Skip to main content

Okey-dokey. Here we go.

Hannibal
(2001)

Thomas Harris resoundlingly trashed his greatest creation, and pretty much any critical respect, with Hannibal. His novels were pretty big deals even before Jonathan Demme adapted The Silence of the Lambs was, but anticipation for his next reached fever pitch in its aftermath. And he couldn’t not deal with what happened next to his cultured cannibal, now could he? The overriding impression that comes across from the novel is contempt; for Clarice Starling, for reader expectations, for the millstone that Hannibal Lecter had become. So Harris makes his audience suffer with him. The best thing Dino De Laurentis and his scriptwriters could have done was take the title and ignore the rest, but in a rare example of not changing the source material enough they managed to satisfy no one. At least some of that is probably down to the amount De Laurentis stumped up for the tome.


It’s been suggested Harris indulged in intentional sabotage; an unfilmable book to fulfil a publisher’s obligation. If that were the, case he surely wouldn’t have written of Clarice Starling, the protagonist he effectively dismantles after making such a great character in Silence, “I dreaded doing Hannibal, dreaded the personal wear and tear, dreaded the choices I would have to watch, feared for Starling. In the end I let them go, as you must let characters go… “ One might suggest he took leave of his senses as well as his creations but, since he doesn’t give interviews, it would be difficult to ascertain.


I’d read all three of his previous novels, but the disappointment of Hannibal swore me off Hannibal Rising. Certainly, until (if) he comes up with another character or story. No one is holding their breath, now he’s disappointed several times in a row. One might ask why he returned to the dried up well with Hannibal Rising but the answer appears to be Dino De Laurentis, the loud-mouthed and often not even very good producer. He takes the dubious credit for milking the franchise dry (and employing Brett Ratner to remake Red Dragon) by telling the author he’d go ahead and do an origins story himself if Harris didn’t yield.


The specimen Harris came up with after the eleven-year gap between Lecter yarns wasn’t the feast of intricate bedazzlement one might have expected. Lurid, crass, and ultimately physically and emotionally gross, it sacrificed plotting for a sagging expanse. Hannibal was devoid of real suspense, a landscape in which Lecter waltzes around and about as the now enthroned hero of the story. He slices and dices hither and thither until finally he wins Clarice for himself in the ultimate authorial betrayal (Harris was right to dread his own worst instincts for her).


Hannibal the movie wasn’t quite having that. Jodie Foster blanched at where the book took Clarice, quite understandably, and even the enticement of an altered ending couldn’t tempt her back. Not wholly surprising, since the character suffers the biggest insult to audience investment in a major motion picture since Newt and Hicks were unceremoniously dumped off screen between Aliens and Alien 3. The now supporting character is still drugged and has to sit and watch while Lecter feeds Ray Liotta’s loathsome Paul Krendler (all the characters, bar Giancarlo Giannini’s Italian police inspector, are grotesque caricatures, which rather fits Scott’s cartoon-shot-as-art film approach) his own brains. The slender difference is that Clarice, having spent the film shot, suspended, berated and abused, musters a tiny triumph when she handcuffs Hannibal to a fridge instead of waltzing off into the sunset with him as a kind-of-willing bride of Frankenstein.


De Laurentis, as vulgar as the movies he favours, couldn’t keep his mouth shut about Foster demurring either. As an audience, I see Julianne Moore and, oh, I want to go in bed with her. I see Jodie Foster – no way”. Apart from speaking for himself, mate, it was a rather childish, sour grapes way of addressing the subject. Foster was right, simply. Reliable as Moore is, no one talks about her Clarice Starling because her only relevance in the movie is the disservice the character has been done. No one’s talking about how “sexy” this Clarice is because it’s quite beside the point (unless De Laurentis really thought audiences would be titillated by the lopsided, disfigured romance).


Hannibal’s a dark movie, but not in a good way. That would be Silence, where there is light at the end of the tunnel (but more respite than salvation). Hannibal has only degradation to revel in, ironically given Hannibal’s attendance to all things artistic and pure. The writers on the picture, Steven Zaillian and David Mamet, are both quality scribes, although Zaillian’s career has been the patchier. It’s telling that not just Foster, but also Ted Tally (who did pen the second adaptation of Red Dragon, but was dismayed by Hannibal’s “excesses”) and Jonathan Demme, weren’t lining up for a second bite. De Laurentis didn’t parade disparaging remarks about either of those two, however. A fine discerner of quality, he also described Manhunter as “no good”. Of course, when he got the chance to do his preferred version, it was actually was no good.


