The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (David Fincher, 2011)

Discussions of specific films and franchises.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
matrixschmatrix
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 11:26 pm

Re: The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (David Fincher, 2011)

#276 Post by matrixschmatrix » Fri Mar 02, 2012 3:40 am

Brian C wrote:Well ... duh. I wouldn't say that the rape scene is played for titillation, exactly, but knives has this sort of audience manipulation pegged pretty clearly: you get the crowd's collective dander up by showing something awful, and then you deliver the payoff with a scene of grisly revenge. There's nothing thoughtful or complex or socially relevant or anything about it - it's just playing to the crowd in a very base way.
I think that's an oversimplification, because of how delicately the aftereffects of Lisbeth's rape are handled. In a pure exploitation revenge movie, the implication is generally that the vengeance resolves whatever problems the act of rape created in the first place- it satisfies the character, so it satisfies the audience. In Dragon Tattoo, Lisbeth seems traumatized long afterwards (she certainly doesn't readily leap into bed with Blomkvist, and on her first meeting with him she's clearly physically leaping away from every touch- she engages him sexually only when it's clear that she can maintain complete power over the encounter), and her vengeance has little to do with the process through which she recovers her sense of self. It's what she thinks to be the correct thing to do, but it's not the cathartic explosion I would expect in a movie whose goal was to wallow in the audience's bloodlust.

I think you're reducing the sensitivity of the movie's depiction of Lisbeth's rapist, too. He's repellent on their first meeting, surely, but not particularly because he's physically ugly- he's more or less average looking- nor because he's an overtly leering and smacking pervert, but because of the insinuating way he manipulates his power over a woman with no recourse, and our empathy for her position. It's totally appropriate that the film doesn't do more to make what Lisbeth does seem worse than what he does, because it damned well isn't- his abuse represents the abuse of the powerful and the privileged, and her revenge is problematic only insofar as it may be read as being 'just as bad' as what he did.

User avatar
Mr Sausage
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada

Re: The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (David Fincher, 2011)

#277 Post by Mr Sausage » Fri Mar 02, 2012 3:41 am

Brian C wrote:Well ... duh. I wouldn't say that the rape scene is played for titillation, exactly, but knives has this sort of audience manipulation pegged pretty clearly: you get the crowd's collective dander up by showing something awful, and then you deliver the payoff with a scene of grisly revenge. There's nothing thoughtful or complex or socially relevant or anything about it - it's just playing to the crowd in a very base way.
If the movie were including the rape only so that it could include a scene of revenge, then you would be right and the movie would be immoral indeed since it would be implying that the rape was somehow well worth the going through because we get a nice revenge out of it. But that would only be true if the scenes were not advancing anything else besides. But both scenes very clearly help forward the themes of the film and develop/reveal Lisbeth's character. Not only that, but the revenge scene turns down an opportunity to be triumphalist in the way that, say, a Law and Order episode is when the DA gets a chance to verbally dig the knife into the bad guy they have dead to rights. The moral righteousness of those scenes is palpable. In contrast, Lisbeth gives her little speech in a careless, unconcerned manner, kind of sitting against the wall, ie. entirely without the kind of posturing that would actually be used if the film were just trying for a cheap effect.

The fact that the revenge scene is satisfying is not in itself evidence that the film is only using it to crassly exploit audience feelings. From reading both yours and knives' posts, it seems the the satisfying emotions produced by it are the only reason you feel it is exploitative, and you're making the common mistake of believing the baser or more negative the motives, the more likely they are to be true.

