Rapist With The Dragon Tattoo

Recommended Videos

zelda2fanboy

New member
Oct 6, 2009
2,172
0
0
kickassfrog said:
In Watchmen, Rorschach is locked in prison with a bunch of unspecified criminals, and he murders several of them, but it's still abundantly clear we're supposed to be cheering him on.
And frankly, I was. If you make a character seem like enough of an arsehole, it's easy to justify the 'good' guys taking out retribution on them in an extremely over the top manner.
See also the scene from Super where the guy cuts in line.
I feel like Watchmen had more of a grasp on this stuff, though. They're not "heroes" necessarily, so much as psychopath vigilantes who manage to evade the cops. Rorschach is a scary character who breaks bones, burns people, electrocutes people, smashes cleavers into skulls, and bites ears off. I also think the movie shows him murdering in self defense when other ruthless characters will not stop until he is murdered. We don't so much sympathize with Rorschach the character at the end, but more Rorschach's black and white moral code.

And I think Super was a satire specifically of this type of retribution. That shot of the life draining out of the cracked skull of that guy in line sticks with me until this day. It's not "man I feel that character is justified" but more "omg that is such a sick and wrongheaded thing to do to someone." His idiotic rampage eventually results in the murder of his close friend who had no idea of what she was getting into.
 
Feb 22, 2009
715
0
0
Boris Goodenough said:
In Search of Username said:
I would hope so, yes. I'd still have no respect for the guy but basic human compassion would probably make me step in. And if it didn't I'd be pretty ashamed of myself afterwards.
That is weird, such emotions don't even enter my mind but then again the thought of someone being raped brings out hatred in me like no other thing can do.
My adrenalin just peaks and I just want to end the rapist with my fists.
I understand those feelings, just don't think we'd be very good people or have a very stable society if we acted on them. Rise above it, y'know?
 

Treblaine

New member
Jul 25, 2008
8,682
0
0
It depends, is she supposed to be a tragic hypocrite and it's shown how she has completely gone off the deep-end after her abuse? Or does the film genuinely depict it as "not count as rape" because the victim is a rapist when she used the glass dildo? If it's the former, that would be quite interesting to see how wrongs begot wrongs. If it's the latter then I won't waste my time with it.

It totally depends on how the actual matter of facts are depicted.

The latter depiction is a problem as that defines rape (as a serious crime) not by the lack of consent, but the morality of the victim. It's all too close to saying it's "right" for an evil female deserves to be raped.

Either that, or it's a typical anti-male bias where rape is considered an unforgivable crime against women, yet a proportional punishment for men. You know, the prison guard ignoring a inmate's cry for help from a rapist as he considers it "poetic justice".

I mean this response just doesn't work, it's like if a Yakuza kills a cop's son, then the cop goes and kills the Yakuza's son,
 

zelda2fanboy

New member
Oct 6, 2009
2,172
0
0
glchicks said:
If you ever get raped in the asshole, I would be very interested to know your feelings after the fact. I would venture to guess that they would be shame, humiliation, and an infinite well of anger. Perhaps you could be content with writing him a scathing note, and then deal with the mind rape that is the court system for the next however many fucking months trying to prove that you are not lying. If someone hits you, you hit them back.
Repeatedly in the asshole? Ever hear the expression "I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy?" I feel that applies here. And why would you even want to touch a "sweaty gross" guy's asshole? She wouldn't have to wait months. She had all the evidence she needed to have him locked up without bail. She made sure he wouldn't be able to do it again. She had him under her control. Hell, she could have killed him and dumped the body if she really wanted to make sure he would never rape again. The asshole rape was only there to inflict pain, and therefore, makes her a rapist. Most things in life are "grey areas." Rape is not.

So in your mind, it's okay to hit women, as long as they hit you first, right? And in your mind, if a woman raped you, it would be A-okay for you to rape her back, right? You said "If you dont get that then god protect the women you come into contact with." Let's agree to disagree and I'll say ditto on that sentiment to you as well. Good luck staying out of jail with that way of thinking.
 

Aurora Firestorm

New member
May 1, 2008
692
0
0
Books can be screwed up. Characters can be screwed up. They are still often valid books and characters. The world isn't perfect, nor are protagonists.
 

DudeistBelieve

TellEmSteveDave.com
Sep 9, 2010
4,768
1
0
GunsmithKitten said:
Didn't have a problem with the scene at all, but then again, I'm a firm believer in eye for an eye.
Wait.... How is it eye for an eye?

Yeah she raped him back, but she also tattooed a giant fucking warning sign on his body and is actively tracking his movements to make sure he doesn't remove it.

