Thajocoth
2012-11-29, 02:15 PM
The topic of Dr. Hannibal Lecter came up in another thread & there were enough posts there on it that I am extracting the topic into it's own thread.
So far:
To paraphrase Dr Lecter on Buffalo Bill: "he's not a transexual, he just hates himself". Unfortunately a lot of media miss that distinction.
I'm a big fan of Dr. Lecter. The Hannibal series is the only one that ever made me consider picking up the books for it. (I'm still considering it.)
I think most people miss how human Dr. Lecter really is; how he isn't really a monster. His way of helping others is often sadistic, but it's also more meaningful. In Silence of the Lambs, he's one of the very few male characters that doesn't put the moves on Clarice in a very creepy way (or at all, really). When he finally does in Hannibal, his gestures are very clearly sincere. It is her that he likes, not aspects & pieces of her, not just her body.
He feeds off her mentally. In doing so, he creates a certain type of bond. I knew from their very first interaction that Clarice was not & never would be on the menu for him. A little more & it was clear that he'd kill to protect her if such a situation arose. The writer very clearly understands intellectual sadism in a way that most people do not. The way he interrogated Clarice to specifically find her worst memory, have her relive it, and savor her anguish, reminded me of some of my Omegle conversations I've had prior to seeing these films.
So Dr. Lecter is a very smart man. I think pointing out that he can see that Buffalo Bill is not a real transexual; that his self-worth is simply at rock bottom, so he's going for the most drastic self-change he can think of in hopes that it will change who he is and make him worth something; is there in part to underline Dr. Lecter's intelligence. Specifically, it shows his knowledge of how other people's anguish works, which comes in part from this intellectual sadism of his. It's likely why he became a psychologist to begin with. (Even seeing Hannibal Rises makes it difficult to be sure of this, but it makes perfect sense.)
What a gentleman. Anyway, I read The Red Dragon when I was sixteen; it's pretty good, though not as labyrinthine as I usually like for detective fiction, so I didn't continue the series. I'd still recommend it, though, if you're interested. But I thought Hannibal was a silly movie ("That smells great!"), and the trailers for Hannibal Rising didn't leave much of an impression on me at the time. I actually forgot it existed until you brought it up just now.
Honestly, Hannibal Rising was missing something that the other films in the series had. I can't quite place what it is, but it feels... plastic? Hannibal is currently my favorite movie (I didn't have a favorite movie before watching this series), but there is one problem I have with it. Such a smart man who practices cannibalism quite regularly choosing to eat human brain. He should know better. He should know all about the human prion disease "Kuru" & the high risks of getting it by eating human brain. Also, near the end of the movie (around the same time as the brain eating scene), Clarice's character seemed to flatten out in a way that suggests to me that the book ended differently than the movie, but I wouldn't know.
As for the quote, I think you're referring again to the brain-eating scene. The man is missing a portion of his frontal lobe & likes the smell of it cooking. He's also drugged, I believe. Considering his decreased mental capacity, lack of knowledge of what's cooking, and the similarity human meat has with pork, I don't see the quote as far-fetched. Or am I wrong about what you're referring to?
No, that's what I meant. It was one of the funniest things I had ever seen. I don't think the movie's even bad--it's actually very good looking--it just doesn't work as a thriller for me. I'm interested, though: why did you like it? Did you watch it as a scary movie, or did you get something else out of it that I missed?
It would not work for me as a scary movie as Hannibal Lecter is the character I can most relate to & generally root for. I also don't see cannibalism as evil. We bury & burn tons of perfectly usable meat regularly, then complain there's a shortage. I'd most certainly try it if available. Most of his victims are chosen for their transgressions, making him often a hero. Unfortunately some die to prevent his capture and killing a guy so a musical group would sound better is something I disagree with, but on average he's a good guy.
I enjoyed the movies as works of fiction; good stories, not thrillers. It's rare to see an intellectual sadist portrayed so accurately, rather than being a stereotypical obvious villain that monologues instead of killing the obvious hero.
Man. If you like Hannibal, you MUST pick up the books. The character is a million times more developed in the books. Even though Anthony Hopkins did an AMAZING job showing the character, there's just a lot that gets said by just description and the like that deepens the character and would have been impossible to show on-screen in a movie any more than what Anthony Hopkins did. The Hannibal book also DOES end differently and, in my opinion, much better. I have no idea why they changed the ending.
Well, if I ever I need more details, I know whose brains to pick.
