I would like this to go down as a historic moment in my history as a fan of the Hannibal Lecter films, which comprise the well known "Silence of the Lambs" (1991), "Hannibal" (2001), and "Red Dragon" (2002), as well as the lesser known "Manhunter" (1986) and the recent piece of trash prequel.
Often its fun to debate which is the best of them, since they're all so very different. "Manhunter", the indie-hipster's "I got into it before it was cool" choice? The Oscar-winning "Silence"? The divisive, Grand Guignol, OTT "Hannibal"? Or the other two?
A major point of comparison here is Brett Ratner's "Red Dragon" vs. Michael Mann's "Manhunter". Both adapt the same book, Thomas Harris' "Red Dragon" - the first book he wrote featuring the Lecter character - but one is able to feature Anthony Hopkins as Lecter, the main element that popularizes these films, while the other strips away all of the character backstory from Harris' novel and features production design that could be called "Miami Vice: The Movie".
The pro-"Manhunter" case was thus: Brian Cox is a more subdued, realistic Lecter, Petersen's portrayal of Will Graham was subtler and less "phoned-in" than Norton's (how does one determine that anyway?) and Michael Mann is a recognized autuer with a large following and a distinct artistic vision whereas Brett Ratner is a work-for-hire director with a penchant for taking over other people's abandoned, yet still profitable franchises.
The pro-"Red Dragon" case was thus: How can you have Lecter without Hopkins? Ralph Fiennes portrayal of Dolarhyde was more three-dimensional and complete than Tom Noonan, the script was from Ted Tally and followed Harris' book more closely, and the overall atmosphere matched the other Lecter films more.
Since its release, I have long supported "Red Dragon" over "Manhunter", which I regarded as a late-80s exercise in style-over-substance, with no depth, and a cold, unfeeling direction from Mann, who I've never been a fan of. Oh, and no Hopkins.
But tonight...
...my opinion changed.
There are a lot of things I still don't like about "Manhunter". Its treatment of the Dolarhyde character, stripped of his poignant and revealing backstory and with his motivations and inspirations ignored and confused, is one of the biggest. Then there's the pastels and the In-Da-Gadda-Da-Vida ending.
But... it feels more genuine. It feels like it belongs beside "Silence" and "Hannibal". Yes, Mann has a very unique style that is very distinct from Jonathan Demme's, but so did Ridley Scott. It reminds me of the Alien films -- all have a unique flavour because they are from such different autuers (in that case: Scott, James Cameron, David Fincher, Jean-Paul Jeunet). This compared to Ratner, who is trying to ape Demme (with a bit of Tim Burton in places it feels, but maybe that's just the overwhelming Elfman score) -- the comparable scenario to Ratner's entrance would be Paul WS Anderson's "AVP" film. Ratner is competent, but that's about it.
And "Manhunter", made in 1986, simply feels more genuinely pre-"Silence" than "Red Dragon" does. "Red Dragon" never fully manages to convince me that its pre-1991. Yes, Hopkin's face has been digitally de-aged and his hair coloured black, but he has far less of it, and he's noticeably fat. Then there are all those Earth tones borrowed from "Silence" that the cinematography (which is quite good, mind you) is dripping in. It's ironic that its the same cinematographer as Mann's film, Dante Spinotti. "Red Dragon" is set in the 80s but it doesn't feel like it -- "Manhunter" does because, well, for gosh sake it was MADE in the 80s!
Petersen and Norton are very different as Graham and there are elements to both their portrayals that I enjoy. I think Norton has more of a human side and I enjoy the scenes with the Graham family featuring him. But... Petersen is more believeably tortured by his experiences than Norton. And, more importantly... I can believe that Petersen took down Hannibal Lecter. Maybe it's from all these years on CSI now, but I just don't see Norton outsmarting Anthony Hopkins. Maybe that's why in the scene which opens "Red Dragon" which depicts the momentous event it comes across more as Graham winning by dumb luck than anything else.
Which brings me to another point: "Red Dragon" the film is often said to be much closer to "Red Dragon" the book. This is true in all but one important element, to many the most important: The character of Lecter. To increase the Ratner movie's marketability, Lecter is far more prominent than he is in the novel. His face looms on the poster art. He gets a prologue, he gets additional scenes, etc. etc. I mean, he's the star of the series by now, after all. In the original novel, and Mann's film, he's a supporting character. He's still a supporting character in "Lambs" for crying out loud, remembered so vividly mainly due to Hopkin's hypnotic performance. Only with "Hannibal" was he promoted to lead. So all the emphasis on him in Ratner's film feels out of place, since we're supposed to only be just getting to know him. The slow, subtle introduction of Mann's film seems more appropriate, as does not showing Graham's confrontation with Lecter -- keeping it out of the plot (as does the novel) allows it to hang over the film like a spectre, and engages the audience's imagination more. The Ratner film on the other hand feels like its biding time until more Hopkins scenes (except in the sequences focusing on Dolarhyde).
As for Cox vs Hopkins, well the only thing I miss about Hopkins in Manhunter is the voice -- it seems genuinely cultured whereas Cox's seems like a put-on. Other than that Cox is fine -- I still register him in my mind as suitably "Lecter-like" for the effect to work. And he looks far more like a younger version of "Silence"'s Hannibal than Hopkins does in "Red Dragon".
The overall feel of "Red Dragon" is that of a rushed production, competently shot and competently acted, allowing De Laurentis to follow-up on "Hannibal" even though he had nothing to follow up with. I mean the film came out only 20 months later, after all! It works if you want to keep the backstories from Harris and absolutely need Hopkins as Lecter. For years I believed solidly that this was so -- I even think Hopkins gives a decent performance in the film, if a little lacking in the depth from his other two turns (which is fine, after all he's a class above his director for the first time). But that's all it is. At it's best it's an interesting "alternate, mainstream" version for inclusion on the second disc of the ideal "Manhunter" DVD set.
"Manhunter" is more genuine. Genuinely 80s, genuinely pre-"Silence" in its characterizations. It's not leaning on Lecter, but instead telling Graham's story. And maybe there's even something to be said for taking out the Tooth Fairy's backstory. After all, if we're concentrating on Graham, than Dolarhyde isn't as important.
So I've swung over to the other camp. My Lecter screenings now go Mann, Demme, Scott as opposed to Ratner, Demme, Scott. That fourth (fifth?) movie we can completely ignore, of course.
8/10
Lecter-o-meter:
1) Silence of the Lambs (Demme, 1991)
2) Hannibal (Scott, 2001)
3) Manhunter (Mann, 1986)
4) Red Dragon (Ratner, 2002)
5) The other one
Mann-o-meter:
1. Collateral (2004)
2. The Last of the Mohicans (1992)
3. Heat (1995)
4. Manhunter (1986)
5. Ali (2001)
6. Miami Vice (2006)
7. Public Enemies (2009)
(But this doesn't mean I like Michael Mann. I still find his films too cold and unmoving. I just respect him as an auteur with a unique vision equal to Demme and Scott, which Ratner is not).
No comments:
Post a Comment