James Bond, Jason Bourne, Ethan Hunt... We love the espionage, the mystery, the idea that lives are all balanced on the thin point of a complicated plan and in a moment everything could collapse. Oh, yeah, and we love seeing people take names and get stuff done.

In Argo, Ben Affleck plays Tony Mendez, a CIA agent responsible for rescuing six Americans stranded in Iran during the Iranian hostage crisis. For the young, non-history geeks out there, think the Arab Spring in Egypt but much more violent. It was a period of violent unrest channeled directly at America and Americans in the country at the time. It was a period of revolution. No one was safe. In this setting—in this hell—six government workers are stranded at the home of the Canadian ambassador with no way out.

So, naturally, Mendez does what any CIA agent would do: construct a mad, elaborate plot way too ridiculous to work. Their cover story: they are filming a science fiction movie Argo and are in Iran scouting for locations to shoot. As they say, "This is the best bad idea we have."

As a spy movie, Argo has it all, from pie-in-the-sky plans to disguises and cover stories to lots of sneaking around--and, of course, explosions. Okay maybe they’re just tear gas bombs but hey, it counts!

6. The Cast

Ben Affleck seems to either get it all wrong (coughDareDevilcough) or completely right (Good Will Hunting, The Town). In the case of Argo, it's the latter. Affleck not only appeared in Argo as main character Tony Mendez, he also produced and directed it. If that’s not enough, the film also stars John Goodman and Alan Arkin, both of whom contribute the much-needed but not overdone comic relief in this tense thriller. 

5. The Details

If you stay for the credits (which you definitely should), you’ll see side-by-side shots of the movie and actual historical events. They incorporated shots throughout the film that match real photographs taken during the time. It may seem trivial, but touches like that go far to establish a mood and contribute to the authenticity of a movie.

Argo covers a complex story in only 120 minutes, so it has to move quickly. No doubt it was difficult to succinctly convey the full scope of the situation and all the details involved in Mendez’s elaborate plot, but Argo manages it well.

Some nice touches: the storyboard-esque pictures in the opening sequence that briefly explain the context of the hostage crisis; the accuracy of the storming of the embassy; and the make-up that made the actors look just like their real-life characters.

4. It's Funny

The best movies are a proportionate recipe of action, tension, character and, of course, humor. Give me a movie that runs the gamut of the emotional spectrum: from tears to happiness, I want the full experience. An action-packed thriller? Great. A nice sprinkling of humor? Even better.

Humor can go a long way in relieving tension, and a movie like Argo (or any spy movie) benefits from some good comic relief. Of course, the jokes must still fit the mood. A movie like Argo should not have you rolling on the floor with laughter. That would be inappropriate. Fortunately the jokes are apropos (if maybe occasionally a liiiiiittle bit too obvious in their pokes at Hollywood).

3. It's History

Maybe It makes me a nerd, but I always enjoy a good historical piece. And what better way to learn than through an entertaining film? Learn about one our nation's most humbling moments that helped define America's relationship with Iran for decades to come.

2. It's Relevant

It's easy to forget about the plights of the rest of the world, but as I said somewhere above, the Iranian Hostage Crisis was sort of like the Arab Spring in Egypt... only (I cannot emphasize this enough) a lot worse. Our world is in turmoil. Revolutions still happen. And it's important to see, up close, how the passions of the people can change the world.

1. It’s true!

In case you haven't guessed by now, Argo is in fact based on a true story. That's right. The CIA really did concoct a wild plan to create a fake movie to rescue six Americans who managed to escape the embassy before the revolutionaries took control. How could you not want to know that story?

The best thing about Argo is this--the Iran hostage crisis was a moment of tragedy in American history. For over 400 days, fifty-two Americans were held hostage in the embassy basement. A rescue attempt went horribly wrong and resulted in the deaths of eight servicemen. Americans, anyone who might possibly be American and anyone who helped Americans were questioned, detained and sometimes even killed. But the Argo mission was one shining moment in CIA history. And it wasn't even declassified until 1997.

For almost twenty-years, the American public--the entire world--believed that the Canadians alone were behind the rescue. For a moment so tainted by tragedy, there was this other moment of true heroism that no one ever knew. This is that story; this is part of our history and a reminder that even when we mess everything up, some thing can still go right.

Wroxton College: A Look, Four Years Later

Four years ago today, I first stepped foot in that magnificent abbey so many have been fortunate enough to call home (however briefly). It was fall 2008, an election year, like this one, but the thoughts of my fellow students were not about politics or candidates or even America, really. No, they were the excited thoughts of wonder that fill the heads of students eager for knowledge, adventure and a good night in a pub.

Airports are a no man’s land. They are all the same, even if they are all different. You aren’t really in a new country untilyou first step outside. And once you do—it’s a whole new world.

The first thing was the roads and the bus and how it was all backwards. The driver was on the wrong side of the bus and the bus was on the wrong side of the road. But then, exhausted from eight hours on a plane, the students drifted off to sleep as the bus rolled gently along the M40, peaceful green and yellow pastures flowing past our windows like the perfect backdrop of a lullaby.

As the bus slowed and carefully navigated its way through several roundabouts and the narrow streets Banbury, everyone woke up, pointing at and admiring the quaint thatched roofs of an English village.

We will never forget that first impression of Wroxton Abbey, the way everyone held their breath as the bus squeezed through the narrow arches of the gate, the way the trees blocked our view until suddenly the path curved, and the four-and-a-half story abbey towered above the vast, open lawn and then our breath came out in a sudden gasp.

Wroxton.

Gathering our bags from the bus, milling around on the steps, eager to just get inside the building already—everything was ahead of us, everything was a discovery waiting just around the corner. Finally, finally, we went through that large, heavy wooden door, we flipped our fire cards for the first time and stood in the Great Hall in disbelief.

“I’m here,” I thought. “I’m finally here.”

Why I Like the Newsroom... and Aaron Sorkin

Yes, it’s true, Aaron Sorkin can be preachy. Yes, he repurposes his past work. Yes, he’s unabashedly liberal.

But he’s a brilliant writer.

I love his writing because the characters are compelling and passionate and above all flawed.

I love it because it reminds me why I love to write.

I love it because it makes me proud to be an American. The American President, The West Wing and The Newsroom inspire a passion in me for history and government, which are so frequently made stuffy and boring, when they so much aren’t. 

Sorkin’s gift is writing. He should be a speech writer—(Is there room on Obama’s staff, because the two would be unstoppable)—because Michael Douglas’ speech at the end of The American President is one of the most motivating and succinct summaries of what it means to be American that I have heard. He’s so good that an Australianpolitician repurposed his speech this past year.

