sign in sign up
<<
Home , Lisbeth Salander, Noomi Rapace

1

Bad Sex and the Bio-Logic of Vengeance in The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo (2009) and Antichrist (2009)

Ooouch!!! I still remember that collective moan of pain emanating from the cinema audience as the Woman smacks a firelog into her husband’s groin in the Danish horror film Antichrist (2009). And when she later attacks his hiding place with a shovel, the audience again flinched uncomfortably in their seats. Some had left. But when protagonist , on the other hand, in the Swedish thriller The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo (2009) tattoos the words “I’m a sadistic pig and a rapist” on the stomach of her rapist, the audience cheered. Yes! He had it coming. In the latter film, The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, the structure of and vengeance is straight forward: Here, the young hacker Lisbeth Salander is anally raped by her legal guardian, who is older, fat, and unsympathetic. Luckily, she has recorded the rape with a camera hidden in her bag and she returns the next night with a stun gun, a tattoo needle, and a new set of rules for their future interaction. The film was an instant blockbuster that catapulted petite Swedish actress into Hollywood stardom. In Antichrist, however, the structure of vengeance is obscure: Here, a couple – called the Man and the Woman – loose a young son who falls out the window from his room when they have sex in the bathroom. The Man is a psychoanalyst and in an attempt to cure his wife from her guilt and grief he takes her out of the hospital and to their summer cabin in the woods. However, when his therapy makes her recall events from their marriage, she hammers a firelog into his groin, bolts a grindstone to his flesh, and sets about to kill him. This female avenger also received public recognition when Charlotte Gainsbourgh was awarded best actress at the Cannes film festival. But Antichrist split audiences into those who left the cinema and those who stayed but found the film disturbing and disgusting. At first sight the two films have little in common. One is a mainstream thriller, the other an art film. One has a rape-revenge subplot, the other the loss of a child and failed therapy. And, to further underline differences, everyone recognizes vengeance in The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo whereas those I talked to about Antichrist did not see any vengeance, but only the portrayal of a patient and of female sexuality. But similarities emerge once we look deeper: both films have male assaults, both feature angry female patient-protagonists, and in both we find sexualized vengeance. This 2 paper argues that a structure of female vengeance fuels both films, a structure complexly interwoven with discourses of gender and sex. I do not address the overall plots and themes of either film, but limit my focus to vengeance and its biological, cultural, and gendered foundation. The paper has three parts: First, I examine vengeance as an action and as an emotion. Next, I discuss the biological nature of vengeance using The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo as example. And, last, I look at vengeance as a reaction to perceived abuse in Antichrist. My approach is holistic and cognitive, combining film analysis with cognitive psychology, cognitive philosophy and ethology.

I. Vengeance: Action and Emotion

The common use of the word “vengeance” is as a deed, an action. Thus, according to Merriam-Webster Dictionary, vengeance is the “punishment inflicted in retaliation for an injury or offense.”1 Let us start here, with punishment, retaliation, and injury. Punishment is painful and vengeance is about inflicting pain or inducing an unpleasant feeling in another person. But the word is slightly misleading. Punishment can be administered by a system. You park your car in the wrong place and get a ticket. Or you kill someone and are arrested by the police who brings you to court where you are sentenced by a judge and imprisoned in jail. Nothing of this is personal. Vengeance is different. It is all about an offense done to you and the settling of that score cannot be measured by a system but must be meted out by you. Vengeance is personal, private, and intimate. Next, retaliation points to a time delay: at the time of the injury you were unable to react, but the offense stayed in your mind where it became a painful memory and when an opportunity presents itself (or you plan for it) then you retaliate. A debt is paid, a score settled, the upset scales of justice put in balance. Finally, it is not the size of the injury that matters as much as its felt effect. Someone took the last coffee on the pot or snatched that last cookie from under your nose and you were offended. Someone got your promotion. Or took your selfconfidence away. Or raped you. Whatever the offense, you feel a victim, which is to say you feel innocent and defenseless. There is a time structure at play: after victimization-and-humiliation comes vengeance-and-empowerment. The distance between the two may be minutes or decades. 3

