Rapist With The Dragon Tattoo

[clipse15]

Don't watch movies for grown-ups unless you are a grown-up. Simple as that.

If you seriously can't see the role those scenes played in the characterizations of everyone involved, then you are not the target audience for the movie. If it made you uncomfortable, it doesn't mean that it was pointless, it means that it made you uncomfortable. Which, I think, is just as legitimate a sensation for a movie to create as any other. If you need movies that don't bother you, don't watch movies with adult themes.

Exactly this. It's a film with complex and morally grey characters.

As to those of you who are saying that the rapist deserved it - no he didn't. He deserved to be shot in the head, sure. If she'd murdered him, I'd have been "oh, that's okay then." If she's murdered him slowly and painfully, I'd have been "well, she's insane and sick, but I'm still okay with this."

By using the same method on him that he used on her, she has sunk to his level and is now as bad as he is. They BOTH deserve to be shot. Or, you know, imprisoned. Yes, he is worse because he also breached ethics, but the mutual rapes are so far worse that that part seems rather small by comparison.

Rape is never excusable. Not even when it's done to another rapist.

I never understood people talking about criminals in prison and saying "I hope bubba makes him his girlfriend." It's really messed up to hope anyone is raped and I've noticed over the years (and in this thread) that it's a fairly common sentiment.

As someone who has experienced that, I can say that I wanted to do far worse to the guy who assaulted me. The fact that anyone could feel sorry for the rapist is completely alien to me, he deserved every single fucking bit of it.

I don't "feel sorry" for the fictional rapist. That's not the point I'm trying to get across. I'm saying that I find it's messed up that we're supposed to sympathize/empathize with a character who essentially becomes a rapist herself. It doesn't matter if she does it to a rapist, she's still a rapist.

And I never understood people's need to have to sympathize with a character. Sympathizing with a character doesn't make them interesting to me .Them being interesting to me does.

 

[UberNoodle]

Ahh, the 'rape/gender wars' still manage to sneak in here on a daily basis. Any chance this thread could have stayed on IMDB?

 

[esperandote]

There's a Law and Order SVU chapter that sounds a lot like the plot of the movie. It goes like this:

Girl with hi IQ raped as a child by three men
As an adult she's good with computers and uses her skills to get to each man.
She carves them words and sodomizes them.
The police caughts her and send her to trial.

In the end she finds her daughter product of the rape by listening to her laugh and one of the bad guys confeses out of guilt.

I think we're talking about the same episode. I found it on the NBC site: http://www.nbc.com/law-and-order-special-victims-unit/episode-guide/season-12/47475/branded/episode-1206/363472/

Yep, that's the one.

 

[Colour Scientist]

why not?

... cause I don't want to see two rapes in gripping HD quality take place before my very eyes?

You make some valid points about art. Fine. I am willing to concede that there may be artistic merit to masturbatory rape-revenge rape. Irony certainly.

It doesn't mean I want to see it.

It's pretty brutal. I haven't seen the American one but I had to leave the room during one of the rape scenes. I'm terrible for watching rape scenes though. I just can't do it.

 

[Calibanbutcher]

why not?

... cause I don't want to see two rapes in gripping HD quality take place before my very eyes?
snip

Well, include some octopodes and various japanese school-girls and I am sure we have a hit.
[sub]At least in Japan[/sub]

 

[Korolev]

I am one of those people who thinks that good people don't deserve bad things to happen to them, but bad people can literally have anything done to them, and I don't care.

Hurting people is wrong? NO. Hurting GOOD people is wrong. Hurting bad people is perfectly acceptable.

Definition of Bad Person: People who Murder innocents, People who inflict Torture good people, People who inflict GBH on good people People who rape good people, and anyone even remotely involved in the business of slavery or genocide. They are the "Bad" people, and frankly, if you break the social rules and perform these actions on innocent, good people, then you do not deserve the protections afforded by the social rules.

Good people deserve rule of law. Those who flaunt rule of law and do bad things to good people fall outside the law's protection.