America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You gotta want it bad, 'cause it's gonna put up a fight. It's gonna say "You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours. You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country can't just be a flag; the symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then, you can stand up and sing about the "land of the free".

Maybe he does preach in his speech, but his writing drives home a greater point that needs to be said, and he’s tackling complex issues that need to be discussed and are hard to boil in a ten-word sound bite. He even wrote an episode about that in The West Wing.

In fact, in The West Wing, some of my favorite scenes are those between Toby and Sam, whether they are drafting the State of the Union or niggling over the precise wording of a Happy Birthday message.  In these scenes, Sorkin teaches us just how important one word can be, how rhythm and cadence can be used to bring home a message, and how beautiful the language of Shakespeare truly is.

But writing isn't just about the prose; it's also about developing characters and telling a story that's rich and engaging and human. Will, Mackenzie, Maggie, Jim, Don, Sloan... they are all characters with quirks and flaws that make them loveable and real. Yes, they can drive us crazy, just like people do in real life, and yes, they can remind us why we care about each other despite that. They remind us why we are great to begin with.

People will acknowledge his adeptness with the written word, with dialogue and with speeches, sure. But they will criticize Sorkin for the way he conveys his message through the mouths of upper middle class white males.

Critics claim that Sorkin is sexist, but as a woman I fail to see it. CJ, one of my favorite characters (you know, along with Charlie and Danny and Sam and President Bartlett and Abby and … oh you know, all of them), is such a brilliant strong force on the show. While I have not finished all the episodes of The West Wing, my boyfriend says the best examples are yet to come. But let’s point to the fact that when Josh and Toby—the Communications Director—attempt to do her job, they are so completely incompetent at it. CJ is a force to be reckoned with, and if she messes up now and then (like they all do), it’s not a sign of sexism, it’s a sign of good character development (because, you know, it’s normal for people to mess up now and then).

The fact of the matter is that there aren’t as many woman in government as men. There are not as many African Americans in government as white Americans. That does not make Sorkin racist. Sorkin is merely an artist who paints the society in which lives. People claim that the absence of a diverse cast is proof of racism, but maybe it’s just a reflection of society.

But if it is a reflection of what society is like today, it is also a reflection of the hope of what society could be. In The Newsroom, Sorkin envisions a news show that actually informs viewers instead of giving them watered-down drivel about pseudo-controversies or ultra-biased op-eds in disguise as objective news. He makes no mistake that their show is new and it stumbles sometimes and they don't always necessarily meet their goal of objectivity, but at least that is their goal. 

I know that Sorkin has flaws. Sometimes he’s over the top. He’s over dramatic. But hey, he’s in show business. His job is to provide entertainment, and his version of entertainment at least sparks a conversation on serious issues. That’s something that many other TV shows fail to do. I’d rather see CJ Cregg battle her way through a male-dominated profession and succeed than watch Snookie stumble over the boardwalk. Yes, we all have out guilty pleasures, and we all like to watch something light that doesn’t require us to think too hard.

But at the end of the day, I think we all really do want to be inspired. I think we all really do care about what happens to our country. And I thank Aaron Sorkin for trying to remind us that politics doesn’t just need to be for the history geeks like my boyfriend or for stuffy old white guys mumbling on a podium in Congress on C-SPAN. It doesn’t need to be Sorkin or The Newsroom, but for at least for one hour on one night, we should find something that inspires us.

The Dark Knight Falls

Warning: Spoiler's ahead!

After the chilling performance in The Dark Knight, the stakes were high for the third installment of the Batman trilogy, and unfortunately The Dark Knight Rises could not rise high enough to meet them.

I was surprised, considering how many good reviews I've heard. It seems the final Batman has the appearance of a good film--an intense score, action-packed fight scenes and the occasional ideological one liner. But it turns out all of this is purely formulaic, and in the end we're left with a regurgitated plot that stumbles around and never really finds a strong, motivating, convincing foundation.

The backstory behind Bane was certainly interesting, but I felt a little disappointed with the unveiling. Were there any hints about Tate's true identity? I missed them. Twists that aren't subtly foreshadowed are just a let down. I'd rather react this way: "Holy plot twist, Batman! That's awesome. Why did I not see that coming?"  There should be clues so that if I went back and watched it again, I'd notice them.

In retrospect, I do realize I should have seen Tate's villainy coming since Batman always seems to fall for the villains in the beginning (see TVTropes: Dating Catwoman and Fatal Attraction), but that's not a satisfying enough hint for me.

Also, I love Anne Hathaway, but I never thought she fit as Catwoman, and I still don't. Although I attribute her annoyingness more to bad writing than bad acting. I cringed through the whole ballroom scene in the beginning: dialogue between Bruce Wayne and Selina Kyle just felt forced and awkward.

What I loved about Nolan's other two Batman films was how startingly fresh they were to me (note: I do not read the comics and am just comparing Nolan's movies to other Batman films that I've seen). Besides the fact that they were, for all intents and purposes, bringing back the villain from the first movie (since all the "new" villain is doing is "finishing her father's work"), this one felt more like the other Batman films... and that is far from a good thing. I guess some of those Batman films were critically acclaimed, but always thought they were corny and campy.

My boyfriend pointed out that what makes a good superhero movie is a good villain. After all, it is the villain that forces the hero to grow. It is the villain that fuels character development. It is the villain that makes us think. This is what makes The Joker one of the best villain characters in superhero movies. His antics constantly force Batman to question his decisions.

Contrast this to the villains of The Dark Knight Rises: Bane's character was two-dimensional at worst and mysteriously vague at best. Talia was just a female Ra's al Ghul, and she wasn't half as awesome as her father (well, who could ever really live up to Liam Neeson?). Furthermore, why did Talia wait roughly ten years before exacting her revenge? If it was because her plan needed "time to come into fruition," that's just stupid.

The most disappointing aspect for me was that Batman and Robin did not kick ass together. It was obvious from the beginning who Levitt's character was (even if they changed his name and backstory), so I anticipated for the entire movie an awesome action scene where Robin dons his mask and takes his place at Batman's side. And it never happened. Instead they imply that Robin is going to become Batman.

Speaking of Robin donning his mask, Wayne reiterates over and over to Robin that he needs to wear one to protect the people he loves, but 1) we never see him actually listen to this repeated advice and 2) it is not made explicitly clear who Robin would need to protect. I assume it would be the orphanage, but there is never an indication that the orphanage was in trouble because of Robin's identity in the first place, other than Batman predicting it would be.

