This Massacre Was a Hate Crime - UCSB, Isla Vista, Feminism and One Alumnus's Thoughts

An abandoned shoe in Isla Vista in 2008

Friday night there was a stabbing and shooting in my alma mater, UC Santa Barbara. I heard the news via facebook mere minutes after a young man drove through the center of Isla Vista in a black BMW shooting.

For those unfamiliar with the community, UC Santa Barbara (UCSB) is adjacent to an area call Isla Vista which has just shy of 2 square miles of unincorporated county land with no clear governance. In this small beachside community 23 thousand students live – most are UCSB students but there are also community college students from Santa Barbara and other youth also live in the area. As an area with almost entirely student residents and extremely high real-estate prices most houses have 6-8 residents. Isla Vista is known for it’s party life as students have much more freedom there than other universities where there are more individuals living in dorms.

The Beach

But returning to Friday night – as I sat watching facebook and more facts emerged it was clear this wasn’t just random carnage – yet the media has been slow to name this attack as what I see it as: a hate crime against all women.

In a disturbing video that was on You Tube and since taken down the killer, Elliot Rodger, states his intent clearly:

“If I can’t have you girls, I will destroy you. [laughs] You denied me a happy life and in turn I will deny all of you life, it’s only fair. I hate all of you.

—All you girls who rejected me, looked down upon me, you know, treated me like scum while you gave yourselves to other men. And all of you men for living a better life than me, all of you sexually active men. I hate you. I hate all of you. I can’t wait to give you exactly what you deserve, annihilation.”

This is not a standard crime. This clearly wasn’t just about one girl – it was about every member of the community. It was meant to instill fear in all. A hate crime is a usually violent, prejudice motivated crime and this fits the bill.

As the killer’s sexism was called out, online Men’s Rights Activists rushed to say #NotAllMen are like this. However this took the focus away from the fact that even if not all men are killers, all women have experienced sexism, gendered bias and violent attacks like this are common, and the hashtag #YesAllWomen began to trend.

Statements like:

#YesAllWomen bc every single woman I know has a story about a man feeling entitled to access to her body. Every. Single. One.

#YesAllWomen bc “Text me and let me know you got home safe” is standard, necessary and normal.

#YesAllWomen “Men are afraid that women will laugh at them. Women are afraid that men will kill them.” – Margaret Atwood

As a national and international media jumped into the coverage, as an alumni, I instead watched Facebook. I graduated from the Film & Media Studies program and the annual Reel Loud Film Festival meant I could expect many alumni friends were visiting for the weekend. And while there was a gut wrenching shock and fear to think of bullets flying through my community combined with the fear that perhaps I knew a victim – I can’t say I was totally surprised that it could happen there.

As a student at UCSB, my first week was colored with fear. Not of change or being in a new place, but of hate crimes. The first time I picked up the campus newspaper I discovered there had been a hate crime against gay male students. It wasn’t the last time I’d learn of instances of hate on campus.

My first protest at UCSB in the aftermath of hate crimes in 2008 against gay students

As a student organizer I spent a lot of time engaging with uncomfortable dialogs. Whether it was to address homophobia, racism, sexism, sexual assaults, environmental issues or more – UC Santa Barbara provided a space where students voices had many outlets. While many did not engage as much in politics preferring to enjoy the beaches, the party life, focus on academia or other pursuits… those worlds often meshed in odd ways.

Local law enforcement at the “Deltopia” street party in Isla Vista

Students embracing the local party life

Election Day showcases the engagement many students have even though the community is unincorporated

Student organizers working to address racism on campus

 

While the community was generally friendly and almost any individual was a beer away from being a casual friend, it also wasn’t uncommon that I’d hear slurs like “faggot” directed at gays or “slut” directed at women. When I walked home I’d often call friends to “talk me home” if I didn’t have a friend to walk with.

During the Take Back the Night Protest in which women marched to reclaim the night as safe – several male students yelled rape threats. The very act proved our actions we needed and as much as we craved safety it was by no means present already.

