Aug 28, 2019
Aug 27, 2019
THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS (1991)
At this rate, Hannibal Lecter has
achieved pop culture status, and when a horror figure reaches those heights,
that’s pretty big. By now, he’s the James Bond of horror, having been played
three times in three very different takes on the character, but all of them
appropriate for the mood of the film — or television series — utilizing him.
(I’m not commenting on anything having to do with Hannibal Rising, the
very film about which you’ve forgotten. In my mind, it doesn’t even exist.)
The Silence of the Lambs is looked upon as the definitive
adaptation of Thomas Harris’ novel series while also introducing the definitive
depiction of Hannibal Lecter, as essayed by Anthony Hopkins. Both are correct.
Though my love and respect for Manhunterhas increased over the years, and though I’m sort of in love with Mads
Mikkelsen’s version of Hannibal Lecter, The
Silence of the Lambs’ legacy is the most deserved. And there are many
reasons to proclaim its superiority over the remaining explorations, due in no
small part to its willingness to embrace the dark subject matter of the source
novel (something Manhunter shied
away from), its across-the-board tremendous performances, and its immortal
design. I say immortal because The
Silence of the Lambs looks like it could have been shot yesterday, rather
than thirty years ago. Where Ridley Scott's Hannibal
moved the titular character front and center into a sillier and more visceral
experience — a reflection of the source novel — and 2003’s Red Dragon seemed
like a move more obligatory than artistic (and a bit too familiar), The Silence of the Lambs was a filmic
pioneer in that it plunged into the world of real, actual crime investigations
with an emphasis on forensics and postmortem techniques. The source novel for Manhunter, Red Dragon, had its fair
share of this as well, but Michael Mann shed much of it from his screenplay,
choosing to focus more on the psychological implications suffered by Will
Graham (William Peterson) from his uncanny ability to deeply engage with the
mind of the serial killer he was hunting. The
Silence of the Lambs, both novel and film, resurrects this emphasis on
federal investigation, almost feeling like a do-over of the previous novel and
film. It is, after all, about someone working on behalf of the FBI to interview
a known serial killer in hopes of catching another serial killer. Because of
this, it feels more scientific, and hence, more intellectual. And the
relationship between FBI Agent Trainee Clarice Starling (Jodie Foster) and the
cannibal, Dr. Hannibal Lecter (Hopkins), offers a very different vibe. If ever there were
a film about serial killers and cannibals and mutilation and psychosexual
perversions that could also, just faintly, just minutely, be sexy, it’s The Silence of the Lambs.
Speaking of sexy, by design, The Silence of the Lambs isn’t attractive. It’s dour, dark, and
bleak — not a single sequence shows the sun, nor takes place in any kind of
bright and welcoming environment. And once the film is approaching the final
act, dealing with Buffalo Bill’s dungeon and house of horrors, the amount of
scum and ugliness is at its fever pitch. Color is almost nonexistent.
Everything is brown and gray and beige and neutral, although Demme finds ways
to play around with colors to a purposely nauseating effect, most notably in
the pre-interview sequence where Dr. Chilton (Anthony Heald) is walking
Starling to Lecter’s cell and showing her photos of the nurse Lecter had viciously
attacked, all of which is bathed in a sickening red hospital light.
Hopkins and Foster walked away
with best actor and best actress statuettes at that year’s Academy Awards, and
I’m over the moon that a genre picture was recognized by the typically
anti-genre organization in any capacity, but having said that, Ted Levine gives
the film’s best performance, period, and that he didn’t come home with his own
statue is a shame (although he would have been in direct competition with
Hopkins, which would been interesting). Levine’s contributions to The Silence of the Lambs’ enduring
legacy is often swept aside in favor of Hopkin’s flamboyant and lovably
sadistic Hannibal Lecter, but it’s Levine’s bravery and unhinged performance as
Buffalo Bill that gives the film its real sense of danger. Your monster movie
(and this is a monster movie) is only as scary as its monster, and in this
regard, The Silence of the Lambs is
brutally scary. “I ate his liver with some fava beans” might be a popular
quote, but, “It puts the lotion in the basket” is the line that’s far more
quoted (for some reason).
It’s been two years since director Jonathan Demme passed away, but it still feels like such a recent loss for the horror genre and the filmmaking world at large. (We’ve lost way too many horror directors over the last 5 years – I’m personally still reeling over the losses of Wes Craven and George Romero.) It’s been especially sad seeing Demme appear in the supplements included on the Criterion Collection release where he looks young and healthy, knowing that the director of one of the most respected genre pictures of all time is gone.
Both this and Night of the Living Dead are two of the most mainstream releases that Criterion have released in a while, and it’s kind of fitting that both were released at the same time — as if in a way to honor both directors who are no longer with us, and who will both be sorely, sorely missed.
