Hannibal Lecter

Just watched 'Hannibal Rising'. Great film which elaborates on a brilliant character.

Anyhow, I was wondering, does the fictional character of Hannibal Lecter display consistent signs of any particular mental illness, or is he just 'movie-psycho'? The latest installment goes somewhat into his past and inner workings, which is what raised this query in my mind.

Do watch it.

digital.noface wrote:Just watched 'Hannibal Rising'. Great film which elaborates on a brilliant character.

Anyhow, I was wondering, does the fictional character of Hannibal Lecter display consistent signs of any particular mental illness, or is he just 'movie-psycho'? The latest installment goes somewhat into his past and inner workings, which is what raised this query in my mind.

Do watch it.

http://www.ptypes.com/sadisticpd.html
At least in this prequel to the other books, Lecter has some justification for his predations.
Yeeg...I personally can't stand any of the Hannibal Lecter stuff. Too much like a couple of neighbors I once had.
http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_kill ... all_1.html
I'm sure it is a great film, and I would watch it if it wouldn't be so personally disturbing.

Yes, well I agree. I see Lecter, for the most part, as an easily understandable, rational human. I relate to him well, and even like him. My only problem is the cannibalism thing, it doesn't follow his otherwise cold and rational manner. Perhaps it is just a 2d tack on to boost the 'gross factor', or perhaps he has simply aqcuired a taste for human flesh, or perhaps again he enjoys or purposely encourages the stigma attached to cannibalism and the notoriety it awards him.

Although the cannibalism is gross, that is not what I find most repugnant about Lecter. It is the torture and terror he inflicts first that is so repellent. If he just killed his victims quickly and "humanely" like a deer hunter, and then ate them...well, that wouldn't be so bad. I guess. It's all the mayhem leading up to dinner time. Good grief.

True, but generally speaking, most of the people he kills are scumbags, or have in some way asked for it. He doesn't just torture innocents for kicks. In fact, I believe he holds a taboo of sorts on harming the innocent.

Plus, the torture he inflicts is usually so appropriate and fitting.

http://www.priory.com/psych/psycinema.htm
The above link has some interesting views on the Hannibal Lecter character.
Lecter is in some ways similar to the character of Dexter, who also kills bad people. I'm a big Dexter fan. Thinking about Lecter, one of the creepiest facets of that character was here was a brilliant psychiatrist who could mentally flay almost anyone with whom he came in contact.
Dexter on the other hand is a nice young man who is sort of a vigilante serial killer; evil being put to good use. He also reflects our frustration with the slow resolution of our legal system, which where in the States, at least, it can take over 20 years to execute a vicious murderer. The idea of an efficient purvayer of swift justice strikes a chord with the general public, which the intertainment industry recognises.

I didn't buy his 'story' in it's entirety. What happened was his parents died in a freak accident involving a tank and a Stuka, leaving the children (he and his sister) alive and helpless in the winter, stuck in a cabin. They a stumbled upon by a band of lost freezing nazis, who tie them up and move ito their cabin. After a week of being snowed in, the nazis decide upon eating one of the children. They pick Hannibal's sister because she is fatter. Hannibal mostly forgets the incident, but remembers in time the names of his assailants, and finally that he too ate his sister.

Thats it. What checks out fine with me is the notion that his burning desire for vengeance, paired with horrific abuse at a young age, culminated in him growing up to be a cold calculating monster. What doesn't check out with me is the cannibalism thing. I feel as though it doesn't match his character, the origins of it are forced and contrived, and that it was originally just a plot device written in to make him more 'monstrous'.

I could see Hannibal as developing a taste for cannibalism voluntarily, but not as a symptom of some deeply buried self-loathing. He's the kind of man who is to detatched to be repulsed by the idea of cannibalism, but who is also too mature and clarative to be a victim of ome cannibalistic compulsion. If hannibal was to cannibalise somebody, it would be because he wanted to enjoy the unique flavour of their flesh, or somehow forge some kind of inhuman ritual of superiority. He would do so to console (or rather, confirm) an introspective demonisiation of self.

I agree that the cannibalism seems.. out of place and more of a plot device there, though I remember reading something about him being based partly of Dommer? Or however the names spelled.

I havent seen Hannibal Rising, but I have seen the others with Lecter, and yes - The way he chooses to kill people always seems to have some sort of fitting irony to it, and often seems as though he's putting on a show. He doesn't always kill those who are just monsters, both Red Dragon (The attack on Nortion - And I agree he actually seemed like he was being kind in a way; Norton was a threat to him and, by his reasoning, he had to kill him to ensure his own survival - But he still seemed to favour him and sought to do it painless) and Silence of the lambs.. the police and so on who were slain - But, again, there was logical motivation for him to kill them; they were in his way. Though he definately does have a flare for the dramatic and putting on a show, which sort of goes against logic, but I can understand the sort of amusement one could get from it. IE, feeding rich party guests a slain musician, they liked it, no different from him when they didn't know what it was..
Now, I don't AGREE that its "right" or anything *chuckles* But that unlike being senselessly violent as many movie serial killers and all tend to be, theres a cold logic to most everything Lecter does. And though he does tend to default to murder for even small offenses, he seems to have his own code of what would be "impollite" or inappropriate. A overall fascinating charecter, unlike most all movie killers in my opinion, and Hopkins is just -perfect- to play him, cant imagine anyone fitting it better at all.

I remember reading something about his Cannibalism being related to vengeance.. Killing those who were on an equal "sub human" level as the nazi's, and showing their inferiority all the more by both slaying and consuming them with more "class" than the soldiers or victims had in life. Mostly it seems for an "ew" factor, or just because he enjoys the flavour, but I do think some sort of vengeance and a way of proving he's "Better" than those like the soldiers who he ate his sister with has something to do with it.

I haven't watched the movie but I thought the book was fantastic. Is the movie as good as the book was, if anyone knows both?

*Claws out eyes upon sight of Sarah's sig pic*
It's better this way.