Skip to main content

Is your social worker in that horse?

Hannibal 

Season 2


(SPOILERS) I think I've had it with Hannibal. I struggled to get through this run. They've done the character of Will Graham a huge disservice in overtly playing up the novel's "We're the same". And then there’s Hugh Dancy's twitchy, nervy performance as Graham. Initially a breath of fresh air, it has become an irritation. The end of the first season had me vacillating over whether to continue. Imprisoning Graham in the regalia of Dr Lecter was the kind of cheap shot you could tell the makers thought was daring and “mind-blowing” but was brought the fledgling series dangerously close to jumping the shark.


The problems of performance don’t just extend to Dancy. Mads Mikkelsen is so one note, the title character has become wholly disinteresting. It's not the actor’s fault. Hannibal, like all great monsters, should be used sparingly; not served up to the point of bloat in copious, tedious sessions of analysis and and preparations of human remains for lovingly shot dinner parties. Worst of all, the Bryan Fuller’s overarching plot doesn't make Hannibal seem smart, so it has the consequence of making everyone else look like complete idiots. I found it impossible to suspend disbelief through this season because the scenario is consistently so silly. It begs ridicule.


That said, the last couple of episodes of the season are at least engaging, managing to pull the storytelling away from its festering cyclic soirees. Particularly arresting are the grotesquerie of Mason Verger's fate and Michael Pitt's performance; somewhere between Jack Nicholson's and Heath Ledger's Jokers. Raul Esparza as Dr Chilton is consistently good value too, one of the few players who manages to eclipse a (still good) big screen version, although he unceremoniously disappears two-thirds of the way through proceedings.


Honestly, I’m mystified by the raves this series is getting. Sure, it’s luxuriantly shot, but it’s masquerade as artfully decadent and intellectually stimulating fare palls so quickly; all it ends up having going for it is art direction and an over-burden prosthetics/latex department.


The conceit on which the first series concluded, the aforementioned not- so-clever flip of having Will incarcerated, was the point where the series finally devolved into self-referential geek gorging on any piece of Harris-lore available. This was okay when it was the stray line here or there, but the rejigging of classic moments and characters ends up becoming hugely annoying rather than the sign of a sure creative signature.


This all comes back to what I see as a fundamental betrayal of the character of Will Graham. In their overwrought attempts to maintain a (wholly, tiresomely repetitive) dialogue between Graham and Lecter the makers have reduced the character to a reactive plaything, who only exists in the reflection of Lecter himself. Unfortunately Dancy wears Graham’s every wince and grimace all over his semi-bearded face.  Unlike the William Peterson Graham, who looks like your classic hero but is allowed space and unknown depths between the verbiage. 


Mann’s Manhunter looks more and more like the only version that understood how to treat these characters. They are so ripe for over-enthusiastic melodramatics (or atmospherics) that reining it in is the only way to foster verisimilitude. Wallowing in the depraved elegance of Lecter is tiresome. Somehow this series mustered ratings sufficient for a third commission. When the series began, I was looking forward to seeing how Fuller adapted Red Dragon (Season Four, if it gets there, I believe), but by this point I just know it will piss me off.



2.1 Last season I was at least sufficiently intrigued to review each episode. I’m only going to briefly comment on them this time, as I found so much of it borderline tiresome. Even when there was an occasionally arresting twist or turn. Kaiseki (***) is a passable opener, with a nicely executed teaser for the finale as Jack Crawford engages in a no-holds barred slow motion fight with the badass Doctor. Gillian Anderson is the best thing in this series, all smooth control and low-key poise, but Will in prison is so silly, the series simply never recovers. It can’t just snap that back that shark again to the point before he was locked up.


2.2 Tim Hunter, as with the first episode, shoots Sakizuke (***1/2) with appropriate gothic sheen. But the latest serial killer, as revealed by the sub (if that’s possible) Human Centipede collage, has reached the point of empty attempts to out-gross the last one. Still, this has its moments; Lecter showing up at the killer’s silo (“Hello. I love you work”), Will sussing out what’s wrong with the array (“You are not my design”), Du Maurier visiting Will’s (“I believe you”). But then there’s the stealing of Lecter’s Red Dragon line about God killing and extending it ad nauseam throughout the season.


