#like how hannibal is such a good actor | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

cosmicghoul99 · 2 days

Text

An interesting Hannibal theory I think you should know about

I'm not sure how many people know this, but if you're unaware, some really interesting things relate to the show and Hannibal's character specifically. (Wanna add that I am not religious, so apologies if I get something wrong. I mean no offense to anyone, this is just a little analysis on my part)

There are a lot of biblical references in the show. It makes sense; religion has always been a deep, moral, and philosophical concept, and Hannibal loves to incorporate the ideas of religion and God into his actions and that of those around him. One of these references is a recurring one. Hannibal is often referred to as the devil. Like this quote from Gideon:

"You really are the devil," Abel Gideon - Antipasto

Or this one from Bedelia:

"Who holds the Devil, let him hold him well. He will hardly be caught a second time." Bedelia Du Maurier - The Wrath of the Lamb

Add this to all the religious imagery, the references to stags and the wendigo, plus the season three discussions about Dante. Bedelia says that she was "swallowed whole" by the beast at the mouth of Hell. You get the picture. There is a lot of talk and allusions to Hannibal being "the Devil."

Obviously, this is a metaphor first and largely used because he is the main "evil" or antagonistic character, but there's actually some truth to this.

Both Bryan Fuller, the creator, and Mads Mikkelsen, the actor of Hannibal, have stated that Hannibal is meant to be the literal devil. He is meant to be both a personification of the devil and the literal devil.

According to Bryan Fuller, Mads Mikkelsen plays Hannibal like he is Lucifer. In an interview, he stated that "he is as close as you can come to the Devil, in the sense that the Devil has no reasons," following it up by saying that Hannibal's reactions aren’t something of a person, but of the Devil. He intentionally plays the character through the lens of the fallen angel, Lucifer. Hannibal is meant to, in the eyes of the actor, be a manifestation of the Devil

Bryan Fuller has also said in interviews and online that he believes Hannibal is the devil. Of course, he states that this is his opinion and that others are up to their own interpretation, but the show's main creator and writer believes this also means that we can reasonably see this in the show.

Throughout the show, Hannibal is simply on another level. Many times, he does not seem human but rather otherworldly. I think that is where Mad's acting presents itself, alongside whenever Hannibal is talking about humanity and God.

Hannibal loves to play at being God and also criticizes God as well. I believe it is in episode three after Will kills Hobbs, that they discuss how Will killing Hobbs felt good. Hannibal responds with this.

"Killing must feel good to God, too... He does it all the time, and are we not created in His image?" Hannibal Lecter - Amuse-Bouche

Oh boy. This is such an interesting line. He talks about being created in His image. Let's be honest; he speaks as if he were God or knows God at least. His comment actually makes more sense if you view this as him being the Devil. Lucifer, the fallen angel, was cast from Heaven for rebelling against God. He feels that it was unjust. Most people talking about God and His actions view him with benevolence. Hannibal does not. In the bible, Lucifer had a problem with humans. And humans are, of course, said to be created in God's image. You could also argue that angels, especially Lucifer, were created in that same image, too. Hannibal has an issue with the rude. Why the rude particular? It is because those who are rude often showcase the worst of humanity's attributes and free will. Hannibal despises the rude because I believe that it, in some ways, represents the hatred that the Devil, or Lucifer, holds for humanity. The Devil had an issue with humans gaining free will and felt they did not deserve life via God's hands. This is similar to how Hannibal feels that those who are rude do not deserve to live. Hannibal, then, of course, being Satan himself, would be resentful of God for casting him from Heaven. Again, Hannibal often discusses God's motives, or what God feels doing certain things. Literally, a few seconds later in that episode, he says this:

"Hannibal: God's terrific. He dropped a church roof on thirty-four of his worshippers last Wednesday night in Texas while they sang a hymn.

Will: Did God feel good about that?

Hannibal: He felt powerful." Will Graham and Hannibal Lecter - Amuse-Bouche

That last line about him feeling powerful gets me thinking. Hannibal is speaking not just about this but also about his own fall. But more importantly, he's also showing us what he thinks of himself. Killing makes God feel powerful. That means that killing makes Hannibal feel powerful as well. He is both giving motives and somewhat criticizing God at the same time. Hannibal seems to find the situation amusing. I think he believes it quite funny that humans were killed while worshipping God. He might even see a comparison between what happened to him and what happened here. He is simultaneously praising God and calling Him a hypocrite.

Hannibal's motives for killing are also interesting, and I said earlier that I think the reason why he kills is because he believes that rude and ill-tempered people are the problem with humanity. And he wants to get rid of them.

Now, let's explore how this connects with other metaphors, his decisions in canon, and his relationship with Will.

Let's talk about the stag. I did some research, and in many religions, including Christianity, stags represent God and his might, at least from what I could find. I find this interesting because stags are also meant to represent opposition to the snake, another symbol of the Devil. Why is the representation of Hannibal, at least in Will's mind, a stag? I think it actually represents the darkening of Will. If stags are meant to represent good, then that means that Will starts off that way and then slowly follows the stag and is affected by it, which, to me, means that Will is slowly being corrupted. Just like the stag was corrupted due to Hannibal's influence, Will is starting to change and fall deeper and deeper into darkness. It's also interesting that the dynamic between Hannibal and Will is clearly that of one between the Devil and the person they are trying to tempt. Hannibal is trying to tempt Will into changing himself and embracing the darkness inside of him.

Will is Hannibal's realization that humans are actually not that bad. They are complex, and their free will actually makes them relate to him more than he thinks. Will is his weakness, and Hannibal is intrigued by him. If the Devil, which is Hannibal, is the snake, then, in Hannibal's own words, Will is the mongoose that preys on the snake. Hannibal originally fell because of humans, and at the end of the series, he falls because of humanity again. He fell for Will. Will is meant to represent the lamb of God. The symbolism is that Hannibal fell for Will, who sacrificed himself to keep the Devil away, getting corrupted in the process.

Dolarhyde is also a factor. The original painting, "The Great Red Dragon," represents Satan. How does that tie into this idea? I think it's not Dolarhyde who is meant to be Satan; rather, it is Hannibal. We know that Dolyrhde idolizes Hannibal in a sense. Like Will and many of his other patients, which I'll get into later, Francis is influenced by what Hannibal says. Yet another temptation by the Devil. This is also connected to Will coming into his own life because Francis is also manipulated by Will. There is a connection between Hannibal and Will, which is shared via the tempting and manipulation of Francis.

I mean, we have this statement by Jack talking about The dragon, the lamb, etc. Jack says that,

"He's not the Dragon, you are. The Devil himself bound in the pit." Jack Crawford

Hannibal compares Jack to God. But I think they both are, in some way.

Many of Hannibal's patients and the people in his life, in general, are manipulated by him. I mean, some of his patients are tempted and influenced by him to do bad things commit crimes, and murder people. That's very indicative of the Devil's work, in my opinion. Even Jack and Alana end up being manipulated and deceived by him.