That is not eye for an eye.
 

Proverbial Jon

Not evil, just mildly malevolent
Nov 10, 2009
2,092
0
0
zelda2fanboy said:
I'm going to go ahead and assume you haven't read the books at all. The Millennium Trilogy is a somewhat uneven trilogy of books. The first story is not actually centred on the character of Lisbeth Salander, despite the title, and that only serves to make her parts seem even more obscure. The second and third books in the trilogy more or less deal explicitly with her character and they help to give you a greater understanding of the character.

Basically (and without huge spoilers) Lisbeth has been abused by men her whole life, physically, mentally, sexually... something which has arguably helped to shape her into the sort of introverted and highly antisocial person we see in the books/movies. In learning to cope, she has made herself a very physically capable and independant person, albeit still lacking the ability to actually interact with people successfully. She is essentially a high functioning autistic, highly intelligent and quick to grasp complicated concepts but unable to control or understand her own emotions and feelings. Her awkward relationship with Blomkvist was downplayed terribly in the USA version but the original Swedish film nails her character perfectly.

As far as the scene you mentioned goes... Because she has a violent past and is considered to have serious mental defects she is under the protection/guidance of guardian; Bjurman is her newly assigned guardian. The man is in a position of power; he controls her finances and pretty much dictates what she does under the threat of making her whole life hell. Now consider that Lisbeth has created a very carefully constructed life, everything in its rightful place, everything ballanced in such a way that she can cope with it. Bjurman comes along and threatens to upset that. He then violates her. She is presented to us as a helpless child which only serves to make Bjurman's actions even more dastardly. There is no doubt in the reader/viewer's mind that Bjurman is the lowest most despicable pile of excrement on the planet.

From then on it is simply revenge, there's no denying that. But I think it's important to look at the act that inspired such hatred and understand why, more than justifying the actions that came after.

The book's original Swedish title was "Men who hate women" and as I understand it, Stieg Larsson was quite the activist within his own country. There's no doubt in my mind that some of his own personal bias shines through in his writings, which are far from perfect in themselves. But I think it's very important to understand the character before you can apply any form of judgement on their actions. Give the books a try, they may be hard going but there is no better way to understand the character of Lisbeth Salander. You might even find yourself empathising with her before the end.
 

Boris Goodenough

New member
Jul 15, 2009
1,427
0
0
In Search of Username said:
I understand those feelings, just don't think we'd be very good people or have a very stable society if we acted on them. Rise above it, y'know?
We'd have fewer rapists running around, I don't see that as a bad thing.
 

Treblaine

New member
Jul 25, 2008
8,682
0
0
kickassfrog said:
In Watchmen, Rorschach is locked in prison with a bunch of unspecified criminals, and he murders several of them, but it's still abundantly clear we're supposed to be cheering him on.
And frankly, I was. If you make a character seem like enough of an arsehole, it's easy to justify the 'good' guys taking out retribution on them in an extremely over the top manner.
Hmm, "murder" or "kill"?

Are all soldiers murderers because they are trained to kill? Rorschach made clear he was fighting a war and the criminals declared war on him in turn. Rorschach was definitely killing outside the law hence technically it was murder, but they were dangerous thugs who were pertinent threat if not an immediate threat.

It's not so selfish, sadistic and cruel to kill someone who intends to kill you as killing is a well established way of stopping them from killing you. But to rape someone, that's sadistic, taking pleasure directly from their suffering. It is a hugely evil and ultimately ignoble and unjustified act.

And Rorschach is about as bad as anti-heroes get.
 

Paradoxrifts

New member
Jan 17, 2010
917
0
0
zelda2fanboy said:
It feels pretty despicable and disgusting to paint that act of violence as justifiable, which I'm pretty sure this movie does. Maybe I'm weird and looking at it the wrong way, but it feels fucked up.
You should never read anything by a male feminist author as frequently they feature nothing more than a hatred men in general, daddy issues, self-loathing and an unrealistic idealised portrayal of women. Although that warning could be applied more generally towards any author who is too inept to disguise the political rhetoric which informs the creation of their writing.
 

chadachada123

New member
Jan 17, 2011
2,309
0
0
Lieju said:
One critic who had seen the movies said she was a lesbian who had 'rejected men', and that her relationship with the main character 'fixed' her, but I have no idea if he was being homophobic or if the movie came out like that, possibly since they left out stuff for time, and if they didn't portray her character arc as someone who learns to trust another human being (as opposed to someone who just hates men), it might come out like that.
Having seen the American version, no, it in no way implies that she 'rejected men' and that James Bond 'fixed' her. It definitely did not come off that way at all.

