Rapist With The Dragon Tattoo

[J. Mazarin]

OP: Won't someone think of the rapists!?!?

In all serious, I doubt the event was supposed to be conveyed as "okay". The Lizbeth character's fucked up. How do you show that? By having her do something fucked up.

 

[axlryder]

I think, pretty simply, it's not okay. In the context of the book, it makes sense. People cheering her on for it? I wouldn't be shocked if they were a bunch of misandristic hypocrites. I doubt highly that if a woman raped a man the people you mentioned would cheer him on if he returned the favor in anally raping her. I should think a rational person wouldn't find her actions to be a good thing.

 

[OmniscientOstrich]

...You know what? I'm going to be that guy, he thoroughly deserved it and I had a good schadenfreude imbued chuckle during this scene (I saw the Swedish version btw, don't know if it was portrayed differently in the US). That's not to say that Lisbeth isn't a fucked up individual or that she should be exonerated for her crime, just that the scumbag in question in this particular scenario/context is someone I have no sympathy for and felt they got their comeuppance.

 

[burningdragoon]

Maybe I'm weird and looking at it the wrong way, but it feels fucked up.

Probably cuz it is fucked up. You shouldn't feel good about a rapist being revenge raped, but you also definitely shouldn't feel sympathetic for the guy.

 

[JimB]

He raped her in the ass, literally handcuffed and raped her in the ass. I dont get the disconnect here, she was 100% justified in taking her revenge. Are you the kind of person who does wrong and expects the victim to just take it and shut up? I just dont understand your point of view at all.

At a guess, I'm going to say his point of view is, "So my mom lied to me, and two wrongs do make a right? It's okay to rape someone as long as he raped you first? So if someone got drunk and killed my wife in a car wreck, it would be okay for me to go run over his wife because he did it first?"

 

[Doneeee]

Rather than looking into the story look into the author. He was apparently a huge feminist and had more than a few issues. I'm a little lazy so if you want to know more about him just google it.

 

[Woodsey]

Yeah, she technically raped him too. The point is to illustrate:

a) who she is and how she is treated (which becomes relevant when her and Daniel Craig get chummy)

b) She's somewhat psychotic

c) her motivations for helping Blomkvist's investigation

You're meant to feel sympathy for her, but at the same time you're not supposed to feel it immediately. You're not supposed to say "good for her", obviously, but it helps surmise her existence.

I can see why you might think the amount of time devoted to it is odd. Apparently Fincher wanted a 5-act story as opposed to a normal 3-act structure. Personally I thought it worked fine until the ending, at which point it becomes noticeably odd.

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.

It makes perfect sense within the film, for the multiple reasons above. (I haven't read the books, nor do I know anything about what happens in them.) And it's a far better standalone than the second-half of the Potter films. I've read the books and I didn't have a fucking clue what was REALLY going on in everything after Goblet of Fire for a lot of the time.

 

[4173]

IMO you're right; Lisbeth gets credit as a "good" character (as opposed to a good character) that she doesn't really deserve. I think it's a result of the relative weakness of the author's writing and/or translation problems.

He created a nuanced character in Lisbeth, but wasn't able of portraying her as anything but a heroic figure. It's not surprising the character is allowed to "get away with it" among fans, but it is hardly unique (see: unforgivable curses in the later Harry Potter books).

Gotta disagree about it not serving the plot however, or at least characterization.

 

[SirDerick]

...You know what? I'm going to be that guy, he thoroughly deserved it and I had a good schadenfreude imbued chuckle during this scene (I saw the Swedish version btw, don't know if it was portrayed differently in the US). That's not to say that Lisbeth isn't a fucked up individual or that she should be exonerated for her crime, just that the scumbag in question in this particular scenario/context is someone I have no sympathy for and felt they got their comeuppance.

I've watched both versions. In the original she sticks a dildo up his ass, leaves the room until the video she's showing him is over then comes back to tattoo him(I actually thought, "What if he starts to like it?"). In the remake, it's much more graphic, she tattoos him while the video is still going on and the audience barely has time to breathe and take the whole scene in, which adds to the shock value of the scene.
(piece of trivia: both the original and the remake were filmed at the same location)

As for whether it was justified: he wasn't just raping her, he was holding her money hostage.
The justice system is a long and arduous process and, although he would have been revealed as a rapist, she would also have been revealed as a victim, which is the last thing she is. What she did to him was justified revenge, it was quick, it was efficient, it prevents him from ever raping another girl (Hopefully, I haven't read the other books so i don't know if it pans out) and it prevents her from being considered a victim. Although I can't say that it was 100% justified or that I support it, I don't feel sorry for the guy.

 

[JimB]

Rather than looking into the story, look into the author. He was apparently a huge feminist and had more than a few issues.

I object to describing "do to men what men do to women" as feminism.

 

[SushiJaguar]

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?