I don't think I am trying to defend the indefensible because I have a very clear idea of what these scenes would have to lack in order to be doing what you say they are doing. They would have to lack precisely observed character traits and any relation to the character's behaviour in the rest of the movie, and they would have to lack a clear relation to the thematic apparatus of the movie. Only then could they be said to exist only to bolster the other. But they contribute thematically and they add the crucial element of Lisbeth's capacity for extreme acts that is a necessary context for her later relationships.
Brian C wrote:This may or may not be the case, but I'm not really convinced as it applies to this movie. For one thing, there's no reason to think that you can generalize about "this kind of person" any more than you can generalize about any other group of people. I'm sure there are real people like him out there, but it's a big world, and there are bound to be real people like just about any fictional character you can imagine. He can't stand in for the world of sex abusers out there any more than Lisbeth can stand in for the world of abused women.
I think you're just trying to create room for your original opinion despite the dwindling space. Unless you have actual instances where the depiction fails to match reality, your point is moot and boils down to "you can't generalize about people," which is false. You actually can. There are a lot of constants to human psychology, as indeed the discipline is built on them. Sexual predators especially have identifiable patterns common to them, and the movie acutely renders many of them. The mere fact that the character's psychology is precisely observed (rather than taken for granted) is the reason that he is not a caricature.
Brian C wrote:Second, even if we are to accept that he's representative in some fashion, the movie still plays up his repulsiveness. He's physically unattractive, a common way to advertise villiany to an audience, and the actor affects the kind of leering smoothness in his initial encounter with Lisbeth that is again typical of movie villians. I suppose one could make the argument that this gives us Lisbeth's perspective to some degree, since surely she's had the experience to be able to spot a rotten apple pretty quickly, but it remains the case that the movie uses common tactics to make the character unsympathetic. The handsome guy, of course, is virtuous and good and she jumps enthusiastically into bed with him despite whatever trauma she had suffered at the hands of men in the past, but I suppose that's another kettle of fish.
For a movie that's playing up his repulsiveness, this is paltry evidence. The actor playing him is not particularly or pointedly ugly (he looks like your usual pencil pushing civil servant, actually) and his leering manner is part and parcel with the fact he is planning to sexually abuse a girl. This is only "playing up" if you really want it to be. The movie also refuses opportunities to make him more vile, such as the scenes after the rape or when Lisbeth shows up for her revenge, where the rapist could easily have been made say a few more evil things rather than display fear and remorse. As it stands, he shows more than one dimension.

As for the last little bit, I did write to you earlier in the thread about how Lisbeth's blunt sexual initiations are typical of a victim of abuse.

User avatar
knives
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm

Re: The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (David Fincher, 2011)

#278 Post by knives » Fri Mar 02, 2012 4:17 am

matrixschmatrix wrote:I think that's an oversimplification, because of how delicately the aftereffects of Lisbeth's rape are handled. In a pure exploitation revenge movie, the implication is generally that the vengeance resolves whatever problems the act of rape created in the first place- it satisfies the character, so it satisfies the audience. In Dragon Tattoo, Lisbeth seems traumatized long afterwards (she certainly doesn't readily leap into bed with Blomkvist, and on her first meeting with him she's clearly physically leaping away from every touch- she engages him sexually only when it's clear that she can maintain complete power over the encounter), and her vengeance has little to do with the process through which she recovers her sense of self. It's what she thinks to be the correct thing to do, but it's not the cathartic explosion I would expect in a movie whose goal was to wallow in the audience's bloodlust.

I think you're reducing the sensitivity of the movie's depiction of Lisbeth's rapist, too. He's repellent on their first meeting, surely, but not particularly because he's physically ugly- he's more or less average looking- nor because he's an overtly leering and smacking pervert, but because of the insinuating way he manipulates his power over a woman with no recourse, and our empathy for her position. It's totally appropriate that the film doesn't do more to make what Lisbeth does seem worse than what he does, because it damned well isn't- his abuse represents the abuse of the powerful and the privileged, and her revenge is problematic only insofar as it may be read as being 'just as bad' as what he did.
How it handles the situation afterward has nothing to do though with how the film plays to the audience during the events. The three big scenes do tend to function as an exploitation film in miniature (only you know well directed with realistic victim yadda). My big objection has been to how the film approves of the torture sequence and does nothing to suggest that what she does is immoral (if nowhere as immoral as what her aggressor does). The funny thing is that your recent talk on proto-fascism in action movies is what the sequence reminded me of. I'm not against the torture scene in itself so much as the film's implicit approval of it which I see as incredibly juvenile and a step back for Fincher. Of course the story does not have the time, interest, nor patience to deal properly with the situation, but that only leads me to wonder why was it in the film anyway? The movie already accomplishes everything it gets from that sequence better elsewhere.

