Besides “Alien” and “Blade Runner”, Ridley Scott has also directed films that were not particularly well received. For example, “Hannibal”, which doesn’t come close to its predecessor “The Silence of the Lambs”, but is still definitely worth seeing.
“The Silence of the Lambs” has made film history. Not only because it offers absolutely nerve-racking high tension as a horror thriller and is thus often mentioned in the same breath as David Fincher’s “Seven”. As such a genre representative, director Jonathan Demme’s film also won at the Oscars – in the categories that matter: Best Film, Best Director, Lead Actor, Lead Actress and Screenplay.
At a time when genre films and especially horror films had to live a rather stepmotherly existence at the Oscars, the triumph of “The Silence of the Lambs” was absolutely extraordinary. So extraordinary that even Thomas Harris, author of the original, had his problems writing a sequel because he constantly had Anthony Hopkins as the cannibal Hannibal Lecter in mind.
After Harris delivered the novel “Hannibal” in 1999, it was of course only a matter of time before the film version followed – and in 2001 this happened under the direction of Ridley Scott. Based on the director alone, who brought us “Alien”, “Blade Runner”, “Gladiator” and “Black Hawk Down”, sounds like Oscar merchandise again, doesn’t it? No way! “Hannibal”, currently available on subscription from Netflix, was largely panned by critics and failed to generate much enthusiasm from audiences either. Unfortunately!
FINE NOBLE TRASH AS YOU RARELY SEE IT
The special thing about “Hannibal” in contrast to “Red Dragon” (which was already adapted in the 1980s by Michael Mann as “Blood Moon”) and “The Silence of the Lambs” is the fact that here, for the first time, one can really observe Dr. Hannibal Lecter at his bloody craft as a cannibal serial killer. Although “The Silence of the Lambs” and “Red Dragon” were not squeamish either, the violence was well-dosed and rarely came from Hannibal himself.
This point also virtually sets the course for the tone of “Hannibal”, which no longer necessarily wants to function as highly atmospheric suspense cinema in which one is offered elaborate characters. Instead, Ridley Scott has seized the opportunity and staged expensive (budget: almost 90 million US dollars) high-class trash, often reminiscent of the lurid exploitation cinema of the 1970s, in which the flashy effect was always in the foreground.
Ridley Scott once again flexes his muscles and viewers with a penchant for elaborate camera movements, detail-obsessed or ostentatious sets and masterful light-and-shadow games will get their money’s worth. In fact, however, the whole thing is so strikingly and lavishly staged that “Hannibal” not only likes to seem like a soap opera but also like the result of formal aesthetic self-congratulation.
A FILM YOU HAVE TO KNOW HOW TO TAKE – BUT THEN IT’S FASCINATING!
That would be a problem if Ridley Scott didn’t play with his cards on the table here – and, as already mentioned, orientate himself on the cinema of the 1970s. He doesn’t really care about the story, all he cares about is creating the most virtuoso, thoroughly decadent visual worlds possible. And in this case, that is not only highly entertaining, but also damn fascinating. You just have to know how to take “Hannibal”. Anyone expecting a masterpiece of the “Silence of the Lambs” brand will not only fail with the film, but also with themselves.
And that’s where the violence comes in, which of course is by no means neglected in this million-dollar screen trash novel. Almost satirically, “Hannibal” indulges in the bloody excesses of the original and really celebrates it when wild boars attack human bodies in a bloodlust or the recently deceased Ray Liotta eats – well, yes – expendable parts of his own brain. Flavoured with truffles, of course!
What followers of “The Silence of the Lambs” may find really disturbing, however, is the portrayal of Hannibal Lecter himself. If you remember the diabolical aura of Anthony Hopkins that virtually usurped the film, “Hannibal” is an almost condescending antithesis to that. Here, Hopkins is walking through Florence as if he had fallen off the catwalk at Fashion Week. In the end, however, that doesn’t change the fact that “Hannibal” as a curious noble trash opera is really a sensational romp.
THIS IS WHAT “HANNIBAL” IS ABOUT
The notorious and highly intelligent man-eater Hannibal Lecter (Anthony Hopkins) escaped from a maximum security prison seven years ago and now lives a life of privilege. In return, FBI agent Clarice Starling (Julianne Moore) is tormented by nightmares in which the serial killer talks to her.
Mason Verger (Gary Oldman), disfigured beyond recognition, does not forget his encounter with Hannibal either – because he wants to take revenge for the fact that Hannibal was once able to manipulate him to such an extreme that he brutally disfigured his own face – and puts a handsome sum on the capture of the psychopath…
