Girl With The Dragon Tattoo Post-Release Discussion

I like how, while everyone else is trying some approximation of a Swedish accent, he just does his normal British one. It's cute.

From what I've read, the situation/plotline involving Lisbeth's rotating legal guardianships, her money, and her resulting exploitation by the system (and its integral nature to the film/novel) is fairly unique to Sweden/Northern Europe, and would've been unrealistic if transplanted identically into the United States or elsewhere.

Retaining the circumstances surrounding what happens to Lisbeth at the hands of Nils (i.e., his supervision of her trust fund, his opportunity for abuse, him holding her money "hostage," the Swedish wardship system, etc.) in a United States-based setting (for instance) would've entailed some fairly major restructuring of the story and character-motives on Fincher and Zaillian's parts.

It was probably simply easier all around to just keep the Swedish setting and deal with the accompanying social baggage, rather than the alternative.

Thoughts from Nick & I...

http://www.chud.com/77894/tag-team-review-the-girl-with-the-dragon-tattoo/

Never got around to seeing the original or reading the book.  I thought it was fantastic, despite the slightly too long epilogue.  I've read that some folks thought Craig was a little too bland/meh/whatever but I thought he turned in a good performance as well.  Then again, I've had a soft spot for the guy since Enduring Love.

I've read bits and pieces here and there, but is Fincher thinking about a sequel down the road?

Saw it last night and liked it. It did not seem as long as it's running time because the pacing was good. I thought both Mara and Craig improved upon their counterparts in the Swedish version. I was surprised at how far this version took a lot of the sex and violence. Not to be gross but I wonder if I'm the only one whose butt remained firmly clenched after watching this?

The only thing I didn't like was the perfunctory villian-explains-himself-to-the-protagonist scene which allows time for the protagonist to be saved. I can't imagine any circumstance in reality where a killer would stop to explain himself to a victim. Why does this cliche persist in film?

I also think casting Stellan Starsgard in your film pretty much spoils the whodunit. The minute I saw his face I assumed he was the villain.

And finally, poor, poor kitty.

I have to be honest, I didn't care for it. The performances and Fincher's directing were all impressive but I felt like the whole thing was over-long and yet at the same time sloppily edited. I found the narrative to be plodding and dull, only really salvaged by how likable Daniel Craig is and the little subtleties that Rooney Mara brought to her performance. Beyond looking pretty and being well acted, the film was a disappointment for me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anorexic Starlet 

 

I also think casting Stellan Starsgard in your film pretty much spoils the whodunit. The minute I saw his face I assumed he was the villain.

 

 

This.  That brief shot of him opening the door in the teaser trailer with that smirk on his face = me knowing he was guilty.

It's kind of like having Michael Rooker playing a father figure.  You know he's going to be abusive and shit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leto II 

From what I've read, the situation/plotline involving Lisbeth's rotating legal guardianships, her money, and her resulting exploitation by the system (and its integral nature to the film/novel) is fairly unique to Sweden/Northern Europe, and would've been unrealistic if transplanted identically into the United States or elsewhere.

 

Retaining the circumstances surrounding what happens to Lisbeth at the hands of Nils (i.e., his supervision of her trust fund, his opportunity for abuse, him holding her money "hostage," the Swedish wardship system, etc.) in a United States-based setting (for instance) would've entailed some fairly major restructuring of the story and character-motives on Fincher and Zaillian's parts.

 

It was probably simply easier all around to just keep the Swedish setting and deal with the accompanying social baggage, rather than the alternative.

I hate to use a complete cliche, but Sweden--particularly Stockholm--is a character in the books.  Fincher's movie looks exactly how I pictured it reading the books. 

i want to also give props to Nick and Renn's tag team review.  Good stuff. 

I thought this was excellent, although the thing sort of deflates once we realize Martin's the killer. Pretty much at the moment that info is confirmed all the carefully-crafted atmosphere and suspense gets sucked right out of it, and Fincher is having far too much fun with the scene in the basement for it to really gel with what preceded it, which is very measured and restrained. Suddenly it just felt like the movie careened into Tarantino territory, complete with a light and even amusing tone that is too forcedly and artificially at odds with the horrible-ness of the situation.

I get that it is supposed to make the whole thing more disturbing, and maybe even act as a twisted sort of catharsis from the nail-biting tension that comes before, but I think tonal reversals like that are tough as hell to achieve and Fincher doesn't pull it off here (or anywhere, really -- he is a master of creating an almost suffocatingly persistent tone, but I can't think of a single instances where he successful manages, or even attempts, a true tonal alternation).

Fortunately I really enjoyed the long-ass denouement at the end, and thought the last shot of Mara (who was fucking incredible, by the way. Probably my favorite performance of the year, and I think I sort of fell in love with Lisbeth Salander) was heartbreakingly effective. Overall, one of my favorites of the year. I'm really looking forward to the sequels.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anorexic Starlet 

The only thing I didn't like was the perfunctory villian-explains-himself-to-the-protagonist scene which allows time for the protagonist to be saved. I can't imagine any circumstance in reality where a killer would stop to explain himself to a victim. Why does this cliche persist in film?