User avatar
matrixschmatrix
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 11:26 pm

Re: The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (David Fincher, 2011)

#279 Post by matrixschmatrix » Fri Mar 02, 2012 4:29 am

Well, true, regardless of the provocation it's problematic to have a scene in which someone tortures someone else and the audience is intended to enjoy it- though I think to some degree that it's not right for the filmmaker to be held accountable for the way the audience reacts to things, and as with Inglourious Basterds it's hard to get a read on exactly what Fincher's goals are at any given moment.

I would say most of what Lisbeth does is actually fairly defensible- scaring the shit out of the man, blackmailing him, and tattooing him are all socially responsible means by which to both achieve her goal (financial independence) and prevent him ever repeating what he's done. The weird counter rape is a problem, though, and I would say it's one of the places where the film or the source material makes kind of a misstep- I'm suppose that without it Lisbeth might seem too straightforwardly a heroic character, but it does mean the audience is more or less brought on board with an outright sexual violation, and that's probably not great. I don't think it's meaningfully fascistic- the power dynamics and the context generally don't match up- but barring a defense that's not leaping to mind, I think it is problematic.

User avatar
knives
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm

Re: The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (David Fincher, 2011)

#280 Post by knives » Fri Mar 02, 2012 4:35 am

I do think it does avoid fascism, but I do find it to read as pro vigilante which is not something I can not approve of. I don't think at all that that's socially responsible.

User avatar
matrixschmatrix
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 11:26 pm

Re: The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (David Fincher, 2011)

#281 Post by matrixschmatrix » Fri Mar 02, 2012 4:45 am

Hmm, I feel like the situation is different, but I'm having a hard time in articulating why- I think it's relevant that a.) she's defending herself against someone who still has power over her- it's not vigilantism in the Batman sense, she's not running around fixing other people's problems, and b.) it's in the context of a systematic critique of institutionalized misogyny, and Lisbeth is acting specifically to oppose the system.

I think the problems with vigilantism in general spring from lynch mob mentalities that result in attacks from the strong upon the weak or the outcast, which obviously isn't germane, attacks on perceived wrongdoers without proper evidence or procedure, which doesn't really apply here (as Lisbeth obviously knows exactly what the man did) and on the unrestrained and disproportionate punishments vigilantes tend to hand out. Apart from the counter rape, I don't know that what Lisbeth did was disproportionate.

User avatar
knives
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm

Re: The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (David Fincher, 2011)

#282 Post by knives » Fri Mar 02, 2012 5:03 am

Maybe this sounds too absolutist, but being a vigilante is being a vigilante whether it's a Geotz type of vigilante or Spit on Your Grave. My problem with vigilantism is how it goes outside the course of law not allowing habeas corpus. Now obviously we know he's guilty and all of that, but at the same time allowing this sort of vigilante presents too personal a situation leading to stuff like the subsequent rape and other cruel and unusual punishment techniques. This is why we have legal sexual predator registry systems and jails. Now that system is imperfect obviously, but even in it's present form (don't know the specifics for Sweden) it's better than doing this uncontrolled tooth for a tooth system that approving of the torture would implicitly allow.

Even in terms of your b point the film doesn't give enough attention to it to warrant it being present. If that was the focus of the whole movie that would work better, but we have this whole mystery thing to attend to that while covering similar ground thematically in narrative terms spreads the story too thin so that things get messy and ruin the thematic ideas with a short shrift.

User avatar
matrixschmatrix
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 11:26 pm

Re: The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (David Fincher, 2011)

#283 Post by matrixschmatrix » Fri Mar 02, 2012 5:09 am

The "men who hate women" aspect of the movie is there, for sure, but I think it might focus a bit too much on Blomqvist and his viewpoint to get the full impact of it. I haven't read the book or watched the Swedish version, so I don't know how altered Fincher's version is, but the movie as it stands occasionally feels like evidence in search of a thesis in that respect.

User avatar
knives
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm

Re: The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (David Fincher, 2011)

#284 Post by knives » Fri Mar 02, 2012 5:20 am

I do want to emphasize in this respect Fincher is very much improved over the previous film, but yeah the film is having difficulty dealing with the material which was just terrible to begin with while at the same time as you said trying to develop it's own thesis or voice or whatever. I think Fincher's biggest problem is that he knows how to make work the Blomkvist stuff work (something I felt the Swedish version even failed at a little), but he doesn't know how to deal with the Salander stuff at least until she goes into the A plot. He does little improvements here and there, but the wheel is so broken that all the mending in the world won't help at all and it's best to just cut it for a later time. The ending revelation about her father ties her into the A plot thematically well enough in addition to the performance that this very problematic set of events doesn't really add anything to the larger scope of the film anyway.