2.3 Hassun (***) has in its favour a trial, always good dramatic meat, and the excesses of the murder of the bailiff and the judge are diverting, but such excesses ensure it reeks of pissing on any chance of a coherent universe. Obviously, this series exists in a hermetic world at the best of times, but the inundation of crazily excessive murders creates a mundanity and not in a banality of evil way.


2.4 Takiawase (***) More decorative corpses, this time involving beehives. This looks to break out of the general Lecter veneration when Katz listens to Will and goes to investigate Lecter. So that’s it for her. There’s also a nice moment when Lecter saves Mrs Crawford (another dull character, a forlorn attempt to eke out some pathos and feeling in the series; it’s too damn predictable and cynical to do that) based on the toss of a coin. Amanda Plummer plays a nutter, which is unusual for her.


2.5 Mukozuke (***) On the one hand, this has some dramatically strong material. The orderly who worships Will and would have bested Lecter if not for Graham’s intervention, is an effective plotline. But the continued stupidity of all around to Lecter’s activities is as unswallowable as that ear that end up in Will’s stomach. In a series like Dexter (at least at first) enough care was taken with concealment to buy into the essentially absurdity. Here, I’m sure we’re supposed to think “Ohhh! Isn’t he clever?” about Hannibal. But the continued activities of the Chesapeake Ripper, the refusal to listen to Will and the seeming stasis of the plot in deferring any forward movement make this episode dissatisfying overall. Also, it pushes Will into the mode of a man willing to go outside the law. Will’s entire ethos is based on knowing the difference between right and wrong. That’s his speech regarding the Tooth Fairy’s upbringing a nutshell. It isn’t intriguing to make him murkier than he is already, it’s a slap in the face followed by a kneecapping. He becomes weak and insubstantial. A puppet. Nice to see Eddie Izzard back, though.


2.6 Futamono (**) Just why? So Lecter’s now a hit with the ladies, including Doctor Bloom who we now realise is an absolute moron. She must inherit the “silly woman” role, the one who falls for Lecter’s “charms”. And so she provides the old alibi gag, since Jack is (finally!) on to Lecter even though he’s also a complete moron compared to any of his previous incarnations. So much so that he continues to dine round at Lecter’s place, this time on Eddie’s leg.


2.7 Yakimono ( *1/2) God, this is bad. My Girl is back, but of course she’s now totally ‘armless (well, partly) and cannot recognise Lecter. She fingers Chilton instead, and somehow manages to shoot him in the face through the interview room two-way mirror. Apart from the scene being utterly ludicrous, we’re supposed to believe that anyone would seriously suspect Chilton?


2.8 Su-zakana (*) Okay, there’s a great line in this one (“Is your social worker in that horse?”), two even (“You might want to crawl back in there”), and Jeremy Davies appears, playing a nutter, which is as unusual for him as it was for Plummer. But this is crap, from the set up of Will and Jack playing out a plan that never for a moment convinces (not because the writers haven’t put Will in a place where we think he might be capable of murder, but because if the audience can figure it out, it’s no wonder Hannibal can) to Hannibal restraining Will from killing the serial killer.


2.9 Shiizakana(**) This is the one with the guy who’s been watching Brotherhood of the Wolf on a loop and as a result designed himself a special suit. Inevitably Hannibal meets up with him, but this time because he’s an old patient. Woo-hoo. Yeah. The tedium of the appointments between Will and Hannibal would drive anyone to murder. “It’s not an animal. It’s a man who wants to be an animal”. Maybe Fuller and co are saying Will Graham was never all that smart or insightful? More Lecter on God and churches (yawn; or, “I know that line! Woo-hoo!”). Katherine Isabelle is great as Marian Verger, so that’s something.


2.10 Naka-Choko(*1/2) I don’t care if it’s to bait a serial killer; when you have your hero desecrating a corpse and making his own special exhibit from it, you’ve massacred a character. I guess I’m just not in synch with what Fuller has in mind for this show. I certainly don’t think he’s come up with a fresh or distinct take, since there have been two seasons now of the same dreary repetitions and bloody tableaus. The one great element of the last few episodes is Michael Pitt’s thoroughly unrestrained, crazy-hair and sheepskin-coated, performance as Mason Verger. It’s not enough to make this episode good, though.


