Skip to main content

Remarkable boy. I do admire your courage. I think I'll eat your heart.


Red Dragon
(2002)

So you have a strong script from Ted Tally, Oscar winner for adapting the follow-up novel ten years previously. And you’re working from a novel that is arguably even better than the one that resulted in awards glory. You have Oscar winner Anthony Hopkins, reprising his most iconic role for the second time. You have a dream supporting cast of well-respected actors, from Edward Norton and Ralph Fiennes to Philip Seymour Hoffman and Emily Watson. What could go possibly go wrong? I guess, employ Brett Ratner.

Dino De Laurentis was nothing if not opportunistic. His 1986 production of Red Dragon, directed by Michael Mann and released as Manhunter (the title was changed because Dino didn’t want it to be confused with his flop Mickey Rourke vehicle Year of the Dragon) bombed at the box office despite being critically acclaimed. It was only natural, then, that he would try and make something off the back The Silence of the Lambs’ success.

First came Hannibal, a ropey novel turned into a slightly-less-ropey film by Ridley Scott. It was a huge hit thanks to the return of Anthony Hopkins as lip-smacking, courteous serial killer Hannibal Lector. Jodie Foster demurred, however, and was replaced by Julianne Moore. Never one to mince words De Laurentis commented that Moore was a better Clarice as she had “sex appeal”. It may just be the producer’s clumsy English, but he did seem partial to bull-in-a-china-shop comments. His view of Manhunter was that it was “no good”. Presumably it was this keen artistic sensibility that guided him to select Ratner as the director of the remake, which appeared hot-on-the-heels of Hannibal (one year later). That Michael Bay was offered the reins first gives you an idea of how far Dino’s head was up his own arse (although, just for the perverse curiosity’s sake, I’d have liked to see what Bay’s ADD approach would have yielded).

I think I was slightly more charitable to Red Dragon when it first came out, perhaps appreciating how much close it hewed to the novel. But in Ratner’s hands it becomes a tiresomely literal retread. Where Manhunter remained true to the source material, we frequently find Red Dragon is a word-for-word remount of scenes. But minus any of the style or atmosphere Mann brought to the material. Ironically, Ratner’s cinematographer of choice, Dante Spinotti, also lensed Mann’s film. Manhunter is iconic ‘80s noir, a film of deep, dark blues and uneasy synths. Ratner’s has no identity. And worse, no guiding intelligence. Mann’s smarts are in every scene, carefully composing the visuals and editing to work hand-in-hand with FBI agent Will Graham’s insights. Ratner can only clumsily trail the master at best; although he makes no attempt to copy Mann’s visual style, he shows undue deference to Silence, returning us to Lector’s familiar cell and bringing back staff members Anthony Heald (Dr. Chilton) and Frankie Faison (Barney). One of the few instances where Ratner leaves an impression is the single take leading us through locked door after locked door down to this dungeon.

A good example of how creatively bereft Ratner is comes in Graham’s survey of the house where the second murders took place. Norton’s Graham comes in at night with a flashlight (because dark = atmosphere, right? – we’ve all seen The X-Files) and, as in Mann’s film, he speaks into a tape recorder as he puts together the scene of the crime. But Ratner accompanies each insight with a barrage of quick cuts of the carnage; that’s what is going through Graham’s mind, see? Which is the most familiar and banal device possible. In contrast, Mann lets the sequence play out on Graham alone. Norton’s a bit unstuck in all this. He gives it his best shot, and certainly sells the idea of a fearful, nervy guy who doesn’t want to be there. But he has none of William Peterson’s low-key, haunted brooding. With Peterson, you can sense the pain. With Norton, Graham is just earnestly limp.

Tally’s script understandably beefs up Lector’s involvement; the prologue sets the scene with Graham’s realisation of Lector’s true nature and the ensuing face-off between the two of them. This should be dynamite, and as written by Tally there is little to complain about. But Ratner shoots it without any sense of atmosphere or build-up; the evidence of Lector’s guilt is just waiting there on the sideboard for Graham to open. There is more tension in Peterson’s account of the incident in Manhunter than there is here. Admittedly, Ratner can put together a perfectly serviceable action sequence; the fireworks at the beginning and climax work reasonably well. But “serviceable” is the key word here. You could find them in any thriller, but you’d wonder why such a strong cast is slumming it there.

Graham has three further encounters with Lector. One might argue this serves to lessen his abilities; in Mann’s film he has the one meeting to “pick up the scent again”. I don’t think this matters too much, as you can clearly see Norton enjoying himself with Hopkins; it’s the same kind of vibe you get from The Score, where the thesps are clearly superior to the film they’re in. But Ratner flunks the Rolodex scene that, as played by Brian Cox, may be the most wining Lector moment on film. There is no scene-setting here; the Doctor is just on the phone (apparently at his leisure to call whomsoever he chooses), and Hopkins can’t resist piling on a bit of ham. Hopkins is predictably fine, but there is no challenge here, and he looks every bit 10 years older than when he first played the role (not the 10-ish years younger that the film has in mind). Again, you might argue this doesn’t matter too much as it’s just nice to see him back (for the last time, unless we’re due an octogenarian Hannibal at some point). But it does rather press the point that it is all rather unnecessary and has been done far, far better already.

