Just saw it! What did you guys think of it? My brief thoughts...

The movie did an excellent job of following the themes and plot in the book, with the inevitable cuts for running time. It's a controversial book (read it if you haven't) and not an easy one to film, so I think this is a worthwhile to point out. The only exclusion I thought hurt the movie was the exhibition of torture instruments in Rome, with Lecter paying to watch the crowd instead of the instruments. That definitely should have been in there, IMO.

I didn't care for Ridley Scott's excessive use of camera effects and soundtrack to let me know what I should be feeling at any given moment. I didn't mind this in Gladiator, which is supposed to be an Epic Summer Blockbuster; a horror thriller like Hannibal requires a defter, lighter touch.

The ending was handled just beautifully. I was ready to walk out with a thumbs down until that moment. It's quite different from the book but manages to complement it perfectly.

The movie will inevitably be compared to Silence of the Lambs, which is a damn shame, considering that's one of the best movies ever made. Of _course_ it doesn't live up to Silence. What could? But as a solid movie adaptation of a very good book, it gets a B+ from me.

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

Weren't you supposed to be restricted to the Counter-Strike threads?

Hannibal was, hands down, one of the most unintentionally funny enormous heaps of crap I have seen in a looooong time.

-Tom

"Hannibal was, hands down, one of the most unintentionally funny enormous heaps of crap I have seen in a looooong time."

I should preface this by asking: if you read the book, did you think the book sucked? Lots of people hated it. Not me, but certainly many did. I can understand that perspective, though I don't agree with it.

If you _didn't_ like the book, you definitely won't like the movie. Just a disclaimer there.

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

Ditto what Tom said.

" I should preface this by asking: if you read the book, did you think the book sucked? Lots of people hated it. Not me, but certainly many did. I can understand that perspective, though I don't agree with it."

I was a pretty big SOTL fan. Both film and book. Looked forward to Hannibal for a long time. Consider myself a Harris fan. Liked Black Sunday. Loved Red Dragon. Even liked Manhunter--what I remember of it. But the book Hannibal was sooooo bad. Oof. I get the heebie jeebies just thinking about it.

Why? So many reasons. In brief, it reads like it was written by someone trying to emulate the style Harris used in SOTL, but does not ring true enough to actually seem like him. Like some bozo publishing whore said, "Jesus, it's been ten years and he's never gonna write it. Let's just ghost the damn thing." But the very worse sin he commits is that he violates his characters, most notably Clarice Starling. Authors have to respect the people they create; I believe that. You can't violate who the character is just because you want to see them eat brains.

Which reminds me of Virtua Tennis.

Anyway, the film was a surprisingly true adaptation to the book. And given that the book was terrible...

The weirdest thing of all is how the film departs from the book at the end. I mean, geez, if you're gonna bother to keep all the other crap why abandon the campiest part of all? Furthermore, isn't it a bit ironic that since the ending is what Jodie Foster objected to most of all, and therefore Starling had to be recast, that very ending was changed and sanitized for the Starling character? How weird is that?

I for one applauded her decision to keep away from Hannibal. Thomas Harris had betrayed Clarice Starling. Thank goodness she had the guts not to.

Amanpour

"I for one applauded her decision to keep away from Hannibal."

Hey, I never thought of that. At the time it happened, I just assumed she wouldn't so it because she was holding out for more money or some such thing. Now that I've actually seen Hannibal, it occurs to me that she was probably reacting to having read the script!

-Tom

Okay, I liked this GROSS movie because its almost like Gladiator in that it knows what it wants to do. it just wants to GROSS YOU OUT! In an elegant way. The movie is shot crisp and decadently, akin to Seven. looks good.

also, I think Harris made changes from the book in all the right places, especially the ending, a much better book representation then American Psycho was.

Silence of the Lambs I particualrly DIDN't like becuase it sorta romanticizes Lecter, whereas Hannibal shows him as the monster he is (though ppl surprisingly root for him in a gross way). Though the fascination with serial killers is not let go of, Ridley Scott knows what hes doing and has no pretensions. . .there is no moral code to the movie.

Julianne Moore does Starling well, though this movie is NOT really about Starling (whereas SOTL was) its all about how Lecter fucks everybody. Hopkins was great. Theres a secret WANTING for Lecter to succeed in this movie. Preying on predators. sorta a serial killer version of a clint eastwood Dirty Harry almost. theres a certain amoral justice to his code.

anyway, I'm a sucker for this movie. . .. yes its gross but it worked for me THUMBS UP!!!

etc

"Hannibal was, hands down, one of the most unintentionally funny enormous heaps of crap I have seen in a looooong time."

You gotta admit that Hopkins and Scott KNOW the humor in this movie. . . cmon dont tell me the scenes especially at the end weren;t intentionally done with some black humor. i dont want to spoil the movie, but there are quite a number of scenes where hopkins is having fun with the character as is Scott in portraying it. They're not stupid enough to REALLY take it seriously. . . whereas Demme in Silence Of The Lamb does.

etc

>>Hey, I never thought of that. At the time it happened, I just assumed she wouldn't so it because she was holding out for more money or some such thing. Now that I've actually seen Hannibal, it occurs to me that she was probably reacting to having read the script!

Jodie Foster and Jonathan Demme backed out after they read the book. They objected to the excessive violence, and perhaps the fact that it sucked.

"Silence of the Lambs I particualrly DIDN't like becuase it sorta romanticizes Lecter"

The movie was one of the closest adaptations of a novel that I've seen.

Hannibal (the book, haven't seen the movie) really romanticizes Lecter. He ends up being the defacto hero; everyone who's after him, with the exception of Starling, is made to look just as guilty, so Lecter doesn't come off looking that bad, really. The ending in the book just rang totally false to me; I have no interest in seeing the movie, though I know the ending is different.

"Jodie Foster and Jonathan Demme backed out after they read the book. They objected to the excessive violence, and perhaps the fact that it sucked."

I think Harris is intentionally fucking with readers in Hannibal. The pressure to spin another Silence must have been overwhelming. Instead, Harris is goosing the reader by writing-- something horrible. Hannibal and Starling together? Get out! Impossible! But is it? I prefer to have my assumptions challenged by the book, and I think that's the decision Harris made as well-- a brave choice, since it will inevitably alienate some readers and result in comments exactly like the above.

Hannibal follows up on themes already present in Red Dragon and Silence. I don't think you can present a strong, factual case that the book is any kind of departure from the series. Unexpected, certainly, but that's the "goosing" part.

1. To catch the killer you must become the killer.

That old chestnut. Throughout Dragon and Silence-- and in fact all thrillers involving serial killers-- much hay is made about the thin line between the hunter and the hunted. Why, then, is it so hard to believe that Starling and Lecter couldn't reach some kind of Thesis + Synthesis. Clarice is an idealist, interested in redeeming criminals, not just hunting and killing them. Hannibal is driven to acts of madness by unknown internal forces, but is otherwise brilliant. They sacrifice a small part of themselves to complete the other. Sounds a heck of a lot like a relationship to me.

2. Male domination

The most striking feature of Silence (to me anyway) was the strong themes of male domination so cleverly insinuated into the movie. It's easy to believe that a strong-willed, idealistic woman like Starling would eventually get crushed by the glass ceiling and political agendas inside the FBI. The book and the movie both handle this well (though a bit differently)-- "You love the FBI, but the FBI doesn't love you. In fact, it hates you." This is a problem, because Starling doesn't really have a life-- the FBI is her life. See #1.

3. Romance

Silence is, in many ways, a romance. Nowhere is this more obvious than in the Criterion DVD commentary track, with Hopkins, Foster, Demme, Tally, et al. All of the principals (Foster, Demme, Hopkins) at some point explicitly spell out how several scenes were handled like a romance. And their commentary tracks were recorded completely independently of each other. Lecter is absolutely the most fascinating person Starling has ever met; and ditto for Starling to Lecter. It was always clear that there was some deeper connection between the two simmering just under the surface. Why not explore that?

Don't like the book, fine; but I have to admit I'm a little confused how people can conclude that the ending "rings totally false", or "betrayed Clarice starling".

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

"also, I think Harris made changes from the book in all the right places, especially the ending, a much better book representation then American Psycho was. "

I think American Psycho was nearly perfect, an amazing feat for such an impossible book to film. But it confused audiences, though.

