Rating: 6/10 Director: David Fincher Length: 158 minutes Genre: Drama, Crime, Mystery
"Isn't it interesting how fascists always steal the world freedom?"
SynopsisThis is an American and English-speaking adaptation of a 2009 Swedish Film of the same title directed by Niels Arden Oplev . These movies are based off of a book by Steig Larsson called which in English translates in to "Men who Hate Women." The is a movie about the one and only bad ass computer hacker named Lisbeth Salander (Rooney Mara), who helps out recently disgraced journalist Mikael Blomkvist (Daniel Craig) solve a case about a woman who has been missing for 40 years. You quickly learn that this film is about misogyny and rape. It's not just a regular crime film. In the course of looking for this woman they stumble into serial rapists.
Remake Or Adaptation
When I originally saw that they were going to do the US adaptation of The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo. I was worried that it was just going to be a shot for shot remake. I knew from watching the original Swedish version exactly what was going on when I watched the US Trailer. [Though I did like Trent Reznor and Karen O's remake of Immigrant Song]
While the US movie looked exactly the same as the Swedish version it didn't feel like the same movie. They explained how Lisbeth did certain things, they didn't talk as much about Listbeth's background and they hyped up her relationship with Blomvist. While the ultimate resolution of certain scenes are the same, how they got there is different. For example, Lisbeth (who makes a living using her computer [and camera]) has her computer broken making it so she needs money to get a new one. In Sweden, her computer is broken when three possibly four men (read..assholes) beat her and cause it to break. In US one man tries to steal her bag from her. Ultimately the computer is broken, but the meanings the audience takes from these moments are very different. Will Brooker wrote in his wonderful review* of this film that…
"Fincher's film cuts a key scene where Lisbeth is abused and called "bitch" by random men in a subway; by adapting the incident into a simpler property theft, he lessens the impact of the original novel and earlier film. Like Nazism, those versions reminded us, a hatred of women is not confined to twisted individuals, but symptomatic of a broader culture, and it is manifested in the smallest street abuse as well as in the grossest multiple homicide."Before I talk about the things that really bothered me. I should say that the US version never made me bored. [There are, however, many long unnecessary sections in the film. They didn't need a long title sequence and they didn't need to explain certain thing.] Trent Reznor's score created a pace that made me focus on this film. My boredom from the 2009 Swedish version I think has more to do with the nature of the story than the work of the director. BLOMVIST IS BORING. He's okay, he's a nice guy but he is nowhere near as innovative, different and awesome as Lisbeth. So when he's on screen I would check out. Yes, his sections help at information [and not even in a cool computer hacker kind of way]. But still, in a movie that is 2 hours and 46 minutes long I just don't care about Blomvist and I'm wondering "Where is Lisbeth?" This one helped distract me from that feeling with the score and some of Finchers swooping camera angles. I also liked that the film was darker than the Swedish one, it was aesthetically pleasing. [And while its superficial, it does help that it’s in a language I understand]
Changing scenes, adding lines, adding McDonalds product placement, are all in the spirit of adaptions. The problem is that everything that was changed in the movie,, that would make this movie "it's own" watered down the message of misogyny and watered down the badass-ness of Lisbeth Salander. There are times when she asks Blomvist for permission to do things, which Lisbeth would never do. It really sucks for actor Rooney Mara. She did great job, unfortunately she was portraying a distorted version of Lisbeth no where near as awesome as the original Swedish Lisbeth played by Noomi Rapace.
Rape Scenes In a Rape Culture
[Trigger Warning: Discussion of rape and grave details from the scenes. Please feel free to skip this section. ]
"It [directing] isn't about the actor...it's a ballet between so many different people" - David Fincher
"If the whole center of [a] film, a supposedly brutal and disgusting rape, turns on even one person in the audience just a little bit then the film has completely missed it's mark "
Background. Because of Lisbeth's history with violence (the reasons for that aren't thoroughly explained in this version like it is in the Swedish version) the government assigns her a guardian. When the guard she has goes ill she is assigned a new one Nils Bjurman. He uses the power he has over her (the guardians can decide if a person goes to an asylum or not) he forces her to preform oral sex on him (1st rape scene) then she asks for money for food and this time he asks her to come to his house and there he handcuffs her hands and feet and anally rapes her. (2nd and the one I will be mentioning the most). Then she comes back and we find that she has recorded her rape so that she can get control of her own money and he won't have a hold over her again. She then rapes him with a didlo (which I will admit the American version was nice enough to make it metal and larger than the one in the Swedish version) Afterward she tattoos the phrase "I'm a rapist pig." on his chest (3rd rape scene)
I think this is the most erroneous change that director David Fincher made in this movie. I was sick when I watched it. I was very close to watching out. (I didn't by popcorn so I couldn't throw anything.) I have read the original book up to this point in the story, but even if I hadn't I don't think it matters. Anyone who calls themselves a director knows that something that works on paper can be horrific on screen. It's the director's(and screenwriter's) job to think of context. I DO believe my albeit low knowledge of semiotics (study of signs) and my knowledge of rape scenes in film make me worthy of reviewing this scene.
