Hannibal Lecter: From Supporting Character To....Romantic Hero?
Timothy Sexton
February 12, 2007
Absolutely nobody predicted at the time that Hannibal Lecter was destined to become a tragic figure when he initially stepped onto the cultural landscape in Thomas Harris' novel Red Dragon. Even after achieving widespread exposure through his translation into a film character, few could have guessed this psychopathic cannibal would soon not only sear his presence into the collective consciousness of the world, but eventually stake a claim as some kind of tragic villain. Hannibal Lecter began life as a minor character in one of the earliest examples of what quickly became a subgenre unto itself: the serial killer thriller. Although Silence of the Lambs was a bestseller as a novel, however, Hannibal Lecter would have to wait until his second film appearance to truly become a timeless villain.
Hannibal Lecter achieved iconic villain status due primarily to Anthony Hopkins' performance in The Silence of the Lambs, but he had actually made his movie debut several years earlier in the first movie version of Thomas Harris' novel Red Dragon. That film, retitled Manhunter, was a modest hit, but the character failed to ignite the interest of audiences. Several reasons present themselves as to why the character almost instantly became a cultural touchstone in his second appearance instead of his first. The first reason, of course, is that he was a much more minor character, although it must be remembered that despite Anthony Hopkins winning an Oscar in the leading role category, Lecter was also little more than a supporting character in Silence of the Lambs. The second reason may have much more to do with why Lecter needed a second chance to rise into the stratosphere of classic villains. As portrayed by Brian Cox, Hannibal Lecter was a much less stylized character, much more realistic and, it must be admitted, much less terrifying as well. Anthony Hopkins' performance serves to create a more expressionistic villainy. Although both Brian Cox and Anthony Hopkins interpret Hannibal Lecter with very little departure from his literary incarnation, there is nonetheless a significant difference between the two films in regard to the effect he has upon the audience.
Typically, this difference is attributed to Anthony Hopkins' performance; after all, he did receive an Academy Award. But a closer examination of the film reveals that the real power behind Hannibal Lecter's dominant force of personality in this film as opposed to the earlier one is really located in direction. Even before Lecter speaks-or even moves-director Jonathan Demme succeeds through an absolutely brilliantly calculated mise-en-scene to convey to the audience in an instant that what they are witnessing is the introduction of an iconic fictional character. This Hannibal Lecter is not just the brilliant but homicidal psychologist he was in Manhunter or the novels, this guy is Dracula for the next millennium. It is probably not coincidental that Harris' sequel to Silence of the Lambs contains a Hannibal Lecter that builds upon this iconic interpretation of his creation rather building upon the less archetypal character he originated.
The evolution of Hannibal Lecter from a relatively uncharismatic cameo to profoundly admired antihero didn't take nearly as long as Dracula's evolution, however. Hannibal Lecter's roles in both Red Dragon and Silence of the Lambs are as background characters; in neither is he supposed to be the villain of the story. He is, in fact, serving his vocational role as a clinical psychologist, assisting FBI agents in their pursuit of the actual villainous killers of the stories. As such, he is distanced from having to be particularly attractive or charismatic. Because his appearance is mostly in the background and he doesn't need to carry the storyline, the author could afford to paint him in bold strokes, making him a scary personality. However, once the film version of Silence of Lambs came out, Thomas Harris no longer had that luxury. The film version had successful turned Hannibal Lecter into a figure of charm, as well as a leading character. As a result, the third novel in which he appeared, Hannibal, is the first in which he is not merely a supporting player in another killer's plotline.
Indeed, the Hannibal Lecter who is at the center of the novel that bears his name is far from the unpleasant cannibal he was in the first two novels. By his third appearance, Lecter has actually become, by turns, a leading man, a sex symbol, and even a victim. And even if one may have trouble accepting that he is any of those things, few would have an easy time describing him as anything other than sympathetic. The move from eerie, creepy psychopath to sympathetic antihero comes as a result of the author having to invest him with more depth. No longer could Thomas Harris depend on the fact that Hannibal Lecter's appearances would be few to drive interest in him. By casting him to the forefront Thomas Harris was faced with the decision to either deepen his characterization or gamble with allowing a two-dimensional character to be the focus of his story.
The best and easiest way to flesh out a two-dimensional flat character into a fuller, rounder human being, of course, is to provide him with psychological background; to give him a history that at least gives a few clues to why he acts the way he does. And the best way to turn a creepy character into a sympathetic character is make him a victim. This is exactly what Thomas Harris accomplishes in Hannibal by making Hannibal Lecter the object of evil in the form of being at the center of a grisly revenge plot by Mason Vergare. Despite the fact that Vergare was himself a victim of Lecter, the extent to which he goes to extract his revenge succeeds in turning Hannibal the Cannibal into Hannibal the Cuddly. Well, almost.