So, ultimately, Batman failed to deliver on character development and plot development. But that's not really what matters in the end, right? Really it's whether you were entertained. The music was fittingly intense. The motorcycle chase scenes were exhilarating. And let's not forget the explosions! (Remember, the number of plot holes is directly proportional to the number of explosions.) To quote a friend, "It was all plot hole. Just--all of it. But stuff exploded! So whatever."

Too Many Characters: A Case Study (read: rant) of Game of Thrones' Failures

Ned Stark on the Iron Throne: contemplating the state of the
kingdom, or simply trying to remember who Victarion on is?

After slogging my way through roughly 5,000 pages of subplot after subplot, I can finally say I've finished A Song of Ice and Fire. The moments I enjoyed were few and far between, but I won't deny that there weren't any at all. However, by and large the series written by "The American Tolkien" has left me overwhelmingly disappointed.

There are many problems with the series: extraneous detail, like the lists of the houses and signs of every character in the battlefield and the seventy courses they ate at Joffrey's wedding; the amount of time it takes for anything to happen; and the seemingly pointless deaths of major, well-liked characters.  But ultimately, the problems with A Song of Ice and Fire can be attributed to one thing: too many characters.

Having a diverse perspective on major plot events is a good idea. Showing the point of view of the antagonists can sometimes make for entertaining dramatic irony, and it can also help develop interesting villains that are more than just steepled fingers and "muahahaha"s. But with 31 different points of view, there comes a point where I just don't remember who I'm reading about anymore.

Take the Ironmen, for example.  About half the time one of the Greyjoys took the spotlight, it took me a page or two to reach into the depths of my memory and figure out who exactly they were. Same thing for the Dornishmen. With that in mind, I'm not sure why Martin focuses on the Ironmen at all. I'm not sure what the purpose of the plot in Dorne was about in book four, other than to set up Quentyn's plot in book five... which really is only to set up one thing: the freeing of the dragons. I'm sure that could have been accomplished without the 2000-page build up. 

In book one, the Starks are the main protagonists, and even if some of them are unlikeable or frustrating (Ned Stark's idiotic adhesion to honor, even when it leads to his death, and Sansa's blind devotion to Joffrey, despite how clear it is that he is simply an utter jerk) the others are likeable enough. Namely Arya, Jon and maybe Bran (although his storyline is pretty boring). Yet by book four, the Starks have faded to the background. The characters that drew me in have disappeared. Talk about a bait and switch! 

Daenerys, meanwhile, is languishing in Slaver's Bay, accomplishing nothing while making enemies. I suppose it's supposed to be character development but I'm guessing it's simply because the situation in Westeros isn't quite terrible enough yet for her to come in and save the day and therefore win back the throne for the Targaryen name. 

Whenever I do finally become invested in a new set of characters or a particularly storyline, I'm whisked off to another part of the world, which I had quite honestly forgotten about. I think it'd be more entertaining to read one book that focuses on one group or area and then move to another group in a new book. Oh wait, he did do that with book four, and that was the worst one--but the reason for that is it introduced too many new characters, while the old characters focused on an unsuccessful and boring sidequest (Brienne). Sure, Jaime's response to Cersei's letter at the end of book four was absolutely fantastic, but then any satisfaction with that fell to the wayside in book five. Come on already, we've seen all our favorite characters die, we want to see the bad ones get their due.

As a reader, I'm unimpressed. The book fails to deliver the story I want to read, and it takes too long in doing so. In the end, fine, I'll give Martin his due: his painstaking (and often superflous) attention to detail give him room to explore and develop interesting characters. Too bad I can't remember any of their names.

Why I've Been Gone and Why Game of Thrones Frustrates Me

Two whole months is a long time for no posts, and I wish I could say I had been more productive in that time. That's not to say I haven't been productive at all... in April, I annotated The Hunger Games and its sequel, Catching Fire, and analyzed Susan Collins' development of the love triangle between Peeta, Katniss and Gale, posted on my Tumblr.

But really my long absence has been due to the fact that I have been deeply engrossed in George R.R. Martin's popular A Song of Ice and Fire series. Knowing how dauntingly lengthy the books are, I've been avoiding it for years, but I finally caved on April 25. During that time, I've been trying to figure what makes these books work.

The writing is okay, at times great but most times tedious. The plot basically consists of characters bumbling around a war-stricken land and being brutally injured if not outright killed. And most of the characters are annoying. So why am I still reading?

There must be something redeeming about these books, else they would not have so many fans or an HBO television series. But I can't figure out what it is. Occasionally, I will enjoy sections of the book long enough to think I understand why they are so popular, but then something terrible will happen, a favorite character will die, and once again I find myself questioning why I am putting myself through one thousand pages (per book) of tedious writing only to watch bad thing after bad thing happen to characters I like.

That must be the one thing stringing me along... despite everything, somehow Martin has successfully developed characters I'm able to become invested in. But seeing characters I like constantly beaten down and killed just means the reasons I was reading are disappearing.

As a writer, I cannot understand Martin's purpose. Why would you create a cast of characters and slowly kill off the likable ones over the course of the series? How do you expect to maintain a reader's interest? Perhaps he's just trying to be realistic, and in a war such as the one in the book would result in the deaths of many. But many of the characters do stupid things, things that did not have to happen. So what is the purpose of that?

Sometimes I wonder if people assume that sad stories are better just because they're sad. I must passionately disagree. In my opinion, a good story features characters that yes, make mistakes and suffer through hard times, but through that, they persevere and grow. If a character dies before he has an opportunity to enjoy life and grow, its just not fulfulling. And none of the characters ever seem to learn from their mistakes.

I will be posting a lengthier review of the series soon, once I finish book three (which I've heard is the worst in regards to who dies). Until then, if any Game of Thrones fans are reading this, please do not hesitate to explain why you enjoy the books in the comments below.

In-Depth Review: The Hunger Games Movie as an Adaptation

In broad strokes, The Hunger Games movie follows the plot of the books closely. However, ultimately, it failed to deliver the powerful, emotional impact that comes with the book. If you have read the books, here are several (mostly nitpicky) reasons that the movie failed to live up to the book. If you haven't read the book, read further at your own risk--spoilers abound.