 

Martin does ask Mikael where Lisbeth is and he says shes in Stockholm. Martin then says he's lying, she's looker at the Vagner records and the guard is going to give him a phone call when she leaves so that Martin can meet her at the house.  Then, when Lisbeth leaves the archives and puts the keys on the desk the guard isn't there, and therefore does not call Martin to tell him she left.  So, the film actually does a fairly good job of providing the circumstances for a scene like this to work logically.  Of course a killer who thinks he needs to rush isn't going to take the time to explain himself, but since Martin thinks he has plenty of time he has no problem telling Mikael about his motives.  I certainly understand not liking these types of scenes, but I think given the circumstances of the story and how this scene is set up, it does work. 

Wait.  Why didn't the guard call Martin? 

He happened to not be in his chair when Lisbeth dropped the keys off.

Even if he was being played by a complete unknown, it still would have been incredibly obvious that Martin was the killer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by fxenderby 

 

Martin does ask Mikael where Lisbeth is and he says shes in Stockholm. Martin then says he's lying, she's looker at the Vagner records and the guard is going to give him a phone call when she leaves so that Martin can meet her at the house.  Then, when Lisbeth leaves the archives and puts the keys on the desk the guard isn't there, and therefore does not call Martin to tell him she left.  So, the film actually does a fairly good job of providing the circumstances for a scene like this to work logically.  Of course a killer who thinks he needs to rush isn't going to take the time to explain himself, but since Martin thinks he has plenty of time he has no problem telling Mikael about his motives.  I certainly understand not liking these types of scenes, but I think given the circumstances of the story and how this scene is set up, it does work. 

I get the logic of how the scene works. What I don't get is the premise of a psycho killer explaining himself to the victim regardless of how much time he thinks he has. A lot of films overestimate sociopathic people-- they don't care whether you understand why they do the crappy things they do. I just don't find it plausible that they would waste time explaining themselves to anyone.

That said, I did like the entire conversation about following your instincts. Martin was absolutely right about how people will walk right into a trap rather than run the risk of offending someone by refusing an invitation.

I also appreciated how this film left things unsaid. In the Swedish version I recall Blomquist actually noted that Lisbeth has a photographic memory. In this version you are allowed to figure that out for yourself.  I also thought it was effective the way the impeccable cleanliness of Martin's home was established making it plausible that he could instantly tell when someone had disturbed something in his house. The guy was seriously OCD--using the hand sanitizer before offing his victims was a nice touch.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Closer 

He happened to not be in his chair when Lisbeth dropped the keys off.

I'M GONNA FIRE THAT JERK!

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheReverend 

I have to be honest, I didn't care for it. The performances and Fincher's directing were all impressive but I felt like the whole thing was over-long and yet at the same time sloppily edited. I found the narrative to be plodding and dull, only really salvaged by how likable Daniel Craig is and the little subtleties that Rooney Mara brought to her performance. Beyond looking pretty and being well acted, the film was a disappointment for me.

I'm pretty much around here too.  I also thought that Salander fucking and then falling for Craig so quickly was kind of unbelievable, but I guess that's just continuing the book's masturbatory hot goth 20 something falls for straight-laced bland middle aged journalist narrative.

Regarding the epilogue, Salander playing dress up and going on bank trips feels like the start of a second movie, which I guess is my main problem with it.  Seems detached from the rest of the movie, really.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcnooj82 

I'M GONNA FIRE THAT JERK!

 

Shit happens, amirite?

Looks like this film is underperforming domestically. I think it may have been a miscaluclation to release such a dark R-rated film around Christmastime.

I heard some junket guy call the torture room at the end The Fincher Room.

Sums up how I feel about the movie.

I love Fincher's work as a director and thought the performances were fine.  There was some very nice camerawork going on, it had a great chilly look to it and Reznor's score was intermittently effective.

That having been said, as someone who has never read the books, I am shocked that this is what all the hubbub was about.  Grotesque, obvious one note characters (both heroes and villains), bullshit sexual politics and Nazi's are bad?  Amazing.  It figures that my parents (and seemingly the rest of repressed WASP middle America) who are devoted CSI and Law & Order fans would eat this tripe up.  They should all have to sit down and watch Irreversible so as to get a little shading and ambiguity to season their coveted anal rape scenes.  

I have just come to a point in my life where I have to admit I can't stand watching rape.  I don't want to see it in any movie anymore.  Just as some people swear off things like Saw or Hostel or The Passion of the Christ cause they find torture distasteful.  I knew the film would feature sexual assault as a component of its "story", but soldiered onward cause I am a cinephile and am compelled to see every Fincher film in the theater.  Rape is bad and cheap enough as a plot device to get a reaction out of an audience as it is, but to so unnecessarily shoehorn it in as this film does is unforgivable. 

