Rapist With The Dragon Tattoo

[zelda2fanboy]

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.

This is a much more grounded explanation of what was on screen. When it's a copy of a copy of a copy, it tends to lose its original meaning I imagine. In the movie, she sort of comes off like little more than an overdeveloped love interest, rather than someone with a lot of influence on the plot. It feels like everything that happens during the first hour and fifteen minutes has no point or effect on the overall story, which in turn pissed me off a little bit more after the fact. I can see where the character could be played very cold and very emotionless and it might work, but here I felt like we were asked to care about her too much, considering her limited role in the story and her actions that "develop her character."

 

[Jonluw]

Are you new to the concepts of antiheroes or chaotic good?

What's the "chaotic good" in rape?

I interpret the "chatoic good" alignment as meaning someone who plays by their own rules, doing what they themselves see as just with little regard to other people's feelings.

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.

She did brand him as well by the way.

"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.

When I was saying she wasn't exactly a moral paragon, what I meant was that she was a fairly despicable person. I guess that didn't come across too clearly without tone of voice to assist me.

 

[axlryder]

Justice is never in the hands of the victim.

Too much raw emotion for objectivity.

Revenge is a perfectly understandable desire, that doesn't make it right. I'm not the biggest supporter of our current justice systems, I do think they often fail or are too overburdened by legislation and bureaucracy. But to put the power in the hands of the victim is counter intuitive. 'An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.'

I think it was Gandhi who said that. You know the guy who killed a bunch of people in wars during his youth, the warmongering racist who let his wife die when she could have been saved by penicillin. You know, the one society paints as a saint.

I suppose your going to tell me that Mother Teresa was some sort of paragon of virtue as well. HA

how irrelevant.

"When your mother has grown older,
When her dear, faithful eyes
No longer see life as they once did,
When her feet, grown tired,
No longer want to carry her as she walks,
Then lend her your arm in support, escort her with happy pleasure?
the hour will come when, weeping, you must accompany her on her final walk.
And if she asks you something, then give her an answer.
And if she asks again, then speak!
And if she asks yet again, respond to her, not impatiently, but with gentle calm.
And if she cannot understand you properly, explain all to her happily.
The hour will come, the bitter hour, when her mouth asks for nothing more."

I find that to be a fairly touching quote. Oh wait, Hitler said it, guess it's bullshit.

Justice, as you seem to see it, is an antiquated concept. Revenge begets hatred and suffering, not emotional healing. You talk of "balance" as if there are some kind of magical scales of justice in the universe that demands equitable retaliation to all wrongdoings. A proportionate response to a crime does not necessarily mean exacting that same crime upon someone.

No, that does not mean I feel our current judicial system is perfect or even fully competent. That said, pure revenge is not going to make things better.

 

[Vrach]

So, how is she any less of a rapist than the guy who raped her? Theoretically, the guy could easily call the cops and they'd both go to jail for a really long time. Isn't rape categorically wrong and a crime no matter who commits it to who? Why does this beloved (from what I've seen online) character get let off the hook? One could argue that he "deserved" it or was "asking for it," but by definition, no one deserves or asks for rape. It's not possible. 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.

Two people, person A, person B. Person A tries to kill person B, person B kills person A in self defense. Person B is the one that actually killed someone, yet we don't hold much of a grudge against him and actually call person A the killer, despite the fact person A might not have killed anyone. Not that this was self defense as far as the movie is concerned, but just making a point of "not everything is black and white".

Is it legal? No. Is it morally justified? Arguably so. Is it fucked up? Yes. And it's supposed to be - newsflash, movies don't have to be sunshine, lollipops and rainbows around the protagonist, ending or even the overall message.

I for one cringed and smiled maniacally at the same time during the whole revenge rape scene. Maybe I'm fucked up, but it felt satisfying as hell to see him get what he most definitely had coming to him.

edit: As for the movie as a whole... I found it excellent. One of the better ones I've seen lately and enjoyable, despite some gory/fucked up scenes. Oh and if a thriller doesn't let you know completely what's going on until the end of the movie (assuming what you get in the end is the final piece of the puzzle that completes it, rather than a giant pile of exposition thrown at you), it's a good thriller.

 

[Nikolaz72]

Like I said, later on it becomes a part of the story.

