When Thomas Harris wrote the first Hannibal Lecter novel he didn’t imagine the psychopathic serial assassin would be one of the most easily recognizable fictional characters in modern cinema history. After Anthony Hopkins’ astonishing interpretation in Jonathan Demme’s The Silence of the Lambs –which by the way is one of the only three movies that has won all five most important Academy Awards which are Best Picture, Director, Screenplay, Actor and Actress*- alongside Jody Foster in 1991, a sequel and then a prequel were released by different directors. I haven’t watched Ridley Scott’s Hannibal or Brett Ratner’s Red Dragon, but I guess a trilogy dedicated to the cannibal murderer was more than enough. Unfortunately, Harris wrote a fourth novel about the origins of Hannibal and British director Peter Webber (Girl with a Pearl Earring) decided to make this cinematic adaptation which discredits the assassin’s name.

The film focuses on Hannibal Lecter’s “rising”; it explains the reasons that caused him to become a serial killer and develop a particular taste for human flesh. The story opens in Lithuania during World War II, Lecter (Aaran Thomas) is an eight-years-old boy and he and his family are forced to flee from their castle to a small cottage deeper in the woods. They’re found by a Russian tank which is at the same time spotted by German Stukas. The fighting begins and ends up with everyone dead except from Hannibal and his younger sister Mischa (Helena-Lia Tachovska). The two children are found by a group of marauders –we don’t really know who they are- who are “forced” to eat the little girl in order to survive. Eight years later, Hannibal (now played by Gaspard Ulliel) escapes from the communist country and goes to Paris to find his only living relative, his aunt, Lady Murasaki (Gong Li). She awkwardly teaches him some samurai techniques and Lecter is admitted into medical school. Now, the soon-to-be murderer is trying to remember who killed and ate his sister to take revenge.

This is the first movie Thomas Harris actually wrote for the screen (the others were just based on his novels) and this may be the reason for the crappy script. I really don’t know if he’s a talented novelist but if he is, Harris should dedicate to that and stop writing screenplays. The main problem the script presents is that most of the circumstances in the film feel shamelessly adapted to the needs of the plot. This wouldn’t be a problem if the story was interesting but it is totally straightforward and apart from the final twist which surprised me, provides the viewer with nothing compelling. Other forced circumstances to explain some details of Hannibal’s life include a romance between Lady Murasaki and his nephew who at the end has nothing left inside him to love. This relationship which takes part mostly in the middle section of the film is the most uninteresting part of it. The script by itself isn’t very intelligent; it doesn’t feel dumb but some dramatic attempts are laughable and anticlimactic. It also fails to develop the characters, although we get some details of Lecter’s historical background, we never get to know the protagonist well. Most of the secondary characters, especially Gong Li’s character and the ones to blame for Mischa’s death remain a complete mystery.

Performances, especially from the supporting cast, are another of the serious problems the motion picture has. Voice-acting of almost every actor is lame –trust me, it sucks- and they just make the film’s plot even more unbelievable. Aaran Thomas, who plays young Hannibal, overacts and his character feels way too forced. Fortunately, Gaspard Ulliel is all right with his psychopathic role and although he always seems to have a big sarcastic smile on his face and isn’t as chilling as Anthony Hopkins, manages to portray his character correctly. One has to ask though, why didn’t they cast an actor who resembled more to Hopkins? If the director was sure Ulliel was the right one for the part of Lecter, why didn’t the makeup team do something to establish a physical connection with the classic Hannibal? In fact, apart from the killings, there is no connection between this and the old assassin. As some have said, what’s the purpose of a Hannibal flick without Anthony Hopkins? Gong Li isn’t too good as Hannibal’s Japanese love interest and only emotional support, and Dominic West does a decent job as the police officer in charge of the investigation of the murders. 

Peter Webber seemed to be a pretty good director after he adapted Tracy Chevalier’s period piece in 2003 but in Hannibal Rising, he falls in clichés and makes many mistakes. The film is ineffectively sensationalist; it tries to manipulate the audience towards certain feelings and fails. The movie also presents an apparently normal oriental woman who secretly praises her ancestor’s spirits and is a martial arts expert. Another circumstance adapted for the sake of the plot. At least Webber manages to recreate an acceptably believable Hannibal who develops different sadistic Jigsaw-like devices to kill his victims. Unfortunately, the film has no style at all, it’s too long and we feel as if we were getting just a lot of the same; we end up saturated. 

Finally, one has to ask oneself why the producers and director didn’t cast better actors –don’t tell me there aren’t any good twelve-year-old performers- or at least hire an actual screenwriter prepared to adapt a novel to the screen. Or maybe the novel is as flawed as the picture. The performances and the script are the movie’s weakest aspects and prevent it from working appropriately. After watching this uninspired motion picture, I think something better could have been done with this potentially good story which adapted like this does nothing but demystify a mythical character like Hannibal the Cannibal who definitely deserved something better.

Mauricio Kahn

Lima, Mar 2008

*The other two are Frank Capra’s It Happened One Night and Milos Forman’s One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest.

BACK