There is a lot of other religious imagery and symbolism, so I'll only discuss some of it. To start with, the reference to Bedelia's presentation and Hannibal's name in Italy and what they could represent. I mentioned earlier that in season 3, Bedelia talks about her time in Florence with Hannibal. She talks about how Dante gave a physical space to Hell, a solid concept, but before that, people would say, the "mouth of Hell." Then she says that she was "swallowed by the beast." This refers to Hannibal, but here's the interesting thing. In the Bible, the Devil is also referred to as the Beast. Bedelia is yet again referring to herself being used and brought into the mouth of Hell by the Beast, Hannibal. The name that Hannibal was monikered by in Italy is also the same. "Il Mostro" translates to the monster, which can be interpreted as yet another way to refer to the devil. Then, there is the obvious references to lambs in the show, with it being a sacrificial symbol. I'm sure that's been talked about a lot, and I mentioned it earlier.

There are many mentions of justice, redemption, retribution, and more in the show. This connects with the religious themes, of course, but it also plays into Hannibal's view of himself as a God, as well as how the show depicts him as the Devil. He is the one who casts judgment onto people, like his patients, and onto the rude, like a God. He is the one who issues punishment for sins and misdeeds, like the Devil. I think it's so interesting to see them both working in tandem.

I once saw a post saying that Hannibal acts like he's lived the same life a hundred or so times. And I agree. He does. He acts like he has been around for a time so long that many have forgotten it. It makes sense why he's so confident, and nothing seems to phase him. Nothing that happens has any consequence for him. The only thing, really, that he cares about is Will. That's why he tries to get Will to have his Becoming and Fall with him. He wants Will to be there with him. Which is sweet, I think :) And not to bring up related trauma for anyone that has ever been a fan of Devilman or Devilman Crybaby, but IMO, it really really reminds me of Akira and Ryo and how Ryo is stuck in the same cycle over and over again as a lesson. Idk, my opinion. Let me know what you think.

I also wanted to touch on some other interpretations of the raven stag shown alongside the wendigo and how other religions and beliefs might relate to this.

The Wendigo is a demonic entity or evil spirit from the Algonquian people of Canada. It is a winter spirit that is meant to represent greed and gluttony. When humans succumb to greed, like being greedy for money, being cruel to people, or generally evil things, the Wendigo spirit can possess you. During harsh winters, when food is scarce, people commit taboo acts and consume another human, participating in cannibalism. This also causes a possession and turns this person into a wendigo, never to be satisfied and constantly craving forever. I am not Algonquian, or even Indigenous/Native American, so I can't speak too much on this, and I don't know too much, but I hope I explained it well enough. I apologize if I did not. The show has its own visualization of this, and Wendigos traditionally doesn't look like the one in the show, but the overall message is the same. Even if Hannibal is not the Devil, he could be some manifestation of a Wendigo. It makes sense. Remember his back story? He was forced into captivity while hiding by soldiers during an extremely harsh winter during the war. Harsh enough that food became scarce, and the soldiers had to resort to cannibalism. They fed Mischa to Hannibal, which might have triggered something. Ofc this is a reach, but I did want to bring another interpretation into this.

Obviously, this is all just speculation. I love this show, with its dark complexities and incredible depth, and I wanted to talk about something I've been thinking about for a while now. Again, not everything might be correct. I apologize if that's not the case. Please feel free to correct me. I also apologize if this made no sense or was not cohesive, it's pretty late for me, but I couldn't get this out of my head.

I hope it was interesting ;)

#hannibal #nbc hannibal #hannibal lecter #will graham #hannigram #just a little analysis #i'm sleep deprived so apologies if this makes no sense #i just really wanted to share

66 notes · View notes

welcometothejianghu · 9 months

Text

Welcome to another round of W2 Tells You What You Should See, where W2 (me) tries to sell you (you) on something you should be watching. Today's choice: 괴물/Beyond Evil.

Beyond Evil is a 2021 Korean drama about two cops that solve a small-town murder that one of them might have committed. Also there's more than one murder to be solved. Also more than one of those murders happened twenty years ago. Also, the cop might have gotten away with at least one of those too.

It got sold to me on the strength of the main pairing, which is absolutely captivating and worth the price of admission. But the entire cast is amazing, the story is great, and it's all just so satisfying. I love everyone in this weird small Korean town. I love having emotions and various Korean foods with them.

I got five reasons why you should watch it! Read 'em!

1. Do You Want To See An Old Man Cry?

In fact, do you want to see every man cry? Do you want to see every man in the cast either cry or pretend to cry or be on the verge of tears at least once? Do you want to see the main characters, who are both men, cry multiple times, often while otherwise wet as well?

Well, buddy, Beyond Evil has got you covered.

2. Absolute Nightmare/Absolute Nightmare

I do not consider it a spoiler to tell you that Han Juwon (the younger one, on the right) is a very mentally unstable superboy. You already know everyone thinks Lee Dongsik (the older one, on the left) is psycho -- it's nearly the first thing you learn about him. But when you're introduced to Han Juwon, you're given the impression that maybe he's just cold, self-possessed, and competent.

No. He is an absolute freak. This is a freak4freak relationship. They are both completely unhinged. They have both been traumatized to nigh-unimaginable degrees, and they have each decided to make it the other's problem. Fortunately (or unfortunately) for both of them, they both get off on that real hard, and they get real mad sometimes about how hard they're getting off on it. It's delicious.

And yet what makes it great is how they're different flavors of freak. They've got the age difference (40 and 27). They've got the height difference (even though the actors are only like 1cm apart, the whole thing is somehow shot like there's a bigger gap). They've got the class difference (small town weirdo and cop royalty). One's a messy bitch, and one's a prissy prince. One has a whole network of people who affectionately endure him, and one has exactly 0.73 friends. One wants to take care of everyone else but not himself, and one has never looked out for anyone else a day in his life. One's a smug little shit, and one's ... also a smug little shit, but differently.

You have perhaps been given the impression that Beyond Evil is like Hannibal, and that Juwon/Dongsik is like Will Graham/Hannibal Lecter. It's not, and yet it scratches a similar itch, if that makes sense.

Don't let me give you the impression that this is textually gay. They do not smooch or anything, so don't be waiting for that. But holy cow, is it homoromantic -- and the leads know it is, and they roll around in it, and everyone else in the production supports their doing it. They have the kind of chemistry stars are jealous of. (It helps that the younger actor is a muffin who has a such crush on the older one.)

And that's even before the part where they get married live on national television. Is that a joke? You'll have to watch to find out.

3. Lee Changjin (and the other antagonists)

I'll talk in a second about excellent and despicable all the bad guys are. But I need a special moment for this motherfucker right here.

Lee Changjin is a wretched, scummy piece of shit who damn near walks away with every scene he's in. He's not the worst like a little meow meow -- he is the actual worst, and it's so good. He's sleazy. He's pathetic. He's hot as fuck. You meet his ex-wife, and you're like, no, honey, sure it was a bad decision, but I totally get it.

Clearly he has a special place in my heart, but all the bad guys in this series are done so damn well. Their realism makes them even scarier. They're not incomprehensible ghouls out there being bad just to be bad. They're (mostly) making calculated decisions based on keeping their own heads above water, and to hell with everyone else.

I'm not going to spoil the identity of the murderer for you -- but it kind of doesn't matter, because you find out who it is less than halfway through the show (and because there are multiple people in this show who've killed someone). There's something bigger and more awful at work here, perpetrated by people that you knew were bad news from the moment you met them.

