Saturday, September 15, 2012

This Is Why We Can't Have Nice Things


Whenever a novel is adapted into a film, readers cringe. No film can exactly replicate the source material and usually audiences prefer the novels over the films.  And sometimes, as in the case of Hannibal, they don’t. 


MAJOR SPOILERS FOR “HANNIBAL”



Whenever a novel is adapted into a film, readers cringe. No film can exactly replicate the source material and usually audiences prefer the novels over the films.  And sometimes, as in the case of Hannibal, they don’t.
In the first half, the film follows the novel fairly well. Sure a few things are changed and left out – Jack Crawford is dead instead of nearing retirement and Clarice Starling lives alone as opposed to sharing a duplex with her friend Ardelia Mapp. Also, the Il Monstro subplot is completely removed from the film along with Mason Verger’s sister Margot, but that doesn’t matter because they hardly did anything for the novel in the first place.
What changes completely is what happens in the last ten minutes of the film, the part immediately after Starling rescues Lecter from being eaten alive by man-hungry boars in Mason Verger’s barn. In the film Lecter performs a quick surgery on an injured Starling and, once she awakens, treats her to a dinner consisting of her boss Paul Krendler’s brains (although Paul is the only one who actually eats anything). Afterwards, Lecter and Starling have a tussle in the kitchen where traps her hair in the refrigerator door, kisses her, and then cuts off his own hand after she cuffs her hands together and he escapes. The film ends with Lecter on a plane heading to some unknown Asian country, feeding leftover brains to some kid while Starling is left behind to deal with her supposed disgrace and the mess of FBI politics.
In the film Starling is not the heralded hero of the FBI as she was in The Silence of the Lambs. Our hero is not victorious. And yet, most fans, specifically the ones who read the novel, prefer the film over the book. Why? Because in the book Hannibal Lecter and Clarice Starling become romantically involved. They hook up, full Beauty and the Beast style, except, in this case, it’s the Beast who changes Beauty.
When the novel was released there was a general outcry from critics and fans alike. They called it “character assassination” and Jodie Foster and director Jonathan Demme were so disturbed by the ending that they refused to do the sequel and the studio was forced to completely alter the ending for the film.
However, not everyone hated the original novel ending. Stephen King praised it and many hardcore fans love the idea of Lecter and Starling being together. To them it wasn’t “character assassination”, it was a logical conclusion.
Essentially, what is missing from the film is character development, specifically Starling’s.
There are entire passages dedicated to Starling's waning faith and growing resentment towards the FBI, things we only see glimpses of in the film. These passages mark the doorways through which we see her transformation from traditional hero to persecuted heroine to Gothic Bride. In Hannibal (the novel) the horror doesn't come from the grizzly gore cannibalism and murder, it comes from this - Beauty becoming a Beast.
Apparently this is one transformation a film audience just isn't ready for. It's one thing to read it; it's another to see it.

3 comments:

  1. I certainly agree that many audience members would not be ready to see what Thomas Harris had created in the Hannibal novel. It's a shame, as there is so much symbolism that could be translated onto a big screen if given a wise screenplay writer and a director.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, it's not just in Hannibal. I actually made a list of things that herald Starling's transformation starting from Red Dragon (before Starling ever appears) that are missing from the films. It's little lines here and there that add up to one great big theme. Ultimately, I think in Hannibal the issues were the audience's reluctance to accept the ending and time constraints.

      Delete
    2. Oh definitely. I could go onto a tangent about how I hated the way they changed the end of Red Dragon. (Manhunter too) The feminization of Will (him being rendered useless and Molly having to be the one to save the family) was a very important aspect to his character and added a lot of depth. Instead we are left with the cliche Hollywood ending: Man saving the family by having a shoot out with the villain. Audience members are very fickle, especially when you are dealing with Hollywood's mainstream audience. It's disappointing when things change because of it.
      At least The Silence of the Lambs is as close to a perfect adaption as we can get!

      Delete