The many faces of Hannibal Lecter
Tuesday, July 21, 2020 at 10:00PM 
1991's The Silence of the Lambs won five Academy Awards, including Best Picture, thus becoming the only horror movie to ever conquer that much-coveted prize. Still, overall, the film seems to owe more to the crime thriller, the police procedural and investigative manhunt than it does to the horror genre. However, one element plunges it right into the depths of cinematic nightmares. It's a character so malevolent that it often feels larger than life, like a primordial evil closer to the divine than to the human. We're talking about the monster that tops the AFI's greatest movie villains list, the role that earned Anthony Hopkins his Oscar and made us never look at Fava beans the same way ever again – Hannibal 'The Cannibal' Lecter…
Before Hopkins took on the iconic part, another actor had tried on the shoes of the most famous character ever conceived by novelist Thomas Harris. In 1986, director Michael Mann made his own adaption of a Harris' novel, The Red Dragon, rebaptized as Manhunter for the big screen. As in The Silence of the Lambs, Mann's picture positions Lecter at the periphery of the story, a Mephistophelean consultant that aids a young investigator in the capture of another homicidal maniac. No matter how central he may be to the picture's general atmosphere of stifling moral degradation and virulent violence, Lecter is a supporting player, confined to the insides of a white cell from which he spews venomous words like the diabolical snake he is.
In the same way his film differs from The Silence of the Lambs in terms of tone and intent, so does Brian Cox's Hannibal differ from Hopkins'. His version of the monster isn't as steeped in theatrical sophistication as the latter portrayal, presenting a Hannibal that's more physically menacing but also less cerebral in his evil-doings. Moreover, while Hopkins' Oscar-winning performance makes Lecter into something inhuman, a reptilian beast of other-dimensional provenance, Cox's take is more grounded. The Hannibal of 1986 is frighteningly believable as a serial killer that could exist in our world, a brutish presence that's not as ethereal as his 1991 counterpart but just as unsettling.
That being said, if asked to name the best screen version of this villain, I'd have to choose the one Jonathan Demme lensed in The Silence of the Lambs. Cox glowered from his cage like a trapped animal, hungry for prey that's out of reach, but Hopkins plays Hannibal like a predator that already has its squirming meal pierced atop a pointy claw. Throughout his conversational games with Clarice Starling, he's like a cat pawing at a helpless mouse, playing with his food. It's entertaining to watch, but it's also terrifying, as Hopkins makes our skin crawl in survivalist revulsion at the same time we are enthralled by his every arsenic-laced word, every arrogant smirk and sharp smile.
While he wouldn't have been my choice for the Best Actor trophy, it's impossible to begrudge the Welsh thespian his accolades since his take on the role is so undeniably magnificent. The same cannot be said about his reprisals of the part, in Ridley Scott's flotsam Hannibal and Brett Ratner's underwhelming Red Dragon. There are some things to cherish about the second movie, but the Scott helmed abomination is more difficult to defend, in part because its source material is so uncontrovertibly mediocre. After the success of The Silence of the Lambs movie, Thomas Harris decided to capitalize on the popularity of his great villain, writing new sequels and prequels that lose what made his early works special.
When reviewing the gangrenous disaster that was Harris' Hannibal Rising, New Yorker critic Anthony Lane wrote down the five essential conditions that must be fulfilled for a Hannibal Lecter story to work. "1. Lecter must be incarcerated. 2. He must be in America. 3. He must be peripheral to the plot (the capture of another killer), however central he is to the atmosphere. 4. He must attract the professional interest of a woman. 5. He must be as insoluble as Iago." It's possible to argue against some of those tenets, especially when considering a certain TV show, but the fifth necessity seems, to me, like a cosmical truth that's as undeniable as the rising sun. For Hannibal to work, he must be insoluble, incomprehensible, a mystery that's left unsolved.
That's the main reason why Hannibal and Hannibal Rising, both novels and movies, so flagrantly fail. One shouldn't try to explore why Hannibal Lecter is Hannibal Lecter, he simply is. If you love the villain you saw in The Silence of the Lambs, I besiege you to avoid watching the Ridley Scott catastrophe as well as the 2007's adaptation of Harris' prequel. Both movies are so bad they the preceding works feel worse in retrospect. Hopkins' first portrayal of the cannibal is a being of all-consuming evil, a disease upon this world which sickens our souls the longer we gaze into its abyss. On the other hand, the protagonist of Hannibal Rising, now played by Gaspard Ulliel, is a nasty-minded whinny avenger with a taste for human flesh and a kill list comprised of people so venal that they make him look valorous in comparison.