Psychologists disagree as to whether vengeance is also an emotion. It’s not among Robert Plutchik’s eight basic emotions, nor among Wikipedia’s list of 44 emotions, nor among psychologist Nico Frijda’s list of emotions in his book The Emotions from 1980.2 Yet Frijda returned to vengeance in a later work, The Laws of Emotion from 2007, and dedicates a chapter to explore and explain this “emotion of appraised offense that instigates desire for vengeance.”3 In other words, vengeance is about wanting payback. Vengeance may not be an emotion but the burning desire for revenge is. It has the distinct quality of an emotion, which has three aspects: Cognition (thinking), affects (feeling), and conation (action or behavior). An emotion is felt physically in our bodies, it stimulates thoughts, and it points towards action. According to cognitive theory, emotions function like a searchlight: they make certain things salient and leave the rest in the dark.4 They guide our step and lead the way. Strong emotions, furthermore, invade our mind with “preoccupation, single-minded goal pursuit, neglect of unwelcome information, and interference with other activities.”5 They tend to absorb our every thought. In a functionalist view of emotion, every emotion has a function. Fear alerts us to danger, lust makes us mate, love makes us search for that right person with whom to raise our children. In this respect, says Frijda, vengeance appears “odd” since “revenge may even be harmful to the individual, to the point of being self- destructive.”6 Vengeance does not bring back what is lost, yet our desire for vengeance doesn’t diminish over time, on the contrary, it often grows stronger and spirals into illegal violence. Thus, in Western civilisation, vengeance is seen as dangerous, irrational, and a bad emotion. But vengeance is not irrational says Frijda and points to five benefits: 1) To take revenge can protect one from suffering further offenses. A point Lisbeth Salander proves in The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, where her abusive legal guardian ceases to be a problem after her payback. 2) Revenge restores balance. My pain becomes your pain and that makes me feel better. 3) Revenge also restores a sense of power to the avenger. Your pain is my doing, I am the actor and you are the-acted-upon. 4) Revenge replaces humiliation and shame with what Frijda calls an individual’s “basic pride.” If we loose our basic pride, we cease to feel autonomous. We loose our self, which happens to victims of torture or victims of extreme humiliation as in, for instance, concentration camps. 5) Vengeance, finally, simply makes the pain go away.7 Settling the score restores one’s well-being. It’s like soothing a burn with cold 4 water. Thus, psychologically speaking, vengeance has clear benefits and pleasures and albeit it is a passionate and violent emotion, it is not irrational.

II. The Bio-Logic Appeal of The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo

To explain the gains of vengeance, however, doesn’t say much about the burning passion of vengeance, the strength and resistance of this emotion. Why doesn’t Lisbeth just give her recording of the rape to the police? Why vengeance at all if justice can be served without it? Let us return to the personal and intimate aspect of vengeance and to The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo which in the Swedish original is called Män som hatar kvinnor, men who hate women. Here, an aging tycoon hires journalist (Michael Nyqvist) to investigating the murder of a grandniece, Harriet, who disappeared in 1966 when she was sixteen. It turns out Harriet was abused by her father, a rapist and serial killer who taught his son Martin these skills. Harriet drowned her father in self-defense but fled when her teenage brother Martin continued the . Martin is the serial killer that Blomkvist and Lisbeth uncover. He has raped and killed innumerable women and Lisbeth saves Blomkvist from dying in Martin’s cellar. The English title shifts focus from the serial killer to Lisbeth, the hero with a dragon tattoo on her back. She is a hyper-intelligent computer hacker with photographic memory who works for a company. She is also a social misfit and an outsider with a history of violence since she was twelve and set fire to her father to stop him beating her mother. Her mother got irrecoverable brain damage. Lisbeth was institutionalized and has convictions of drug possession and violent behavior. She is physically petite, ’s novel specifies only sixty inches tall and ninety pounds, and has an androgynic and anorexic appearance, perfectly captured by actress Noomi Rapace. Lisbeth is dressed in goth clothes, black leather jacket, black tight jeans, she has piercings in nose, eye brows, and ears, and she wears spiky dog collars and heavy goth makeup. The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo is the first of the Swedish Millenium film trilogy (based on Stieg Larsson’s three bestseller novels, made into six television episodes which were then edited into the three movies8), and in the later films Lisbeth’s makeup becomes a full face mask. She sulks, avoids eye contact and has a hunched and defiant body posture which is 5 illustrated by the poster. It the novel Blomkvist speculates if Lisbeth has Asperger syndrome (an empathy deficiency), and Stieg Larsson portrays her as highly introvert and borderline sociopathic because of her traumatic childhood. In the overall trilogy story, Lisbeth is the victim of a political plot where the protected her father, the defected Russian spy Alexander Zalachenko, who was allowed to continue his criminal activities. Abuse and rape of women structures the trilogy from serial killer Martin (“*the killings are simply an effective way to cover up the rapes,” Martin explains to Blomquist, “*I am just doing what every man dreams about”) to the Swedish political system using Lisbeth and her mother, and from Zalachenko beating Lisbeth’s mother to Bjurman raping Lisbeth. Not just Bjurman, in the third film we learn she was sexually abused by her psychiatrist during her institutionalization. Men who hate and rape women are everywhere in the Millenium trilogy.9 In The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo we see the concept in Lisbeth’s meetings with Bjurman. The first is in his office where he takes control of her bank account and invades her privacy with insidious questions: “You know, I can write that you are cooperative or I can write that you are difficult and defiant. And then your life will be very difficult. So how many men have you had sex with?” At their second meeting he hits her, threatens her – “if there is the least trouble with you I will make sure you are put away for the rest of your life. Do you understand?” – and forces her to perform oral sex on him. “If you are nice to me, I’ll be nice to you.” Third meeting is in Bjurman’s bedroom where Lisbeth expects to perform a second blow job to get (her own) money to buy a new computer. However, Bjurman knocks her unconscious, handcuffs her to the bed, sodomizes and beats her. “Are you nice? Are you nice now,” he says to a gagged Lisbeth. Lisbeth returns to his apartment with a stun gun, renders him unconscious and ties him naked on the floor, sodomizes him with his own dildo, kicks him, and plays the video on his television. Then she dictates her terms: “Now I tell you what to say: You just nod in reply. I dispose over my own account. You no longer have access. I dispose over my own money. Is that understood? Each month you write in your report that I behave exemplary. Better than ever. In exactly a year you ask to have my guardianship repealed.” Finally, she takes out a tattoo nedle and writes in black ink letters on his fat belly: “I am a sadistic pig and a rapist.” 6

