Her.meneutics: Why 'Girl with the Dragon Tattoo' Is Hurting Women

back to Christianity Today

RSS Feed | Help

e-mail to a friend

twitter updates

Follow Her.meneutics on Twitter

What Is Her.meneutics?

The Christianity Today women's blog provides news and analysis from the perspective of evangelical women. We cover news stories and books related to international justice and evangelism, pregnancy and sexual ethics, marriage, parenting, and celibacy, pop culture, health and body image, raising girls, and women in the church and parachurch.

Her.meneutics is edited by associate editor Katelyn Beaty and online editor Sarah Pulliam Bailey.

interests

books and media

church life

justice and politics

relationships and family

sexuality and health

spirituality

theology

women of note

writers

More ...

Free Newsletters

books we're reading

blogs we're watching

« A Facebook Skeptic? News Flash: You Are in Control | Main | Getting to the Root of Female Masturbation »

January 4, 2012

Why 'Girl with the Dragon Tattoo' Is Hurting Women

Lisbeth Salander is less a female role model than a projection of a base male fantasy.

Karen Swallow Prior

My first encounter with Lisbeth Salander was a Facebook status. In case you’ve been under a rock for a while, Salander is the heroine of the new film based on the New York Times best-selling novel The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, by the late Swedish author Steig Larsson. The Facebook status had a young woman reading the book, proclaiming her own likeness to Salander. My immediate reaction, though I knew nothing at that point about the book or the character, was “uh oh”— for wannabes seldom want the right be.

I didn’t add Dragon to my already long reading list, but the recent release of the U.S. film adaptation offered a promising girls’ night out after a long bout of end-of-semester grading. Promise delivered. The movie was entertaining, if dark and rough, but not one I’d see again. To me, the most intriguing part of the story was Salander, who apparently has ignited a new obsession among moviegoers now joining longtime fans of the books. One website has compiled a lengthy list of the contradictory descriptions of Salander—ranging from hero to anti-heroine, from interesting to terrifying—proving her to be a kind of Rorschach test of cultural icons. The trendy clothing chain H&M has even announced a new “Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” line. Clearly, the character the The New Yorker touts as a new kind of heroine is catching on.

And that’s a shame.

For anyone who’s unfamiliar with Salander, here’s the lowdown. (Note, this isn’t a film review and not having read the book, I offer analysis based only on the film.) Salander is an anorexic, pierced and tattooed, 20-something cyberpunk and ward of the state (having been declared mentally incompetent) who turns her hacking skills and photographic memory into adventurous private investigation gigs. A female Byronic hero haunted by a mysterious past, Salander is targeted by prowlers of the present, including the guardian who brutally rapes her, an experience she marks with one more addition to the sundry badges of physical and emotional wounds her body bears.

The film’s prolonged rape scene and that of her swift and sure revenge have earned the film criticism and the loss of potential viewers, including women I know: reading about sexual violence is very different from seeing it acted out. To me, the sex scenes in which Salander was a willing participant seemed more unnecessarily pornographic. This confirms my evaluation of Salander as less a role model for women and more the projection of a base male fantasy. Many men would be only too happy for women to emulate Lisbeth Salander.

She has the smarts and independence men increasingly expect in a post-feminist world, makes a great work partner, stitches up a bullet hole with vodka and dental floss, rides a motorcycle, initiates sex (and does girls, too), makes breakfast the morning after, brings herself to orgasm while her partner lies back and thinks about work—all the while staying (largely) emotionally unattached. She’s essentially a breasted boy.

This is not to say that Salander is not an interesting and believable character worthy of redemption. She is. Her story is set in a thoroughly modern and secularized European society, one in which the Christian belief of the male protagonist’s daughter stretches his liberal tolerance to its limits. Such a cultural setting—one that lacks any rootedness in religious belief and is haunted by its Nazi past—joined with Lisbeth’s own personal past, haunted by ghosts of her own, makes her emotional detachment and pan-sexuality both believable and understandable. With her independence, intelligence, resourcefulness, financial savvy, and vulnerability beneath it all, Salander might even be described as a pagan Proverbs 31 woman. But this doesn’t make her a heroine worth emulating.

I’m not saying Salander (or the book or the movie) should be boycotted, rallied against, or tarred and feathered. As Christians, we too often fall into the twin traps of demonization or idolization. In the case of Dragon, neither is correct. I don’t propose replacing Lisbeth Salander with Elsie Dinsmore, the dreadfully saintly heroine of the 19th century children’s book series. Unlike Dinsmore, there are people in the world like Salander—tough on the outside, wounded on the inside—who need neither to be put on a pedestal nor pushed away. People who need the love of Christ.

People like someone dear to me. While one young friend of mine claims a naïve and ill-founded semblance to Salander, another friend is in fact a great deal like her—and this she doesn’t wannabe. For many years, I’ve watched this friend undergo self-injury, sexual victimization, sexual deviancy, drug addiction, institutionalization, and the occasional come-to-Jesus moment. Her likeness to Salander (particularly as played by Rooney Mara in the American film) is so uncanny, I can’t help seeing in the character the friend I have tried to help.

And in seeing this—in seeing someone I love in a cultural idol—I am reminded that all around us, in the real world, real people lurk beneath exterior layers of facade. Whether those exteriors make us look more like Elsie Dinsmore or Lisbeth Salander (or, more likely, somewhere in between), they—we—are all in need of being loved and accepted for who we are, not demonized or worshiped for who we appear to be.

There’s only one pedestal that anyone worthy was ever placed upon, and that pedestal wasn’t comprised of a silver screen or a bestsellers list or a Facebook status, but of a mere plank and a crossbeam.

Comments

Karen,

What an insightful post--especially your conclusion. I really like this, "As Christians, we too often fall into the twin traps of demonization or idolization." Hopefully our relationships allow us to see people for who they are instead of figments of our imaginations.

Well done. Though, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on Lisbeth after reading the whole series. Your view might change.....

This is pretty ridiculous. Lisbeth Salander is an amazing character, yes she is scarred in many ways, but she deals with those on her own with the help of some friends (In the book) I absolutely CANNOT stand when Jesus is brought into something like this. Its a disturbing movie people, meant for an audience that can take it, not one who leaves the theater thinking "man that girl really needs Jesus." GET OVER IT, its a movie DUH...Yes this stuff happens in real life, that's what makes this gritty and very realistic. But I'm sorry if someone raped me, I certainly wouldn't run to god for forgiveness or help, because obviously that never works out...They always get away with it

"She's essentially a breasted boy." - Ha!

I understand your critique is only on the movie, but I wish you'd read the book to round out your commentary. It's far from perfect, and could have used a much heavier edit, not for the sexual assault scenes but to cut down the rambling and tiresome opening 50 pages that don't add much to the story. Also, Blomvkist eats a lot of sandwiches.

BUT if you do a little poking around about Steig Larsson himself, he's a former journalist fond of exploring controversial issues, particularly political. He intended this book to give light to human trafficking issues (the larger arc of the story) being covered up in Sweden, and to expose injustices within his own government. Yes, it's fiction but there's a lot of Swedish history and politics in the story which is why it still kind of baffles me how much of a worldwide sensation it became.