So we come to Ridley Scott. In a way, this is a return to the sophomore ground of Alien. But only in a way. That was a case of Scott able to transcend material through sheer attention to atmosphere and detail: world building. His affinity for the same grew increasingly patchy after the failure of Legend, and the Italian producer approached Sir Ridders at the same time he had decided to up his work rate; Gladiator, this, and Black Hawk Down followed each other in quick succession. To be fair to Scott (in that, his predilection for making dodgy scripts throughout his career shows the wrong kind of consistency) he identified the problems with the ending. It’s just that semi-addressing it can’t remedy the picture’s inherently rotten structure.


Whether Mamet’s draft was a “stunningly bad” as has been suggested, Zaillian is generally credited with the not really that workable finished screenplay. Scott evidently thought so, as he’s worked from Zaillian scripts twice since. The problem is fundamental. The elegance and balance of the previous templates, where manhunts are sustained by interludes with the uber-serial killer and getting to know the not entirely unsympathetic central psycho, has been replaced by something listless and melodramatic. The “guest” monster is merely focussed on the star serial killer who disfigured him. As a consequence, Hannibal regresses to a Freddy or Jason with a bit of panache. He’s a colourful death wielder who reveals himself from the shadows and kills with a quip and comment about the décor. The result isn’t exactly boring, but neither it certainly isn’t riveting. It’s a sort-of fascinating botch up, tasteless and dismaying but with occasional flashes of what it might have been.


There are some good ideas. For example, Barney (Frankie Faison, a veteran of the first four Lecter movies) selling Lecter memorabilia manages to neatly comment not only on the cult of serial killers generally but also the following of Silence. One might charitably describe Gary Oldman’s Mason Verger as a similar take; he’s the number one fan (but we had this in Red Dragon, so it’s nothing new).


Gone is the restraint of a carefully devised antagonist Instead, Mason is beyond broad and fashioned in the most rudimentary style. Oldman was reputedly the second choice after Christopher Reeve (really, whose sicko idea was that?). Almost the first thing Clarice says to him is, we “don’t need to know about the sex offences”. This is the clumsiest of shorthand, barring him actually saying, “I’m the villain”. We see sans-prosthetics Oldman briefly in the popper/face peeling episode (“It seemed like a good idea at the time”), but it’s more effective in the TV iteration.


At least the death of Verger is much more appropriate than the silliness of the book (at the hands of his muscle-bound sister Margot) as Zeljko Ivaenk’s Dr Doemling is invited to dispose of the master who has been such a bane of his life (“Hey Kordell. Why don’t you push him in? And you can always say it was me”).


Hopkins, well he’s never less than entertaining. But years of parodies have made the returned Lecter an instantaneous caricature of himself. As a guy who likes to keep working, it’s perhaps no surprise Hopkins was up for it (and Red Dragon, within a year), but even he expressed between the lines reservations. His definition of a killer who “preferred to eat the rude” is even more of a ham landing than Silence, if that’s possible. There the scenery chewing worked to the advantage of the wholer film, a curious relief from the debasement of the main case.


Here, Hopkins is still delivered some notable moments. The encounter with the pickpocket, who comes out the worse (“I got it”) is up there with anything Scott has done. The meeting with Inspector Pazzi and his wife at the opera is a concise exercise in simmering tension. And, the reveal of the handcuffing elicits a response of almost zestful fascination at being faced with a conundrum (“Now, that’s really interesting, Clarice”).


Mostly, however, Lecter is a chance to embrace every cheap shot possible. This is a movie for those who would reject Freddy Kreuger but think Lecter is palatable. Until they see him in action, that is. Lines get a laugh (“On the related subject, I must confess, I’m giving very serious thought to eating your wife”) but it doesn’t mean they aren’t crude in a way Hannibal himself might find objectionable if he wasn’t delivering them (“What’s it to be? Bowels in or bowels out?”) The conclusion with him feeding a child brains is obvious to the point of self-parody. When it’s all only about Lecter, rather than focussing on him as motivator, the engine breaks down; concise bursts of energy no longer are brought to bear, and he becomes too much of a good thing.


