The soul of the story is indeed symbolically referred by the book's title "Men Who Hate Women".
What this means is there are men who cannot even bare to think about strong women with intelligence and power.
Now you have Fincher trying to interpret the story... Why does it go wrong? Why doesn't Fincher get it?
Well you cannot misunderstand the original story unless you are a man who either knows about strong women and hates them, or a girly-boy-man who fears strong women because he has never dared to speak to one yet. I surely hope Fincher goes to the second category.
The story does have some interesting material in it but that cannot be credited in my opinion, because a story with events and material is not a story unless it has the correct psychology of characters in it too.
If the events that take place are forcibly glued to wrong psychological profiles and wrong characters you make a story that does not work because it could never happen. A weak woman like Fincher's Lisbeth could not have lived the life and done the things that the strong Lisbeth of the original story did.
Modern feminism interpreted by and promoted by inherently chauvinistic modern capitalist consumer-culture seems to be the ideological frame of this movie and thus most likely it's director. And although modern feminism is marketed as an equal rights movement between the sexes it is mostly marketing ideas of inherent weakness of female features, and while doing it trying to deny women those features to pretend men and women are exactly the same... effectively branding femininity a weakness by denying it's existence in women on the bases of it supposedly being a weakness.
Strong men never hate strong women... nuff said.
What this means is there are men who cannot even bare to think about strong women with intelligence and power.
Now you have Fincher trying to interpret the story... Why does it go wrong? Why doesn't Fincher get it?
Well you cannot misunderstand the original story unless you are a man who either knows about strong women and hates them, or a girly-boy-man who fears strong women because he has never dared to speak to one yet. I surely hope Fincher goes to the second category.
The story does have some interesting material in it but that cannot be credited in my opinion, because a story with events and material is not a story unless it has the correct psychology of characters in it too.
If the events that take place are forcibly glued to wrong psychological profiles and wrong characters you make a story that does not work because it could never happen. A weak woman like Fincher's Lisbeth could not have lived the life and done the things that the strong Lisbeth of the original story did.
Modern feminism interpreted by and promoted by inherently chauvinistic modern capitalist consumer-culture seems to be the ideological frame of this movie and thus most likely it's director. And although modern feminism is marketed as an equal rights movement between the sexes it is mostly marketing ideas of inherent weakness of female features, and while doing it trying to deny women those features to pretend men and women are exactly the same... effectively branding femininity a weakness by denying it's existence in women on the bases of it supposedly being a weakness.
Strong men never hate strong women... nuff said.
Tell Your Friends