Rapist With The Dragon Tattoo

[axlryder]

Gosh. Revenge doesn't help, people. It doesn't help the person taking the revenge and it doesn't help the person getting the revenge exacted upon them. It's pretty ironic, as revenge is often an attempt to alleviate emotional suffering via retribution. Yet, in the end, it's merely another act of animosity thrown out into the world that breeds further feelings of hatred and self-loathing. It's not like someone stealing your money and you taking your money back. You can't take anything back from a rapist by raping them. You're just causing more hurt. People seem to march under the banner of "justice", but that doesn't make the act any less morally wrong or counter-productive. If there's a reason behind the action, I can understand it a bit more, but just straight revenge isn't okay. This is all my opinion of course, and I'm obviously no saint myself, but some of these responses are just disconcerting.

 

[SlaveNumber23]

If you are going by the definition of rapist as literally someone who has raped another person then technically she is a rapist too but in her eyes it is justified as she never would have raped anyone had he not raped her first. It was just her idea of justice to give the man who raped her an ironic punishment. Note that this only justifies her actions in HER eyes, to the outsider watching the film or reading the book the justification of her actions is ambiguous and open to interpretation.

 

[Lieju]

A Big Snip.

Do you know what characterisation is? This particular segment establishes a fairly defining characteristic of Lisbeth and her methods and ability to respond to things. She is also not meant to be terribly sympathetic at this point in the story.

Also how fucked up are you that you sympathise with the guy who thinks it's okay to rape an apparently simple girl under his care?

It's possible to symphatise with a person and think what they did was wrong.
I think he was a horrible person, and without a question what he did was wrong. But it doesn't mean he deserves the same.
Rape is wrong, even if the person being raped is a horrible person.

I only read the books (thought they were not particularly good) and in them the whole rape thing isn't totally unrelated, and it has it's reasons for the plot, but I think it's an easy and cheap way to shock the reader to get your point across.

Not to mention it made me feel dirty, like the book was telling me to be glad he got raped.

No, book, I'm not going to feel good for that.
I'm not going to go 'Yay, someone got raped!'

Many things about these books felt like the author was taking the easy route.

'Instead of me writing a book about how the economy is unsustainable and give reasons for my views, I'll just tell you my character has written this awesome book about it that totally makes a good case and is totally smart'

If you are going by the definition of rapist as literally someone who has raped another person then technically she is a rapist too but in her eyes it is justified as she never would have raped anyone had he not raped her first. It was just her idea of justice to give the man who raped her an ironic punishment. Note that this only justifies her actions in HER eyes, to the outsider watching the film or reading the book the justification of her actions is ambiguous and open to interpretation.

But if he thought it was totally justified because who would care about her? Would even she care, does she even have feelings?

I'm not saying I think he had any justification, but usually people doing horrible things justify them to themselves in some way.

She is a rapist.

EDIT:

Also, talking as a movie, rape scenes are very often iffy because they are often sexualised and even put in there to get nudity and sex appeal in there.

That's fucked up.
If you want sex in, put in a consentual sex scene. (But then of course you risk a higher rating)

 

[launchpadmcqwak]

So, I just watched the Girl With the Dragon Tattoo (the American version) and I didn't like it. Granted, I never got bored and it was really well photographed, but I can't shake the feeling that that was an incredible waste of time and a sense of shock that so many people like it. I had no idea what was going on until about the last thirty minutes. All of the investigation stuff was sifting through photos and names of people I had no reference point for, and basically the case hinged on two pictures that apparently had such an obvious correlation that two characters figured it out separately on their own.

