Girl With The Dragon Tattoo Post-Release Discussion - Page 2

 

 

I guess this is my problem, then. He wants to talk about it. There are a lot of examples of it. The text is rich with it and I find it interesting that it stems from all aspects of society (I actually liked Fincher's version for the most part, despite issues with it --- disliked the Swedish version, haven't read the books). But I don't think he's saying anything about it, other than creating an ultimate revenge fantasy. And that's fine, because that's really the only way I can view her, especially without knowing about her mysterious background and seeing how, in my eyes, her rape does little to her but only serves to fuel the story. Yes, it makes sense that she's attracted to the investigation given what's happened to her. But hopping into bed with an older man when her whole life has been riddled with patriarchal figures abusing and taking advantage of her? I ain't buying it, not in the least.

Everything in these movies suggests that, while damaged, she should be able to ninja her way out of violent assault from a corpulent, slow-moving bastard of a bastard. I would think it's inconsistent characterization.

 

The deep-focus emphasis on both the rape and her revenge suggests Fincher wants us to have our cake and eat it too - we're going to see our heroine defiled so that she may survive and get revenge. Except violent revenge isn't as cathartic as rape is upsetting, so it's just throwing cheap thrills after cheap thrills. It's "I Spit On Your Grave" but with less honesty.

 

 

 

Indeed.  There is most certainly a "damsel in distress" in The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo...........and his name is Mikael Blomkvist.  Salander saves his investigation of Harriet's disappearance.  Salander then proceeds to physically save him from harm at the hands of Martin.  To top it all off, Salander once again saves him by giving him the info to finally bring down Winnerstrom and save his own reputation as a journalist............which is something she likely would have done regardless of the whole Vanger plot, if her actions beforehand are anything to go by.

 

Lisbeth Salander is the Superman to Mikael Blomkvist's Lois Lane.

Which is precisely why she's in-authentic as a character; nothing short of living, breathing revenge personified. 

Sure, but Blomkvist isn't like her abuser. And it's not just him. Seemingly, mere days after getting raped she's having sex with another woman. I don't buy that either. 

"But hopping into bed with an older man when her whole life has been riddled with patriarchal figures abusing and taking advantage of her?  I ain't buying it, not in the least."

 

"Sure, but Blomkvist isn't like her abuser."

 

Now I feel abused!

 

 

What also kind of messes up Lisbeth's attempts to struggle herself free of the rape is just how much of it she is or isn't playing it up for her camera.  Because based on her behavior after the rape, there is such cold control there despite her self-professed craziness. 

 

I certainly acknowledge that she wasn't expecting that degree of abuse from her case worker, but she was going up there intending to be on the receiving end of sexual abuse.

 

All that stuff makes the purpose and execution of the rape scene come across muddled and weird.

 

 

He can still be 1) an older man, 2) a patriarchal figure and 3) not like her abuser other than these two aspects. I don't think it's really that difficult to comprehend. Either way, it still doesn't make sense for her to sleep with him, especially in the way she does it (coldly, calmly, taking the initiative). It all just adds to her super-humanness, her "otherness." I think she's a fascinating character, but not a very believable one. One of the reasons I suspect the character (and the books) are so successful is because they're a comfort to people. Who wouldn't want to associate abuse victims with ass-kicking super humans that get raped one minute and then hop into bed with two different bedfellows (of two different sexes) DAYS later. Fun, pulpy fiction, maybe, but Superman is an apt comparison as far as the realism goes.

 

She was going there intending to record him sexually blackmailing her - at the very least, his words, at the very most, what transpired in his office previously. And then use that as footing to wrench control back from him. But she underestimated him, or didn't think it through, and was caught off guard. If you are suggesting that she's is playing up the anal rape for later leverage, I don't think the movie is making that case. I think Mara pretty effectively represents her screams and struggles to be free without alterior motive. She wants to be free. She was not expecting this. She does not want to be raped is what I got from that scene. I think Fincher and Mara get that through.