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

"Hannibal (the book, haven't seen the movie) really romanticizes Lecter. He ends up being the defacto hero; everyone who's after him, with the exception of Starling, is made to look just as guilty, so Lecter doesn't come off looking that bad, really. The ending in the book just rang totally false to me; I have no interest in seeing the movie, though I know the ending is
different. "


Ack, Mark, get out of my head! This is exactly how I felt about Hannibal. The man that is after Hannibal has a dang good reason to be, and painting him as a villan seemed wrong to me. If someone ate half of my body and ruined by life only to escape later to do it again, you're damn straight I would use all my resources to see him burned at the stake. However, the book paints this as an evil attitude and encourages you to how that this "vengeful devil" gets his head cracked open at the dinner table.

The book did a good job of painting Hannibal as what he is; a genius who is really messed up in the head. He has been this through 3 books now, and if there is a 4th I'm sure he'll be the same. Starling, however, went from being a devoted FBI agent trying to stop a killer and turns into a complacent dinner guest. Imagine if at the end of SOTL, instead of shooting Buffalo Bill, she instead sympathized with his past and decided to help him finish his woman-suit. It doesn't fit her character, and neither did the end of the book.

I won't be seeing the movie. Even if every review was positive, seeing the movie would only serve to have a 4th book written with Lecter as the hero.

"He has been this through 3 books now, and if there is a 4th I'm sure he'll be the same."

Did you read the same book I did? Hannibal isn't a killer at the conclusion of the book.

He's a famous psychologist, easily brilliant enough to recognize his own problems as well as Starling's problems. Clarice and Hannibal are able to sacrifice a part of themselves to complete the other. That's love.

I think a lot of people had a problem with the focus being moved to Hannibal, but this is his book. Silence was Clarice's story, this is Lecter's story. But it's still about love and redemption for both characters.. they're both saving the lambs, figuratively speaking.

Did you guys notice the shot of the stuffed lamb in the movie's final scene? And the shot of Hannibal carrying clarice out of the hog pen was a direct reference to the same theme. I'm not implying that the movie was anywhere near as good as Silence was (definitely not!), merely that it worked as a book adaptation.

"Starling, however, went from being a devoted FBI agent trying to stop a killer and turns into a complacent dinner guest. Imagine if at the end of SOTL, instead of shooting Buffalo Bill, she instead sympathized with his past and decided to help him finish his woman-suit. It doesn't fit her character, and neither did the end of the book. "

What can I say other than I disagree. There's no evidence of this 'not fitting' in any of the three books. Clarice is under the thumb of the system and haunted by the ghost of her father. The book Hannibal is about Clarice transcending those things.

Sometimes love comes from the unlikeliest places, and that's what makes the book such a kick. I found it deliciously perverse.

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

Mark Asher's post is excellent. Spot on.

Wumpus, sorry, but I could not disagree with you more. I think you are confusing what you call a "goosing" with what is more likely a cop out. Yes I agree that Harris was under considerable pressure to produce another SOTL. He could have worked against this to create something totally different, or maybe something that transcended his story and characters. What he did was create a mess. I've read this Thesis + Synthesis stuff about Hannibal before and I just don't buy it. He lost control of his characters and story in my opinion. Period.

As for Lecter...

"He's a famous psychologist, easily brilliant enough to recognize his own problems as well as Starling's problems. Clarice and Hannibal are able to sacrifice a part of themselves to complete the other. That's love."

Um...well...eh. I pull a couple things out of the stories. One, Crawford's admonition to "never forget what he is." And the other is Will Graham's answer to Lecter, recalled in "Red Dragon." Lecter asks Graham if he caught him because he believes he is smarter than he is. Graham says no, he had a simple advantage: Lecter is insane. Regardless of how smart and clever Lecter is and how refined Hopkins seems to be, he is an insane man. Let's just remember that.

Amanpour

"He could have worked against this to create something totally different"

Which is what he did. Your very arguments are proof that it worked. You don't want to accept it. The writer's job is to challenge the reader... mission accomplished.

"I've read this Thesis + Synthesis stuff about Hannibal before and I just don't buy it. He lost control of his characters and story in my opinion. Period."

Since they're Thomas Harris' characters, I think it's safe to say that this was intentional. Arguing that he "lost control" is silly. This isn't a friggin' "choose your own adventure" book where the reader gets to pick what she thinks the characters should do. Disagree all you want, but to argue that you know the characters better than the author does smacks of arrogance.

"Regardless of how smart and clever Lecter is and how refined Hopkins seems to be, he is an insane man. Let's just remember that. "

You're also assuming that the insane can never be sane again. Clarice certainly doesn't think that. She wants to save, not punish.. one reason, among many, which is why she's at odds with the FBI.

No wonder nobody here liked the movie-- you guys didn't like the book. Understandable. I assume this is true of Tom "silent" Chick as well?

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

"One, Crawford's admonition to 'never forget what he is.'"

I would also like to point out that the FBI chews up Crawford and spits him out too, in much the the way it was _going_ to happen to Starling. Jack's as much a victim of an empty life and wasted career as Clarice would have been; the book Hannibal makes this abundantly clear in several places.

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

Wumpus, its not the idea of Hannibal and Clarice running off together so much as how Harris handled it. I remember before the book was published thinking how daring and interesting it would be if he had Clarice "turn to the dark side." The way Harris implemented it, however, was totally out of the blue. There was no groundwork for Clarice's decision. Sure, she's had a rough time in the FBI and things aren't working out as she planned, but deciding to eat a guy's brain and jumping into the arms of sadistic serial killer is kind of a big jump. Where were the sequences that showed the thought process connecting these two? Answer: there wasn't. One page she's drugged up eating brains, the next she sobers up and decides fuck it, I'm running off with the cannibal.

Look at it this way- the movie was a very faithful adaptation of the book most will agree. However, if they had filmed the book's ending the backlash against the movie would be even bigger than it is now. You should see the incredulous looks on peoples faces when I tell them how the book ended.

Harris may be correct that it wasn't too much of a leap for Starling's character, but as a writer Harris failed to convey that to the reader. In fact, it would be *much* easier to see Will Graham going over to Hannibal's side than Clarice Starling.

"Hannibal (the book, haven't seen the movie) really romanticizes Lecter. He ends up being the defacto hero; everyone who's after him, with the exception of Starling, is made to look just as guilty, so Lecter doesn't come off looking that bad, really."

This is another huge problem I have with the book and the movie. Hannibal is evil, no two ways about it. Victims mentioned in Red Dragon and SOTL bear this out. In "Hannibal", however, they make sure that he doesn't kill any innocents. For example, if the Italian cop wasn't consumed by greed then he could have just turned Lecter into the authorities. Instead, it could be argued that his own avarice is his undoing.

One of the best elements of SOTL (book and movie) was the interplay between Lecter and Clarice. Instead of playing off of this, Hannibal takes its lead from the final "old friend for dinner" quote in SOTL. As a result, most of Lecter's dialogue comes off as Schwarzenegger-type one liners. Just because "Hannibal" is told primarily form Lecter's viewpoint, they didn't have to turn him into the hero.

>>but as a writer Harris failed to convey that to the reader.

Harris actually worked with screenwriter (David Mamet wrote the first draft) Steven Zaillian, who wrote Schindler's List, on the new ending. (This is from Entertainment Weekly.)

I think that's some acknowledgement that it somehow wasn't right... if he truly believed in the ending he wouldn't have allowed it changed for the movie (Harris is notoriously controlling; he refuses edits as part of his book deals, which may be why I've heard of excessive typos and grammatical errors, which I didn't notice, in Hannibal).

"As a result, most of Lecter's dialogue comes off as Schwarzenegger-type one liners."

My favorite tag line from Hannibal, and I'm sure Amanpour's with me on this one, is "okey-doke". My friends and I go around and say that to each other all the time now.

"Okey-doke," we'll say.

It just slays us. It's menacing and funny and chilling and hilarious, all at the same time. Like one of us will go to get a beer and he'll say to the other one, "Hey, I'm gonna get a beer" and the other guy will just go, "Okey-doke".

Who needs fava beans? And what the hell are they anyway? Just give me an "okey-doke".

-Tom

"The way Harris implemented it, however, was totally out of the blue. There was no groundwork for Clarice's decision."

