MovieChat Forums > The Silence of the Lambs (1991) Discussion > The Surprise of Hannibal Lecter in the C...

The Surprise of Hannibal Lecter in the Career of Anthony Hopkins

posted a year ago by roger1 (3638)
37 replies | jump to latest

(aka ecarle.)

When Silence of the Lambs came out in February of 1991 -- one of those very rare movies to get a Best Picture Oscar win opening so early in the year -- Jodie Foster was kinda/sorta a star -- recently winning the Best Actress Oscar for The Accused(1988), but Anthony Hopkins was sort of "on the fade."

Hopkins had been around a LONG time in movies. You can find him in 1968's "The Lion In Winter" at a very young age as the son of royals Peter O'Toole and Katherine Hepburn. And he worked steadily through the 70s and the 80s...just never in too starry a role.

For instance, Hopkins is one of the listed stars in the all-star "A Bridge Too Far" in 1977, but when the OTHER stars include Robert Redford, Sean Connery, Michael Caine, Gene Hackman, Elliott Gould, James Caan, and Laurence Frickin' Olivier...Hopkins didn't make much of a splash.

The director of A Bridge Too Far, former actor Richard Attenborough, the very next year thought enough of Anthony Hopkins to give him the lead as a psychopathic ventriloquist with a murderous dummy in "Magic," and to give him a sex scene with a tastefully nude Ann-Margret in the bargain. The "Magic" psycho was a flashy part -- first offered to Jack Nicholson, but again, there was something "non-star" about Hopkins' performance --TOO sweaty, too off-putting, too pathetic.

And on it went for Hopkins. A quality TV miniseries (QB VII). A trashy TV miniseries("Hollywood Wives," in which I believe Mr. Hopkins became physically locked during sex with Suzanne Somers and they had to go to the hospital -- fictional story, of course.) Lots of quality work, lots of so-so work -- Anthony Hopkins was a working actor but not truly a star.

And then came Silence of the Lambs. And as often happens with these things, Anthony Hopkins only got the role because some starrier men turned the role down.

One was Jack Nicholson(again, as with Magic) and ..wouldn't Hannibal Lecter have been a great addition to the Nicholson canon? It would have given him another classic villain to place between his Joker of 1989 in Batman(no Oscar nom) and his mad military man in "A Few Good Men"(yes Oscar nom, no win.)

Can't you just see AND hear Jack Nicholson saying "Clarice" or talking about how he once ate a census taker's liver with fava beans a bottle of Chianti?(I expect Nicholson wouldn't have improvised that sucking sound.)

I wonder Nicholson why said no. Perhaps because Hannibal was...a cannibal. Perhaps because an unknown named Brian Cox had already played Lecter in "Manhunter," Michael Mann's so-so adaptation of a book with a better title(Red Dragon) with a no-name cast. Hannibal Lecter made no impact at all in that 1986 movie -- why take the chance?

The man who beat Nicholson for the Oscar in 1992 -- Gene Hackman -- was up for Hannibal and to DIRECT the film too, that directing job is what drew Hackman to the project in the first place. But he said no and...appropriate, yes? Hannibal Lecter was not written as a British man in the books(Red Dragon and Silence of the Lambs, to start) but its hard to picture Gene Hackman, with his tough, no-nonsense all-American bravado, doing ANYTHING right with Hannibal Lecter. Hackman was smart to pass.

Robert Duvall passed. Pretty much the same kind of All-American macho as Hackman though maybe he could have played Lecter in his Boo Radley period. Heh.

With Nicholson, Hackman and Duvall out -- pretty much the trifecta of WASP stars at the time -- where else could the producers go? I'll have to check if Pacino and DeNiro got offers -- I would assume they did.

But somehwere along the line, the producers decided to go British. Michael Caine might have worked, I suppose -- see: Dressed to Kill. And imagine CAINE saying "Clarice" and talking about fava beans. But perhaps Caine was just too well known a quanity then.

And so...the role went to Anthony Hopkins. And he must have known he had won a very special prize, acting wise. Look at all the great inventiveness he gave to the part. The voice(indeed a British version of an American voice.) The sly, Cheshire Cat like manner. The stare (Demme went for lots of clsoe-ups of his stars looking right at us in this movie, Hopkins milked it like a pro.)

And when it came time for it, Hopkins was quite willing to go for the gore in a manner that perhaps Nicholson/Hackman/Duvall would not have: biting into the face of one cop, WEARING the bloodied face of another. That was some sick stuff.

And yet...in his evolving, eventually respectful, almost father-like relationship with the Jodie Foster character -- Hopkins gave us a psychopathic killer we could almost LIKE. At least around Jodie Foster. Anthony Hopkins shared with another famous psycho Anthony -- Perkins -- the ability to find identification and even a bit of sympathy for a devil.

CONT

[–] roger1 (3638) a year ago

Its at the end that we realize we LIKE Hannibal Lecter, just a little bit, beside ourselves. He has escaped and he calls Jodie from some exotic island village and he tells her: "I will not come after you. The world is more interesting with you in it," and then he delights us all(and indicts us all) in telling Jodie: "I must be going now. I'm having an old friend for dinner" -- and then we see who that will be: the unctuous, slimy, arrogant misogynistic doctor who held Hannibal prisoner for years and tried to set up Jodie for death. I can still remember the audience's voices rising in laughter and SUPPORT as the evil doctor(on the RUN to this exotic isle) comes into Hannibal's view. The audience didn't quite applaud and cheer -- but they wanted to. They wanted Hannibal to serve as our weapon of vengeance upon a villain who wasn't murderous at all.