 

I don't actually think that the character was playing anything up, but I think that question ends up kinda lingering there because of the Superman issue that Parker is talking about.  It wants this horrible rape scene played as a horrible rape scene but almost specifically to simply make her vengeance upon the case worker even sweeter.  It really does seem like aside from the suffering she goes through during the rape itself, there really seems to be no consequence to it for the character.

 

So maybe it may not be that way to Lisbeth, but the movie really seems to exploit rape as a means to a narrative end and that feels dirtier than anything that actually occurs in the movie.

I think noojy is suggesting that a real person wouldn't willingly put themselves in harms way of a known abuser, especially with the intention of allowing the abuse to happen, even it ifs going to be later used as leverage against the guy. The fact that Lisbeth so willingly, calmly, puts herself in the position to be raped again (make no mistake, she's raped twice in the movie, the anal rape is just the most severe sequence) adds to her other-worldliness. Basically, what she's doing seem manufactured to get an audience reaction (we endear to her once she's received revenge, cheering her on) rather than paint her with any credibility. 

I get why it had to happen for the sake of the plot. That's part of my problem with it in the first place; using something so traumatic merely as a plot point all gearing towards revenge seems particularly crass. The psychological damage would manifest itself in ways more severe than simply "I want revenge," especially if part of her revenge plan involves allowing herself to get abused.
 

 

What else can she do? He has credibility. She has none. He can cut off her money, put her in jail, and ruin her life.

 

 

She (and the story) could be written better. You're acting like the story is real. I'm blaming the writing, including the grinding machinery of forced circumstances that present her with the only option of willingly accepting sexual abuse, Also, wouldn't just not seeing him again give her even more of a reason to hook up with Bloomkvist (speaking only in the researcher-assistant sense)? Not only would the job he'd be asking her to do deal with some cathartic desire to deal with her own issues, she'd also have an independent job without ever having to see that creepy guy again.

Slight tangent... 

 

But Lisbeth's inability to gain weight despite a diet of McDonalds goes along with the fantasy character element.  Of course, I'm not saying that people with such conditions don't exist.  It's just that the movie seems to play that detail as a, "Oh ho ho ho!  I wish I could eat McDonalds without gaining weight!!!"

 

Also, I'm curious about Fincher/Zaillian's decision to keep Lisbeth completely separate from Blomkvist's research until he finally hires her to help him.  In the original film, she was already hacking into his computer to follow what he was doing for her own interest.  I just wonder what purpose that served aside from keeping Lisbeth's side of the story laser-focused on her revenge before going on her next adventure.

 

As someone who went into Fincher's film without having seen or read previous iterations of the story, it felt weird that Lisbeth and Mikhail's stories were so separated for half the film.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Parker

She (and the story) could be written better. You're acting like the story is real. I'm blaming the writing, including the grinding machinery of forced circumstances that present her with the only option of willingly accepting sexual abuse, Also, wouldn't just not seeing him again give her even more of a reason to hook up with Bloomkvist (speaking only in the researcher-assistant sense)? Not only would the job he'd be asking her to do deal with some cathartic desire to deal with her own issues, she'd also have an independent job without ever having to see that creepy guy again.


She's a ward of the state. Any money she makes goes into an account that is not controlled by her. She has no independence. This is clearly established in the flick, I'd say.

That's funny, because I took that to be another deflection and I think that's how Mara played it. She thought the guy was commenting on her appearance, so she just said something to quickly end the conversation. It didn't strike me a a true statement, but maybe it is. We do see her eating junk food in the flick. If so, if she has some condition, then you're right. That cliche is all over the place on TV.

 

Why doesn't anyone complain about the pure fantasy of the characters in Drive yet have a problem with the fantasy elements in Dragon Tattoo? 

I completely disagree with this.  Rape does happen all the time.  I just watched that horrible remake of Straw Dogs and the fact that it wasn't explicit seems much more designed to be titillating, to not show the true violence of rape.