But before this turns into a user review / rant and before the dozens of people shouting that the book / other movie were way better, there's one point of contention in this movie that bugged the hell out of me. There's about 15 to 20 minutes of this lengthy 2 hour 36 minute movie devoted to a detailed rape and revenge sequence. I have no idea why it's there, I don't know how it serves the plot, I don't know why it was as explicit as it was, and I don't know why people haven't called bullshit on it yet. For those who haven't seen it

Spoiler

Lisbeth Salander is a computer hacker working for various companies under the table. She gets her money from a trust fund and dresses like a person who might do drugs or have trouble with the law. She has to go to "some guy" to declare her mentally competent and he precedes to ask her to perform oral sex on him to get her money. She agrees. Later, she goes to his apartment, where he handcuffs her to a bed, and as the movie makes sure to tell us, anally rapes her on screen. For some reason, the guy tries to be all nice and friendly afterwards like he doesn't know what he just did. She plans for a little bit and goes back to his apartment. He tries to "apologize" or something and she tasers him. She then handcuffs him, anally rapes him with a glass dildo, and says that she'll blackmail him with secret footage she took of the rape. Then, she tattoos "rapist pig" on his body.

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.

I liked that scene...revenge is sweet my friend...

 

[Draxz]

Okay, first of all, you should watch the first part and it'll explain what the objective of all the photos and etc. were about. It actually does explain it, I suppose you weren't listening. (Don't quote me on that). But the rape was also something that was necessary and not just fanboy-wank material. She had a psychologist who took control of her money. She was vulnerable at the state she was in and allowed herself to be raped, so she could take control of her money again and drop the psychologist.

You might not like the long movie and feel like it was a 'waste of time' but in my opinion the new Dark Knight was a waste of time. Even the climax was dead-boring. So dead, I can't completely remember it. Actually, on that note, the climax was so awkwardly placed, I don't even class it as a climax, let alone an actual film someone should watch, other than 'I'm a fan' LIKE I AM!

But, going back to Dragon Tattoo... The whole movie was very relevant, there weren't many parts that weren't necessary, they all add up in character and story development. Okay, it was long. But I believe that even the rape scene showed another side to Lisbeth's character, that was a crucial to say that she wasn't at all mentally stable, and to show her rather aggressive/mad side.

I personally like this movie. It's different. It's original. I haven't watched the other trilogy yet and I'm not going to compare on this post but I honestly believe that this movie was good for it's original, new and different style of film compared to most bull' we have these days. I believe the shrouded mystery that persisted all the way through was also strong and kept you in question. Okay, how she escaped wasn't completely original and the cat being killed and not knowing how it got in... I will admit I can't remember why that was relevant. But in my opinion, it was a good film.

 

[Hoplon]

Many things about these books felt like the author was taking the easy route.

'Instead of me writing a book about how the economy is unsustainable and give reasons for my views, I'll just tell you my character has written this awesome book about it that totally makes a good case and is totally smart'

On the topic of the books I broadly agree that he isn't a terribly good writer and that mostly they are a vehicle to discuss other issue that would other wise not be considered for reading.

In that sense Lisbeth is an avatar for the problems women face in modern Sweden (and arguably the rest of the "western" world) where despite apparent equality there is still an expectation to do things away that is in line with "traditional" values.

Just as Blomkvist is both an author insert and an example of the way the press should work but shy away from (in the authors opinion)

Lisbeth is a terrible and damaged person, which is why the whole "author fantasy girl" is more than a little weird since not a lot of people would seemingly add "totally capable of offing me if she thinks I am a bad person in her way"

 

[jklinders]

Was it right that she got her revenge in the way that she did? *shrugs*

These books take place in a wacky version of Sweden where this woman is a ward of the state and kept that way well into adulthood by her psycho father. She might not have been nuts before she was abused by the system but the system kind of made her nuts. we have an author who was very traumatized by witnessing a rape but not able to do anything about it. So we have ourselves a lovely alternate reality version of the world where nearly all men are assholes. SOme of this is also point of view from Lizbeth's standpoint.

The short version is that Lizbeth has no trust of authority at all. Had little reason to trust it and needed to gain control of her situation with the social worker that had her in the palm of his hand and used that to rape her. She didn't trust the police or the courts to deal with him properly so she took matters into her own hands with a healthy dose of blackmail to boot.