Vengeance, says Frijda, is “a universal emotion.” It is shared across all cultures. He is, however, unsure if vengeance is innate. Philosopher Robert C. Solomon, who has written repeatedly on vengeance, disagrees on this point. He argues that vengeance is an emotion linked to our sense of justice. Justice, says Solomon, is not some rational ideal as Kant made it out to be. It is an emotion before it becomes a concept. Solomon speaks of a “gut level sense of justice,”10 a sense of equity and, accordingly, our feeling when equity is disturbed. We say, “‘we want to see justice done,’ but it is the seeing and the wanting that constitues that sense of justice. . .”11 In Solomon’s view justice is first an emotion – it is our sensing, seeing, and wanting – and next it is cultivated and given specific, contextual shape in a historical setting. Our sense of justice is innate and presupposes a variety of positive and negative emotions:

Justice presupposes caring and concern and consequently indignation and revenge, personal relationships and not a merely rational relationship with the law . . . our sense of justice begins and moves through our indignation and outrage at injustice, concerning not just ourselves, of course, but also those close to us . . .

Let us return to Lisbeth and her guardian, a relationship which activates our gut level sense of justice and injustice in several ways: Bjurman is twice Lisbeth’s age and size; she is rendered defenseless by being in his legal care and he given God-like status by the power to have her institutionalized; and the rape finally constitutes the strongest possible violation of our sense of morality. Rape, by Western morality, is considered worse than killing and only equalled by crimes like .12 We do not think when we see Bjurman rape Lisbeth – it is all felt in our gut. Solomon believes justice – as well as its related emotion of vengeance – is innate and biological at its foundation. Is justice really a biological emotion? Isn’t wild nature where we find “the law of the jungle” and the famous Darwinian “the survival of the fittest”? Turning to ethology, recent cognitive and biological approaches have in the last decade explored the social lives and moral sentiments of animals. Thus, in Wild Justice: The Moral Lives of Animals (2009) cognitive biologist Marc Bekoff and philosopher Jessica Pierce argue that the difference between human and animal moral behavoir may not be one in kind but in degree, depending on their 7 neurological capacity and the social organization of a species. They argue for a “species-relative and situational morality.” To each animal species (including humans) its own morality. However, some elements are universal in animals living in tight social groups. Using examples from apes, primates, wolves, elephants, and rats, Bekoff and Pierce define moral behavior this way:

Moral behavior is other-regarding and prosocial; it is behavior that promotes harmonious co-existence by avoiding harm to others and providing others with help. Norms of behavior that regulate social interactions are found in humans and animals alike. And these norms seem to be universal: in those animal societies in which morality has evolved, we see a common suite of behaviors.13