Take Back the Night Protest

Janelle Monae performing prior to the Take Back the Night Protest

 

In an article for the campus newspaper my senior year I wrote the following:

“The tragedy of the situation is that in I.V., we’ve accepted the norms that allow our streets to be unsafe and our fellow students to be targeted. Even during our celebrations within their designated safe space, we are never fully safe. Often times the problems of Isla Vista are brushed off as some excuse the hate speech as drunken antics and taunts not meant to offend or be taken seriously. However, the reality is the same slurs that are used by drunken folks in aggressive outbursts are occasionally heard in classrooms and on campus, and the oppression from ignoring the severity of the problem contributes to the lack of safe spaces for the queer community attending our school.

Whether spoken in ignorance or malice, hate speech hits a nerve. It makes for unsafe spaces, and verbal harassment leads to the same degradation that enables other types of harassment and assault. In Isla Vista, I often observe the contrasting dichotomy of the sun-soaked ideal paradise and the very real problems that constantly plague the queer community and other minorities. As tempting as it is to ignore reality and enjoy the beachside bubble, we have to address these problems.”

Although this was written specifically to address the hate crime against LGBT students – those words feel far too fitting an applicable for women today in Isla Vista. 

As an alumni I have so many fond memories, strong friendships, experiences that helped me learn and grow. The streets the shooter drove down I’ve walked, biked, and stumbled down many times. I’ve gone to parties at places where I’ve now seen twitter photos of body bags resting. It’s shocking to see the violence but the root cause isn’t shocking. There was always violence against women. There was objectification. There were very real problems regarding rape. The sense of entitlement to others bodies didn’t start in Santa Barbara and is by no means limited to there.

But as the national debate goes on and CNN loops the killer’s video my heart is heavy as I think of the place that was my home.

Last time I visited UCSB was to celebrate the graduation of some of the individuals I was lucky to mentor and share time with. In the Student Resource Building while I was there someone wrote on the wall of the women’s restroom a cry for help. And the community responded with words of encouragement, resources they could go to, reminders that the original writer was not alone. When I think of UCSB I think back to that space often, and two years after graduating the wall was even more crowded with messages of support. The community has never been perfect, but there is support for those in need and a community willing to work to improve itself. Let’s hope that helps the families of the slain and injured in healing.

The notes on the wall of the girls bathroom in the Student Resource Building

 

Further Reading:

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-transcript-ucsb-shootings-video-20140524-story.html

http://www.newstatesman.com/lifestyle/2014/05/lets-call-isla-vista-killings-what-they-were-misogynist-extremism

http://www.news.ucsb.edu/node/014194/isla-vista-shootings

https://twitter.com/hashtag/YesAllWomen

http://dailynexus.com/2010-05-06/hate-speech-creates-unsafe-environment-iv/

http://time.com/114043/yesallwomen-hashtag-santa-barbara-shooting/

Multimillionaire Sheryl Sandberg wants An Unpaid Intern

Sheryl Sandberg is no stranger to press - according to Forbes she's the sixth most powerful woman in the world and her book Lean In has launched a nonprofit that aims to, "encourag(e) women to pursue their ambitions, and chang(e) the conversation from what we can’t do to what we can do."

Which sounds great - unless you want to work with that organization and receive a salary.
In a Facebook post (that company Sandberg happens to work for...) Lean In's editor-at-large, Jessica Bennett, asked for an intern available to work immediately and through the end of the year in unpaid internship. Although she tried to backtrack on this - screen-captures have preserved the double standard for all to see.


Sandberg personally made $91 million dollars last week in a sale of Facebook stock. However the non-profit LeanIn.org is sustained through book sales of Lean In along with donations from Sandberg herself. However book sales were at Number 1 on amazon.com for a while and Sandberg's donations should be able to help cover at least the women working on spreading her idea.

The Fair Pay Campaign has launched a protest petition asking for Sandberg to pay her interns saying, "Instead of perpetuating the unfair advantages that privilege some women at other women's expense, pay your interns so ALL kinds of women, regardless of their economic background, can take advantage of career-building opportunities like these."

