What if the murderer was killing your daughter in revenge of your daughter having killed the murder's son?chadachada123 said:
Rapist With The Dragon Tattoo
- Thread starter zelda2fanboy
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Proper "justice" is only what the society as a majority deems is appropriate for the crime. Some countries they just cut off the thief's hand and be done with it. Barbaric? maybe, But I tell ya it sure cuts down on prison costs.
Some would say giving criminals free room, board, and 24-hour babysitting is the real crime.
Some would say giving criminals free room, board, and 24-hour babysitting is the real crime.
They were acting as if he knew that a tazer was involved. He was sexist, absolutely, but they were assuming that he knew about the tazer instead of just telling him about it.Mortai Gravesend said:
My analogy sucked, but the point still stands that they were attaching to the tazor bit as if he knew about it instead of attacking his sexism or his ignorance of the tazor.
Then it wouldn't be morally justified (probably).Fluffythepoo said:
It's not all black-and-white, morality.
You know, this pretty much sums up why I really don't like Dexter. Who cares how charismatic he is? He's a freakin' serial killer!zelda2fanboy said:
He's wrong.JimB said:
In that same review he noted the american version of the film didn't so much depict her as some kind of superhero, but as a person with serious issues. That's what she is in the book.
What if i rephrased it as "a father killed your daughter after your daughter murdered his son?"chadachada123 said:
So its not fuck the law so much as change it back to what it was 60 years agoglchicks said:
Without taking emotion into account, I'd say that at that point, our families would be even, and there'd be no sense in seeking revenge if my daughter was at fault to begin with.Fluffythepoo said:
I'd hope that I'd be able to keep that thought in my head if the situation ever arose. Edit: But first I would need to have a daughter.
Honestly, I didnt see the movies but I can tell you what I read from the book. She deperately needed access to her money and did not so much agree to the oral sex as much as she didnt say anything or resist. In turn, she was planning on blackmailing him afterwards by secretly filming him next time he abused her. But, instead of oral sex, he brutally anally raped her. It took her weeks to physically and emotionally recover. She decides to do what she does not because he is a rapist, but because he is a sadist who enjoyed causing women pain. The sexual assault she was going to use to gain the upper hand in their relationship, it was the brutality and sadism that pushed her over the edge.zelda2fanboy said:
I dont personally feel for him. He attacked her because he thought she was retarded and wouldnt know how or where to get help. He literally thought she was retarded and therefore abused her violently, which is far more despicable than mere rape.
as people have said..shes fucked up...the movie/book does not gloss over itzelda2fanboy said:
the fact this guy brutally raped/abused her because he thourght she was retarded...think about that for a second
she did it to A.) get her money B.)prevent him from being with a women ever (for better or worse)
no, what she did was not "right" but....given the context I honestly find it hard to have a problem with it..fucked up as it is..
Are you dense? No really, how do you get "rape apologist" from "we should follow the law and not act like fucking animals"? Where did I defend the Rapist? If you checked the original post I made you'd see I'd have them both locked up. It doesn't fucking matter what your reasons are, a crime is a crime even if it's committed against a criminal and it must be dealt with accordingly. There's a reason vigilantism is outlawed and only works in comic books.glchicks said:
Rape is rape, it doesn't matter who it happens to. While no court in a civilized society would give Lisbeth the maximum sentence due to trauma affecting her judgement she should still be punished. No one gets a free pass.
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.glchicks said:
I haven't seen the American version. But I've seen the original film and I know exactly the part you mean.zelda2fanboy said:
In the original film, no immediate aftermath to the anal rape is shown. So we don't get the part about him acting nice. And when she shows up to his house to get revenge, he makes a strong suggestion that he's expecting her to have sex with him again. So no hints at all that he's anything other than a completely evil man. As well as sticking a dildo in his arse and tattooing him, she also forces him to watch the footage she took of her being raped.
Yeah, I wasn't sure what the point of that entire sequence (and the graphic nature of it) was either, except possibly to set her up as a bit of a screwed-up individual. Or maybe it's a revenge fantasy for victims of rape. *shrugs*
I saw the original film in the cinema with my boyfriend, mother and grandmother. My mother and grandmother had read the book. My boyfriend and I hadn't. It was a bit uncomfortable.
On a positive note: I don't know if it made it into the American version, but the original film also strongly implies that she's bisexual (I seem to recall we see her naked getting out of a bed that has another woman in it). This appears to have no plot relevance whatsoever, giving the film/book (depending on whether that was in the book) a big tick for including a bisexual character without it being either plot required or an excuse for a girl-on-girl sex scene.
Haven't seen the American version... Swedish with subtitles for me. Is she less of a rapist than him? I'd say so. She did it for revenge, she's not the type who instigates that sort of thing. Still, she did rape him, so I guess that technically makes her a rapist, even if it was an act of pure retribution.
Still, less of one. Had he not raped her, she wouldn't have even considered such a thing.
Still, less of one. Had he not raped her, she wouldn't have even considered such a thing.
Sure you can lose all sympathy for another person if said person does something horrible first.lacktheknack said:
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?
Nope.zelda2fanboy said:
At no point is it meant to be justified, she's meant to seem like more than a little dangerously okay with doing horrible things to people, particularly anyone she thinks has wronged her. If the next two are made the second with re enforce that idea and reveal why she thinks the way she does.
I'm not sympathising with her, she's deliberately unsympathetic, what she does is disproportionate in the extreme and shows some serious level of being fucked up that she shrugs it off the way she does. The point is to establish this short of behaviour in her, not as a revenge fantasy.lacktheknack said:
The whole movie was kind of a bummer, but I actually enjoyed the rape scene. Honestly, I felt more sad at the end when she rides off on her motorcycle than I did watching the rape scene. Which is kinda something I didn't want to admit, but I'm glad I didn't see it in theaters--I'd have had to leave early. I don't know, I've never been able to take rape seriously in movies. It's a horrible, despicable thing to do no doubt, but I know I'm watching a movie, I know it's fake, and... well... Rooney Mara has a... how can I put this...
...anyway... I think it served a purpose. It set her up as a ruthless, eye-for-an-eye, kinda girl. I don't think we're supposed to see her as a "Hero." I see her more as a damaged, lesser evil, anti-hero.
...anyway... I think it served a purpose. It set her up as a ruthless, eye-for-an-eye, kinda girl. I don't think we're supposed to see her as a "Hero." I see her more as a damaged, lesser evil, anti-hero.