Aug 26, 2019
AND WHAT DO WE COVET?
“What do you look at while you’re making up your mind? Ours is not a reflective culture; we do not raise our eyes up to the hills. Most of the time we decide the critical things while looking at the linoleum floor of an institutional corridor, or whispering hurriedly in a waiting room with a television blatting nonsense.”
The art.
Aug 25, 2019
MANHUNTER (1986)
I have kind of an odd history with Manhunter.
It was 2001, and the first post-Silence of the Lambs Hannibal Lecter film was being released to
huge anticipation and fanfare. (Ridley Scott's Hannibal was released a mere nine years after The Silence of the Lambs,
yet it felt like an eternity had passed in between; meanwhile, eighteen years
have passed since Hannibal was
released in theaters, but it feels like it just came out, doesn't it? Tell me,
how old do you feel?)
In "honor" of Hannibal's impending release, Anchor Bay Entertainment released Manhunter on an anniversary VHS. "Hannibal Lecter's legacy of evil begins here" the cover art boasted. I was curious about the film, never having heard of it, let alone seen it. And I was warned against it. "It's so bad," I was told. The film was boring. Poorly made. "Some weird, no-name guy" was playing Hannibal Lecter.
In "honor" of Hannibal's impending release, Anchor Bay Entertainment released Manhunter on an anniversary VHS. "Hannibal Lecter's legacy of evil begins here" the cover art boasted. I was curious about the film, never having heard of it, let alone seen it. And I was warned against it. "It's so bad," I was told. The film was boring. Poorly made. "Some weird, no-name guy" was playing Hannibal Lecter.
Refusing to fold to such pressure, I brought it home anyway
to give it a whirl. And my first viewing of Manhunter could best be described as conflicting. Chronologically,
I don't recall if I had yet to read through the Hannibal Lecter novel series,
though I since have, so it wasn't a matter of compulsively comparing the events
of the film to the events of the book. It was more than I had no choice but to
take the film at face value, doing my best to reconcile that The Silence of the Lambs had seemed to prove the final word on the
subject of Hannibal Lecter. Fair or not, The
Silence of the Lambs had already
cemented the idea of who Hannibal Lecter was: how he sounded, looked, spoke,
and in what way he figured into the conflict. Manhunter, based on the first novel of the Hannibal Lecter trilogy,
Red Dragon, had no choice but to pale
in comparison. After all, the same aesthetic--an FBI agent relying on the
intellect of a captive serial killer for help in catching another killer at
large--had already been established. Not only that, but Lambs hewed closer to
the horror genre, with its gory and graphic depictions of exhumation, crime
scene photography, along with its wild, awe-inspiring, and taboo-shattering performance
from Ted Levine as Buffalo Bill. It was difficult to appreciate Manhunter from the outset because,
following the discouragement in seeing the film, I only managed to see its
flaws. But, like most things, perception can change over time. And as I became
more and more attuned with who Michael Mann was, and how a Michael Mann film
felt, it led me into a reintroduction to his take on the Hannibal Lecter
legacy, and this time around, I found a lot more to appreciate.
Manhunter is the
Hannibal Lecter story reimagined as a police procedural. Efforts were made to
maintain Lecter's (sorry, Lecktor's) cunning and intimidation, but to also dial
down the grislier aspects from the character of the novel. (He's never once
referred to as "Hannibal the Cannibal.") More interested in crafting
a psychological thriller than the overtly horrific 2005 version of Red Dragon and the television series Hannibal, Michael
Mann honed in on the effects of "the gift" that Will Graham
possesses--and on how easily a person with that kind of gift can begin to lose
a sense of who he is. But in doing this, his character came off as hardened,
rather than the fragile and quite vulnerable version recently essayed by Hugh
Dancy on the short-lived NBC series. (The less said about Edward Norton's
"Nah, I'm good" take on the role, the better.) Because of this,
Peterson's iteration of Will Graham was difficult to embrace at first, and at
times, it still is. He seems less like a person trying to enjoy retirement in a
Floridian pastel paradise with his wife and son, and more like someone
insisting on this paradise and this family in an effort to enforce his own
sense of normality. Right off the bat he seems unable to fully connect,
emotionally, with his wife or his son, and whether this was purposeful on
Mann's part or a disconnect between Peterson and the role is unclear. What is
clear, however, that as appreciation grows over time for a film at first
misunderstood, Peterson's Will Graham--hardened or not from his years of criminal
profiling--is a fascinating portrayal of a man on the edge, obsessed with doing
what he knows is right, to the point where he risks his life, as well as those
of his family.