I’m afraid I’m going to continue comparing the two versions, as it’s the best way of illustrating how mediocre Red Dragon is. Ralph Fiennes’ Francis Dollarhyde is certainly established with more defrence to the book; he lives in his grandmother’s disused nursing home and we hear her voice (that of Ellen Burstyn) haunting his thoughts. So now we can make the connection with whose false teeth he is wearing, and identify the abuse that he has suffered. Certainly, Dollarhyde’s flash pad-with-a-view seemed entirely incongruous in Manhunter, and was the one area that stood out like a sore thumb.

But Dollarhyde as played by Fiennes never seems especially, well, special. I might point to the hair lip failing to disguise Fiennes’ handsome features, but it’s ultimately the director who cannot make his monster memorable. Tom Noonan’s trod the line between creepy and sympathetic with such skill that Ralph cannot compete. It was suggested at the time of Manhunter’s release that some of the excisions from the novel were wise, for the benefit of verisimilitude. Like Dollarhyde eating the Blake painting. Ratner includes it, of course, but it just hangs there with no meaning or resonance. Not even hyperbole. He includes it because it’s in the script. The exquisite scene in Mann’s film where Dollarhyde takes Reba (played by Joan Allen there, here by Watson; there’s little to choose between them, performance-wise) is similarly lacking in potency. Mann made it almost overpoweringly sensual; if his soundtrack choices in that film are variable, he decisively scores in that scene. Danny Elfman’s score for Red Dragon is mostly forgettable, the odd moments aside (his accompaniment to the sight of second crime scene is one of the few unsettling moments in the whole film).

So, although we know much more of Dollarhyde, there’s a sense of less-is-more. In Manhunter you feel his wounded rage. Here he is rendered just another psycho, despite Tally’s attempts otherwise. Philip Seymour Hoffman seems like perfect casting as Freddy Lounds, but his flabby schlub holds none of the weasely power seen in Stephen Lang’s iteration. You can only shrug when Norton grabs Hoffman, but you’re shocked when Peterson throws Lang across the bonnet of a car. And there’s a palpable horror to Lounds’ encounter with Dollarhyde, utterly absent here.

Mann eschewed Harris twist ending. Perhaps he though it was a De Palma moment too far. Or maybe it felt too contrived. It’s undoubtedly the case that it became a de rigueur move for any thriller or killer movie over the next 10 years. Again, Ratner reinstates the scene. He puts it together with an efficiently action-orientated eye. While Mary Louise Parker benefits from having something extra to do in the wife role, Graham’s psych-out of Dollarhyde is faintly silly as showcased by the director’s pedestrian method. This is another point about Harris’ novel that makes you realise how shrewd Mann’s choices were; Dollarhyde’s back-story is so derivative of Norman Bates that you risk looking ridiculous even going there. And you ensure that you will look daft if you’re a approach is utterly prosaic.

Red Dragon isn’t a bad film, but it demands attention for its resolute blandness. This is a textbook case of what happens when you employ a director with no feel for material or genre. It could have been worse, certainly (the hash Ratner made of X-Men: The Last Stand bears testament to that). That there is a classic film version of Red Dragon in existence makes Brett’s failure neither here nor there. It might have been a shame, for completion’s sake, if this had ridden on the coat tails of a superb screen version of Hannibal. The lack of reason to exist is highlighted by the film’s last scene, where the visit of a young FBI agent is announced to Lector; all Red Dragon amounts to is a scene-setter for Silence. As it is, Brian Cox and Anthony Hopkins remain one-for-one starring in great Hannibal Lector movies.

***

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

He’s so persistent! He always gets his man.

Speed (1994) (SPOILERS) It must have been a couple of decades since I last viewed Speed all the way through, so it’s pleasing to confirm that it holds up. Sure, Jan de Bont’s debut as a director can’t compete with the work of John McTiernan, for whom he acted as cinematographer and who recommended de Bont when he passed on the picture, but he nevertheless does a more than competent work. Which makes his later turkeys all the more tragic. And Keanu and Sandra Bullock display the kind of effortless chemistry you can’t put a price tag on. And then there’s Dennis Hopper, having a great old sober-but-still-looning time.

How would Horatio Alger have handled this situation?

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998) (SPOILERS) Gilliam’s last great movie – The Zero Theorem (2013) is definitely underrated, but I don’t think it’s that underrated – Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas could easily have been too much. At times it is, but in such instances, intentionally so. The combination of a visual stylist and Hunter S Thompson’s embellished, propulsive turn of phrase turns out, for the most part, to be a cosmically aligned affair, embracing the anarchic abandon of Raoul Duke and Doctor Gonzo’s Las Vegas debauch while contriving to pull back at crucial junctures in order to engender a perspective on all this hedonism. Would Alex Cox, who exited stage left, making way for the Python, have produced something interesting? I suspect, ironically, he would have diluted Thompson in favour of whatever commentary preoccupied him at the time (indeed, Johnny Depp said as much: “ Cox had this great material to work with and he took it and he added his own stuff to it ”). Plus

But everything is wonderful. We are in Paris.