Beyond Evil is a cop show that is not copaganda, because one of the biggest villains in the series is misuse of police power. The show stresses accountability for police misconduct -- to the point where that accountability hurts characters we want to see get away with stuff because, come on, their bad behavior was totally justified! But it wasn't! The ends do not justify the means here. The world is not better when powerful people use their power to get out of the consequences of their shitty, selfish actions, even when those shitty, selfish actions were objectively kind of cool.

Fair warning, a lot of this show is about complicated relationships with abusive, absent, deceased, and otherwise difficult parents. Those parents are not always (or even mostly) the bad guys -- but the bad guys are all shitty parents. And yet, their adult children are tied to them in complicated ways that do said children no favors. Some of the most heartbreaking pieces of the show are about how these kids break free from those parents -- or, more tragically, don't.

4. Just plain good television

This is a series that can be handled by Your Average American Television Enjoyer Who Can Handle Subtitles. Its quality is on par with a lot of well-thought-of English-language shows I've seen. It's a tight, well-plotted story that's clear enough to be easy to follow, which is sometimes a high bar for a multi-tendriled murder mystery. The small-town setting even gives it a good source of levity to break up the otherwise tight tension.

It's only sixteen episodes long, but there are enough reveals to make a rewatch more than worth your while. The first half in particular improves exponentially on the second viewing, because once you have all the information, events and decisions that you initially read one way, you can see meant something else entirely.

I was initially going to say that if this were in English, all those fans of things like the Wire and True Detective would be super-horny for it -- except that's not true, is it? No, shows like that (which I have seen, for the record) glorify cops who can't be held down by your damn system, so they have to say screw the rules to get things done, because they're too cool and manly for things like paperwork! While Beyond Evil acknowledges that there are some places where the Korean law system is janky and might let a guilty person go free, but that doesn't mean cops get to do whatever they want about it.

My declaration of the show's quality isn't just me judging by my own tastes. This show won the Korean equivalent of Emmys for Best Drama, Best Screenplay, and a well-deserved Best Actor for Shin Hakyun, who plays that incredibly handsome horrible old man. This is a show that actual people who hand out actual awards for good television thought deserved awards.

So I guess if you always wanted to get into those shows a certain kind of dude can't stop talking about, but you had reservations about how authoritarian/libertarian/misogynistic/homophobic/boring they are, Beyond Evil is here for you!

5. Written and directed by women

This one I think is important as hell, because this is a Dead Girl Show (i.e., a show where men kill multiple women as a major part of the plot), and I know a lot of people are justifiably wary about those. However, there are no hints of sexual assault. The violence is gendered, but it's not sexualized. The murders and postmortem mutiliations are handled with the appropriate horror, but it's not torture porn. And the dead girls are treated like -- and grieved like -- actual humans who matter.

I think a whole lot of this can be chalked up to the fact that both the writer and the director of Beyond Evil are women.

In fact, not only are they both women, they're women who don't do this kind of story all the time. Shim Nayeon has directed five things, four of which are comedy/slice-of-life series. Kim Sujin has written a few dramas about mystery-solving teams, but even more comedy and adaptations of webtoons. I have no idea how the two of them got put on this drama together, but it was a perfect match.

This is not to say that men would be incapable of pulling off a story like this. It is, however, a commentary on violence, and how different it looks if you've grown up seeing yourself everywhere as its object rather than its subject. Sure, you could just flip the script and make a story about a lady punchkicker! A lot of people have, and I've enjoyed many of them! But you could also choose to tell a story about gendered violence in a way that isn't just needlessly retraumatizing the people who have to live their entire lives under its shadow. Moreover, you could tell a story about how even good-guy cops can wind up unintentionally buying into paradigms where some women are valuable and some are disposible.

...And if it winds up being teensy bit of a fantasy story about a world in which so many cops give a shit about this violence, well, that's what fiction is for, right?

In short, you love a team of powerful ladies power-drunk on an Arnold Palmer of Respect Women Juice and Sad Man Tears.

Bonus: BANGER SOUNDTRACK

Oh, it's so, so good. (Spotify link)

Have I convinced you to watch it yet?

It's on Netflix, which may be easiest for most people! However, it's also on Viki, and I much prefer the subtitles over there, because a) they keep the flavor of the Korean terms of address, and b) they actually translate the damn episode titles (wtf Netflix?).

There's no bad way to watch it, though!

(ack, they're so cute~)

#beyond evil #괴물 #rec post #honorary danmei #i made this #seriously though it's so good #watch beyond evi

271 notes · View notes

operafantomet · 2 months

Text

SO TOTALLY NOT A REVIEW

POTO MADRID, Friday 16 February 2024

PHANTOM: Gerónimo Rauch / Manu Pilas (alt.)

CHRISTINE: Talía del Val / Judith Tobella (alt.)

RAOUL: Guido Balzaretti

CARLOTTA: Marta Pineda

FIRMIN: Omar Calicchio

ANDRÉ: Enrique R. del Portal

MADAME GIRY: Silvia Luchetti

MEG GIRY: Laura Martin / Marina Brisa (u/s)

PIANGI: Francisco Ortiz

This production is basically a love-letter to Phantom history. There are many clever moments, small hints of Phantom history, and in general just a very Phantom-y atmosphere and look. It’s just that sometimes it goes a bit overboard with effects, references and/or tempo, to the point where I feel it takes focus away from the leads and the main story. I get the vibe, I get the love, nut just take it down a notch?

Lots of spoilers ahead, stop reading If you don’t want details.

Examples, you ask? It’s really just the total, the sum of it all, rather than singular moments. Take the Phantom and all effects surrounding him. In “Little Lotte” there’s blinking lamps and ambience sound and gruntle, it almost feels like I’m watching the basement furnace in “Home Alone”. In the Il Muto ballet he swings across stage twice, while the third time it happens it’s the body of dead Buquet. But swinging in ropes has a high level of Tarzan and is hard to take seriously. For the chandelier crash the Phantom jumps on the chandelier, cuts its rope (?) with what looks like a butter knife (?) and it crashes with “flames” and smoke and a loud bang with fake screams on tape. In the Mausoleum scene he is equipped with large black wings and flies up into the air, creating a massive thunderstorm. In the end it gets hard for the audience to trust that the actor himself is enough, as all these tricks and effects and mumbo jumbo gets in the way.

The only new trick I feel adds to the role instead of distracting from it is Red Death’s disappearance. He appears in a red hooded cloak, sings his lines, turns his back to the audience and when the others on stage approach to rip off his cloak there is no-one there. THIS. This adds to the mystique. This is the Phantom in charge, without explosions and sounds and light and props.

Anyhow… I enjoyed so many sides of this production. Let me try and mention some of the things I noticed along the way. (Note: Photos is a mix of Trieste, Monte Carlo and Madrid, but if the performers are in focus I have tried to choose Madrid photos)

AUCTION/OVERTURE Before the show there is some 15 minutes of “spooky” ambience sound and dripping water, dungeon style. The show starts with a huge shatter/bang, to tell the audience it’s starting. Message received.

