interesting differences between nbc hannibal and red dragon:
price is waaaay funnier in the show, but in the books he's just a perpetual grouch. brilliant, but a grouch. i DEF think that fuller and his team did the character a lot of service by casting scott thompson. hell, the entire science team gets much better treatment than the book gives them lol
freddy lounds being turned into a cunty freddie lounds in the show did a lot of heavy lifting when it comes to establishing any sympathy for the character but... the description of the day that freddy decided to quit doing straight journalism and go over to the Tattler was haunting. i would not blame him for immediately drafting up a letter of resignation after watching his older coworker ask a lady for a tampon for his bleeding asshole (it makes more sense in context)
nbc toned will's anger and dramaticisms way way way down. in the book he's almost always getting loud, red in the face, snapping at ppl out of nowhere. in the show, he's a bit snippy but generally very serene compared to the book lol
god the fact that benson wanted to be a giraffe when he was a kid coupled with the fact that he wore a bright mustard cardigan thru most of the movie..
and the fact that randy picked a crocodile at the plush decorating store and wore a green hat and trench coat when he wore benson's clothes
and how what happened to benson in 3rd grade was barely remembered by eliott at all but miss beard recognized randy almost immediately once she opened the door. randy even had a Reputation at the school he went to almost 15 yrs ago. he changed the trajectory of miss beard's entire life
(... it's probably heavily implied that eliott most likely sa'd benson as a child based on his reaction to seeing him...)
and how a giraffe is much taller than a crocodile. how it can look over the croc the way benson wanted to look over and protect randy.
randy wasn't driving the car, but "the passenger" wasn't randy. it was benson.
i know this has probably been said a million times already before but it really strikes me how asexual hannibal is as a show overall now that i'm on my 4th rewatch
hannibal himself doesn't ever seem to lust after anyone in any way aside from will (and their love for each other is far from the typical amatonormative conventions society likes to impose on ppl)
we only see hannibal have sex with one person and it's only as a means to an end
hannibal clearly favors platonic connections over sexual and romantic ones, or at least shows his attraction in... very different ways than what's considered "normal", but his insistence that will is his friend despite stating multiple times that he loves him is very telling
and in the first few eps, jack asks will why the minnesota shrike would target young brunette girls. he throws out theories and suggests sexual motives, maybe? but there were no traces of semen on the body anywhere and then that's when will EXPLODES and firmly shuts the theory down by stating "no, he wouldn't disrespect her like that!"
will actually got to live the "normal" married life with a wife and a kid for 3 years but that was simply not enough. at the 1st chance he got, he freed hannibal from prison after hopping on a boat to see him in italy
mads himself (in an interview that i forgot the origins of LOL sorry) said will and hannibal most likely would never let their relationship "become physical"
their love and connection and yearning are SO DEEP that it defies typical parameters of relationships not just bc they're gay, but bc their love transcends any need for the dog and pony show that romance and sex often demands. they literally don't even need to have sex to deepen their relationship
in hannibal's words: "the very sight of you nourishes me"
blocked the person who's answering (i'm p sure everyone knows who they are by now LOL), but as i went to do it i couldn't help but see this ask and just.
like.
well, okay 🙄
one, this take is as stale as a corpse. like WHAT a lazy answer that misses the point of mason and the entire verger storyline not just in the show but also in the book. but i guess if your only point of reference for mason is the show (which was forcibly halved by nbc, therefore leaving out a few important key details abt his character) then i SUPPOSE i understand where this attitude comes from
and two, fuck them for making me break down and analyze and lowkey defend mason's character??? not mason verger himself but i mean his character and the role he plays in the series. bc thomas harris is many things but a lazy writer he is NOT, thanks very much
i hated going back thru a great book only for mason's parts but whatever. i'll do it
so let's get into it ↓
yes, mason's character serves as a point of reference to judge hannibal and his morality against. however... that is literally. every single character in the series both in the show and the book.
the other serial killers in the show like ingram, the human mural guy, alana, jack, abigail, even margot are at times temporary stand-ins serving as mirrors to reflect what we know and understand about hannibal right back to us.
so if you're gonna complain about mason's character serving as a backdrop to gauge hannibal's own actions and supposed moral compass against, i'm afraid you're going to have to carry that energy across the entire cast.
but sure, let me entertain the idea that mason-- and only mason-- has one role to play, and that role is "to make hannibal look like the lesser evil". even then, that argument dissolves into complete and utter horseshit once you take a slightly longer look into mason and his kiddie pool playskool leapfrog-esque levels of sadism
and i emphasize how childish and petty mason's level of sadism and villainry are because... that's exactly what they are. a child's idea of a villian, not a real psychopathic sadist. not like will and hannibal are.
mason is literally nothing. like i said in a previous post attempting to break mason's pathetic character down, he is actually a sniveling spoiled little coward who can only dream of having what hannibal-- and most importantly, will-- has.
mason does not touch hannibal. in terms of intellect, confidence, self-acceptance, sadism, cruelty, cleverness, taste... hannibal sweeps all of the medals across the board and does so effortlessly. to name mason as the worst character in the show or even the books wrt villainy would be like quivering in fear over barney the dinosaur
because in a subconscious way... hannibal represents molson, mason and margot's father, and molson knew exactly how deep to stick the knife into a pig's back to check the depth of the fat
in the book, molson's grand (albeit evil) schemes and numerous accomplishments in his efforts to build the verger empire into what it was, was contrasted by mason's own pithy little attempts to helping dear daddy out on the farm: at one point, mason stepped in to lead the sales of some american swine so that they would be imported to haiti after a "disease" (the excuse the us govt used thanks to verger cash) forced the UN to step in and slaughter most of the native pigs there.