I guess I don't understand the Swedish guardian system and as previously stated, haven't read the books, so I can't comprehend why a grown woman would need to put herself into this situation for money.  Let alone a grown woman who is employed by an extremely wealthy family doing illegal investigatory work.  A grown woman who apparently can quite easily disguise her identity, manufacture passports and go on a globetrotting trek, emptying the bank account of an industry titan while ensuring he spends the rest of his life in jail.  Seems to me a grown woman who does all these incredible things could easily disappear and get one over on an oafish bureaucrat forcing her to give him handies for McDonalds and smokes money.  Except this isn't a grown woman, it's a "girl with a dragon tattoo".  A masturbatory fantasy dreamt up by pseudo-feminist journalist. 

A girl who is easily victimized, yet capable of totally badass revenge.  This gives the author the ability to exploit her sexually, but she still mysteriously is very eager to hop in the sack with a crusader version of his milquetoast self.  This isn't a real character, it's a narrative device that morphs into whatever the author needs it to be to justify whatever he wants in any particular scene, not unlike the ludicrous, pointless monster of Abrams execrable Super-8.  It's a cheap male fantasy and so transparently a young girl fetish of Larsson's that the notion of Lisbeth Salander as some sort of feminist icon is despicable.  Unless of course women truly feel the best way to battle institutionalized misogyny is to become even more violent sexual predators than their male counterparts, a game of atrocity escalation I sincerely doubt would benefit any participant or onlooker.

On top of that grody quagmire is the fact that about an hour and a half in, I realized I didn't even know who the suspects were.  I mean, of course I knew it would be Skarsgaard, because he's a known heavy and he was obviously trying to throw off Daniel Craig by being the only pleasant family member.  Whatever mystery and intrigue the book had is lost in translation as the film becomes an indecipherable blur of looking through files and photos and placing push pins on maps.  Who cares?  And the Wennerstrom nonsense that bookends the film couldn't have been more apropos of nothing or of less interest to anyone.  If we don't know why it started, we sure as shit don't care how it ends. 

This seems to me a catastrophic step backwards for Fincher.  A calculated ploy to avenge his admittedly reprehensible Oscar snubs of the past few years by rubbing the Academy's noses in screeners full of ugly, leaden airport layover garbage while he reaps box office success.  Except it doesn't seem to be doing well opening weekend, so hopefully, a la Green Lantern, its postulated sequels will be given lip service, but never materialize and Fincher will be freed up to move on to something worthy of his time and considerable talent.

More popular trend: The Millennium Trilogy or denouncing the series as worthless literary junk food?

Great post, Schloggs (dude, get a new username :) ). I'm glad you also highlighted what I thought was the weirdest trend of the movie - I don't think I've seen anything in 2011 with nearly as much product placement. Did McDonald's really say "Nazi Rape Orgy? WHERE DO WE SIGN??"

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shloggs 

 

I guess I don't understand the Swedish guardian system and as previously stated, haven't read the books, so I can't comprehend why a grown woman would need to put herself into this situation for money.  Let alone a grown woman who is employed by an extremely wealthy family doing illegal investigatory work.  A grown woman who apparently can quite easily disguise her identity, manufacture passports and go on a globetrotting trek, emptying the bank account of an industry titan while ensuring he spends the rest of his life in jail.  Seems to me a grown woman who does all these incredible things could easily disappear and get one over on an oafish bureaucrat forcing her to give him handies for McDonalds and smokes money.  Except this isn't a grown woman, it's a "girl with a dragon tattoo".  A masturbatory fantasy dreamt up by pseudo-feminist journalist. 

 

A girl who is easily victimized, yet capable of totally badass revenge.  This gives the author the ability to exploit her sexually, but she still mysteriously is very eager to hop in the sack with a crusader version of his milquetoast self.  This isn't a real character, it's a narrative device that morphs into whatever the author needs it to be to justify whatever he wants in any particular scene, not unlike the ludicrous, pointless monster of Abrams execrable Super-8.  It's a cheap male fantasy and so transparently a young girl fetish of Larsson's that the notion of Lisbeth Salander as some sort of feminist icon is despicable.  Unless of course women truly feel the best way to battle institutionalized misogyny is to become even more violent sexual predators than their male counterparts, a game of atrocity escalation I sincerely doubt would benefit any participant or onlooker.

This is a real good post, but I have a few objections. Salander doesn't just passively accept the situation with her guardian -- she obviously takes drastic action in order to rectify it, so it's not like her characterization is inconsistent in that one second she's helpless and then suddenly she can take down billionaires. I mean sure, perhaps she could have disappeared off the map and forgotten about the abuse and changed her identity or something in dealing with the guardian, but clearly she had a vision for vengeance on this man that was markedly different than the punishment she deals out on Wennerstrom and therefore demands different measures.