Luckily for the fans of the villain, another screen version was to come, overshadowing the mediocrity of post-1991 Hannibal Lecter and offering audiences a fresh take on the character. Bryan Fuller's Hannibal is a twisted game of cat and mouse curdling into a horrifying queer romance. It's also one of my favorite TV shows. Played by Mads Mikkelsen, the killing psychiatrist is central to the plot, mostly out of prison and sometimes traveling through Europe, violating three of Lane's tenets in a fell swoop. However, he's never fully explained, his brains never unspooled for us to see the reasons behind the monster's monstrosity.
If anything, this Hannibal manages to be more alienating than his predecessors, fully embracing the epicurean abandon suggested in the source material and taking it to extremes so ignoble they go beyond comprehension. He's also impeccably dressed and horny for Hugh Dancy, which makes him fun to watch and weirdly sympathetic. Demme and Hopkins made us squirm away from the screen in dazzled fear, but Fuller prefers to seduce his spectators. Before we know it, we've fallen into the spell of Mikkelsen's Hannibal and are more disgusted at ourselves than at his cannibalistic ways. Revulsion and lust, two very different ways to interpret Hannibal Lecter, both successful and worthy of our attention. Which one do you prefer?
The Silence of the Lambs and the three seasons of Hannibal are available to stream on Netflix and Amazon Prime. You can easily find the other screen iterations of Hannibal Lecter online, though Manhunter isn't available to stream anywhere at the moment.
Reader Comments (24)
Thanks for this good summary, Cláudio.
Although Scott's Hannibal falls short on a number of levels, I do think that Giancarlo Giannini's performance and the whole Florence strand of the story make it worth watching. And although she doesn't top Jodie Foster's Clarice, Julianne Moore is good in the role.
I haven't seen either Ulliel or Mikkelsen's Hannibals. On the basis of your article, I shall try to see Mikkelsen at least, so thanks for the info!
Hannibal is one of the best shows this century.
I never watched Hannibal the series but a great friend of mine told me it was something crazy, so I shall try
I (not so) secretly love Hannibal Rising (and include it in my “Hannibal Trilogy” with Manhunter and The Silence Of The Lambs) - Ulliel is the glue that makes it work, as if the horrors that befall him are not catalysts for revenge... just opportunities to indulge his lust...
You’ve made me feel mildly ashamed of this now! Is the film really so very bad!?
kermit_the_frog -- I'm sorry that I made you feel bad about liking a movie. If you could see something in the picture that I couldn't, then I'm glad for you. No need to feel ashamed about such a thing. If anything I should feel ashamed for provoking those feelings when I know how lousy they can be.
Regarding HANNIBAL RISING, I dislike the novel too, so it's not just an issue with the adaptation to the big screen. I just think a Hannibal origin story is missing the point of what makes this specific villain work. When it comes to movie specifics, I think it features what's probably Gong Li's worst performance and the editing is a mess that rubs me the wrong way every time I try to rewatch it (which I did before writing this piece). This is not me trying to convince you to the dark side, I'm just attempting to explain my dislike.
For what it's worth, if I recall correctly from twitter, Bryan Fuller likes HANNIBAL RISING a whole lot and he's certainly more of a Hannibal Lecter specialist than I ever hope to be. In other words, you're in good company when it comes to liking the movie.
For me, Brian Cox's portrayal of Lecter remains my favorite as it's just low-key and subtle.
Great analysis but Hannibal doesn't work because Foster is the lynchpin and we the audience cared and identified with here in 1991,to have someone completely take over the role and not relate it to the earlier film was an error,it's a different actress going through the situations,she's miscast in the biggest way and the film and Moore never recover,love Oldman in it though.
In keeping with what you said, the only time Fuller's Hannibal really stumbled was when they delved into Hannibal's backstory early in Season 3. The whole time I was like, "This is time that would better spent watching Hannbal ominously whipping around European locales on a Vespa."
It's such an interesting character.
I love Silence of the Lambs and Sir Hopkins' win. To me the screetime didn't matter, he simply OWNED it. He was perfect.
Mads Mikkelsen was great too, but if I had to choose, it would always be Hopkins.
I happen to think Hopkins was at his best in the double whammy of 93.
Cláudio - I was only joking but thank you for the sympathetic reply!
I can definitely agree that the film’s use of Gong Li is so bad that it makes her Miami Vice role look award-worthy - in fact, I’d love a whole series dedicated to “why Hollywood is incapable of providing Gong Li with anything remotely deserving of her GOAT talent!!”
Speaking of masters of their craft being denied an English language showcase, I’d be interested to hear people’s thoughts on Zhang Ziyi’s “almost there” performance in Memoirs Of A Geisha... a movie that I really didn’t like on a lot of levels...
kermit_the_frog -- Oh, I thought you were serious. In any case, I don't like to make people feel bad with my writing.