The irony...it's not fucked up to sympathise with your fellow human beings, Chuckles, especially considering this is all fictional. Remember? This never happened. He's sympathising with a non-existent strawman in a power fantasy novel. He's not fucked up at all, so take a rabies shot, mate!

 

[Dys]

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?

To violently rape, even.

There's supposedly a physiological response (in blokes) where upon a (known) women is raped they get doped up on hormones and violent. Despite the feminist sentiment of the series, it is largely aimed at men (what with the whole softcore lesbian porn and dream hacker girl).

Not only is the point of that to demonstrate Lisbeth's emotionally blank state, even in the face of violent trauma, it is also planned to do it in a way where the reader hates the rapist. The scene is overly and sickeningly graphic to inspire that strong emotional response, however most people aren't especially going to cope with that unless there is a release, hence the revenge sequence.

Trust me, as over the top and, perhaps, unnecessary that scene is, it is nowhere near as ridiculous as some of the later scenes in the series.

 

[Sangreal Gothcraft]

Well he got what he deserved, that Scene left me really uncomfortable and physically sick for 15 minutes...

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

Character development. Also, got what was coming to him.

 

[zelda2fanboy]

He raped her in the ass, literally handcuffed and raped her in the ass. I dont get the disconnect here, she was 100% justified in taking her revenge. Are you the kind of person who does wrong and expects the victim to just take it and shut up? I just dont understand your point of view at all.

And she literally handcuffed and raped him in the ass. She didn't have to do that. If she wanted him sent to jail, she could have. If she wanted to blackmail him, she did. If she wanted to make sure he'd be unable to have sex again, she did. There was no reason for her to rape him, other than that it gave her some sense of personal gratification. Rape followed by a revenge rape equals approximately two rapists.

And there's the other thing. It was like the movie wanted us to know that it was "in the ass" as if vaginal rape is somehow less rapey. And this concept of "justifiable" rape is disgusting. It's never justifiable. Ever.

The whole sequence made me sick and I don't mind a movie making me sick, but I really don't understand the reason for shoving rape in my face twice over. It had no point to the story. This is fiction. You can control these things in fiction. Is there any other way they could have portrayed this character as having a past of being abused by men, rather than extended sequences of sexual assault?

 

[Olas]

I think the whole point is Lisbeth Salander is supposed to be a sort of impulsive nihilistic character who simply acts without regard to proper justice or moral values. You don't necessarily have to agree with her actions to like the movie, or even to like her. You can have a good character without the character actually being "good".

 

[Sylveria]

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?

Why is rape okay as long as it happens to a "bad guy?" I simply don't buy that premise. It fucking hurts (I'd imagine), in addition to all of the other things that would happen to a person's psyche. You can't rape in self defense. She did it for her own masochistic pleasure. Next will we have a movie where the protagonist is a prison rapist, but it's "okay" because he only assaults convicted rapists? And the movie sees it as justified and we're supposed to be on that character's side?

Then you don't sympathize with either. You still come across as defending the first rapist because he was subsequently a victim.

 

[Fluffythepoo]

I didnt read the book or watch the swedish version. The americanised movie was great, graphic character development was there to develop characters with extreme personalities.. therefor it not only worked but it worked better than a non-graphic approach. And the plot wasnt that fast paced, shouldnt have been hard to follow provided you werent giggling with the girls in the 2nd row every time naked people came on screen

If a guy manages to get raped by a female then he deserves it for being so pathetically stupid and laughably weak, end of story -_-

says a brony.. god i love the internet

 

[Tippy]

If a guy manages to get raped by a female then he deserves it for being so pathetically stupid and laughably weak, end of story -_-

says a brony.. god i love the internet

Says someone with a murloc for their avatar...god i love the internet

Oh wait, that makes no sense and isn't even relevant, just like your comment -_-

I was just saying that if a full-grown man gets "raped" by a woman, the majority will only point and laugh at him (because it's "extra humiliating"), not sympathize. And there's a good reason for that, because women raping men is astronomically rare for obvious reasons.

 

[Savryc]

As far as I'm concerned they're both guilty. I wouldn't mind if both parties were left to rot in cells, an eye for an eye doesn't solve shit so leave it in the dark ages where it belongs.

If a guy manages to get raped by a female then he deserves it for being so pathetically stupid and laughably weak, end of story -_-

says a brony.. god i love the internet

Says someone with a murloc for their avatar...god i love the internet

Oh wait, that makes no sense and isn't even relevant, just like your comment -_-

I was just saying that if a full-grown man gets "raped" by a woman, the majority will only point and laugh at him (because it's "extra humiliating"), not sympathize. And there's a good reason for that, because women raping men is astronomically rare for obvious reasons.

I know a girl that's into body building and works as a bouncer, she's built as fuck and can easily go toe to toe with any "tough guy" (I'll never forget the night she sent a squaddie out on his arse, cocky prick he was)

I'm gonna send her to your house on an unspecified date and time with a gun and a dildo. I'm assuming your ok with this since "anyone stupid or weak enough deserves it" right?