Hannibal (2001)

2 out of 4

Starring: Anthony Hopkins, Julianne Moore, Ray Liotta, Gary Oldman, Giancarlo Giannini, Frankie Faison, Zeljko Ivanek

Director: Ridley Scott

Time: 131 mins

I read Thomas Harris' Red Dragon and The Silence Of The Lambs (the two previous Hannibal novels) a long time before the film version of Silence became a box office hit, a multiple Academy Award-winner, and turned Hannibal the "Cannibal" into a household name. While I thought they were good, but not great, novels, I must admit The Silence Of The Lambs as directed by Jonathan Demme was a very good adaptation, with very little difference from the book itself. Of course, Anthony Hopkins' Oscar-winning portrayal of the crazy Dr Lecter elevated the film above the many grisly serial killer movies that followed in its wake. Red Dragon was also made into a film called Manhunter (1986) by Michael Mann (Heat), which by itself wasn't too bad but was seen by few people. With Hannibal, author Harris has thrust the chillingly charismatic Lecter into the spotlight. I haven't read the book, but it seems to veer away from the style of the first two books in terms of characters and focus. In this way, it seems Hannibal was written (and the film made) more out of obligation due to previous success than anything else. As a consequence, the film (and, I presume, the book) suffers from sequel-itis, with gratuitous gore galore and not enough thrills to sustain the story length. At times, the film seems very long, even though it finally clocks in at only a little over two hours. Gore (and shock) lovers may find Hannibal enjoyable, but though competently acted and directed, it's not in the same league as its immediate predecessor.

Where it differs to the first two novels is that they each introduced an FBI agent (Will Graham in Red Dragon, Clarice Starling in Silence), who was called upon to investigate a series of gruesome killings with the mental guidance of Dr Lecter, a famous but extremely dangerous serial killer who is in a maximum security prison. While Lecter was a fairly minor character in Red Dragon, he began to assume more prominence in Silence, so much so that this third instalment is not about an FBI agent searching for a serial killer with the help of Lecter any more. This time, it's Lecter (Hopkins, reprising his role) who's being hunted, not only by Clarice Starling (Julianne Moore, replacing Jodie Foster), but by Mason Verger (Gary Oldman), a former victim of the doctor. Others in on the pursuit include Pazzi (Giancarlo Giannini), a greedy Italian policeman, and Paul Krendler (Ray Liotta), another FBI heavy who always seems to be working against Clarice.

The story stakes place roughly a decade after The Silence Of The Lambs. Following his brilliantly engineered escape from prison, Dr Hannibal the "Cannibal" is now lying low and living in Italy. Circumstances, and a vengeful former victim, force him to come back into "public" life. Many people, including former Q&A partner Clarice, are after him, and he must use all his ingenuity to keep one step ahead of them.

Much has been made of the gory aspects of the film, and in particular one "dinner" scene near the end. While there certainly have been gorier films, I'm pretty certain this dinner scene will have the majority of viewers eliciting shrieks, laughter, or groans of disgust. I'm not sure why Harris felt the need to include such a controversial scene, except to possibly have a show-stopping climax just for the sake of it. That and a couple of other scenes aside, the film is relatively tame.

(Incidentally, the film has been at the centre of a ratings furore here in Australia, with one prominent newspaper reviewer walking out during a media screening before the film had finished due to the excessive gore and violence. There have been complaints that the MA15+ rating (no children under 15 allowed unless accompanied by an adult) assigned here by the ratings board was too lenient. While that may be partly true, I feel that the MA15+ rating is not completely unfair. After all, there's probably more violence in an Arnold Schwarzenegger film, though obviously Arnie films are often more cartoonish than something like Hannibal. Besides, the ratings description says that no one under the age of 15 is to be allowed unless accompanied by an adult. Is it the fault of the ratings board if parents allow their children in with them? Sure, resourceful children may find some complying adult friend who will help them in, but who's to say they wouldn't have done something similarly sneaky for an R-rated film? I'm not for violence or anything like that, but given what's in Hannibal, I don't know if it warrants such a controversy. Of course, something like this just makes more people want to see it.)