Zhang Ziyi in MEMOIRS OF A GEISHA is one of those performances I'm going to do at some point for the Almost There series, but I don't know when. I have huge issues with that film, and, apart from Gong Li, I don't remember being very impressed with any of the actors' work. That being said, I do think, from my recollections, that Ziyi does her best with an impossible role. It's just that the movie crushes her.
Honestly, Asian performers are given such short thrift by Hollywood in general and AMPAS in particular, that I fear highlighting one a performance by such an actor that got close to a nod but, deservingly, missed the cut.
Michael -- I loved season three, but those little sojourns into Hannibal's past were, clearly, its weakest point. Especially when we could be spending time with Mads and Gillian Anderson gallivanting through Europe's most beautiful cities, eating rude people along the way.
Claudo: Don't do it as your first bullet dodge, at least. I suggested Johnny Depp in Black Mass a while ago. Yeah, THAT almost happened. WHY!?
From what I can recall, Gong Li wasn't *that* bad in HANNIBAL RISING. I thought she was way way worse in MIAMI VICE. That whole movie is an utter mess, save maybe the final 30 mins. I remember liking HANNIBAL RISING, but it has nothing on THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS or the HANNIBAL TV series which are both masterful. My rankings of all television/film that have to do with Hannibal would be:
1. HANNIBAL - TV Series
2. THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS
3. RED DRAGON
4. HANNIBAL - Film
5. HANNIBAL RISING
I haven't seen MANHUNTER and am very curious about what CBS is going to do with the sequel series to THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS, CLARICE.
I also have to commend Gong Li for giving an absolutely award worthy performance in MEMOIRS OF A GEISHA. I was so happy she won the NBR Award that year and she is definitely in my line up for Best Supporting Actress of 2005.
Manhunter can be bought, though, on stream per movie services like Google Movies & TV. As can all the others.
Great blog. I loved the movie and Sir Hopkins portrayal of Dr. Lector. Mads Mikkelsen's Hannibal is art to behold! My favorite program hands down. I sincerely hope more Hannibal will be coming our way. Surely it will be worth the wait.
Gong Li should have been nominated over Frances McDormand in supporting actress category. That year had arguably the weakest best actress list in a decade so Zhang was very likely the sixth spot and probably just missed.
Tom G - Zhang Ziyi grabbed Globe, SAG, BAFTA nominations... she basically got all the precursors so a true snub!
It was Knightley who took her spot, by the way (even if it should have been Dench or Theron who missed...)
Talking on the TV program Hannibal: The pretentious wankiness, increasingly so as the series progressed, is something you need a taste for and also to be in the mood for. I really enjoyed watching it years ago, but only got a couple of episodes into a rewatch before interest waned this time.
Hopkins is my favorite Hannibal. He is funny, intelligent, mystical. scary, frightening and a good story teller with an enormous charisma.
But Hopkins is iconic because Foster as Clarice is iconic.
Mikkelsen is stylish, mystical, friendly, sexy, intelligent and a good story teller.
Mikkelsen is stealing the show and Hugh Dancy is strong here as well. I found the interesting pairing with Gillian Anderson to be so great!
The murders in the series are set up like different art installation. And every each of them are mesmerizing to me
What a terrific analysis. Hannibal is just a great character and each actor brought their own thing to it. I won't repeat anything in the article, but I do think Fiennes and Ulliel brought a bloody violence to their takes on the character. I was unnerved when they were on screen. I love Cox's take on the character as well, although he plays a better version of Hannibal in his current series, "Succession."
I never got the particular rhythm of the TV series and Mikkelsen was too much of a blank slate. The series costarred Gillian Anderson, who I would love to have seen as Clarice, but her "X Files" contract kept her from doing it. As much as I love Julianne Moore, "Hannibal" was easily her worst performance. Even though the role is owned by Foster, Anderson would have brought her own gravitas to it, as she did in the brilliant "The Fall."
The clear Hannibal is of course Hopkins. His calm, calculating hold on the character is so strong that it really doesn't seem like category fraud that he won for Best Actor. He feels like he's in the movie the entire time because he make his character so indelible. The viewers always has him in the back of their heads through all of Clarice's choices in the film. They are a platonic (I stress platonic) power couple for the ages.
Kermit_the_frog- yes Knightley was the surprise fifth nominee although I don't know anyone who would rank her as fifth out of that category that year. A few even rank her first and believe she should have won. I would be ok if Zhang had gotten nominated (she wouldn't be the worst ever and she is trying so hard to make the movie work bless her heart)
Gong Li should have been nominated no question in my opinion but I couldn't vote for her to win, not with Williams, Adams, and Weisz in the same category and giving better performances. Where's the smackdown for 2005?
"Hannibal" the film has style but it lacks Foster. "Hannibal Rising" is terrible and boring. The remake of "Red Dragon" was only made to make money because DeLaurentis owned the rights to the book.