To deal with both men in an identical way would be far more out of character for her than what you're suggesting -- for her to drain her guardian's bank account, for instance, would be totally insufficient as retribution and not remotely satisfying for the audience, the majority of whom likely despise that character enough by that point to happily go along with the brutal violence she inflicts on him. And yeah, it is weird that the movie asks us to get kicks out of, and be complicit in, the brutality of Lisbeth's revenge -- but that's the entire point of it.

Not to mention that she's in drastically different positions emotionally during each situation. Her revenge on the guardian character is visceral and invasively perverse, which reflects how Lisbeth is a wounded animal lashing out in self-defense and anger, whereas what she does with Wennerstrom is motivated purely out of affection for Blomkvist (there isn't even a misogyny issue at all). Wennerstrom poses no threat to her and is pretty much a non-entity in her life, so it makes sense that her method of "revenge" would be mostly vague and elusive. By that point in the movie she's become a full-on "avenging angel," but not for herself anymore -- and that selflessness, and the impersonal nature of what she does to Wennerstrom, is 100% representative of her arc, which is carefully structured in both these examples to indicate her growth. To lose that would be a disservice to the emotional journey the character was basically made to go on.

Also, I thought it was pretty clear that the books were tossing out the idea that maybe men can't even be feminists at all, that women are inherently victimized, that men are naturally exploitative, etc. If you're looking at the gender dynamics and messages of the film and thinking "There are elements of male fantasy here!" or "Lisbeth inadvertently affirms male power despite her earlier attempts to undermine it," then I think you're noticing the exact kind of themes Larsson (and Zaillian/Fincher) probably wanted you to notice and be challenged by (while at the same time not recognizing how consciously this story toys with those ideas and the morality behind them in order to achieve such ends).

Quote:

Originally Posted by JMulder 

 

This is a real good post, but I have a few objections. Salander doesn't just passively accept the situation with her guardian -- she obviously takes drastic action in order to rectify it, so it's not like her characterization is inconsistent in that one second she's helpless and then suddenly she can take down billionaires. I mean sure, perhaps she could have disappeared off the map and forgotten about the abuse and changed her identity or something in dealing with the guardian, but clearly she had a vision for vengeance on this man that was markedly different than the punishment she deals out on Wennerstrom and therefore demands different measures.

 

To deal with both men in an identical way would be far more out of character for her than what you're suggesting -- for her to drain her guardian's bank account, for instance, would be totally insufficient as retribution and not remotely satisfying for the audience, the majority of whom likely despise that character enough by that point to happily go along with the brutal violence she inflicts on him. And yeah, it is weird that the movie asks us to get kicks out of, and be complicit in, the brutality of Lisbeth's revenge -- but that's the entire point of it.

 

Not to mention that she's in drastically different positions emotionally during each situation. Her revenge on the guardian character is visceral and invasively perverse, which reflects how Lisbeth is a wounded animal lashing out in self-defense and anger, whereas what she does with Wennerstrom is motivated purely out of affection for Blomkvist (there isn't even a misogyny issue at all). Wennerstrom poses no threat to her and is pretty much a non-entity in her life, so it makes sense that her method of "revenge" would be mostly vague and elusive. By that point in the movie she's become a full-on "avenging angel," but not for herself anymore -- and that selflessness, and the impersonal nature of what she does to Wennerstrom, is 100% representative of her arc, which is carefully structured in both these examples to indicate her growth. To lose that would be a disservice to the emotional journey the character was basically made to go on.

 

Also, I thought it was pretty clear that the books were tossing out the idea that maybe men can't even be feminists at all, that women are inherently victimized, that men are naturally exploitative, etc. If you're looking at the gender dynamics and messages of the film and thinking "There are elements of male fantasy here!" or "Lisbeth inadvertently affirms male power despite her earlier attempts to undermine it," then I think you're noticing the exact kind of themes Larsson (and Zaillian/Fincher) probably wanted you to notice and be challenged by (while at the same time not recognizing how consciously this story toys with those ideas and the morality behind them in order to achieve such ends).

These are interesting points to be sure.  My mother has been an avid reader of this series since before I'd ever heard anyone talk about it and has been imploring me to read it for just as long.  She countered a lot of my arguments by pointing out that I hadn't read the book, so I didn't understand Salander's character or the helpless position she was put in by the system and her circumstances, to which I replied, that's all well and good, but I didn't go to a book, I went to a movie:)  A craftsman as skilled as Fincher certainly should have been able to reconcile these confusing elements more succinctly to a layman, especially one as familiar with his cinematic style and approach as myself.  But I can't imagine ever being compelled to dedicate many hours reading thousands of pages to fully comprehend this trilogy that I have found so off-putting upon merely dipping my toes into its icy waters.