I haven't seen the remake of Straw Dogs, so I can't really speak to that.  

 

And my point isn't really about how explicitly rape is seen or not.  It's more about the way a scene involving rape is constructed.  The reason that the scene in Fincher's film feels off compared to something like Irreversible is because Noe just keeps the camera in one spot and just allows the rape to play out.  I don't recall it being particularly explicit (in terms of what we actually see).  But the fact that it goes on so long without cutting away or moving the camera at all.  It was like torture.  It was sickening.  And I really felt absolutely helpless.  

 

Ever since then, almost any scene involving rape that doesn't portray it with that much bluntness feels like there's a director on the other end either getting off on it or treating it carelessly.  And that's what Fincher's felt like. 

 

Keep in mind though, I'm still just trying to make sense of why I was just left so cold by everything in the film instead of caring about what was happening.  There was a strange distance I felt during almost all of the movie and I don't think it was intentional.  And if it was intentional, I wonder why.

In this case, it really seems to be because it involves the subject of rape.  It's a sensitive one whereas fantasy violence (as extreme as Drive is) is much more common and less of an issue.  It's similar to the constant attacks directed towards the questionable morals of the Twilight series while that of male-centric fantasy (also much more common) is given a free pass.

 

And I say this as someone who loved Drive.

 

For the life of me, I cannot figure out why such a brilliant hacker didn't just hack into the bank's computer systems and get her fucking money that way.  She can do all this outlandish shit with her computer, she can throw on a wig and parade into a bank at the end to pull off that spectacular heist, but she never thought to put those skills to use to get her own money from the bank?  Bullshit.

An off-putting amount of "oh, I totally know what all raped women would do in all circumstances" going on in here.

 

You're right, they would naturally march right into a known abusers living room so they could tape record them raping them. I think that's what all rape victims do actually, isn't it? What a condescending argument. 
 

Here's a couple of blog posts I've read recently about the issue of rape in the movies I found interesting, if anyone cares to read them. 

Fillmme-Fatale

Natasha Vargas-Cooper

 

Our exact point is that the movie doesn't show the true violence of rape, even if the scene is graphic and realistic (or, more graphic than the Straw Dogs remake for instance) because it's used in a way to titillate the audience. Not the actual rape scene itself, but Lisbeth's response to it. It's the rape-revenge catharsis audiences feel, and employing it in TGWTDT felt cheap and lurid, especially given that the scene has seemingly has no lasting impact on Lisbeth's character. 

 

 

She's a supergod hacker who brought a giant corporation to its knees single-handedly.

She could have a million bucks in cash under her mattress. She still has to report in to the rapist or go to jail. She still has to do what he says or he writes her up and she goes to jail, loses whatever. He has complete control over her lively hood and makes sure she knows she's in that kind of situation. Before him, she had a good relationship with the person she reported to. She was still serving out her time as a ward, but she was able to work and access the funds she rightfully earned.

Fincher is bringing almost nothing to the table here in comparison to the Swedish film. he does nothing with the story, and in fact weights in down even further. This film doesn't even look that great. The only thing going here is the performances. This is sub-par Fincher and people who love his work should be disappointed that he's wasting his talent like this. And for what? The stupid movie isn't even a hit. It is a failure even as a cash-in.

 

 

Had I said anything remotely resembling any of that in any way, then yeah, I guess that would be a condescending argument. Fortunately my very general statement would have to be warped beyond any reasonable interpretation to get there.

 

What do you think would perk him up more?

Her saying, "Watch me hack into this computer system and give you a million dollars in five minutes"?

Or "Here's my butthole! Enjoy!"

 

Given that she performs action movie heroics during the course of the film, it wouldn't be strange to see her quick thinking in this situation. She's evolved from her previous attackers' attentions, the film argues. So why does this slovenly fat fuck give her any trouble?

It's the equivalent to Optimus Prime beheading motherfuckers in that last Transformers movie, then getting stuck in some wires for about twenty minutes. In this case, it undermines the pretty unstoppable protagonist to make a bigger point, which is poor writing.