Of course, I am aware that my system of morality is impractical and would encourage vigilantism and would probably make the world a worse place. It is not how I would RUN things, but it is how I feel.

 

[JimB]

Uh, Korolev, you do realize you have to define "good people" as well for your particular little algebraic equation of morality to work, right?

EDIT: And of course this ignores the question of what to think about someone who proposes that violence is not a means but rather an end, to be applied against those who don't really count as people; but never mind that for now.

 

[clap4themoment]

I think you're viewing this too objectivly. The scene was directed in such a way that the man was made to look like a monster. Selective music, camera angles and even characterisation. However the scene with the girl raping the man was made to be uplifting using the same film techniques in reverse to the protagonist's benefit.

I think the way you are seeing it, is man rapes women, women rapes man. You are missing all the extra elements of the film that influences the audience.

I actually loved the movie and distraught, I walked out on the rape scene (yes I'm easily affected).

However I was hiding a tiny smile and feeling a sense of triumphant, when she did the same to him.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

I never understood people talking about criminals in prison and saying "I hope bubba makes him his girlfriend." It's really messed up to hope anyone is raped and I've noticed over the years (and in this thread) that it's a fairly common sentiment.

I don't "feel sorry" for the fictional rapist. That's not the point I'm trying to get across. I'm saying that I find it's messed up that we're supposed to sympathize/empathize with a character who essentially becomes a rapist herself. It doesn't matter if she does it to a rapist, she's still a rapist.

Meh. Bjurman is portrayed in both film and novel as a sadistic, unrepentant monster who uses a position of power to tyrannize, control, and psychologically and physically brutalize a troubled girl who is supposed to be under his care. Said troubled girl responds in kind. While I do not intellectually endorse vigilantism or vengeance, I can certainly emotionally understand it. If anyone ever raped my girlfriend or someone I loved, they had best hope the police got to them before I did.

So yes, you are correct, she is a rapist herself now, but the world does not work in a binary morality system free of all context.

I'm not even a fan of Lisbeth Salander the character, btw. Not because of her capacity for violent retribution, I have absolutely no issue with that whatsoever. She's just a big, fat Mary Sue. It's not so bad in the first book...I can accept a character who is a socially maladroit but gifted hacker, and while she is uncommonly competent it's not beyond the boundaries of my willing suspension of disbelief. Subsequent volumes, however, turn her superpowers up to eleven, and the fact that she is a fantasy fulfillment vehicle for the author becomes painfully apparent. The fact his plotting and pacing is going to hell at the same time does nothing to help things along, either. It's a pity, too, because the first book had a certain trashy/salacious verve that made it compulsively readable.

 

[locoartero]

It's there because of the book title. And because David Fincher kinda channeled Noe's "Irrversible"

 

[Calibanbutcher]

Snip

However, I am pointing out the fact that no one who has suffered a terrible wrong ever fucking feels this way. Its just not reality. You can tout your ideals until YOU are blue in the face, but that doesn't change the reality that only the victims themselves can provide forgiveness, and 10 times out of 10 this will not happen for such an egregious act of violence.

The courts dont care about the individual who was wronged, the courts only care about locking the perpetrator in a box so that he/she cant perpetrate further. The courts couldnt give less of a shit about the feelings of the victim, so what, does that invalidate their emotions? The entirety of what I'm trying to get across to you is this: If you don't know what its like to receive a wrong on the level of rape, then you have no fucking right to deny these people what their hearts are commanding them to do. You have no experience with it, therefore you have no right to judge the punishment or spout flowery nice quotes in defense of the aggressors. Instead of demonizing the victim for her reaction, we would all benefit from simply observing and refraining from judgment for or against. I don't advocate lisbeth's actions, i however do have the experience to be able to understand them, and quite frankly I'm bitter that I can't be one of you innocent accusers blissfully ignorant of the horrors that life can crush a person with.

I usually refrain from posting serious comments, but this intrigues me:

1. Have you been raped? You do not need to answer, but attacking another poster on the grounds that he/she (probably) did not experience rape and thusly is not qualified to talk about the victims feelings is interesting.

