Why 'The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo' Remake Poster Insults Everyone

Maybe this one will address the balance:

And no, I didn't make that.

Absolutely, I agree; unless her character regularly fights crime in the nude or is just so much of a sassy rebel she doesn't wear clothes at all, the poster doesn't relate to the film. Plus we all know from the Bond movies that the gorgeous Craig doesn't have a problem with partial nudity, so why can't we see him au naturel as well?

And in a nice bit of hypocrisy, this magazine cover has been covered up or banned outright in just about every major bookstore in the US:

Yep, it's that sexy troublemaker Andrej again; but seriously, this cover is less explicit than the poster, but since the model is a man, it's seen as not fit for public consumption. Sheesh.

Well, to be fair, I think if the poster with Rooney Mara topless was made into a book cover, it'd also be covered up in the great bulk of bookstores. This poster won't be displayed as is in most US locations. This is the edited version that is appearing online on sites such as IMDB, which does some semi-clever nipple blockage with the film's release date:

You know the poster was David Fincher's idea? And he actually thought he wouldn't be able to use it because the studio would think it was too risqué. So your little sketch parody there is way off-base.

But the real problem here is your suggestion that Craig should be naked. That shows that you have no idea what the poster represents. This poster is not about Craig, because it is not about Blomkvist. It is about Salander. More specifically. It is about the emotional subtext in the relationship between Salander and Blomkvist, from Salander's perspective.

Blomkvist is 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 (nude, bare) 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 expressing emotion, this explains why Blomkvist's arm is the arm around her naked body. He is the only one who she even allows within arm's 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, maybe to pull it away. 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.

In short, the image captures spirituality not corporeality.

Now, why is Salander's nudity more than cheap exploitation? It's because it is an accurate representation of the character's open sexuality, with the abstract enhancement of the aforementioned emotional subtext.

Salander is the girl who was tormented by sex in many aspects of her life. But what did she do with that pain? 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 abuse and it diffused the oppressive power that sex once held over her.

Salander doesn't care what you think about her nudity or sexuality. 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.

Your problem may be your own misinterpretation of the themes and your attempt to pigeonhole Salander into a conventionally feminist ideal. She's anything but that.

Now please. Can we spend time analyzing deeper before posting knee-jerk reactions? I am not the biggest David Fincher fan, but he is not a director who uses cheap gimmicks for a fast buck. He appears to be striving for something artistically progressive here and I'm sure it would be more beneficial to the discussion if we all treated it that way, even if there are gripes and disagreements.

Edit - And I apologize if this post sounds antagonistic at all.

ononyeui.wordpress.com

Here's a photo of one of my favorite models, Marcel Castenmiller (also a gifted photographer and from what I've gathered a wonderful person and a good sport, and I say this part sincerely), naked. Oh, but there's so much more to it than that! In this photo we sense Marcel's deep inner turmoil; he is obviously so affected by life's unfairness that he has collapsed in bed, and his seductive pout is really a cry for help. And when ladies stare gape mouthed at this photo we are not lusting after him (so you boys hold off with your knee jerk reactions! How dare you have an opinion and express it publicly!), we feel for him and comprehend his plight!

Look, I'm sorry if I come off as a biatch (wouldn't be the first time though, it's a refined art!) Both Marcel's photo and the Girl and the Dragon Tattoo are artistically beautiful, not cheap or obscene. The point is that one would probably never see this picture on a movie poster, or see it widely distributed, because it involves a beautiful young male laying partially nude beneath a portrait of an authoritative looking, fully clothed woman. But we see the reverse all the time, and if a feminist dares to speak her mind about it (not censor, set fire to or tear it down) we're automatically knee jerk feminazis who don't see the deeper artistic meaning.

And I'll add the same caveat here: I love everyone here and am not trying to start a fight. But I do take issue with the concept that someone can't offer a first impression to a piece of art--people do that all the time when they visit galleries.

"For a character who has been so systematically abused and has completely withdrawn from society I don't imagine she'd go around getting her bits out willy-nilly. She seems to spend the whole time hiding under her hair or a hoodie..."

EXACTLY!

I'm not claiming that Fincher is solely interested in the deeper artistic interpretation with the poster. I just felt I had to highlight that element because, to me, your post seemed to be completely neglecting it, and showed virtually no awareness of the possibility.

I think Fincher was aware of the marketing angle. But he may have seen a way to deliver something provocative while also highlighting the essence of Salander in a creative way. In this case, the appeal is a byproduct and no sacrilege was committed in the process imo.

But in regards to your criticism... I think it's disingenuous to extract one component of the image, ignore the others and then use that component to completely and unreservedly condemn it as a whole. Though, it is your right.

And I still disagree that Craig should be naked. Yes I think society's reservations about male nudity are hypocritical, and that artists and filmmakers should not feel the need to exclude male nudity as much as they do. But I disagree with the implementation of nudity simply for the sake of balanced appeal. Especially if it's not artistically justified, which I don't think it is in this case.

Yes, I agree; in a situation in which she is assuming control of her body and sexuality, she would demand that he stand on equal ground, and be just as 'bare' to her as she is to him.

On a related note; I was just on my friend David Decoteau's Yahoo! message board; Dave, of course, is the out director who fills his horror and suspense movies with images of shirtless and semi-nude young hunks. Dave has posted the tagline a 'horror movie for girls' on his latest series of 1313 movies (actually, he's been doing that off and on for years), and as a result, some gay males are refusing to buy his movies--joining some straight males who have refused all along because they don't want to see hot, semi nude men.

I tell ya, Ladies, we just can't win...

Maybe this is where my gap of delusion reveals itself, but I thought my interpretation was a bit less far fetched. I can barely understand what either of you are saying in your readings as it relates to the book. What Salander needs/demands to feel doesn't change the reality of what Blomkvist actually offers. I thought I articulated my interpretation with clear evidence from the book to back it up. Again, maybe I am just delusional. But think a poster based on a book is a bit less subjective than a standalone piece of art (though it is still very subjective).

I was bringing up a consistent theme of emotion, and I'd expect Blomkvist to be clothed because he was much more emotionally guarded. Not just because he was a mature adult, but he had a sort of chronic ambivalence with all his partners and it manifested itself in his inability to commit. When he and Lisbeth dissolved their relationship at the end of the first book, she was the one who was emotionally scarred, while he had clearly moved on. And she was scarred because she had been exposed (naked) and vulnerable. He had not.

Anyway, as you guys have pointed out, it is just a personal opinion (a truly personal opinion, because Fincher has offered no explanation of the poster that I am aware of. I just said the poster was his idea. I don't want to mislead people).

Inquiring audiences who look at the poster as an introduction to the story will not be able to pinpoint the intricacies of the emotional subtext. What they will get is a snapshot of the subtext. In the same way a gun and a few bullet holes on a poster gives a flavor of the genre without revealing the details of the plot; naked Salander and shadow Blomkvist gives a flavor of the subtext. On the receptive end, audiences can interpret it however they wish.

But I'm not naive. I'm sure Fincher was aware that the dominant reading could be reductive (though not quite as reductive as you have pointed out). And yes it's a reductive reading that helps rather than hurts, because it also contains sexual appeal. But that should have very little bearing on what an artist wants to express, or making an inference on what the artist wants to express. And anyway, there will be more material that will offer more literal samples of the story, like a full length trailer.

Ultimately I think the poster does work beautifully, and I do think there is purity of artistic ambition as well as artistic justification (clearly a point we won't agree on), which is what made me take issue with the original article. I'm happy that the poster exists, not because I find it sexy, but because there's a lot to draw from and connect to the book. And I know there are males and females who feel the same way about it.