Sigh. Remind me never to watch movies based off of popular book series again. The Harry Potter movies worked as standalone stories, so why do I have to just expect that this will all make sense later on? The Hunger Games was the same way.

You watched the Sweedish movie right? Not the American one? Because watching a movie based on a movie based on a book is obviously gonna give you a bad time.

I mean, I watched the Sweedish (Men who hate women) series. And I must say its an artpiece, many of our literature teacher uses it to teach with. So I really just miss 'everything' you are saying.

*Looks it up* Wow.. How did a movie based on a movie based on a book get such high ratings.

 

[For.I.Am.Mad]

Remember some dude(i.e. male, man, guy) in Sweden wrote the story. I think most women would have preferred her to not get raped in the first place. Probably why nobody saw the movie.

So if some swedish dude wrote the book and a bunch of emperical alpha male's produced the movie who should we really be mad at?

 

[Treblaine]

Are you new to the concepts of antiheroes or chaotic good?

What's the "chaotic good" in rape?

I interpret the "chatoic good" alignment as meaning someone who plays by their own rules, doing what they themselves see as just with little regard to other people's feelings.

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.

She did brand him as well by the way.

"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.

When I was saying she wasn't exactly a moral paragon, what I meant was that she was a fairly despicable person. I guess that didn't come across too clearly without tone of voice to assist me.

Not caring about hurting people but actually enjoying it, that really defies the definition of "good" it could only be neutral if they were insane and had no concept of empathy, like how you can't feel too sorry for accidentally stepping on an ant.

I think it should have been just a branding and some other punishment, like defeating him in a fair fight showing that he can't overpower her any more.

Yeah, I think it's very well established with both of us an everyone here that anal rape is despicable - in and of itself - and I never got any impression you thought it wasn't despicable. The question is does the book/film acknowledge that Lisbeth is a tragically despicable character for doing this and marks her descent into becoming the monster she despises... or if it revels and supports what Lisbeth did as somehow heroic.

I haven't read the book nor seen either of the films, I was wondering in-what-way the media *tried* to depict what happened.

Remember, it all depends on how it was shot or specifically described in the novel. The character Shylock in The Merchant of Venice was originally depicted in a very unsympathetic anti-Semitic way, yet latter productions using the exact same script and words turned the character into a sympathetic and tragic view of Jews in medieval Europe.

Either way, rape is horrific of course, but is Lisbeth lionised or demonised for raping this rapist? Is it her as Henry V, or as Macbeth.

 

[TheGreatAndPowerfulZOG]

First, to your point about the incoherence of the investigation - I agree. The original explained everything much better, for what it's worth.

Now, about the scene in question... I don't think the point was to show Lisbeth Solander in a particularly good light. She's generally violent, antisocial, and has a fight or flight response to every situation. I think the point was more to a) show that she is a victim of society, and b) give an early example of a cycle of sexual assault, a theme that is explored more later in the film.

 

[Jonluw]

Are you new to the concepts of antiheroes or chaotic good?

What's the "chaotic good" in rape?

I interpret the "chatoic good" alignment as meaning someone who plays by their own rules, doing what they themselves see as just with little regard to other people's feelings.

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.

She did brand him as well by the way.

"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.

When I was saying she wasn't exactly a moral paragon, what I meant was that she was a fairly despicable person. I guess that didn't come across too clearly without tone of voice to assist me.

Not caring about hurting people but actually enjoying it, that really defies the definition of "good" it could only be neutral if they were insane and had no concept of empathy, like how you can't feel too sorry for accidentally stepping on an ant.

I think it should have been just a branding and some other punishment, like defeating him in a fair fight showing that he can't overpower her any more.

I think that's more of an '80s movie solution than a realistic depiction of how real people deal with unspeakable emotional and physical trauma.

Yeah, I think it's very well established with both of us an everyone here that anal rape is despicable - in and of itself - and I never got any impression you thought it wasn't despicable. The question is does the book/film acknowledge that Lisbeth is a tragically despicable character for doing this and marks her descent into becoming the monster she despises... or if it revels and supports what Lisbeth did as somehow heroic.

I haven't read the book nor seen either of the films, I was wondering in-what-way the media *tried* to depict what happened.

Remember, it all depends on how it was shot or specifically described in the novel. The character Shylock in The Merchant of Venice was originally depicted in a very unsympathetic anti-Semitic way, yet latter productions using the exact same script and words turned the character into a sympathetic and tragic view of Jews in medieval Europe.

