Boobies

It's no secret that I like Scandinavia, so I often find myself reading about or looking at things that are somewhat Scandinavian. I've read a bit about Stieg Larsson's books and some of the controversy surrounding them—namely that his partner feels cheated by his estate for getting nothing. So she held the last book hostage. But now that they are turning the books, turned into Swedish movies, into American movies, there's more controvery. And it's Boobs. Breasts. Nipples. Tits. Whatever word you choose. I'll usually read comments on articles to see what people think, until I realize that humans are pretty stupid, and oftentimes I'll refute them to myself because, well, that's what I do, I guess. But I thought this might be a good topic to discuss and since it's just me here, I'll use the comments to foment a sort of pseudo-discussion. Oh yeah. But first, the picture in all it's tortured, nippled glory:

So there it is.

I've not actually read the books, nor do I know what they're about, so I won't go into that here, but the movie and books are pretty dark from what I understand. Very rated-R, which is something not many studios are willing to do: put $100 million into a rated-R movie. So this movie poster seems to fit my limited understanding of the movie and the books. But lets look at some comments, shall we?

Smoking hot? She’s flat as a board. They should have got someone with boobs.

Of course this comment shows up, I'm just surprised it wasn't first (it was second). The problem is she does have boobs. They're right there, under Daniel Craig's arm. Thankfully, several people responded with helpful comments like these:

She is supposed to be flat, it is in the book.

which makes it helpful for people like me who didn't read the book to know that the studio didn't insist on cartoonish or fake ones. I also learned that Rooney Mara's breasts are apparently much larger than those of the Swedish girl in the original movies.

This comment in particular caught my attention though.

I don’t have a problem with nudity. But I do have a problem with GRATUITOUS nudity, just I have a problem with gratuitous violence. Lisbeth Salander is fighting back from being a victim. To have her posed in such a vulnerable state (and yes, when you’re nude, you’re vulnerable, whether you’re “strong” or not) really negates the power that the Lisbeth character has earned. She is supposed to be the protector, not Blomquist. I doubt that Stieg Larsson would have approved this campaign.

I fail to understand how this is gratuitous nudity. Of course, gratuitous means something different to each individual person, but this is hardly X-rated.

But I think this person is wrong. She says being nude makes you vulnerable. This is true. And yes, Lisbeth (apparently) is fighting back. But this person is flat out wrong. This movie poster negates nothing. This movie poster does not make the character weak, nor does it portray her as such. Nothing about this poster takes away any of the power gained because, yes being nude or posing nude makes one vulnerable.. But only to the extent that they let it do so.

Instead of letting this act drain the character, Rooney Mara has embraced it and that takes a certain amount of strength, doesn't it? How many people would willingly put their half-naked bodies on display for millions of people to see and critique?

Even more importantly, I wonder how many women this picture could inspire to be happy with themselves. As some commenters pointed out, Rooney Mara has small breasts. So what? So do lots of ladies. You don't need to have giant silicone-enhanced breasts to display them. And our society would probably be better off if a  lot more people realized that.

I think this comment sums up, more or less, how I feel on the subject:

A lot of the comments here perfectly illustrate why most of the world regard American as a culturally bankrupt nation. It’s not scandalous or dirty or shocking, it’s just a topless woman. I swear, the moral majority has screwed this country up beyond repair.