Stylists & Portrayal of the Capitol

In the book, Katniss gradually bonds with all of her stylists (not just Cinna) enough so that by book three, she’s more understanding towards them and passionately defends them when she finds them imprisoned. So it was a little bit disappointing to see that not even a kind word from them was offered in her direction (other than Cinna). Showing the human side of the Capitol is just as important as showing how incredibly self-involved and non-empathetic they are towards citizens from other districts. It's important that, by the end of the book, it's clear that there are enemies and friends on both sides.

Riots in District 11

This scene just should not have happened in this movie at all. It was too soon. In the book, District 11, the district that Rue and Thresh are from, sends Katniss bread in recognition for what she did for Rue. Instead, the movie cut to riots in District 11, which if I remember correctly, do not happen until Catching Fire.

The bread from District 11 would have been much better as it helps to set up the reason for the riot later in the series. The fact that one district is trying to help another district’s tribute is HUGE and important to the storyline. I don’t know why this was cut.

The Rule Change Scene

In the books, when Katniss realizes that both she and Peeta can win, she shouts Peeta’s name instantly. She doesn’t even realize what she’s doing, her first thought is just: find Peeta immediately. And then her next thought is “Oops!”, and she covers her mouth and realizes what a horrible mistake she’s made—and then she’s lucky enough that it doesn’t cost her anything.  Then, after all that plays out in her mind, she thinks out how finding Peeta is strategical. Maybe it’s a stretch, but I felt like in that scene, we get a glimpse of Katniss’ … maybe not “love,” yet, but her care for Peeta.

It doesn’t happen quite like that in the movie. It’s probably nitpicky on my part, but I really loved how in that scene, Katniss kind of loses control and exposes feelings she doesn’t even realize she has yet.

Katniss &Peeta/Ending

For the most part, I thought the Katniss and Peeta scenes were good and generally stayed true to the book.

However.

The book was vague about Katniss’ true motives because Katniss really doesn’t know how she feels about Peeta. She doesn’t want to get married or have kids--romance is just not a top priority to her. And yet she feels a certain safety with Peeta; she dreads having to let go of his hand. That’s how the first book ends. She breaks his heart, because she’s confused, but then she doesn’t want to let go.

The movie is completely different. It’s lame. It’s not tense enough. Katniss needs to break Peeta’s heart. It needs to be clear that he is heartbroken because, as if there’s any doubt to be had in the first place, it reveals that Peeta was never acting, he really loves her, and he wants more. Meanwhile, the book ending reveals Katniss’ own confusion, how she thinks she doesn’t want to be with Peeta that way, but then there are little things that hint that she might (like how she already misses him and doesn’t want to let go of his hand).

In the movie, when Peeta asks what they do now, she says, “We try to forget.” But it’s not clear what she means by this. Is she talking about the horrors of the game in general? Or is she also lumping in there the romance that blossomed between her and Peeta? Peeta’s next line doesn’t help clarify: he says he doesn’t want to forget. Well, it seems like an odd response, considering the Hell that they went through: him almost dying, the wolf mutts, everything. Sure, having read the books, I know he’s referring to the fact that he doesn’t want to forget the moments he had with Katniss. But it just sounded a little strange and unrealistic. The conversation that happens is completely different in the books. Peeta is angry, betrayed, deeply wounded by the realization that Katniss was just acting. That doesn’t come out at all.

Overall

The problem with the movie is that in trying to stay true to the main plot points, they trimmed off the subtle details that would have pushed this movie to a higher level. Ultimately, as a friend pointed out, they just did not take this movie to the edge. They’re guilty of playing it safe, just like the filmmakers of The Golden Compass. They didn’t deliver, they didn’t commit to that extra mile that would have taken the move from “good” to “amazing”. The ending lacked the tension and the punch that it needed.

Hopefully, when they get a good turnout—and they probably will get a better one than TGC—then they will be able to afford to ramp it up and do what they ought to do with the rest of the series.

~

Hungry for more about The Hunger Games? Check out the posts below!

• The Hunger Games Book Review
• Let the Hunger Games Begin!: Overall review of the movie
• The Hunger Games: Casting and Performance

The Hunger Games: Casting and Performance

How well did the actors of The Hunger Games perform?

Jennifer Lawrence as Katniss Everdeen

However good an actress Jennifer Lawrence is, she just is not Katniss. Whether it was her doing or a choice on the directors, Lawrence just failed to capture Katniss’ crazy badassery. Instead, she’s just a normal person and reacts more like a normal person would: “Ahh! Stuff is happening!” But in the books, Katniss is kind of crazy. Sure, she gets worse over time, but she’s pretty kick ass and I just didn’t get that feeling in the movie.

Another part of that was that Lawrence is just too tall—in my mind, Katniss was petite and wild, in the sense that you almost think, “Napoleon Complex.” Lawrence lacked that fire, that angry energy. She seems almost meek, particularly in the interview when she talks about what she said to Prim: “I swore I would” became “I say I’d try.” Similar phrases and yet the difference between those them is huge.

Josh Hutcherson as Peeta Mellark

Hutcherson was awesome! I have to say, after seeing Journey to the Center of the Earth, I had my doubts. Huge doubts. Peeta is my favorite character, and I was really worried. Did I mention that I was worried? But Hutcherson blew me away. I think he really captured Peeta’s sincerity and love for Katniss. And I think he had the right balance of being decently smart and good with being likeable, and yet he was kind of strangely naïve in other situations (like the berries).

One negative: there weren’t really enough scenes to really do Peeta’s character justice. Most of the cave scenes were cut. I just reread them and all I can say is—they are so much better in the books!  Peeta is more gentle, tender, deliberate in the books, and there are more interactions between them. But I blame the editing more than the acting for that. My boyfriend criticized Peeta's portrayal, saying that in the books, he comes across as smarter and more able than he does in the movie.

Minor Characters

Gale—eh, not really enough scenes to do his character justice yet. On the whole, I thought the other tribute actors did a good job at playing their characters.

The Haymitch and Effie scenes were perfect and provided the comic relief that they needed to.

Overall grade: okay. Some scene-stealers here and there, some underwhelming performances. Perhaps in some respects, anyone portraying Katniss would be disappointing, simply because we cannot get inside her head. On the other hand, other performances might seem better because, unlike Katniss, we weren't inside their heads in the book.

~

Hungry for more about The Hunger Games? Check out the posts below!

• The Hunger Games Book Review
• Let The Hunger Games Begin! Movie Review
• In-Depth Review: The Hunger Games as a Movie Adaptation

Let The Hunger Games Begin!

How was The Hunger Games movie?

The short answer: Well, it was good. But…

And, of course, the long one:

The Hunger Games opened in theaters across the nation tonight.  While my excitement to see the adaptation wasn't quite enough to lead me into a teenage-filled theater on a work night, I was eager to see how Suzanne Collins' first-person dystopian novel would translate to the big screen.

