phansiet2 Reviews

Hannibal (2001)

What it's really about.

[23 May 2001]

Thomas Harris spent twenty years crafting the Hannibal trilogy, and stuck to his guns even after Demme sent his project on a sideways trajectory. Silence was a very good police procedural thriller but it was a shallow adaptation of the second chapter of a complex trilogy that examined the ugliness and triumph of human existence. The film Hannibal honored the secret level or subtext that Harris has illuded to interviews. Confused? Let's review. A few selections from the dictionary. Hannibal: grace of God. lecter: a reader or lecturer. monster: a marvel- from monstrum, meaning divine omen. Clarice: bright light. Starling: a bird related to the pidgeon and dove, also: a creature who lives in the stars. Dolorhyde: hidden sorrow.

Okay, suppose you're a brilliant psychiatrist with a tragic incident in your past involving cannabalism, they ate your younger sister who you tried to protect. You go on with life and go into the healing profession because your survivor guilt compels you to contibute to the world. But because of your doctor's privilege you can't talk about your patients and in a lot of cases you can't cure them of their disturbing evil impulses. This weighs on you. You have no faith in God. Then you meet a brother(Mason) and sister (Margot) in the course of your practice and the violence of their situation triggers your own horrible past. You can't handle the thought of such a beast as Mason getting away with such a betrayal of his own sister. You flip out, people like Mason should go to hell. So you send him there, along with a few other of your choice patients. You are discovered by a policeman (Will Graham) who threatens your existence. You try to kill him. You succeed. But he kills you as well. YOU WAKE UP IN HELL. Locked up in an asylym where everybody believes you to be a serial killer. And because of your interest in medieval studies you recognize that this isn't just any hell, this is Dante's Inferno. Because you were such a great communicator in life, one of your punishments in hell is to be able to communicate only in riddles, anagrams, clues and puzzles. You died with out absolution, as did many of the other people you meet in hell. But because this is Dante's hell you can get out if you use reason, make a decision and act on it. You also don't have to feel bad about killing anybody in hell because they're already dead, they just get recycled and being killed and tortured is part of the circumstances of being in hell. When in Rome do as the Roman's do. When in Hell...

Now while your waiting for an opportunity to get out of hell, (and because you're so brilliant you are the only person who realizes they are in hell), you meet a bright light, a girl not yet a woman, who also died without absolution, she's gives you back your faith in God, the touch in Memphis. You help her achieve her goals and advance. And in doing so you make your way out of your imprisonment, you can go to heaven now but you wait in purgatory for her life to descend to such a point that she will be more receptive to your view of this existince and you venture back into hell just to get her out. Now in Harris' book, Lecter succeeds. They make it to heaven together. In the film, Clarice, institutionalized beyond repare and having lost her faith in God can't make the decision and as a result can't get out of hell. In fact she tries to keep Lecter in Hell but he loves her so much he would rather cut off his hand, and leave her his heart in it (that's why there was cleaver, the name of the opera piece is Vide Meum Cor= Behold My Heart). He grabs the boat out of hell, dematerializes into the fireworks (stars) and is ascending to heaven (the plane) where he shares wisdom (the brains) with an innocent ( the little boy). The books followed the Divine Comedy whereas the film ended by following Dante's poem La Vita Nuova (The New Life) because in that poem Love carries off the dead Beatrice (Clarice)

Scott and Zaillian brilliantly pulled off this film and kept true to the subtle subtext of Harris novels, which Demme completely left out of Silence. Why is it gory? Because hell is a gory place. What else would you expect from hell? Why is Lecter the hero, cause he's the only person who is sane, that is, aware of the situation and acts accordingly. Why Florence? Because Dante was from Florence. I think it was outstandingly clever and courageous for the filmmakers to toy with the concept that Clarice might be the last villian in the story, she tries to keep Lecter from Heaven even though he's earned the right to go there. This film is like no other. A gory traumatic trip in and out of hell. Romantically tragic. Read the books, one after the other, read The Divine Comedy, (get the Cliff notes). Then see the film again when it comes out on video. `

Hannibal (2001)

Beautiful, Superb, Tragic

[27 February 2001]

So many aspects of this film has been misunderstood. First this is not a sequel but rather the third act of Thomas Harris's trinity concerning the rather extraordinary and odd confluences that effect the existence of Hannibal Lecter M.D. Renaissance Man. Understandably this film cannot be understood by anyone who hasn't had the great pleasure of reading the books in their original order. This film cannot be separated from the books due to the unintentional blunders of Manhunter and Silence of the Lambs. While Silence was a rather well directed suspense film it was however a botched adaptation of the second chapter of a trilogy. Gone are the metaphors and puzzles that characterize the communication style that Hannibal Lecter is bound to by the laws of the universe. I feel that Ridley Scott and Steve Zallian have honored the true intent of the books even by changing the ending. Nothing is what it appears to be. Ta Ta should be read as TA....TA. Get out your dictionary and peer into the minds and souls of Thomas Harris and Hannibal Lecter.

Hannibal (2001)

An age old tale beautiful realized.