Lecter is famously not in Silence of the Lambs all that long. He practically disappears when he escapes at the 2/3 mark and only returns to call Clarice and have his friend for dinner at the end. Buffalo Bill is the "main villailn" to be dealt with.

Thus, the studio wanted Anthony Hopkins to agree to a Best Supporting Actor campaign but the canny Hopkins knew that screen time didn't matter. As Oscar winner Jack Palance said "The performance doesn't win the Oscar, the character does." And Lecter did. (Beating Nick Nolte in the process, who thought he was the front runner for the Barbra Streisand movie The Prince of Tides.)

CONT

[–] roger1 (3638) a year ago

And with this, Anthony Hopkins finally became a very big star...if not a superstar. It was said that he was groomed to do "the Sean Connery thing" father figure roles opposite younger men (as in Zorro with Antonio Banderas and The Edge with Alec Baldwin.) He played Lecter twice more -- no shot at Oscar, but big bucks for the sequel Hannibal and a better version of Red Dragon with more stars and the right title.

And he is still working today -- and won another Oscar(quite the surpirse) for The Father.

The moral of this story -- for movie stars as well as for the rest of us -- is: hang in there. Keep working, keep at it. lMaybe, just maybe, your chance will come and your luck will change.

[–] CalvinJarrett (451) 6 months ago

This is very insightful, roger1. Thank you. Indeed, this was the role that introduced to Sir Antony Hopkins. I've enjoyed his work ever since (including his role as The Father).

[–] roger1 (3638) 6 months ago

Thank you for reading!

[–] MichaelJPollock (731) 3 months ago

Dear poster-formerly-known-as-eCarle,

Your are one of the best things about MovieChat and we all read your fascinating posts with the greatest of interest, but we simply cannot let you get away with saying that Brett Ratner's 'Red Dragon' abomination is in any shape of form better than Michael Mann's 'Manhunter'!!

We shall therefore think of an appropriate punishment and let you know once we have found one that fits the grave nature of your offence. Maybe force you to watch Brett Ratner's entire filmography back-to-back, Ludovico treatment style. Followed by Uwe Boll's.

Kind regards,
MJP

[–] Melton (4486) 3 months ago

Well, he’s saying it’s a better adaptation. I’m sure it is more faithful to the book but Manhunter is clearly the better film.

[–] MichaelJPollock (731) 3 months ago

No contest to your closing statement, I think.
But I also find the generally accepted opinion that Brian Cox was unimpressive as Lecktor unfair. He was going for a different approach than Hopkins', one more subtle and, I believe, better documented and more accurate, when it comes to the behaviour of real life psychopaths. Of course, accuracy needn't be a factor when judging of the quality of a film or artistic performance...
Hopkins plays Lecter as Dracula and is quite obviously a dangerous monster. Cox's mannerism is subdued and quietly charming, he doesn't telegraph that he wants to murder and eat you. Plus he does that great white shark dead eyes thing that many psychopaths have very well.
Not to say that Hopkins' performance isn't great or fascinating, of course.

[–] Melton (4486) 3 months ago

I think they’re both great performances. I prefer the Lambs portrayal because I love what Hopkins is doing, how much time we spend with him, and how Demme films him (staring right down the lens), it’s just an incredible symphony of talent and skill that results in probably the best movie villain ever.

Cox’s portrayal is great, and actually more skin-crawling - he’s hideous, closer to the ‘eww’ vibe I get from Buffalo Bill. Nothing wrong with it at all and people who dump on it are clueless.

I probably put the Cox portrayal above Hopkins in Hannibal and Red Dragon, where Hopkins and the filmmakers are trading on Lecter’s legacy and goofing around. Everyone in Lambs was hungry and at the top of their game, it’s so much sharper, classier, more intelligent, more detailed, and directed by one of the great actors’ directors. A far cry from clinical aestheticist Ridley Scott and Brett Hackner.

[–] roger1 (3638) 3 months ago

Well, he’s saying it’s a better adaptation.

--

Because the screenplay was by Ted Tally(who won the Oscar for the Silence of the Lambs script) AND Thomas Harris, the original author of the novel.

Michael Mann adapted Red Dragon for his 1986 movie. The script was fine but the "look" and tone were not.

Also, Red Dragon deserved -- and eventually got -- a much more "starry" cast. It doesn't matter if Brian Cox is better known TODAY. In 1986, a great role was given to an unknown and there was no star charisma to it.

---

I’m sure it is more faithful to the book but Manhunter is clearly the better film.

---

I won't debate whether or not Manhunter is a better film than Red Dragon(its remake), because that's why there's 31 flavorsl And Michael Mann is clearly a better director (and likely a better PERSON) than Brett Ratner. (Though Mann hasn't been 100% -- his movie of his own Miami Vice failed.)