Lisbeth is a damaged character, maybe a hair shy of a sociopath. I would agree with you that a fashion line is going too far to sensationalize a character that was never intended for it. When you read Dragon Tattoo, it does not reek of "Girl Power." I can hardly imagine this as a "Girls Night Out" type of film, but I guess if you were unaware of the rape scenes... It is not much easier to read the assault scenes, and the reason I haven't seen the film yet is specifically because of them.

Back to Larsson, the crux of his series is to expose injustices, chiefly regarding women. Blomkvist is somewhat of an antihero as well, his primary relationship is with a married woman. There's an "understanding" between his mistresses husband and him, which you could write off as a European thing, but I think it shows he's flawed. He and Lisbeth's boss feel a strange obligation to protect her, even if she's extremely resistent to it. That's what takes literature to an intersting level, but a lot of that nuance can be lost in a film. I respect David Fincher and I'm sure he made some wonderful artistic choices, but I hope you don't write off the books as being the wrong image of women, because it's not. Hollywood may exploit Lisbeth Salander, but the books did not.

Thanks for the post about this topic. I saw the movie too.

I resonated more with this interpretation of Lisbeth Salander than the one you linked to in The New Yorker.

@stephanie: I was aware of the rape scenes and so-forth and, as I said in the post, it was indeed the "girls' night out" film my friends and I were looking for ("Promise delivered.") :) I do find Lisbeth very interesting, intriguing, and lovable, as I say. My point, rather, is that we can find interest in a character without idolizing her.

@rebecca: that is an interesting article-a lot I agree with in it. Thanks for linking to it.

Karen,

Agreed. The problem is that so many idolize without analyzing. So important to "deconstruct for understanding" perhaps? People may tend to just look at the surface. (IE: "Salander rocks because she kicks butt" ;)

PS: Because the author of the CSMONITOR article referenced it, I was reminded of my (disproportionate perhaps?) hatred for TWILIGHT. I think I find BELLA SWAN more damaging than Lisbeth Salander. :)

I'm confused. And disgusted. Why on earth would you essentially promote this movie on this site? Provoke curiosity in character and lead people to see the movie? Please, add a disclaimer or something about the content of this movie. It is classified as "hard R" and borderline NC-17, extremely graphic and disturbing. Does anyone really think its ok to poison your mind with this crap, just because she's an 'interesting character?' Maybe the book is a good read but I do not recommend the movie to anyone.

Please, anyone who is not familiar with with this story, take extreme caution in choosing to see this movie.

Sorry to rant, but I went with a friend and walked out. I've also spoken with several people who regret seeing this film because of the graphic and disturbing content.

Rebecca: Sorry, but I couldn't bear to expose myself to Twilight in any of its forms. I'll gladly take your word for it. :)

I like the comments about looking at both the positives AND negative aspects, because that's reality. No one is ever all one thing or another. I've seen a lot of this polarization in our community today - if it's not black, then it MUST be white; there can be no shades of gray. I think we have a tendency to do this because it makes it easier for us to categorize people. It takes a lot of effort to reconcile complex individuals and complex morality with our established notions of right and wrong or good and bad. It's a dangerous precedent we've set for society.

As for Lisbeth, I see the negatives, certainly, but I also see a lot of positives. She is a judgmental, fearful, insecure woman who knows exactly who she is and accepts herself. She has a high level of personal integrity, meaning that she has firmly established a code of behavior for herself and truly adheres to it. As with all heroines/anti-heroines, there are things to take away and incorporate into our behavior, and there are mirrors in which we see the less perfect aspects of ourselves that makes us squirm unpleasantly and which we need to consider excising from our personalities.

I like looking at people in their full, rainbow glory - no more black and white for me.

Thanks, Diva! Well put!

Having read the series of books I would have to say that the power in them is the way they reveal the reality of violence against women as a systemic problem along with being an individual problem.

Lisbeth is not a breasted boy, she is a woman who refuses to be a victim. Yes she may behave in ways you believe are wrong, but the fact she does not allow anyone to hold power over her, gives her a strength many women could do with, especially the 25% of women who will experience abuse from a partner and the many many women trafficked and the teenage girls forced into prostitution and all the broken women who do not see that they are powerful and do not see that they do have strength, purely by the fact they make it through each and everyday.

I think it's important to point out that Lisbeth is not anorexic. She's very thin, yes, but this stems more from the fact that she's poor and has to fight for money rather than that she willingly starves herself. The frequent scenes of her eating things like french fries resist a reading of her as anorexic. I've heard this said a lot, and I wonder where it comes from (apparently, in the books, she's described as "anorexic-looking"), but this hiccup in descriptions seems to reveal more about how we look at and label women's bodies.

Also, what's really harming women is rape. At least Lisbeth fights back and doesn't victimize herself. I have an extremely hard time agreeing that Lisbeth is portrayed as some kind of male fantasy. At that point, I think you're projecting those fantasies onto the movie in a way that it doesn't invite. Rather than saying that, which I think just reifies those male fantasies and their misogyny, why not just argue, as you have elsewhere, that Lisbeth makes a poor role model? While Lisbeth is indeed the heroine of the film, I think the film acknowledges her conflicted status as such.

I find myself drawn to many books and movies that are brilliant stories, beautifully executed, but ones which I also have a hard time recommending as a "must-read/see." The Larsson books (and subsequent films, both the Swedish and American versions) fit this category. And I, too, was surprised that this was a girls night out film for you! :) I agree with Stephanie and Caryn, that if you feel so inclined to read the books, discovering Salanders history of abuse as well as her learning/social disabilities, your view on the character, as well as the narrative, might change.

I find it tiring, as believers, to constantly have to judge characters/stories/narratives as worthy of redemption. Of course they - and we - all are! But some stories are merely indicators and testifiers (is that a word?) of the fallen, broken, cursed, and depraved world we live in. It's not a film for all people and if I'd never read the books, don't think I would've taken the time to view this film given all the publicity. (one can't hardly be surprised by the graphic nature if they'd paid any attention at all to the build up to its release).

[now that i'm two paragraphs into this response, think i should've probably resulted to my own blog post, but, oh well...)

Finally, there is a teeny tiny little Christian tangent to the film, but I disagree with your assumption that it tests the liberal character to his limits. Having lived and worked in Europe, while it is true that some - if not most - people are surprised to come across a believer in God, Blomqvist's response to it is genuine. Not disgust, anger, or fear, but more curiousity and confusion. He respects his daughter's interest and independence in tracing out her own path towards belief. At least, that's what I concluded in the 30 seconds the film spends on it. Don't think a half a minute is fair enough to judge it as an antogonistic position towards faith.

All that to say, though, I agree with your initial position of neither glorifying nor condemning a flawed and multi-layered character, though you did seem to spend a certain amount of time on the latter.