By the time Hannibal has scalped Krendler (Liotta at his most gleefully unsavoury, but essaying a character so repulsive he’s ridiculous; “That smells great”) the movie has long since lost the slenderest grip on suspension of disbelief. Which means it really has become a cartoon. Yet the problem with this is, the excesses of Hannibal are never “fun”. Scott doesn’t make fun films; look at A Good Year (which I sort of, half like despite itself, but it’s evidence that a light touch is not in Ridley’s repertoire).


The Florence location shoot looks very nice, but Scott’s aesthetic has a kind of passionless sheen washed across it by this point. High shutter speeds used so distractingly so such that one wonders at a gimmick gone so spectacularly wrong. These, and blundering slow motion, wholly fail to service the story. It’s rather sad to see a director at once familiarly accomplished but also firmly derivative. The shutter speeds were a “new” discovery, and would infect further features.


The spectre of Seven also lurks over the proceedings, but with absolutely none of that picture’s unerring ability to disturb. There are the titles, (including a cheesy face of Hopkins in some pigeons) and the general aesthetic.  But this is a graceless version where you see all of the killer all of the time and there’s no investigation to speak of. Hans Zimmer’s classically infused score is unable to temper the grossness.


Even the focus on Lecter wouldn’t necessarily have killed the book or novel (Harris problem, in succumbing to the lure of Lecter, is that he couldn’t really use the same framework a third time and not be called out; the problem is also, he didn’t have anything with which to replace it) if Clarice Starling had remained intact. But she’s been systematically undermined, by her creator and the police force around her. Sure, one can argue this is a commentary on how power corrupts (Krendler; Pazzi, the sympathetic man who falls victim to the need to keep much a younger wife in finery). But it shouldn’t be at the expense of your once main character. Not if you’re going to offer her nothing in return (one is reminded of the offhand manner in which Will Graham is dismissed in Silence; while this is nothing new, it is much, much uglier here). At one point Starling is asked, “Why are you so resented Clarice?” and one might ask the same of Harris.


That isn’t the end of the matter, though. Bryan Fuller’s Hannibal betrays the character of Will Graham every bit as fundamentally as this Hannibal betrays Clarice, only this time to (mystifying) popular acclaim. Ridley Scott’s Hannibal is an immaculate production of a ghoulishly empty upset vessel. It did the trick for De Laurentis, making a heap of money. Accordingly, it added to Scott’s cachet as a suddenly bankable director again (it only took 20 years to get back there). But it also tarnished him. A director who had never made a sequel may have seen it as a challenge to fashion a silk purse from the man-eating pig of a project, but iffy material would continue to guide him from hereon out. Occasionally he would hit on something decent, but never something great. Harris’ milieu worked best when there was underlying restraint and conviction counter-balancing the more overwrought elements. Demme and Mann understood that. No one else has since.



Popular posts from this blog

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.

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.

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.

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

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…

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.

I’m just the balloon man.

Copshop (2021) (SPOILERS) A consistent problem with Joe Carnahan’s oeuvre is that, no matter how confidently his movies begin, or how strong his premise, or how adept his direction or compelling the performances he extracts, he ends up blowing it. He blows it with Copshop , a ’70s-inspired variant on Assault on Precinct 13 that is pretty damn good during the first hour, before devolving into his standard mode of sado-nihilistic mayhem.

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.

When we have been subtle, then can I kill him?

The Avengers 6.16. Legacy of Death There’s scarcely any crediting the Terry Nation of Noon-Doomsday as the same Terry Nation that wrote this, let alone the Terry Nation churning out a no-frills Dalek story a season for the latter stages of the Jon Pertwee era. Of course, Nation had started out as a comedy writer (for Hancock), and it may be that the kick Brian Clemens gave him up the pants in reaction to the quality of Noon-Doomsday loosened a whole load of gags. Admittedly, a lot of them are well worn, but they come so thick and fast in Legacy of Death , accompanied by an assuredly giddy pace from director Don Chaffey (of Ray Harryhausen’s Jason and the Argonauts ) and a fine ensemble of supporting players, that it would be churlish to complain.

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.