2. "They should be allowed to do, what their hearts tell them to do".
So, if they kill the guy, should the victims of that act ( the family and friends of said rapist) be allowed to kill the rape victim? After all, they just suffered the loss of someone dear to them, which is a shock no-one can prepare you for.
And how far should the victims be allowed to go?
And shouldn't the victims of other crimes, such as a robbery or assault also get to dispose of the culprit as they see fit? And should the innocent victims of these acts of vigilance, the friends and families of the initial culprit, then get to act themselves and kill the one who killed their loved one? Or do these innocent victims get to eat shit, because their loved one did a bad thing, so their emotional trauma and suffering is less important and they should just deal with it and / or forgive and forget, or just forget?
And if they get to take revenge, the family / friends of the inital rape/robbery/assault victims are now victims as well, which means they should be allowed to act on their emotions, and so on and so forth in an eternal circle which can only be broken by one group of victims making the sacrifice of suffering their own anguish without taking what should rightfully be theirs?
(Alternatively, if finally one guy/gal is killed that absolutely no-one cares about, the circle would break as well)
Is that what you want?
If so, I hope you never get into a position of power. Ever.

Also: Hurray, 500 posts and I wrote something serious wheeeee.

 

[shrimpcel]

Isn't this the perfect punishment for the rapist?

 

[cobra_ky]

snip

In case you were wondering, <a href=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1299216/Stieg-Larsson-wrote-novel-The-Girl-Dragon-Tattoo-fuelled-brutal-rape.html>This is pretty much what the author, Stieg Larsson's, deal was.

TL;DR version: as a teenager, Larsson stood and watched as three of his friend raped a girl named Lisbeth. He did nothing to stop them. Lisbeth never forgave him and he was haunted by guilt for the rest of his life.

imo, the fictional character Lisbeth Salander was Larsson's attempt to absolve himself for his inaction, by creating a fictional heroine who can avenge her own rape, and therefore didn't need Larsson's help.

so it's not quite a masturbatory fantasy, but it's still pretty gross and self-indulgent.

 

[Calibanbutcher]

I usually refrain from posting serious comments, but this intrigues me:

1. Have you been raped? You do not need to answer, but attacking another poster on the grounds that he/she (probably) did not experience rape and thusly is not qualified to talk about the victims feelings is interesting.

2. "They should be allowed to do, what their hearts tell them to do".
So, if they kill the guy, should the victims of that act ( the family and friends of said rapist) be allowed to kill the rape victim? After all, they just suffered the loss of someone dear to them, which is a shock no-one can prepare you for.
And how far should the victims be allowed to go?
And shouldn't the victims of other crimes, such as a robbery or assault also get to dispose of the culprit as they see fit? And should the innocent victims of these acts of vigilance, the friends and families of the initial culprit, then get to act themselves and kill the one who killed their loved one? Or do these innocent victims get to eat shit, because their loved one did a bad thing, so their emotional trauma and suffering is less important and they should just deal with it and / or forgive and forget, or just forget?
And if they get to take revenge, the family / friends of the inital rape/robbery/assault victims are now victims as well, which means they should be allowed to act on their emotions, and so on and so forth in an eternal circle which can only be broken by one group of victims making the sacrifice of suffering their own anguish without taking what should rightfully be theirs?
(Alternatively, if finally one guy/gal is killed that absolutely no-one cares about, the circle would break as well)
Is that what you want?
If so, I hope you never get into a position of power. Ever.

Also: Hurray, 500 posts and I wrote something serious wheeeee.