What's more, please don't say that we live in a post feminist world. Even if you don't think we do, it doesn't help to write about it. Feminists did not create an expectation that every woman needs to act like a man. That's precisely one of the problems they were dealing with. (Although I will acknowledge that feminism is highly diverse, and there is no one "feminism".)

Also, "breasted boy" is just offensive. Your essentializing gender in a very simple way, and you deny the complications between bodies and gender performance in a way that ignores how those complications lead Lisbeth to respond to sexual violence by marking her body.

Ms. Prior, thank you so much for this insightful, measured and thoughtful article! So many are insisting that Lisbeth is the antithesis to Bella Swan, but I think that they are two sides of the same coin; both obsessed with and unable to forget the men in their lives. Bella's vampire love posesses her body and mind, but Lisbeth is controlled by rage and a desire to revenge those who have wronged her. Neither one can break free from those influences, and neither of them seem to want to try.

I've known a few dear friends who seem similar to Lisbeth, and I was especially touched by your personal story of caring for someone who's like the self-destructive, hurt Salander.

As for Lisbeth being "less a role model for women and more the projection of a base male fantasy," I agree completely! I'd point to her creator, the late Steig Larsson, and his biography as proof of this. A cursory scan of his wikipedia page shows that he had a similar biography to the Millennium series' other protagonist, Mikael Blomkvist (played in the American film by Daniel Craig). The similarities are very striking, notably that Blomkvist seems like a more successful version of Larsson. I suspect that Larsson, who wrote the entire series before it was published and without the knowledge that it would become a phenomenon, created Lisbeth out of many parts of his own desires, then placed her in a world to exist with a "better" version of himself. As a writer, I've done this myself and many critics of the Twilight series accuse the author, Stephanie Meyer, of creating Bella as basically an incarnation of herself. I think that this angle of the Millenium series must be examined further... it definitely supports the idea that Lisbeth is in many ways an ideal male conception of a fantasy woman.

Fantastic post, and a welcome addition to the public conversation on these books and movies.

Thanks for the review. I haven't read the book, but I have been wanting to see the movie. I know that it's graphic, but I'm intrigued by the story of life in a secular society where God is absent. In such a world, there will be a lot of awful things.

I never thought of seeing the main character as a heroine to be imitated, I don't think I would ever do that. Instead, I hope to glean insight into someone who has been hurt and victimized. A movie being dark and graphic isn't a reason not to watch it (although some people may choose not to watch because they feel strongly about not viewing such material, or because of their past it is too hurtful), I want to learn from it. If I am heartbroken and upset by what I see, then that is good - I should be heartbroken by the victimization and abuse of people.

Karen H: You are right: I did spend perhaps undue time in critiquing the character--rightly or wrongly, however, it was to counter the seeping idolization I see of her in popular culture. But thanks for that gentle chastisement. :)

Oh, and if you knew me and my friends, you would not be surprised at our choice in girls' night out films. :) I prefer films that give me something to think about as this one clearly did.

Ha. You're welcome. ;-) And I'm similar when it comes to films, though this one I preferred only to see with the hubby. (as opposed to my mom) :)

"She's essentially a breasted boy." ?? You must not be afraid of offending any of the men readers out there.

Also, can you please explain how she is anorexic? She eats in the movie, she says that she has high metabolism and can't gain weight. I don't see any sign of her being anorexic.
I saw the movie and have not read the books. The sexual content, especially the rape scene made me sick to my stomach but in a way that broke my heart knowing that these kinds of things really do happen to women and many times there is no one willing to stand up and fight for them. I applaud her for being brave enough to take matters into her own hands and confront the evil that she was forced to deal with.

I find it difficult to be comfortable with what the author of this article thinks men want in a woman. One example:

"This confirms my evaluation of Salander as less a role model for women and more the projection of a base male fantasy. Many men would be only too happy for women to emulate Lisbeth Salander."

I would argue that those individuals are NOT MEN. They are children, clumsily staggering about their mediocre lives, basing their entitlements upon which chromosomes they ended up with. A MAN serves his female companion. He provides love, support, strength, value, A SPINE, another valuable, well considered opinion, etc. I hear you projecting negative stereotypes of men onto all of us with comments like that.

Perhaps you are surrounded by many self serving, ego-maniacal male primates that only see their female counterparts as some kind of object.

Those individuals are not men at all.

Salander might even be described as a pagan Proverbs 31 woman. Now doesn't that conjure up quite a picture!

And Karen, your conclusion is outstanding: There’s only one pedestal that anyone worthy was ever placed upon, and that pedestal wasn’t comprised of a silver screen or a bestsellers list or a Facebook status, but of a mere plank and a crossbeam. Beautifully put.

Cheers,
Tim

On the top of page 41 of the book (loaned to me by a friend for reference in writing this post) the narrator says she is anorexic. She and Armansky express otherwise. My use of the term employs the third definition from this dictionary and does not indicate assessment of an actual medical condition:

an·o·rex·ic (n-rksk)
adj.
1. Suffering from or afflicted with anorexia nervosa.
2. Anorectic.
3. Characterized by severe economy of style and expression

[excuse typos in the above]

Cliff: actually, I wrote "some men." The editor must have changed it to "many." I am not surrounded by such men at all, but do know of their existence. :)

And I agree with your argument about such not being real men at all.

Why would a Christian watch a prolonged rape scene and a sex scene that is pornographic? I'm mystified that Ms. Prior would watch the movie, let alone write about it. If the apostle Paul tells us that "it is shameful even to speak of the things that they do in secret" (Eph. 5:12), how can it be right to watch such things or suggest that it is okay to watch them? If it is wrong to speak of such things, how can it be right to fill your mind with graphic images of them? To speak out against watching immorality is neither of "the twin traps of demonization or idolization." It is a call to holiness, a call sadly lacking in modern evangelicalism. If what many professing Christians write and talk about is any indication, then being "culturally relevant" seems more important than being Christlike.

Now, I can "read" the replies. Words like "prude" and "fundy" will likely be thrown around a-plenty. But before you reply to my prudish, fundamentalist, backward, ignorant comments, take a few minutes to read and pray over Ephesians 5 and ask, "Can I justify what I watch on TV or at the movies in light of this text?"

This trash of a book and movie deserve to be ignored rather than reviewed by a Christian columnist at that! I am disappointed you could not write about something more edifying. Nothing like gettng down into the cesspools of Hollywood for a review. You wasted this weeks column. This kind of trash needs to be ignored not reviewed. Sorry!

Nathan, you can push your head down into the sand all day but that does not change the weather that surrounds the rest of you.

This column is about a current film that many are watching. It's a very interesting discussion and I'm not sure the author of the article was providing a review of the film/book as much as beginning a discussion on the issues brought up by the material within.

Wow, going to have to agree with Rebecca and KSP on this. After reading the content advisory on IMDB, I made a decision to not see this movie; it's not that I won't watch R movies, but I draw the line when it contains nudity (all nudity, but especially graphic!) and extreme violence and excessive vulgar language. It's a personal decision and I choose not to fill my head with garbage and I'm appalled that this movie even got "air time" on this website. How can someone who is out to glorify God and attempt to be Christ-like even watch this movie? Why would one subject themselves to a graphic sex/rape scene? I'm going to think twice before clicking this website and referring my Christian friends to this blog site.