The auction set-up is fairy traditional, with auctioneer to the left, chandelier in the middle, and bidders sitting with their backs to the audience. Raoul is not in a wheelchair, instead he is sitting in the back, to the right (I. E. nearest the audience), with a nurse (?) by his side. The auctioneer is super rushed, while the bidders clap very slowly, original Phantom style. For the monkey musical box, Raoul calls over the porter who is dressed in a red 18th century livre, and who kneels in front of him. Raoul turns to him and thus the audience. First glimpse of Guido Balzaretti in the role. He is good.

Lot 666 etc… All exactly as assumed up until they pull off the drapes and the Overture starts.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is something else indeed. The cast starts to… uhm, how to explain this… re-enact the first act in slow motion, backwards? The Il Muto fop trio “runs” in, backwards, in slow motion, they bend to not get hit by the chandelier, still slow motion, then taking a bow, still slow motion. And so forth. What is shown here is history as it happened but reversed. It continues with other glimpses of the first act, other characters, leading up to Carlotta as Elissa. Cue: Hannibal.

Now… The idea? Cool. Interesting. Well executed. Time is literally rewinded before our eyes. Yet:

I feel you have to know the musical and the first act to get what’s happening. A moment of “this production is a love-letter to POTO”, a bit wink-wink-nudge-nudge.

It doesn’t really make sense. What they show us is the fops almost being hit by the chandelier as It comes crashing downwards. What we see in the actual crash is the Phantom riding the chandelier as it is pulled backwards and flung towards the audience. Plus, there is a knife, there is “flames” and smoke, and no other people in sight. Sorry, but you have to settle for one of the crashes…

However: original? I will certainly give them that.

Also, props for introducing what is usually my pet peeve and hate object number one: The Eiffel Tower. Thing is, this opera appears to have burned down (2004 movie style, more about that later) and through the ruined ceiling the Eiffel Tower can be seen. I don’t oppose this as the auction scene is set long after then main story and the tower would have been built by then. My annoyance with productions automatically adding it to underline that THIS IS PARIS is because the tower would (depending on when they set the main story) not have been built. But in the auction scene? Yes.

(Auction photo from Trieste)

HANNIBAL Whereas Marta Pineda as Carlotta possesses a grand voice, I am no fan of how she portrays Carlotta as a performer. I assume it is in the directing. In the mock operas she goes for massive overacting, mainly one specific hand pose and a hammering voice. In scenes like Prima Donna you can tell she is able to sing gorgeously and act well, hence why I assume it is in the directing. Carlotta as a performer in this production is one where I understand the Phantom’s dislike… Just way too much, too annoying, it really makes you wonder how this specific soprano came to be the wonder of Paris.

(Francisco Ortez and Marta Pineda in Hannibal)

They make a point of not showing Reyer. I will come back to why later. In Hannibal he is in the prompter’s box, with a slightly distorted sound to his voice and which Firmin at one point imitates. Heh.

The ballerinas did a sort of shawl dance in Hannibal which suite the music well, and Christine and Meg were also nicely singled out.

Instead of an elephant there is a portechaise, a litter, a sedan chair, whatever it’s called. Now... the people carrying this on stage wears the same uniform as the porters in the auction scene. If the opera burned down and the auction is many years later, why would they…?

(Hannibal photo from Trieste)

Also, the sedan chair gets a bit too much attention, with them struggling to get it out on stage, Piangi struggling to get on it, and when he finally does for the end pose the bottom breaks. This, combined with a constant rush in pace means there was never any applause after Hannibal. Unusual.

The turning set had me wondering. It looks wonderful within the structure (see photo above), and it's also always how it is photographed. But in use it means a large part of the stage is not used. Admittedly it was more noticeable sitting in the upper balconies than in the stalls, but especially the first 7 or so meters on stage was all bare. This is rarely shown in official photos, so it took me some time to understand what I was looking at. At first I wondered why the set was not placed further out, but I quickly realized that it needs that position to be able to turn. I wonder if a slightly shorter and/or more square set would fill the stage in a smarter manner? Not sure. Here's the view from the balconies:

The falling backdrop in Hannibal was so well done. It almost came a surprise to me, who knows the show by heart. A mixture of well timed sight and sound and a lot of ropes.

And now for Christine Daaé… For the first performance I saw principal Talía del Val, and for the second performance I saw alternate Judith Tobella. Their overall appearance on stage felt fairly similar in terms of height, build, and wig. Voice wise they are both also bell-voiced sopranos with an operatic touch. But I felt Talía maybe added more nuances to her singing, varying volume and intensity whereas Judith was more consistently bell-voiced? This came to view in TOM, where Talía did one of the biggest transitions I have seen, from whispering the notes and just going mute to full-volume operatic diva. Fantastic. Judith showed less of a transformation but possesses a gorgeous and light voice and is just as radiant. Both of them are so good in the role.

(Guido Balzaretti, Omar Calicchio, Enrique R. del Portal and Talía del Val in Think of Me)

Elements of TOM was also a bit rushed. For the quick-change, a bar of the instrumentals was cut, and the cadenza at the end was short and effective. Why the rush? I don’t know. But the Elissa costume was nice, a turquoise and golden confectionary with nice amount of drapes and sparke, and a nice match to Christine’s honey coloured wig. It was also very visible when the set took a full turn during Raoul’s lines in TOM.

ANGEL OF MUSIC / LITTLE LOTTE As a tiny surprise I got two different Megs – principal Laura Martín for the first show, and u/s Marina Brisa for the second. Their portrayal differed slightly. Laura’s Meg was super affectionate towards Christine, hugging, touching, caring, supporting. Martina was maybe more inquisitive and more of a narrator of the show in a way. She told the audience a lot of the action and mood in the Managers scene just with her facial expressions. But both had fantastic voices.

In Angel of Music the turnable set was placed diagonally, with the end towards the right side of the stage and featuring a large mirror and dressing room table. Now… the diagonally placed set leaves little room for the cast. For this specific scene it did however work, and it was moody with a dark stage and chandelier visible in the shadows.

Nothing radically new in Little Lotte, apart from the already described blinking lamps, ambience sound and gruntle when the Phantom reacts to Raoul’s presence. So moving on to…

MIRROR SCENE First sound of the two Phantoms. Principal Gerónimo Rauch went for a slightly twangy sound rather than booming, I am not quite sure why. Alternate Manu Pilas was all boom. I do prefer the latter, just because it sets a standard and mood for the rest of the show. Christine interestingly entered the mirror by stepping on her dressing room chair and then the table. Heh. Also cool from some angles in the auditorium to see the Phantom lean out of the mirror opening, fully cloaked. Moody sight!

(Ramin Karimloo and Amelia Milo in Trieste)

I could not quite make out Christine’s emotions here. It’s like she thought “gotta get out of here before Raoul returns”…, rapidly wrapped up her dressing gown and ran through the mirror.

TITLE SONG Is it allowed to say it felt too similar to the original staging? Because… them crossing the stage, them going down under stage, them appearing higher up, them crossing the misty stage by boat… It’s not that it wasn’t done well, I had just hoped for a totally different take. Biggest surprise was probably the Phantom’s massive (ahem) organ rising from what looked like the pit, with masses of lit candles, and then slowly moving towards the back of the stage – all while the Piranesi “imaginary prisons” like set backdrop came to view. A stunning lair set, and finally a scene where the front stage was used!