As a story, The Hunger Games is action-packed and shocking enough to make for a captivating film. But part of what makes the books so appealing to readers is the first person narrative, which allows readers to place themselves in Katniss' shoes. However close to the books as the movie may be, it won't be able to completely capture the raw emotion of a first person telling of the story.

The fast paced nature of the book, which leads readers on from cliffhanger to cliffhanger, may be lost in the film.  Part of what makes The Hunger Games a book you just can't put down is Collins' tendency to leave you with a shocking cliffhanger just when you thought you were approaching "a good stopping point." And the next thing you know, it’s five a.m. and you realize you've devoured the entire book over one weekend. Movies are always limited to that two-hour period, so no matter what, it's going to end quickly. But when you finish a whole book in a short amount of time, there's a rush you get, a daze of emotions as the words bounce around in your head and the imagined scenes replay in your mind's eye.

Whenever I saw a preview for one of the Harry Potter movies, I'd get this magical feeling of excitement. Maybe it was the familiar refrain of John Williams' score as the Harry Potter logo flashed across the screen, maybe they just had better commercial editors. But The Hunger Games previews made me apprehensive. I still can't get over that--however good an actress she may be--Jennifer Lawrence just does not look like Katniss. She's too old. Something's missing, it's just not quite right. (But more on that later.)

Last night, I was hopeful that the movie would prove me wrong and would blow me away. I wanted it to. But with a story this brutal and this raw, I was worried about how Hollywood would water it down.

And water it down they did.

There are just some things you can’t portray with a movie, because a camera will always be a third-person perspective. Even if you shoot from the “eyes” of a character, you never get their thoughts or feelings without clumsy voiceover. Katniss’ logic is only something we can guess at when watching her on screen, and on that note, much of the subtext and Katniss’ own confusion about her feelings towards Peeta is completely lost in the film—to my overwhelming disappointment.

Overall, the movie was incredibly slow. I’m not sure how audiences will feel about that because it lacks the traditional action-packed Hollywood punch that movies like The Pirates of the Caribbean have. It’s slow and deliberate, which does a good job to set the mood and atmosphere of the world, but seems like it’s on the opposite end of the spectrum from the tone of the book.

Because it wasn't in first person, a lot of things had to be explained differently, like how the tracker jackers worked. After awhile, a friend thought that these explanation scenes were awkward and interrupted the flow of the action sequences. I do agree with that judgment, but neither of us could think of a better solution.

Ultimately, my conclusion is this: as with any recent book adaptation, the movies are more "supplemental". The books are always going to be better, and you'll get a much better understanding from them, as well as more interesting subtlety and complexity. There are some things a movie just cannot do. 

Yes, go see it. You will probably enjoy it, because, in general, it's good. But it's not great.

~

Hungry for more about The Hunger Games? Check out the posts below!

• The Hunger Games Book Review
• The Hunger Games: Casting and Performance
• In-Depth Review: The Hunger Games Movie as an Adaptation

Game Change as a Commentary on Modern Politics

In recent history, few political figures have been as polarizing as Sarah Palin. On the right, she's fueled extreme conservatives, and on the left, fired up angry liberals. She even scared away moderates, who liked McCain but feared seeing Palin in the White House. So how do you tell her story?

Ask John Heilemann and Mark Halperin, the writers of Game Change. In their book, they set out to deliver a fair and balanced portrayal of the Alaskan governor. Even with that goal, both the movie and book are brutal in their behind-the-scenes take on the candidate's behavior. Yet they were also willing to levy criticism towards her advisers for failing to vet her and failing to capitalize on her strengths while protecting her from her own weaknesses.

Directed by Jay Roach, the movie Game Change, unlike the book, follows the sixty days before election day, beginning with the vetting process. The movie focuses mainly on Sarah Palin, her advisers and the McCain team. Julianne Moore stars as Palin and delivers a phenomenal performance with an almost too perfect accent.

Four years after the election, the movie comes during another stressful time for Republicans, who still struggle to balance rational conservative ideals with extremist concerns that polarize the country, distance liberals and motivate them to even more strongly attack the right.

The movie's portrayal of McCain, in stark contrast to Palin, shows a man willing to move beyond partisan politics during a time when our country is in great need of smart solutions, not career-building deal-making. Early in the movie, Steve Schmidt, adviser to the McCain campaign, says, "John McCain doesn't say what's popular. John McCain puts country first."

"Country first" was McCain's message during his campaign.  As a liberal, I have to say that I was impressed with the portrayal of McCain. In another election, against another candidate and with a better VP candidate--say, Lieberman, who he considered for a long time but ultimately decided against under pressure from other popular Republican figures--he could have united the country. Instead, the country and the Republican party has been divided by the VP candidate he did choose and the many absurd remarks she said throughout the campaign, mainly in regards to Obama's patriotism.

The movie certainly highlights many of Palin's cringe-worthy quotes and ideas. But it also points out the failure of McCain's team to vet her and prepare her. It also portrays her strengths--yes, she has them. She loves working the rope lines, for example, and in those scenes, you must admit she is relatable to many people. When the McCain team expresses concerns over her mental health, they consult a doctor, who ultimately says, "for a woman who's just had a baby, has a pregnant teen daughter, and a son in Iraq, I'd say [she's doing] not half bad."

Of course, whenever you begin to feel sympathy for her, the next scene will have you shaking your head again. For example, when asked about the relationship between England and the United States, Palin says she will do her best to maintain ties with the Queen. Her adviser looks at her and responds, "The Queen is no longer the head of government there." Palin's response: "Who is the head of government?"

Problems with the Process

The movie also highlights the inherent problems that our political system currently faces--a problem that's all too apparent during an election year in which the right has failed to produce a semi-decent challenger to the incumbent president. In a red carpet interview before the movie, Julianne Moore commented, "The movie is about how we pick our leaders, and I think that is a really interesting topic to explore." Interesting is stating it mildly.

When McCain is trying to choose his VP candidate, he goes through several options, but ultimately he is fixated on choosing Lieberman as his running mate. Lieberman is a liberal, but one who has largely been ostracized by his own party (like McCain). He and McCain are close friends. Unfortunately, when the news leaks that he's considering Lieberman, the conservative media nip that idea in the bud. McCain still wants to use Lieberman, but Schmidt says, "[Lieberman as VP] could have a tremendous healing effect on our country. Lieberman is the right thing to do, but the wrong way to win."