But as I mention elsewhere here, to me the real TRAGEDY of Manhunter back in 1986 is that..we almost lost Hannibal the Cannibal Lector as a unique and classic screen villain for all time. Manhunter came and went and disappeared and nobody knew who Hannibal the Cannibal was. Silence of the Lambs -- in a historic movie history "save" -- got Hannibal the fame he should have had 6 years earlier -- except Manhunter "blew it"(wrong studio, wrong advertising, wrong title, wrong stars.)

But this: by the time they finally came around to giving us a correctly titled, better-advertised and more starry Red Dragon (with the CLASSIC Hannibal actor in the role)...it was too late. The classic had already been made and the Oscars already won.

[–] Melton (4486) 3 months ago

Ah looks like we fundamentally differ on Manhunter. I love Mann’s bold style and I wouldn’t change a frame, and certainly not the casting of Cox and his fantastic ‘Lecktor’. William Peterson is equally perfect.

The failure of audiences at the time to appreciate it is their fault, the film is near-perfect.

I also think Mann’s Miami Vice movie is great, and it’s finally getting reappraised and appreciated in its own right.

Silence is a perfect film but it also got lucky - it caught fire culturally and the Oscars were ready to do something a bit different and shower a grim horror-thriller with awards.

I wish Demme’s other thriller - The Manchurian Candidate got more praise on release. It’s way underrated.

[–] roger1 (3638) 3 months ago

Ah looks like we fundamentally differ on Manhunter. I love Mann’s bold style and I wouldn’t change a frame, and certainly not the casting of Cox and his fantastic ‘Lecktor’. William Peterson is equally perfect.

---

Well, melton, we here reach a point at which I in no way seek to challenge your opinion on the cast or anything else you say about Manhunter, or the pleasure that Manhunter gave you .

And subjectively, Manhunter WAS a good movie, if -- perhaps for reasons of marketing -- not a remembered one.

I also want to make sure that I clarify that -- with regard to the acting -- I certainly remember Brian Cox's version of Hannibal to be memorable in its own way. I have not seen Manhunter in many years, my memory on the film is weak, but I recall Cox playing Hannibal as more open-mouthed , sluggish kind of horrific individual.

And isn't it interesting how MANY years it took for Brian Cox to "take hold" as a noteable actor. He had to be seen (and HEARD) in a lot of movies to gain a certain level of character actor stardom and then Succession made him a household name.

William Peterson had "hit" the year before with William Friedkin's "comeback movie" To LIve in Die in LA, and I knew a couple of women who thought that Peterson -- especially in a nude scene -- was The Sexiest Man Alive that year. So he came to Manhunter with some fame. And I liked him as an actor and of course he the jackpot on TV with CSI (the first one.)

I've been going over the novels of Red Dragon versus Silence of the Lambs -- the storylines -- in my head and I can see perhaps other reasons why Silence of the Lambs did better. Mainly they have to do with Hannibal in both books.

CONT

[–] roger1 (3638) 3 months ago

[deleted]

[–] roger1 (3638) 3 months ago

Hannibal is not IN Red Dragon or Silence of the Lambs very long. The "main event" is the killer being sought by the cops at the time -- The Tooth Fairy in Red Dragon and Buffalo Bill in Silence of the Lambs. I must pause to note that the killings in BOTH books are truly horrific but in Red Dragon maybe audiences just weren't too interested in a story about a man who kills entire young FAMILIES , always seeking great LOOKING families -- the gorgeous wife and mother, the handsome and prosperous husband, the children...the Tooth Fairy even kills family DOGS. Pretty sickening premise for a thriller.

But no MORE sickening than the killer in Silence: skinning overweight young woman to make "female body suits" for himself(yet another of the myriad Sons of Ed Gein from Psycho through the more on-point horros of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Silence.

Anyway, maybe word of mouth of young families being slaughtered turned off the audience for Manhunter.

But this on Hannibal Lecter:

He's called Hannibal Lecktor in Manhunter for some reason -- one doesn't hear a name change but one can read it.

And in Manhunter/Red Dragon, Lecktor has NO sympathetic traits at all. There is no Clarice for him to become somewhat of a father to. He HATES Will Graham(Peterson), he has already gutted the man, leading to his arrest, and he works in concert with The Tooth Fairy to point the latter at Graham and HIS family to kill.

A big thing: I had to go to Wikipedia to read the entire storyline of "Manhunter" -- because I couldn't remember the ending but I DID remember than Mann THREW OUT the ending in the book -- the Tooth Fairy coming to Graham's home and TRYING to kill his family, and losing, and getting shot by the wife.

CONT

[–] roger1 (3638) 3 months ago

The failure of audiences at the time to appreciate it is their fault, the film is near-perfect.

---

I'll acknowledge your take on the film as near-perfect, which makes the commercial flop of the movie all the more head scratching

While Red Dragon was a best selling book, I suppose it didn't have the hype of such novels as Rosemary's Baby, The Exorcist, and Jaws. The novel of Psycho wasn't a huge bestseller but Alfred Hitchcock's name and his TERRIFIC marketing made Psycho a hit. Also Red Dragon the novel was a hit AS Red Dragon...not as Manhunter.

This is why I think -- whether the performance would have been better or worse, a STAR in the Peterson role might have given Manhunter the cachet it needed.