My gripe wasn't with the disparity between the revenges meted out (the punishment fit the crimes in both cases), it was the incongruous nature of her skill set off-set by her dependence on this money and this "rapist pig".  I don't see how she couldn't have blackmailed him or deleted her files and disappeared or accessed her money in some other capacity considering how adroitly she technologically maneuvered through every single other high stakes situation she encountered.  Everything about this sub-plot felt tacked on to grease up the proceedings and further exploit the misogyny of the piece.  I didn't feel challenged by these themes so much as aggressively suffocated by them. I find subtle gradations of right and wrong and nuanced characters challenging, not black and white heroes and villains wronging and revenging one another.  

I watched Se7en again recently (what a gorgeous blu!) in anticipation of TGWTDT and its genius on a script level really serves to highlight my problem with the latter.  Mills and Sommerset are interesting, likable, flawed and most importantly consistent characters with differing viewpoints on the nature of good and evil whose interactions serve as the springboard to explore a multitude of deeper issues than the surface shock of John Doe's outlandish serial murders.  They are people I want to spend time with and their dichotomy makes for complex philosophical considerations.  Craig and Mara strike me as two flat card-board cut outs who separately look though old photos until they inexplicably fuck. Even John Doe is allowed to be mysterious and not completely wrong or insane.  He's not a leering Bond villain who spends 20 minutes detailing his plan to buy time for the predictable rescue and regrettably routine car chase. I understand these are two totally different films going for different things, I'm just saying what I personally find more compelling and rewarding in investigatory serial killer cinema.  

I will admit however that my theatrical experience was less than ideal.  Their were some dingbats acting like they were at Halloween 6 or something, throwing out witty rejoinders like "Daaaamnn, she put a hurtin' on his ass!"  Yes, that is an actual quote.  Those Einstein's and the omnipresent smartphone glow emanating from every corner of the theater took me out of the film an awful lot.  Ultimately, I do appreciate films I don't "get" or like initially from my favorite directors. It gives me a chance years down the road to re-evaluate something I wrote off after one bad theatrical impression.  Perhaps I will come to find merit in it, such as I did with Gangs of New York, or my negative opinion will remain unaltered, as with The Departed.  

I genuinely hated this movie, particularly the last 20-30 minutes in which Lispeth somehow becomes Batman and defeats international arms dealers by pressing the space bar a few times and forging passports in her bedroom. I dunno, perhaps Fincher thought it was clever to create a serial killer thriller without any tension whatsoever (save for the charming rape scenes) or perhaps the source novel really is Dan Brown level of crap and this was all he could do. But The Social Network to this, man that's some come down.

The feel-bad movie of the year?  Yeah, no shit. 

My little sister, who is 21, was very much looking forward to this.  She has never read the books or seen the Swedish films, but she liked the look of Lisbeth and had heard that she was a strong female character.  My sister is all about strong women, much like myself.  My sister was so upset by the rape scene that she got up and fled the screening room.  I felt fucking terrible.  She came back and said that she was alright, but on the way back home, she let it rip about how angry that scene made her, and how the story had clearly been written by a man.  Only a man would write a strong, unusual woman only to have her degraded and assaulted into submission.  She cannot be strong in her own self.  It is only through the actions of a man that she finds her strength.  She also didn't like how the sex in the film felt reactionary rather than its own entity.  Every single sexual act initiated by Lisbeth feels like it is in reaction to the rape.  She jumps on Mikael in reaction to the rape, because with this man, she can be in control and take pleasure in the act of sex, not because she's taken a shine to him in particular.  She's not sad at the end because she was falling for him, she's sad because she's emotionally fucked in the head. 

It's a beautiful-looking film, and if I could stomach it again, I'd bet that it would look great on Blu-Ray.  I liked Rooney Mara, and aside from the rape scene and the fact that the ending gives Return of the King a run for its money in terms of NEVER FUCKING ENDING, I enjoyed what I saw, but this is a movie I never want to watch again.  EVER.

Quote:

Originally Posted by HarleyQuinn22 

It's a beautiful-looking film, and if I could stomach it again, I'd bet that it would look great on Blu-Ray.  I liked Rooney Mara, and aside from the rape scene and the fact that the ending gives Return of the King a run for its money in terms of NEVER FUCKING ENDING

THIS.

Quote:

Originally Posted by HarleyQuinn22 

The feel-bad movie of the year?  Yeah, no shit. 