Spoilerized, just in case:
She shows obvious signs of hating abuse against women (abuse against men isn't mentioned much, since the plot of the story is specifically about murdered women, seemingly murdered by a guy that hates women), and she doesn't trust much of anyone for much of the movie, but the two threads aren't combined.
 

chadachada123

New member
Jan 17, 2011
2,309
0
0
lacktheknack said:
chadachada123 said:
I think it's pretty obvious that this guy didn't even see the movie. He clearly has no idea that a tazer was involved. Just point out that there WAS a tazer and that his argument doesn't hold water for this movie for that reason, and then let it go. Eesh. Alternately, just call him sexist and leave it at that. Don't combine the two: It makes you look bad, like responding to a kid asking about Santa with a slap to the face, comparatively-speaking.
The taser is mentioned in the OP. I typically assume that people read them.
I imagine the brony-dude didn't read the spoilerized bit (where the tazer is mentioned), but fair enough.
 

Jonluw

New member
May 23, 2010
7,243
0
0
Are you new to the concepts of antiheroes or chaotic good?

It's not uncommon in fiction for the main character to do things that aren't necessarily morally right.
As I understand it, the rape sequence is there for characterization. This franchise, after all, relies heavily on its characters.

Also: I'm not getting the impression that Lizbeth is supposed to be some sort of moral paragon.
 

Kargathia

New member
Jul 16, 2009
1,657
0
0
JimB said:
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.
Not specifically sexual, but one thing that certainly influenced the creation of her character was that the author once saw someone get assaulted, and did nothing. It seems like that regret stayed with him strongly enough to let him write characters who will take violent revenge - even if it's not entirely clear in his books whether he personally supports her actions.

Other than that I really wouldn't consider Lisbeth Salander as a "dream girl" by any stretch of the imagination. She fits some of the check boxes, but the whole violent sociopath schtick tends to be a bit of a no-no.
 
Feb 22, 2009
715
0
0
Boris Goodenough said:
In Search of Username said:
I understand those feelings, just don't think we'd be very good people or have a very stable society if we acted on them. Rise above it, y'know?
We'd have fewer rapists running around, I don't see that as a bad thing.
No we wouldn't, we'd just have plenty of revenge rapists too. :p
 

Treblaine

New member
Jul 25, 2008
8,682
0
0
Proverbial Jon said:
I'm going to go ahead and assume you haven't read the books at all. The Millennium Trilogy is a somewhat uneven trilogy of books. The first story is not actually centred on the character of Lisbeth Salander, despite the title
Wasn't the original book "Män som hatar kvinnor" in Swedish literally "Men who hate women" which is quite to the point and titularly not directly to do with the Salander character.

The second book was "Flickan som lekte med elden" literally "The girl who played with fire" but was that title even referring to Lisbeth?

Establishing a "The Girl who..." prefix, but that naming trend didn't continue with the third book "Luftslottet som sprängdes" literally "The air castle that blew up".
 

Scarim Coral

Jumped the ship
Legacy
Oct 29, 2010
18,149
2
3
Country
UK
The way I see it, in her view it was personal vendetta, justice or revenge and she is in turn is kind of mess up-
Like for one thing, having sex with that guy who is alot older than her.
Just to be clear, I have not seen the original version nor the books either but from what I read about her from wiki (her background) she did had a mess up childhood so I think it was justify/ reasonable for her action.

Also from reading the past comments, that guy is clearly a rapist through and through since I remember that other part of the film-
She hack his pc allowing her to see what he look at in his pc. Snice part of the blackmail was never to rape another girl again in person, he thought of a loophole by looking up at the rape stuff online since she saw and came back to give him another warmning (well and also the other up to check up on).
 

Treblaine

New member
Jul 25, 2008
8,682
0
0
Jonluw said:
Are you new to the concepts of antiheroes or chaotic good?
What's the "chaotic good" in rape?

Rape (itself) won't prevent anything, it didn't stop Lisbeth wanting and seeking retribution. It doesn't serve any good purpose but sadism, serving personal feelings in the infliction of personal and deeply dehumanising pain.

Poetic revenge would be to brand him, shamed by his crimes. Chaotic good would be something like marking "Rapist" into his forehead either tattoo or carving. Like how the "jew hunter" of Inglorious Basterds gets a swastika branded into his forehead.

"not moral paragon" doesn't extend to "hypocritical perpetrator of most evil crimes". This isn't black and white, just because they aren't goody two shoes, doesn't mean they can't ever go too far.

It's like the classic "cop's family killed by mobster" storyline, only the cops responds *In Kind* by killing the mobster's innocent family.