TWO things I really like about Red Dragon (the movie) as a "second chance" were these:

ONE: The ending of the book was restored -- the Tooth Fairy coming after Graham's family(with "guidance" by Hannibal Lecter -- Hannibal is so hateworthy in THIS version.

TWO: We got to SEE(as I don't think we did in Manhunter, I may be wrong) the original confrontation between Will Graham and Hannibal in which Will was gutted and almost died but managed to wound Hannibal instead. Its a great scene in Red Dragon the movie -- preceded by an opening scene(loved by Roger Ebert, for one) in which Hannibal is so irritated by the bad notes of an orchestra player that he kills the man and serves him at an elegant dinner. I don't recall THAT in Manhunter either(some of this is communicated in Red Dragon's interesting credits sequence, inspired by that of Se7en.)

CONT

[–] roger1 (3638) 3 months ago

I also think Mann’s Miami Vice movie is great, and it’s finally getting reappraised and appreciated in its own right.

---

On that one, I have only the vaguest memory of it. Mainly l recall thinking that Colin Farrell and Jaime Foxx(espcially Foxx), lacked the looks and charisma of "mere TV stars" Don Johnson and Phillip Michael Thomas. Alas, I am of an age where with a whole lotta movies, I only remember if I saw them, if I liked them, or if I didn't. With the movie of Miami Vice, I recall it was OK -- good action maybe?

Looking over Michael Mann's career -- and remembering being so wowed by the first one - Thief -- I guess these are my rankings of sorts:

GREAT

Collateral (my favorite of his pictures)
Thief (a memorable debut)
Heat (his "epic" but with a few weaknesses along the way.)
The Last of the Mohicans(so different for him)

GOOD

Manhunter
The Insider
Ali
Public Enemies

--

Silence is a perfect film but it also got lucky -

---

And isn't that how the movies can be sometimes -- its exhilarating. Silence clearly hit big with audiences -- but all that Oscar love was historic. I felt that Silence of the Lambs was winning as a REPRESENTATION of how Psycho, The Exorcist, and Jaws would have done at the Oscars with a more hip voting constituency.

--

it caught fire culturally and the Oscars were ready to do something a bit different and shower a grim horror-thriller with awards.

---

There ya go.

[–] roger1 (3638) 3 months ago

[–] Melton (4486) 3 months ago

I agree that the opening and closing scenes of Red Dragon, absent in Manhunter, are great.

Lecter’s dinner party followed by Graham capturing him was fantastic, and the ending at Graham’s family home was riveting.

That said, Ed Norton - an actor I really like - was astonishingly dull and forgettable as Graham. Will Petersen was leagues better.

If you get a chance to revisit Manhunter please do, it’s an incredible mood piece, Cox’s Lecktor is skin-crawlingly brilliant, and Mann’s filmmaking genius is on full display - the tiger-stroking scene, Tooth Fairy putting the sleeping blind woman’s hand over his mouth as This Big Hush plays - brilliantly expressive moments.

[–] roger1 (3638) 3 months ago

[deleted]

[–] roger1 (3638) 3 months ago

Brett Ratner's entire filmography?! Followed by Uwe Boll's?!

Begging for mercy here.

And yet, indeed, Brett Ratner directed Red Dragon , and yet indeed, Michael Mann directed Manhunter -- and their respective resumes and "auteur" credentials could not be farther apart and yet-

I will stand by my statement(Red Dragon superior to Manhunter) but for own, very PERSONAL, very particular reasons .

I think i've written of them before...but you see, the journey from Red Dragon(the novel) to Manhunter(the film) to Silence of the Lambs(the book and movie) to Red Dragon(the remake) - with Hannibal rather set aside (it comes AFTER the other books)...here goes:

A little stage setting:

A movie that really grabbed me in 1981 -- I saw it about three times in the theater -- was called "Thief," starring James Caan. Caan had ridden his Godfather fame into a star career for the 70's that played a bit lower than fellow Godfather find Al Pacino, but he had his run, and Thief -- near the end of his stardom -- was one of his very best.

Because of Michael Mann. I recall being wowed mainly by the color scheme -- neon greens and blues -- and also by the Tangerine Dream score, and also because of where the story went -- a caper expert, one last job, trying to go straight, have a wife, adopt a baby -- and the evil mob boss comes down on him HARD(with a speech of sickening cruelty towards Caan's hoped for wife and child and what the mob boss will DO TO THEM)...that a preemptive strike is required.

Great movie. And Michael Mann became My Mann. From then on. For a lot of movies, but not all of them.

Iriony: Mann followed up the stunning debut of Thief with...a TV series? But WHAT a TV series! Miami Vice. The 80s defined(at the time) the 80s remembered, now. (Remember how on The Sopranos, Steve Buscemi's Tony B came out of 20 years in jail in 2004 wearing Don Johnson's 1984 Miami Vice white linen jacket and colored shirt?)

CONT

[–] roger1 (3638) 3 months ago

Mann's style defined the series -- visually, the music - and Don Johnson and Philip Michael Thomas defined the lead cop team. I always found it interesting that, a couple of decades later when Michael Mann himself directed a movie reboot of Miami Vice, "movie stars" Colin Farrell and Jamie Foxx ENTIRELY lacked the charisma and star power of "TV stars" Johnson and Thomas . Pretty amazing.

