#HannibalMetaText

[cinnamaldeide]

Perhaps an odd question but I'm curious. A lot of fics I've read recently depict Hannibal as a sadist. Do you think he is or do you think he is to an extent? I get more of the impression from the show that his character revolves around definite narcissism in his motivation for doing things for his own amusement and pleasure but I'm not sure he gets pleasure from violence? I'm not making much sense and I'm hoping you will help me make more sense out of this ahh

This is not an odd question, quite interesting in fact; the odd part is asking me, who has absolutely no clue on how to come up with an insightful reply. I think I’ll just portray the same character I try to convey in my fanfictions, and I hope you’ll find that adequate (´ー` )

First of all, I’ll be honest and tell you I enjoy both recent and less recent fanworks, and depicting Hannibal as a sadist is nothing new. Authors of all age see him as a creature that knows sufferance, his and his victims’, and how to provoke it. Sadism is just not the focus.I can only speak about the movies and the show, which portray two rather different aspects of the same character, but there is a certain delicacy in how the show treats such theme. In my opinion, the attention for aesthetics in there greatly exceeds that for gore and violence. Mads Mikkelsen plays an elegant, composed man who has a profound distaste for rudeness; untouchable, devilish, offended by unbecoming manners, Will’s aside. Anthony Hopkins is instead a feral creature who revels in intimidating his acquaintances for the sake of seeking in their eyes admiration blended with fear, not bothering to hide anything in clear sight.One is a peacock, the other a lion. I’m not saying one is more dangerous, I’m talking about their attitude, their behaviour.

I think both Hannibals would inevitably be considered sadists, to an extend; Hopkins’ Lecter would result more close than Mikkelsen’s, but sadist doesn’t cover Hannibal’s multitude of features.

Let’s concentrate on the show version, which seemed to be your intent. You declare Hannibal’s motivated by narcisism, by egocentrism, which is not proportionate to his sadism. They are both present, but not exponentially connected. I’d argue that it’s an assumption I can’t deny nor confirm, since we rarely witness his crimes first hand. Will does, reconstructing his crimes, and it seems to me he’s rather impassive, clearly more focussed on the message he’s conveying than in the way he manages to accomplish his final work. To describe it with a metaphor, it’s like distinguishing between Hannibal enjoying painting for the sake of colouring the canvas and Hannibal merely doing what he needs to do to have his wonderful portrait at the end of the day.Hannibal doesn’t paint. He murders. He clearly enjoys that, it’s impossible to sustain he’s not at least partially invested in bestowing sufferance and cruelty. When Hannibal returns young and kills Rinaldo Pazzi, il Mostro is taunting his victim, has been playing with it for years, like he did with Jack Crawford. I think Hannibal enjoys the haunt more than the kill, like a cat playing with the mouse. Might not even eat it afterwards, if not for, you know, the cannibalism.

To answer your question, I think Bryan Fuller presented us Hannibal Lecter as a cultured, refined man, someone with whom the majority of us could emphasize, to understand Will’s perspective better. He gave us a man we could find charming, we could learn to appreciate and sympathize with, so that when he says one should always eat the rude whenever possible, we forget for a moment he’s insane.I’m saying this as her fervent fan. I love this character. It’s made of wrath and it’s not surrendering to the fact that certain persons are impolite, that nothing can change that. Death would, from his perspective. And if not that, then fear would do the rest. What I’m saying is, violence is a means to an end; that Hannibal enjoys it a lot just a little bit is just a mere coincidence 🌼The short answer is: yes, he’s a sadist. Not just that, but he’s also a sadistic bastard, among other things. Ask Will.

I’m sorry my answer is so long (and took so much time) and still probably not satisfying. It’s just a question whose answers are multiple and sometimes contraddictory. I’m not an expert, but I tried my best.

[cinnamaldeide]

Ladies Appreciation #HannibalMetaText: The Commitment of the Lambs

The focus of my attention has been so far centred on the Serie, so full of beautiful, lethal far-from-helpless damsels, but I don’t see why I should limit myself: when speaking about strong, solid-grounded women, Agent Starling sure deserves to be mentioned.

In particular, I’d like to talk about one of her most characterizing virtue, apart from her courage: I want to talk about her commitment. Clarice comes from the country, with her good bag and her cheap shoes, full of hope and ambitions, and after training so hard and managing to get somewhere all by herself, Jack Crawford throws her right to Hannibal Lecter.