it failed spectacularly after the pigs immediately died once coming into contact with an environment unlike anything they've been raised in, thus forcing the haitian farmers to keep purchasing pigs to replenish their stock and eventually they grew frustrated and ended their contract with the verger company altogether
mason can never live up to molson, and that shit hurts him deeply. he literally lives and dies by his father's legacy, the bastard can never stop talking abt him in the show for even a minute!
for an empire to grow to the size and power that molson helped it get to, that requires a level of empathy and understanding that even mason himself acknowledges in both the show and the book... a level of empathy mason could never achieve, even in his wildest dreams. "papa always said that the slaughterhouse business was always a people business first and foremost" and no one knew that better than mason himself.
to emphasize this, hannibal points out quite accurately that mason often miscalculates. mason lacks the empathy and understanding that his own father wielded like a tool, like the knife he used to check a pig's fat. mason often miscalculated, and that deficiency in his imagination cost him dearly; he underestimated hannibal, that cost him his freedom. he underestimated the upkeep of the pigs he was in charge of, that cost him his father's respect and money for the business. he underestimated margot, that cost him his life.
miscalculations all around
but hannibal never miscalculates. he never underestimates or overestimates anyone. neither does will, because will has the gift of hyperactive mirror neurons to aid his sadism. they both toy with mason like a puppet and neither of them even have to try that hard to do it at all.
to say that Mason Roland Verger is worse and more evil than Hannibal Lecter is the most inaccurate and god awful take i've ever had the displeasure of seeing. sure, you could say it's a matter of opinion and most people find mason's character and personality revolting, rightfully so.
but to say he's more evil than hannibal by asserting that he's "the perpetrator of the most vile act" is such an insult. (and btw which act is that? The Most Vile Act? uhh which one? cuz he's done quite a lot lol)
mason's character serves not to make hannibal "look like the lesser evil", but to make him look like the Even Better evil. the more sophisticated, psychopathic, chilling and effective evil. the REAL boogeyman, not the monster hiding under children's beds at night, despite everything that mason ever did.
but hannibal? hannibal doesn't get off on petty acts whatsoever. it's usually never emotional bc people are always just a means to an end for him, never quite the source of his pleasure; even when hannibal's victims are wealthy, powerful, or both, hannibal is never swayed by anyone's identity or existence. he kills indiscriminately, and he kills opportunistically, with barely any discernable pattern aside from what he takes.
yeah, mason gets his sick kicks off making children cry, visiting violence upon women, engaging in rape and incest with margot, pedophilia, racism, sexism, public masturbation, etc. i would never defend him as a person bc i'm not stupid... for the most part
put some mfing respect on mr. harris' name!
hannibal isn't the "lesser" evil. neither is will. mason is. that's mason's entire point of existing in the story.
the collector str8 up stringing arkin up seductively, purring over him and choosing to torture him rather than dismember/kill him, obsessing over him whenever he can, sending him roses when he was in the hospital, risking life and limb to get arkin back IMMEDIATELY whenever he manages to escape, clearly favoring him over every other person he's collected,
so i've been thinking abt will and how i said before (maybe in tags idk i forget) that will is such a good fisherman that he lures things and ppl in without trying, really.
he does it so well that he has to hide behind glasses and never make eye contact lest he start reeling smthn in he doesn't want on his boat, so to speak. for him, catching is easy. it's the letting go part that he's not so good at (stray dogs, garret jacob hobbs, abigail, hannibal etc)
you could argue that yeah, makes sense. he was always "the new boy at school" as hannibal puts it, moved around a bunch and had a generally unstable childhood. sue him if he tries to hold onto the very few things he can get his hands on, even if subconsciously!
but honestly.... that might not even be the whole truth.
will is very organized, crafty, meticulous. almost as much as hannibal is. we see this in szn 1; the very 1st thing that hannibal is attracted to in will's home when hannibal offers to dogsit-- while will goes off to michigan with jack-- is will's lure-making workdesk.
it's organized perfectly, the space is lovingly put together in both form and functionality and it's right by the front door where will can easily jump from finishing up his custom hand-made lures to heading out and hittin the road to get to his fave fishing spot
his lures are masterfully crafted. he clearly takes pride in them, even if he never mentions them (kinda like hannibal and his tableaus huh?). and above all, they're purposeful, intentional. will takes the time out of his day not to BUY lures, but to make them. with his hands. custom created for whichever fish he needs to reel in
and i'm thinking abt that fisherman metaphor and how everyone thinks that will operates on fear, due to his overactive imagination. but they're fish that only see the bait that will has lined his fishing hook with (his person suit). they think that his empathy disorder has reduced him to a terribly anxious mess who can't control his overactive imagination. he's unstable
when in reality, will isn't a good fisherman bc of his disorder or anything out of his control. will's person suit is as perfectly and carefully crafted as his lures are. he lures ppl in on purpose. he is almost always in control, especially when ppl think he isn't.
just finished red dragon and immediately placed holds for silence of the lambs bc wowowowow what a rollercoaster of a book!
many highlights include: will graham being will graham
this extremely interesting interaction between lecter and graham that left will absolutely fuming.....
and then this
like.. oh. oh wow yeah. fuller masterfully weaved this book into a completely different tapestry for the show! this was a breathtaking line to come across after watching nbc's hannibal