Vergare's relentless vengeance in Hannibal stems from the fact that Lecter is responsible for Vergare's destroying his own face. His revenge plot involves feeling Hannibal Lecter to pigs. Vergare is such a distinctly unpleasant character both physically and psychically-especially when compared to the aristocratic and urbane Hannibal Lecter-that it would probably take a very special kind of reader to not find himself pulling for Lecter to extricate himself from the situation and turn the tables on Vergare. If Hannibal Lecter is not actually transformed into Hannibal the Cuddly midway through the third book, he is at least turned into a character whose evil is more understandable than Vergare. After all, like nearly every real life serial killer claims when caught, Hannibal Lecter has a very good excuse for his crimes: he had a traumatic childhood.
In Silence of the Lambs Hannibal Lecter develops a unique and somewhat unexplained relationship with the FBI agent Clarice Starling; his scenes with Clarice come across as part shrink session, part educational lecture and part seduction. In Hannibal, it is revealed that Hannibal Lecter was orphaned early in childhood like Clarice Starling, and that both have been dealing with a traumatic experience. In his case, it was watching while his sister was cannibalized by criminals. Just as those who have been abused as children often grow up to become child abusers, Hannibal's psychological reaction to this horrifying spectacle was to project himself into the role of evil while-in the case of his relationship with Clarice-also attempting to symbolically save his sister.
Hannibal Lecter's fascination with Clarice Starling in Silence of the Lambs served to make him somewhat less evil than he might otherwise have been while still being enough to make him capable of rising to the level of antihero; there was nothing heroic at all about Lecter until the release of Hannibal transformed him into a sympathetic antihero. That might be acceptable if the psychology of Hannibal turning Clarice Starling into a symbolic sister whom he must save from himself had been the extent of the length to which Thomas Harris went in Hannibal, but he did not stop there; he turned the relationship into symbolic incest by having Hannibal Lecter and Clarice Starling develop into a romantic couple. Thomas Harris has come precariously close to turning Hannibal Lecter into not just an antihero but a bona fide hero. The release of the latest installment of in this saga, Hannibal Rising, promises to deepen the creepy charisma by fleshing out even more the horrific details of the formative years of Hannibal and his sister. I have not read this as of this writing, and just in case you weren't aware of it, the novel's release will be quickly followed by the film, which is already in the can and waiting for release. A real-life villain may be charming, but when his crimes are exposed he is rarely admirable. That Hannibal Lecter shares a place of honor at the top of a list of best villains with Darth Vader is indicative of the kind of villain he really is, which is villain so distanced from reality that he presents no real threat and can therefore be ever more attractive.
Hannibal Lecter achieved iconic villain status due primarily to Anthony Hopkins' performance in The Silence of the Lambs, but he had actually made his movie debut several years earlier in the first movie version of Thomas Harris' novel Red Dragon. That film, retitled Manhunter, was a modest hit, but the character failed to ignite the interest of audiences. Several reasons present themselves as to why the character almost instantly became a cultural touchstone in his second appearance instead of his first. The first reason, of course, is that he was a much more minor character, although it must be remembered that despite Anthony Hopkins winning an Oscar in the leading role category, Lecter was also little more than a supporting character in Silence of the Lambs. The second reason may have much more to do with why Lecter needed a second chance to rise into the stratosphere of classic villains. As portrayed by Brian Cox, Hannibal Lecter was a much less stylized character, much more realistic and, it must be admitted, much less terrifying as well. Anthony Hopkins' performance serves to create a more expressionistic villainy. Although both Brian Cox and Anthony Hopkins interpret Hannibal Lecter with very little departure from his literary incarnation, there is nonetheless a significant difference between the two films in regard to the effect he has upon the audience.
Typically, this difference is attributed to Anthony Hopkins' performance; after all, he did receive an Academy Award. But a closer examination of the film reveals that the real power behind Hannibal Lecter's dominant force of personality in this film as opposed to the earlier one is really located in direction. Even before Lecter speaks-or even moves-director Jonathan Demme succeeds through an absolutely brilliantly calculated mise-en-scene to convey to the audience in an instant that what they are witnessing is the introduction of an iconic fictional character. This Hannibal Lecter is not just the brilliant but homicidal psychologist he was in Manhunter or the novels, this guy is Dracula for the next millennium. It is probably not coincidental that Harris' sequel to Silence of the Lambs contains a Hannibal Lecter that builds upon this iconic interpretation of his creation rather building upon the less archetypal character he originated.