That's a legitimate criticism. However, there was a great deal of setup that went into that 'brief' dinner and decision. The exhuming of Clarice's father (not shown in movie), the hospital raid for the drugs and equipment, buying the dinnerware, the elaborate kidnapping of Paul Krendler, etc. In fact, the entire reason Hannibal comes back to the US in the first place is to perform this very task-- so I'd argue the entire second half of the book is setup for the climactic last dinner.

I would also point out the startling effects that Lecter has on his patients throughout both Silence and Hannibal. In a single session Mason Verger becomes what he is. His sister (not shown in movie) is profoundly affected by her few sessions with Lecter, and remembers them clearly years later when asked by Lecter. Not to mention Barney, who is a completely different person in Hannibal, largely thanks to hours of talking with Lecter during his imprisonment.

Clarice says several times in Hannibal that the few encounters she had with Lecter (in Silence) provoked deep thought about who she was and what she wanted to be.

This is a recurring theme with everyone that meets Lecter; he has that uncanny ability. But as Starling says when she first meets him in Silence-- can he turn that critical eye back on himself, and cure himself? No, he can't. He needs Clarice for that.

Clarice has already been disavowed and destroyed by the FBI, she has no family, no boyfriend, no husband, no close friends. The true irony is that the closest relationship she has may be the one she has with Lecter. Given that framework, I don't find Clarice's decision unreasonable. She has to sacrifice to redeem Lecter, as Lecter does for her.

"Hannibal is evil, no two ways about it. Victims mentioned in Red Dragon and SOTL bear this out."

Again, we go back to the core issue: do you want to kill Lecter, or save him? Martin Luther King and Ghandi would argue that the best way to fight evil is with love, not reciprocal hatred and killing. I think that's key to understanding Starling's character, and that is precisely what Lecter recognizes in her as pure and worthwhile. She really believes in redemption, even for someone as evil as Lecter.

It's definitely a leap. No doubt about it. And it's a little morally vague-- shouldn't Lecter be punished? But I would argue that the book would have been boring without it, a simple rehash of Silence.

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

If Lecter's so good, how come he couldn't make Paul Krendler's dog swallow its own tongue? Answer me that, wumpus.

Feel free to cite Martin Luther King and Ghandi in your response.

-Tom

"My favorite tag line from Hannibal, and I'm sure Amanpour's with me on this one, is "okey-doke". My friends and I go around and say that to each other all the time now."

That, I agree with. There are some things the movie did not do well. "Okey doke" was a poor choice on Anthony Hopkins' part, because it's certainly not in the book. He was a bit hammy at times.

Another thing that was disappointing was the line readings on the tapes that Barney gives Clarice.. these are lines from Silence, but they were re-read by Julianne Moore and Hopkins. They _completely_ lacked the spark of the dialog in the first movie. I just winced when I heard them. They should have used the original readings.

Another item that was disappointing, and I thought this reflected very poorly on Ridley Scott-- in the commentary, Ted Demme talks about Clarice's monologue on the lambs. He mentions that he thought about doing a dream sequence, even going so far as to scout locations for lamb butchering facilities. But when Jodie read the lines he realized that no dream sequence could be as effective as just watching her face as she told the story. Beautifully put, and just so.

Unfortunately Ridley Scott falls into precisely that trap. I think Gary Oldman is a good enough actor to carry the story of his encounter with Lecter in a very similar manner. I didn't need to be hit in the face with a giant mackerel of a blurry flashback showing him ripping his face off with a shard of mirror.

Also, I think Julianne Moore is a little skanky. Can I say that? My wife said that Moore didn't quite master the sexless nature of the character that Foster did. I agree. I blame Boogie Nights.

As I said, I was ready to give the whole movie a thumbs down until I saw the ending. I can't emphasize enough how much I liked the final scene-- the effects, the acting, etc. The little coda at the end with the kid was a nice touch, too.

Tom, I'm not sure why you-- or why anyone-- went to see this movie if they didn't like the book. It seems counterproductive.

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

"If Lecter's so good, how come he couldn't make Paul Krendler's dog swallow its own tongue? Answer me that, wumpus. "

I dunno, Tom, I kept expecting Hannibal to flap his arms and legs comically and then take off flying! What the hell kind of super powers does this Hannibal have anyway? That chick from Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon could kick his butt.

I want the two of them to face off over a tree limb. That's oscar-worthy cinema right there.

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

p.s. I strongly urge anyone who hasn't already, to check out "Crouching Pencil, Hidden Stickfigure" -- only a 1.4mb download and quite funny.

http://12.1.228.185/video/crouching_pencil_hidden_stickfigure.avi

"so I'd argue the entire second half of the book is setup for the climactic last dinner"

I think the dinner itself was well setup, it was Clarice's decision that was out of the blue. That's why I liked the movie better than the book-the ending was more in character. Though I could do without the final scene on the plane- it just seemed to be there for laughs.


"She really believes in redemption, even for someone as evil as Lecter."

Sure, but where's the redemption? The book ends with Lecter torturing Krendler in Clarice's presence. I didn't see any redemption. Now if Lecter had been about to torture Krendler, and Clarice somehow turns him from that, then I might see it. But as it is, she becomes no better than he.

"Also, I think Julianne Moore is a little skanky. Can I say that? My wife said that Moore didn't quite master the sexless nature of the character that Foster did. I agree."

I thought Julianne Moore did great for a very underwritten role. If you've only seen her in Boogie Nights you're doing yourself a disservice.

I'm not surprised Jodie Foster passed. There are no Oscar-worthy roles in the book or movie. Hopkins is great, but the role has nowhere near the power it had in SOTL. I think Roger Ebert pointed out in his review how Lecter was so effective because he was a force trapped in a prison. Once he's on the loose he turns into just another stalker.

On another note, is anyone else offended that De Laurentis is going to remake Red Dragon? Manhunter is one of my favorite movies (and one I consider superior to SOTL) and was very faithful to the book. De Laurentis pissed me off when he said that Manhunter was no good because it didn't make money. Plus, I thought that Brian Cox did a very good Lecter.

"That's why I liked the movie better than the book-the ending was more in character"

I really liked the ending in the movie. I don't want to spoil it for all 3 people reading this who haven't seen it yet and might want to. Do I prefer it over the book ending? No, but I am mightily impressed that they made it work without contradicting the book.

"The book ends with Lecter torturing Krendler in Clarice's presence. "

Actually the book ends with Barney travelling to see all the Vermeer paintings (another person whom contact with Lecter has radically changed). He happens to spot Clarice and Lecter at an opera, as a "normal" couple. There are no more killings. They've found happiness in love and all that stuff that Hallmark greeting cards are made of.

"But as it is, she becomes no better than he."

There is some tradeoff in that Clarice becomes a darker character, while Lecter is able to become sane again. Nobody is pure. It is a little morally ambiguous, but Clarice's very moral inflexibility is what scotches her career with the FBI. And beyond that, what else does she have?

"I thought Julianne Moore did great for a very underwritten role."

She's good in the role. You just caught me falling into the common trap of comparing the movie to Silence. Jodie would have been better. But that's neither here nor there.

"I think Roger Ebert pointed out in his review how Lecter was so effective because he was a force trapped in a prison. Once he's on the loose he turns into just another stalker. "

I think that's just Ebert falling into the same trap-- eg, this is not as good because it is different. I thought his review did that way too much. _Any_ movie will suffer compared to Silence-- it's one of the true all-time greats.

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

"Manhunter is one of my favorite movies (and one I consider superior to SOTL) and was very faithful to the book. "

I dunno about superior to SOTL-- those are strong words. But it is a good movie. I would like to see a remake, whatever the source. We can always just pitch it and go back to the original if it sucks. And it's gotta be a better idea than remaking Ocean's Eleven..

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

"There are no more killings. They've found happiness in love and all that stuff that Hallmark greeting cards are made of."

I don't remember the book explicitly stating no more killings. And even if there aren't, I certainly wouldn't call Lecter redeemed. I don't think he could be redeemed. Just because he stops killing, everything's okay and he can just go about his life? Plus, where does he regain his sanity? He fed a man his own brain within ten pages of the ending of the book. I missed the part where he has an epiphany, sees the error of his ways, and decides to devote his life to the good of the human race.