I have been tortured by my mother; she was a frustrated, mentally unstable immigrant who married my father for his gold, alone in America (by her choice) while my white father managed an air conditioning company in asia. She wanted me to be an american boy so she tore me away from everything I loved when I was 6 years old, and In addition the mental rape she put me through every single day of my childhood, I had to deal with the constant culture shock of moving from america to asia to america to asia to america, different states and countries every single time, and in addition to my mother's bullying I had to put up with being the outsider at school, the easy target, the chinamen who should go back to china. I was an only child so therefore I was the only one to bear the brunt of her insanity. She would set for me impossible tasks and then berate and belittle me when those tasks inevitably went unsatisfied, occasionally beating me, but more often than not she would simply raise her hand to me and scare me into submission. She took pleasure in seeing me cry, and for this I bear a deep seeded hatred of her. She would abuse my dad who was a total fucking pussy and gave into her unreasonable demands like clockwork, she would merely have to raise her shrill, horrible voice and my dad would cave instantaneously. Everyone was fucking miserable, but they didnt get a divorce "for my sake". So all of this was my fault, and as a child I fucking hated myself for being responsible for my parents unhappiness.

Never intended to go that in depth but there it is. So unless you know what this kind of abuse is and what kind of life the victims of sustained, chronic abuse go through, I ask that you refrain from judging Lisbeth's actions because she is a person that you cannot understand.

Your example is not cogent. The rapist's family has no right in taking revenge upon lisbeth because it would not be justified. Knowing that their family member changed this girl's life forever because of his depravity and his selfishness, then they would be committing an unjust crime if they ever took action against lisbeth for her justified actions.

1. So you have not been "raped" but abused and you have my condolences for that, but you can thusly not claim to know what "rape" feels like, since you also never experienced it. What you went through is horrible, but completely different.

2. So the rape victim gets to take revenge "based on his/her emotions" and the emotions of the other victims are worth jack sh*t.

 

[Shiftygiant]

I think it was MovieBob who said Lisbeth Salander is supposed to be some kind of fantasy girl; a perfect woman for the author to masturbate to. This kind of revenge fantasy fits in pretty well with that theory.

I doubt Larsson cracked one out to that idea. Quote wiki, and also the forward in some editions of the books: 'Larsson, aged 15, stood by as three of his friends gang-raped an acquaintance of his named Lisbeth. He did nothing to help her. Wracked with guilt, he begged her forgiveness days later, but she angrily refused. The incident haunted him for years afterward, and in part inspired him to create a character named Lisbeth who was also a rape victim.'

 

[Relish in Chaos]

I haven?t read or seen The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, but this kind of reminds me of another film named Hard Candy, which

Spoiler

does a good way of really making you feel bad for the recipient of the ?revenge fantasy?, even though he?s admitted that he?s a child molester and possible murderer. Or at least, an accomplice in these events.

Why? Good question. At the beginning of the film, we?re introduced to a young teenage girl who?s basically a child prodigy, and a photographer who, in an early scene, is hinted at to be a hebephile. Not child molester, just a hebephile. We?re not explicitly told yet that he?s involved in the child molestation and murder of barely pubescent girls yet; just a small scene where the girl flashes him while changing and he?s clearly?let?s say, suspiciously unnerved by this. And then the girl later accompanies him to his house to pose for photos. You see where this is going?

?Oh, wait. No. The girl actually drugs him, ties up, and both physically and mentally tortures him over a lengthy period of time (including what looks to be a castration which she emotionally performs) into a confession of his crimes, an unexplained infatuation with a girl that has not yet been abused, and eventual suicide. The reason that the moral ambiguity of this whole film hits home so well is not only the compelling performances between the two main actors (Ellen Page and Patrick Wilson), but the fact that Page?s character is characterized as a sociopathic, somewhat sadistic, and narcissistic (judging by her ?judge, jury and executioner? mindset and repetition of her academic achievements) budding serial killer whose backstory is shrouded in mystery, while Wilson?s character is characterized as a strangely sympathetic but obviously dangerous sexual predator whose backstory is also shrouded in mystery (Page doesn?t seem to buy his attempt at a tear-jerking story of being accused and then abused by his auntie or something for being witness to his younger cousin exposing herself to him).

Also, the fact that we never see any of the abused/killed girls, or the photographs that he was said to have taken of them. We?re just told ?he may?ve touched and killed these girls, and he?s now going to get his balls cut off by some crazy 14-year-old girl; have fun squeaming?.