Either way, rape is horrific of course, but is Lisbeth lionised or demonised for raping this rapist? Is it her as Henry V, or as Macbeth.

Haven't read the books or seen the movies myself; but what I'm getting the impression of is that she is neither demonized nor lionised. Rather, she is being characterized as a mentally and emotionally unstable person who's dealing with a lot of childhood trauma and an aspergers condition. She happens to be the main character, but that doesn't mean she's a hero.

 

[n00beffect]

See, I'm not gonna answer your questions relating to rape, since I'm no expert. But, as to your question regarding the necessity of it - one word: characterization. See, lately I've been catching a lot of reviewers using the old 'why is that there?!' argument. Or rather, the 'it serves no purpose to the plot!' argument, which usually extends to either characterization and/or atmosphere building. Something a lot of these critics (I won't name anyone) used to praise in all the retro reviews they did on various movies from about 3 to 4 decades ago. Yes, characterization, and let me explain why. In the other version, or the follow-up movies to be precise, we see the significance of that scene: It characterizes Lisbeth as a vengeful psychotic b*tch. And, true, it serves a purpose in the other movies, more so than in this one, so does that justify it? Yes, if they plan on sequels; and yes again, even if they don't.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm all about telling a clear, concise story and saving us the bullshit, but sometimes we have to appreciate that there's more to a story than just the main plot. That's somewhat of an indictment of our current generation - all we care about is the story, not the characters, or the circumstances - just the plot. I mean, if you've read anything by Tolstoy or Dostoevsky, or really, any other classic writer then you'd know the significance of a good atmosphere, or of a well-rounded character. (That is to say if you've read AND APPRECIATED Tolstoy or Dostoevsky). Now, am I comparing TGWTDT to Dostoevsky? - F*CK NO. All I'm saying is that you should be maybe a bit more patient with something, rather than just going: 'that scene was meaningless - CUT!'. Very few movies these days take their time to develop a character, or to make an argument about a social issue (rape, in this instance). So, maybe don't be so hard on the movie?

As for the explicitness of the scene and all that - I'm not going to ascribe it to the fact that maybe they wanted to recreate the actual horror of rape and hopelessness. I'm way too cynical for that. It was probably to up the stakes and make an attempt to be controversial, because as O. Wilde says - 'There's only one thing worse than being talked about, and that's NOT being talked about' (D. Gray).

 

[Treblaine]

I think that's more of an '80s movie solution than a realistic depiction of how real people deal with unspeakable emotional and physical trauma.

-----

Haven't read the books or seen the movies myself; but what I'm getting the impression of is that she is neither demonized nor lionised. Rather, she is being characterized as a mentally and emotionally unstable person who's dealing with a lot of childhood trauma and an aspergers condition. She happens to be the main character, but that doesn't mean she's a hero.

I'd rather have good 80's movies than sick heartless 2010's movies.

I have aspergers, I don't like media suggesting it is such an impediment and especially not as a disability. I don't think it's appropriate for it to be brought up along with child abuse and contributing to instability. People are different, I don't think it's appropriate to tie that to specific mental conditions, especially one as mild as aspergers relating to likelihood to rape.

 

[axlryder]

Justice is never in the hands of the victim.

Too much raw emotion for objectivity.

Revenge is a perfectly understandable desire, that doesn't make it right. I'm not the biggest supporter of our current justice systems, I do think they often fail or are too overburdened by legislation and bureaucracy. But to put the power in the hands of the victim is counter intuitive. 'An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.'

I think it was Gandhi who said that. You know the guy who killed a bunch of people in wars during his youth, the warmongering racist who let his wife die when she could have been saved by penicillin. You know, the one society paints as a saint.

I suppose your going to tell me that Mother Teresa was some sort of paragon of virtue as well. HA

how irrelevant.

"When your mother has grown older,
When her dear, faithful eyes
No longer see life as they once did,
When her feet, grown tired,
No longer want to carry her as she walks,
Then lend her your arm in support, escort her with happy pleasure?
the hour will come when, weeping, you must accompany her on her final walk.
And if she asks you something, then give her an answer.
And if she asks again, then speak!
And if she asks yet again, respond to her, not impatiently, but with gentle calm.
And if she cannot understand you properly, explain all to her happily.
The hour will come, the bitter hour, when her mouth asks for nothing more."