[16 February 2001]

What a misunderstood film. Beautiful in character developement and lush in style. Do not be fooled by what you read about his film. See it for yourself. A piece of classical literature brought to life and made new again. Dante in reverse. Hellish. Yes. Tragic. Yes. A revelatory tale told by masters.

Hannibal (2001)

"Gambling in a casino! I'm shocked!" Louis Renault in Casablanca

[11 February 2001]

I am both surprised and disappointed by the complaints about the violence in this movie. What did people expect? I think this film is way over the heads of a great many people posting on this board. Hannibal is an ironic love story about people existing and/or coping with extraordinary circumstances.

There are major spoilers in this commentary. Do not read on if you haven't seen the film.

Dr. Lecter wants only to live a quiet life of academic study and introspection. He has no desire to kill. Except he finds himself stalked by three separate and differently motivated pursuers; insecure, middle-aged, Pazzi who seeks money to keep his beautiful young wife, Mason who seeks a vicious and bloody revenge and Starling who wishes to do her job and is also compelled to save yet another victim (Hannibal) from a terrible fate just as she wished to save Catherine Martin from Buffalo Bill and the spring lambs from a slaughter.

Given these circumstances Hannibal reacts according to his wiring. He protects himself with the same style and flair that he always has but with a significant difference: he doesn't eat his victims. And he dispatches them cleaner and quicker. A quick cut to the groin for one. He takes longer with Pazzi because he needs to extract information from him. His threat to Pazzi about his wife is a bluff. He understands Pazzi's fear for his wife because he shares Pazzi's emotions. When he notices Pazzi and his wife at the opera, his smile is not malevolent but one of understanding. His murder of Paz is constructed to be theatrical and public because it's message, a warning to Mason or any one else who might pursue him. And as we find out later someone could have stopped him. His next victim is dispatched expediently. Another is not killed but certainly altered forever. In fact Clarice kills more people in this film than Hannibal does. And his surgery on her tormenter is really a humiliation and is prompted by his outrage at Claice's victimization. What concerned lover wouldn't spring to defend his beloved? Again the dramatic nature of these actions is because Hannibal has been hardwired to be and do everything in an extraordinary way. That is his nature. That is why we have all been fascinated by him for so long.



Harris' novel while flawed, was also compelling and thought provoking. I thought that Zaillian's script and Scott's direction did an admirable job of condensing, compressing and reordering Harris' themes and scenes to construct a different resolution to the novels controversial ending. If you have not read the book, do so. Some of the references in the film were designed to be understood by readers of the book. The brief shot of a maroon eyed deer during her triage, for instance, as well as the specifically tantalizing décolleté of Clarice's evening gown. In his first appearance in the book, Hannibal has a conversation with Pazzi about a scar on his hand. In the books it is a major point that Lector has six fingers on his left hand. He has had it amputated because it is, of course, a very distinguishing feature that could betray his identity. He explains away the scar as the result of an operation for carpal tunnel syndrome. Paz complains that he didn't list it on his entry documents as a medical problem, as required. Lecter responds that it shouldn't matter because it is not a disability. It was genius of Zaillian to take that minor exchange in the book and transform it in this film into the tremendous romantic gesture that Hannibal performs in the end. After all, we know for a fact that Hannibal knows how to open a pair of handcuffs. He could do it behind his back. And he has. But now he has disabled himself and given himself an unchangeable physical attribute, putting his freedom at terrible risk for the rest of his life and effectively putting to an end any chance of being a predator. This is how he expresses to Clarice how complete and unswerving his love for her is.

I was also very impressed with the excellent choice to move the scene with the little boy on the plane from it's original place in the middle of the book and arranging it to mean different things to different people. Some people think it means he is still a cannibal. That it is Kendler's brain. Can't be. He wouldn't have amputated his hand and then extracted Krendler's brain, cooked it, and then packed it up before he beat it out of the kitchen. It's just a cows brain delicacy from Dean and Deluca's. The scene really represents his regret that he will never know the pleasure of fatherhood. He makes a point of reminding Clarice of the joys of family that she is gave up to pursue her career in the FBI. He was really talking about himself and his regrets. After all he can convince some one to swallow their own tongue, peel off their face or throw their employer into a hog pit, but he can't convince Clarice of his willingness to change his life for her. That's the poignant irony of the ending. The man who can get any one to do anything can't influence the only person who matters to him. He can change for love but she cannot.

That is the ultimate profoundness concerning the difference between the ending of the book and the end of the film. Harris has complained that he feels the objections to the end of the book is coming from people who wish to "dumb Clarice down". That these people would wish to halt Clarice's ability to evolve and triumph. I know what Hannibal would call such people. Philistines. And yet I still found the end of the film rueful and moving.

The Postman (1997)

Pleased to see others agree.

[15 July 2000]

I'm watching The Postman on TNT right now. So out of curiosity I decided to see what other people thought of this film. What a pleasure to see that other people liked this film as well. It's charming, sarcastic,uplifting and thoughtful all at the same time. One of the things I noticed about this film the first time I saw it and have never heard any one comment on was that it presented teenagers in a very positive light. The youth in this film are idealistic and moral when most films present them as foolish, atavistic and cowardly. How refreshing. Costner makes movies that he wants to see. I am proud to state that I share his tastes. Waterworld is a blast. And it contains the best transition from studio logo to story. Less than one minute to set up the expositional information the film needed. And that includes the film that inspired that transition, Raiders of the Lost Ark. It takes real love of your art form to top Spielberg. Rock on Costner.