To sacrifice oneself for another is not human. Animals do it too. Evolutionary ethology explains self-sacrificing behavoir as benefitting the group and the species.14 To give special treatment to the old or the disabled is not human. Animals, such as elephants and chimpanzees, do it too.15 To have “prescriptive social rules” and maintain “good relationships” through negotiation and peacemaking is not human.16 Many mammals living in social groups do so too. And to violate social rules or to cheat is not human neither. Animals do so too. The social life of animals such as primates and wolves depends – like ours – on fairness and justice. Cooperation is neccessary in social life. It takes a group of wolves to kill a large prey and a group of chimpanzees to protect territory from rivals. But cooperation requires a lot of things, including trust, fairness, and social rules. Ethologist and primatist Franz de Waal writes about fairness and cheating:

There is a strong temptation to take advantage of the system without making a corresponding investment. Defined as “cheating” – that is, giving less than one takes – this attitude threatens the enitre system, including the interests of honest contributors. The only way they can protect themselves is by making cheating costly. They do so through punitive action, also known as moralistic aggression. It is an apt label, as the reaction concerns how others “ought” to behave.17

8

Social rules about cooperation have evolutionary roots and enhance the survival of a species. Recently, neuroscience is mapping our emotions and neurobiologist Donald Pfaff suggests that the so-called “golden rules” of fair play and altruism are hardwired into the human brain.18 Justice and social rules are natural and found in many species, and our reaction to injustice and the violation of social rules is natural too. In wild nature, violators and cheators are met with what ethology calls “moralistic aggression” and “retributive justice.” It is costly to break social rules and punishment such as biting, ostrasizing, or killing is, literally speaking, natural. I will only look briefly at Lisbeth’s rape since vengeance, and not rape, is the focus of this paper. As mentioned earlier, rape is a stronger violation of human morality than murder. In “Drawing the Line: The Narrative Function of Rape in The Wire and Other Television Series” (2012), cognitive film theorist Margrethe Bruun Vaage argues that rape is used to draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable behavior. Thus, recent television series have sympathetic characters who are murderers (The Wire), gangsters (The Sopranos), and serial killers (Dexter), however, they never rape. Unlike murder, a rape cannot be motivated. It has a “polarizing function” and “is used narratively to ensure strong desires for revenge in the spectator.”19 A character can be a good-bad character with fuzzy moral behavior, but there are lines which cannot be crossed. Rape is one. Vaage says rape evokes three basic emotions, namely contempt, anger, and disgust (CAD): “Feelings of contempt points to virtues such as respect, duty and hierarchy being violated in an ethics of community; feelings of anger arises when individual rights and autonomy is violated according to an ethics of autonomy; and finally, feelings of disgust are prompted when the perceived natural order is violated.”20 Bjurman abuses his position in the social hierarchy, he violates Lisbeth’s autonomy, and by raping someone in his legal care he violates his care-taker position. (And on a “rape scale,” anal rape is worse than genital rape). As Lisbeth puts it, Bjurman is “a sadistic pic and a rapist.” To ensure we feel a passionate sense of injustice screaming for vengeance the rape is shown from Lisbeth’s perspective. Not that we “see with her eyes” but that we feel with her. Moral emotions, to which justice and vengeance belong, require empathy which we find in many social mammal species. Thus, when rats see other rats in pain they help alleviate their pain, which is called “the witnessing effect.”21 Witnessing others in distress is distressing and calls for our reaction. Visually, The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo places the camera close to Lisbeth’s face with Bjurman 9 looming threatening behind her. We see fear and pain in closeup (interestingly, the American remake shifts visual focus from Lisbeth’s to Bjurman’s perspective, sharing his point of view more often and making Lisbeth’s hair cover her face so we are unable to see her eyes. Also, her body is displayed naked which shifts attention from the assault on Lisbeth’s autonomy and body to be, more specifically, tuned in to the sexual assault). So, summing up, Bjurman’s rape cries out for revenge. Visually we are made to feel and empathize with Lisbeth through the witnessing effect, narratively she is construed as a rape victim and a moral patient (that is, someone unable to take care of him or herself),22 and biologically the attack violates our sense of justice and calls for moralistic aggression. It is all personal and intimate and perfectly natural.

