I saw The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo yesterday, and having never read the book or seen the original film, I came to it completely fresh.  I enjoyed it.  It has quite a lot of the feel of The Social Network (and I think Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross’ excellent score has as much to do with that as does Fincher’s direction), but there’s just something niggling with me that I haven’t been able to stop thinking about.

As far as feminist heroes go, Lisbeth Salander is a pretty crappy one.

I should mention, at this point, that though I’m not going to tell you how the film ends, I am going to spoil some minor plot points here.  Consider yourself warned.

So, let’s get right into it.  I can see why some hold the character of Salander up as a feminist hero, I really can.  She’s intelligent, independent, and doesn’t take any shit.  Good for her.

Except there are some huge, gaping problems too, largely due to her being such a two-dimensional character.  Considering the story is named after her, you’d think that Salander would be the main character.  Instead, Daniel Craig’s journalist character, Mikael Blomkvist (who is, in the Fincher movie, the only character who for some reason doesn’t have a Swedish accent) seems to be the main protagonist for the majority of the movie.  Salander is a much more ancillary character except for ten minutes right at the end.

I can illustrate this quite simply.  Describe the back-story of Blomkvist and Salander:

Blomkvist

• Idealistic investigative journalist.
• Filled with regret over the moment of weakness which ruined his career.
• Resigned to his loss.
• A pleasant, but absent father, who’s dedication to his job caused the break-up of his marriage, though neither his daughter or his ex wife hate him for it.
• An atheist, or at least someone who’s uncomfortable and unfamiliar around religion.
• A womaniser, who makes only a cursory protest when a new sexual opportunity presents itself, even though he is in a serious relationship with the EiC of the magazine he works upon, misleading both women without any apparent moral difficulties.

For a two-hour film, we learn a reasonable amount about what sort of man Blomkvist is.

Salander

• Surly, which is compounded by being bounced around the state system after attacking her father.
• Clever, particularly with computer stuff.
• Capable of kicking ass.
• Sexually forward, and willing to sleep with both women and men.

Really?  Is this a rich, well-rounded character?  Or is this, to be frank, a crudely outlined male wank-fantasy?

It hardly seems like the best written character ever, or am I being unfair?

It feels to me like Blomkvist is the main character, and Salander is just a supporting role.  Until she hooks up with him, she’s barely even a functional member of society, but suddenly becomes a complete and whole person once she’s got a man.  Ugh.

Perhaps the novel expands upon this, but in the film it just seems like “Yeah dude, she’s like this hot computer genius who can, like, totally kick a guy’s ass and, like, is totally bi, but like a bad-ass, you know?”

And then I feel compelled to examine the role in the film itself.  Rooney Mara is beautiful, both in and out of the Salander make up.  But it starts to feel like maybe she should put a shirt on at some point.  Or a bra that isn’t transparent.  We see her brutally raped, and this is an incredibly brave thing for an actress to portray, but it felt uncomfortably titillating at the same time.  Maybe I’m just fucked up, but there was an element of pornography to it. We then see her topless with a female lover, she is fully nude in a sex scene with Craig, every time she gets out of bed in the morning she’s topless, she wears the unnecessarily transparent bra, and it all starts to feel rather gratuitous.

It can be tough for a young actress in Hollywood.  Mara has seen an opportunity to work with an outstanding director, playing a pivotal and memorable role, alongside an excellent cast, in a film based upon an already successful story, that is pretty likely to lead to a couple more sequels.  It was an extremely safe bet this role would catapult her from being That Girl At The Start Of The Social Network to an international star.

She just needed to unflinchingly portray all the sex.

She does an outstanding job, and brings a depth to an otherwise hollow character, but at what point does nudity become excessive?  I think that wherever that point is, this film goes beyond it.  Hell, she was even topless on a promotional poster and in the unrated trailer.  Name any other non-pornographic movie that has featured the nipples of its female lead so prominently in promotion.  I’m almost surprised Mara wasn’t obliged to show up to the premier with her nipple piercing on display.

Is this a real feminist icon?  A two-dimensional “hot ass-kicker” who’s naked in every other scene, and is incomplete without a man?  I really don’t think so.

As attractive as Rooney Mara is, I hope she gets to keep her clothes on a bit more in the next movie.  I do recommend you see this movie, but ladies, if you’re looking for a female hero, you should keep on looking.