 

Of course, it's also undermining our protagonist by RAPING her. So the "bad writing" is the least of the film's concern.

 

Also, the Straw Dogs remake shouldn't be in this conversation, because Fincher knows the politics of transaction as far as relations between people. Rod Lurie, on the other hand, knows fucking nothing about human beings, hence the clumsy rape sequence in his movie.

 

 

 

None of that still makes it any easier to buy whatsoever. She's already been established early on as a fantasy uber-hacker with severe anti-social tendecies and a heavy distrust of authority, so now she's encapable of handling her ward whatsoever? I just don't buy it at all.

 

Of course I'm completely unable to take the character of Salander seriously in the first place, which is the biggest problem for me. She's as much of a heightened fantasy construct as Joke Pike from the Elvis Cole novels, and her comically overwrought backstory only adds to that.*

 

 

*

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

 

This sums it up for me.  The saddest aspect of all this is that the only thing worth discussing about the movie is whether or not the rape/revenge sequence is disingenuous.  Whichever side you come down on is irrelevant as far as the film itself is concerned.  What's important in terms of cinema is that one of the greatest American directors of our generation spent a year plus producing a remake to a well trod story and its pre-existing film adaptation that was already biting his signature stlye in the first place.  On top of that, he brought nothing new to the table, it looks like the film will lose money and he really didn't need to go back to the serial killer/investigation flick well if he had nothing new to say. So, an unnecessary, ugly, repetitive, derivative waste of time.
 

 

Huh?

 

I heart you.

 

So you want her to turn a likely serial rapist, for whom Lisbeth is more or less confirmed as not his first and probably not his last victim, into a millionaire? And you think that option wouldn't have undermined the protagonist? What?

Also I think people who are saying we don't see the results of Lisbeth being sexually abused must have been watching a different movie, since I'm pretty sure the entire character is constructed to represent what a victim of repeated sexual abuse would likely end up as. She is how she is because of the abuse (not the specific instance portrayed in the film, but the abuse in her past) -- beyond the aesthetic punk rock dimension of the character, her alienation, hatefulness, insecurity, likely depression, etc. are not qualities there to fetishize her, although I suppose that argument can be made. But you can't make it without relying on the argument that the movie is a misogynistic fantasy, which is obviously intentional since the "everyman" Blomkvist is meant to confront his own inner misogyny through his relationship with Salander (it's a cliche line, but Skarsgard's "we're not much different, you and I" is there for a reason), which is the entire theme of the story.

 

I think the fact, though, that a Hollywood movie has sparked a debate not only on gender relations but also a discussion on what should and shouldn't be shown in movies (effectively an argument about the possible value of censorship) is a testament to the film's quality and the progressiveness of the people behind it (although I do acknowledge there are obviously more commercial reasons for adapting the books). I think, overall, that everyone here is liberal enough to try on the idea that criticizing this movie/book for being too visually/morally/conceptually obscene is basically ruining it completely.

Edited by JMulder - 12/30/11 at 2:38pm

 

 

Likely? He raped her twice in two separate scenes. Quite why she didn't go all hacky ninja on his arse about 15 secs after he unbuttoned his fly the first time is puzzling...

I'm still stuck on Gabe T's undermining argument (applauded by Harley, somehow), which makes no sense to me. Lisbeth is a strong character. Yes. But it doesn't make her less strong of a character because she is raped. It doesn't "undermine" her or whatever because she is raped. Just as the act of rape doesn't undermine rape victims in real life. It's a forced act executed by fucking cowards. If you are saying that the act of her willingly going to the dickhead's apartment is dumb of her, and doesn't make sense considering how shrewd she is. OK. But she is trying to carry out a plan, and certainly doesn't think he's capable of what happens. She is used to being one step ahead, and she slips up here. Anyway, I think this is interesting considering Skarsgard's line about Blomkvist willingly coming into a dangerous situation rather than walking away at the end of the flick.

