Rapist With The Dragon Tattoo

[Schadrach]

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/

She sodomizes each of the men with a nearby object, carves words into their chests ("RUINER" and "TRAITOR", respectively), is caught on the way to her third victim. In the end, the SVU team finds her daughter for her, puts all three men away for a lengthy sentence for the 14 year old rape case (one of whom, like the author of Men Who Hate Women, didn't participate but didn't turn them in), and apologizes that they could only get her own sentence for the whole sneaking into their apartments, drugging them, sodomizing them with nearby objects, and carving words into their chests thing down to a single count of trespassing. Apparently the moral is that vigilantism through sexual assault is OK?

just because there is a bad thing in a movie/book doesnt mean the agenda is to suport..quite the oposite in this case

But if it's used in a comic as an example of the horrible treatment a minor character has been subjected to in order to make a joke about the truly fucked up nature of morality in MMORPGs (I'm sorry, I only need to save some of you, don't make this whole "leaving you behind to be tortured because they're only paying me for 5 rescues" thing weird now), then it *is* supporting it, right? It certainly kicked up a hell of a storm, at least.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

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.

 

[WhiteTigerShiro]

So you didn't like the movie because you have too short of an attention span that you can't pay attention during the scene where the guy explains that he wants Daniel Craig to investigate his daughter's disappearance? This would certainly explain why you tuned out and seem to only recall something that happens in the first thirty minutes or so of the movie. I could forgive if you were going to rant about the beginning being confusing, because I never quite got what the whole scandal was about with Daniel Craig's character or why he needed to go into hiding for a while; the movie almost seems like it assumes you've read the book and already know his back story with how little it explains of it. But to be confused about something that there's an entire scene devoted to explaining? How am I supposed to believe that you weren't getting bored during the movie when you spaced an entire scene?

Um, it wasn't his daughter, it was his niece. Lol at the accusations of me not paying attention. Namely, my main complaint with the mystery is that there is a scene where he introduces every family member (off screen), who talks to who and why, how they're related, and what they do or don't do for the company. Even he's like "sorry it's so confusing."

Spoiler

However, none of that matters because "surprise surprise" the bad guy is the most famous actor, Stellan Skarsgaard. Also, surprise surprise, the one character in the movie who would be about that age and was introduced into the story for fairly confusing reasons (I may have spaced on that one and I wanted to rewind), ends up being the niece alive and well. Whoopdefreakingdoo.

And what was with the nazi shit? What did that have to do with anything?

*Shrug* Niece, daughter, whatever. Like I'm gonna remember such a tiny detail from a movie I saw months ago and then soon forgot much about. You can have that tiny detail, doesn't change the fact that you had no idea what was going on through-out the movie despite having an entire scene dedicated to explaining it quite clearly.

As for the other gripes, I'm not exactly defending the movie (or book) as I don't really care enough about either to get caught-up in it, was just pointing out how the main purpose of the movie was quite clearly explained in a pretty straight-forward scene, yet you still had no idea what the movie was about. Meanwhile you're all hung-up on a fairly trivial part of the story that starts and ends pretty early-on.

 

[zelda2fanboy]

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.

 

[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.