Anyway, on-topic, I think she was justified, since I operate on a somewhat arbitrary and non-strict moral code of ?eye for an eye?. If you effectively take away someone?s human rights for your own sadistic pleasure, then you effectively trade in your own. That?s not to say I?m in favour of the death penalty. I am in favour of the concept behind it. I mean, no-one shed a tear over Osama Bin Laden?s death, did they? Why? Because justice had been done. He killed thousands of innocent people because of his own bullshit agenda, so it?s right that he was killed himself, to balance out the stakes. In fact, I?d say that he should?ve been tortured more before being killed, so he could experience pain on the level of those that were trapped under buildings on 9/11. Justice can be revenge.

Yeah, you could call it a slippery slope, and ?it makes us as bad as them?, but you know what? Fuck that. At least Salander has a proper reason for raping someone other than ?I did it 4 the lulz?. She raped a rapist. Now they know how it feels, and can appreciate the reality of their crimes. Honestly, I?d be saying the same thing if a woman abused her position of power to rape a man, and then the man got revenge by giving her a taste of her own medicine. I don?t give a shit what equipment you?ve got down there; you need to understand that what you did was wrong, and punishment has to be dealt alongside rehabilitation.

Anyway, you know that people fucking love revenge films, right? Kill Bill, Taken, Man on Fire? But suddenly, it?s another level of cruel when it?s rape? I know why that is, but doesn?t that make things worse for the victims when you say ?rape is totally worse than murder, because a dead guy doesn?t have to suffer the mental anguish, and I know rape victims that would?ve rather died than live with the shame?? How fucking shit is that for rape victims that don?t want to off themselves, and just want to get on with their life without everyone walking on ice around them and treating them like charity cases?

What?s more, it?s a helluva lot better than letting convicted murderers, rapists, child molesters and the rest of the hellish bastards in the world live the good life in prison living in padded cells with three meals a day, fucking sports activities for them, cable TV and consoles to play on ? and all free of charge. There are some homeless people that even steal or whatever, and purposely get caught, so they can get sent to prison and at least have a roof over their head and not get hungry. The justice system urgently needs a shake-up, and it needs it now. Otherwise, I don?t blame people for going all vigilante on these wankstains.

 

[Evil Raccoon]

The actor who played the rapist is Dutch, and in an interview he said that the rape scene was the emotional worst scene he has played in his entire career.

 

[JimB]

Quoth Wiki, and also the foreword in some editions of the books: 'Larsson, aged 15, stood by as three of his friends gang-raped an acquaintance of his named Lisbeth. He did nothing to help her. Wracked with guilt, he begged her forgiveness days later, but she angrily refused. The incident haunted him for years afterward, and in part inspired him to create a character named Lisbeth who was also a rape victim.'

Oh, so, instead of having imaginary sex to feel better about himself, he has imaginary heroism to feel better about himself.

I didn't actually have a pony in this race before and was just parroting what I vaguely (and probably incorrectly) remember MovieBob saying, but now I am sticking with it: Lisbeth Salander is definitely a masturbatory fantasy. It's just a different variety of masturbation.

 

[synobal]

Just read the book. It is better.

 

[Relish in Chaos]

Quoth Wiki, and also the foreword in some editions of the books: 'Larsson, aged 15, stood by as three of his friends gang-raped an acquaintance of his named Lisbeth. He did nothing to help her. Wracked with guilt, he begged her forgiveness days later, but she angrily refused. The incident haunted him for years afterward, and in part inspired him to create a character named Lisbeth who was also a rape victim.'

Oh, so, instead of having imaginary sex to feel better about himself, he has imaginary heroism to feel better about himself.

Except the hero in question is basically the girl he failed to save. You could say he's projecting an idealized version of himself onto the innocent girl whose rape had tormented him throughout his life.

I wonder how the real-life girl in question feels about what could be interpreted as him exploiting and/or trivializing her private ordeal in a book. It would've been better if he didn't use her actual name.