The evolution of Hannibal Lecter from a relatively uncharismatic cameo to profoundly admired antihero didn't take nearly as long as Dracula's evolution, however. Hannibal Lecter's roles in both Red Dragon and Silence of the Lambs are as background characters; in neither is he supposed to be the villain of the story. He is, in fact, serving his vocational role as a clinical psychologist, assisting FBI agents in their pursuit of the actual villainous killers of the stories. As such, he is distanced from having to be particularly attractive or charismatic. Because his appearance is mostly in the background and he doesn't need to carry the storyline, the author could afford to paint him in bold strokes, making him a scary personality. However, once the film version of Silence of Lambs came out, Thomas Harris no longer had that luxury. The film version had successful turned Hannibal Lecter into a figure of charm, as well as a leading character. As a result, the third novel in which he appeared, Hannibal, is the first in which he is not merely a supporting player in another killer's plotline.
Indeed, the Hannibal Lecter who is at the center of the novel that bears his name is far from the unpleasant cannibal he was in the first two novels. By his third appearance, Lecter has actually become, by turns, a leading man, a sex symbol, and even a victim. And even if one may have trouble accepting that he is any of those things, few would have an easy time describing him as anything other than sympathetic. The move from eerie, creepy psychopath to sympathetic antihero comes as a result of the author having to invest him with more depth. No longer could Thomas Harris depend on the fact that Hannibal Lecter's appearances would be few to drive interest in him. By casting him to the forefront Thomas Harris was faced with the decision to either deepen his characterization or gamble with allowing a two-dimensional character to be the focus of his story.
The best and easiest way to flesh out a two-dimensional flat character into a fuller, rounder human being, of course, is to provide him with psychological background; to give him a history that at least gives a few clues to why he acts the way he does. And the best way to turn a creepy character into a sympathetic character is make him a victim. This is exactly what Thomas Harris accomplishes in Hannibal by making Hannibal Lecter the object of evil in the form of being at the center of a grisly revenge plot by Mason Vergare. Despite the fact that Vergare was himself a victim of Lecter, the extent to which he goes to extract his revenge succeeds in turning Hannibal the Cannibal into Hannibal the Cuddly. Well, almost.
Vergare's relentless vengeance in Hannibal stems from the fact that Lecter is responsible for Vergare's destroying his own face. His revenge plot involves feeling Hannibal Lecter to pigs. Vergare is such a distinctly unpleasant character both physically and psychically-especially when compared to the aristocratic and urbane Hannibal Lecter-that it would probably take a very special kind of reader to not find himself pulling for Lecter to extricate himself from the situation and turn the tables on Vergare. If Hannibal Lecter is not actually transformed into Hannibal the Cuddly midway through the third book, he is at least turned into a character whose evil is more understandable than Vergare. After all, like nearly every real life serial killer claims when caught, Hannibal Lecter has a very good excuse for his crimes: he had a traumatic childhood.
In Silence of the Lambs Hannibal Lecter develops a unique and somewhat unexplained relationship with the FBI agent Clarice Starling; his scenes with Clarice come across as part shrink session, part educational lecture and part seduction. In Hannibal, it is revealed that Hannibal Lecter was orphaned early in childhood like Clarice Starling, and that both have been dealing with a traumatic experience. In his case, it was watching while his sister was cannibalized by criminals. Just as those who have been abused as children often grow up to become child abusers, Hannibal's psychological reaction to this horrifying spectacle was to project himself into the role of evil while-in the case of his relationship with Clarice-also attempting to symbolically save his sister.
Hannibal Lecter's fascination with Clarice Starling in Silence of the Lambs served to make him somewhat less evil than he might otherwise have been while still being enough to make him capable of rising to the level of antihero; there was nothing heroic at all about Lecter until the release of Hannibal transformed him into a sympathetic antihero. That might be acceptable if the psychology of Hannibal turning Clarice Starling into a symbolic sister whom he must save from himself had been the extent of the length to which Thomas Harris went in Hannibal, but he did not stop there; he turned the relationship into symbolic incest by having Hannibal Lecter and Clarice Starling develop into a romantic couple. Thomas Harris has come precariously close to turning Hannibal Lecter into not just an antihero but a bona fide hero. The release of the latest installment of in this saga, Hannibal Rising, promises to deepen the creepy charisma by fleshing out even more the horrific details of the formative years of Hannibal and his sister. I have not read this as of this writing, and just in case you weren't aware of it, the novel's release will be quickly followed by the film, which is already in the can and waiting for release. A real-life villain may be charming, but when his crimes are exposed he is rarely admirable. That Hannibal Lecter shares a place of honor at the top of a list of best villains with Darth Vader is indicative of the kind of villain he really is, which is villain so distanced from reality that he presents no real threat and can therefore be ever more attractive.
Print
Email