Cold War (2018) (SPOILERS) Pawel Pawlikowski’s elliptical tale – you can’t discuss Cold War without saying “elliptical” at least once – of frustrated love charts a course that almost seems to be a caricature of a certain brand of self-congratulatorily tragic European cinema. It was, it seems “ loosely inspired ” by his parents (I suspect I see where the looseness comes in), but there’s a sense of calculation to the progression of this love story against an inescapable political backdrop that rather diminishes it.

No matter how innocent you are, or how hard you try, they’ll find you guilty.

The Wrong Man (1956) (SPOILERS) I hate to say it, but old Truffaut called it right on this one. More often than not showing obeisance to the might of Hitchcock during his career-spanning interview, the French critic turned director was surprisingly blunt when it came to The Wrong Man . He told Hitch “ your style, which has found its perfection in the fiction area, happens to be in total conflict with the aesthetics of the documentary and that contradiction is apparent throughout the picture ”. There’s also another, connected issue with this, one Hitch acknowledged: too much fidelity to the true story upon which the film is based.

To survive a war, you gotta become war.

Rambo: First Blood Part II (1985) (SPOILERS?) I’d like to say it’s mystifying that a film so bereft of merit as Rambo: First Blood Part II could have finished up the second biggest hit of 1985. It wouldn’t be as bad if it was, at minimum, a solid action movie, rather than an interminable bore. But the movie struck a chord somewhere, somehow. As much as the most successful picture of that year, Back to the Future , could be seen to suggest moviegoers do actually have really good taste, Rambo rather sends a message about how extensively regressive themes were embedding themselves in Reaganite, conservative ‘80s cinema (to be fair, this is something one can also read into Back to the Future ), be those ones of ill-conceived nostalgia or simple-minded jingoism, notional superiority and might. The difference between Stallone and Arnie movies starts right here; self-awareness. Audiences may have watched R ambo in the same way they would a Schwarzenegger picture, but I’m

You were a few blocks away? What’d you see it with, a telescope?

The Eyes of Laura Mars (1978) (SPOILERS) John Carpenter’s first serial-killer screenplay to get made, The Eyes of Laura Mars came out nearly three months before Halloween. You know, the movie that made the director’s name. And then some. He wasn’t best pleased with the results of The Eyes of Laura Mars, which ended up co-credited to David Zelag Goodman ( Straw Dogs , Logan’s Run ) as part of an attempt by producer Jon Peters to manufacture a star vehicle for then-belle Barbra Streisand: “ The original script was very good, I thought. But it got shat upon ”. Which isn’t sour grapes on Carpenter’s part. The finished movie bears ready evidence of such tampering, not least in the reveal of the killer (different in Carpenter’s conception). Its best features are the so-uncleanly-you-can-taste-it 70s New York milieu and the guest cast, but even as an early example of the sub-genre, it’s burdened by all the failings inherit with this kind of fare.

I don't like the way Teddy Roosevelt is looking at me.

North by Northwest (1959) (SPOILERS) North by Northwest gets a lot of attention as a progenitor of the Bond formula, but that’s giving it far too little credit. Really, it’s the first modern blockbuster, paving the way for hundreds of slipshod, loosely plotted action movies built around set pieces rather than expertly devised narratives. That it delivers, and delivers so effortlessly, is a testament to Hitchcock, to writer Ernest Lehmann, and to a cast who make the entire implausible exercise such a delight.

The game is rigged, and it does not reward people who play by the rules.

Hustlers (2019) (SPOILERS) Sold as a female Goodfellas – to the extent that the producers had Scorsese in mind – this strippers-and-crime tale is actually a big, glossy puff piece, closer to Todd Phillips as fashioned by Lorene Scarfia. There are some attractive performances in Hustlers, notably from Constance Wu, but for all its “progressive” women work male objectification to their advantage posturing, it’s incredibly traditional and conservative deep down.

What do they do, sing madrigals?

The Singing Detective (2003) Icon’s remake of the 1986 BBC serial, from a screenplay by Dennis Potter himself. The Singing Detective fares less well than Icon’s later adaptation of Edge of Darkness , even though it’s probably more faithful to Potter’s original. Perhaps the fault lies in the compression of six episodes into a feature running a quarter of that time, but the noir fantasy and childhood flashbacks fail to engage, and if the hospital reality scans better, it too suffers eventually.

You don’t know anything about this man, and he knows everything about you.

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s two-decades-later remake of his British original. It’s undoubtedly the better-known version, but as I noted in my review of the 1934 film, it is very far from the “ far superior ” production Truffaut tried to sell the director on during their interviews. Hitchcock would only be drawn – in typically quotable style – that “ the first version is the work of a talented amateur and the second was made by a professional ”. For which, read a young, creatively fired director versus one clinically going through the motions, occasionally inspired by a shot or sequence but mostly lacking the will or drive that made the first The Man Who Knew Too Much such a pleasure from beginning to end.