The best, though longest, part of the film is the sequence set in Italy. Here, amidst the chaos of daily life, and the beauty of the piazzas, squares, and architecture, we see Lecter being hunted and then becoming the hunter. One bone to pick, however, especially for such a major modern film, is that in an Italian police office, a conversation between two Italians is conducted...in English? I don't know the internal work practices of the Italian police, but I presume conversations are not held in English. Yes, I know, it's a hassle to add subtitles, and many older films had, for example, Russians speaking in English, etc., but for a work with such high production values, I'm sure it shouldn't have been a stretch to have included spoken Italian with English subtitles for the relevant scenes, right?

Another fault I perceived from my viewing is that Hannibal Lecter is now turned into more of a sympathetic character for most of the film. The strength of Lecter's persona is that he is so cold, cunning and dangerous. Yet here he is, developed to evoke an ounce of our sympathy. While towards the end he has returned to his evil ways, even Clarice Starling felt the need to lend a helping hand when the doctor needed it. The Hannibal Lecter from the earlier novels is an utterly insane and irredeemable character who is charismatic enough to command our attention; I don't think there's any further need to put us on his side.

The Silence Of The Lambs was the third film in history to win all five major Academy Awards (Picture, Director, Actor, Actress, Screenplay), following It Happened One Night (1934) and One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest (1975). While many felt it didn't deserve Best Picture, with the likes of the brilliant Beauty And The Beast from Disney also nominated that year, it can't be denied that the film was a chillingly effective adaptation of the book. What also can't be denied, however, was the brilliant performance of Anthony Hopkins as Hannibal Lecter. His slow, sibilant, almost whisper-like voice was mesmerising and terrifying at the same time. In Hannibal, this voice seems to be lost. Hopkins still conveys the madness, the charm, and the genius, but the story's attempt to make him more vulnerable and sympathetic makes him less, shall we say, awesome to behold. The way he escaped in Silence was spectacular and mind-blowing; in Hannibal, his touches of intelligence seem almost magical and less believable in a way - he seems to know things too easily. His attraction towards Clarice Starling is still present, and forms a nice platform for some of his later actions.

Julianne Moore is fine as the obsessed FBI agent who has been forever touched by Lecter's mad genius. I won't say she's as good as Jodie Foster was - in particular, the strong southern accent that Clarice had in Silence seems to have all but disappeared - but in my mind she's pretty brave to step into Foster's Oscar-winning shoes, and that definitely deserves kudos. Giancarlo Giannini is also good as the Italian cop who discovers Lecter and then becomes consumed by the thought of a reward for helping to capture him. Ray Liotta, who was so prominent in the great Goodfellas (1990), seems to have experienced a career downturn during the 90s. Here he is more annoying than anything else, though he does play a major part in the film's final scenes. Chameleon-like Gary Oldman is unrecognisable as the permanently scarred Masen Verger, courtesy of some excellent make-up (you wouldn't even know he was in the film until a stray photo is shown). The other supporting cast members are not as interesting, except perhaps for Zeljko Ivanek as Masen's doctor, Cordell Doemling. In particular, Scott Glenn's Jack Crawford (the boss of Clarice in Silence) is sorely missed.

Director Ridley Scott is on a roll, with last year's mega-epic Gladiator being a box office and general critical success (as well as Academy Award favourite) and now Hannibal's incredible opening weekend take in North America just a week ago. It's not hard to understand why Hannibal drew such huge numbers, given its built-in audience base from The Silence Of The Lambs, the momentum from a best-selling novel, and the promise of more graphic carnage, not to mention the allure of Dr Lecter himself. On closer examination, however, the film (and, presumably, the book) lacks the character development and pure menace that was in The Silence Of The Lambs, and seems to be just an excuse to parade a couple of scenes of excessive gore. There isn't the same suspense, and the film is overlong by twenty minutes. Go see it if you're intrigued by what you've heard so far and have strong stomachs, but be warned: you might find yourself looking at your watch more than once.

(c) Joe Wong (17 February 2001)