2.11 Ko No Mono(**1/2) Even the “Did he kill Freddie?” plotline is tiresome, since the whole charade was set up in Episode Eight’s fishing scene. And I don’t know, for some reason I’m not affectionate or grateful to see the throwing away of the Lounds flaming corpse this way. On the other hand, Verger’s “rudeness” is a hoot, making a mess of Lecter’s office and going on about camp. This is the kind of kick in the pants the series desperatelyneeded, all that wry dreariness finally galvanised by a performer who can only get higher. As for the latest corpse sculpture (Shiva-stylee), it’s scraping the barrel.


2.12 Tome-wan(****) Probably the season’s standout, even in all its gag-making lack of glory as Mason Verger is pressed into devouring his own nose. The Will-Hannibal interplay has continued to be exhaustingly lifeless, and this “manipulation of each other” plot has failed to offer respite. However, when it comes to the action and Lecter having his way with Mason, complete with full-on crazy-ville camera work, the results are kind of irresistible. Pitt is hilarious, and disgusting.


2.13 Mizumono(**1/2) Right from the first scene, with the split-screen appeals to loyalty from Hannibal and Jack, the season finale is so heavy-handed it’s not true. Superficially engaging, in terms of which regular character will Hannibal bloody up next, it also manages to be quite asinine. Alana didn’t check her gun before she blundered up to Lecter’s door (is that because she’s a “silly woman”? I guess at least she’s in good company with all the men). And Abigail is brought back for five minutes only to really die this time? Well, that was worth it. The enigmatic coda with Hannibal and Du Maurier on a flight for France is at least interesting (albeit echoing Hannibal), but she’s a lot more so than Lecter himself. Mikkelsen’s doctor is all cold cruelty, without the panache of Hopkins or the earthy magnetism of Cox. I’m little enough interested in the fates of the FBI, who are entirely dimwitted, but there’s also no frisson when Lecter escapes. I wanted to like this series. I’ve liked Fuller’s other series. But this show, now his most successful, is a big bag of dumb in a very well-tailored suit.


Season Two Rating:



Popular posts from this blog

Abandon selective targeting. Shoot everything.

28 Weeks Later (2007) (SPOILERS) The first five minutes of 28 Weeks Later are far and away the best part of this sequel, offering in quick succession a devastating moral quandary and a waking nightmare, immortalised on the screen. After that, while significantly more polished, Juan Carlos Fresnadillo reveals his concept to be altogether inferior to Danny Boyle and Alex Garland’s, falling back on the crutches of gore, nihilism, and disengaging and limiting shifts of focus between characters in whom one has little investment in the first place.

The Bible never said anything about amphetamines.

The Color of Money (1986) (SPOILERS) I tend to think it’s evident when Scorsese isn’t truly exercised by material. He can still invest every ounce of the technical acumen at his fingertips, and the results can dazzle on that level, but you don’t really feel the filmmaker in the film. Which, for one of his pictures to truly carry a wallop, you need to do. We’ve seen quite a few in such deficit in recent years, most often teaming with Leo. The Color of Money , however, is the first where it was out-and-out evident the subject matter wasn’t Marty’s bag. He needed it, desperately, to come off, but in the manner a tradesman who wants to keep getting jobs. This sequel to The Hustler doesn’t linger in the mind, however good it may be, moment by moment.

Doctors make the worst patients.

Coma (1978) (SPOILERS) Michael Crichton’s sophomore big-screen feature, and by some distance his best. Perhaps it’s simply that this a milieu known to him, or perhaps it’s that it’s very much aligned to the there-and-now and present, but Coma , despite the occasional lapse in this adaptation of colleague Robin Cook’s novel, is an effective, creepy, resonant thriller and then some. Crichton knows his subject, and it shows – the picture is confident and verisimilitudinous in a way none of his other directorial efforts are – and his low-key – some might say clinical – approach pays dividends. You might also call it prescient, but that would be to suggest its subject matter wasn’t immediately relevant then too.

I said I had no family. I didn’t say I had an empty apartment.

The Apartment (1960) (SPOILERS) Billy Wilder’s romcom delivered the genre that rare Best Picture Oscar winner. Albeit, The Apartment amounts to a rather grim (now) PG-rated scenario, one rife with adultery, attempted suicide, prostitution of the soul and subjective thereof of the body. And yet, it’s also, finally, rather sweet, so salving the darker passages and evidencing the director’s expertly judged balancing act. Time Out ’s Tom Milne suggested the ending was a cop out (“ boy forgives girl and all’s well ”). But really, what other ending did the audience or central characters deserve?