"I think that's just Ebert falling into the same trap-- eg, this is not as good because it is different"

I think its closer to: just because its different doesn't mean its good. Harris clearly had a tough act to follow after Red Dragon and SOTL. Plus, the serial killer genre has exploded since then, so he not only had the pressure of topping himself, but those who came after. Add in the fact that the excessive time between books adds to the public's expectations and I can see why he went in a different direction with Hannibal. However, I just don't think he wrote a good novel. A lot of the scares in Red Dragon and SOTL came from his exhaustive research. As outlandish as some of these killers were, they were based in fact to an extent. Hannibal, however, just goes over the top. Between Mason Verger's character, his buff lesbo sister, army of man-eating pigs, and the final dinner scene, the books was so surreal it was more black comedy than thriller. That would be fine if it wasn't a sequel, but you can't expect the public to react well when you take well loved characters and turn them into a farce.

Look at the audience's reaction to the dinner scene of the movie. In the theater I was in, most people were laughing their asses off. I don't recall too many laughs in SOTL when Clarice faces off against Gumb.

"I don't think he could be redeemed. Just because he stops killing, everything's okay and he can just go about his life?"

Would you prefer that he was killed? imprisoned? Been there, done that. The ultimate goal of any law enforcement agent is rehabilitation, not punishment for punishment's sake. Lecter wasn't any different after being imprisoned-- nobody could reach him. Until Clarice.

As for lecter getting away with _no_ punishment, yeah, that's morally vague. If you think Starling should have a problem with that, consider again where her inflexible sense of right and wrong has gotten her so far.

"Plus, where does he regain his sanity? He fed a man his own brain within ten pages of the ending of the book. I missed the part where he has an epiphany, sees the error of his ways, and decides to devote his life to the good of the human race."

Well, let's see.

"Occasionally, on purpose, Dr. Lecter drops a teacup to shatter on the flor. He is satisfied when it does not gather itself together. For many months now, he has not seen Mischa in his dreams."

No longer a desire to reverse entropy, no dreams of his sister. Starling's presence provides the missing love of his sister Mischa, so Hannibal has no need to kill. I read that as a return to sanity. It's not spelled out literally, of course, so it's open to interpretation..

"Between Mason Verger's character, his buff lesbo sister, army of man-eating pigs, and the final dinner scene, the books was so surreal it was more black comedy than thriller."

I see your point. But is it really that much more surreal than Jame Gumb's cottage clothing, moth, and sex change industry? Then there's that head in the jar.

And heck, I'd be disappointed if Verger didn't devise some complex rube goldberg torture plan for Lecter. I definitely didn't miss the sister in the movie, though.

"Look at the audience's reaction to the dinner scene of the movie. In the theater I was in, most people were laughing their asses off. I don't recall too many laughs in SOTL when Clarice faces off against Gumb."

I loved that scene. That was the culmination of the male domination themes in the film-- a woman in complete darkness, being observed by a man with a gun and night vision goggles.

This is a different scene, though, with three people involved and one playing the patsy. Even in the book it's funny, because Krendler is talking about how good the food smells, tasting it, etc. It's about humiliating Krendler, and letting Clarice symbolically master all the male authority figures who have dominated her life.

I think the real problem many have with the book is that Clarice isn't able to do this without Lecter's help-- whereas in Silence, she blows away Jame Gumb with her gun, totally alone. Female empowerment, sisters doing it for themselves, right?

But in Hannibal, Lecter and Starling need each other; neither can achieve their goals alone. It's like a very bloody version of Jerry Mcguire.

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

"Since they're Thomas Harris' characters, I think it's safe to say that this was intentional. Arguing that he "lost control" is silly. This isn't a friggin' "choose your own adventure" book where the reader gets to pick what she thinks the characters should do. Disagree all you want, but to argue that you know the characters better than the author does smacks of arrogance."

This is one of the goofiest comments I've ever read. I'm not arguing that I as the reader get to choose what the characters do. Actually, my argument is more extreme because I understand character, and writing. I don't get to choose. And neither does the author. Once the character has been brought to life it takes on a life of its own. There is no way to explain this to someone who does not want to understand it. It's like dancing about architecture. Sorry, but it is. Writers and dedicated readers will understand. Characters take on a life of their own and the writer often finds he cannot control what they do. He doesn't have a choice about it any longer; he just shows up and puts his hands on the keys. I'm not trying to get new age on you, just trying to explain. Harris decided to work against this, OR, he lost control of who the characters were. He stopped listening to them. Or he was afraid. Or he was drunk. Or some ghost wrote the book. Whatever. The result is that the book does not ring true because of it. Sorry wumpus.

Incidentally, you bringing up Mischa reminded me of another of my disappointments in the book Hannibal. One of the things I loved about the character Lecter was the idea that he was unexplainable. A force of perverted nature. He tells Clarice in SOTL that nothing happened to him to make him. This is a great moment, very matter-of-fact. Whether or not it is true, I don't care, it is a wonderful revelation. With Hannibal Harris makes Lecter mundane. He reduces him with pop psychology to a simple motivational response. Gee, he saw torture, so he tortures. Yawn. Nauseatingly prosaic. The character Lecter transcends in SOTL because of his mystery. Then Harris decided to explain him and---ding, I lost interest AND didn't believe it.

Beyond all this hocus pocus, though, I have to tell you wumpus, that readers typically *do* know characters better than the authors that created them. I have seen this time and again. You can kick and scream and make "choose your own adventure" jokes all you want, but there it is.

Amanpour

"Harris decided to work against this, OR, he lost control of who the characters were. He stopped listening to them. Or he was afraid. Or he was drunk. Or some ghost wrote the book. Whatever. The result is that the book does not ring true because of it."

Is it really so hard to just say 'I would have written it differently'? I promise not to hold it against you. Besides, you're starting to scare me a little with all this hoo-ha about written characters having a life of their own outside the writer. The whole reason I crack a book is to get inside the _author's_ head and to escape the confines of my own for a little while. If I start mentally ghostwriting his characters, why bother?

"readers typically *do* know characters better than the authors that created them"

Since you're writing this as a character of your own manifestation, can I now tell you what you write that is appropriate to your character and what is not? I'm the reader, after all. Can I see you better than you can see yourself? I'm certainly more objective than you are on this particular topic.

Also, I'd like to state for the record that I object to this entire line of reasoning.

"With Hannibal Harris makes Lecter mundane."

Lecter has to be reduced to the mundane by definition-- we cannot understand what motivates a man to eat a person's face, but we can certainly understand what motivates a man to be in a loving relationship with a woman. He's become human again. You can't really have it both ways.

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

"I see your point. But is it really that much more surreal than Jame Gumb's cottage clothing, moth, and sex change industry? Then there's that head in the jar."


I guess its how its presented. I found Gumb's character to be disturbing, not surreal. Harris' research into the FBI's Behavioral Science division was so exhaustive that it wasn't hard to believe in the attributes of Dolarhyde or Gumb. Have you read John Douglas's non-fiction on the killers he profiled? They weren't much different than Harris' fictional killers. Hannibal, however, didn't seam grounded in the real world. I had a much harder time believing in characters like Verger and his sister (particularly his sister!).

"Is it really so hard to just say 'I would have written it differently'? I promise not to hold it against you."

Interesting statement, since you clearly go on to hold it against me.

Look, there is a difference between saying 'I would have written it differently' and just asking the author to be true to the characters/world he has created. I think that when you read you enter into a contract with the writer, an agreement. You put yourself in their hands and trust them to take care of you to an extent. I'm not saying artists cannot violate the rules, but this is a delicate balance. Harris violated that balance.

"The whole reason I crack a book is to get inside the _author's_ head and to escape the confines of my own for a little while."

Really? Okay. I read for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is to get taken to another world (tomato/tomato). I expect that world to have parameters and laws that the author creates. Once he has set up that universe--be it a basement in Quantico or a kingdom in Narnia or the Norway Maelstrom or an oil-drilling rig at the bottom of the ocean--I'm happy to live there for awhile. I expect that if I'm gonna live there that the author is going to honor the world he has created and be consistent with it, UNLESS it is his style to fuck around with such conventions. That is another world, and I'm happy to be in that kind of world too as long as it is, as I said, consistent (even in its inconsistency). What I do not expect or appreciate is an author who will not or cannot respect the laws or world he himself has created, either because he is too lazy to control his own writing or because he just wants to try something fun. When the artist violates character, he does this, and it is not simply annoying, it is enraging. Harris has all kinds of problems in Hannibal, character being only one of them--he loses control of his pacing, his tense structure, his POV--and all of that goes into making Hannibal into an upsetting departure in his writing. And all of that combined to make me, as a reader, feel I had been betrayed.