I find that to be a fairly touching quote. Oh wait, Hitler said it, guess it's bullshit.

Justice, as you seem to see it, is an antiquated concept. Revenge begets hatred and suffering, not emotional healing. You talk of "balance" as if there are some kind of magical scales of justice in the universe that demands equitable retaliation to all wrongdoings. A proportionate response to a crime does not necessarily mean exacting that same crime upon someone.

No, that does not mean I feel our current judicial system is perfect or even fully competent. That said, pure revenge is not going to make things better.

So what, you would force forgiveness upon the victims? Forgiveness is something that comes from within, and all the pretty words in the world cant change that. Until you've been wronged on the level of rape, I would ask that you refrain from speaking quite so pompously on the virtues of forgiveness.

Also if you read my other posts you will note that I have said that true equilibrium is a facade, an idea that exists in the infinitesimal space in time when one side pushes back the other over that line

a.) I have been sexually abused as a child, so please do not speak so presumptuously about things you know nothing of.

b.) I never said one must have forgiveness forced upon them. You're building a strawman. You are correct that it is something that comes from within. That wasn't the point. The point was-

c.) revenge DOESN'T help. Whether or not the person can manage to forgive is an issue they and those who are willing to help them must deal with. Even in forgiveness the trauma may not fully heal. Exacting pure revenge will not bring them closure or peace, however. It only creates more problems.

 

[kaizen2468]

In my book, anyone who commits such a horrible wrong to another person, especially someone in their care and whom they have power over does not deserve to enjoy the laws and freedoms law abiding people do. Murder and Rape should have a clause or something that waves all your rights in the county of origin. It's that heinous and I have no sympathy.

 

[Treblaine]

See, I'm not gonna answer your questions relating to rape, since I'm no expert. But, as to your question regarding the necessity of it - one word: characterization. See, lately I've been catching a lot of reviewers using the old 'why is that there?!' argument. Or rather, the 'it serves no purpose to the plot!' argument, which usually extends to either characterization and/or atmosphere building. Something a lot of these critics (I won't name anyone) used to praise in all the retro reviews they did on various movies from about 3 to 4 decades ago. Yes, characterization, and let me explain why. In the other version, or the follow-up movies to be precise, we see the significance of that scene: It characterizes Lisbeth as a vengeful psychotic b*tch. And, true, it serves a purpose in the other movies, more so than in this one, so does that justify it? Yes, if they plan on sequels; and yes again, even if they don't.

The problem is how this characterisation may harm the motivation of the character.

How can she utterly oppose rapists later with the logic that they've committed at totally despicable, unforgivable and irredeemable act when she herself has raped someone as well? It would be the height of hypocrisy, it's like Jack Bauer dedicating all his effort to stop a foreign agent who had tortured one of his CTU colleagues for information... after he'd just tortured a load of foreign agents himself?

It hollows the motivations, you then have to either find something even WORSE than them to struggle against or operate under the most disingenuous hypocrisy.

24 could only *barely* got away with this with ridiculously unsympathetic villains operating under such massive threats, Season 7 had Jack Bauer's "heroic defiance" moment when he rants against senators in a congressional investigation into him torturing prisoners, justifying it precisely this way that he thought that torture was a lesser evil to allowing massive terrorist attacks to kill thousands.

 

[rod_hynes]

She was considered mentally unstable, so she was certain that no one was going to take her seriously, ALSO she had given up on the system that was supposed to help her. IN HER MIND- this was the only way to take care of the problem. She does get a little better, but it takes time.

 

[Jonluw]

I think that's more of an '80s movie solution than a realistic depiction of how real people deal with unspeakable emotional and physical trauma.

-----

Haven't read the books or seen the movies myself; but what I'm getting the impression of is that she is neither demonized nor lionised. Rather, she is being characterized as a mentally and emotionally unstable person who's dealing with a lot of childhood trauma and an aspergers condition. She happens to be the main character, but that doesn't mean she's a hero.

I'd rather have good 80's movies than sick heartless 2010's movies.

