So now we have two film versions of The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo made within a couple years of each other: a Swedish-language version (Män som hatar kvinnor) and an American version made by David Fincher. The Swedish version is pretty obscure, while the American version is a blockbuster, nominated for major Academy Awards. The big question is: which is better? Most of the people I know think the American version is better by leaps and bounds. I think they are actually more neck-and-neck; perhaps by the end of this review I will be able to declare a winner.

The frustrating thing about comparing these films is that both are maddeningly inconsistent. Each one gets some characters spot-on and completely misses others; each beautifully captures certain parts of the story, while marring or inexplicably omitting other parts. And their mistakes are for the most part complementary – if you take all the good parts of each film and put them together, you might have (in theory) a fantastic movie.

In the category of the all-important set-up, the Swedish version is the clear winner. The initial scene in the Swedish version is a gem of minimalism. Vanger opens the package, sees the flowers, checks the postmark (what a nice detail,) starts to cry prolongedly, and then that haunting portrait of Harriet comes on screen, over which the film title flashes – brilliant! It should be remarked that the emotional quality of this picture of Harriet is so marvelous it boils down Vanger’s lifetime of obsession into a single visual image: you look at it and you are transfixed. The American Harriet, in contrast, is visually unremarkable.

The set-up of the mystery – the initial meeting between Vanger and Blomkvist – is a lot more effective in the Swedish version, and avoids the American version’s clunky melodramatics, and the distractingly busy performance of big star Christopher Plummer. In contrast, the Swedish version is low-key and played very straight. Note how successfully they establish the emotional tone by choosing to start the encounter with Blomkvist being reminded that he knew Harriet from his childhood (in conjunction with another stunningly evocative picture of Harriet, this time with the young Blomkvist.)  This is completely omitted from the American version, and although we may assume it was dismissed as a minor detail, they clearly underrated its dramatic value in set-up dialog of this kind. This is not an isolated occurrence; the dialog throughout the Swedish version is better judged for overall effect. In addition, the way the film footage of the crash on the bridge is done puts the American version to shame, mainly because of the amazing moment where the chilling image of Harriet in the window is inadvertently captured by the newsreel cameraman. One thing you have to give the Swedish filmmakers: they understood how to use visual images for stunning effect.

Although in general the Swedish set-up is better written, and the transmitted information better organized, I must say the American version captures in their set-up some important elements of texture that the Swedish film threw away: that Blomkvist will pretend to be writing Vanger’s biography to hide the murder investigation from all the suspects, the fact that part of Vanger’s offer is a promise to produce dirt on Wennerström, and the general emotional ambivalence of Blomkvist in accepting the offer. It’s just that the Swedish version’s strong points have a lot more emotional impact than do these elements, and therefore easily outweigh them.

The set-up of Lisbeth Salander is harder to call. Certainly the American version is more complete – the Swedish version almost completely skips her job, Armansky, and Palmgren, omissions that clearly rob that film of texture. Salander’s development is so compressed in the Swedish version they eventually have to resort to changing the story to get her and Blomkvist together in a semi-believable way. But in the end, I’m not sure how much their superior completeness bought the American filmmakers. The overall story feels more unified as a result, but I’m not overwhelmed by this because the core of the story (Harriet’s disappearance) tends to completely dominate the narrative anyway – Salander’s job and her feelings about Palmgren are not emotionally central to the first book. When all is said and done the compressed Swedish version, including the re-envisioned unification of Blomkvist and Salander, basically works in a way that is not too distracting.

After the set-ups, the two versions are more even, with each film doing a good job at the elements the other failed on. One might be tempted to say that the American version got the bones of the story better and captured the two main characters better – I certainly walked out of the theater thinking this. But upon reflection I realize it is not completely true. The American version has a superior overall feel, start to finish. It captured the relaxed pacing and preserved the very low-key chain of events (the hiring of Salander, the way the Bible numbers are figured out) from the novel, where the Swedish version did not even try. It also better captures the size and scope of the project Blomkvist has undertaken, and his complex set of emotions about choosing to take the job. It captures Salander’s research in the Vanger archives in a more detailed and interesting way (by the time the Swedish version gets to this point, the film is obviously rushing headlong toward its denouement.) These are huge points in favor of the American version: any time a movie can avoid feeling like a movie it’s a major triumph, and this unrushed atmosphere makes watching the movie pleasing in exactly the same way the novel was so pleasing to read.

But on the other hand, the Swedish version made better use of the medium of film. Its craftsmanship in the portrayal of the parade photo sequence, for example, is simply outstanding – the look on Harriet’s face in the frame where she clearly sees someone across the street could not possibly have been done better, and the sequence of photos is really impressive in its effect. The American version of this sequence falls flat on its face; they managed to make it completely boring! Similarly, the discovery through the photos of the presence of the couple taking pictures of the opposite side of the street is very nicely done in the Swedish version, while it is not even believable in the American version. These are both crucial textural elements of the mystery’s narrative, and the Swedish superiority on these points goes a long way in my book.