EDIT: According to the LA Times

The fury vented on Facebook prompted Bennett to explain herself late Wednesday:

"Dear What Appears to Be My Entire Facebook Feed: Want to clarify previous Lean In post. This was MY post, on MY feed, looking for a volunteer to help me in New York. LOTS of nonprofits accept volunteers. This was NOT an official Lean In Job posting. Let's all take a deep breath."

LeanIn.org apparently does not maintain a formal internship program.

This however does not remove my former critique. If Bennett is overworked and unable to complete her job and needs a volunteer/intern to help - that's fine. But I still believe if you're working on the pet project of a multimillionaire on a program to empower women you should be able to ask for the resources needed to cover the true cost of that labor - including the labor of support staff.  Otherwise it reflects poorly on the entire project.

Microsoft Demos How to Be Sexist Jerks to Gamers at E3 (TRIGGER WARNING)

"I can't even block correctly and you're too fast," she says.
He replies, "Just let it happen. It will be over soon."
The audience laughs
"Wow, you like this," the man continues.
"No, I don't like this," she replies.

It might sound like the dialog you'd hear regarding a sexual assault you might be surprised to know it was on stage Monday at a gaming conference Electronic Entertainment Expo, or E3.
One of the producers of Killer Instinct, a man, got on stage with an Xbox Community Manager, a woman, and proceeded to play in front of the crowd. While the remarks were not scripted - the fact that they happened on a stage representing the company in an industry already known for misogyny is deeply illustrative of the attitudes.

Sadly for Microsoft the sexist language is far from their biggest problem at E3 with their own console failing to make waves in the same way that rival Sony did with their new PS4, which by allowing users to use old games and delivering a price point of $399 is $100 cheaper than the Xbox.
Even that news managed to find a way to be expressed with rapey language on twitter...


Even just noting that there were no female protagonists in any Microsoft demo received sexist backlash.
Clearly it's not Microsoft's day, and they've got a lot to respond to - but if they want to take a page out of Nintendo's old playbook and get sales number boosted by women gamers, they're going in the wrong direction. One man on twitter summarized it well:

An Evening in the California Theater

Today I saw two films at Cinequest, both screened in the California Theater.

First "L!fe, Happens" a charming buddy film about two roommates and how their lives change when one has to adjust to having a baby while the other remains committed to her professional ambitions. While it had all the elements of a cheesy romantic film including handsome crush, awkward misunderstandings, nerdy/quirky side kick best friend, and accessory characters with easy to predict side stories - it was much more about the two girls relationship with each other than it was about either of their lovers, a refreshing change that was enjoyable to watch. After the film during the Q & A portion the two co-writers, who doubled as director (Kat Coiro) and lead actress (Krysten Ritter) were equally engaging. They both credited the honesty of the film as it's draw and the collaborative process of writing together to the point they don't remember who wrote what as what drove the film to be at it's core an honest and endearing film. They drew a strong round of applause from the audience when they pointed out while female driven comedies like Bridesmaids are great, the reality is women are more than a majority of the population and the media should reflect this more. They also commented on how it is strange to them how the timing worked as they are always being asked about how it feels to be coming in on Bridesmaids' coat tails despite the fact that they began writing years before that film. Overall I highly enjoyed this program and based on the amount of laughter heard from the audience I'm sure I'm not the only one. Also the men sitting near me were laughing too - so men don't be scared off by the idea of a female driven comedy, it's worth the time! (I hate that I feel compelled to justify that... I don't think that factors into any discussion of films quality being because they're male driven yet it seems to always be in the picture when there are ladies in control...)