(Amelia Milo and Ramin Karimloo in Monte Carlo)

MOTN This too felt very close to the original staging. With one exception. The Phantom put a lit candle in front of Christine, on the floor, sung about the music of the night, and blew out the candle. I mean… I appreciate this more than the Restaged Tour’s blindfolding, but I am not sure I fully understand what Christine was to learn from it SEEING THERE IS A HUGE ORGAN WITH LOTS OF CANDLES only two meters away…?

(Gerónimo Rauch and Talía del Val in the First Lair)

The MOTN pose totally felt like a homage to the original. Biggest difference in blocking was probably that Christine fainted in the Phantom’s arms and was put to bed in a four-poster bed to the right on the stage.

(Gerónimo Rauch and Talía del Val in the First Lair)

Singing wise both Phantoms brought down the house, Rauch especially hammering in those money notes. Dude got a grand voice. In this scene I (interestingly enough) felt Gerónimo Rauch was more experimental, while Manu Pilas felt old-school and classical. I would have thought it opposite, seeing Rauch’s history in West End. But cool! Got Tomas Ambt Kofod vibes from Pilas.

(Gerónimo Rauch and Talía del Val in the First Lair)

(Judith Tobella in the bed in the First Lair)

STYDI Christine waking up did not go unnoticed by the Phantom; he invites her to come over and sit at his piano bench. As she comes over, she caresses his face, they have a fairly tender moment and then she rapidly takes off the mask. Felt like a natural move, out of curiosity and closeness, which created an interesting contrast to the Phantom’s rage and despair.

Here Rauch seemed to go for emotions running deep, doing a quite heartbreaking rendition of the scene. Pilas showed more rage, even tipping over the piano bench along the way. The blocking calls for the Phantom to react on Christine’s touch before handing him the mask – for Rauch it was when Christine touched his hand, and for Pilas it was Christine touching his shoulder. Rauch seemed more terrified, Pilas more surprised. Both returned to their very-much-in-control mood when they put the mask back on. NOTES / PRIMADONNA Now the revolving set was turned the other way, with the short end facing left side of the stage. Instead of a mirror it featured a window with trees and daylight. For this scene it meant the cast had only a tiny little triangle at the very end of the stage to act out the scene. Whereas it worked well with only two or three present in Christine’s dressing room, Primadonna is fairly crowded. We’re talking seven people on stage, and it showed that they didn’t have a whole lot of space to go. I’m still not on board with the distribution of set and cast in this production.

Acting wise little new to add, just very very very solid. Extra plus for Silvia Luchetti as Madame Giry. She was u/s Christine in the original Madrid production, and thus feature a strong soprano. But she is also a strong belter, and good actress. Her Madame Giry seemed to read every situation well, and act accordingly.

(Laura Martín, Silvia Luchetti and Guido Balzaretti in Primadonna)

As for the two Megs, they both had good chemistry with Luchetti. Whereas Martin had an air of “I trust my maman to sort things out”, Brisa felt more inquisitive.

The turning set was used to full effect at the end of Prima Donna. With the set revolving, the cast entering the stage, with a Garnier curtain like backdrop it looked majestic, beautiful and very Phantom-y. It is also one of the instances it worked well to always have a glimpse of the chandelier and boxes in sight, to remind us of them being in the opera all the time.

(Prima Donna photo from Madrid)

IL MUTO The intro with “old scenery… old audience”… was cut, I think? Another instance of the show being rushed. When I keep repeating this it is because the matinée clocked in on 2 hours and 14 minutes, WITH interval. That might be the quickest one I’ve seen, except the intentionally shortened one-act edition in Las Vegas.

I liked this Il Muto a LOT. The set, with two doors where people entered and exited, gave a mild hint of a farce without going overboard. The middle window could be lit to show Don Attilio spying and the fops whisper gossip into his ear. All in all a nice flow and a nice Mozartesque feel.

(Il Muto photo from Madrid)

The interrupted performance and André entering to present the ballet was also amusing, as he comes out with a bottle of champagne in one hand and a glass in the other hand. Not drunk!style like Barry James, but rather a sense of him being in the middle of something completely different. When not managing to exist the stage during the ballet, the male ballet dancer literally grabbed him by the waist and lifted him off stage. Heh. Nice one. Giggle snort.

Then the funky part. Instead of the dancers being interrupted by scary shadows, blinking light or other “minor” incidents, this production features the Phantom crossing the back of the stage in a rope, not once but twice. As mentioned previously I do get how the third time with dead Buquet then comes as an extra surprise. But it is too much of a Tarzan factor. To me, anyway.

(Il Muto ballet screencap from Trieste)

ROOFTOP Possibly the most original scene in this production, and in a good way. It is set towards a slightly abstract backdrop with a hint of – no, not the Eiffel Tower, bless them, but the Notre Dame, and to the left a rooftop sculpture. Main set is a ledge. Christine crawls out on there and does not look like she wants Raoul to follow, but he does, reluctantly, afraid. She will clearly jump, he is doing anything in his power to stop her. He realizes she is terrified and struggles to find the right words, but offers what he can – a hand to hold and a promise of a better future. Slowly, slowly Christine gets closer to him, trusts him.

(Bradley Jaden and Amelia Milo in Trieste)

A very nice take on AIAOY, because it is all done subdued, not in an overly dramatic manner. Only negative I might add is that AIAOY may not be the best song to sing sitting, or even hunched. But that was only something I pondered about at the end of the song, with the high notes. And also, this showed Raoul at his best. More of content like this, please! CURSE / CRASH The Phantom was of course underneath the two lovers all the time, and he comes to view twirling his cloak. Not a huge fan of the red lining of the cloak, a too high vampire factor. But anyway… Here Rauch’s twangy singing style (which he only did here and in the mirror scene) was used to good effect. Now, the actual staging… With the Phantom singing the end of his curse the set turns and the chandelier comes to view, lowered. The Phantom jumps on it, works hard on cutting its cord with a knife, the chandelier is pulled backwards, and it is then “flung” towards the audience, with “fire”, smoke and the sound effects of shattering glass and screams. It is an original and fancy take on the chandelier crash.

(Chandelier crash photo from Monte Carlo)

INTERMISSION Everyone and their mother taking photos by the rose wall. I bought merch (read: socks).

MASQUERADE The opening was like out of a Doctor Who scene, with the managers being flashed up by light, shifting pose and moving closer for each flash – don’t blink! They wear large cloaks, and of course Firmin’s large frilly pink confectionery of a dress gets lot of attention when revealed. Omar Calicchio looked adorable.

(Firmin dressed up, André and Madame Giry in fairly regular clothes, and Meg Giry doubling as the monkey musical box)

Cool main set – the opera stage with its boxes, a lowered chandelier, and a backdrop showing the Garnier auditorium. Reminded me of the Hungarian design. The opening features a giant monkey musical box which soon enough turns out to be Meg in identical costume to the music box figurine. Nice lil’ detail.

The cast floods in, with rows of people dressed in cloaks and masks dancing in a rather stiff style. I could not quite put my finger on why it looked a bit off until I remember each of the pairs featured one cast member and one dummy on wheels. Aha. But the oddness aside, it was cool to see the stage filled with people like that. It looked like a true Venetian carnival.