The rape scene was sickening. It was an act of violence against the viewers and all of the people who hold this trilogy dear in their hearts. It is softcore pornography. The camera work give it a feel of bondage not of rape. It’s the only movie for many people I know that has a rape scene that people can watch. The original Swedish movie 1. shows rape as violence and exists for plot purposes only 2. she retaliates and isn't framed as irrational or "crazy" because of her actions; she is a hero and thinks of the other women he may come in contact with in the future 3. the entire movie talks about rape and holds rapists (of all classes) responsible for their actions 4(my favorite) the sexism and racism/antisemistism in religion (or the way religion is used) is also attacked which I think is one of the most powerful things in this story.
So, with all of that build up at stake the director of the movie/Columbia pictures seemed to decide to fuck it up. There are many fundamental differences between the two movies depiction of the rape scenes. In the first rape scene (America) we see her unzip his pants while in the Swedish film she doesn't. In the both the first and second rape scenes. The Swedish movie focuses on Lisbeth's face the entire time. So we focus on what Lisbeth is feeling / what what she is doing /what she is thinking. In the second scene, we see her trying to fight him the entire time. We see him punch her in the face and wrestle her on the bed. (There's nothing erotic about it; its terrible and terrifying.) In the American version we focus on the rapist face/what the rapist is doing/that the rapist puts on a condom/that the rapist thrusts/that the rapist is enjoying himself. We see him sniff her behind (a detail I should add that isn't in the book) We see her pant/we see her crying(not screaming)/we see her try to get out of the hand cuffs once but by that time both her hands and feet are cuffed. We see a lot of her body. This scene is fundamental to the course of the trilogy. It returns in multiple scenes. WHY MESS IT UP? So many things are similar to the original Swedish trilogy but for some reason this needed it's own take? There were so many details in the book that they could have added instead of changing this the way it did.
Fincher mentioned in an interview that Mara ended up with bruises after doing the scenes. Mara herself didn't seem to have much of a problem with preforming the scene and said "It's not that I'm tired of talking about them, but people really need to up their game with the question. Everyone is like, 'So, the rape scene. Was that hard?' You're just like, 'No, it was really fun. It was really titillating'. But I'm not sick of talking about them," [It's like she wants me to take that out of context]
"..Rape scenes found in a American cinema are filmed from the p.o.v. of men, who evidently experience some kind of personal gain by humiliating women. I do not know if the men who make movies enjoy humiliating individual actresses or if it is a symbolic show of power over women in general. I do know that too many movies contain scenes that deal with rape in an unrealistic male fantasy based manner...We (the women in the audience) are powerless to help the woman on the screen...we are forced to watch the pillage of one of our sisters unfold under the charmed auspices of something executives in Hollywood refer to as a plot." [Cunt by Inga Musico]The other issue with the American version's depiction of rape was that it was shot from the rapist's perspective. In the first rape scene the camera lets us know how much he is enjoying himself. The second rape scene is a little bit more tricky. It seems to have a a mix between the rapists perspective and a voyeuristic perspective. Instead of seeing the extent to which Lisbeth tries to fight him off we see a door. This is gives the audience the idea that we aren't supposed to see what we are seeing. Also there is one shot that made me furious. By this point Lisbeth is on the bed. The rapist is on top of her body. There are many times in this scene that Lisbeth isn't in the shot, which is very annoying. In this particular one, the camera is situated so it must be over Lisbeth's body. It makes it so that it's possible for the audience to forget what Lisbeth is going through.