It was not intended to be portrayed as right. But from my standpoint, with that asshole being a rapist pig who took advantage of a woman under the supposed care of the state, she didn't go far enough. Rapists have it too damn easy in both the courts and the prison system in my opinion.

 

[Blood Brain Barrier]

I'm guessing that had she killed him instead of doing what she did, not as many people would have a problem with that.

 

[Hoplon]

A Big Snip.

Do you know what characterisation is? This particular segment establishes a fairly defining characteristic of Lisbeth and her methods and ability to respond to things. She is also not meant to be terribly sympathetic at this point in the story.

Also how fucked up are you that you sympathise with the guy who thinks it's okay to rape an apparently simple girl under his care?

I think it's more of a feeling that to do this is wrong, despite what he did before. Two wrongs don't make a right. It's not as simple as mere sympathy for the guy.

It never felt to me in either the book or the films that any one was saying that. It was just to demonstrate that she's some one that has a rather extreme view of right and wrong and how she goes about doling out the retribution she deems fit.

 

[NLS]

She's a girl with a troubled past and not the cleanest of methods, but she gets the job done. The movie isn't telling you "it's okay to rape your rapist", but rather "this woman has some fucked up methods, but then again she's been literally fucked over again and again in case you wondered how it got to this".

 

[Headdrivehardscrew]

There's just more to the story in both the other (original) film(s) and books.

But, yeah, in short, how is she better than the rapist pig? Well, he raped her from a position where he considered himself to be in charge and in control, so he abused his position of power, using Lisbeth to satisfy his own unwarranted needs and lust. This is something that, sadly, happens every day, quite probably every minute.

So, since I'm already half a rape into this, let me tell you that I think Lisbeth Salander's revenge rape is not only justifiable, it's justified. It's the same proper revenge fantasy that shocked people in "Day of the Woman"/"I spit on your Grave", and it's one of the few occasions I snap into pure "eye for an eye" mode.

It's something that happens all across the globe, pretty much in every species that developed two sexes to spice up the procreation business. Thing is, we got big brains, we remember, we can snap into terrible loops of anger and despair. What Lisbeth did, as displayed in both the original and the Fincher version, can be used as therapy for the raped. Thing is, most will have switched off and snapped into eternal victim mode long before that scene.

 

[Casual Shinji]

The rape revenge scene was supposed to indicate that Lisbeth is not to be messed with. If you fuck with her, she'll fuck you right back and 10 times harder. Eric obviously didn't know what he was getting into, and must of thought Lisbeth was just a scared little pushover. And it's clear by his actions that this wasn't the first time he pulled something like this, so the dude got what he deserved and then some.

She's not too different from the character of Rorschach in Watchmen in that regard.

 

[In Search of Username]

I imagine his point of view is that if someone does something terrible, even as revenge for something equally terrible, it's still TERRIBLE. You can't just lose all sympathy for another person because they did something wrong, no matter how wrong it was. That sympathy is exactly what made you think it was wrong in the first place, which is why this stupid eye for an eye logic doesn't work.

Sure you can lose all sympathy for another person if said person does something horrible first.

Say for example you see a girl getting raped, a person steps in and beats the rapist to a pulp, will you step in and defend the rapist? Will you make the rapist to a victim?

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.

 

[Therarchos]

I find it funny how almost all the user's of this site seem to assume that the actions of main characters are supposed to be role models. Almost as if every main character is supposed to be Superman.


A character in a fictional Movie/novel does not have to take the high ground. Batman is a vigilante sociopath and no matter how much I like the character I can not condone what he does.
The Punisher would be one of the worst role models conceivable. Dexter is a straight out insane character. Tony Stark is a self destructive drunk.