(The Masquerade scene in Trieste)

Once again Christine missed out on the dress code, wearing a pale Victorian bustle dress. She must start reading the invitation…! Nothing wrong with the dress per se, but I wish they’d dressed her in something more innovative, or at least make her wear a cloak for parts of the scene to later on reveal the bustle dress.

(Talía del Val and Guido Balzaretti in Masquerade)

And now for what always feels like a regional theatre stunt: At the height of the show a lot of the cast came into the auditorium to sing. I feel you need to have a better reason to break the fourth wall than just surprising the audience. Why were they there? It appears mainly to empty the stage for Red Death.

Did I mention the confetti? Oh the confetti. A sea of confetti. Gold and silver, pouring down. So much that the front aisles were filled, and people so covered it stuck on them when they went out after the show. The pavement of the theatre was glittering. I always wonder if it is really worth it, seeing that the confetti will also glitter up stage in the Mausoleum scene and Final Lair. Places were there technically should be no glitter… Well. Fun to watch regardless.

Red Death: They’ve picked up original magic consultant Paul Brown’s idea of the Phantom just disappearing from his costume, making it fall to the floor. Here the Phantom turns his back to the audience, and when the (few) people on stage runs forward to pull off his red cloak he is no longer there. Beautifully executed!

(Red Death from Monte Carlo)

I wish they did not follow up with the next scene, with Christine in the audience and a cloaked figure behind her pulling off his hood – surprise, it’s the Phantom – grabbing her necklace/ring and running off. Felt like a bit of a cheap trick after the quite magical Red Death disappearance. Would be so much cooler if her grabbed that necklace on stage and then disappeared mid-air. Would also give Christine doubly a reason to fear him, if he can just vanish like that instead of having to run out the door.

BACKSTAGE The backstage tale started all dark, but soon featured a hint of a Coney Island like faire to hint of Madame Giry’s first encounter with the Phantom. IF you want to draw some lines to “Love Never Dies” this is a discrete and non-intrusive way of doing it. Kudos for that. The chandelier is also still lowered, and first when its light goes off is Madame Giry startled enough to flee Raoul. Maybe the most effects I’ve seen in this scene and also working very well.

NOTES / TWISTED We are back to the crammed office set-up and too many people. At times Christine’s dress train swept into the bit due to the lack of space. Well… Both here and in the first managers scene each lead is lit up with purplish light when mentioned in the notes, which is a visual for the audience – especially when they are so crammed together as well.

On stage there are a lot of stacked chairs under the darkened looming chandelier. Nice reminder of still being in the opera.

In this scene I felt both Christines lacked a real anger or temper, even if Judith Tobella displayed it more than Talía del Val. But one thing I did like is that she went from person to person during her solo, almost pleading them to understand the dangers of performing the opera, and they all kinda turns away. Two of the footmen enters (as if the scene was not crammed enough already) to remove the furniture and prepare for the sitzprobe on stage, putting out the chairs in line. Meanwhile Christine does not refuse to sing and does not flee stage, as per usual. At first I thought it was another rushed detail to save some time, but no: Raoul sings “Christine, Christine don’t think that I don’t care…” (loooong pause) and then more or less take her by the arm and force her into the sitzprobe. It does solve the problem of why Christine refuse to sing and then appear at the sitzprobe, but doesn’t quite do Raoul any credit…

SITZPROBE Also an in-between scene with an abundance of ideas. Most of which I liked. The setting is very familiar, piano to the right, cast lined out on chairs. But the piano is not facing the audience, it is turned. We can hear Reyer but not see him. Remember Hannibal? Ar’right. When quarrel breaks out the piano starts to rotate at a massive speed while playing by itself, and Reyer is nowhere to be found. Maybe he never was. Was he the Phantom all the time? We will never know…!

Then for the odd moment… As the set itself rotates, a slow-motion quarrel breaks out, people throwing chairs at eachother, fighting, fleeing (didn’t they just behave when singing? I have questions). Christine puts on her mint cloak, she carries a red rose in her hands and she walks off, towards the audience and a presumed grave which we can’t see but she addresses over the orchestra pit.

(Amelia Milo in Monte Carlo)

MAUSOLEUM Both Christines did a heartfelt “Her father promised her”, not being able to finish the line. The red rose is put on the grave and she starts on the main song. The rest of the scene pretty much as usual.

Help me say goodbye… Oh no thought the Phantom. Towards a discrete mausoleum backdrop he appears, with his giant black wings. Raoul enters around the same time, they sing the trio version. Raoul goes in between the Phantom and Christine. The Phantom creates thunder and lightning, and for each time he flies higher up. Christine is quite passive during the whole ordeal. Eventually a massive thunderstorm is created, and the scene ends. And I’m like… mkay.

If you gonna camp it up that much you have to at least feature the black wings better, they were hardly visible towards the dark mausoleum backdrop. From the upper balcony it looked like he was… bungee jumping? From the front rows in the stalls you could see contours of the wings, but nothing more. As a contrast the silhouette of the chandelier was visible, which didn't quite make sense. Aren't they in a graveyard?

("Angel of Death" in the Mausoleum scene in Trieste)

This scene felt like the prime example of a place where the effects works against the story rather than underlining it. It felt like a lot of noise and little emotions, mostly. And Christine’s role in it all was non-existent.

DON JUAN / PONR Once again a cast member appeared in the auditorium. But here with a purpose – the marksman was placed in the upper stalls. Worked well.

The opening of Don Juan was cool, with the cast as black silhouettes towards a red, smoky backdrop, before coming to life. Featuring Meg as a prominent pageboy was a nice touch.

(Don Juan in Monte Carlo)

The costumes did in large resemble the Bjørnson ones, with breeches and doublets and corseted bodices and tabs, in large held in red, black and gold. Exception being Don Juan’s costume, a large tan cloak and an even larger HAT OF DOOM which would eventually help hiding the Phantom’s mask and face. Christine's costume has also gotten more of a Mary Philbin spin.

(Point of No Return photo from Monte Carlo)

The set too reminds me of Bjørnson's design, especially the timber frame with torn drapes behind a centrally placed table.

It is clear from the start Christine recognize the Phantom’s voice. She pleads to Raoul in the box, but decides to go on. She appears to decide to give the Phantom a hard run for his money, turning up the heat and almost challenging him with the blocking. The overall staging is quite close to the original blocking, and also: no table dancing in sight. Bliss.

(Ramin Karimloo, Amelia Milo and ensemble in Trieste)

I wanna say that Talía del Val removed the Phantom’s hat while Judith Tobella waited for him to remove it? But memory is a bit blurry there. Either how, the Phantom put his ring on Christine’s finger himself.

DOWN ONCE MORE Down once more also felt fairly traditional in terms of the Phantom and Christine in the boat. Both Phantom displayed amazing vocals here, they both have grand voices.

