Anthony Hopkins always struck me as particularly odious in his portrayal of Henry Wilcox. I personally think he is almost Hannibal Lecter's equivalent as far as being absolutely villainous.
I know this is a stupid question along the lines of, "Could Superman beat up Spider-Man?" but does anyone else think the Lecter vs. Wilcox argument has any value?
Henry Wilcox is an archetype, but Anthony Hopkins played him as a memorable archetype. The habitual heh-heh laughter, for example, countered by his occasional steeliness--i.e., witness the look in his eyes when he crosses verbal swords with his son Charles. But he is also capable of great tenderness, and despite his patriarchal chauvinism, he loves Margaret dearly and realizes--almost too late--that she has become the center of his existence.
I remember my British literature teacher making a great deal about the two of them sitting down on the grass together to talk, moments after Margaret tells Henry she is leaving him. Now I understand what she was talking about. Henry-- the formal, the unbendable, the emotionally careless--agrees to sit down on the grass with his wife, rather than wait for the artifice of chairs--and they become at that moment true partners.
Absolutely not. Hannibal Lecter is a serial killer who tortured and butchered innocent people. He is a monster. Henry Wilcox is a flawed man, but is by no means evil. I think to see him as the "villain" does a great disservice to the film and character. I mean, he starts crying at the end because he knows he's going to lose his son. Hannibal Lecter is totally lacking in the capacity to feel empathy or love for anybody.
Anton Chigurh is dead and Spider-Man 3 is superior in every way to Funny Games.