Quote:
|
Originally Posted by TStone
Actually, the facet of cannibalism was integral to his character thought-out the first movie, and on into the sequels. The audience doesn’t need a constant reminder of who he’s eaten, why, where, because it’s part of his character. He seethes depravity, and you know that with Hannibal, you’re only one stupid thought away from winding up in his tummy.
To say cannibalism was tacked on to his character as an aside is a bit of a slap in the face to the writer, and the actor who brought the character to life. I mean, if he was huffing helium ala Dennis Hopper in Blue Velvet, I’d concede the tacking on of a minor character trait to try and give the whole more definition, but in Hannibal’s case…it’s the driving force of who he is.
|
I still disagree. The fact that he, as you put it, "seethes depravity" and would kill you for appearing ignortant or tactless doesn't have anything to do with cannibalism. I say that were the story to be changed you could remove "cannibalism" and replace it with "forcibly perform unneccesary surgery" quite seamlessly. He wont eat you for being stupid, he'll just lobotomize you without anesthetic. In my mind the switch really wouldn't change the fabric of the story whatsoever. Aside from the liver-and-beans remark, the only other reference to cannibalism I can remember was in the ending when Hannibal quips "I'm having an old friend for dinner." Granted, coming up with a spiffy nickname like "Hannibal The Cannibal would be a bit tougher, as "Hannibal The Sadistic Neurosurgeon" just doesn't have the same ring, but I'm convinced that cannibalism was not an important part of the story. It was mentioned very few times and the bulk of the movie was spent dealing with the crimes of Buffalo Bill, not Hannibal Lechter.