I also found it strange how low their IMDB ratings are (4.9) until I looked into it and saw that is the weighted average. The mean of the ratings was 7.3 and the median was 9.5 - however due to a large number of people ranking it a 10, some of those votes were assumed spam and thus the average tries to correct for that. However 50% of the viewers loving it does not surprise me as when you look at the ratings breakdown women under 18 all voted 10 of 10 and women 18 - 29 averaged a 9.7. Thus the demographics of the majority of high ranking raters were young women which fits perfectly with the protagonists of the film. I would also say IMDB's ranking algorithm is off to rate this film so lowly, and I hope viewers don't find this number deters them from seeing the film.

Following that I saw Dorfman. Which was proceeded by the presenting of an award and then the interview portion of the programming. A choice that makes sense from a programming perspective (An audience will wait to see the film, but after the film is less likely to wait for a Q & A after 11pm) but it also irked me. I personally feel a good film speaks for itself, so to see the people talk about the process before the content was shown made me feel disrespected as an audience member. If I wanted to see someone interview or lecture a famous filmmaker I'd seek that programming out, but if I buy a movie ticket I am first and foremost there to watch a film - so anything else is a distraction. But I digress. First Elliott Gould was given his award and allowed to speak, then producer Leonard Hill, writer Wendy Kout and Director Bradley Leong came out. However Bradley Leong need not have come out as Leonard Hill and Wendy Kout dominated the discussion with most questions addressed directly to them, and the only open questions quickly being answered by them as well. (No offense meant to Mr. Leong, I just found his presence on stage was unsupported by the others and thus he was mostly a prop - the one time I noticed him trying to answer Leonard Hill cut him off)

The reason I mention this dynamic is I found my greatest annoyance when watching the film Dorfman was it felt off balance. The general story is about a Jewish girl who looks after her father, works for her brother's firm, has been head over heels for a friend of her brothers for year but ends up in unbalanced relationships where they all take her for granted. While helping her brother's friend/potential love interest by cat sitting his loft in LA, she finds herself pushed out of her comfort zone, meeting new people, learning about her city and finding her sense of self amongst the men in her life. But watching the film I found the difference between Elliott Gould's performance and the rest of the cast jarring. His presence was greater, the shots with him seemed longer and the cuts seemed to have a different rhythm. He did what he did, and though he acted well - it didn't seem to mesh well with the others on set in that they all seemed to have a similar rhythm. It felt to me as if they were all preforming a stand up sketch and he was an improv actor thrown into the mix - its not that the other actors were bad or he was bad - it just felt mismanaged and ill suited to be in the same film. It wouldn't surprise me if in his shots he had more artistic control than the other actors who probably followed the director. Because all of their performances fit well, the brother, the love interest, the neighbor, the model friends, parents etc... They all felt like they were in the same B romance film, while Gould felt like he wandered out of As Good As it Gets or any other quirky comedy poking fun at life. While I found this film less enjoyable, my parents seemed to enjoy it more than I - so if you see it - I'd love to hear what your thoughts were and compare notes!

Why I'm not impressed with Komen (Despite changing their stance on PP)

Last night I was going to post about Komen and Planned Parenthood but today’s news changes that thought train but I still think it is worth commenting on.

For background see Rachel Maddow’s summary from last night.

Attacking Planned Parenthood is not new, so why is it so hugely different when The Susan G. Komen for the Cure removes support from Planned Parenthood than when Congress and State Legislators do?

I think it largely has to do with where expectations lie. With Congress – no matter when you look in the last few years and regardless of what side of almost any issue you have an opinion on – most Americans agree Congress is something we don’t approve of. Since 2009 the highest Congressional approval numbers were at 37%. So when congress does something I don’t approve of, like cutting support to Planned Parenthood, I can’t really do much to change that. My representatives in the House and Senate generally won’t be swayed by any one feedback mechanism and this is true of most representatives on hot button issues. I expect Republicans in congress to be anti-women’s health because they come in campaigning on it. They are “pro-life” until a child is born at which point they’re anti-healthcare, anti-women’s rights and autonomy of health decisions, anti-LGBT families, etc… I expect it from them to attack women’s rights. And on the left I expect Democrats to make non-binding resolutions and give lip service to those issues but that they will ultimately cave when push comes to shove. (See Obama’s record on parental notification or NDAA etc… if you want to know why my expectations are calibrated as such) Ultimately when it comes to the government while I think there is huge potential for good (I like clean air, roads without potholes, clean drinking water, schools, fire fighters etc…) the political process will not represent the best of that. So while individually Democrats and Republicans might support women in their lives, that support being embodied in programs extending to all is another issue.