I have aspergers, I don't like media suggesting it is such an impediment and especially not as a disability. I don't think it's appropriate for it to be brought up along with child abuse and contributing to instability. People are different, I don't think it's appropriate to tie that to specific mental conditions, especially one as mild as aspergers relating to likelihood to rape.

I'm not implying aspergers has anything to do with the likelihood of raping people, but from what I understand about the condition I figure it's relevant to how a person would deal with emotions.

 

[Proverbial Jon]

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".

Yes, I am aware of the original Swedish title, something I later referenced near the end of my post. I was not aware, however, of the Swedish titles for the other two books so I thank you for lending me those translations.

Spoiler: Spoiler for books 2 and 3

I think the "Girl who played with fire" title is still an apt reference to Lisbeth Salander, in fact it's a very literal reference given her actions as a girl whereupon she set her own father on fire. I think this could also reference the way she makes it her mission to go after Zalachenko, a very dangerous and reckless action which could be described as akin to playing with fire.

The air castle that blew up? My memory of the last book is a little sketchy but this could be a reference to the way Zalachenko and his conspirators were brought down by Blomkvist and Salander, but I can't draw any more parallels than that rather tenuous link. The girl who kicked the hornet's nest is far more apt, since her actions in the previous book really do stir up a lot of trouble, with multiple parties looking to silence her, although it's clear that, ultimately, Lisbeth has the sting in her tail.

 

[miketehmage]

I agree with you on every point, OP.

I didn't like the film it felt long and pointless, and the first rape scene made me feel uncomfortable.

The revenge scene however did not. And I disagree that he did not deserve it. He did. He received justice in it's purest form: A taste of his own medicine so to speak.

 

[Muspelheim]

Yes, I am aware of the original Swedish title, something I later referenced near the end of my post. I was not aware, however, of the Swedish titles for the other two books so I thank you for lending me those translations.

Spoiler: Spoiler for books 2 and 3

I think the "Girl who played with fire" title is still an apt reference to Lisbeth Salander, in fact it's a very literal reference given her actions as a girl whereupon she set her own father on fire. I think this could also reference the way she makes it her mission to go after Zalachenko, a very dangerous and reckless action which could be described as akin to playing with fire.

The air castle that blew up? My memory of the last book is a little sketchy but this could be a reference to the way Zalachenko and his conspirators were brought down by Blomkvist and Salander, but I can't draw any more parallels than that rather tenuous link.

Basically, a Luftslott (an aircastle) is an idea or a promise that looks very nice, but doesn't really exist as anything other than an idea. Usually in the form of a well-presented lie. So the title is probably ment to relate to that, a lie that blows up.

But the titles do sound a bit weird at times. I've always thought it's as if Astrid Lindgren got drunk and decided to write alot darker stories or something.

 

[Proverbial Jon]

This is a much more grounded explanation of what was on screen. When it's a copy of a copy of a copy, it tends to lose its original meaning I imagine. In the movie, she sort of comes off like little more than an overdeveloped love interest, rather than someone with a lot of influence on the plot. It feels like everything that happens during the first hour and fifteen minutes has no point or effect on the overall story, which in turn pissed me off a little bit more after the fact. I can see where the character could be played very cold and very emotionless and it might work, but here I felt like we were asked to care about her too much, considering her limited role in the story and her actions that "develop her character."

The books may have garnered critical acclaim but in fairness they are not particularly well written. The first book suffers from some awful pacing issues and the trilogy as a whole is badly structured. As you say, a copy of a copy of a copy... things tend to get diluted and details don't translate well. Having read the books and seen the Swedish films, I can say that the USA version of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo displayed the worst portrayal of Lisbeth Salander. It was actually a very good movie overall, a very enjoyable experience that explained the Harriet Wanger story in a much more succinct fashion than the book or original film BUT some scenes just didn't get Lisbeth. I mean that in the least hipster/pretentious way possible.

You're absolutely right of course, the film portrayed her as a slightly off kilter love interest; a popular staple of Hollywood blockbusters. But her relationship with Blomkvist in the book was very strained. She had feelings for him but she didn't know how to manage them and she became angry at him for making her feel like that. She had sex with him simply because that's what she does but she never became intimate, it was hard and fast and then it was over. I felt the USA film made her appear to have fallen in love but that is not Lisbeth, at least not in any conventional way. The average viewer should not have looked on her actions and seen love, for that is the film's biggest failing as far as her character was concerned.