Lisbeth Salander is at best a psychologically broken girl that takes back the power that was taken from her.
Is it the right thing to do? Could she have done it in a more politically correct way... Definitely YES, but she didn't. That is her character.

 

[Lieju]

Many things about these books felt like the author was taking the easy route.

'Instead of me writing a book about how the economy is unsustainable and give reasons for my views, I'll just tell you my character has written this awesome book about it that totally makes a good case and is totally smart'

On the topic of the books I broadly agree that he isn't a terribly good writer and that mostly they are a vehicle to discuss other issue that would other wise not be considered for reading.

In that sense Lisbeth is an avatar for the problems women face in modern Sweden (and arguably the rest of the "western" world) where despite apparent equality there is still an expectation to do things away that is in line with "traditional" values.

Just as Blomkvist is both an author insert and an example of the way the press should work but shy away from (in the authors opinion)

Lisbeth is a terrible and damaged person, which is why the whole "author fantasy girl" is more than a little weird since not a lot of people would seemingly add "totally capable of offing me if she thinks I am a bad person in her way"

It's not just because she is a woman, but because she isn't 'normal'.
The man raping her is not just taking advantage of a woman, he is taking advantage of someone put under his care because it's considered she can't take care of herself.
It's been a while since I read the book, but I think he targeted her because he thought she had no-one to go to, no-one cared about what happened to her, and that she was mentally challenged.

Her character is more about the problems people who aren't capable of 'normal' social interaction face. You could change her character to a man and at least what happened with that guy could stay the same.
I don't remember if the books had a lot of to say about patriarchal society...

(I remember there was stuff about how people who are into BDSM face prejudice)

 

[Hoplon]

Many things about these books felt like the author was taking the easy route.

'Instead of me writing a book about how the economy is unsustainable and give reasons for my views, I'll just tell you my character has written this awesome book about it that totally makes a good case and is totally smart'

On the topic of the books I broadly agree that he isn't a terribly good writer and that mostly they are a vehicle to discuss other issue that would other wise not be considered for reading.

In that sense Lisbeth is an avatar for the problems women face in modern Sweden (and arguably the rest of the "western" world) where despite apparent equality there is still an expectation to do things away that is in line with "traditional" values.

Just as Blomkvist is both an author insert and an example of the way the press should work but shy away from (in the authors opinion)

Lisbeth is a terrible and damaged person, which is why the whole "author fantasy girl" is more than a little weird since not a lot of people would seemingly add "totally capable of offing me if she thinks I am a bad person in her way"

It's not just because she is a woman, but because she isn't 'normal'.
The man raping her is not just taking advantage of a woman, he is taking advantage of someone put under his care because it's considered she can't take care of herself.
It's been a while since I read the book, but I think he targeted her because he thought she had no-one to go to, no-one cared about what happened to her, and that she was mentally challenged.

Her character is more about the problems people who aren't capable of 'normal' social interaction face. You could change her character to a man and at least what happened with that guy could stay the same.
I don't remember if the books had a lot of to say about patriarchal society...

(I remember there was stuff about how people who are into BDSM face prejudice)

It's pretty dense with references to groups he thinks get a hard time unfairly.

 

[Boris Goodenough]

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.

 

[chinangel]

as someone who WAS molested before I gotta say this...
it sounds like the writer used a 'its okay if it happens to guys' argument to justify this.

Turn it around, if the guy was raping the girl in revenge for something? People would be outraged, angry, shocked. Because it's not right.

And it's not.

It doesn't matter if it happens to a guy or a girl, no one deserves to be raped. Period.

 

[JWRosser]

I haven't seen the American version or read the books, but I have seen the Swedish film, in which the guy rapes her multiple times, and so on, and thus, I think, his fate was justified - she comes back and (if I remember correctly) still anally dildos him and then tattoos "I'm a rapist", or something like that, on his chest. Whilst, I guess, technically, she DID rape him, it was, in a twisted sense, justified, I think; he was a pig.