On Hanibal (apologies if I mix up the names. ^_^') as a hero:
While I have not seen the films or read the books, I personally would classify that as an anti-hero at best. Enforcing your own morality on others (ie. punishing them for acts you consider evil) is questionable and outright murdering them sounds like the Punisher to me. Not the the Punisher is evil, but Frank Castle is the poster-child of grim anti-heroes. X3
I apologise if there is more to it or if the character kills those who escaped punishment*. If that is the case, then I would still call it anti-heroism, but much closer to heroism, and thus merely a small disagreement. ^_^'
*This would be a more gruesome version of the Bat-family vigilantism. Though less justified as the Bat-family tend to leave the criminals to the justice system and merely act as extra law enforcement, but still arguable heroic. :smallsmile:
On cannibalism:
Much agreed there. I believe there are some worrying health risks involved that would make it a bad decision to eat human meat, but I would much agree that it is no more or less moral than eating any other animal's meat, given that one does not cause emotional hurt to the survivors or disrupt science/investigation by doing it. It is so very very very very sad whenever anything autonomous dies and unfathomably so when a human does, but we should not then portray the following acts as evil just because it is against the local tradition. In other places and times, it would be completely opposite, with cannibalism being the only respectful way to let the remains return to the cycle, after all. And I am not just saying that because I am a Kobold, I am borderline vegetarian! Totally!
>_>
<_<
Have to stress that we should respect a dead person's living wishes if we can, we should still care about what they thought and meant in life even after it ends. Everybody deserves that :smallsmile:
Sorry if any of that seems creepy, I am trying not to be too analytical about stuff that makes people uneasy. A thousand cookies if I accidentally did that to anyone. ^_^'
I tend to see traditional heroes as a bit lawful-stupid. If Batman killed The Joker, The Joker would cause far less deaths. In that way, all the blood of The Joker's victims are on Batman's hands. For this reason, I tend to refer to anti-heroes as heroes.
That said... Hannibal would still not really be a hero or anti-hero.
As an example: There's a guy that's a complete jerk. He runs the facility Hannibal is kept in. He puts the moves on Clarice when she stops by in a fairly creepy way, making it clear that he just sees women as sex objects. He listens in on her conversation with Hannibal after being instructed by an FBI agent (Clarice) not to do so. He's also a jerk to Hannibal the whole time.
He's done nothing illegal, but his whole character is a jerk. He's Hannibal's first victim upon escaping & there is no reason to feel bad for him. Right before this, Hannibal tells Clarice on the phone that he's going to "have an old friend for dinner".
That's his usual MO. In Hannibal Rising, his victims are all war criminals who ate his sister during WW2 & got away with it, so that's a bit more heroic (or anti-heroic, or revengeful, they all kinda blur together). In Hannibal, he kills a man who is trying to arrest him, but you can see that he has some respect for this victim. He even offers him an option regarding his death & is quite theatrical about the whole ordeal. "Just another kill" wouldn't require a show. This man came close to catching Dr. Lecter, who has respect for worthy opponents such as him.
There is one exception I've seen in the series though: There's a group of musicians who use their voice. I guess it's a sort of operatic choir type thing. He kills the guy who's voice is throwing off the rest of the performance to improve the sound of the rest of the group. I can't defend that kill.
So far:
To paraphrase Dr Lecter on Buffalo Bill: "he's not a transexual, he just hates himself". Unfortunately a lot of media miss that distinction.
I'm a big fan of Dr. Lecter. The Hannibal series is the only one that ever made me consider picking up the books for it. (I'm still considering it.)
I think most people miss how human Dr. Lecter really is; how he isn't really a monster. His way of helping others is often sadistic, but it's also more meaningful. In Silence of the Lambs, he's one of the very few male characters that doesn't put the moves on Clarice in a very creepy way (or at all, really). When he finally does in Hannibal, his gestures are very clearly sincere. It is her that he likes, not aspects & pieces of her, not just her body.
He feeds off her mentally. In doing so, he creates a certain type of bond. I knew from their very first interaction that Clarice was not & never would be on the menu for him. A little more & it was clear that he'd kill to protect her if such a situation arose. The writer very clearly understands intellectual sadism in a way that most people do not. The way he interrogated Clarice to specifically find her worst memory, have her relive it, and savor her anguish, reminded me of some of my Omegle conversations I've had prior to seeing these films.
So Dr. Lecter is a very smart man. I think pointing out that he can see that Buffalo Bill is not a real transexual; that his self-worth is simply at rock bottom, so he's going for the most drastic self-change he can think of in hopes that it will change who he is and make him worth something; is there in part to underline Dr. Lecter's intelligence. Specifically, it shows his knowledge of how other people's anguish works, which comes in part from this intellectual sadism of his. It's likely why he became a psychologist to begin with. (Even seeing Hannibal Rises makes it difficult to be sure of this, but it makes perfect sense.)
What a gentleman. Anyway, I read The Red Dragon when I was sixteen; it's pretty good, though not as labyrinthine as I usually like for detective fiction, so I didn't continue the series. I'd still recommend it, though, if you're interested. But I thought Hannibal was a silly movie ("That smells great!"), and the trailers for Hannibal Rising didn't leave much of an impression on me at the time. I actually forgot it existed until you brought it up just now.
Honestly, Hannibal Rising was missing something that the other films in the series had. I can't quite place what it is, but it feels... plastic? Hannibal is currently my favorite movie (I didn't have a favorite movie before watching this series), but there is one problem I have with it. Such a smart man who practices cannibalism quite regularly choosing to eat human brain. He should know better. He should know all about the human prion disease "Kuru" & the high risks of getting it by eating human brain. Also, near the end of the movie (around the same time as the brain eating scene), Clarice's character seemed to flatten out in a way that suggests to me that the book ended differently than the movie, but I wouldn't know.