But back to the 80s. I looked it up: Red Dragon, the novel by Thomas Harris, was written in 1981. But I think it took three or four years for me to find it and read it. Paperback. With a blurb by Stephen King on the back that I thought was pretty impressive: "The best popular novel since The Godfather.,"

Really? REALLY! I read the novel and King's words were proven pretty correct to me. Oh, the novels of The Exorcist and Jaws had been written since The Godfather but THIS book was -- to my thriller-fan eyes -- INCREDIBLE.

I could not WAIT for a movie. I KNEW that Hannibal the Cannibal would end up as one of the great psycho horror villains of all time -- a household name to come, a desperately needed villain to join the ranks of Dracula, Jack the Ripper, and Norman Bates. I loved the concept of the film's "main psycho"(Hannibal was a side act) -- The Tooth Fairy, and his horrifying modus operandi(impossible today) -- he worked in a film lab prcessing family photos and Super 8 films -- and selected "beautiful young families" to wipe out in their homes(which were laid out in the films.)

Wrote Harris at the end of one chapter: "Families were auditioning all the time" for the killer..sending their films to be processed by him. Chilling (and again, no longer possible in the world of cell phone cameras and video.)

CONT

[–] roger1 (3638) 3 months ago

One of the great horrifying sequences in Red Dragon(the book) was when the "hero" investigators set up a sleazy tabloid reporter to taunt the Tooth Fairy in his paper. The reporter ended up kidnapped by the Tooth Fairy, tortured by him and ultimately died in what I knew would be an incredible "movie shocker setpiece" -- tied to his wheelchair of torture, set aflame and set careening into a parking garage.

And "Red Dragon"(the book) had a creat climax of the Tooth Fairy versus our damaged FBI hero and his family at their isolated home.

Eventually, a movie of Red Dragon was announced -- with Michael Mann as director and producer. And my excitement rose.

Until, one by one, I became aware of some staggering disappointments to turn what could have, and should have, been on of the greatest superthrillers of all time into... not much at all. Here were the problems:

ONE: The changed the title: Red Dragon coulda and shoulda been the title of the movie. Nobody changed the titles from the novels of Psycho, The Godfather, The Exorcist, Jaws....the book was a KNOWN quantity. Evidently "they"(Mann?) feared that Red Dragon sounded like an "Asian Kung Fu" movie. Wrong.

TWO: on my research(and I need help on this), it doesn't look like Manhunter was produced by a major studio. Not Paramount or Warner Brothers or Universal. The DISTRIBUTOR was listed as "DeLaurentis Productions." Dino DeLaurentis had been big from the 50s through the 60s and 70s(when he produced the 1976 "King Kong") but was waning in the 80s, so he didn't have much distribution clout.

THREE: And thus, "Manhunter" was released in the "non-important" period of March, 1986, with little fanfare or advertising -- small ads in the paper -- and I can barely remember any commercials.

Look, this SHOULD have been given the full-court press of MAJOR TV ads -- like The Exorcist got, like Jaws got. But...nothing.

CONT

[–] roger1 (3638) 3 months ago

FOUR: The poster. Look at the poster for Silence of the Lambs: Jodie Foster -- already an Oscar winning star, the focus of this poster along with the arresting image of "the butterfly on her mouth."

FIVE: Commericals and production photographs put HANNIBAL THE CANNIBAL front and center. Anthony Hopkins...with the "bigger star" Jodie Foster certainly next to him but Hannibal DOMINATING her and the frame at all times. "Manhunter"(with its generic title) did NOTHING in its advertising to play up that it had a new and totally unique psycho horror villain(Oscar quality, not Freddy or Jason) for all time.

SIX: The casting. Now, this might be an "acquired taste" thing, but it was a MAJOR disappointment to see Michael Mann casting Manhunter with -- near-unknowns. A novel that great, I felt, deserved some major actors in the roles. You and I may like William Peterson as an actor of some charisma, but he wasn't a "name" that helps bring someone into the theater. In 1986 -- and I know this is "standard casting" -- Al Pacino or Dustin Hoffman or even William Hurt would have been "name" enough for the lead of Will Graham(unlike Clarice in the book to come, a "damaged" FBI profiler who got gutted by Hannibal in the act of discovering the learned psychiatrist to be a psycho killer.)

Michael Mann cast two newish actors from his new TV show -- Dennis Farina and Stephen Lang -- as Peterson's cop boss and the sleazy tabloid reporter. Directors do this-- they use their pals and their "finds"(just as Coppola used pals James Caan and Robert Duvall in The Godfather) but, again...it left Red Dragon without star power.

CONT

[–] roger1 (3638) 3 months ago

And yes, Brian Cox -- rather throughly unknown in movies in 1986, made for a creepy-looking and sullen psycho creep as Hannibal but -- the role became even more of a cameo than it was in the novel and again: Cox was no star. What if Anthony Hopkins had played the role in 1986? He should NOT have -- THIS movie was set up for no advertising or Oscar support.

SEVEN: "Miami Vice: The Movie." Seeing the movie after reading the book, I felt that maybe Michael Mann was the wrong choice for this material. It should have been creepy and modern-Gothic(as Silence of the Lambs would be on film)...but this was shot through with the same neon eighties flash as Thief and ...Miami Vice. Which was a TV show. THIS came dangerously close to looking like a TV show.