 

My little sister, who is 21, was very much looking forward to this.  She has never read the books or seen the Swedish films, but she liked the look of Lisbeth and had heard that she was a strong female character.  My sister is all about strong women, much like myself.  My sister was so upset by the rape scene that she got up and fled the screening room.  I felt fucking terrible.  She came back and said that she was alright, but on the way back home, she let it rip about how angry that scene made her, and how the story had clearly been written by a man.  Only a man would write a strong, unusual woman only to have her degraded and assaulted into submission.  She cannot be strong in her own self.  It is only through the actions of a man that she finds her strength.  She also didn't like how the sex in the film felt reactionary rather than its own entity.  Every single sexual act initiated by Lisbeth feels like it is in reaction to the rape.  She jumps on Mikael in reaction to the rape, because with this man, she can be in control and take pleasure in the act of sex, not because she's taken a shine to him in particular.  She's not sad at the end because she was falling for him, she's sad because she's emotionally fucked in the head. 

 

It's a beautiful-looking film, and if I could stomach it again, I'd bet that it would look great on Blu-Ray.  I liked Rooney Mara, and aside from the rape scene and the fact that the ending gives Return of the King a run for its money in terms of NEVER FUCKING ENDING, I enjoyed what I saw, but this is a movie I never want to watch again.  EVER.

I knew there was a reason even Fincher, Reznor, and that cast couldn't get me to see this. This is everything I hated about the original film. I was ready to collect social security by the time the end credits rolled on the original film.

Quote:

Originally Posted by HarleyQuinn22 

The feel-bad movie of the year?  Yeah, no shit. 

 

My little sister, who is 21, was very much looking forward to this.  She has never read the books or seen the Swedish films, but she liked the look of Lisbeth and had heard that she was a strong female character.  My sister is all about strong women, much like myself.  My sister was so upset by the rape scene that she got up and fled the screening room.  I felt fucking terrible.  She came back and said that she was alright, but on the way back home, she let it rip about how angry that scene made her, and how the story had clearly been written by a man.  Only a man would write a strong, unusual woman only to have her degraded and assaulted into submission.  She cannot be strong in her own self.  It is only through the actions of a man that she finds her strength.

Seems like kind of a misread of this scene/character. I mean, I don't blame your sister's reaction to the scene. It's obviously designed to do nothing but upset the audience. But "She cannot be strong in her own self"? I don't understand. The movie says she's crazy strong pre- and post- that scene, and shows us. Nails it in actually. And I don't understand the complaint how she finds her strength through Craig's character? She swoops in and rescues his investigation using skills she's developed before coming into contact with him. And then she rescues his sorry ass before he's about to get murdered away.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin Matchstick 

Seems like kind of a misread of this scene/character. I mean, I don't blame your sister's reaction to the scene. It's obviously designed to do nothing but upset the audience. But "She cannot be strong in her own self"? I don't understand. The movie says she's crazy strong pre- and post- that scene, and shows us. Nails it in actually. And I don't understand the complaint how she finds her strength through Craig's character? She swoops in and rescues his investigation using skills she's developed before coming into contact with him. And then she rescues his sorry ass before he's about to get murdered away.

My sister meant that Lisbeth's big moment of triumph comes only after she's been brutally raped, hence displaying her power after a man has had his way with her.  It gave off an unsettling allusion of Lisbeth's strength being "made" by a man, rather than just being a strong woman without the sexual submission.

Well, the original novel's title is Men Who Hate Women, so writing a story about rape and murder is what Larsen set out to do. Like any character, Lisbeth is the character/person she is because of the events that have transpired in her life. As far as the rape scene, other than being a horrific thing to happen to her, it doesn't seem to transform her. It seems we have the same Lisbeth before and after that event. She even asks the asshole rapist later if he even read her file. Also, we know her "power" before her retribution on the rapist. From the way she's shot to the way other characters talk about her, she's a mythic hero.  

I'm surprised at all the people who are freaked out and supposedly running out of the theatre at a rape scene. I mean people sit through shit like Saw and Final Destination where people are tortured in gruesome-- and unrealistic-- ways before dying but a rape scene is enough to send folks running for the hills?

I'm a female and the scene disturbed me but I appreciated that it was an unflinching look at a sexual assault. I feel like a lot of movies don't go far enough as far as portraying the complete degradation of the rape victim and how the rapist gets off on the power over his victim. Rooney Mara really sold the fear and desperation in this scene so I had no problem with her payback. I'm sure many a victim would love for their attacker to experience the same humiliation and violation they had to go through.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anorexic Starlet 

I'm surprised at all the people who are freaked out and supposedly running out of the theatre at a rape scene. I mean people sit through shit like Saw and Final Destination where people are tortured in gruesome-- and unrealistic-- ways before dying but a rape scene is enough to send folks running for the hills?

 

 

I'm a female and the scene disturbed me but I appreciated that it was an unflinching look at a sexual assault. I feel like a lot of movies don't go far enough as far as portraying the complete degradation of the rape victim and how the rapist gets off on the power over his victim. Rooney Mara really sold the fear and desperation in this scene so I had no problem with her payback. I'm sure many a victim would love for their attacker to experience the same humiliation and violation they had to go through.