Of all the novels in the Hannibal Lecter trilogy, Red Dragon is most suited toward Michael
Mann's sensibilities. Seemingly not that interested in the horror genre (The
Keep notwithstanding), Red Dragon
makes the easiest case for Mann to sidestep the horrific in favor of the
psychological. It's in keeping with the kind of stories he likes to tell: the
cop against the thief; the righteous against the corrupt; whatever Miami Vice
was. And that's the most satisfying thing about Manhunter--it's vintage Michael Mann. Disparate conflicts aside, Manhunter wouldn't feel out of place in
a double bill with his James Caan heist film Thief. From his leaning on cool
blue hues to his use of ethereal (and, yeah, kind of dated) musical
soundscapes, it's Michael Mann who makes Manhunter
such a great film (with respect to novelist Thomas Harris, of course).
Hack extraordinaire Brett Ratner did his best to replicate Manhunter's class and appeal with his "official" adaptation of Red Dragon by doing what he does best--stealing good ideas from better filmmakers. Hiring Manhunter's director of photography (Dante Spinotti), and The Silence of the Lambs' screenwriter and production designer (Ted Tally and Kristi Zea, respectively), all Ratner managed to do was make a very okay film with an amazing ensemble cast, all of whom are utterly wasted. Naturally it made money and was considered quite the success--neither thing Manhunter had been able to boast upon its 1986 release.
Hack extraordinaire Brett Ratner did his best to replicate Manhunter's class and appeal with his "official" adaptation of Red Dragon by doing what he does best--stealing good ideas from better filmmakers. Hiring Manhunter's director of photography (Dante Spinotti), and The Silence of the Lambs' screenwriter and production designer (Ted Tally and Kristi Zea, respectively), all Ratner managed to do was make a very okay film with an amazing ensemble cast, all of whom are utterly wasted. Naturally it made money and was considered quite the success--neither thing Manhunter had been able to boast upon its 1986 release.
There's been a slow Manhunter
resurgence over the years, likely due in part to the boom in home video
collecting beginning in the early '90s, which allowed new audiences to discover
the redheaded stepchild of a rather prominent horror franchise. Many ardent
supporters go as far to say that it's superior to The Silence of the Lambs
in every way. While that last part isn't true (man-love for Mads Mikkelsen
aside, Anthony Hopkins' first take on Hannibal Lecter will always be
definitive), that doesn't make Manhunter
less worthy of a re-reintroduction to high-def collectors. Fans of
psychological thrillers will find a lot to analyze and pupils of Michael Mann
will enjoy seeing an early effort containing signs of things to come.
Manhunter isn't
the definitive film from the Hannibal Lecter universe, but it's nearly there.
As long as The Silence of the Lambs exists, Manhunter
will always be second in command, but that's just fine considering the enormous
legacy Lambs has gone on to
establish and rightfully earn.
With the cancellation a few years ago of the cult
television series Hannibal, which
proved that established characters could shake free of their constraints and be
re-imagined for new audiences, perhaps a few more folks have opened their minds
to the possibility that the Hannibal Lecter legacy doesn't stop and start with
The Silence of the Lambs, however oddly Hannibal Lecktor may
want to spell his name.
Aug 24, 2019
OK, SO LONG
Hello Betsy.
Hi, it's Travis.
How ya doin'?
Listen, uh, I'm, I'm sorry about the, the other night.
I didn't know that was the way you felt about it.
Well, I-I didn't know that was the way you felt.
I-I-I would have taken ya somewhere else.
Uh, are you feeling better or oh you maybe had a virus or somethin', a 24-hour virus you know. It happens.
Yeah, umm, you uh, you're workin' hard. Yeah.
Uh, would you like to have, uh, some dinner, uh with me in the next, you know, few days or somethin'?
Well, how about just a cup of coffee? I'll come by the, uh, headquarters or somethin', we could, uh...
Oh, OK, OK.
Did you get my flowers in the...?
You didn't get them? I sent some flowers, uh...
Yeah, well, OK, OK.
Can I call you again? Uh, tomorrow or the next day?
OK. No, I'm gonna...
OK. Yeah, sure, OK. So long.
Aug 23, 2019
DEEP INTO HIS WORLD: REVISITING 'THE CELL' (2000)
The Cell is a film that not a lot of people seem to like. References to it over the last few years have mildly spiked in conjunction with the introduction of the critically beloved but little seen NBC series Hannibal, as the two share breathtaking images of unrestrained beauty married to that of the macabre (one particular Hannibal character's fate seems lovingly lifted directly from the former). Every so often you may accidentally catch someone expressing enthusiasm for this horror/science-fiction/serial killer thriller aptly described as "The Silent of the Lambs meets The Matrix," but more often than not, no one has all that much positive to say about it.
Universally derided Jennifer Lopez plays Catherine Deane, a child psychologist employing an experimental approach in her work: her ability to enter the mind of her subject in an effort to examine his/her reality and attempt to study the visual representation of her patient's cognition to determine the root cause of her patient's illness. This procedure takes its toll on Catherine, both physically, in that it exhausts her and forces her to such stimulants as marijuana (run!) to come down, as well as emotionally, as despite how cutting edge the machinery is, it just doesn't seem to be helping her current patient, a young boy named Edward. That this technique isn't helping with his illness certainly isn't sitting well with Edward's parents, who begin threatening to pull him from the project altogether.