Meanwhile over at The Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation – my expectations are a bit different. While there have been many critiques of running the non-profit too much like a business and making partners with ill fitted groups, reducing information and packing itself in a corporate manner that doesn’t suit the cause (See Komen Watch) – fundamentally people believe in the brand. People believe that if they are aware of cancer risks, wear their pink ribbon to bring a dialog about cancer and talk about the need for early screenings – ultimately there will be less breast cancer. When people participate in the Race for the Cure events, while they know the events won’t be the cure, there is a general feeling that the money they raise, and the awareness they raise will help. So when Komen pulls support from a group who’s About Us page says, “Planned Parenthood has promoted a commonsense approach to women’s health and well-being, based on respect for each individual’s right to make informed, independent decisions about health, sex, and family planning.” – it shocks.

Komen describes themselves saying, “As the world’s largest grassroots network of breast cancer survivors and activists, we’re working together to save lives, empower people, ensure quality care for all and energize science to find the cures.” – so when they put politics ahead of that mission and pull back support from Planned Parenthood who’s mission so clearly overlaps there is a natural and justified anger.

Today when Komen reversed that decision they said,

“We want to apologize to the American public for recent decisions that cast doubt upon our commitment to our mission of saving women’s lives.  The events of this week have been deeply unsettling for our supporters, partners and friends and all of us at Susan G. Komen.  We have been distressed at the presumption that the changes made to our funding criteria were done for political reasons or to specifically penalize Planned Parenthood.  They were not.

Our original desire was to fulfill our fiduciary duty to our donors by not funding grant applications made by organizations under investigation.  We will amend the criteria to make clear that disqualifying investigations must be criminal and conclusive in nature and not political. That is what is right and fair.”

To which I’d like to call out – B*LL$HIT. As already pointed out by Mother Jones, Komen has not withdrawn support from Penn State which is under criminal investigations that are not political… Furthermore the timing of their withdrawn support does not correlate with the investigations, but it does follow the hiring of prominent Republican Karen Handel, a former GOP candidate who ran on a pro-life platform, (though not pro-life enough for Georgia where she took flak for being okay with abortion in cases of rape and incest). While she may not be responsible – an anonymous source claims she is and speculation began before the reversal of this choice. However she was stupid enough to tweet this (and promptly delete it when the internet exploded…) :

“Just like a pro-abortion group to turn a cancer orgs decision into a political bomb to throw. Cry me a freaking river.”

Regardless if she is directly responsible, she should be fired for that. She is Susan G. Komen’s Vice President of Public Policy, and to publicly put forward an insult like that to supporters of Planned Parenthood is not appropriate. “Cry me a freaking river?” That’s the VICE PRESIDENT OF PUBLIC POLICY’S reaction to low income women losing access to life saving preventative care and screenings? Ignoring the politics of I disagree with her perspective – from a pure business standpoint as  someone who should be a good public face of the organization – she had failed. And while Komen’s statement said, ”We do not want our mission marred or affected by politics – anyone’s politics.”  - the reality is it does.

And for a lot of advocates of women’s health Komen’s brand has lost a huge amount of trust, been mocked by Komen’s VP of Public Policy for reacting to that, and no reversal of policy will change that. Because a reversal of one politically motivated decision due to political outcry is in itself a political reaction. Once Komen pulled support it put itself in a position where by not giving support it was playing to one political agenda, and by renewing support in the wake of activists, senators and supports reactions – it played to the damage control of another political stance. Trustworthy non-profits operating to provide care do not do such abrupt about-faces- and the damage to the brand will not be repaired overnight.