The third rape scene confirms the idea that we are viewing from the rapist perspective. Specifically when she looks at the camera [from what must be the rapist's perspective] and says "I'm insane." Again Will Brooker describes what that sentence does to the audience.
she herself confesses "I am insane" - which narrows Larsson's message about misogynistic violence down to a personal vendetta.Now I want to point out what this means in an American context. American film (and probably around the world) has managed the blur the line between what is sex and what is rape. Ultimately it comes down to consent. People must be consistent in showing that they don't consent in An American context. In the sickening James Bond film Goldfinger (1964) he fights a woman named Pussy Galore (Really.) I mean they literally flip each other over until we see him pin her on the ground as her arms shake and he kisses her. That was rape, but it was never seen that way. There is a scene in an episode of Family Guy where they mock James Bond and in their parody scene they illustrate the way rape was dealt in those films. Their parody version of James Bond says to the camera "See that, 50 nos and a yes means yes." (Their lead played the newest James Bond so you can't pretend they don't know about it.) Then we have family guy where we have the "funny" rapist character Quagmire who in one scene gets to sleep at night by listening to a woman's screams we also see him with women running out of the trunk of his car. On that show alone there are many jokes about rape. This is a country where a Yale Fraternity chanted "No means Yes , Yes means anal" near the women's freshman dorms. It's a country where other fraternities send around emails to comparing women to food and detailing how to get a woman. They write things like "Non-consent and rape are two different things." We live in a world where 15% of rape survivors were under 12 years old.
So we needed to see her fighting him off (So we can't even pretend she is ever consented) or to see her screaming no and giving her the chance to kick him or something is necessary. And the eroticization of this scene was bad directing. I can't think of any other way to describe it.
Btw... For anyone directing rape here is a math equation to remember: S ≥ 2r The sex scene (S) I feel should be more explicit than a rape scene (r).
The "Pornification" of Lisbeth Salander
I should admit though that the blame of a watered down Lisbeth isn't all on the film itself. Melissa Silverstien wrote on Indiewire about how the movie wasn't really doing well with the female audience. Her theory was possibly because it's about rape and violence against women. It could also be what Silvertien calls the pornification of Lisbeth.Champions of the book think that the boob poster was a huge mistake and is not in context with the character. I guess we shouldn't be surprised because David Fincher, one of the most successful and interesting directors around, is in charge and let's remember that he is not known for making very pro-women films.Doing a quick search I found other pictures that had a similar effect. An effect very different to the way that the 2009 Swedish version had. For example, I was at the Grocery Store and I found a picture of Rooney Mara that said "The Girl with The Pierced Nipple."




The problem that I ultimately had with the posters is that the ones that aren't sexualized focus on Blomvist. The one currently on IMDB has her looking to the side and we see Blomvist straight on. The one that was their when I watched the movie has it so you [dirty joke coming] see him in her. Don't get me wrong there can be pictures of both Lisbeth and Blomvist but..they could try..idk making them seem like partners.
"Central to the reason to want to make the movie was this amazing duo, this man and this girl, and their odd partnership." - David Fincher
[Sidenote: If you ever feel the need to watch the sexist /racist James Bond film, Goldfinger they do the same thing to the women in the title sequence. We see women but then we see James Bond and other men in those women.] This focus on Lisbeth and Blomvist is seen in the film. The relationship between these too characters makes her seem like she is cured by Blomvist's love. [Ugh] American film is pretty notorious for being heavy handed with adding romance in their crime/action films.Conclusion
So here is a second math equation:
Sexualized Images + Sexualized Rape Scene (the first time we see her naked in the film) + Watered Down Lisbeth= Problem
So, my suggestion for people is that they check out the original 2009 films on Netflix. Then see the 2011 version with open eyes.If you know nothing of the original book or film when watching it you will probably love it. I think that's because even after going through the American ringer Lisbeth is still amazing. Unfortunately I feel that was only by accident.
Links & Notes
About the Film
Will Brooker's Review
Melissa Silverman via IndieWire
Trent Reznor's Immigrant Song Cover
Interviews with David Fincher: On Directing, On the Film, On The Rape Scene
Rooney Mara on The Rape Scenes
About Rape
Rape Statistics
Yale Fraternity Chants Yes Means Anal
Fraternity Sends Out Email About Sex
James Bond Parody on Family Guy
Some of my extra quotes come from the book Cunt written by Inga Muscio.

