Agree completely.  People are either unaware or in denial that the scene depicted in the movie is the reality if not worse for a lot of women and girls (and men/boys) every day here and all over the world.  Excellent comment.

Not saying that rape doesn't happen.  I'm saying that I don't enjoy watching it.   

And in my sister's defense, Anorexic Starlet, since you find it so shocking that she would be that upset about it, she volunteers in a women's center and works directly with women who have experienced sexual assault.  It's not too much of a stretch that she was envisioning one of those women on that bed during that scene.  I find nothing wrong whatsoever with my sister not wanting to watch a woman being brutally raped.  If anything, I wish more people would get that upset about the subject of rape. To hell with anyone who disagrees.

I think that's an excellent point, HQ. I don't think everyone is ignorant or in denial---so i'm not talking about you or your sister--but I'm getting that vibe quite a bit in criticism of this film and this series of books.

Quote:

Originally Posted by yt 

Agree completely.  People are either unaware or in denial that the scene depicted in the movie is the reality if not worse for a lot of women and girls (and men/boys) every day here and all over the world.  Excellent comment.

Stop. Just stop. This myopic bullshit is offensive. Cut it out, and stop attacking those who don't agree with you. Stop being so condescending. Please.

Quote:

Originally Posted by HarleyQuinn22 

Not saying that rape doesn't happen.  I'm saying that I don't enjoy watching it.   

 

And in my sister's defense, Anorexic Starlet, since you find it so shocking that she would be that upset about it, she volunteers in a women's center and works directly with women who have experienced sexual assault.  It's not too much of a stretch that she was envisioning one of those women on that bed during that scene.  I find nothing wrong whatsoever with my sister not wanting to watch a woman being brutally raped.  If anything, I wish more people would get that upset about the subject of rape. To hell with anyone who disagrees.

I don't think you're supposed to enjoy watching it. If the reaction to the scene is this strong, then Fincher did his job.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deanburger 

I don't think you're supposed to enjoy watching it. If the reaction to the scene is this strong, then Fincher did his job.

Then the whole thing is disingenuous.

"Here's this escapist serial killer thriller with a master hacker and a super journalist! Oh, look out, it's rape! HERE COME THE TRUTH BOMBS."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deanburger 

I don't think you're supposed to enjoy watching it. 

I know that, but when I said that the scene bothered me and my sister, the response was "Waaaah, if you can watch Saw you can watch rape!" 

Never saw Saw, and I don't like watching rape scenes.  Sue me.

My issue with the rape scene is that it seemingly has little to no dramatic or traumatic effect on Lisbeth. It fuels her revenge, which makes sense, but this is a woman who has had troubled relationships with men (specifically older men) her whole life, and the rape seems like she's literally being abused by the state (since the guy who does it is her state ward). Other than responding (justifiably) to the creep and making sure he doesn't do it again, Lisbeth kind of just shrugs it off. On one hand, it's kind of terrific that she doesn't become a victim to something so horrendous. But on the other hand, it seems like a fantasy, something less realistic than I Spit On Your Grave. I know she knows everything about Blomkvist, which makes her in control of their relationship, but would she really sleep with an older guy so quickly after something so traumatic, let alone work with him in the first place? It seems like something like that should fuck her up more and her reaction to it feels slight to me. Mind you, I assume this is how it was written in the book (which I haven't read). I know it's how it was done in the original and I felt a similar reaction. 

I also don't like how it was filmed. It was too pretty and too sexual. I know she was resisting, I know she was struggling, and that was awful. But Fincher should have resisted his temptation to make everything look gorgeous and ugly the fuck out of that scene.

Irreversible has made any other film that attempts to mine rape as a way to get a rise out of an audience feel cheap and exploitative to me.

What creeps me out about this film is that it showed this horrible rape scene and seemed to feel nothing about it.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcnooj82 

Irreversible has made any other film that attempts to mine rape as a way to get a rise out of an audience feel cheap and exploitative to me.

 

What creeps me out about this film is that it showed this horrible rape scene and seemed to feel nothing about it.  

Exactly. Rape should never numb the audience and that's exactly how I felt during the scene. It's not the actresses fault, she's doing everything she can. I just don't understand how it serves her character or the story. If you're going to have a scene like that, it better fucking make a difference. Let us see the impact it will have on her. I think all it does is give us a chance to see her get some cool revenge and strengthen her character. Not good enough.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Parker 

 

My issue with the rape scene is that it seemingly has little to no dramatic or traumatic effect on Lisbeth. It fuels her revenge, which makes sense, but this is a woman who has had troubled relationships with men (specifically older men) her whole life, and the rape seems like she's literally being abused by the state (since the guy who does it is her state ward). Other than responding (justifiably) to the creep and making sure he doesn't do it again, Lisbeth kind of just shrugs it off.