III. The Obscure Logic of Vengeance in Antichrist

As I said in the introduction, noone I talked to about Antichrist found it was about vengeance. Lars Von Trier’s film appears to be an art horror film about a woman’s mental illness and the lethal nature of female sexuality. Yet, as we shall see, offence and vengeance is here. Antichrist opens with the Man and the Woman making love in the bathroom intercut with their three-year-old son Nick climbing out of bed, seeing his parents, then crawling up on a table where he falls to his death from the window. The Woman is hospitalized with catatonic grief and after a month her husband, a psychoanalyst, decides to cure her. He takes her off the medicine and promises to help her overcome pain and fear. They go to the place she says she fears the most, the woods, where they have a summer cabin called Eden. The Woman spent last summer at Eden with Nick while working on a thesis about witches. After some days she feels cured but at the same time the Man starts suspecting her of having maltreated Nick. Thinking he is leaving her, the Woman hammers a firelog into his groin and bolts a grindstone to his lower leg. When he escapes she tracks him down hiding in a foxhole. Back at the cabin she cuts off her clitoris with a pair of scissors and says she will sacrifice him to nature. The man strangles her in self-defense and leaves the woods where bodies seem to sprout from the earth and mysteriously appearing women pass him. Was nature really possessed? Was she a witch? Or did she go crazy? 10

Antichrist stands in contrast to The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo in several ways. Where the latter is a mainstream thriller, Antichrist uses art aesthetics with scenes in black-and-white, slowmotion, a narrative divided into chapters with a prologue, chapters called Grief, Pain, Despair, The Three Beggars, and an epilogue, it has art work by Danish artist * and uses beautiful color manipulation. Intertwined with the factual plot is a symbolic and metaphorical story foregrounded by the so- called Three Beggars, three small lead figures who may refer to three animals in the woods: the Crow, the Deer, and the Fox, the latter saying “chaos reigns” to the Man when they meet in the woods. A symbolism is at play and nature is both real and symbolic, events grounded in fantasy as well as reality. Yet events and dialogue provoke real emotions and point to real experiences and this is where we will look. “You couldn’t leave it, could you. You had to meddle,” says the Woman when her husband takes her out of the hospital. “You’re just so much smarter, aren’t you?” “I love you,” he responds. Although against his principles as a therapist, he believes he can cure his wife, that he is smarter than the doctor, and that he knows all there is to know about her pain, her fear, and her innermost secrets. In this overruling of her and the doctor we see a denial of her autonomy as a person. Instead, she turns into his patient. “You’ve always been distant from me and Nick. Now that I think of it, very, very distant,” she tells him. “I never interested you. Until now that I’m your patient. Perhaps I’m not supposed to talk about these things.” Last year she didn’t finish writing her thesis in Eden but gave it up, which he is unaware of. “What I understood was that you wanted to write alone, that you wanted to go to Eden just the two of you, that way you could finish your thesis.”

The Woman: As you said, when I talked about my subject: glib. The Man: I never called your subject glib. The Woman: Perhaps you didn’t use that word, but that was what you meant. And all of a sudden it was glib. Or even worse, some kind of lie. The Man: I see. The Woman: No, you don’t see. You see a lot of things but not that.

In these conversations between man and wife we find buried resentment, unspoken wishes and desires, denied dreams and repressed desires. When they have sex the 11

Woman bites him to his displeasure and later, as she asks him to hit her when they make love, he is upset about her desires. Clearly, they do not share ideas about good sex and pleaures. We are in bourgeois marital territory well-explored by Strindberg and Bergman. Although intimate, people are dishonest with one another, and at times of crises – such as this – what was silenced is given voice. At the end of the second chapter called Pain, the Woman feels cured. “I just wanted to say how happy I am that you are here. I love you darling. Look, I’m cured. I’m fine,” she says, but observing his reaction continues, “You can’t just be happy for me, can you?” What initally seems so different may not be so: In The Woman With the Golden Tattoo Lisbeth and Bjurman are strangers – he is a new guardian assigned to her when her former guardian had a heart attack – however, their relationship is also intimate. The Woman and the Man are married, yet turn out to be strangers to one another and less intimate than merely physically close. Lisbeth is much younger than Bjurman, small and androgynous, however, the age difference between the actors playing the Man and the Woman makes him sixteen years older than his wife,23 and she is repeatedly presented in child-like postures. In both films, a man has power over a woman, here with the Man taking control of the woman’s illness, taking her medication away, and isolating her. Dialogue hints at a similar psychological economy in their marriage with him as distant and in control, the Woman conforming to his ideas, giving up her “glib” research without him even noticing. What surfaces at Eden is the woman’s resentment of the Man’s control over her. Resentment, like vengeance, is one of the negative emotions linked tojustice. Solomon says it is an extremely passionate and powerful emotion and also highly philosophical. It comes from s sense of impotence in reaction to perceived offenses. And it is followed by the wish to reatliate. “If resentment has a desire, it is in its extreme form the total annihilation,” says Solomon.24 Comparing resentment and vengeance, resentment is an emotion that comes before justice whereas vengeance comes after perceived injustice. Resentment begins, says Solomon, as “a sort of self- absorption if not outright self-interest as well as a bitter sense of disappointment or humiliation,” after which it is rationalized as a claim of someone having treated one unjustly. In this, resentment does not work spontanously at a “gut level sense of justice” like vengeance. Resentment is not a reaction to a feeling of injustice. It is a rationalized feeling of being treated unfairly. 12