It also sets up the whole Anita story-line beautifully, and then pulls off it off really effectively – the American version skips over it entirely. I found the preservation this small plot point very significant in its pleasing impact on the viewer – it’s way more dramatically important than certain things the American version got bogged down in, like the Vanger group’s proposal to buy Millennium. In the end both versions butcher Anita’s connection to the resolution of Harriet’s mystery – I don’t understand why, as it’s perfectly plotted in the novel. Each version kept elements of the real story; it’s a bit of a toss-up. I suppose I would side with the Swedish version because it changed a lot less.

The biggest advantage the American version has (and it’s huge) is that Daniel Craig completely outshines his Swedish counterpart. I don’t even like Daniel Craig as an actor, but I can admit he is marvelous in this movie (I think playing a good, likable, sexy, easy-going guy suits him really well. He should do it more often!) His contribution to the superior overall feeling of the American version is enormous, the direct result of his skill and his charisma.

Lisbeth Salander, however, is a tie. Noomi Rapace is much prettier (under the grunge) and more little-girl-like, more doll-like; these are key physical attributes of Salander. Rooney Mara, on the other hand, looks like an adult skank with a long, sexy body – it works okay, but it does change the feel of the character quite a bit. The writing in the Swedish version captured two very important things about Salander that the American version did not: how insanely tough she is physically, and that she is more than a little crazy and neurotic. When I was reading the books I went back and forth liking Lisbeth and not liking her; a similar thing happens in the Swedish version. In contrast, who wouldn’t like Rooney Mara’s more emotionally complete and sympathetic Salander?! I think the Swedish version somewhat overstates her abrasive attitude toward Blomkvist, but the American version somewhat understates it. It should also be noted that Rooney Mara had better lines to speak, but I felt both she and Rapace gave good (if rather different) performances. Like I said: the character of Salander is a dead heat.

However, the development of the relationship between Salander and Blomkvist is clearly done better in the American version. The relaxed pacing of this version gives them the time to develop their friendship in a very satisfying way; where the Swedish relationship feels a bit forced together, the American one is very sensitive and touching. And again, Daniel Craig’s overwhelmingly superior Blomkvist is of great help in developing this relationship effectively.

When it comes to the two woman-hating psychopaths, they both do a good job but I prefer the Swedish approach. Burjman in the Swedish version is portrayed as a pretty straightforward, misogynistic predator. In the American version he is decidedly more ambiguous. I originally liked what they did with this character in the American version; now I’m not quite as sure. In the book, Bjurman has a total and abiding disdain for Salander. To him she is literally retarded scum, which is why he is so shattered when she turns the tables on him out of nowhere and emerges as his complete master. With this more ambiguous, American Bjurman, some of that is lost. There appears to be a side of this Bjurman that almost likes Salander, and Rooney Mara’s gentler performance tends to emphasize this (again, who wouldn’t go for Rooney Mara?) You can almost (almost) see a small part of him enjoying being Rooney Mara’s slave! This is an interesting twist, but I think it detracts a little from the dramatic tension in Salander’s life – she’s kind of crazy because she is very much a person subjected to extremes. After all, the Bjurman of the novel subsequently dedicates his life to killing Salander. I’m not sure I see the American Bjurman doing this; the Swedish version I can believe it.

The character of Martin Vanger is really tough to call. The American Martin (played with aplomb by Stellan Skarsgård) is almost electrifyingly charming and likable. When he reveals his crazy side, there is a understated, almost jocular resignation to his secret life’s work. I will admit, it is fascinating, and really fun to watch, but it “better”? The Swedish Martin is more of a reserved, stuffed-shirt businessman type. When he reveals his secrets, there is nothing ambiguous about it; indeed his speech at the end about “hope” is brilliantly written and delivered, and extremely effective at transmitting something fundamental about his mental disturbance.  I’m not sure social affability at the level of the American Martin could sit so easily with what he is hiding. Mental disturbance at that level leaves certain marks – the serial killer next door may have always been “polite, gentle, and kind” to you, but at the same time he was never your best friend, was he!? I think the Swedish version of Martin, though gruff and unromantic, was probably more realistic in the end.

The Swedish version made a better decision about handling the very end, the “epilogue” if you will, where Salandar gets Wennerström. In the American version I was completely lost about what the hell Salander was actually doing in Zurich and all I took away from this overly long sequence was total disbelief that she did not get caught. Now, you could argue that the approach of the Swedish version (to gloss over it in about 15 seconds) was inadequate as well, but they did avoid slowing the pace of the film to a crawl.

As if all this is not confusing enough, the Swedish version had an awful score. I don’t remember the American score, so it probably was at least tolerable. On the other hand, the American version featured the most bizarre and disgusting opening credits in the history of cinema.

So, how on earth can we sort out the relative merits of these two films and arrive at a winner? Here’s my attempt. For me, it always boils down to repeat viewing: capturing  dialog, images, scenes, in a way that makes you want to experience them again. It’s the Swedish version that accomplishes this better, from its stunning use of photos and images, to the dialog in the set-up, to the surprising way your attention is drawn to Anita, to Martin’s “hope” speech, to the fabulous look of Salander. The American movie may have been better overall, but it was also flatter – its strong points are not as moving. With the Swedish film, the highs are higher, even if the lows are lower. At the end of the day, I know I will watch the Swedish film again, just to experience its remarkable high-points. I am much less sure I will feel the need to see the American version, as solid as it is.