This post certainly seems a fair treatment of the topic. My concern isn't so much the quality of the characters presented in books and movies (although that is a legitimate point), but the mindless imitation of whoever and whatever is 'hot' at the moment. Are young people so without identity that they must latch on to and mimic others to feel special?

As a Christian, I am to find and define my identity in Christ- certainly not in fictional characters.

I've read the books and have seen the Swedish version of the films, but I have yet to see the American version. I found the books excellent reads and appreciated the expose of the trafficking of women in Europe.

I never really got the impression from the author that Lisbeth was to be emulated or that she represented an ideal woman. Larsson's characters shouldn't serve as role models for us to look up to, but their experiences should serve to remind us of our responsibility to care for victims of sexual abuse and corruption.

Nathan, hopefully most Christians like myself agree with you 100 percent.First of all Christianity is becoming more and more compromising/wordly. Why in the world would a Christian even subject themselves to the disturbing filth that was described in this movie. God is holy, we too are to be holy by living in obedience to our Lord. Yes we continue to sin and God forgives us however,we should not have a "desire" for things of this world nor should we be ok with listening or watching anything that we know would offend God and hinder our walk with him. My pastor gave a great example one day. he said whatever we listen to with our ears or watch with our eyes remember Jesus is listening and watching with us. He does not cover His ears or His eyes with His hands during a movie or any other entertainment that we shouldn't be watching in the first place and that's why we have the holy spirit. Be careful and diligent brothers and sister's in Christ. Remember the devil prowls around like a roaring lion seeking whom he can devour and many times it's when we begin compromising our faith. Jesus Reigns!

I think that complaints about the existance of the article are mis-placed. The author is not asking everyone to go see the movie. She is clear about reasons why many would not go see it. I have not read the books or watched the movies because I am concerned about the sexualized violence. I have asked a number of people that I know and trust about whether they think I should read them and the opinions are mostly affirmative, but everyone understands why I am asking.

So I get why don't watch it. But I am always concerned when one Christian judges the validity of another person's faith because because of their consumption of media or beverage or food. Pretty sure the apostle Paul had something to say about doing that.

Thanks, Adam. I intentionally expose myself to many aspects of culture that I wouldn't do out of my own interest or desire because of my work: I teach college students. If I am to engage intelligently and wisely with young minds grappling with the many messages they are bombarded with and that they choose to subject themselves to, I cannot have my head in the sand, as someone above pointed out. I realize that some will see this as an excuse or mere rationalizing, but I have the testimony of my students who express great benefit from my willingness to stand with them and talk through ideas and temptations and worldviews. Indeed Jesus did not close his eyes while he was with me in the theater. Rather he was informing me and teaching me how to understand the world and people of the film through the Word.

To those saying that a Christian shouldn't consume material like this movie, have you ever gone near Judges? The Bible is full of the realities of violence and sexual dysfunction, and calls us to be sober and ready to interact with them. The answer is not to bury your head in the sand, screaming about a single passage taken outside of the whole of scripture. We must be mature, and we must know what we can personally, soberly interact with. If you can't, that's fine, but some can. Please don't project your own limits onto the arts or onto others as scriptural morality.

I found this article intriguing and well put, Karen. I have read the books and am planning to see the movie next week. I have grappled with the content and context in this book myself and your observations resonated with me. I

I started reading the series because some of the high school and college students I work with were reading or had read the novels as well as two of my non-christian friends. I too feel that my ministry is strengthened when I can talk to them from an educated standpoint based on my own personal observations about the topic at hand rather than taking everyone elses word for it and trying to formulate my own opinion. Furthermore I think it is important key to understanding them, their struggles, and the culture that is shaping their opinions and perceptions of themselves.

I'm going to see the movie with the friends I formentioned and I'm hoping it will breed some interesting discussion. I know the book has. They particularly have put Salander on a pedestal for her willingness to fight back. I however see Salander as I wounded soul "getting revenge" in an unhealthy manner. I'm still not sure how I feel about her tactics except for that they are lacking tact.

And your closing statement was brilliantly and eloquently put. Thank you for putting yourself out there and writing about such controversial topics. We can't ignore them!

Anorexic? I seem to recall that Salander eats noodles at one point, has a few Happy Meals, and snacks during research. Or do all cyberpunks have eating disorders?

I think the point being missed is less that she does these things and more that the way she does it is appealing. She has a certain style that others find empowering. She's also trying to un-Other the way she's being consistently Other-ed by society. Even if the Suicide Girl look doesn't help. But much like Batman and his appeal, Salander is much the same way and just as much a vigilante. That said, just as some people emulate rock stars, I'd hope that your Facebook friend knows the difference between socially (un)acceptable behaviors. In that sense, yes, this is just a movie. Then again, don't remind me of the number of musicians trying make their own Mick Jagger moments.

You may want to search out the original Swedish films. Not only are the actors better - more vulnerable and human by miles than Craig and Mara - but Salander is given more agency than in this remake. For good or ill, yes, but a better sense of agency than the remake.

One needs only to look at the odd relationship between Fincher and Rooney to see that his portrayal of Salander in the movie can definitely be argued to be a more of a male fantasy than anything. After seeing the preview, I had a sick stomach and I knew going to see the movie wasn't something I'd want to do. However, I did read an article about the director and Rooney in Vogue, and I got the same sense Dr. Prior did, that Salander was, at least in the movie, more of a male fantasy than a well-developed or admirable character. I don't think opening a bottle of wine and showing the interviewer the rape and sodomy scenes while admitting "I like that sense of uh-oooh" helps diminish that idea for me, either:

http://www.vogue.com/magazine/article/rooney-mara-playing-with-fire/

What's the difference between watching a pornographic scene in a porn theater, on your laptop, or at an AMC theater in suburbia? Porn is porn, right?

I saw the original films. My wife read the books. I am a man. And as a man -- with a 30 year old daughter, that in a number of ways bares a Salander-sort of brokenness -- I especially appreciate your insights and critique! Yes, a pan-sexual neo-pagan tragic hero, a heart-breaking next gen goth/vamp child of our "post-modern" (whatever) age. These stories are a good study of the times, to better know our moment in human history; but we need to be careful not to idolize such brokenness. Thank you, sister. Shalom, K. D. Kragen

thank you for well written engaging writing about real world topics. the movie made me uncomfortable and you defined many of the causes. thanks!

I appreciate your insight into this film. I probably won't be seeing it on account of the graphic nature (in particular, a graphic rape scene? Nonononono.).

It's surprising to me that so many women would want to emulate her. I wonder if the author had intended such a thing.

