The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo movie posters – are you serious?

This series is one of my very favourite book trilogies. A bit predictable, given my views on men and women, but nonetheless I adored the original books – from the Swedish setting, to the character of Lisbeth Salander, right down to book’s themes of highlighting how “men hate women” (in case you’re wondering, that’s the title of the original book in Swedish).

In saying that, I have so many problems with how the current American version of the film was marketed to the English-speaking public. That’s what I’m tackling this issue, rugby-style, today – it’s been niggling at me ever since I saw the film a few nights ago.

The Film Posters:

Firstly, a comparison. Here are two of the Swedish versions:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And here are two of the American/international versions:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The differences are blatantly obvious. Particularly so in how they play on the dynamics between Lisbeth and Mikael. Firstly, looking at how Lisbeth and Mikael are positioned in the second Swedish poster – she’s in the foreground, gazing directly into the camera, and looks a lot more confronting than Mikael, who’s just chilling out on a chair in the background. She’s crouched, alert, and dare I say, ready to pounce. In the first Swedish poster, she’s staring straight out into the camera, with just a hint of aggression on her face. Not even a hint of sexuality.

If you jump straight from these posters to the first poster in the American/International series, you’d almost be forgiven for thinking it was a completely different storyline. But nope, that’s the very same Lisbeth Salander- albeit, one with less clothes.

I’m not sure if the people marketing the American version got the memo about Lisbeth Salander not liking to be touched, and the very graphic rape scenes in the book – but I’m going to take an educated guess that they either don’t know, or don’t care. Because why else would they have put her in a poster, naked, in a very submissive, ‘protected’ pose?

Rooney Mara said this about the poster:

There’s a certain way people are used to seeing nude women, and that’s in a submissive, coy pose, not looking at the camera. And in this poster, I’m looking dead into the camera with no expression on my face. I think it freaks a lot of people out.”

You know what wouldn’t be a submissive, coy pose? One in which she’s not some weird cross between a stranglehold and a protective arm placed across her by Daniel Craig. One in which she actually looks something besides passive, or at the very least, neutral. Give me the Lisbeth Salander holding a golf club, or a gun, or riding a motor cycle any day.  Because I’m sure as hell not identifying with the one with ‘no expression’ on her face. The only thing that freaks me out here is how she magically lost her clothes.

And for all the people out there that argue that Rooney isn’t sexualised in this pose, let me ask you a question: why doesn’t Daniel Craig also have his clothes off?

Because he’s an older man (albeit, an attractive one). He isn’t a young, sexy woman with her nipple pierced.

I’ll probably carry this into another post, because there’s quite a bit I’d like to say about the entire series (books, and films), and I won’t be able to do it justice all in one hit.