"Besides, you're starting to scare me a little with all this hoo-ha about written characters having a life of their own outside the writer."

Um...then I cannot help you. I wrote a whole paragraph trying to explain what I mean by that, but I just dropped it because I don't think you want to get the point I'm making. I'm not trying to insult you, I just think you have a different basic assumption about the creative process than I do. This point, that characters take on a life of their own, it simply is. If you cannot accept that, or will not, let's just move on.

Amanpour

"I expect that world to have parameters and laws that the author creates."

This is true of nearly any work of entertainment, whether it's a book, movie, or computer game.

I haven't read Hannibal and have no intention of doing so, but it makes complete sense that when an author/director/developer violates this maxim (i.e. internal consistency), he's jerking his audience around. It's a cheap tactic, it happens all the time (the X-Files, Soderbergh's Traffic, Deus Ex). I can't understand why wumpus is being deliberately dense about it apparently happening in Harris' Hannibal.

Hell, it happened in the movie! Hannibal can foil a crack pickpocket, but when it's convenient for the plot, he gets kidnapped by two unbathed Italian thugs with a tazer gun.

-Tom

And another thing...

"Since you're writing this as a character of your own manifestation, can I now tell you what you write that is appropriate to your character and what is not? I'm the reader, after all. Can I see you better than you can see yourself? I'm certainly more objective than you are on this particular topic."

I have no idea what the heck you are saying with this. What?

Is it really so hard to accept that a reader can get to know the character more objectively than the writer, and perhaps even better? It does happen, and quite often. Authors tend to move on to new projects and let those old ones go. They go on to live with new characters and worlds and time passes. Readers, especially fans, stay in those worlds longer, revisit them with more frequency, and even become obsessive about them. I am flabbergasted that you can't accept this idea. Hmph.

Maybe I can make an analogy to behavioral science here, and say that humans sometimes don't understand why they themselves do things. Sometimes we can see/understand the motivations of someone else easier than we can understand what we ourselves do. That's why psychoanalysis exists, isn't it? Is it so hard to extrapolate from this to character? Sometimes writing feels like channeling, not of the spirit world, but of the subconscious. Sometimes it is better for the writer not to try to understand this and just let it happen. In such a case, I, as the writer, can easily be less objective about my creation, which is part of who I am, than an outside observer can be.

I do not understand why you object to this so strongly. And since you see this as "hoo-ha" I don't know that we can really discuss it reasonably.

Amanpour

"Hell, it happened in the movie! Hannibal can foil a crack pickpocket, but when it's convenient for the plot, he gets kidnapped by two unbathed Italian thugs with a tazer gun."

Big smile. Laugh laugh laugh. You so funny.

Not only that, he KNOWS they are there and still gets caught. (WARNING: Plot Convenience Fans are gonna claim he allowed himself to get caught on purpose. Pay no attention to this.)

Amanpour

", especially fans, stay in those worlds longer, revisit them with more frequency, and even become obsessive about them. I am flabbergasted that you can't accept this idea. Hmph."

But ultimately it doesn't matter-- the characters belong to the writer, not the reader. It's up to us to follow along, or give up as the case may be. It's a question of ownership. I think this may be the point of disagreement.

My main point has always been that, whether you agree with the characters in Hannibal or not, the book merely amplifies on themes that were already present in the first two books and takes them to a surprising, but not illogical, conclusion.

Disagree with it, fine. But to argue that the characters "violated their internal rules of consistency" cannot be supported with written evidence from the books, only personal feelings. And when we're living in a world where personal feelings can override hard evidence.. well, you can count me right the hell out of that.

And that's what I'm holding against you, for the record. Let's talk about facts and evidence, not feelings.

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

"Let's talk about facts and evidence, not feelings."

Allow me to translate:

"Let's treat literary [sic] analysis as if it were hard science, especially when I can't support my position."

And you still haven't explained why Lecter couldn't make that dog swallow its own tongue.

-Tom

"Let's treat literary [sic] analysis as if it were hard science, especially when I can't support my position."

Naw, that's not it. It's just a question of supporting your argument with actual writing from the books, rather than 'a feeling'. Is it really so hard to understand?

For example. Xtian (how much labor are we saving here with this contraction, I wonder? kilojoules?) remarks that Lecter tells Clarice in Silence that nothing happened to him to make him what he is, and that is contradicted in Hannibal. That's the kind of stuff I'm looking for. An argument, backed by supporting facts from the book.

Not hocus pocus like "Readers, especially fans, stay in those worlds longer, revisit them with more frequency, and even become obsessive about them". Hell, if obsessive fans can just make up the story, then I suppose the next three thousand Star Wars movies should already be in the can, sans Ewoks.

"And you still haven't explained why Lecter couldn't make that dog swallow its own tongue. "

Conversely, you haven't explained how the characters in CTHD can fly like chickens, madly flapping their arms and legs in every direction. It's pointless, Tom. Not that that's ever stopped me in the past, but let's get a grip here.

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

>>Conversely, you haven't explained how the characters in CTHD can fly like chickens, madly flapping their arms and legs in every direction. It's pointless, Tom. Not that that's ever stopped me in the past, but let's get a grip here.

Um, because one is grounded in some semblance of what we generally call our current reality and the other is based on Chinese mythology?

But hey, don't let answering a question with a question get in the way of ducking the original question.

For those of you keeping score at home, I'm going to go down the wumpus scorecard:

* CTHD -- bad movie because real people can't fly
* The Insider -- boring movie because "nothing happened"
* Hannibal -- good movie, internally consistent
* Counter-Strike -- Best. Game. Ever. Period. Also. Groundbreaking.

In the words of the hero of Ridley Scott's latest literary adaptation: "Okey-doke."

-Tom

"Um, because one is grounded in some semblance of what we generally call our current reality and the other is based on Chinese mythology?"

Yeah, but Lecter has superhuman strength and abilities. Remember the "he chewed her tongue off and his pulse never went over 80" from Silence?

Tom is asking me to justify Lecter's ability to make the dog swallow his own tongue like he made Miggs swallow his tongue in Silence.

That's why it's called "FICTION", folks. Want me to grab a dictionary?

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

"For those of you keeping score at home, I'm going to go down the wumpus scorecard:"

Remind me never to hire you to write Cliffs notes.

"* CTHD -- bad movie because real people can't fly"

I didn't say it was a bad movie. Just an overrated genre film with excruciatingly bad flying effects. See the other named thread on this. Or just ask Tom why he likes Bottle Rocket better than Rushmore and pretend that it's me telling you why I didn't care for CTHD. Same difference.

"* The Insider -- boring movie because "nothing happened" "

http://www.jeffreywigand.com/insider/ says it far more eloquently than I ever could. Wigand is a smarmy, camera mugging publicity hound.. not the emotionally tortured whistleblower that Russell plays. So that hurts my suspension of disbelief a hell of a lot right out of the box, prior to even seeing the film.

Insider is a remarkably well made film, with great performances. I just don't feel the subject matter can bear the massive dramatic weight that was put on it. Your mileage may vary.

"* Hannibal -- good movie, internally consistent"

Well, what I actually said was that Hannibal, the movie, was a good adaptation of the book, not a good movie per se. As for consistency, Hannibal (the book) follows logically on themes explored in the first two books. So in that sense, yes it's consistent.

"* Counter-Strike -- Best. Game. Ever. Period. Also. Groundbreaking."

I just think it's depressing that a game journalist of your caliber could write an article entitled "It's a Mod, Mod, Mod, Mod world" and somehow not grok the unprecedented appeal and subsequent massive success of counter-strike. It is the most popular online FPS in history-- and by a huge margin. But don't take my word for it. Just go check the GameSpy stats page. Sadly, in Mr. Chick's world, this is not even worthy of a footnote.

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

p.s. I hope replying to these posts isn't cutting into your Flying Heroes play time, Tom.

"Sadly, in Mr. Chick's world, this is not even worthy of a footnote."

Here's an experiment: go outside and yell, really loud, three times, "The sky is purple". Now look up. You'll note that the sky is not purple regardless of how loud you yelled. You may repeat this experiment if necessary.