Your desecration of reality will not go unpunished.

2021-22 Best-of, Worst-of and Everything Else Besides The movies might be the most visible example of attempts to cling onto cultural remnants as the previous societal template clatters down the drain. It takes something people really want – unlike a Bond movie where he kicks the can – to suggest the model of yesteryear, one where a billion-dollar grosser was like sneezing. You can argue Spider-Man: No Way Home is replete with agendas of one sort or another, and that’s undoubtedly the case (that’s Hollywood), but crowding out any such extraneous elements (and they often are) is simply a consummate crowd-pleaser that taps into tangible nostalgia through its multiverse take. Of course, nostalgia for a mere seven years ago, for something you didn’t like anyway, is a symptom of how fraught these times have become.

Captain, he who walks in fire will burn his feet.

The Golden Voyage of Sinbad (1973) (SPOILERS) Ray Harryhausen returns to the kind of unadulterated fantasy material that made Jason and the Argonauts such a success – swords & stop motion, if you like. In between, there were a couple of less successful efforts, HG Wells adaptation First Men in the Moon and The Valley of the Gwangi (which I considered the best thing ever as a kid: dinosaur walks into a cowboy movie). Harryhausen’s special-effects supremacy – in a for-hire capacity – had also been consummately eclipsed by Raquel Welch’s fur bikini in One Million Years B.C . The Golden Voyage of Sinbad follows the expected Dynamation template – blank-slate hero, memorable creatures, McGuffin quest – but in its considerable favour, it also boasts a villainous performance by nobody-at-the-time, on-the-cusp-of-greatness Tom Baker.

Listen to the goddamn qualified scientists!

Don’t Look Up (2021) (SPOILERS) It’s testament to Don’t Look Up ’s “quality” that critics who would normally lap up this kind of liberal-causes messaging couldn’t find it within themselves to grant it a free pass. Adam McKay has attempted to refashion himself as a satirist since jettisoning former collaborator Will Ferrell, but as a Hollywood player and an inevitably socio-politically partisan one, he simply falls in line with the most obvious, fatuous propagandising.

Archimedes would split himself with envy.

Sinbad and the Eye of the Tiger (1977) (SPOILERS) Generally, this seems to be the Ray Harryhausen Sinbad outing that gets the short straw in the appreciation stakes. Which is rather unfair. True, Sinbad and the Eye of the Tiger lacks Tom Baker and his rich brown voice personifying evil incarnate – although Margaret Whiting more than holds her own in the wickedness stakes – and the structure follows the Harryhausen template perhaps over scrupulously (Beverly Cross previously collaborated with the stop-motion auteur on Jason and the Argonauts , and would again subsequently with Clash of the Titans ). But the storytelling is swift and sprightly, and the animation itself scores, achieving a degree of interaction frequently more proficient than its more lavishly praised peer group.

You just threw a donut in the hot zone!

Den of Thieves (2018) (SPOILERS) I'd heard this was a shameless  Heat  rip-off, and the presence of Gerard Butler seemed to confirm it would be passable-at-best B-heist hokum, so maybe it was just middling expectations, even having heard how enthused certain pockets of the Internet were, but  Den of Thieves  is a surprisingly very satisfying entry in the genre. I can't even fault it for attempting to Keyser Soze the whole shebang at the last moment – add a head in a box and you have three 1995 classics in one movie – even if that particular conceit doesn’t quite come together.

You have a very angry family, sir.

Eternals (2021) (SPOILERS) It would be overstating the case to suggest Eternals is a pleasant surprise, but given the adverse harbingers surrounding it, it’s a much more serviceable – if bloated – and thematically intriguing picture than I’d expected. The signature motifs of director and honestly-not-billionaire’s-progeny Chloé Zhao are present, mostly amounting to attempts at Malick-lite gauzy natural light and naturalism at odds with the rigidly unnatural material. There’s woke to spare too, since this is something of a Kevin Feige Phase Four flagship, one that rather floundered, showcasing his designs for a nu-MCU. Nevertheless, Eternals manages to maintain interest despite some very variable performances, effects, and the usual retreat into standard tropes, come the final big showdown.