But the biggest, truly wrenching tragedy of "Manhunter" to me, personally -- was that it had no impact at all as a movie. It wasn't a hit, it wasn't an "instant classic," there was NO Oscar consideration -- it just came and went at the movie theaters in a couple of weeks and was gone, disappeared, forgotten. I remember thinking "they had a book that could have been one of the greatest prestige horror movies of all time, with one of the greatest horror villains of all time -- and they threw it away."

I got over it and the years passed and -- much to my surprise -- a NEW Hannibal Lecter book was written. I read it -- I thought then and think now that Red Dragon is the better book with the better sub-psycho -- but THEN, I watched as THIS movie suddenly got ALL THE ATTENTION that I thought Red Dragon/Manhunter should have gotten.

On my list of " uplifting surprises in movie history" -- the idea that Hannibal the Cannibal got a second chance and suddenly EVERYONE knew who he was, and that he WOULD be a book and screen classic villain -- incredible. I felt like Silence of the Lambs "saved" Hannibal the Cannibal. And cave us the classic "Clarice" too.

CONT

[–] roger1 (3638) 3 months ago

Came 1992 the story got MORE incredible. Silence of the Lambs had been an early 1991 release -- February, pretty much as throway as March for Manhunter -- but it HIT, and maintained big audiences through the spring, and cultivated enough good reviews at the beginning that no movie REALLY appered to challenge it at Oscar time -- not Warren Beatty's Bugsy, not Streisand's Prince of Tides...not even Stone's insanely gripping JFK.

And my enjoyment of the book Red Dragon in the 80's paid off with Silence of the Lambs "winning it all" at the top of the ticket: Picture, Actor, Actress, Screenplay, Director.

That was in 1991. It took all the way until 2002 -- 11 years -- for somebody to decide: "Hey, what if Anthony Hopkins DID star in Red Dragon?" That was an amazing movie "save" too.

I'll tell you why Brett Ratner didn't matter to Red Dragon. Because the SCREENPLAY was by Thomas Harris(who wrote the novel) and Ted Tally(who won the Oscar for his adaptation of Silence of the Lambs.) That's quality control right there -- a classic novel, adapted for the screen by two GREAT writers, properly cast with major names. It was "too little, too late" but we FINALLY got the Red Dragon(CALLED Red Dragon) that we should have had in the first place.

Recall that William Peterson ended up making millions on the first CSI...but, he was a TV star at heart. Edward Norton took the Will Graham part in the remake and -- while not a top leading man, certainly had "gravitas." To finally SEE Hannibal Lector stab Will Graham in the gut during an interview that seemed to be "with a normal man" was -- completion. Red Dragon '02 LED with this scene.

As the cop boss instead of the little-known at the time Dennis Farina: we got Harvey Keitel.
As the sleazy tabloid reporter -- the great Phillip Seymour Hoffman (so horribly and literally exposed in only his tighty whiteties and doughy stomach as torture loomed.)

CONT

[–] roger1 (3638) 3 months ago

As the Tooth Fairy -- real name Francis Dollarhyde -- a strange-faced unknown named Tom Noonan in the original -- THIS Red Dragon got an Oscar nominee : Ralph Fiennes. (It is at this point that you might protest: hey, WHY does Red Dragon have to have stars in it? Tom Noonan was GREAT as the Tooth Fairy. My answer: Red Dragon the novel was a major enough acheivement to deserve a star cast on film.

By the ways, there are two good female roles in Red Dragon:

Will Graham's wife: Kim Griest in 1986; Mary Louise Parker in 2002
The Tooth Fairy's blind girlfriend: Joan Allen in 1986, Emily Watson in 2002

That's pretty much three out of four were "names."

But I think this was crucial:

Did not Michael Mann elect to REMOVE the climax where the Tooth Fairy comes after Will Graham and his family at their home? I don't remember that happening in Manhunter.

But it DID happen in Red Dragon the movie -- the climax restored (it would be like taking Vera Miles trip down to the fruit cellar in Psycho out of the movie.)

In between Silence of the Lambs in 1991 and the Red Dragon remake in 2002, we got both a new novel and a new movie -- Hannibal -- which found Hannibal "on the loose" and the sub-psycho formula of Red Dragon and Silence of the Lambs discarded. The big problem was the substituon of Julianne Moore for Jodie Foster(who wouldn't do the movie) and despite a nice "angle"(Hannibal ad large)...Hannibal seems the least of the Hannibal movies.

And because Hannibal had been made, the new "Red Dragon" was indeed, pretty old news when it finally came.

But I say: the 2002 Red Dragon FINALLY gave us the right title, the right cast, the right script, and the right climax than Manhunter did not have.

CONT

[–] roger1 (3638) 3 months ago

And given that Silence of the Lambs comes next in the order of novels, the new Red Dragon got a magnificent final scene.

Actor Anthony Heald returning to his role as the evil asylum boss Dr. Chilton(who wil eventually be an old friend for dinner) talking to Anthony Hopkins in his cell:

Dr. Chilton: There's someone to see you, Lecter. A young woman...says she's from the FBI, but she seems much too pretty for that, if you ask me.
(Lecter appears unmoved.)
Dr. Chilton: I'll tell her you said no.
(Lecter looks up and faces the camera):

Lecter: ...what is her name?