I'm not arguing that the rape scene should be censored. I'm arguing that it's a trashy and lurid fantasy of the man/men writing it rather than a realistic depiction of a very serious issue. 

I was talking to a friend about a minor incident I had at my family's convenience store.  

 

A dude pulled a "oh hey, can I take a look at that item?" and bolted out of the store.  It's one of those situations in which I had my suspicions about the guy, but didn't want to be rude.  That made me think of Skarsgard's line.

 

When I brought it up to my friend, he said that he'd talked to police officers who said that such behavior is often what puts women in dangerous/compromising situations.  We will risk such situations in our attempts to be polite.

 

Both scenes are dumb, if you think about them from a character's motivations as opposed to just moving the plot along.

 

Honestly that strikes me as absurd. You can't seriously think Fincher/Larsson/Zaillian, all of whom were so conscious of and perturbed by issues of misogyny and its extremes of sexual abuse that they decided to spend years of their life thinking, writing, and crafting films about them, are closet perverts who get off on the content of their work. If that's what you honestly believe then I'm afraid you completely missed the point of this movie. I mean, of course rape is a serious issue, but it is also a serious issue that films should be able to approach. Overzealous moralizing prevents that from happening.

 

Because then she would go to jail?

Yup.  Never ignore your inner red flag.  It goes up for a reason. 

 

It would have been a more interesting, complex AND tasteful development than RAPE.
 

I think you guys are discussing Salander's actions and we're discussing Fincher's intentions. The former is abstract, the latter is undeniable - Fincher has no insight to bring to the monstrous act of rape. He does add the one brief moment where her aggressor actually registers genuine concern for her when she shows up at his door one night, which complicates and deepens his irredeemability. Beyond that, why is this character raped? We know she has a history of being abused and probably raped - what added dimension arrives when he actually forcibly disrobes her and takes her in front of us, the paying audience? 

 

The cheap answer is that it gives us the sweet release of her violent revenge, which is a dispiritingly nihilistic response to sexual assault. The story answer is that it comes into play in movie/book number three, but that's entirely irrelevant thus far for a litany of reasons. The thematic answer is that it gives us a thuddingly literal realization of what we already know from this movie - men (at least in Sweden) are scum who treat women as disposable, and women are victims of an unbeatable patriarchy.

 

And yes, back to the original, more debatable point, it is bad writing, since most of the other things Salander does in this film border on science fiction.

It's debatable whether they're perturbed by it or not, particularly Fincher. Have you SEEN his movies? Dude's OBSESSED with DEATH.

 

Not if she used her superhuman computer hacking skills she wouldn't...hell, why she's even there at this point given what she can do is another nail in this silly movie's coffin.

 

Well first, how do you propose we examine Fincher's intentions, aside from looking at the characters/events depicted in his movie? And what insight is there, that isn't approached by the film, that should be brought to the "monstrous act" of rape? It happens, and it's terrible -- the only insight to bring to it is to examine how its victims are affected by it (which the film does) and the twisted motives of the men who do it (which the film also does). Now both of these are the themes of the movie. The film needs to portray a rape -- it is essential for this film -- because it takes the latent misogyny that underlies gender relations and takes them to its furthest extreme, where it becomes so utterly disturbing that it challenges men in the audience to reexamine the ways, no matter how small, that they practice sexism in their own lives.

 

If you're suggesting it is unnecessary to portray a rape in such a brutal way, then I would ask you: why is violence portrayed realistically and honestly in film? Why show the Holocaust in something like Schindler's List, or Alex DeLarge beating his helpless victims to death in A Clockwork Orange? There is a reason for all of these things, and it's a good one with nothing "cheap" about it. Coincidentally, it's the same reason why rape is portrayed violently and realistically in TGWTDT.

I have the feeling this just isn't true.

 

It's also dubious to group this film with A Clockwork Orange or Schindler's List, no matter the comparison.