It's the same with the things you've invented about my regard (or lack thereof) for Counter-Strike. Just because you shrilly repeat something doesn't make it true.

This is apparently a life lesson you have yet to learn, so go outside and start working on that "sky is purple" exercise.

-Tom

"But ultimately it doesn't matter-- the characters belong to the writer, not the reader."

Nope.

"My main point has always been that, whether you agree with the characters in Hannibal or not, the book merely amplifies on themes that were already present in the first two books and takes them to a surprising, but not illogical, conclusion."

Amplification of themes? Maybe. Execution of those self-same themes in consistent, logical and reasonable manner? Absolutely not.

"Disagree with it, fine. But to argue that the characters "violated their internal rules of consistency" cannot be supported with written evidence from the books, only personal feelings. And when we're living in a world where personal feelings can override hard evidence.. well, you can count me right the hell out of that."

You have the oddest lines of reasoning.

At any rate, an open-minded reading of the books will reveal plenty of evidence that what I'm talking about is true. Hell, an open-minded viewing of the two latter films will do the same. Both films are stunningly true adaptations. I could lay it out for you, bit by bit, but what would be the point? You do not want to see my point, so no amount of "evidence" is going to convince you. You want to reduce my argument to "feelings," fine with me. I think that deep down you understand the truth, you may just be afraid of it. That's okay. Art cannot always be explained so neatly.

"Not hocus pocus like "Readers, especially fans, stay in those worlds longer, revisit them with more frequency, and even become obsessive about them". Hell, if obsessive fans can just make up the story, then I suppose the next three thousand Star Wars movies should already be in the can, sans Ewoks."

Again, you simply will not or perhaps cannot listen. I am not saying fans should get to make up the story. Have you really paid any attention at all? I'm just saying that fans are sometimes more qualified to detect bullshit from the author than he himself is. And the bullshit quotient in Hannibal is exceedingly high.

Or perhaps I should say pig-shit.

Incidentally, using "Star Wars" as an example doesn't exactly bolster your case. Just for fun, anyone want to argue that the fans would have come up with a worse story than Lucas clunked out for Phantom Menace? You might want to readjust your example there, wump.

Amanpour

"My favorite tag line from Hannibal, and I'm sure Amanpour's with me on this one, is "okey-doke". My friends and I go around and say that to each other all the time now."

Fuck, I have no recollection of this line, damnit. When did he say it?

My date and I were too busy talking about Oldman's performance as Verger, and how if we were wheelchair-bound, we'd love to be as demented as he was. But without the face-peeling.

That, and we kept on talking about Paul's role in the dinner scene as we ate dinner right afterwards.

-Thierry

>>I didn't say it was a bad movie. Just an overrated genre film with excruciatingly bad flying effects.

So flying effects are more important then storylines, acting and directing. And if you're going to focus on the combat, what about its cinematography, choreography and editing? Few fight scenes are as well shot and edited; in most you lose track of the people fighting with the amount of cutting they normally do.

But you're really focusing on one minute aspect of the film to trash the whole thing. Do you do that to games as well. "There's clipping on the 3D engine! It sucks!" I'm surprised you like Counter-strike. It has low-resolution textures, y'know? Oh, and no CURVED SURFACES!

But seriously, Crouching Tiger is really a classic old-fashioned epic love story that just happens to have a few great combat sequences. If you dwell on the combat you miss the best parts of the movie, the way Michelle Yeoh looks at Chow Yun Fat (and vice versa), the combat foreplay between Lo and Jen in the desert blah blah blah.

SPOILERS ON HANNIBAL


Wumpus makes a good point, the movie is thematically close to the book, though Ridley Scortt takes away all pretensions of romance, or leaves it as an afterthought. . . he takes away the unneccesary baggage of the formula irony of hero turning villain (in the book, Lecter and Starling run off to South America in love). the book uses it as the "you never know, even a feminist cop can love a killer", the usual ironice twist with a sappy social commentary on psychology, that even good ppl turn bad. . . some shit like that.

The irony of Hannibal is that we intentionally are made to root for Lecter, the serial killer, and in reality that is not so far from the truth. . . just look at all the crazy serial killer groupies who attended the court case of Ted Bundy, even professing love for the guy. this rooting for the evil guy has been done before in movies like Frenzy, American Born Killers or Clockwork Orange . . . imo Hannibal is more "realistic" than SOTL where in that movie its a mysterious "oh Lecter is just so enigmatic. . " fuck that, Hannibal slaps the audience in the face with a Lecter as a farcical monstrosity, "heres some brain dinner Starling".

Ridley Scott prolly read the book knowing the intention of the Harris novel. . . that ppl love Lecter more than any other of his characters (i remember reading an interview with him not even intending Lecter to be so popular), more than Clarice (like who really gives a shit about Starlings "white trash" upbrining or feminist agenda? nobody). . . its the serial killer that everybody is interested in. That is why i like this movie better than Silence. . . there is no pretense of psychological drama or mysterious reasonings of Lecter and serial killer motivations. . . no arcane existential meanings of Lecter as the archetype of genius serial killer. . .no, Lecter is just an amoral killer who pleasures in it. . . just like any other slasher film, cut dry he just happens to be artsy fartsy with a streak of Mike Tyson ear biting in him.

the real intention of the movie implicitly reasons is the "why" the fascination with violence and mutilation. there is a hint at the overload of violence. . . the desensitazion . . . just like in Gladiator, and of the fall of the roman empire. .. decadence, breads and circuses whatnut. .. fascination with other sufferings. its not explicit but the intention is there. Its like Flannery O'Connor saying you need to "hammer" it into the reader. . . though these days i think its hard to do what with our fascination for serial killers (Hannibal/Ted Bundy etc) and reality tv. Ridley Scott is saying "fuck the audience . . .they want a serial killer to love? fine ill give it to them."

btw, if you want realism in your serial killer movies, watch henry portrait of a serail killer.

as well, i could give a rats ass about adaptation of book to film. .. they are different forms of entertainment. . . just because Kubricks "the shining" bears almost NO resemblance to the Stephen King novel doesn't mean its any less. In fact The shining is a million x better than the Stephen King "yawn" horror novel. oh wait theres the ABC Stephen King approved The Shining. . .oh what glory. . . snore.

and with the fans knowing the characters more than the author. . . would you say Shakespeares fans know his characters (Hamlet. King Lear, Macbeth) more than him? probablyh not. the irony with hannibal is that Harris actually is giving the fans what they really wanted. . . the "run away in love" between lecter and starling. . . though not expected, its the probable literal zeitgest ending of what the fans were thinking about anyway, of Lecter and Starling in love. Harris wrote Hannibal specifically with the fans in mind. as well i dont trust fans "knowing" chracters more than the author. .. look at Agatah Christie and Conan Doyle. . .both getting sick of there franchises knowing there characters (Poirot and Homes) too much, and yet the fans know more? bah. . . its like everybody wanting to direct every episode of there favorite sitcom. . .good writers always have there audience in mind, be it large or small. and if it differs with the "all knowing fans" then screw them. at least it sells.

basically i HATED SOTL, psychobabble pseudo realist feminist serial killer drama. . . NO just make what we REALLY want, violence and gore and a killer who fucks everybody. . . you know sorta like Dirty Harry and the Terminator.

anyway, just my opinion.

etc

>>basically i HATED SOTL, psychobabble pseudo realist feminist serial killer drama. . . NO just make what we REALLY want, violence and gore and a killer who fucks everybody. . . you know sorta like Dirty Harry and the Terminator.

You know, I really enjoyed your argument, as you make your point very well (and good enough to agree to disagree), but I just wanted to say that I liked the feminist angle to Silence of the Lambs, and that to me is what to me at least set it apart from being the straight serial-killer b-movie that the source material basically warrants. (This isn't intended as a slight on Harris' books, by the way... I like that sort of thing.)

"Few fight scenes are as well shot and edited; in most you lose track of the people fighting with the amount of cutting they normally do."

Excellent point. Is this a new problem? It seems to be labelled as one, set down at the feet of the "MTV" generation of directors who cut their teeth filming commercials. I wonder if we put this to the test it would bear out though, if it is indeed a hallmark of the newer guys or if it is prevalent all through cinema, and just a hallmark of bad direction in most cases (stylistic choice in a few).