User avatar
matrixschmatrix
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 11:26 pm

Re: The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (David Fincher, 2011)

#285 Post by matrixschmatrix » Fri Mar 02, 2012 5:38 am

Hmm, that's not a bad point- I wonder how the movie would play if you cut that business altogether. Certainly it would make for less sickening, trauma-triggering viewing, though I think one of the most impressive parts of Mara's performance was the almost wild animal sense of nervousness she had when she first entered the A plot- without her earlier scenes, that wouldn't make sense, and she would probably seem like considerably more of a masturbatory fantasy character.
SpoilerShow
I really, really wish they'd cut the thing with the cat, though, that seemed like a totally unnecessary and manipulative move, one of the most straightforward puppy-kicking villain things I've seen in a serious movie. Obviously, Lisbeth getting raped is a bigger deal, but that seems like a defensible thing to include- the cat seemed like it had no purpose other than make you boo and hiss at the villain.

User avatar
Mr Sausage
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada

Re: The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (David Fincher, 2011)

#286 Post by Mr Sausage » Fri Mar 02, 2012 1:55 pm

In all honesty, the criticisms being offered here are not really aesthetic. This is social signaling on behalf of knives. This is just people signaling to the other people on the board what type of person they are and what values they therefore represent. Hence the very black and white, absolutist language, the concern for this or that audience member's reaction, the comments about the social value of actions abstracted from the specifics of this narrative. It's not really about the film. So it's a frustrating argument.

As has been noted, it is not essential to either Lisbeth's character or the rest of the narrative that you approve of the torture scene. Totally unnecessary if you do or not. You can think Lisbeth evil for doing it and the movie still works. She is the rogue element in the movie, unpredictable, ambiguous, hidden--she allows for a range of reaction. That is why the scenes are not immoral, because they do not require an unambiguously positive reaction to her for the story to work, making it all the less likely that one is being sought.
knives wrote:The ending revelation about her father ties her into the A plot thematically well enough in addition to the performance that this very problematic set of events doesn't really add anything to the larger scope of the film anyway.
Without the context of those two scenes, the little half-revelation about her father would be baffling, as would much of her character. Nowhere else does the movie properly communicate the extent of her victimhood, and all the little hints are too small to adequately communicate the weight of it (to say nothing of whether or not they would be effective hints if we came to them without the crucial information we have, whether they would become too ambiguous). Certainly without them you would lose too much of the thematic material.

User avatar
Brian C
I hate to be That Pedantic Guy but...
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:58 am
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (David Fincher, 2011)

#287 Post by Brian C » Fri Mar 02, 2012 4:49 pm

Mr Sausage wrote:In all honesty, the criticisms being offered here are not really aesthetic. This is social signaling on behalf of knives. This is just people signaling to the other people on the board what type of person they are and what values they therefore represent. Hence the very black and white, absolutist language, the concern for this or that audience member's reaction, the comments about the social value of actions abstracted from the specifics of this narrative. It's not really about the film. So it's a frustrating argument.
Geez, what a pompous, hypocritical load. Before I continue, please accept my apologies if I'm not meeting your high standards of intellectual discourse.

Now with that out of the way, let me be clear - I'm not arguing about the "morality" of Lisbeth and her actions, that's knives's hangup which I said at the outset I do not share. I'm simply disagreeing with you as to the purpose of these scenes and their effect. It is an argument about the film - how it's constructed and the roles the characters play within the narrative - and I fear you're grouping me in with knives just because I've aligned myself with a single aspect of his greater argument.
Not only that, but the revenge scene turns down an opportunity to be triumphalist in the way that, say, a Law and Order episode is when the DA gets a chance to verbally dig the knife into the bad guy they have dead to rights.
Doesn't this happen, but just later in the film? Lisbeth meets him again and tells him to stop inquiring about tattoo removal, and we get another chance to see him squirm in all his defeated patheticness. What purpose did that scene have in advancing either the narrative proper or the nature of either of those two characters?
The actor playing him is not particularly or pointedly ugly (he looks like your usual pencil pushing civil servant, actually)
Well, as someone who's of dubious attractiveness myself, I understand the point here, but we have to look at this in relative terms, no? This is a movie we're talking about. As far as I can remember, he's the least attractive (in conventional terms) important male character in the film.
There are a lot of constants to human psychology, as indeed the discipline is built on them. Sexual predators especially have identifiable patterns common to them...
Constants, or tendencies? The second sentence I've quoted here seems to indicate that you believe the latter, since "common" (which indicates a tendency) and "inherent" (which would indicate a constant) are not synonyms.