Interesting, for sure. I appreciate the discussion. I haven't read the books or seen the American version, but I did see the Swedish version and I kind of liked it. According to one critic the American film lacks a lot of the political undertones and character development of the Swedish films.
When I watched the Swedish films, I didn't come away with a sense of admiration for Lisbeth at all. She was clearly a very broken, troubled woman. I felt compassion for her mixed with rooting for her vindication. She is a victim and that seemed to be the point. She had been victimized, she had reacted violently, and her retaliation was gruesome and hopefully not to be admired. I wanted her to stop being hurt, and I wanted her to take control of her life as every victim can and should.

I get very irritated when people try to use the Bible to condemn other Christians, or to pretend that gruesome, violent, and horrific things aren't real. We don't tell victims of sexual crimes "Oh, you shouldn't speak of the evil that was done to you in secret! The Bible says so!" Or, at least, I hope you don't.

The reaction of any healthy person to the violence portrayed in the movies I saw is disgust and loathing. Is it wrong that something like those scenes of graphic abuse makes those crimes real to the audience in that moment? Maybe we need that sometimes. In Christian communities there is often such a gulf between our experiences, the ones we know and talk about, and the suffering of others. Rape, torture, and slaughter actually happens every single day. If the author intended for his books to raise awareness of sexual violence and trafficking, then getting the audience in the gut is the point. People don't often try to change things for the better that seem distant and unrealistic.

Interesting point... But wouldn't you say that "men who hate women" (the original Swedish title of the book and film) - those who rape, kill and otherwise hurt - are the ones who hurt women? I think that's the point of the film. Salander is not to be admired for what she specifically does, but for the fact that she survives in spite of all she has been through.

I feel as though the movie would not be honoring to God. So bottom line I do not think it is one that should be seen by Christians. I am not saying that we have to have blinders on to the terrible things that happen in this world but in no way does reading a seriously 'gritty' book with sin overflowing out of it or seeing the movie is something that is pure or holy or worthy of our thoughts. In saying all of that I appreciated your article and find you to be very well written. I just wish Christians could think about why they would ever really need to see an R rated movie and it be beneficial.

For the pornographic scenes alone, why is this movie edifying for Christians to watch?

So, I guess that if a story about a female rape victim who carries out a violent, sexualized revenge on her rapist is not "worthy of our thoughts" and "shameful to even speak of," then a story about BROTHERS of a female rape victim who carry out a violent, sexualized revenge on their sister's rapist would likewise be not worthy of our thoughts and shameful to speak of, right? Oh wait, that's the story in Genesis chapter 34. Are we not supposed to speak of that either?

Why are we surprised that some women want to emulate Lisbeth Salander as avenger? Surely too many men through the ages have emulated Simeon and Levi, haven't they?

Truly, there is nothing new under the sun, and there is a time and a place and a purpose for encountering and confronting these issues. Sometimes that encounter and confrontation takes place best within the worlds of literature and art.

I won't be seeing this movie because I can't stomach personally watching what is in this film. That being said, I understand the reasoning Karen uses to go view this. She is engaging in culture and having real conversations with her students. This is so necessary. We Believers need to enter culture in ways that won't damage us but will allow us to meet people where they are at. This is different for each of us. I know I can't watch a violent rape scene or nudity. It would really disturb me and it would be difficult for me to get past it. Yet, there are other parts of culture I can enter that other Believers might have a hard time entering. We are to be all things to all people so that we might win them to Christ. If we just condemn culture we are condemning the people who are part of it -- that is what they will think.

So, we need to ask ourselves a question: where can I involve myself in culture, where can I go to touch souls? What can I handle? Of course we go where God tells us to go, but it is a good question to ask because maybe in the asking, we will be led somewhere we wouldn't have chosen to go on our own.

Karen, I very much appreciate this article. While there are points that I don't agree with and stand uncomfortable with word pairings (Pagan and Proverbs 31.. that's a new one for me!), you have sparked a conversation that allows christian women to examine our media. As a Christian, we are not to be of this world, we are to be knowledgeable about what influences others (what tactics Satan uses!) so that we may continue to minister to others the truth.

Like a previous poster, I also have tried to help a friend that portrays some of these very characteristics.. , matter of fact, I work with women who suffer from sexual addiction / pornography addiction issues. When exploring the core roots of these issues, it becomes clear that these are daughters who never knew about their importance in Jesus. Also, these women can sometimes take on a male persona as a way of aligning themselves with men so they will no longer have to be the victim. Not Christ's plan for us, for sure; yet, we need to be careful that when we look at hurting people, we see the wounded daughter, not the hold that Satan has on her.

That's too bad about there being a highly pornographic rape scene; I have never seen the movie, but I read the first book. The literary version of the scene didn't seem to spark disgust, but rather showed the horror that this girl was experiencing in her life. I am sure that it's Hollywood, trying to make a buck as usual!

Again, thanks for the article and thanks ladies (and gents!) for the lively debate that this has sparked.

I read this book with my 'secular' book club - all women. I skipped over all the rape and pornographic descriptions that pepper the story. I just couldn't read through it - like i tell my teenagers "garbage in, garbage out." BUT now they are beginning to read this 'adult' literature. Articles like this help me to frame their reading experiences -

I heard on a NPR film review that the Swedish Salander is more inline with the books' character than the US version.

This is a great, thought provoking article; but left unsaid, is how much violence and revenge presented as 'real' affects us. The vast majority of films I've watched, more often than not the 'victim' becomes angry, and satisfying angry 'justice' is served. How much as that affected our collective psyche? How much does that then affect what we view as 'normal'? A wonderful movie could be made about Immaculee Illibagiza and 'Left to Tell', her book about the Rwandan genocide, and her journey to forgiveness and God. It would provide wonderful fuel for discussion as well.

I read your article with interest. One nitpick: I really wish that we, as Christians, wouldn't call sex "doing it" or "doing" others as you did in para. 6. It cheapens sex and echoes the baseness and crassness with which the world discusses it. I recognize that sex isn't exactly portrayed reverentially in the movie, but my hope is that, in our discourse, we could speak of it a bit more respectfully. Thanks for listening.

Rebecca preaches to the choir and people like her will never reach anyone outside the choir (proof? the glaring failure of modern evangelism).

Interesting article. I have read the books and seen the first Swedish film. The books are highly readable and draw you into the story. They are commendable in that the draw attention to the issue of sexual trafficking and that most governments and law enforcement care little or are doing little about the issue (particularly when the first book came out 7 or 8 years ago).

I agree that Salander is a bit of a mix of kick-butt heroine, women-need-men-like-fish-need-bicycles attitude, and I'll have sex with without any emotional attachment wanted or needed. I think where she completely veers from reality is how she is almost entirely self-sufficient vocationally and financially. It is not my experience that people who have been so abused and misused by almost everyone in their life, have the luxury of of being so self-sufficient in most other areas of their lives. In that way, she seemed like someone you could only meet in a fictional story.

Rather than just Salander I was struck more by the fact that almost all of the characters that could be considered "good" in the books very much have the attitude of as long as no one gets "hurt" have sex with whomever you want, whenever you want. Most characters with different attitudes was portrayed in a negative light in some way.