The Rock--movie, not wrestler--drove me up the wall with this, but then I have a problem in general with the way Michael Bay's films are cut. He does cut a mean trailer though.

Amanpour

"The irony of Hannibal is that we intentionally are made to root for Lecter, the serial killer, and in reality that is not so far from the truth. . ."

I think we are at the point in film history where this "twist" is no longer ironic. What would be ironic would be going to see a big budget, highly controversial film where you actually, fully, and truly despise the serial killer.

Amanpour

P.S. Discussion Question: compare/contrast Hannibal and The Minus Man. Discuss elements of character sympathy, realism, stylistic choice, and who has the weirder vocal choices. Use examples from the works. 50pts.

>>Excellent point. Is this a new problem?

There are certainly more quick edits in any movie nowadays. Quick edits are more "exciting" (and I suspect mask stars inability to fight with any realism) so most action scenes are just constant edits.

If you watch action scenes in older movies, it is amazing how many long shots they contain. Heck, a good comparison might be to compare the car chase scenes in The French Connection to Ronin.

"This is apparently a life lesson you have yet to learn, so go outside and start working on that "sky is purple" exercise. "

So you're saying the sky isn't purple? But it's a Mod, Mod, Mod, Mod world, Tom! Incidentally I might suggest you try the same technique, except screaming "Wumpus thinks CTHD is a bad movie". See, that's not true either.

"So flying effects are more important then storylines, acting and directing. And if you're going to focus on the combat, what about its cinematography, choreography and editing? Few fight scenes are as well shot and edited; in most you lose track of the people fighting with the amount of cutting they normally do."

It isn't just the flying. The story is cliched. The whole "you stole my comb" plotline had me rolling my eyes big time. The princess and the bandit falling in love? Whoda thunk it! And of _course_ Chow Yun-Fat dies at the end. I've seen Lifetime movies with more mature, original stories.

Is it a bad movie? No. I would call it a shoo-in for best foreign film. But I disagree that it transcends its genre conventions; to me, it's held back by them. I agree with your comments that the movie is best when it expresses itself physically. My favorite scene was the bar fight.

Incidentally, try reading the user reviews at IMDB or Amazon. Lots of people complaining about the audience laughing at the flying, along with the saccharine smell of a bunch of kids fawning over this movie.

"I think we are at the point in film history where this "twist" is no longer ironic. What would be ironic would be going to see a big budget, highly controversial film where you actually, fully, and truly despise the serial killer."

Personally, I want to see a Die Hard type movie where the hero gets killed in the first ten minutes.

"Again, you simply will not or perhaps cannot listen. I am not saying fans should get to make up the story. Have you really paid any attention at all? I'm just saying that fans are sometimes more qualified to detect bullshit from the author than he himself is. And the bullshit quotient in Hannibal is exceedingly high."

I'm paying attention; this entire line of reasoning is wack. To me this is just a gussied up way of saying "I'm right" that nobody can argue with or possibly contradict-- because it isn't supported by facts or evidence.

"open-minded reading of the books will reveal plenty of evidence that what I'm talking about is true."

But you haven't provided any (with the exception of the Lecter background comment I noted earlier). So in that sense, congratulations.

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

"The Rock--movie, not wrestler--drove me up the wall with this, but then I have a problem in general with the way Michael Bay's films are cut. He does cut a mean trailer though. "

Who would make a better secretary of defense? The Rock, or Nolan Ryan? The Rock is strong! But Nolan Ryan is wise...

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

>>Incidentally, try reading the user reviews at IMDB or Amazon. Lots of people complaining about the audience laughing at the flying, along with the saccharine smell of a bunch of kids fawning over this movie.

The more popular a movie is the more people will come out of the woodwork to explain why all of those people are wrong...

And yes, the comb issue was silly... intentionally so. It's called melodrama, fantasy, mythology, romance... clearly it ain't your thing.

"btw, if you want realism in your serial killer movies, watch henry portrait of a serail killer."

I think this is the most terrifying film I have ever seen. I was a huge slasher film nut until I saw Henry; the film actually re-sensitized me to violence. I was only 16 when I saw it, and I had to walk out during the notorious video tape scene.

Another noteworthy film in this vein is Funny Games, an Austrian film about two preppy youths who torture a family. It isn't great, and it's a bit heavy-handed in its attempt to implicate the viewer for enjoying violence. However, it has one of the most shocking scenes I've ever seen, followed by a scene where you are forced to watch the aftermath. It's emotionally gruelling - like watching a slasher film directed by John Cassavetes.

I've also heard that the French film I Stand Alone is in a similar vein, but I've yet to see it.

However, I agree with the poster who wrote that the attempt to implicate the viewer for sympathizing with and/or cheerleading killers is at this point a tired stylistic device. Natural Born Killers, my Least Favorite Film Ever, killed it beyond any attempt at resurrection for me.

"compare/contrast Hannibal and The Minus Man"

I liked The Minus Man, but I may be very alone on this. Sure, poisoning isn't a very visual killing technique, but I liked the pacing. I also liked how the point of the film was so subtle until the closing voice-over about violence. Or maybe I'm just dull and didn't get it until Mr. Wilson pointed it out for me.

"I liked The Minus Man"

I haven't validated my opinion by checking the IMDB or Amazon user reviews yet, but count me in for now.

As you note, it plodded, probably intentionally. But what better way to slowly paint a delicate portrait of a serial killer with a conscience. I loved Wilson's voiceovers.

It's an excellent counter-point to Henry, btw.

"Another noteworthy film in this vein is Funny Games."

Just added it to my Netflix queue.

-Tom

---

Quote:

And of _course_ Chow Yun-Fat dies at the end. I've seen Lifetime movies with more mature, original stories.

---

"The more popular a movie is the more people will come out of the woodwork to explain why all of those people are wrong..."

I might make the same argument about Hannibal, noting the box office receipts and book sales to date. I think a little controversy makes things more interesting, anyway. It's boring when everyone agrees; who wants that kind of sycophantic camaraderie? Not me, anyway.

"I haven't validated my opinion by checking the IMDB or Amazon user reviews yet"

Good for you, Tom. Because I'm not allowed to have an opinion here, clearly I'm nuts if I don't like CTHD! Or the Insider! The horror! The horror!

"I think this is the most terrifying film I have ever seen. I was a huge slasher film nut until I saw Henry; the film actually re-sensitized me to violence. I was only 16 when I saw it, and I had to walk out during the notorious video tape scene."

You guys are leaving out Man Bites Dog.

"Thanks a lot you fucking moron."

Shrug. I thought everyone here had seen it, seeing as it's the movie of the century and everything. FWIW, sorry.

"It's called melodrama, fantasy, mythology, romance... clearly it ain't your thing."

Not as presented in CTHD, clearly. But I just saw Ghost Dog and thought that was superb, and it's no less melodramatic, fantastic, mythologic. The use of the book Rashomon as a prop-- slyly commenting on the two different interpretations of the key beating scene-- was very clever.

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

>>I might make the same argument about Hannibal, noting the box office receipts and book sales to date.

You might if it weren't for the fact that, for example, the average Yahoo rating for Hannibal is 3.0 versus 4.5 for Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. And IMDB it's 7.0 for Hannibal versus 9.0 for your favorite film, which makes it #8 on their all-time list, which is seriously overrating it... but since you put a lot of creedence in those opinions, clearly one is superior to the other.

>>The use of the book Rashomon as a prop-- slyly commenting on the two different interpretations of the key beating scene-- was very clever.

Yeah, no films have ever brought up Rashomon. It's very clever and original.

"You might if it weren't for the fact that, for example, the average Yahoo rating for Hannibal is 3.0 versus 4.5 for Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. And IMDB it's 7.0 for Hannibal versus 9.0 for your favorite film, which makes it #8 on their all-time list, which is seriously overrating it... but since you put a lot of creedence in those opinions, clearly one is superior to the other."

People who make a living as critics seem to have a love/hate relationship with the work of other critics. After all, an opinion isn't pure unless it's your own, right? And giving any credence to the opinions of other professional critics-- or worse, the unwashed rabble-- would seem to diminish the weight and originality of your own opinions.

Besides, that wasn't really my point. I think it's okay for something to be popular and controversial at the same time. Heck, sometimes that's even more fun-- there's just something inherently interesting to me in a situation where critics are split into a love/hate dichotomy. We regularly feed at the "all negative" or "all positive" troughs.