The movie also briefly touches on the role of the media in regards to the negative, rampant news stories about Bristol, Troopergate and the Bridge to Nowhere: "No news is meant to be remembered, it's meant to be entertainment," Schmidt says to a distressed Palin. As brief as this scene is, it is certainly a sharp jab at the media industry, but one I feel hits the mark on the nose.

One of the last lines in the movie, and perhaps one of the most telling, says, "I do wish people would elect the next Abraham Lincoln. But that's not how politics works anymore." Unfortunately I'm not sure who said it. But it speaks to the failure of the process. When a campaign is more about saying what needs to be said to collect voters, rather than to say what should be said, then there is a major problem with the system. It's no wonder many people throw their hands up in the air and decide not to take part in that process any more.

Whether you love her or love to hate Palin, watch Game Change. Hopefully it will give you a better insight into the decisions she and the McCain team took. More importantly, hopefully the movie will highlight the inadequacies of the current political system and allow us to address the inadequacies candidly.

Want to learn more? Read our review of Game Change, the book.

Game Change: A Brutally Honest Look into the 2008 Election

I'm not the kind of person who traditionally reads nonfiction books. Give me fantasy, give me science fiction, give me mystery or humor or classic literature. Give me anything but the drudgery of nonfiction.

That's not say that I think nonfiction is poorly written. I can appreciate a well-worded argument and a clever turn of phrase. And I can enjoy short articles. But getting me to read an entire 400-page nonfiction novel is like trying to get my dog to take a bath. There's only one reason I'll read a nonfiction book: my boyfriend is making me. (The things I go through for him ;) )

He tried to get me to read The Audacity of Hope, but about one third of the way in I stopped pretending to try and gave up. So when he asked me to read Game Change: Obama and the Clintons, McCain and Palin and the Race of a Lifetime by John Heilemann and Mark Halperin, I was skeptical. "It's much better," he insisted. "And the movie premieres in March on HBO."  Well, I had to read the book before seeing the movie.

So I opened the book and gave it one chance to impress: the prologue. If the prologue is good, I'll finish the rest of it, I decided.

It can already be assumed if I'm writing this post, but here it is: the prologue rocked it. It was completely different from The Audacity of Hope. Instead of getting into the nitty-gritty of strategy and the finer details of the campaign, Game Change presented the play out of the 2008 election for what it was: a story.

The prologue sets the scene for this story by offering a context of the 2008 election: "The drama played out against a backdrop that was itself vividly cinematic: a country at war, an economy on the brink, and an electorate swept up, regardless of party, in a passionate yearning for transformation" (10).

Extensive research has allowed the writers to tell what happened like it was a story. The narrative shifts from candidate to candidate, using dialogue and description. It paints a scene. The candidates, instead of being the idolized caricatures of political parties, are real characters. It's refreshing--and sometimes shocking.

The main draw of the book is the behind-the-scenes take on the campaigns. Through interviews with key players on the inside of each campaign, the writers were able to provide exact quotes of what was said between the candidates and their advisers. It gives insight into the thoughts of the candidates. It even includes bathroom conversations!

Not everything is flattering. In fact, much of what is written is harsh and critical. Sometimes, that's what the truth is. I will say that, somewhat disappointingly, the book seems to gloss over the flaws of Obama. Yes, it does show them, but it seems to avoid talking too much about them. The first half of the book focuses mainly on Hillary; the second half focuses McCain. Personally, as an Obama supporter, it's pretty cool to read that he seems pretty chill, intelligent and level headed. It's one of the reasons that I support him. But objectively, it does seem a little unfair that Hillary gets the harsh limelight focused on her campaign.

Admittedly, the book does present a huge problem that the Clintons faced: the media just didn't want to write anything bad about Obama.  It does say, in no uncertain terms, that what the Clintons had to deal with in regards to press coverage was unfair.  He got all the breaks and she couldn't cut any.

Humorously, the book also points out various random tidbits about the candidates. "[Romney] sometimes gave PowerPoint presentations instead of stump speeches" (294) and "friends of Bush would [...] say of Romney's chances, You've got to be kidding; he's in a cult" in reference to Romney's religion, Mormonism (294-5).  The book also offers a unique insight on the Obama-Clinton relationship, which for the majority of the campaign was tense and bitter: "They had no idea what would happen next, where the narrative would take them. Indeed, for Obama and Clinton, the confusion was deeper still: they had no clue that their tale was a love story--or that it had been all along" (10).

Of Palin, the book has many unflattering things to say of her, particularly in regards to her lack of knowledge about her own country. As a potential Vice President, she's horribly unprepared and unqualified--and those on the Republican team knew it: "Some in McCainworld were ridden with guilt over elevating Palin to within striking distance of the White House" (416).

To be fair, the book also explains, "The truth was, the McCain people did fail Palin. They had, as promised ,made her one of the most famous people in the world overnight. [...] They were unprepared when they picked her, which made her look even more unready than she was. [...] They amassed polling points and dollars off of her fiery charisma, and then left her to burn up in the inferno of public opinion" (415).

Overall, the book is largely focused on providing a portrait of life behind-the-scenes. It does not spend much time discussing strategy or getting into the details over policies and issues. It gives people a sense of who these candidates are in person. In an age where politicians so often seem polished and studied, where they are constantly on stage and speaking and acting within their "brand," it can be difficult to know what type of people they really are.  In that context, Game Change is as refreshing as it is juicy. What I think is most noteworthy is that, out of all the major candidates--Obama, Clinton and McCain--there is a sense that, despite whatever personality flaws they may have, at their core is a desire to make this country a better place.

--

In March, HBO will air their film adaptation of Game Change. Starring Julianne Moore as Sarah Palin and Ed Harris as Senator McCain, the movie will focus mainly on the Republican side of the election, particularly Sarah Palin. It will air Saturday, March 10.

Find the Next Good Book with Social Site Goodreads

Image taken from flickr. Photograph by Stewart Butterfield.

Looking for the next good book to read? There are so many books out there, sometimes it can be a pain finding the "right" one.  Even a book that is "objectively" good, or considered to be good by the critics or by the majority, might not be a book that you personally are interested in reading. The social site Goodreads keeps the personal factor in mind by giving users the opportunity to see what their friends are reading.

Goodreads provides recommendations based on books you've liked in the past.  You can rate books you've read, and their algorithm will bring up a list of similar books. You can also build a queue for yourself by adding books to your "to read" list and update your status with a "currently reading" list, where you can even keep track of the progress you've made on that book (or books, if you read more than one at a time).