At any rate, I'm not terribly interested in whether the character of the rapist is realistic or not. He could be the most psychologically detailed character ever in fiction and it wouldn't change the fact that his sole purpose in the narrative is as a target of the filmmakers' and audience's disgust and revulsion. And to what end? You've argued that this serves the development of Lisbeth's character, but I simply don't agree. I don't think it tells us anything that we really need to know about her given the extremely generic John Grishamesque narrative that she joins up with later in the film, where her behavior is unexceptional. You describe her as "the rogue element in the movie, unpredictable, ambiguous, hidden", but once she joins up with Blomkvist, how does the narrative make use of these traits? By sending her to dig through old newspapers, basically, before a lengthy epilogue that has little purpose other than to set up a sequel that may or may not happen.

In other words, I'd find your point of view more persuasive if the movie wasn't essentially a couple of brutal rape/torture scenes grafted on to a completely routine detective narrative. But that being the case, I hardly think I'm being unfair to the film by being very skeptical about the nature of those rape/torture scenes.

User avatar
mfunk9786
Under Chris' Protection
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (David Fincher, 2011)

#288 Post by mfunk9786 » Fri Mar 02, 2012 4:59 pm

You could've thrown a few more big words in there for Sausage, Brian

User avatar
Brian C
I hate to be That Pedantic Guy but...
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:58 am
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (David Fincher, 2011)

#289 Post by Brian C » Fri Mar 02, 2012 5:27 pm

I already find myself using "narrative" way more than I'm comfortable with.

User avatar
Mr Sausage
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada

Re: The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (David Fincher, 2011)

#290 Post by Mr Sausage » Fri Mar 02, 2012 6:58 pm

Brian C wrote:Geez, what a pompous, hypocritical load. Before I continue, please accept my apologies if I'm not meeting your high standards of intellectual discourse.

Now with that out of the way, let me be clear - I'm not arguing about the "morality" of Lisbeth and her actions, that's knives's hangup which I said at the outset I do not share. I'm simply disagreeing with you as to the purpose of these scenes and their effect. It is an argument about the film - how it's constructed and the roles the characters play within the narrative - and I fear you're grouping me in with knives just because I've aligned myself with a single aspect of his greater argument.
I think you missed where I said it was social signaling on behalf of knives. My post was a response to everything said after your post yesterday. I am actually aware you and knives are arguing different things.

I don't think I have to defend myself against the insults, tho', since it sounds like you chose them at random because you were pissed.
Brian C wrote:Doesn't this happen, but just later in the film? Lisbeth meets him again and tells him to stop inquiring about tattoo removal, and we get another chance to see him squirm in all his defeated patheticness. What purpose did that scene have in advancing either the narrative proper or the nature of either of those two characters?
I think that scene was just there to close out the subplot. Not great plotting, but the audience is left with questions after the torture scene, and this let's us know how it'll work out.
Brian C wrote:Well, as someone who's of dubious attractiveness myself, I understand the point here, but we have to look at this in relative terms, no? This is a movie we're talking about. As far as I can remember, he's the least attractive (in conventional terms) important male character in the film.
Something interesting to consider: what would it do for the rape scene if he were movie-star attractive?
Brian C wrote:He could be the most psychologically detailed character ever in fiction and it wouldn't change the fact that his sole purpose in the narrative is as a target of the filmmakers' and audience's disgust and revulsion. And to what end?
Then you're brushing past the point that both I and matrixschmatrix made, that he's being used to show in uncomfortably accurate detail how people use their positions of power to inflict horrific abuse on those weaker than them. And he is necessary, because all of the other instances of such people are too elevated or outlandish (rich old nazis and serial killers living in mansions). It's the everyday banality of him and his position that helps make the theme of the systemic abuse of women uncomfortably near, and show how difficult it is to root it out. He is not only there for us to see tortured. Not at all.