Cut to black.
(And the whole audience laughs, knowing "Clarice" is the answer.)
Now, THAT's a great final line in movie history.

[–] LoveCatsHateDogs (1942) 3 months ago

Did you clap like a seal when you saw that scene?

[–] MichaelJPollock (731) 3 months ago

You know that famous 1967 Aretha Franklin song?
Your punishment, young man (or lady), will be to copy its lyrics 100 times. And then watch Brett Ratner and Uwe Boll's whole filmography back to back as well.

And if you don't, there it is:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FOUqQt3Kg0

[–] roger1 (3638) 2 months ago

Way up top, I wrote this about Silence of the Lambs(1991) versus Michael Mann's Manhunter(1986):

BEGIN:

I wonder why (Jack) Nicholson said no (to Hannibal Lecter in Silence). Perhaps because Hannibal was...a cannibal. Perhaps because an unknown named Brian Cox had already played Lecter in "Manhunter," Michael Mann's so-so adaptation of a book with a better title(Red Dragon) with a no-name cast. Hannibal Lecter made no impact at all in that 1986 movie -- why take the chance?

END

I return to apologize a little bit on that one. I have a phrase about myself here: "Sometimes I type too fast." In other words, I lingered so much on "unknown Brian Cox"and the phrase "no-name cast" that I think I suggested a DISLIKE of the cast of Manhunter that I don't have. Brian Cox IS good in Manhunter. William Peterson IS good in Manhunter. Dennis Farina -- unknown when this movie came out and then SUDDENLY a star within two years (1988's Midnight Run at the movies, the short-lived Michael Mann TV show Crime Story in 1986) IS good in Manhunter.

And...get this...I daresay that Stephen Lang as "Freddy Lounds," the oily, arrogant tabloid journalist...is BETTER in Manhunter than the man I called "the great Phillip Seymour Hoffman" in the remake(Red Dragon).

I say all this because...I have just watched Manhunter start to finish again, for the first time in many years.

CONT

[–] roger1 (3638) 2 months ago

And I follow up to Melton here:

I agree that the opening and closing scenes of Red Dragon, absent in Manhunter, are great.

--

Yes. Having just watched Manhunter(thank you for the suggestion), I think that Red Dragon -- if nothing else -- at least gave us a version of the story closer to the novel and in one instance, BETTER than the novel OR Manhunter: that opening scene which mixes (1) Will Graham's discovery of the erudite Hannbal as the killer he is; (2) the tale of the doomed poor orchestra player and (3) scary Se7en like titles that "follow up" on the killing and dinner party and Lecter's capture and Graham's recovery.

---

Lecter’s dinner party followed by Graham capturing him was fantastic,

--

Pretty much a "new Hannibal Lecter sequence for the ages," unseen in Manhunter or Silence of the Lambs and with this delicious aspect: look at Hannibal Lecter in that brief period of time when nobody knew he WAS a killer.

That said, the discovery of Hannibal as the killer by Graham IS in Manhunter -- it comes as a monologue(no footage) told while in a supermarket(!) by Graham to his young son. There is a scary honesty to a father relating to his son that (a) he discovered a human monster ; (b) the human monster carved him up and (c) the father was sent to a mental institution for awhile.

But..by Mann's decision..this scene is just TALK in Manhunter.

--

and the ending at Graham’s family home was riveting.

---

That was in the book, I waited to see it in the movie..it wasn't IN the movie. Part of my disappointment in Manhunter.

Here is what happens instead in Manhunter.

Peterson, Farina and their team discover that Lecter has snuck a message to the Tooth Fairy with the address of Peterson's home and family. The team RUSHES to the home and spirits Peterson's family away to safety. No more about THAT.

CONT

[–] roger1 (3638) 2 months ago

Instead, Manhunter takes a scene from earlier(the Tooth Fairy reluctantly trying to kill his blind girlfriend) and turns it INTO the climax of the film. Its not Peterson and his family versus the Tooth Fairy; its Peterson and Farina and some ill-fated cops(shot by the Tooth Fairy) taking on the villain and saving the blind woman in the nick of time.

One wonders "what got into Michael Mann" -- why change the ending of a best seller for the movie?

CONT

[–] roger1 (3638) 2 months ago

That said, Ed Norton - an actor I really like - was astonishingly dull and forgettable as Graham. Will Petersen was leagues better.

--

I'll take that point. Ed Norton(hilariously carrying the same name as the fictional lout guy played by Art Carney on the honeymooners) has one of the weirdest careers in Hollywood. By all acounnts difficult to work with(he was fired after one movie as The Hulk), demanding personal re-write privileges of his scripts, NOT a very big star..he keeps working. I find his "nerd with balls" type very entertaining in general, especially as Larry Flynt's long-suffering lawyer in that movie with Woody Harrelson. And evidently Wes Anderson doesn't find him difficult.

I found Norton to be pretty much a "draw," star wise, with William Peterson. Better known when he made Red Dragon, but not all that compelling.