Now. She knows who she is and what he’s done, and on top of everything else he did surround himself with a reputation; when I myself heard for the first time about Hannibal Lecter, the cannibal who could make another man to swallow his own tongue, that was enough for me never to want a single word about him ever again. I was scared such a thing could even exist. Clarice might be a little braver than me, but she’s not stupid. Jack isn’t testing her abilities, he’s just throwing what he has at the wall to see if it sticks.

Clarice is what he has, and she probably doesn’t even realise she’s been used up until Hannibal graciously suggests her so, but she never backs off. She’s committed to the cause; so much so that she faces alone Buffalo Bill in his basement, while Crawford flies around the Country anticipating his satisfaction.

Imagine his surprise, when he apprehends that Lecter has chosen Agent Starling over the coveted window where he can see a tree, or even water, possibly for the rest of his life if he doesn’t manage to break out before they put two and two together and admit to themselves they got tricked.

Clarice Starling is not the only committed one. Hannibal Lecter has not only favoured her, trusted her to be unwitting participant of his escape, he has literally put a ring on it, if admittedly in a twisted way, Hannibal being Hannibal. What am I talking about?

{1h:47m:10s}

Let’s talk about that ring and its meaning on Agent Starling’s hand, a woman so dedicated to her work, almost obsessively so, whose romantic involvements are almost never mentioned in the course of events; love is not exactly the central theme of this masterpiece, but there’s an undeniable romantic undercurrent running up to the very end.

The ring is visible during the whole duration of the film, but in this very handshake with her boss she seems to be taking a certain distance, when the silence becomes uncomfortably significant.

The first time Clarice’s sexuality is discussed in the movie, it happens at Hannibal’s volition; he offers her a towel to dry her hair, establishing a familiar atmosphere with his courtesy, giving her tips on the case, and then suddenly taking her out of her comfort zone mentioning she might possible interest her chief from a romantic point of view.

Jack Crawford is helping your career. Apparently he likes you and you like him. I never thought about it. Do you think Jack Crawford wants you, sexually? True, he is much older, but do you think he visualises scenarios, exchanges, fucking you? That doesn’t interest me and, frankly, it’s the sort of thing that Miggs would say. Not any more. (x)

Apart from his sadistic pleasure in admiring her struggle, Hannibal has no apparent reason why insinuating such a twist in her relationship with Jack; he wants to destabilise her, to crush her certainties, he wants her to question the objectivity of her own esteemed leader.

Hannibal doesn’t content with that, though; give him an acorn and you’re up to your rump in oak trees. He subtly but undeniably insinuates that he could take his place.

Did Jack Crawford send you for one last wheedle before you’re both booted off the case? No, I came because I wanted to. People will say we’re in love. (x)

Subtle as he may or may not be, Hannibal is offering his attentions to her advancing career, while plotting his escape; he developes a soft spot for her and lingers in his own selfish reminders of intimacy. His longstanding rivality with Crawford is probably part of the thrill.

{1h:10m:32s}

Caressing her finger, Hannibal is mapping his way to her affection, letting her have a taste of his touch; he manifests his presence with a soft, unintrusive but unequivocal act, before their separation. This is their only physical contact in the movie. Clarice is literally desperately wrapped around his little finger, just as he wants, even if not explicitly romantically involved.

She’s committed to have her lambs stop screaming, not to appeal to his tastes. He’s committed to have her pursuing him and not forgetting about their special relationship, to have her undivided attention. He doesn’t share.

Not even when Agent Starling becomes Special Agent Starling, Jack Crawford by her side, congratulating her for her hard work, languid eyes and pregnant silence; Hannibal wants to take her breath away with one last gesture, before disappearing from her life. At least until she has marinated long enough in her developing crush and Lecter gets jealous over the FBI, in Hannibal (2001). My point is, Hannibal and Jack care for her in very different ways. Where one distances himself at her professional detachment, the other whispers at her accomplice ear.

Clarice Starling is committed to Hannibal Lecter as much as he allows her, with his elusive proximity and his cryptic traces, and I would hesitate to ascribe this complicated relationship they share to a mere romantic involvement; I know I’ve probably been reductive and not completely attendable, but I hope this post inspires some debate: there’s so much to be said of this unique affiliation.