A bigger surprise was the managers, despairing over being ruined. André looks around, throws his lantern into the “pit” which is causing a large fire – I assume this is why we see a ruin of an opera in the Auction scene - and they run off. It’s yet another instance of “Yes, I like the creativity, but does it make sense?”. Since the opera and chandelier seems fairly closely based on the Palais Garnier, and that opera NEVER BURNED it feels like different Phantom universes colliding (I.E. a dash of the 2004 movie with its Opera Populaire meets the Prince/Bjørnson version and the Palais Garnier).

FINAL LAIR And now for the grand finale. A nice twist in this version is that yes – Christine wears her Aminta costume during the Final Lair, like many other non-replica versions – but the Phantom do offer her a wedding dress, veil and bouquet. He also puts the veil on her.

Raoul comes crawling in from the right side – I am not sure if it’s meant to indicate swimming or him sneaking up on them. But he is quickly noticed by the Phantom. He takes a chokehold on Christine to keep Raoul away. A slight inheritance from Ramin, I assume, as he was the king of choking in the UK. With Gerónimo Rauch I didn’t care all too much for it (never did with Ramin either). With Manu Pilas he acted as he suddenly got aware of what he was doing and quickly let her go, almost apologizing, looking embarrassed, even devastated. This made more sense to me, that it was not a cautious choice.

(Final Lair photo from Trieste. Note that some changes was done for Madrid. Most noticeable that Raoul is no longer shirtless, but he's barefoot. He's also hanging way above ground)

So to the part I did not overly care for – the magical lasso. In this version the magical lasso is somehow… connected to the Phantom’s bed and Raoul is raised into the air by one of the poles of the bed. I understand how this is a practical solution, as it makes it possible to lift the actor from the floor. Whereas it did look realistic it also felt a bit strange he would hang from the bed. Guido Balzaretti did however act it well, and it looked frightfully real when his naked feet slowly stopped moving.

And dudes and dudettes – I am happy to say Raoul is no longer shirtless in the Final Lair. Thank you, good actor or director or head of costumes. A bare-chested guy being strangled by/with a bed was too much for me, at least when he is technically not the one in focus.

This is the second place I would have liked more temper, more rage from Talía del Val (first being 2nd Managers). She seemed too mild and too accepting on what’s going on. Judith Tobella was more feisty, even if she too could have turned it up a notch. This especially went for when Raoul got strangled up, it didn’t feel like much of a fight at all. Christine steps on to the bed and tries to loosen the noose once, without success, but that’s it. Fight for your man, Christine!

Another aspect which made me wonder is that it almost looks like Raoul has died long before Christine decides to kiss the Phantom. I would have liked to see her enraged, or even more scared, or… something. But the kiss itself – another scene sticking very close to the original – was beautifully done. With the Phantom letting Raoul go he was just lowered to the floor. Props to Balzaretti for A+ acting here, having to been helped into the Phantom’s boat. Christine and Raoul then sails away, the Phantom sings to the monkey musical box, and Christine returns, being viewable behind the bed.

With Rauch he seems to notice it quite late, and looks very happy about her return, almost crying “I love you”. With Pilas he did a detail that totally made me think Tomas Kofod: he straightened his hair, started buttoning his waistcoat, making himself presentable… only to find Christine has left the ring on the table next to the bed and is nowhere to be seen. So sad a sight.

Speaking of which, the Phantom’s deformity looked great in the auditorium, with balding grey hair and a visible deformed side. He looked much older and much more worn down by life than several other non-replica productions I’ve seen, and I’m here for it. This is a man letting go in all possible ways.

And now for the grand grand grand finale… While the opera is presumably burning a whole bunch of people is entering the Phantom’s lair. First one is Madame Giry. She sees the Phantom as he is about to lie down on his bed, and she rapidly signs for him to hide. He hides under the bedsheet, the contours of his body highly visible. It looks like a curled up corpse, quite eerie. Then Meg enters, and the mob with torches. Meg notice the figure on the bed, screams, and as the mob rips of the bedsheet the Phantom is gone – only his mask is left. The Girys holds up the mask together, with an inquisitive look on their faces. Cue: applause.

A SORT OF CONCLUSION This is a playful, intelligent and a bit overpowering version of POTO. I enjoyed it a lot for its clear Phantom look and feel, for its at times super beautiful sets, for a stellar cast, and for many clever and original ideas. It’s a production which is thoroughly original at times, more traditional in other moments. But I think it would benefit from trusting the source material more. Not everything needs to be a trick, an effect, a surprise. Sometimes the leads can carry the scene by mere acting and that is more than enough. The rooftop scene is a nice example of that, while the Mausoleum scene feels like an example of the opposite. But that said: Overall this is a welcome addition to the Phantom universe!

(Curtain call photo showing Martina Brisa as Meg, Judith Tobella as Christine and Manu Pilas as the Phantom)

Highlights: The overall set design, Think of Me (both vocals and visuals), the Meg and Christine love, three equally strong and enjoyable leads, the Phantom’s lair (again both vocals and visuals), the rooftop scene, Red Death’s disappearance, the backstage tale of Mme Giry, the mystery that was Reyer, the cast, the mood.

Meeeeh: The Overture slow-motion sequence, Carlotta as she appears as an opera singer, the rushed feeling throughout, the cramped Manager’s office, the red lining of the Phantom’s cloak, the chandelier crash, sending the cast into the auditorium during Masquerade, the confetti, the Sitzproble slow-motion sequence, Christine’s lack of proper anger.

Hard no: Tarzan-Phantom in Il Muto, winged and flying Phantom in the Mausoleum scene, the Phantom’s sombrero in Don Juan.

#phantom of the opera #fantasma de la opera #poto spain #poto italy #poto monte carlo #geronimo rauch #manu pilas #talia del val #judith tobella #guido balzaretti #marta pineda #omar calicchio #enrique r del portal #silvia luchetti #laura martin #marina brisa #francisco ortiz

72 notes · View notes

greatcheshire · 1 year

Note

What is the deal with Twin Peaks Season 2?

Oh gosh so

Twin Peaks season 1 was a huge surprise hit for ABC, which obviously the executives loved. What they didn't love was the fact that the show, which focused on finding the killer of Laura Palmer, ended its first season without revealing the killer of Laura Palmer. In addition, the show was also such a big hit that they ordered 22 episode for season 2, about three times as many as the 8 episode first season, which meant a lot more space that needed to be filled.

There's also another thing here where season 2 also marked David Lynch putting more... Lynch things in the series. Season 1 had touches of supernatural or surreal elements, sure, especially compared to other TV shows at the time, but for the most part could still be enjoyed or viewed as a standard small town mystery soap opera by a wide amount of its audience. Compare this to early season 2, which introduces spirits, a cream corn ghost child, and sunglasses that possess you and make you smoke cigarettes. A lot of people were put off by this turn, either by it getting too weird for them or for simply not liking the more overt supernatural tone the show was taking.

For what it's worth, in my opinion, the first 9 episodes of Season 2 are phenomenal. Some of my favorite stuff in the series. The moments where Twin Peaks really becomes its own beast. One thing about this section is that this is where ABC was really pushing for Lynch and Frost to reveal the identity of Laura Palmer's killer, something they had never wanted to do but ended up having to do anyway. The end result is the killer getting revealed 1/3 of the way into the season, and the final three episodes dealing with the reveal of the killer and the aftermath are honestly amazing. Fantastic work. Episode 7 has probably my favorite TV moment of all time. It's that damn good.