As for Lisbeth, it is necessary for us to know that she is capable of extreme actions in the same way we need to know of any hero's capabilities in a thriller; but it is also necessary for us to understand her personal investment in a case that involves the rape and torture of women.
Brian C wrote:In other words, I'd find your point of view more persuasive if the movie wasn't essentially a couple of brutal rape/torture scenes grafted on to a completely routine detective narrative. But that being the case, I hardly think I'm being unfair to the film by being very skeptical about the nature of those rape/torture scenes.
Fair enough, I think the scenes are included somewhat clumsily. But as I said above, they are necessary thematically and (even if you disagree) necessary for providing a context for Lisbeth's actions.

EDIT:
Brian C wrote:Constants, or tendencies? The second sentence I've quoted here seems to indicate that you believe the latter, since "common" (which indicates a tendency) and "inherent" (which would indicate a constant) are not synonyms.
Well, my two clauses were not equivalent. Human psychology in general does have constants. Less generally, a specific group like sexual predators is more accurately said to have tendencies. But these tendencies are so common that psychologists understand them as patterns of behaviour that can be used to identify such a person.

User avatar
Brian C
I hate to be That Pedantic Guy but...
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:58 am
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (David Fincher, 2011)

#291 Post by Brian C » Fri Mar 02, 2012 8:04 pm

Mr Sausage wrote:I think you missed where I said it was social signaling on behalf of knives. My post was a response to everything said after your post yesterday. I am actually aware you and knives are arguing different things.
I did see that, but I also read the next sentence, which was "This is just people signaling to the other people on the board what type of person they are and what values they therefore represent." (my emphasis)

"People" and "they" being plural, I naturally understood that to mean that you weren't just talking about knives.
Something interesting to consider: what would it do for the rape scene if he were movie-star attractive?
Nothing, probably, except that I might see it less as a sign of bad faith on the part of the filmmakers.
As for Lisbeth, it is necessary for us to know that she is capable of extreme actions in the same way we need to know of any hero's capabilities in a thriller; but it is also necessary for us to understand her personal investment in a case that involves the rape and torture of women.
Well, why? I think this is the heart of our disagreement on the film. Why do we need to know that she's capable of extreme actions, when she's not put in an extreme situation again until the end (at which point her actions are entirely subject to the overriding plot anyway)? You might as well say that it's necessary to know that she can fly given the direction that the narrative takes after she joins up with Blomkvist.

And why is it necessary for us to understand her personal investment in the case? We're not privy to any real reasons for Blomkvist's investment in the case. Sure, we know that he's financially and professionally ruined, but while that explains why he took the paycheck to start with, it doesn't explain what is obviously a personal stake in the matter that he's acquired by the end. Sure, his background is as a crusading reporter, but all that tells us is that he was already like that, not why. And yet the narrative chugs right along as it does in any other mystery story.

You acknowledge that the movie is clumsily plotted, but while this seems like a minor point to you, it goes directly to the merits of the rape/torture scenes for me. Frankly, the movie doesn't earn its brutality, and it doesn't earn the right to have its brutality defended by pointing to its greater narrative because its narrative is thoughtless hackwork.

And without some kind of actual breakthrough in the conversation, I think that's the last I'll have to say because I sense that this discussion long ago began to get tiring for all involved. You're welcome to the last word, Sausage or whoever (seriously, I'm not being smug-magnanimous).

User avatar
Mr Sausage
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada

Re: The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (David Fincher, 2011)

#292 Post by Mr Sausage » Fri Mar 02, 2012 8:32 pm

Brian C wrote:I did see that, but I also read the next sentence, which was "This is just people signaling to the other people on the board what type of person they are and what values they therefore represent." (my emphasis)