As the Economist  posted:

“It’s a cynical thing to say, but I suspect this might cost Susan G. Komen more than it does Planned Parenthood.”

I agree.

If they were going to cut funding they should have also done so to Penn State. By not doing so they suggested that abortion is a worse crime than child rape. By cutting funding and doing a rapid about face they showed they’re operating in a political arena, and brought attention to their public policy, which is headed by someone who’s stance on the issue raises uncomfortable questions. And by allowing the news cycle to continue a full week – Planned Parenthood suddenly gained huge numbers of supporters, and people began to delve into what those pink ribbons actually mean. Which given the way they run their non-profit like a corporation is not a good thing to raise attention to. Things like the CEO making $481,704 in an annual salary… (I don’t believe non-profit workers should be paid so little they can’t lead a good life – but if one person’s salary is 70% the amount of grants you make to the largest provider of women’s health care in the country… HOW ARE YOU ALLOCATING YOUR RESOURCES? Seriously – that’s ridiculous.)

My mother is a breast cancer survivor. When I discussed this issue with her she said if it wasn’t reversed she wouldn’t participate in Race for the Cure. This is from someone who did 8 of the 3 day walks to raise funs for breast cancer research. Who has the keychain, a stuffed animal and lord knows how many pink products…  She is as much of Komen’s target market as you can get and an active part of their fundraising events- and this week she was disappointed and had lost interest in working with them.

I am glad to see they reversed their decision. But until they fire Karen Handle, reduce executive compensation in favor of allocating a greater chunk of their funds to actual preventative care and treatment – I’m done with the pink ribbon industry. For more reasons why you might want to do so too, further reading.

My thoughts on the two Salanders – The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo movies

*The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo will be abbreviated GWDT to save time.

When looking at the difference between Niels Arden Oplev’s original Girl With the Dragon Tattoo and David Fincher’s American interpretation it is clear that Fincher made an engaging, dynamic, and visually stunning movie, however the American interpretation of GWDT also changed the gender dynamics in a way which made Lisbeth Salander a very different character. This is not to say Noomi Rapace’s original performance was better than Rooney Mara’s Salander – only that they were very different. Much has been said already about how Rapace’s Salander was more stoic and Mara’s more vulnerable so I won’t emphasize that point as much. However the thing which made the gender dynamic so dramatically different was the difference in Michael Nyqvist’s Mikael Blomkvist with Daniel Craig’s Mikael Blomkvist and the directors’ framing of their relationship with each other.

One of the things that made Oplev’s GWDT so exciting to me was to see a female protagonist who was self defined. For all the abuse Salander has been subjected to she refuses to be a victim. Her detachment keeps her in a position of power, and while she’s shown in pain in many parts of the film – trying to cleanse her self after being sexually harassed, physically limping after being raped, frustrated with her lack of fiscal control – ultimately she asserts control and doesn’t ever ask for help. She brings a camera to record the rape, sodomizes the assaulter, tattoos a warning to all future women, blackmails him and reclaims her life. With Blomkvist she knows everything about him before he meets her and while she’s initially surprised to find him in her apartment, she knows about the case and has already engaged by researching the case and emailing him a clue he’d missed before he invites her to join in solving it. If he didn’t offer – she’d still be looking at the case and working on solving it. Her role wasn’t defined by him. Even when they have sex, he is basically her human dildo and while he consents, he’s not in control of the situation. The recurring flashbacks to her lighting the match and throwing it onto her gas soaked father continually show us Salander has been taking control of her life since her childhood and has no qualms with serving a harsh justice to those who seek to hold control over others.

However in Fincher’s GWDT this Salander is much less in control. It is not just Mara’s performance of a more vulnerable and emotionally expressive Salander, it is the construction of the film around the character. We don’t see the young Salander’s defiant match striking – and that visual reminder of her strength is lost. When we are introduced to the history of abuse, it is in a much quieter more vulnerable moment after Blomkvist has been attacked by Martin Vanger when he asks her about her past. That element of her story is introduced to us not in relationship to Salander and her motives, but in relationship to Blomkvist and his question.