I know my own opinion all too well. Heck, I'm already sick of myself, a feeling I'm sure you can empathize with. I like reading well-stated opinions and comparing and contrasting them with my own. For those of you who aren't afraid of other people's opinions, may I suggest http://www.rottentomatoes.com ?

"Yeah, no films have ever brought up Rashomon. It's very clever and original."

Steve, I didn't say it was original. But in book form, yes, that's clever. Unless you're aware of another movie that uses the rashomon _book_ as a prop? There's some irony there. Most of the time the characters in the movie are watching cartoons-- not movies. Which I also thought was clever. Now if they had been watching the movie rashomon I'd agree with you, that's obvious and lame.

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

"Just added it to my Netflix queue."

I'll be interested in hearing what you think. As I said before, I didn't necessarily enjoy or even like the film. But it certainly affected me.

"But I just saw Ghost Dog and thought that was superb, and it's no less melodramatic, fantastic, mythologic."

It's certainly less fantastic than Crouching Tiger. And it's a very different film. Transplanting a samurai film to New York isn't the same as making a period film about mythological heroes. That's like saying Die Hard was better than Clash of the Titans. Or it would be if it wasn't true.

And, if you haven't seen it, Le Samurai is another great film using the Samurai ethic as the backbone of a modern hitman - Ghost Dog owes a great deal to it (and may even acknowledge that at some point).

"Unless you're aware of another movie that uses the rashomon _book_ as a prop?"

The funny thing about that, to me, was that Rashomon wasn't even based on the story Rashomon. It was based on another story by the same author (I'm too lazy to look his name up), called In a Grove or In the Grove or something (again, lazy).

I should have preceded that comment with "Factoid!" just to look like more of a know-it-all jackass.

>>People who make a living as critics seem to have a love/hate relationship with the work of other critics.

Um, I love reading reviews, even those that contradict my own opinions. And I love discussing reviews. But what I really love is fucking with other people's opinions, especially when they get all worked up about them. It probably shows that I don't trust my own opinions, but hey, at least I'm honest about it.

>>And giving any credence to the opinions of other professional critics-- or worse, the unwashed rabble-- would seem to diminish the weight and originality of your own opinions.

Um, yeah. Exactly. I hate that unwashed rabble. In fact, I'd love being a reviewer a lot more if people didn't actually read my reviews and opinions, because chances are they will disagree with them at some point and then I'm forced to wallow through the cesspool of their ignorance. I hate that.

"It's certainly less fantastic than Crouching Tiger."

Only in the sense that it lacks people flitting about like oversized moths. I think it's possible-- even preferable-- to adequately show superhuman abilities with just solid fighting scenes, as is done in Ghost Dog. But it's a question of genre traditions, and comic book sensibilities, I suppose.

"And it's a very different film. Transplanting a samurai film to New York isn't the same as making a period film about mythological heroes."

Maybe you're right. I knew I should have liked the movie Legend more than I did.

"The funny thing about that, to me, was that Rashomon wasn't even based on the story Rashomon. It was based on another story by the same author (I'm too lazy to look his name up), called In a Grove or In the Grove or something (again, lazy)."

Tsk tsk. How long does it take to do an Amazon search? Lazy indeed. ;)

Looks like the first story (that the little girl alluded to, "I liked the first story best") was indeed Rashomon as we know and love it, but the book contains six stories.

I'm also going to plug the most recent remake of Rashomon (that I know of), "Courage Under Fire", again. My wife forced me to see it and I was pleasantly surprised how good it really was. Plus I'm a closet homosexual with a crush on Lou Diamond Philips, but I digress.

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

---

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0871401738/qid=982550877/sr=1-1/ref=sc_b_1/107-1317072-6047716

---

Before his tragic death in 1927, Ryunosuke Akutagawa, author of "Rashomon," one of the most renowned stories of Japanese literature, wrote more than 100 short stories. Since his death, he has been described as one of the best-read men of his generation.
Included in this timeless collection are Akutagawa's "In a Grove," a psychologically sophisticated tale about murder, rape, and suicide; "The Martyr," the story of silent suffering in Christian Nagasaki; and "Kesa and Morito," the story of man driven to kill someone he doesn't hate by a lover whom he doesn't love; and "Rashomon," the infamous story of a thief scared into honesty by a terrifying encounter with a ghoul.

"What [Akutagawa] did was question the values of his society, dramatize the complexities of human psychology, and study, with a Zen taste for paradox, the balance of illusion and reality." --This text refers to the Paperback edition.

"Um, I love reading reviews, even those that contradict my own opinions. And I love discussing reviews. But what I really love is fucking with other people's opinions, especially when they get all worked up about them. It probably shows that I don't trust my own opinions, but hey, at least I'm honest about it."

Whatever could you be referring to? Honestly Steve. You lost me here buddy.

"Um, yeah. Exactly. I hate that unwashed rabble. In fact, I'd love being a reviewer a lot more if people didn't actually read my reviews and opinions, because chances are they will disagree with them at some point and then I'm forced to wallow through the cesspool of their ignorance. I hate that."

I think you took my comments a little too personally. I was just saying in general, it's a trap that critics tend to fall into in my observation. Besides, all that constant back and forth bickering is what killed Siskel. Clearly something to be avoided.

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

>>I think you took my comments a little too personally.

Um, no. I take very little said on a message board personally. I just enjoy bickering with people who take things really seriously. They don't realize I'm sitting here with a stupid grin while I'm pushing their buttons and getting them all wound up. They're probably doing the same thing, too. It's psuedo-intellectual masturbation, and if I actually had a life I probably wouldn't visit any message boards.

"Um, no. I take very little said on a message board personally. "

Good, because it's bad enough that Tom Chick hates me. I don't want to incur the wrath of any more of my favorite writers than is absolutely necessary. Besides, like LL Cool J said, I need love.

Anyway, the point is to exchange ideas with other thoughtful people whose opinions you respect, and I definitely do respect everyone here. Well, with one exception...

Myself.

"I just enjoy bickering with people who take things really seriously. They don't realize I'm sitting here with a stupid grin while I'm pushing their buttons and getting them all wound up. "

Actually, I think you're fairly restrained in that regard. And I know I declared a global moratorium on spelling mistakes earlier, but I had to *mightily* restrain myself from making a "Creedence Clearwater Revival" joke at your expense.

See, that's how much I care.

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

"Good, because it's bad enough that Tom Chick hates me."

Pshaw. I have plenty of friends with zero credibility. You just happen to be the only one who insists that I pick Counter-Strike as Game of the Year.

-Tom

"I'm paying attention; this entire line of reasoning is wack. To me this is just a gussied up way of saying "I'm right" that nobody can argue with or possibly contradict-- because it isn't supported by facts or evidence."

Okay, then I'll just cut to the chase: I'm right.

Amanpour

P.S. Wack? Wack? Personally I thought it was da bomb, dawg.

One final coda to this thread. Did you guys notice that odd motorized, wheeled device that Lecter uses to move Pazzi up to the balcony?

Ladies and gentlemen, allow me to present Dean Kamen's "IT" device.

You heard it here first, okey doke?

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

Wumpus? I don't think that thing was Ginger. It did look pretty dang cool, though. From what I've heard, IT is a one-wheeled scooter (no, not you, Scooter) that can move at like 60 mph. Leastaways that's the impression a bunch of journalists what raided the patent office came away with.

So far as Hannibal goes...The book: Self-indulgent worship of a cannabilistic serial killer, with all the moral dilemmas of choosing between eating a hamburger or Cheetohs. If Lecter looked less than despicable at the end, it was only through the weak plot device of making every person in that world from grocery shoppers to law enforcement high officials so morally bankrupt that you couldn't tell Lecter was any different from them. Snoozer. Big time.

The movie: Shallow, half-hearted attempt at glorifying an atypical female lead through the use of an overwhelmingly stupid cast of characters that make her look good, not through any competence of her own, but only by their being so inept that Clarice's mediocre performance seems positively stellar by comparison. Brief moments of Gladiator-styled hyperviolence (most notably in the fish market scene)are not enough to distract from the very clear disappointment that movie generated. Ouch. Two hours and $16 dollars (went with a date)that I'll never get back.

And no, I don't hate you either. But I do boycott Sierra products, so I haven't played Counter-Strike. Can't confirm or deny, there. :-)