Of course, that's just part of Goodreads. As I mentioned, it's a social site. It allows you to connect with your friends to compare what you've read. You can review and recommend books, and you can ask for recommendations from others.  When you compare your library to a friend's, a section at the bottom allows you to view other books your friend has read that are not in your library. When you're looking at a book, the site will automatically show your friends' reviews first.  You can also form book clubs.

Sadly there is one aspect of the site that sounded teasingly exciting, but was ultimately discontinued last fall: Book Swap.  Under this now-defunct section, you could list the books that you own, and then, if you wanted, you could also mark them as "want to swap." Through this interface, users could exchange books. It sounded like a really promising feature, so I was disappointed to learn that it was discontinued.

I only just started using Goodreads last night, so I haven't had a chance to fully explore everything yet. That said, I'm obviously really excited about it and eager to see how well it performs in recommending good books. Also, you should friend me so I can expand my network!

Pick the Winners of the 84th Academy Awards

From predictions to complaints, the blogosphere is buzzing with the announcement of the 84th Academy Award nominations.  Some are disappointed at the absence of their favorite films; others are eager to cast their predictions. Whether you're a film connoisseur or just an average moviegoer, no doubt you have your own predictions. 

While waiting for the award ceremony, why not cast your own vote on who will win?

Every year, my boyfriend and I hold a small, friendly competition to see who will make the most correct predictions. Last year, the winner accurately predicted thirteen of the winners. Think you can beat that?  Fill out the survey below and tell us who you think will take home an Oscar this year.

(Having trouble viewing the form below? Click here.)

How Orson Scott Card is Cheating Himself

Today I remembered that Orson Scott Card's latest installment of his Enderverse series was due to come out soon. I confirmed by a quick glance on the front page of his website that Shadows in Flight did indeed come out yesterday, January 17.  I eagerly searched the Nook library in hopes that I would quickly and easily get my hands on the book and get back into the story.

Sadly, I could not find it.

Curious, I returned to his website, but saw no obvious announcements about any sort of publishing news, other than a picture declaring that the novel would be released on the 17. This picture was not clickable either and therefore failed to provide any meaningful information.

An exploration into the forums did however bring some light to the quickly darkening situation. Apparently, the eBook isn't being released today or any time soon.

As a reader, I find this disappointing. I have yet to decide how badly I want the book, and if there is space on my already overflowing bookcases for a physical copy of the book.

As a member of internet-obsessed social media generation, I find this, quite blatantly, stupid.

Today, many readers--especially younger ones, for whom Card seems to write--prefer to read on some type or eReader, whether it's a Kindle or Nook or some other device. To avoid this area where so much of the market gravitates shows a severe lack of media and marketing savvy.

And that's only where Card's mistakes begin.

His website, Hatrack River, is out-of-date and does little to provide readers with useful information. A well organized website can help further his brand, and a better online presence could substantially grow the already sizeable following he seems to have. At a time when one of his most popular books is being made into a movie, he needs to be prepared to greet new fans with a well functioning website.

He also denounces fanfiction by claiming that it deprives him of money he deserves as his livelihood. Now, I can agree that every writer deserves to get paid for his or her hard work. But the catch here is that fanfiction can act as a promotional tool. Maybe it sounds farfetched, but let me explain.

I first started participating on the internet in 2000 after reading Harry Potter. I wanted more. I loved the books and my appetite for more was insatiable. What was going to happen? When would Ron and Hermione get together? I found fellow fans on the internet who loved the books as much as I did. I started reading fanfiction. People even wrote essays on a variety of subjects. The Harry Potter Lexicon was created. Then MuggleNet. The network of Harry Potter resources was there to constantly act as a resource for those long years between book releases and movie releases. Essentially, they kept the embers sparked and fueled a worldwide obsession for Harry Potter during long waits.

Without fanfiction, and the subsequent community that sprung out of that, I don't know that Harry Potter would be as big as it is. Big, sure, but not as big.

What I'm saying is that these internet communities help keep the passion for a writer's story alive. Without them, fans would quickly move on the next story, and lose interest in following a long series. Its about keeping the hype alive. And that is something Card fails to do when he doesn't release an eBook version or denounces the value of fanfiction or fails to maintain a good website.

Newsflash Mr. Card, these times they are a-changin', and it's time to wise up and adapt.

Movie Adaptation Does Justice to Dragon Tattoo Novel

Critics are raving about director David Fincher and praising Rooney Mara's portrayal of Lisbeth Salander, but with any book adaptation, the main question is: how well does the movie represent the plot, characters and themes of the book?

Over the years, many movies have failed to translate a novelist's writing, whether it's in the minute details or the overall plot. Die hard fans of the Harry Potter series or The Lord of the Rings might nitpick over cut scenes and missing characters; meanwhile, fans of the science fiction book Starship Troopers roll their eyes and lament the shift of the book's entire message from "why soldiers fight" to "war is bad."  So where on the spectrum does Fincher's adaptation of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo lie?

First, before the spoilers get out of hand:

Will I be able to follow the movie if I haven't read the book?

Having read the book before the movie, this is not something I can answer, but I turned to my boyfriend, who stipulates the movie is enjoyable without the context of the book. Yes, he was able to follow the movie; however, the sheer volume of material was at times overwhelming.  The pacing was particularly quick in the beginning, and in the whirlwind of character introductions, it was sometimes jarring as to what was going on. As the movie continued and pulled the threads together, everything made sense.  Ultimately, he would have liked to see more investigation scenes, more about the town's reaction to Mikael's presence, and more about the Wennerstrom scandal for which Mikael was sentenced to several months of jail at the beginning.

Before proceeding, take caution: spoilers follow.

The Opening

In analyzing the overall closeness of the movie to the book, a look at the beginning might seem foreboding.  While the opening scene depicting Henrik Vanger's reaction to the arrival of that mysterious flower seems taken almost word for word from the book, the proceeding title sequence seems like a leap in the opposite direction. In a montage reminiscent of James Bond movies, Fincher kicks off the story with flashes of Lisbeth in splashes of ink which morph into a dragon.  Let us be clear: Mikael Blomkvist, though played Daniel Craig, is no James Bond.  It was a curious addition to the movie, and one that doesn't seem to fit (although I suspect we might see it in the sequels).