This dynamic is repeated in many instances throughout the film. When he enters her apartment he immediately takes control of the situation having the element of surprise, ordering her to send her girlfriend out and then within the same meeting saying, “I want you to help me catch a killer of women.” It is once again Blomkvist with the control, Salander’s desire for justice being used to convince her to join the case. He already knows that it is a killer of women, and uses this as bait to enlist her help – rather Oplev’s interpretation which puts Salader in control as her natural desire to solve puzzles leads Blomkvist to learn about the other deaths.

When Salander and Blomkvist begin to have a sexual relationship – she already knows about his open relationships and doesn’t care. Oplev show’s Salander initiating the relationship, Blomkvist consenting but not taking much control, and the emotional bond is more his fondness for her growing with her gradual trust. It is he who wants to sleep in her bed, smiles more and is left desiring more than what they have. In Fincher’s interpretation while it begins the same way with Salander undressing and getting in bed with Blomkvist, Blomkvist clearly takes control, and as he consents he turns over and becomes the dominant partner. While Oplev leaves Blomkvist as the human dildo, Fincher has a much more assertive and masculine Blomkvist.

In both interpretations after Martin Vanger nearly kills Blomkvist, Salander saves him. In Oplev’s interpretation she stays just long enough to make sure he’s okay before chasing down Vanger. After Vanger drives off the road, the adult Lisbeth lights a cigarette, tossing the match and watching the killer burn visually connecting her actions to the childhood motif. She is once again in control. In Fincher’s interpretation she asks, “May I kill him?” After she gets permission she begins the chase which results in the crash. When she watches him burn she does so without lighting the fire. This once again is a fundamentally different interpretation of Salander. Core to Salander’s strength in Oplev’s film was that she doesn’t ask for permission, she takes action and does what she thinks is right regardless of others. Furthermore when in Fincher’s film she doesn’t light the match – she ends up being once again the spectator of violence not the acting agent responsible for ending it.

Later when the Wennerström plotline is resolved – the same dynamic appears again in Fincher’s interpretation. Salander asks Blomkvist if she should help before acting. He doesn’t know what specifically she’s doing regarding the hacked account– but he approves her participation before action is taken. Whereas in Oplev’s interpretation she’s already begun to follow that case and just gives him the evidence. She’s solving the case because she wants to – not for Blomkvist, though she gives him her research to clear his name while she goes off to hack the accounts. In Fincher’s film Salander asks for his permission and works with Blomkvist – and their relationship continues as they work together. She acts as his partner not a free agent.

The ultimate difference in how I left feeling about the films came to the closing impression of Salander. In Fincher’s film Blomkvist is with his editor Berger and again it is Salander who backs away hurt, throwing away the jacket she’d specially made for him before racing off into the night as the film ended. Meanwhile in Oplev’s film Salander has just finished resolving the Wennerström affair, and Blomkvist smiles seeing the security footage realizing it was Salander. She meanwhile walks along a sunny promenade on the Cayman Islands. In Fincher’s closing Blomkvist is happy as his life has been restored to where it was before he was sent to jail while Salander once again a sad loner. In Oplev’s film Blomkvist is happy as he’s restored his name and he’s also happy for Salander for being the one to take things into her own hands. Salander is also left in a better place as she’s now made millions, served justice and is left in an island paradise. Both characters in Oplev’s film have success in their objectives and are completely independent at the end. In Fincher’s film Blomkvist has his plotlines happily resolved whereas Salander’s happiness is dependent on Blomkvist and so she is left without.

The cumulative effect of all these moments made Oplev’s Salander a much stronger character than Fincher’s Salander. Not because of the interpretations and quality of the acting of Noomi Rapace or Rooney Mara– but because of the framing of the story. If Mara had been in Oplev’s film and was vulnerable but didn’t ask for permission it would have more strength and control over the narrative than if Rapace had been equally strong in Fincher’s film while asking for permission.