He brings class and contained violence at the same time, to this wonderfully sketched character of Hannibal Lecter. Must be pretty obvious, but I hated Merchant & Ivory and all of England when I saw him in "Howard's End" and "Remains of the day". But sequential processing is hardwired to the very genetics of Indian junta, so let me not jump randomly at topics.
"Silence of the Lambs" is a great book, so is "Red Dragon" and "Hannibal". Thomas Harris is one very twisted yet brilliant man, to have come up with these three gems. Alas, he sold them off to Hollywood and they filtered out the very soul of the books.
"Silence..." by its very name is essentially the story of Clarice Starling. The psycho who kills women in a seemingly random manner and the kidnapped daughter of the senator .etc. are just circumstances added to the main thread. Its all about Clarice and her inner demons, loss of her father and her distinct sensory memory of the lambs in the night at her aunt's house.
About her finding an understanding soul in a convicted, vicious, cannibalistic, brilliant psychologist. Of course she's drawn to him. But why is he also drawn to her, when he openly states his disdain for her 'white trash' background?
"Hannibal" provides those answers. Details of who Dr.Lecter essentially is, his background story, the loss of his sister, his witnessnessing the soldiers' cannibalism and the understatement of the kind of trauma that would make a clever brooding boy into "Hannibal the Cannibal" .etc. are found aplenty in this last installment of the trilogy.
Indirectly, we also get the implication that Hannibal sees something of the sister he lost in Starling and hence the extreme feelings with regard to her seem to wash over him. He himself is never ever sure if he wants to love her, kill her, save her or eat her.
But it ends with the finale so open to interpretation that its very exciting.
Hannibal and clarice sitting in a tree...
The movie version of "Silence of the lambs" was good. Very good.
"Hannibal" seems like a partial rendering. Ok, so the man is creepy and souless, he is also pulled towards this dame who's getting the worst of the FBI's inner politics. Why no scenes for "Just why is that?" Also "Hannibal" is showing off Mason's loss of face, quite literally, than is required by the script-just to increase the gore value. And the botched ending where the heroine emerges unscathed and away from the anti-hero who is flying away, minus a hand - absolutely opposite to the harmonious ending of Mr.Thomas Harris [why are u not suing?]
Ray Liotta, still rocks :). Julianne Moore is no Jodie Foster.
But Anthony Hopkins...is another matter altogether. This guy is old. Very very ancient. Yet, when he kills, moves swiftly and is physically dangerous- You believe it.
He also turns on the charm, so very well. There is simply no dimension to this complex and difficult character that Mr.Hopkins missed in his portrayal.
So full points to Thomas Harris and ANthony Hopkins, Boo to the rest.
Read the novel, Dont watch the movie.
Rain
1 comment:
I have to side with Aarthi. I think you took a turn some three posts back. And you definitely sounded more interesting and more "real" then. And, don't really bother about "illustrating" your posts. Like for any nice original blog, content is king. Not that the pictures are not in good taste or anything; just that they're don't-care distractions, like a really good song bang in the middle of a maniratnam movie. But, as you would say, it's finally your choice.
Yes, I saw your comment, but couldn't think of anything to say :) (except "How was the trek?").
Post a Comment