Rapist With The Dragon Tattoo

[Treblaine]

In Watchmen, Rorschach is locked in prison with a bunch of unspecified criminals, and he murders several of them, but it's still abundantly clear we're supposed to be cheering him on.
And frankly, I was. If you make a character seem like enough of an arsehole, it's easy to justify the 'good' guys taking out retribution on them in an extremely over the top manner.

Hmm, "murder" or "kill"?

Are all soldiers murderers because they are trained to kill? Rorschach made clear he was fighting a war and the criminals declared war on him in turn. Rorschach was definitely killing outside the law hence technically it was murder, but they were dangerous thugs who were pertinent threat if not an immediate threat.

It's not so selfish, sadistic and cruel to kill someone who intends to kill you as killing is a well established way of stopping them from killing you. But to rape someone, that's sadistic, taking pleasure directly from their suffering. It is a hugely evil and ultimately ignoble and unjustified act.

And Rorschach is about as bad as anti-heroes get.

 

[Paradoxrifts]

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.

You should never read anything by a male feminist author as frequently they feature nothing more than a hatred men in general, daddy issues, self-loathing and an unrealistic idealised portrayal of women. Although that warning could be applied more generally towards any author who is too inept to disguise the political rhetoric which informs the creation of their writing.

 

[The Funslinger]

I wasn't going to post until I could think of a suitable pun, butt-fuck it. I can't be assed!

 

[chadachada123]

One critic who had seen the movies said she was a lesbian who had 'rejected men', and that her relationship with the main character 'fixed' her, but I have no idea if he was being homophobic or if the movie came out like that, possibly since they left out stuff for time, and if they didn't portray her character arc as someone who learns to trust another human being (as opposed to someone who just hates men), it might come out like that.

Having seen the American version, no, it in no way implies that she 'rejected men' and that James Bond 'fixed' her. It definitely did not come off that way at all.

Spoilerized, just in case:

Spoiler

She shows obvious signs of hating abuse against women (abuse against men isn't mentioned much, since the plot of the story is specifically about murdered women, seemingly murdered by a guy that hates women), and she doesn't trust much of anyone for much of the movie, but the two threads aren't combined.

 

[chadachada123]

I think it's pretty obvious that this guy didn't even see the movie. He clearly has no idea that a tazer was involved. Just point out that there WAS a tazer and that his argument doesn't hold water for this movie for that reason, and then let it go. Eesh. Alternately, just call him sexist and leave it at that. Don't combine the two: It makes you look bad, like responding to a kid asking about Santa with a slap to the face, comparatively-speaking.

The taser is mentioned in the OP. I typically assume that people read them.

I imagine the brony-dude didn't read the spoilerized bit (where the tazer is mentioned), but fair enough.

 

[Jonluw]

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

It's not uncommon in fiction for the main character to do things that aren't necessarily morally right.
As I understand it, the rape sequence is there for characterization. This franchise, after all, relies heavily on its characters.

Also: I'm not getting the impression that Lizbeth is supposed to be some sort of moral paragon.

 

[Kargathia]

I think it was MovieBob who said Lisbeth Salander is supposed to be some kind of fantasy girl; a perfect woman for the author to masturbate to. This kind of revenge fantasy fits in pretty well with that theory.

Not specifically sexual, but one thing that certainly influenced the creation of her character was that the author once saw someone get assaulted, and did nothing. It seems like that regret stayed with him strongly enough to let him write characters who will take violent revenge - even if it's not entirely clear in his books whether he personally supports her actions.

Other than that I really wouldn't consider Lisbeth Salander as a "dream girl" by any stretch of the imagination. She fits some of the check boxes, but the whole violent sociopath schtick tends to be a bit of a no-no.

 

[In Search of Username]

I understand those feelings, just don't think we'd be very good people or have a very stable society if we acted on them. Rise above it, y'know?

We'd have fewer rapists running around, I don't see that as a bad thing.

No we wouldn't, we'd just have plenty of revenge rapists too.

 

[Treblaine]

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".

 

[Scarim Coral]

The way I see it, in her view it was personal vendetta, justice or revenge and she is in turn is kind of mess up-

Spoiler

Like for one thing, having sex with that guy who is alot older than her.

Just to be clear, I have not seen the original version nor the books either but from what I read about her from wiki (her background) she did had a mess up childhood so I think it was justify/ reasonable for her action.

Also from reading the past comments, that guy is clearly a rapist through and through since I remember that other part of the film-

Spoiler

She hack his pc allowing her to see what he look at in his pc. Snice part of the blackmail was never to rape another girl again in person, he thought of a loophole by looking up at the rape stuff online since she saw and came back to give him another warmning (well and also the other up to check up on).

 

[Treblaine]

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

What's the "chaotic good" in rape?

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. Chaotic good would be something like marking "Rapist" into his forehead either tattoo or carving. Like how the "jew hunter" of Inglorious Basterds gets a swastika branded into his forehead.

"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.

It's like the classic "cop's family killed by mobster" storyline, only the cops responds *In Kind* by killing the mobster's innocent family.

 

[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.