Accuracy

Aside from the out-of-place opening, the rest of the movie stayed true to the plot of the book.  As with any book adaptation, several scenes and subplots were cut, but in the case of Dragon Tattoo, it was for the better and did service to the overall story.  In the book, these scenes did not seem to serve much function in the first place. For example, Blomkvist's affair with Cynthia, which fades off awkwardly in the book, doesn't seem to have any effect on the outcome of the novel. So, ultimately, Fincher did for the story what the book's editor, for some reason, cut not: he trimmed the fat, cut to the chase and got to the heart of the story.

Music and Sound

Sound is something that a book just can't do.  Unlike with a screenplay, there aren't written words to say what kind of music should be used in the movie.  So the music and sound departments have to make decisions about what type of music stays true to the theme, message and tone of the book.

The job of the sound department is a difficult job, if you ask me, and one that the crew of Dragon Tattoo pulled off fantastically.  The music sets the mood and subtly adds more to what's being displayed on the screen.  I doubt most people are aware of just what music and sound can do for a scene, but I was struck particularly by the effectiveness a specific technique: a buzzing, flitting sound that is heard during the rape scene.  The sound just gets under your skin; it's agitating and makes your skin crawl.

Shock Factor

When a scene as caustic as the rape of Lisbeth Salander appears in a novel, it's interesting to see how it will appear in a movie. I wasn't sure if it would be cut or censored in America, where everyone is touchy and easily offended. After Bjurman first handcuffs her, the camera pans out through the door and fades to black. The impression I got was that the scene was about to cut to later -- they had censored it and would only imply what happened.  But no.  It immediately cut back to the bedroom and showed everything.

I'm not sure what the logic behind this fade out fake out was -- perhaps it makes the scene all that more shocking to think we're "getting away" from it, and then showing it in all its disturbing, graphic intensity.  For the purpose and message of the entire Millennium series, I think they did it right. It's horrible. It's harder to watch than to read. With a book, you can censor it in your head. With a movie, when the camera not only shows a scene in complete clarity, but in fact directs you and forces you to look (okay, unless you turn away or close your eyes), you can't escape it.  The running theme of the Millennium series is the horrible injustice done to Lisbeth Salander, and this scene represents all of that in one horrible act.  It sets the scene not only for the rest of the movie (which follows the investigation of brutal, graphic murders), but for the rest of the series.

Missing Factoids

There is one important aspects of the books which emphasizes their theme that were missing in the movie: the facts that appeared on the first page of each "Part" in the novel. These facts provided insight to the violence and abuse that occurs in Sweden, and nail home the message of how scarily often these abuses occur.  They also help set up the context of the second book, which touches on sex trafficking and the victimization of women.  I am not sure how these factoids could have been incorporated into the movie, but I wish that the director, producer and editors could have figured it out.  I think they are the extra touch that push the message of the story over the edge.

Casting

Casting can have more of an effect than satisfying the imaginations of readers. The play Peter Pan exemplifies this concept -- the same actor plays Hook that plays the father. What role this has in Peter Pan is, I'm sure, the subject of many student essays.

While the actress who played Harriet was not Rooney Mara, who portrayed Lisbeth, she did look strikingly similar to Lisbeth. I feel it was a poignant casting decision to make because it's easy to draw parallels between Lisbeth and Harriet, and the book strives to show the difference between how the two handle their situations.  Yes, Harriet uses violence to free herself from the abuse of her father, but when she discovers she has escaped the frying pan only to fall into the fire, she flees.  I don't blame her -- but Lisbeth vehemently does, pointing out that Harriet could have prevented the murders her brother committed.  In the end, we see that Lisbeth must make an eerily similar choice with regards to her own father and half-brother.

Ultimately, the movie maintained the feel, tone and theme of the book.  The strength of the book -- the characters -- was reflected accurately by the phenomenal performances of Rooney Mara and Daniel Craig.  It is a well made movie that carries a heavy message and bears the burden respectably.

The World is Beautiful, So Get Off Your Couch and See It

Mashable posted this link posted a link to this video in their article here, and like they say in their post, it makes me want to pack my bags and go see the world. Unfortunately, I can't just get up and leave (lack of money, feelings of responsibility and obligation, and of course my dog prevent me from doing so).  But the thrill of discovering a new place, the excitement of standing somewhere you've never stood before that's halfway around the world, is a feeling you can't get anywhere else.

The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo: What to Watch For

Photograph by Jean-Baptiste Mondino
via WMagazine

Earlier today, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo made headlines once again with its new "Chasing Salander" app.  The book and movie have taken the world by storm; everyone is talking about it.

Interestingly, I haven't heard much talk about the serious issues that the books bring up--particularly the instances of rape and abuse.  What happens to Lisbeth is horrifying, yet people talk more about her eccentricity, not her problems.  In fact, in the new app "Chasing Salander," the game player takes on the role of a man bent on finding Salander to kill her.  I found this disturbingly odd, considering that the app is being released by the publishers of Stieg Larsson's hit books.  It seems to distract from the main purpose of the trilogy, which I believe centers on women's rights and the victimization of women.  This is really emphasized by the original Swedish title of the novel: Män som hatar kvinnor, or Men Who Hate Women.

In what I consider an objective view of the books, I don't think they are anything amazing from a literary standpoint.  (At least the English translation) is not particularly compelling prose wise.  The language is straightforward and often boring, and the series was in need of a much more discerning editor.  Had it been polished better, I think it could have stood out as an artistic piece and as an important commentary on our times, on top of being the best selling mystery series that it is. 

No doubt part of the reason it was published as it is has something to do with the writer's untimely death.  Stieg Larsson, the man who wrote about the girl with the dragon tattoo, was a Swedish journalist and editor of the magazine Expo.  Much of his work was geared towards combating the growth of right wing extremism--not surprising considering the content of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo and the background of the Vanger family in that novel.  In all honesty, he kind of reminds me of his main protagonist, Mikael Blomkvist.

The main arc of the trilogy is Lisbeth Salander's story: the legal chains that limit her freedom, the injustice that the legal system carried out against her and the ultimate journey she undertakes--with Blomkvist's help--to find freedom.  The story is not about how she is a "freak," but rather the opposite.  Is she weird? Sure. But her friends rally around her.  So why is it that that's what people talk about when they bring up the movie?

Over the past few weeks, moviegoers have written raving reviews about Rooney Mara's performance, about David Fincher's direction, but they aren't focusing on the content.  Sometimes when we talk about movies, it can be easy to get swept away in "How well did the actors perform?" "Was the screenplay well written?"  "What about the cinematography?"  But we can't forget the most important thing in story telling: the story.  They aren't talking about what happens.  So we must ask ourselves--are we getting the message?

For more coverage of Stieg Larsson's novel, check out my review of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo.