Listen

Read

Watch

Schedules

Programs

Events

Give

Account

Donation Heart Ribbon

Avatar for sprig

( sprig )

Comments made by sprig

Rants and Raves: Lisbeth Salander

lol this comment section is strange. Not sure why the font went ballistic there...

June 14, 2011 at 12:50 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Rants and Raves: Lisbeth Salander

---
Some of the things you are attributing to me are quotes directly from Larsson's books. "Short fuse" is a quote from the book.
---
^ I didn't really intend to attribute them to a source. They're just quotes that defined your argument. Not worth getting hung up on. I wasn't even disagreeing with them.

----
"She may flaunt her sexuality but she doesn't let herself become a mere sex object. Those are two very different things. I did not say it was "tasteless," I only said it was wrong for her character. To me as a woman she does not look like a woman displaying bold "sexual vibrancy.""
---
^ I'm slightly dismayed by this because it would suggest that you might be ignoring all the time I spent differentiating between the spiritual and corporeal. And anyway, she DOES let herself become a sex object...she has casual sex partners from whom she develops no deeper relationship with, other than being an OBJECT for sex...

anyway here's an article about Fincher and the poster
http://www.movieweb.com/news/david-fi...

the article writer, like me, believes that the poster is going for something more artistic (though she doesn't elaborate). That's why I'm saying give Fincher the benefit of the doubt. Clearly his interpretation of the source material is reflected not just in the film, but in the part of the marketing that he is responsible for as well.

June 14, 2011 at 12:49 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Rants and Raves: Lisbeth Salander

And of course, my sincerest apologies for this 3000 character post! Sometimes it's hard to stop the thoughts from spilling out of my head.
_______
ononyeui.wordpress.com

June 13, 2011 at 2:21 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Rants and Raves: Lisbeth Salander

I equated the "short fuse" quote you used with "snappish" and Salander's hiding under layers of clothing, with "cold," in terms of personality.

But I think I justified my interpretation of why the poster works for me. I don't think the image represents her literal personality, and I don't think she is fully submissive to Blomkvist's grip. Glamor photos have that unique capability to capture things like emotional subtext. In the same way a music sequence in the middle of a musical movie takes the characters out of their concrete world, and places them in a sort of abstract limbo, where they express themselves with much more surreal behavior.

That is what I believe is happening here. It sounds more complicated than it actually is. But basically this gives curious audiences a taste of something deeper than just Salander's personality. Full length trailers can do the literal stuff. Props to Fincher for mining the book deeper than the Sweedish films. And I think it's inherently wrong to compare the Swedish film with the American re-adaptation, because the American version is based off the bok alone (but please don't dwell to long on this point).

But, your issue with the marketing flaunting her sexuality. I believe your point is that it is tasteless to exploit the sexiness of a girl who has previously been sexually abused. Normally that would be true, but to say that in this case is to miss a key characteristic of Salander's uniqueness.

Yes, Salander is that girl who was tormented by sex in many aspects of her life. But unlike most victims, she did not shrink away from the pain of it. On the contrary, she embraced it. She used it as a way to rebel and gain her own independence. She flaunted her sexuality because, in the face of those who wanted to exploit it to keep her pinned down, her decision to be open about it had a subversive effect. It showed that she would not be controlled by their sexual cruelty and it diffused the oppressive power that sex once held over her.

One would expect her to fear it, but she did not and she perplexed those who thought she should. That is what makes her bold, provocative and controversial. Similarly, that is what makes the poster bold, provocative and controversial. The idea that deeply "damaged goods" would still have the sexual vibrancy within her for her SPIRIT to strike such a pose. It shows that she's still beautifully sexy inside (if Blomkvist's emotional intrusion doesn't suffocate her emotional vulnerability).

The poster, just like Salander doesn't care what you think about her nudity or sexuality and whether you think its appropriate given her abusive past. She only considers what she thinks about it. That is virtually the definition of sexual independence. And it happens to be a very pro-feminist message. Again, that is what I think is conveyed by the nudity in the poster and that is why I think it IS consistent with the themes of the character.

btw the poster was Fincher's idea

June 13, 2011 at 2:17 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Rants and Raves: Lisbeth Salander

Sorry, when I said "purposelessness of the original," I meant "purposelessness of the remake."

June 11, 2011 at 12:26 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Rants and Raves: Lisbeth Salander

The problem with your analysis and everyone else's negative responses to the images is that they are too literal. Fincher is clearly going for something more abstract. I think you are doing a disservice to the material by posting knee-jerk reactions without deeper considerations. People whined about the purposeless of the original, but when Fincher actually tries to make his version significantly different, there are automatic complaints. Now these complaints would be justified if he misrepresented the character, but he actually isn't. People just aren't analyzing deeply enough.

For example. Let me explain my interpretation of the poster.

I think it is clearly a poster revealing the subtext of the relationship between Salander and Blomkvist. You've remarked that Salander has a cold and snappish personality, and there is no way she would let Blomkvist have his arm around her like that. She takes pains to make sure that no one impedes on her personal space. But that is only her outward disposition.

The fact still remains that in the story, Blomkvist is actually quite an EMOTIONAL imposition in his relationship with Salander. He is an odd intrusion into her life. As their relationship develops, despite her natural coldness, she begins to warm to him and she develops certain feelings that actually affect her core.

Take everything in the image to represent emotion. No one gets closer to Salander's NAKED emotions than Blomkvist (even if he doesn't realize it). The grip of evil abusers may have Salander's life in a choke hold, but they don't even get a whiff of her emotions. Using the visual metaphor of emotion, this explains why Blomkvist's arm is the arm around her naked body. He is the only one who she even allows within ARMS REACH of her emotions.

But Salander's relationship with Blomkvist is not harmonious. He looks at her and sees only a damaged soul who needs to be shielded from those who wish to do her harm. But she sees him as a potential lover not a father. Maybe that is why her hand is tugging on his arm. An expression of that emotional dis-unity. Because she feels that his presence can be suffocating. Even if he doesn't directly impose himself, the affect he is having on her emotions almost feels like he is choking her.

Maybe she wants to stand beside him, not before him.

That is a beautiful artistic depiction of the subtext. People may or may not agree with my interpretation, but it is such a shame that only a minority of fans are even trying to understand it. Give David Fincher the benefit of the doubt. I am not his biggest fan, but at least I can acknwledge that he is not a director who exploits cheap gimmicks for a quick buck.

Now if I need to explain why naked shots of Salander are not strictly exploitative and are actually in line with her character, I can happily do that as well.

And I apologize if there are grammatical errors in the post.

June 11, 2011 at 12:23 p.m. ( | suggest removal )