Before I get all too ahead of myself here's the basic plot. Daniel Craig is trying to solve the mystery of the disappearance of Christopher Plummer's niece 40 years ago. He eventually seeks help from Lisbeth Salander (that chick from the Nightmare on Elm Street remake, Rooney Mara) and they solve the mystery 2 hours and 40 minutes later. The rape scenes come about before Lisbeth joins the mystery plot. She's a ward of the state and falls into financial dependency of a loathsome man.
I knew next to nothing about the plot. I haven't read the books or seen the original Swedish film. What I did know going in was there are going to be some rape scenes. And there were going to be graphic. But daring. And there was going to be sex. And boobs. Also, there were going to be rape scenes.
My feelings about the scenes are that Mara is an impressive and brave actress, just as Fincher is an impressive and brave director. But really, the scenes and that whole subplot is a big red herring in the middle of story that doesn't fully support it. Lisbeth being a feminist hero, exacts her revenge on the perpetrator, follows up with it briefly later on in the movie but other than that, no one talks about it. It is never mentioned. Lisbeth chooses not to tell anyone and that's fine. No other characters need to know and that trait adds a lonely hearbreaking quality to the character.
But why, oh why, was I only informed about the rape scenes in the publicity. I feel like I didn't know anything about the story other than that. It doesn't help that the character and actress were fetishized to the hilt in practically every image that came out before the movie.
Hey friend, do you have an extra cardigan I could borrow? Oh, you need both of them? Oh. Okay.
|PRETTY!!!!!!!!! I'M SO ATTRACTIVE!!!!! BUT NOT SO MUCH THAT I'M THREATENING TO YOU!!!!!!|
They couldn't have come up with anything else? A woman's magazine that one would think is vaguely progressive thought/knew that people would be curious enough about a nipple ring to buy something about a relatively unknown actress. That's just lazy and insulting in my books.
Is this harsh? No. I don't think so. A feminist hero can have all the nipple rings and tattoos that she wants. My problem is that I think these images go against everything we learn about the character. I saw her as fully sexual woman but deeply protective of that sexuality. Why did the movie studio have to sell her out?