No the REAL "better star cast" in Red Dragon starts with Hannibal himself -- Anthony Hopkins getting to BE in Manhunter/Red Dragon (though yes, Cox was good, more on that soon), and adds in Harvey Keitel and Ralph Fiennes and Mary Louise Parker..and Phillip Seymour Hoffman.

I perhaps find/found(sadly, he's dead now) Hoffman a bit overrated in the beginning. His roles in Twister and Boogie Nights made hay with his overweight appearance in a "slovenly" way -- it seems that it took "Punch Drunk Love," "Mission Impossible 3" and above all Charlie Wilson's War(Oscar-nommed) to turn him into a "cool guy with menace."

And thus, in Red Dragon, Hoffman does Freddy Lounds as a mumbling, slug-like guy who doesn't much care about anything and THEN finds himself the shocked torture-prisioner of the Tooth Fairy.

No, Stephen Lang hit the right notes -- the notes of the novel -- in playing Lounds a a noisy, cocky arrogant, loud-mouthed asshole who REALLY runs into a comeuppance from the Tooth Fairy. Interesting, though: Mann let Lang keep his shirt and tie on during the torture -- Hoffman bravely showed of his flabby upper body.

CONT

[–] roger1 (3638) 2 months ago

If you get a chance to revisit Manhunter please do, it’s an incredible mood piece,

---

I now have. It was interesting to see it again in greater appreciation.

I will return to my one contention though -- which is that somehow the studio and makers could NOT get audiences to that movie. As you say, that's not the movie's fault(its still a good movie) but..maybe there is SOME blame that can be ascribed to Mann himself. Who changed the name to Manhunter(whoever did it, Mann allowed it? Why switch the ending?

Having watched Manhunter again I have changed my mind on something. I used to think Red Dragon was a better story -- with a better sub-villain -- than Silence of the Lambs. But I see now that whereas Manhunter focusses on Peterson, Farina and the Tooth Fairy -- Lecktor is both "off to the side"(he's in it LESS than Hopkins in Silence) and without the more warm "partner" of Clarice he will get in Silence. I know think that Silence of the Lambs IS the better "Hannibal Lecter" story and hence Manhunter couldn not beat it on general plot principles.

--

CONT

[–] roger1 (3638) 2 months ago

Cox’s Lecktor is skin-crawlingly brilliant,

--

It was very hard to watch Manhunter again now that Brian Cox is such a "household name" actor and familiar face. In 1986 when I saw the film I simply didn't have a "bead" on the man. This takes time with ALL new stars (I remember it taking FOREVER for me to "lock in" Robert DeNiro back in the beginning), and now looking at Manhunter: it, that's Brian Cox!

The open-mouthed sluggishness I remember is SORT of there now, but I see the intelligence of Cox and hear his great voice now. They did give him a rather severe hairdo -- it seems painted on in a widow's peak. And dark eyebrows.

One thing: compared to the ornate glass and stone cell given to Hopkins in Silence of the Lambs, THIS Hannibal is in a pretty basic, "normal" jail cell -- all white to give it a color scheme , and I realized: Silence must have had a MUCH BIGGER BUDGET than Manhunter. And Red Dragon must have been given a much bigger budget than Manhunter, too.

CONT

[–] roger1 (3638) 2 months ago

and Mann’s filmmaking genius is on full display - the tiger-stroking scene, Tooth Fairy putting the sleeping blind woman’s hand over his mouth as This Big Hush plays - brilliantly expressive moments.

--

Mann's command of the visual -- and use both of modern rock and weird instrumental music -- is well on display in Manhunter. It carries forth the green-and-blue color motif of Thief while at the same time mirroring the "bright skies and 80's pastel" look -- and SOUND -- of Miami Vice the TV show. In fact, I felt that Red Dragon was rather subsumed into a "movie-length Miami Vice episode." Actors from Miami Vice and Crime Story are weaved all through it -- including Stephen Lang and some of the cops from Miami Vice. THAT was a little distracting.

Interesting: in 1998, Gus Van Sant famously made a "shot by shot" remake of Psycho, and Red Dragon SOMETIMES feels the same way vis-a-vis Manhunter. Not the beginning, not the end, but lots of in between scenes.

The torture of Freddy Lounds is a much less ornate and ghastly sequence in Manhunter -- Tom Noonan as the Tooth Fairy(the character's name is too hard to spell) keeps HIS clothes on , too -- Ralph Fiennes went nude with a garish back tatoo, far more detailed painting slides, just MORE.

I dunno, at the end of the day, it seems best to have two "differently wounded" versions of Red Dragon in existence -- the first somewhat of a wasted opportunity, the second too little, too late. And they BOTH bookend the true classic -- Silence of the Lambs -- and its oddball sequel, Hannibal, which is wounded in its own way by Juilanne Moore in for Jodie Foster -- a cash-in. I think Hannibal is the least of them -- though the gimmick of "Hannibal Lector at large" was kind of cool -- the beast out of his cage.

And hey, I know -- Hannibal got a TV series version. That Bond villain. I hear its good. Never saw it.

[–] Foster1486 (499) 3 months ago

He had some good stuff on his resume. Magic was Great
And a lot of good TV work and you know how Movie actors/directors look down on TV (until they need the work or money)
This really put him on the map here in the states