Waterworld (1995)

Armchair critics clam up.

[15 July 2000]

Best and most efficient opening sequence in film, ever. Period. When the Universal logo appeared at the end of the of the premovie corporate credits my friend and I grabbed each others arm and held our breath. "Oh God please do it" we muttered under our breath. And then they did. Terrific. And then, in less than twenty five words later the entire premise of the film was setup. One of the films that has been lambasted the most for bloated over expense actually has the most efficient use of film technique. Go figure. And rarely gets credit for it.

Okay, let's get this straight. To all the the thoughtless arm chair critics out there. Movie are NOT REALITY. The are not meant to exactly represent a realistic state. Kubrick is quoted as stating that seeing a movie is stepping into someone elses dream. That's why Spielberg and his buddies named the studio Dreamworks. If you want to see reality watch a documentary. Who gives a rats ass if the ice from the polar ice cap melted down would only cover three hundred feet or three hundred miles of the coast, so therefore Waterworld isn't accurate. It's not suppose to be. It's supposed to be entertaining, thought provoking, and emotional, as all films are suppose to be. If you want exactness and reality become a parttime fact checker for the New York times and give moviemakers a break.

The Winslow Boy (1999)

The return of Donat and other observations about The Winslow Boy.

[1 July 2000]

First I'd like to thank David Mamet for recognizing the remarkable similarity between Jeremy Northam and the late great Robert Donat and then putting it to impeccable use in The Winslow Boy. Donat has been missing for far too long from the cable stations and video rental lists. I'm getting a campaign started to force Amc and TMC to bring back all the old Donat films such as the original version of The Winslow Boy, Count of Monte Cristo, etc. First I'd like to state that by comparing Mr. Northams' performance to Mr. Donats' that I'm in no way diminishing it. On the contrary I find that his ability to evoke the memory of Donat lies in an amazing talent and an astounding technique. His first appearance in The Winslow Boy more than satisfied my glee at the casting of him in this role. When he first steps into the view of the camera, glimpses Catherine and then holds his legal files against him as if to shield his nakedness,( he is of course only naked in the sense that he is not entirely appropriately dressed without his tailcoat)my heart leapt at the thought that I was in for a deja vu movie experience. Excellant direction by Mr. Mamet.I was further pleased throughout the film to realize that although he was pulling out all the wonderful Donatisms, I never once for a moment doubted his sincerity in the role. He was Sir Robert and he was at that moment truely smitten. Mr. Northams' ability to let you see his characters thoughts is so finally tuned he hardly needs his own remarkable gift with dialogue. Other fabulous Donat moments from the film: His court room orations, "No sir' I will not stand down", very reminiscent of Young Mr. Pitt and his stuttering admonition not to "endow an unimportant incident with a romantic significance."Richard Hannay and Mr. Chips are alive and well. And don't get me started on the sexuality of the cigarette smoking.Also check out on the video his uncanny ability to match his shots in cuts on action.

Well thats enough about Mr Northams riveting multi-leveled performance. Mr Mamets restrained, precise, intelligent direction, breathed such vital life in to this 53 yr. old stage play that I'm eager to see what else he has planned. And how many other actors are lining up to work with him. This is a director who knows what he wants. Most of you have already pointed so many of this films tremendous merits I won't be redundant by repeating them. That is after all Mr. Mamets gig. But to the others of you who claimed to of missed the point or couldn't see the tension, drama or eroticism than all I have to say to you is,stuffy, wordy, Edwardian drawing room drama, my aunt Fannie. How little you know about movie viewing.

Lisa (1962)

Haunting, suspenseful

[9/10 · 1 July 2000]

I saw this film as a young girl in the sixties and never forgot it. One of the great pluses in this film is the very deep cast of English character actors who parade through the story. Not the least of which is Donald Pleasence. I consider this film the first to bear the, Donald Pleasence is in it, it must be good, rule. You know, that seal of approval that M.Emmet Walsh and later J.T. Walsh brought to their work.

I consider this to be Stephen Boyd's best work, and indicative of the career he could have had, had he not been saddled with the "too good looking for his own good" curse that ruined the aspirations of a lot of actors doomed to play shallow roles. As for Delores Hart's final screen performance, goodness only knows what she could have accomplished had she not committed her life to God. One of the great show biz what ifs. But the real star of this movie is the story, with its brutal for its time period, depiction of refugees problems in a post war Europe. Attempting to start anew while unable to escape the horrors of her war time experiences, Lisa is an unwanted and painful reminder of a society that wishes to move on but can't agree on how to handle the problems of thousands of extraneous displaced victims. And how this film refuses to sugar coat the ending, leaving its characters with choices that can only be described as excruciatingly heartbraking and yet uplifting at the same time. The post war experience in Europe was no picnic for the victims or the guilt ridden bystanders. This film will haunt you.