I have not seen this movie, nor will I. What I know about it comes from advertisements and the reviews of others. Assuming what these reviews have said is true it is obvious this movie is unfit for human consumption, particularly Christian consumption.

One gentleman said: “I am always concerned when one Christian judges the validity of another person's faith because of their consumption of media or beverage or food.” There’s a world of difference between judging the validity of one’s faith by what he drinks or eats and by what media he consumes. Drink and food enter the body and are eliminated. Media enters the spirit and soul and is never eliminated. The poison remains.

Would the consumption of Playboy/Playgirl or the consumption of a "Girls Gone Wild" video or the consumption of a Chippendale stripper show by one who has taken the name “Christian” be a cause to question the faith of such a one? At the very least it would reveal an infantile faith that is in need of correction.

But Satan is devious and cunning. While some Christians may never consider consuming media that is openly pornographic such as that listed above they willingly consume media that is just as pornographic if it is dressed up as art. Make no mistake. Satan takes as much pleasure in seeing one of God’s children watching "Girl with the Dragon Tattoo" as he does any other media that sates man’s fallen nature.

Is it any wonder the Church has become virtually irrelevant in our society? When viewing a pornographic movie as a “Girls Night Out” event can be justified in the minds of those who have taken the name “Christian” the distinction between the world and the Church has ceased to exist.

There is a story recounted by the bishop and historian Theodoret about a monk named Telemachus. In A.D. 404 Telemachus, witnessing the brutality and inhumanity of a gladiatorial game, rushed out into the arena and shouted, “In the name of Christ, stop!” The crowd, their entertainment interrupted (and perhaps their consciences pricked), were infuriated at Telemachus. Their rage resulted in the death of Telemachus at their hands by stoning. Yet, it was this act of conscience on the part of Telemachus and his subsequent murder that prompted Emperor Honorius to ban the games for all time.

Whether this story is true or not the point is well taken. Unless Christians are willing to take a public stand against crude, vulgar, and pornographic entertainment, regardless of the cost, it will continue to poison the spirits of those created in the image of God.

Who said the film is pornography? If it were pornography, it would be rated X and not allowed in the regular theaters. Something can have pornographic elements and not be pornography, just as something can be poetic and not be a poem, be realistic without being real, be fantastic without being fantasy ... must I go on?

I hope that, despite any other areas of disagreement, as people of the Word we can agree on the importance of words and their definitions since these come from the Logos or the Word.

To those who remarked negatively about my comment-your a perfect example of using really good excuses for "compromising" the Christian faith. I mean really,how ridiculous.Your fooling no one but yourselves.

P.S. Excellent comment Terry -words of wisdom and very well said! You're a breath of fresh air for the Christian faith!

Hi, Karen. Per our earlier Twitter conversations, here is my in-depth reaction to the post. First off, I applaud you for doing what far too many of those of us who follow Christ would refuse to do, and surrender yourself to the story taking place on the screen. Those who question "why a Christian would go see a film like this" are wasting comment chain space with empty calories, as there are huge theological themes taking place in "Dragon Tattoo."

And, because those themes are so profound, and because Salander is such a compelling character, I'm afraid you've missed the forest for the trees. I resonate with your cultural critique of cheap clothing lines and quickness to emulate fictional characters, but that is a deeper issue in Western culture than "life imitating art." I would quickly point out that Salander, a very influential fictional character in my own reading, is a compelling and memorable character, and people admitting that they are heavily impacted by that character are not necessarily emulating the character...not necessarily being "wannabes," even if they adopt some visual markers of a character that is influential to them. There is much to be considered strong about Salander. She has overcome trauma, she has overcome various psychological disorders (Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder for certain, and likely Asperger's, as well) by capitalizing on her strengths. The sexuality and other moral issues you see in her are symptoms of the things that she has been through, indicators of a broken psyche. And who among us doesn't have a broken psyche at some level? This isn't calling that a good thing: its admitting that is real. Salander portrays what is real masterfully, and that's why she is a compelling character. She, like the rest of us, are fallen, and it is difficult to see our own falleness.

So, to say that Salander's character is harmful to women or is not a role model is a conclusion brought about, I think, by asking the wrong questions. It's no surprise that the character has been through what she has (the original title of the novel before being translated into English was "Men Who Hate Women"), because the author was speaking critically of huge socio-political issues. Salander is a character in a drama of the loss of social justice...although that's a theme that tends to be unpopular amongst Christians on the right. However, that may not have been obvious in the film, as it truly comes to light in the second book of the trilogy.

So, to approach Salander evangelically, so to speak...that is, to say that she is an example of a broken person who needs Christ...is to see her far too narrowly. The character isn't intended to raise those questions. Should she bring to mind someone in our lives, then let that person in your life raise those questions. Instead, this is a story that should cause Christians to question much deeper theological and social themes than whether or not they think Salander is a role model. If her suitability (or lack thereof) as a role model is all someone walks away from this story with, then they have wasted their time completely.

Dave,

Hear Hear!

Lisbeth Salander. Daughter of a sex-trafficking, drug-dealing, murdering sadist. Witness to the severe abuse of her mother. Raped and tortured by her social worker. Hunted by a father who is a sociopath his sidekick, her brother. Add to that that she is definitely a genius, and almost certainly possessed of an autism spectrum disorder. What you get is a picture of amazing complexity.

"She’s essentially a breasted boy," is the most shallow bit of character criticism possible. The New Yorker aside, I don't think that many people would call her a role model who should be emulated.

As for redemption, there is an element of it in the denouement of the story. However, even were that lacking, she would still be a fascinating character with depth far beyond this bit of media criticism.

KSP, I must take issue with your assertion above: "Something can have pornographic elements and not be pornography." Sure, also, my foot can be gangrenous and not be killing me, right? Jesus died to save sinners and then gave us the Holy Spirit so we can do what is otherwise impossible: live on a daily basis free from the bonds of sin. Do I do that perfectly? Not by a long shot, but that's not the point. Rather (and I say this also to those who bring up the R-rated portions of the Bible), the problem with taking this in as a movie is the vicarious experience it creates. Learning of an interesting character or narrative through reading is NOT the same thing as seeing and hearing sinful acts committed or simulated by actors on a screen. KSP, if your teaching warrants you understanding Lisbeth so you can engage with your students about these issues, please invest the time to read the book.

Otherwise, if we watch entertainment such as this, how can we say we're obedient to "Be holy, for I am holy" (1 Pet 1:16), "Therefore, 'come out from their midst and be separate,'" says the Lord, "'and do not touch what is unclean'" (2 Cor 6:17), or (a statement of exclusivity from a man's perspective), "Let HER breasts satisfy you at all times" (Prov 5:19, my emphasis)? Please, readers, join me in pondering these things.

Grace and peace through the Lord Jesus Christ,

Bill

Dave,

Thanks for your throughtful and nuanced response. There is nothing in your comment that I disagree with. I suspect that had I read the books, I'd have left those (and perhaps the film) with a much fuller plate of questions and thoughts, like the excellent ones you raise here.