Meanwhile, you've got Carl Stargher (Vincent D'Onofrio), a serial killer who likes to kidnap women and murder them, and then basically turn them into dolls. Hot on Stargher's trail is Peter Novak (Vince Vaughn, in an ever increasingly rare dramatic performance), a detective intent on hunting down the madman before he claims another victim. Their paths soon cross and Novak locates Stargher at his home, but it's too late, as it would seem Stargher is now comatose, having suffered what would seem to be his last seizure. And it's really too late because Stargher did manage to kidnap one more girl and place her in his inescapable cell apparatus, which over time fills with water, causing the victim to suffer and eventually drown. With the only one person knowing the location of this apparatus now in a coma, Novak requests the help of Catherine and her team to enter Stargher's mind and determine how to find this cell by sifting through the many layers of his madness.
As for The Cell being summarized as "The Silence of the Lambs meets The Matrix," this kind of generally lazy pull-quote that a critic concocts hoping to be quoted in subsequent marketing efforts is actually right on the money. You take a hunt for an infamous serial killer and marry it to this strange abstract world where everything seems possible and there are no physical rules to keep everything in place, and The Cell is exactly what you'd get. Many critics faulted this mash-up, not because of the approach, but because of the ol' "style over substance" bit, for which a lot of films get attacked. Too much Matrix, not enough Lambs. And that's a fair critique. Even the most ardent lovers of The Cell have to admit that its visual merits far overshadow and outweigh its thematic ones. Not only does the film definitely tote the admittedly fantastic visual effects, but except for the mind-suit gimmick, it doesn't do much with the serial killer route beyond what we've seen in this genre so many times before: the killer was abused as a child, has sexual issues, and for the most part retains no semblance of genuine human emotion.
While one should always stress the importance of content over context, sometimes said context can just be so expertly performed that it can capably carry its weak content across the finish line. And that's ultimately what The Cell kind of is: a flawlessly designed and presented horror/thriller with a story strongish enough to complement it, but one still weak enough to prevent the finished product from being celebrated across the spectrum.
J. Lo and V. Vau (sorry) both turn in pretty standard performances, the former finding herself playing a role she's never played before, and likely won't again. Personal opinions of her "celebrity" aside, she manages to pull off a pretty tricky role, especially in the film's final moments when she's been dolled up as Stargher's demented queen.
But the real star is here director Tarsem Singh (The Fall, Self/Less), who became famous for directing the music video for R.E.M.'s "Losing My Religion." His visuals on display are tremendous. He manages to create entire landscapes that are both twisted as well as beautiful, revolting as well as sad, and some of them will flat-out mystify you, such as the bodybuilder (a past victim, though based on a true story) that comes to life only when needed to do Stargher's bidding, or any of the several bizarre set-pieces, some of which are recreated from infamous and abstract art pieces (mostly notably the horse vivisection, inspired by the art of Damien Hirst, and the painting "Dawn" by Norwegian painter Odd Nerdrum). Whether original constructions or inspired by elsewhere, all of these images come together and form a demented and disturbed visual tapestry akin to literally a living nightmare.
You know, the serial-killer thing didn't interest me at all... At the turn of the century, a studio would make any film that had a serial killer in it. I just said, "Okay, so that's the nutshell I need to put it in? It's fine." In the '70s, everybody was making disaster movies. If I'd made The Cell in the '70s, it would have been about a burning building, with a guy having a dream on the 14th floor. I'd make it because of the dream, the studio would make it because of the building burning. Same thing here—I looked at the script, said "Oh, serial-killer thing—I don't give anything about that. Okay. Put that on the side. And inside his head… wow, clean palette."
Then I came up with all this shit which was called overindulgent, masturbating on dead bodies or whatever. I just said, "All I'm saying with this is, don't laugh at this character, okay?" And that's it. That's what it took.
(Source: The AV Club.)The Cell made enough bank the year of its release for New Line Cinema to consider it a success, and to ensure a very terrible direct-to-video sequel (though it would star Frank Whaley and take several years). Despite its commercial success and mixed love from critics, Tarsem did not jump right into another studio project, but instead bankrolled The Fall, an independent feature shot in countries all over the world over a span of several years. It was also pretty fantastic, and far more interesting and satisfying than his next big studio project, The Immortals, which starred a pre-Man of Steel Henry Cavill.
Tarsem has gone on record saying of all the genres he's worked in so far, he enjoys thrillers the most, and hopes to do another sometime soon. Here's hoping that's true.
Aug 22, 2019
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)