[nera-solani]

May I add that I believe he enjoys inflicting psychological way more than physical pain in my opinion? He is above all, a man of the mind and as such he greatly enjoys messing with the minds of others (ask Will), he might even have chosen the field of psychology for precisely that reason. His kills are methodical, I don’t think he tortures his victims (at least not usually), but he likes to spread fear in the minds of people. As you said, fear and awe. He’s a manipulative bastard (ask anyone) and greatly enjoys Jack Crawford reaching for straws, rather than killing the man for the rudeness of his mere existence. So yes, I believe Hannibal is a sadist. But a sadist who enjoys psychological pain and suffering way more than physical pain.

Okay correction: apparently Hannibal does canonically torture his victims (for example by taking their organs out while they’re still alive) and my memory is just shit lol That doesn’t mean I don’t stand by my point of him enjoying the psychological aspect more than the physical one though, he just happens to enjoy both while one is a bit more important. I could go into detail about the psychological aspect of physical torture but that might get out of hand and I don’t have time to write an essay on this, haha

Perhaps an odd question but I'm curious. A lot of fics I've read recently depict Hannibal as a sadist. Do you think he is or do you think he is to an extent? I get more of the impression from the show that his character revolves around definite narcissism in his motivation for doing things for his own amusement and pleasure but I'm not sure he gets pleasure from violence? I'm not making much sense and I'm hoping you will help me make more sense out of this ahh

This is not an odd question, quite interesting in fact; the odd part is asking me, who has absolutely no clue on how to come up with an insightful reply. I think I’ll just portray the same character I try to convey in my fanfictions, and I hope you’ll find that adequate (´ー` )

First of all, I’ll be honest and tell you I enjoy both recent and less recent fanworks, and depicting Hannibal as a sadist is nothing new. Authors of all age see him as a creature that knows sufferance, his and his victims’, and how to provoke it. Sadism is just not the focus.I can only speak about the movies and the show, which portray two rather different aspects of the same character, but there is a certain delicacy in how the show treats such theme. In my opinion, the attention for aesthetics in there greatly exceeds that for gore and violence. Mads Mikkelsen plays an elegant, composed man who has a profound distaste for rudeness; untouchable, devilish, offended by unbecoming manners, Will’s aside. Anthony Hopkins is instead a feral creature who revels in intimidating his acquaintances for the sake of seeking in their eyes admiration blended with fear, not bothering to hide anything in clear sight.One is a peacock, the other a lion. I’m not saying one is more dangerous, I’m talking about their attitude, their behaviour.

I think both Hannibals would inevitably be considered sadists, to an extend; Hopkins’ Lecter would result more close than Mikkelsen’s, but sadist doesn’t cover Hannibal’s multitude of features.

Let’s concentrate on the show version, which seemed to be your intent. You declare Hannibal’s motivated by narcisism, by egocentrism, which is not proportionate to his sadism. They are both present, but not exponentially connected. I’d argue that it’s an assumption I can’t deny nor confirm, since we rarely witness his crimes first hand. Will does, reconstructing his crimes, and it seems to me he’s rather impassive, clearly more focussed on the message he’s conveying than in the way he manages to accomplish his final work. To describe it with a metaphor, it’s like distinguishing between Hannibal enjoying painting for the sake of colouring the canvas and Hannibal merely doing what he needs to do to have his wonderful portrait at the end of the day.Hannibal doesn’t paint. He murders. He clearly enjoys that, it’s impossible to sustain he’s not at least partially invested in bestowing sufferance and cruelty. When Hannibal returns young and kills Rinaldo Pazzi, il Mostro is taunting his victim, has been playing with it for years, like he did with Jack Crawford. I think Hannibal enjoys the haunt more than the kill, like a cat playing with the mouse. Might not even eat it afterwards, if not for, you know, the cannibalism.

To answer your question, I think Bryan Fuller presented us Hannibal Lecter as a cultured, refined man, someone with whom the majority of us could emphasize, to understand Will’s perspective better. He gave us a man we could find charming, we could learn to appreciate and sympathize with, so that when he says one should always eat the rude whenever possible, we forget for a moment he’s insane.I’m saying this as her fervent fan. I love this character. It’s made of wrath and it’s not surrendering to the fact that certain persons are impolite, that nothing can change that. Death would, from his perspective. And if not that, then fear would do the rest. What I’m saying is, violence is a means to an end; that Hannibal enjoys it a lot just a little bit is just a mere coincidence 🌼The short answer is: yes, he’s a sadist. Not just that, but he’s also a sadistic bastard, among other things. Ask Will.

I’m sorry my answer is so long (and took so much time) and still probably not satisfying. It’s just a question whose answers are multiple and sometimes contraddictory. I’m not an expert, but I tried my best.