Having viewed the film, however, armed with the bit of information I had and no knowledge of the books, my critique truly was what I described above: an overwhelming response to the very intriguing character of Lisbeth and the desire to sort out how we should respond to her as opposed to how I was seeing her being responded to in my, albeit limited, sphere.

I am responding quite specifically to David Fincher's portrayal of Salander and while I appreciate and certainly am considering the points you, Erin, Robyn, and other engaged commenters have brought up, I stand by my evaluation of that character as portrayed in that medium.

I am certain there is much, much more in the books (and even the film) to consider than a single blog post permits. I make no pretense that my offering is complete.

Thanks for such enriching feedback.

I loved the books, saw the Swedish films and though I'm 63 yrs old, I did identify with Lizbeth, and cried for her and myself, an emotionally wounded, gradually healing believer. One of the most, or perhaps the most touching scenes I've ever witnessed is !spoiler alert to anyone who hasn't read the book!, after her "killing" and burial, when she is found by Blomkvist and simply surrenders herself into his care. After her hurt and rejection, her ability to love and trust two good men is remarkable and it is portrayed marvelously. I have seldom read such a complex book dealing with injustice, I love Salandar and wish we could read the next seven books that were intended...revealing the story of her sister! Drama and literature are ways we learn about life!

I read the first book. It's not well-written enough to justify the unpleasant experience of reading it or continuing on with the series.

Interesting that people defend the series because it is "realistic". That shouldn't be the first criterion for art.

It amazes me how people go after disturbing media experiences merely because they are "realistic" or "well done". The popularity of "Dexter", "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo", "The Silence of the Lambs", and all the explicitly violent murder investigation television series suggest Americans have a large appetite for perversity and violence. And they are arguably not reflective of reality. There just are not that many mass murderers running amok among us.

Whatever happened to "whatever is good... fill your mind with these things"?

Karen,

After reading your article I'm confused. In the same sentence you disclaim "This isn't a film review and...I offer analysis based only on the film." From that, I can't really discern what you're driving at so I'll try to figure it in this response.

Character study has rightly informed the way we see ourselves for as long as characters have been created. It's part of the beauty of literature, film and all media. In your case, being introduced to a character through a Facebook status is a rather recent phenomenon however. Facebook and Twitter have afforded us the privilege to form quick uninformed opinions about things for which we previously were forced to seriously chew on and investigate. This is true in your owns words, "My immediate reaction, though I knew nothing at that point about the book or the character, was 'uh oh'".

My main critique of your article isn't whether Lisbeth Salander should or shouldn't be regarded as a heroine. For the rest of the world that doesn't read first-world evangelical posts like these, Lisbeth Salander is and will be regarded as a hero for better or for worse and in some cases should be. While your (and mine) hero, the one "placed upon...a mere plank and crossbeam" is the greatest character study of all, his story has yet to be discovered by many a victim of sexual injustice and Salander will have to suffice for standing up against said injustice.

Don't take me wrong, I'm not nihilistic or cynical enough to say if Stieg Larsson is all you've got, that's all you'll get. However, I'm realistic enough to know that my definition of sexual injustice or my fight against gender prejudice can't be informed by someone's facebook status, clothing line or even David Fincher's Hollwood star-crossed vision of Larsson's book.

You say that Lisbeth Salander is hurting women yet you don't provide any statistical or even anecdotal evidence of such. Your credibility to make such claims stems from "watch[ing] [a] friend undergo self-injury, sexual victimization, sexual deviancy, drug addiction, institutionalization, and the occasional come-to-Jesus moment"? I hate to break it to you but I have those friends too. They are guys, fully masculine and fully devoted to a spiritual struggle that extends well past the publication of a swedish mystery novel.

Going back to my initial confusion at what you were driving at with this article...are you trying to rescue women from stereotypical chains that Hollywood places on them? If so, I would contend that you are using this platform to perpetuate chains that are placed on men as well. You write, "She has the smarts and independence men increasingly expect in a post-feminist world, makes a great work partner, stitches up a bullet hole with vodka and dental floss, rides a motorcycle, initiates sex (and does girls, too), makes breakfast the morning after, brings herself to orgasm while her partner lies back and thinks about work—all the while staying (largely) emotionally unattached. She’s essentially a breasted boy."

So...that means all boys are just great work partners, stitch bullet holes with vodka and dental floss, ride motorcycles and initiate sex? All boys bring ourselves to orgasm while staying emotionally unattached? Karen, are you married, do you have a boyfriend or have a son? Do you assign these stereotypical cliche's to them as well? Hopefully, the other men who are reading this post and sincerely following Christ the best way they know how won't be offended by the same unjust prejudices that you herein propagate. I'll clue you in...not all men get off on these movies, their imagery and feel the need to beat their chest when movies like these are made.

I get it. You went and watched a movie that has some seriously disturbing themes and you have an emotional response. Did you apply the same Facebook-litmus test to last years sordid tale of female sexual deviancy, Black Swan? Darn it, Hollywood why do you continue to define my view of all women as sexually repressed, catty, snobby, closet-ballerinas, jealous with low self-esteem. Geez, those male directors and their need to compensate.

Well, hats off to the Stiegster for accomplishing his goals: awareness of sexual deviancy, injustice and *gasp* swedish culture. It's too bad he's not around to chat with Darren Arrenovsky or the execs at MGM and Columbia. All we have of Larsson are three books from which to derive a character that should and will be studied, admired and hated. The joy of film is that it can be watched but the lasting beauty of literature is that it can be read, again and again. From the pages of books we continue to peel back the "layers of our own facade". I'm so glad the Lord reveals our facade's in more than one Book.

With Respect,
Jonathan Simmons

Jonathan,

Thank you for a thoughtful and excellent response.

A couple of clarifications: in my submitted essay, I said I was offering a "character analysis" and apparently the word "character" was edited out. So I was distinguishing between a full-fledged film review and my much more narrow character analysis. I didn't realize until your comment that that word had been edited out. I can see the confusion that would cause.Furthermore, the character I was analyzing was David Fincher's interpretation and portrayal in the film, not the one in the book series or the original Swedish film.

I didn't write the title. The idea of harming women is nowhere in my post or my thesis.

I hope my description of boys would not be offensive to men. I think the things I described are those which, as Cliff noted above, distinguish men from boys.

In terms of the rest of your insightful points, you are "preaching to the choir." I am a literature professor and am very aware and appreciative of the way art, literature, and film reveal truths that allow us to peel back the layers of facade. In fact, that is the subject of my book that will be published later this year.

I assure you I'm very comfortable with "dark themes" and my analysis of the character portrayed in the film was really not emotional at all. I'm not sure what "emotions" you detected in my post.

Again, thank you for the engaging and thoughtful response.

Interesting article. I have not read any of the books, nor seen the movie, but the title is intriguing.

Based on the character's description, I have seen films with similar characters ("V" for example), so I don't feel the need to see the film, nor read the novel. For this reason, I thank you, Karen Swallow Prior!

