Skip to main content

You had no traceable motive, which is why you're so hard to see.


Hannibal
Season One

An overview of Episodes 9-13 (SPOILERS)

1.9 Trou Normand

What looks initially as if it could be the silliest murderer plot yet (17 bodies arranged as a totem pole) finishes up as one of the best episodes of the season. The serial-killer-of-the-week is very much a background element, with just one scene devoted to him and his unveiling; there’s almost no detective work involved in finding him, because he wants to be caught. Lance Henrikson makes the most of his cameo; it’s disappointing if this is all we’ll get of him.

The meat of the episode is Will’s escalating fugue state, as he finds himself disassociating with no recollection of where has been and what he has done. These weird-outs lend an added claustrophobia to an already oppressive series (especially memorable is the scene where he’s addressing an empty lecture theatre).

The return of Abigail Hobbs and Freddie Lounds sees the arching story of the season gain necessary momentum; Will’s realisation that Abigail killed Nicholas Boyle is highly effective, where his gift reveals something the audience already knows. And Hannibal’s calm response to being accused of complicity (“Do I need to call my lawyer, Will?”) is only undermined slightly by the unlikelihood of Will being persuaded not to report all this to Jack. Yes, the justification is that he isn’t thinking straight but it still seems like a stretch.

Best of all is Abigail’s admission of involvement in her father’s murders; Jack was right all along, and everyone else was wrong. Except Hannibal, who knew (“I wondered when you would tell me”).

Jack’s a bit too much on the fringes, always poking around but never really doing anything effective. Additionally, it’s increasingly implausible that Will would be oblivious to Hannibal for much longer; I suspect they’ll stretch him being free for another year, but it would be better for credibility to have him apprehended at the end of this season.


 1.10 Buffet Froid

The weirdness factor is only compounded in this episode, with more time-shifts and some strong brainmelt ideas (the clock face Lecter asks Will to draw, and the difference between what he thinks he sees and what he actually renders).

But the whole “Will thinks he may be a murderer” idea is over-familiar, and the killer is very X-Files-lite. Hugh Dancy earnestly conveys a man losing his mind, but Fuller and his co-writers are really pushing it with the encephalitis plotline. Admittedly, it’s a surprise that Will actually has a neurological condition but the unethical agreement between Lecter and Dr. Sutcliffe to tell Will he’s fine so that he can be studied is highly convenient and unbelievable. Lecter on the one hand sees Will as a threat now, but on the other he’s still telling Dr. Gillian Anderson he wants him as a friend in the next episode.

John Benjamin Hickey is strong as Sutcliffe, so it’s a shame he’s only in the one episode. I didn’t see the twist of Hannibal being his murderer coming, and having Georgia unable to make out Lecter’s face is a nice touch (Dead Like Me’s Ellen Muth is unrecognisable as Georgia – much less so in the twelfth).


1.11 Rôti
  
If Hannibal Lecter is really as careless as he appears to be, it’s a wonder he could spend so long at large. Will’s seizures have quickly drifted into the territory of implausible; Jack can see something wrong but won’t do anything, neither will Bloom.

Finally, we get to the point where he brings Abel Gideon round to see Lecter at gunpoint and Lecter is able to convince him there’s no one there. Partly, it’s a dicey move to make your hero incapable for any length of time. More than that, there’s a point where, if everyone always has their heads in the sand about everything Lecter conceals and that concealment has no craft or intricacy, it becomes silly. The series has reached the point where, as entertaining as it continues to be, I’m having difficulty with everyone being so unperceptive.

That said, Eddie Izzard makes a welcome return as Gideon and he’s clearly relishing it. His bafflement over his condition is designed to mirror Will’s (“I may be crazy, but you look ill”), although it never quite works. Gideon is so indebted to Hopkins’ Lecter he never takes on a life of his own; the Colombian necktie is suitable grim but the extraction of Chilton’s organs while he watches is derivative of something else I’ve seen or read (I’m not sure what).

I may not have picked up on some of the finer points of the plotting; how did Lecter know where Gideon would be? And the ellipsis between Lecter telling Gideon where Bloom lives and Will turning up at her house is lurching and awkward.


1.12 Relevés

The gradual stirrings of concern over Lecter’s methods, from Jack in particular, continue to be offset by the general cluelessness at the activities of this arch-manipulator in the FBI’s midst.

For all the flak aimed at recent seasons of Dexter, it gets a free pass in comparison to Hannibal. You can believe that Dexter’s cunning and savvy enables him to outwit the best efforts of the police because most of them just aren’t that good at their jobs. In contrast, here we’re presented with the best-of-the-best yet their continued blinkeredness asks the viewer to accept that, whether on the criminal or behavioural psychology end, they’re borderline inept.

But individual scenes remain very good. Jack’s scene with Du Maurier (“You have to admit, he’s had some pretty strange relationships with some of his patients”) gives Crawford some much-needed credibility, but then he goes off and has another conversation with Lecter. Likewise, Du Maurier and Will have further chats with him, ensuring Lecter is kept fully up-to-date. We’re far beyond the point where there should be delicious irony to this; it’s repetitive and dramatically distancing.

That Abigail realises Lecter’s game further underlines this (and that Freddie Lounds is ahead of the FBI in identifying Abigail as the murderer of Nick). Her final scene is a good one, as he informs her of his motive for warning her father (“I was curious what would happen”), but by this point Fuller has stuffed the plot with far too much unlikely obfuscation to enable Lecter to remain undetected.