"People" and "they" being plural, I naturally understood that to mean that you weren't just talking about knives.
Yeah, I did that so it would seem more a general statement of a kind thing that can go on and not some sort of specific indictment of knives as if he were the only one who ever did it. Sorry for the confusion. It was late.
Brian C wrote:Nothing, probably, except that I might see it less as a sign of bad faith on the part of the filmmakers.
No, what it would do is leave the possibility that it could be interpreted as there being another reason why Lisbeth is just going along with it (giving the blowjob without a word, going to his house in the first place), maybe because he's handsome and charming, and not because of the total lack of power on her part that compels her passivity. The one thing such scenes did not need was any possibility of confusion, especially since this kind of movie would be interested in disabusing people of such ugly notions that a rape victim wants it. If he is plain looking, there is no room for any kind of unsavory implication for why Lisbeth seems to just go along with some of the abuse. It is clear and unambiguous what is going on.
Brian C wrote:And why is it necessary for us to understand her personal investment in the case? We're not privy to any real reasons for Blomkvist's investment in the case. Sure, we know that he's financially and professionally ruined, but while that explains why he took the paycheck to start with, it doesn't explain what is obviously a personal stake in the matter that he's acquired by the end. Sure, his background is as a crusading reporter, but all that tells us is that he was already like that, not why. And yet the narrative chugs right along as it does in any other mystery story.
I'm sorry, but I don't think you thought these points out. Blomkvist takes the case because Plummer promises him evidence that will take down the business man who'd sued him in the beginning. And you cannot possibly believe that there is no reason why he would've become invested in the case. At the very least, you're saying that people don't become invested in projects they put a lot of time and effort into, let alone a case the character has spent all of his time living and breathing, let alone one that involves possible muder, foul play, fascism, ect.

And it's necessary to know this for Lisbeth because otherwise her own experience with abuse would not become funneled into the larger abuse going on in the main story, allowing the character to heal herself and deal with some of her own pain through exploding this larger conspiracy.
brian C wrote:You acknowledge that the movie is clumsily plotted, but while this seems like a minor point to you, it goes directly to the merits of the rape/torture scenes for me. Frankly, the movie doesn't earn its brutality, and it doesn't earn the right to have its brutality defended by pointing to its greater narrative because its narrative is thoughtless hackwork.
It has a certain clumsiness in the beginning and end, yes, but it doesn't spoil the movie for me. As for whether it earns its brutality (there is nothing the characters do that I would not expect them to have done in such a situation), I haven't read anything to suggest that you're even willing to consider the idea. You'd made up your mind and that's that.

User avatar
The Narrator Returns
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 6:35 pm

Re: The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (David Fincher, 2011)

#293 Post by The Narrator Returns » Tue Mar 06, 2012 9:55 pm

DVDBeaver on the Blu-Ray

Gary's comment about this being a "very sexy package" really creeps me out.

User avatar
matrixschmatrix
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 11:26 pm

Re: The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (David Fincher, 2011)

#294 Post by matrixschmatrix » Tue Mar 06, 2012 10:04 pm

Haha, I'm going to give Gary the benefit of the doubt and assume he just didn't think that particular remark through

User avatar
Brian C
I hate to be That Pedantic Guy but...
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:58 am
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (David Fincher, 2011)

#295 Post by Brian C » Tue Mar 06, 2012 11:58 pm

I'm going to pretend that it validates everything I've been saying about the rape scenes!

User avatar
Finch
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 5:09 pm
Location: Edinburgh, UK

Re: The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (David Fincher, 2011)

#296 Post by Finch » Wed Mar 07, 2012 8:45 am

The Narrator Returns wrote:Gary's comment about this being a "very sexy package" really creeps me out.
Especially when he has uploaded screencaps from the rape and revenge scenes. Brr!


User avatar
mfunk9786
Under Chris' Protection
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (David Fincher, 2011)

#298 Post by mfunk9786 » Wed Mar 07, 2012 9:11 am

Gary Tooze wrote:Does that package like anal sex?

User avatar
Jeff
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 9:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (David Fincher, 2011)

#299 Post by Jeff » Wed Mar 07, 2012 11:26 am

Love that they made the backup DVD copy look like a backup DVD copy. Not that it matters much, but is it really a DVD-R or is it pressed? The art on the main disc with the camera flash is great too. Fincher's got a packaging fetish and has found a great partner in Neil Kellerhouse.

User avatar
mfunk9786
Under Chris' Protection
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (David Fincher, 2011)

#300 Post by mfunk9786 » Wed Mar 07, 2012 11:35 am

If it's anything like the Borat release or The Hold Steady's Separation Sunday, it's pressed but just made to look very authentically like a DVD-R.

Post Reply