First of all, I thought the idea of having a music video intro, the likes of which I can only compare to the beginning of a James Bond film, was very cool. I’ve only read the first book, but Jen has read them all, and tells me that it almost serves as an abstract telling of Lisbeth’s back story–her origin story, in comic book terms. In any case, it sets a tone as much as anything. Not consistent with the novel in any way–I don’t think you get a sense of the dark grit of the book until much later–but I thought it was a good example of what you can do with film that would be hard to do in print.

There are obvious inconsistencies with the book, such as tearing out subplots that involved many of Vanger’s relatives on the island (which, as Jen pointed out, made it much more obvious that Martin was the killer, since we don’t spend much time getting to know any other character). This seemed necessary, even if it led to whiny, snarky reviews like this one. The sharpest jolt is the final twist (did I say spoiler alert?) in which that-woman-working-at-the-bank-whose-name-I-forget is revealed to be Harriet. This, if anything, seemed an improvement on the book. Another ten minute segment where we went to Australia would have done more harm than good for the moviegoer who hadn’t read the novel.

The one departure, I think, was the decision to change so much about the scene where Martin has Blomkvist chained in the basement. In the book, Larsson makes Blomkvist much more vulnerable, by having Martin strip him naked. He actually puts Blomkvist in the position of the women who have been victims throughout the book, including Lisbeth. In the book, Martin is about to kiss Blomkvist when Lisbeth intercedes.

This is not a small point. Though Fincher (and Stephen Zaillian, the film’s screenwriter) do stay generally true to the book, they pull back on what was, to me, an important component of what Larsson seemed most intent on doing: making a good, innocent man vulnerable in a way that is rare for men, but routine for women. It’s worth remembering that Larsson’s original title for the book was Men Who Hate Women. He began each section with a statistic about women being sexually assaulted or harassed. This was a big deal to him. So to make the climactic moment PG-13, having previously shown no restraint during the vilest assault on Lisbeth, makes me wonder if Larsson would have seen this and determined that Fincher and Zaillian missed the point of the entire book.

Teaching you over the past two years has been a joy and an inspiration. It hasn’t always been easy or pleasant; it never is. But on balance, you have proven to be hardworking, funny, resourceful, creative, and smart. Best of all, willing to see yourselves as changing and growing, rather than stubbornly, steadfastly resisting new ideas and possibilities.

As Conan O’Brien said in his farewell speech on The Tonight Show, “Nobody in life gets exactly what they want. But if you work hard, and be kind, amazing things will happen.”

Work hard. Be kind. And keep in touch.

If you haven’t seen it, here’s J.K. Rowling’s commencement speech at Harvard. Enjoy.

Part Two, after the jump.

Sanders said the majority of those who’ve reached out have shown interest in preserving the property. But he’s also heard from people thinking about putting up a hotel, water park and even some contemplating whether to build a minor league ballpark on the site.

A water park? Why not just raze it and put a Wal-Mart there?

Despite the awful “Is This Heaven? No, It’s Iowa” bumper stickers it spawned, I always liked Field of Dreams more than is probably warranted, as well as Kinsella’s Shoeless Joe. I don’t know if it would hold up to another read–I originally read it a dozen years ago or so–but part of the appeal (as a native Iowa Citian), was reading about places I knew, which I’d not known before. Having read Conroy and Vonnegut since, the novelty of that is probably gone.

There’s also a story in the current issue of Harvard Magazine about Christakis and his colleagues. One tidbit:

A more lighthearted study led by a member of Christakis’s lab group searched for meaning behind users’ decisions to make their Facebook profiles public or restrict who can view them. It found that users with public profiles had a higher-than-average chance of listing the Beatles, Pink Floyd, and Led Zeppelin among their favorite musical artists, whereas people who restricted access to their profiles were more likely to list Coldplay, Rage Against the Machine, and Ray Charles.

Make of that what you will. What about Radiohead?

Go check it.

I look at the photos from Greece yesterday, and listen to Williams, and I remember back to this moment from the spring of 2000, when I was watching an episode of Nightline. It was about the government in Afghanistan–somebody called the “Taliban”–and how their extremist practices included destroying huge ancient Buddhist statues. I had this sense of human loss, as I watched the video of the statues’ demolition, but it wasn’t until about sixteen months later that I thought about that episode of Nightline again. I hope we don’t end up having similar flashbacks to Greece aflame, but there doesn’t seem to be much reason for optimism that this is a short-term problem in Europe.

Enjoy the weekend, folks.