Most problematic is the treatment of Will Graham. By this point he’s been turned into a near-zombie, with Jack belligerently disinterested in his theories. Maybe I’m too close to the source material, but I just don’t buy that he’d be seriously considered as a potential serial killer. There’s a sense of the writers labouring the idea, trying to push and shove it to make it fit, with the continuing convenient loses of time and Will’s colleagues’ inability to ensure he receives medical attention. The idea that he gets so close to his subjects that it might permanently scar him is the whole premise of Red Dragon, but I can’t believe Crawford, or Bloom or anyone else, would seriously swallow him going to that place (of which more in the following episode). It’s the stuff of half-baked filler episodes (you know the type, an X-Fileswhere Mulder is accused of murder).

The scene where the forensics guys correct Crawford on the definition of a theory (“more of a hypothesis”) is fun, and there’s a cute reference to Silence of the Lambs’ Multiple Miggs when we’re told a patient swallowed his own tongue while attacking Du Maurier. But, for all the attractiveness of the trappings (cinematography, art direction, score), the series has become borderline risible.


1.13 Savoureux

And so, the finale. It was sadly inevitable that they wouldn’t finish the first run with Hannibal under lock and key, but arresting him is the only thing that could have salvaged the season from charges of desperate attention-grabbing tactics. This is the most barefaced example of Fuller’s choices serving the need to sustain an over-extended premise rather than the integrity of the characters.

If Lecter had maintained a low-key presence, rather than intruding on nearly every major development, it would be a different matter. But we finish the season with Jack shooting Will, who has realised that Lecter is the bad guy (“You had no traceable motive, which is why you were so hard to see”). Finally, he’s got there. But this has none of the eeriness of Will’s discovery as described in Red Dragon; obviously, as Fuller already used that up in Entrée. None of this fits into the mythology of the character (or characters, including Crawford). Worse still, Fuller really seems to think it’s a clever reversal to have the final scene show Will incarcerated and Lecter visiting him. Presumably he awoke from a caffeine stupor and seized on it as a genius twist. But it’s the kind of low-rent inspiration that should have been dismissed out of hand.

There’s a vague hope that Bloom might latch onto Lecter’s behaviour when Will tells her about the clock drawings. But no, Lecter has a fake ready and she buys the lie. Everyone is far too willing to believe that the planted evidence of fly-fishing feathers (made up of trophies from the copycat victims) prove it was Will.

The only really worthy aspect of the finale is the discovery that Du Maurier is more than she seems, as she has obviously worked out what Lecter is up to (“You have to be careful, Hannibal. They’re starting to see your pattern”), and it is not something that he has forseen.

One wonders how they’re going to get round Will knowing Lecter’s identity next season. Well, a bit. Currently, I’m not sure I’m that interested. Any option seems like a bad one. Now he is cured of encephalitis they could give him miraculously convenient amnesia. Or they could have him trying to convince the increasingly moronic Crawford and Bloom of Hannibal’s culpability for half a season.


Season Overall:


Maybe if Fuller was working with half the number of episodes, and on a much slower burning procedural template, the whole season might have been as satisfying as the couple of standout episodes. But it just doesn’t work for me conceptually.

Turning Graham into a hallucinating, gibbering man-wreck undermines him completely. Locking him up makes Will, the FBI and his other professional colleagues look incompetent. The other issue is the sheer amount of repetition. Every other scene has someone visiting Lecter and pouring out all the information he needs. It’s all so contrived that eventually it becomes ridiculous and, no matter how well scripted or acted individual scenes may be, not a little tiresome.

Hugh Dancy gives it his all as Graham, but he spends half the season out of his mind. Mikklesen’s reserved performance is an interesting take on Hannibal, but the character is diminished by over-exposure. The performances and production values are never less than top notch, but they’ll have to do something really clever with the storytelling to tempt me back for the second run. 

Popular posts from this blog

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

Other monks will meet their deaths here. And they too will have blackened fingers. And blackened tongues.

The Name of the Rose (1986) (SPOILERS) Umberto Eco wasn’t awfully impressed by Jean Jacques-Annaud’s adaptation of his novel – or “ palimpsest of Umberto Eco’s novel ” as the opening titles announce – to the extent that he nixed further movie versions of his work. Later, he amended that view, calling it “ a nice movie ”. He also, for balance, labelled The Name of the Rose his worst novel – “ I hate this book and I hope you hate it too ”. Essentially, he was begrudging its renown at the expense of his later “ superior ” novels. I didn’t hate the novel, although I do prefer the movie, probably because I saw it first and it was everything I wanted from a medieval Sherlock Holmes movie set in a monastery and devoted to forbidden books, knowledge and opinions.

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013) (SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight ; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.

In a few moments, you will have an experience that will seem completely real. It will be the result of your subconscious fears transformed into your conscious awareness.

Brainstorm (1983) (SPOILERS) Might Brainstorm have been the next big thing – a ground-breaking, game-changing cinematic spectacle that had as far reaching consequences as Star Wars (special effects) or Avatar (3D) – if only Douglas Trumbull had been allowed to persevere with his patented “Showscan” process (70mm film photographed and projected at 60 frames per second)? I suspect not; one only has to look at the not-so-far-removed experiment of Ang Lee with Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk , and how that went down like a bag of cold sick, to doubt that any innovation will necessarily catch on (although Trumbull at least had a narrative hinge on which to turn his “more real than real” imagery, whereas Lee’s pretty much boiled down to “because it was there”). Brainstorm ’s story is, though, like its title, possibly too cerebral, too much concerned with the consciousness and touting too little of the cloyingly affirmative that Bruce Rubin inevitably brings to his screenplays. T

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989) (SPOILERS) There’s Jaws , there’s Star Wars , and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws ’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy , to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “ more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie ”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “ mainly boring ”. Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the