As for the quote, I think you're referring again to the brain-eating scene. The man is missing a portion of his frontal lobe & likes the smell of it cooking. He's also drugged, I believe. Considering his decreased mental capacity, lack of knowledge of what's cooking, and the similarity human meat has with pork, I don't see the quote as far-fetched. Or am I wrong about what you're referring to?
No, that's what I meant. It was one of the funniest things I had ever seen. I don't think the movie's even bad--it's actually very good looking--it just doesn't work as a thriller for me. I'm interested, though: why did you like it? Did you watch it as a scary movie, or did you get something else out of it that I missed?
It would not work for me as a scary movie as Hannibal Lecter is the character I can most relate to & generally root for. I also don't see cannibalism as evil. We bury & burn tons of perfectly usable meat regularly, then complain there's a shortage. I'd most certainly try it if available. Most of his victims are chosen for their transgressions, making him often a hero. Unfortunately some die to prevent his capture and killing a guy so a musical group would sound better is something I disagree with, but on average he's a good guy.
I enjoyed the movies as works of fiction; good stories, not thrillers. It's rare to see an intellectual sadist portrayed so accurately, rather than being a stereotypical obvious villain that monologues instead of killing the obvious hero.
Man. If you like Hannibal, you MUST pick up the books. The character is a million times more developed in the books. Even though Anthony Hopkins did an AMAZING job showing the character, there's just a lot that gets said by just description and the like that deepens the character and would have been impossible to show on-screen in a movie any more than what Anthony Hopkins did. The Hannibal book also DOES end differently and, in my opinion, much better. I have no idea why they changed the ending.
Well, if I ever I need more details, I know whose brains to pick.
On Hanibal (apologies if I mix up the names. ^_^') as a hero:
While I have not seen the films or read the books, I personally would classify that as an anti-hero at best. Enforcing your own morality on others (ie. punishing them for acts you consider evil) is questionable and outright murdering them sounds like the Punisher to me. Not the the Punisher is evil, but Frank Castle is the poster-child of grim anti-heroes. X3
I apologise if there is more to it or if the character kills those who escaped punishment*. If that is the case, then I would still call it anti-heroism, but much closer to heroism, and thus merely a small disagreement. ^_^'
*This would be a more gruesome version of the Bat-family vigilantism. Though less justified as the Bat-family tend to leave the criminals to the justice system and merely act as extra law enforcement, but still arguable heroic. :smallsmile:
On cannibalism:
Much agreed there. I believe there are some worrying health risks involved that would make it a bad decision to eat human meat, but I would much agree that it is no more or less moral than eating any other animal's meat, given that one does not cause emotional hurt to the survivors or disrupt science/investigation by doing it. It is so very very very very sad whenever anything autonomous dies and unfathomably so when a human does, but we should not then portray the following acts as evil just because it is against the local tradition. In other places and times, it would be completely opposite, with cannibalism being the only respectful way to let the remains return to the cycle, after all. And I am not just saying that because I am a Kobold, I am borderline vegetarian! Totally!
>_>
<_<
Have to stress that we should respect a dead person's living wishes if we can, we should still care about what they thought and meant in life even after it ends. Everybody deserves that :smallsmile:
Sorry if any of that seems creepy, I am trying not to be too analytical about stuff that makes people uneasy. A thousand cookies if I accidentally did that to anyone. ^_^'
I tend to see traditional heroes as a bit lawful-stupid. If Batman killed The Joker, The Joker would cause far less deaths. In that way, all the blood of The Joker's victims are on Batman's hands. For this reason, I tend to refer to anti-heroes as heroes.
That said... Hannibal would still not really be a hero or anti-hero.
As an example: There's a guy that's a complete jerk. He runs the facility Hannibal is kept in. He puts the moves on Clarice when she stops by in a fairly creepy way, making it clear that he just sees women as sex objects. He listens in on her conversation with Hannibal after being instructed by an FBI agent (Clarice) not to do so. He's also a jerk to Hannibal the whole time.
He's done nothing illegal, but his whole character is a jerk. He's Hannibal's first victim upon escaping & there is no reason to feel bad for him. Right before this, Hannibal tells Clarice on the phone that he's going to "have an old friend for dinner".
That's his usual MO. In Hannibal Rising, his victims are all war criminals who ate his sister during WW2 & got away with it, so that's a bit more heroic (or anti-heroic, or revengeful, they all kinda blur together). In Hannibal, he kills a man who is trying to arrest him, but you can see that he has some respect for this victim. He even offers him an option regarding his death & is quite theatrical about the whole ordeal. "Just another kill" wouldn't require a show. This man came close to catching Dr. Lecter, who has respect for worthy opponents such as him.
There is one exception I've seen in the series though: There's a group of musicians who use their voice. I guess it's a sort of operatic choir type thing. He kills the guy who's voice is throwing off the rest of the performance to improve the sound of the rest of the group. I can't defend that kill.