If vengeance is simple, resentment is complex. We are in situations, where right and wrong is not easily decided. As in a marriage, where either partner could leave at any time, yet continue an intimate game of emotional transactions leading to resentment, anger, dominance, bitterness, and eventually, vengeance in the shape of sexualized violence and murder. “We do not have fewer instincts than other creatures, but we have woven ours into a much more complicated psychological tapestry of culture, language, and self- reflection,” says Solomon.25 It is this psychological tapestry we see in Antichrist, making patterns of offense and vengeance obscure and hard to detect as the

IV. Conclusion

Let us return to philosopher Robert C. Solomon and the central role of vengeance in our sense of justice.

Vengeance may be primitive, but it is still the conceptual core of justice. A sense of justice requires engagement, not detachment. it requires a keen sense of what it is to be offended, not just an abstract sense of fairness. It involves that basic sense of protective selfhood (again, including one’s family and tribe as part of the self) and the felt need to retaliate (by getting even or evening the score) that marks our place in the social universe.26

“It’s not a dog-eat-dog world becasue really dogs don’t eat other dogs,” says Berkoff and Pierce. Neither is the saying “man is wolf to man” true, since it means men are cruel to one another like wolves, whereas wolves really live in stable family-ruled groups. Neither is the saying “It’s a jungle out there” true, since the jungle is ruled by laws of co-operation and peaceful co-existence in the species.

1 http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vengeance?show=0&t=1340700882 2 For Robert Plutchik, see *, for Wikipedia see *. 3 Nico H. Frijda, The Laws of Emotion. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2007, 261. 4 Carroll, Passionate views* 5 Frijda, Laws of Emotion, 261. 6 Ibid, 261. 13

7 Ibid, 276. 8 Year of the three novels, year of the six television shows, year of the three Swedish films, year of the American film.* 9 The note to Larsson having watche a gang rape as a young man. Wikipedia source, check* 10 Robert C. Solomon, A Passion for Justice: Emotions and the Origin of the Social Contract. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 1995 (original 1990), 33. 11 Solomon, Passion for Justice, 19. 12 13 Bekoff, Marc and Pierce, Jessica. 2009. Wild Justice: The Moral Lives of Animals. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 148. 14 note to Grodal, Pan’s Labyrinth afsnit 15 Elephants, see Wild Justice. Chimpanzees, se de Waal. 16 Frans de Waal, Good Natured: The Origins of Right and Wrong in Humans and Other Animals. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1996, 211. 17 de Waal, Good Natured, 159. 18 Pfaff is discussed in Bekoff and Pierce, Wild Justice, 28. See Donald Pfaff, The Neuroscience of Fair Play: Why We (Usually) Follow the Golden Rule. New York: Dana Press, 2007. 19 Margrethe Bruun Vaage, “Drawing the Line: The Narrative Function of Rape in The Wire and Other Television Series” (2012), unpublished paper presented at the Conference for the Society for the Cinematic Study of the Moving Image, SCSMI, in New York, June 13-16, 2012, quotes are 6, 9. 20 Vaage, “Drawing the Line,” 14. 21 Bekoff and Pierce, Wild Justice, 96. 22 Note on moral patient, Bekoff and Pierce, Wild Justice, 144. 23 , who was 54 in 2009, is sixteen years older than Charlotte Gainsbourg, who was 38). 24 Solomon, 266. 25 Solomon, 112. 26 Solomon, Passion for Justice, 42-3.