You must have a different definition of "shrugs it off" than I do. However, this is a woman that has been traumatized in her life. We don't get her exact background, which probably comes up in the other books, but we do know that she has been abused before. Without killing him, she does go pretty far to ensure that he never does it again...and is able to retain him as her ward while having complete control over him. And, thus, her life. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Parker 

Exactly. Rape should never numb the audience and that's exactly how I felt during the scene. It's not the actresses fault, she's doing everything she can. I just don't understand how it serves her character or the story. If you're going to have a scene like that, it better fucking make a difference. Let us see the impact it will have on her. I think all it does is give us a chance to see her get some cool revenge and strengthen her character. Not good enough.

Not sure how you can feel numb during that scene. Our sympathies are already with Lisbeth at that point. And, even if you don't like her character, even if you hate her, you don't want to see her violated by anyone, let alone a character who the movie paints as a complete dirtbag. If the you think the story manipulative and dumb, well okay. But being numb to that scene is odd to me. Maybe you just checked out right when you bought the ticket. "One for Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, please. (:::eye roll)."

As far as it "strengthening her character", I don't agree. She's already strong, she's already the person that later tattoos the rapist.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin Matchstick 

 

Not sure how you can feel numb during that scene. Our sympathies are already with Lisbeth at that point. And, even if you don't like her character, even if you hate her, you don't want to see her violated by anyone, let alone a character who the movie paints as a complete dirtbag. As far as it "strengthening her character", I don't agree. She's already strong, she's already the person that later tattoos the rapist.

So if she is already that person, what was the point and purpose of that scene?  When you put a scene that shocking in your film, when your lead character experiences such a traumatic event, shouldn't it have ramifications that echo throughout the rest of the film?  Shouldn't that person be changed in some way, even a minute way? If she's already that person, if there is no character growth, no change in her behavior as a result, then what was the point of that scene?  To show us how truly fucked up she is because there isn't a change to her?

Quote:

Originally Posted by HarleyQuinn22 

So if she is already that person, what was the point and purpose of that scene?  When you put a scene that shocking in your film, when your lead character experiences such a traumatic event, shouldn't it have ramifications that echo throughout the rest of the film?  Shouldn't that person be changed in some way, even a minute way? If she's already that person, if there is no character growth, no change in her behavior as a result, then what was the point of that scene?  To show us how truly fucked up she is because there isn't a change to her?

She has suffered other traumatic events--she tried to kill her father and was a ward of the state for over half her life.  I think that scene shows exactly who she is and how she will react when someone rapes, subjugates or humiliates her, and also what kinds of things people in charge of "mentally incompetent" people are capable of doing.  Not all, obviously, because her first guardian was a good person.  What changes her is the investigation with Blomkvist.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin Matchstick 

You must have a different definition of "shrugs it off" than I do. However, this is a woman that has been traumatized in her life. We don't get her exact background, which probably comes up in the other books, but we do know that she has been abused before. Without killing him, she does go pretty far to ensure that he never does it again...and is able to retain him as her ward while having complete control over him. And, thus, her life. 

 

Yes, but other then her revenge, she doesn't seem particularly effected by it. The rape feels forced like an obvious plot point, another reminder of her troubled life, of maybe the zenith of it. And then, like that, the story, the character is totally unmoved by it, other than to get revenge, which is portrayed positively. Because she's a strong character, we're meant to think that nothing really traumatic has been left in the wake of the rape; it was just the act itself that was horrible and there's seemingly no lingering effects. She exacts revenge and that's that. Nice and tidy.

What signs at the end of this story, or throughout it, suggests that she's been sexually assaulted or abused? You could argue that all the abuse has made her stronger and more independent, but I think it makes her more of an "other" and an "alien." In effect, the rape, like all her tattoos and piercings, is just another surface detail to communicate to the audience just how different and unique Lisbeth is supposed to be, but ultimately makes her feel more false and forced.

Quote:

Originally Posted by HarleyQuinn22 

So if she is already that person, what was the point and purpose of that scene?  When you put a scene that shocking in your film, when your lead character experiences such a traumatic event, shouldn't it have ramifications that echo throughout the rest of the film?  Shouldn't that person be changed in some way, even a minute way? If she's already that person, if there is no character growth, no change in her behavior as a result, then what was the point of that scene?  To show us how truly fucked up she is because there isn't a change to her?

Actually, from what I hear (from people that have read the series), it actually has ramifications throughout the entire series. 

I don't know. Her origin story came before this. She's already Batman, at this point, right? Larsen wants to talk about man on woman violence. This scene is part of that. The investigation is part of that. Lisbeth is his hero in this violent world, and she kicks ass and takes names from beginning to end. I'd argue we do see character growth, from her relationship with Blomkvist - someone who she already is keen on from the beginning of the movie because he strikes her as a moral man. I actually think that part of the story is more problematic, at least for me. But her wall comes down a little there. A little. But, I guess, goes right back up. And then credits.