Hollywood often exaggerate the most base elements of the books or screen plays they use for plots. Sex and violence sells movie tickets--at least to the primary movie-going audience of teens & 20-somethings. Of course, like any profit-hungry business, Hollywood movie-makers will always go for the most profit-building source materials available.

Like most of our current "entertainment" industries, the movie industry panders to the sinful nature of Man.

This is why Christian films are not "bankable" in Hollywood's 'eye,' so must be made as "independent films," using much smaller budgets and lesser-known actors.

But, for my dollar, I prefer entertainment with positive messages and honorable (though, flawed) characters.

Why would a Christian who desires to be set apart for life with the Lord want to pollute their minds with this? This is not a real person who needs to be saved. She is fictional character, yet she is being used to cause many, even in just reading this review, to stumble into sin. Let us remember what the Lord has saved us from, and what He has saved us to - a life of holiness, being set apart for His glory. I question how this blog is edifying in any way.

Amazing as always, KSP.

I love all the comments all but calling you a Satanist for even SEEING such a sinful, awful film. I'm sure one of them will come up with a Christian version of this movie, probably starring Kirk Cameron. ;)

Karen,

As a magazine editor myself, I suggest that you insist on an author review before the article is posted, since so many of your responses include the phrase "that must have been edited out." In the age of instant messaging, there is no reason not to run every blog post (including the headline) past the author, since people assume that her blogs come straight from her computer to their screen--just like the posts they themselves write.

@Rianna:

"Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in the way of a brother or sister. I am convinced, being fully persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for that person it is unclean. If your brother or sister is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy someone for whom Christ died."

Ok Ok, so Paul was talking about food. But still.

If you don't have a problem with this movie, fine. But how hard is it to admit that this film is potentially a HUGE stumbling block for other believers? Why would a blog associated with Christianity Today dangle in front of people, provoking curiosity to see the film, knowing full well the graphic content? As if oral sex + graphic rape + violence + more graphic sex, are not a big deal??

PLEASE, I ask AGAIN for a CLEAR disclaimer advising readers to use discretion when choosing to see this movie!

Doesn't the post contain enough detail to serve in itself as a "clear disclaimer advising readers to use discretion when choosing" whether or not to see this movie?

Well KSP, I'd have thought so. The original post certainly wasn't a ringing endorsement indiscriminately encouraging one and all to rush out to see it!

;-)

Cheers,
Tim

KSP, If you truly think you've provided enough of a disclaimer to clarify the nature of this movie, then I guess that is your burden to carry. To me, saying in passing "oh yeah there's one kinda long rape scene that's a little over the top" does not do it.

But thank you for at least a reply.

Kristen, if you read the post again, you'll see that I mention more than the rape scene. But you are right: my assessment of the character and the film is my burden, just as I believe it is the burden of every believer to be discerning, responsive to the Holy Spirit, and accountable to God and the fellowship of believers for the things we expose ourselves to. I believe that as Christians we are all called to engage the culture, but in different ways. Not everyone's work demands of them that they engage the culture on this level (of a popular film with disturbing content), but mine does.

The purpose of this post was not to advise anyone to see or not to see the film, but rather to inform those who are aware of the film and interested in it as a cultural phenomenon (whether seeing it or not) what one Christian's assessment of it was. Advice on movie selections can be found at a number of Christian and family-oriented web sites, and they are very helpful resources.

I just saw the movie, and while I cannot speak for the book, I agree with the article about Lisbeth. There is no doubt that she is intended to be an original, strong character, male or female notwithstanding; so the fact that she is a woman seems to naturally elevate her as unique and powerful, if not an unconventional role model of sorts. And on many levels the actress and the filmmakers achieve this --despite a "cold" and "closed" personality, she ends up being the one with whom the viewer most sympathizes (I think of the way the hurt of the last scene of the movie not only evokes the repressed emotional side of the heroine but also it transports Mikel, a would-be ideal-man character/partner, to the realm of misogyny). Not to mention the various examples above.

Despite this, though, I found that, like the author, Lisbeth ended up being nothing more than another victim of the male gaze. With the multiple shots of bare (or nearly bare) body parts, the vast majority of which were female, specifically Lisbeth's, the heterosexual male viewer received more than his fair share of a subject to objectify. Her empowered sexuality then, even in the scene where she rejects the masculine altogether by sleeping with a random girl from the club, loses its potency as a result. The lesbian scene becomes less a symbol of the female's strength and (sexual) independence as it is an occasion to once again attract the male gaze: two naked women on the screen at the same time, one of which is much more of the stereotypical “pretty” woman archetype.

Again, I do not want to discount the entertainment value of the film or the fact that it is a really good picture. The movie is suspenseful, filled with action, and without a doubt smart –no wonder its critical acclaim in both literary and cinematic circles, across hemispheres even. Also, I do believe that as an interesting, intelligent, and all around novel character, Lisbeth provides a refreshing movie experience. Still, while I understand and recognize the power that Lisbeth's sexuality bestows upon her persona (one that clearly stands apart from many other female protagonists in film), in the end, however, the director's (a man: David Fincher. The screenplay writer, also a man, by the way.) sexualization of her body not only negated her own sexual independence, but also her ability to function as the "original and strong woman" character that she should/could be: in essence, the “strengths” of Lisbeth are not her own so much as they are ascribed to her by men, and as such Lisbeth ultimately functions to serve, once again, the masculine agenda. I mean, Lisbeth solved the case and saved Mikel’s life, in addition to bringing down a corrupt corporate engine in Sweden, yet the man receives all the glory and reaps most, if not all the rewards (Lisbeth cannot keep the money she steals from the businessman, which she did to help Mikel). And it was not enough that Lisbeth gave of her body and her spirit in her “relationship” with Mikel; a physical, material gift (the leather jacket) was also required, albeit one that was never given. And perhaps that is why Lisbeth did not “get the guy” as Mikel clearly “got” all the women he desired: she did not give enough, soon enough of herself as the male gaze requires.

Unfortunately (and I say unfortunately because I wish it were not so) Karen’s words really do ring true: Lisbeth ends up being little more than an ideal male counterpart rather than the unique and independent female character that she should/could have been. And maybe she is, theoretically (I hear that Larsson’s original Swedish title conveys a more critical view of the masculine), but the director most definitely made sure to erase that side of her by pandering to the male audience’s formulaic desire to see a good movie, one that consists of action, sexualized women, and the (male) hero winning out.

Cool movie.

Especially the character, Lizbeth, is perfect..

Sun	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
			1	2	3	4
5	6	7	8	9	10	11
12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25
26	27	28	29

Hermenuetics

twitter updates

What Is Her.meneutics?

interests

writers

Free Newsletters

books we're reading

blogs we're watching

Why 'Girl with the Dragon Tattoo' Is Hurting Women

Comments

recent posts

Archives

Hermenuetics

twitter updates

What Is Her.meneutics?

interests

writers

Free Newsletters

books we're reading

blogs we're watching

Why 'Girl with the Dragon Tattoo' Is Hurting Women

Comments

recent posts

tags

Archives