But then a problem came - the killer was found. The central mystery had been solved.

And there's still 13 more episodes left of the season.

What happened next is one of the most famous quality drop offs in television history. Lynch, both due to his frustrations with ABC and also due to his obligations with filming his movie Wild At Heart, took a step back from the show, letting other writers try to fill in for him. The result was disastrous, with writers struggling to figure out how to replicate Lynch and Frost's style and what Twin Peaks could even be about without the Palmer case.

Some plotlines that are in Twin Peaks season 2, I shit you not:

A business owner gets PTSD and believes himself to be a confederate general, forcing everyone around him to recreate the Civil War with miniatures

David Duchovny shows up as a trans woman FBI agent

The show's Hannibal equivalent disguises himself as a horse and tranq darts a military general involved in classified Area 51 material

The show's Hannibal equivalent kills some random guy and stuffs him in a giant, house sized chess piece as a calling card

Local cool biker James Hurley leaves Twin Peaks, discovers a woman who is trying to scam him into killing her husband but that scam is also a scam from the husband who is also her brother to convince some boy to do a fake scam and attempt to kill him or something and it takes up five episodes and nothing happens and then James leaves the show

The main planned romance arc was vetoed by one of the actors so they had to come up with new love interests solely so fans would stop shipping the two of them. The two new love interests are played by Heather Graham and Billy Zane. They get nothing to do. Heather Graham is a suicidal nun named Annie Blackburn. Billy Zane is a cowboy named John Justice Wheeler

A 40 year old woman with an eyepatch and super strength gets amnesia and believes she's a high school cheerleader. They let her onto the wrestling team because of her super strength and she starts dating the jerk jock there because she's able to dom him

A woman becomes a door knob

They decide to host a beauty pageant to raise money to save a pine weasel. This is the plotline for the final few episodes.

We begin to learn more about UFOs and aliens and the existence of a dark dimension called the Black Lodge

Two men compete to see who is the real father of the sheriff assistant Lucy's child. At one point, they believe he might be the spawn of Satan.

They take Cooper out of the FBI because he went to Canada without permission and place him in Lesbian Flannel for the rest of the season (The only time Lesbian Flannel is a downgrade for a character)

The mayor's 80 year old brother, who investigates UFOs, dies by getting fucked to death by his 20 year old wife. The mayor brings a shotgun to the sheriff's office and plans to shoot the wife for killing his brother with sex and witchcraft. The police solve this by locking them both in the room together until they start to have sex and announce their plans to adopt

And this is just the simplified version of it! All of this caused Twin Peaks to drop HARD in the ratings. Like literally from the top of the charts to the bottom. This stretch of episodes aren’t entirely bad. There is some good stuff there, the lore is important for future things, and the episodes start to pick up when the Hannibal equivalent Windom Earle gets introduced. But as a whole... OOF is it hard to watch. Lynch would come back again to direct the season finale of season 2, hoping to generate enough interest from viewers and executives in giving it a season 3. He tossed out the script that was written by the season 2 writing team and made his own thing and it rules. The finale for season 2 is one of the best episodes of TV ever. A high mark of Lynch’s career. It’s so fucking good. It’s so good, it’s worth season 2 despite it all. And it ends on one hell of a cliffhanger.

Only to get cancelled.

Lynch was given the opportunity to do a movie to end the series properly and resolve the cliffhanger. Instead he made a prequel. A move that angered many at the time. And then 25 years later, Twin Peaks finally got a third season, one that was so good, it was named the best movie of 2017 by Sight & Sound. But the effects of season 2 live on, the way that it alienated audiences and put Twin Peaks solely into niche territory one baffling decision at a time.

#Twin Peaks

485 notes · View notes

gothicwill · 7 months

Note

Please make a post abt the marketing/promo of hannibal im geniuenly curious

Gladly. I will take any chance to bitch about this lol

ok so um. The Hannibal promo sucks. This is a well known and joked about a lot on here. The big reason that it’s bad is because the NBC execs wanted an American actor (they proposed Hugh grant) to play Hannibal, but Bryan fuller pushed hard for mads.

He finally succeeded in casting him, but at that point the network had lost faith in the show and didn’t expect it to do well anyway.

The lack of interference and expectation from nbc DID allow fuller to make the show much more campy and experimental though, so it’s not all horrible :)

Anyway, back to the topic at hand. Promo is there to attract audiences to a show. It’s meant to vaguely capture its aesthetic, themes and give an idea of the plot.

So here what we got:

Nice grey void. I guess there’s animosity?? I couldn’t tell you anything about these two.

This one kinda captures the gothic-ness with the color scheme, but that’s it. They could’ve used body parts on that table or something. Someone on tiktok said that this would’ve worked better if it was set up like the last supper painting and I couldn’t agree more!

This is as good as it gets. The colors are nice. The eyes not being visible is mysterious. The handkerchief is a nice touch to people who know about Hannibal lecter from the movies and such. But the heart of this show is the relationship between Hannibal and will, and that’s never shown.

I’ve already mentioned in a previous post how much the logo sucks so I won’t get into it again lol.

Let’s contrast this with a show that I think has excellent promo: good omens

I can tell you at a glance what this show could maybe be about. The logo is in a fun and flamboyant font, which reflects the tone of the show (Plus angel and devil motifs!!). The opposing colors tell me that the angel and devil have different personalities. One is holding tea and the other wine. They live on earth. It’s perfect.

Sorry for the long ass post, I’m just very passionate about this 🫡. I only covered the season 1 promo because I think it’s the worst, but it’s similar with seasons 2 and 3.

#my favorite show deserved sm better #rant post #hannibal #nbc hannibal #will graham #hannibal lecter #hannigram #nbc hannigram #alana bloom #murder husbands #good omens #ineffable husbands

99 notes · View notes

forgiveness-in-the-misery · 2 months

Text

I think as a retrospective for myself that there are complications on “this show handled queerness as well as it could” vs “this show pretended to have any idea how to handle queerness and used the fantasy of queer romances to bait in audiences then shame them.”

Let us start with Hannibal which falls into the category of handling it as well as it could with the era and the network tv factor. We got to see a lesbian romance between Alana and Margo which is already a plus above some other shows. The relationship between Will and Hannibal is deep and complex and coded with the word friend as we see in shows like Our Flag Means Death, Good Omens, and Righteous Gemstones. The word “friend” does not ever deny or negate the intimacy or queerness between two men, because with Hannibal we constantly get blatantly romantic dialogue between the two men, their final moments are spent in a romantic embrace with Will’s head resting against Hannibal’s chest. They constantly refer to loving each other and outside characters state that they are in love with each other.

The show did not have a faux promise of a gay romance. The romance was there.

Gotham is a cluster fuck. Gotham on the other hand was the network show where two women are making out and having sex and you assume they are a couple, but the show itself and most promotion for it claims they have an almost sibling bond. They are just friends waiting for men they love. Then the other “queer” rep of the show comes primarily in the form of Oswald, a heavily gay coded male character with no romantic interest, until falling openly and loudly in love with his male friend, Ed. Of course this doesn’t play out but the interviews and social media team fucking went into over kill cramming the idea of these two men becoming a couple down your throat….until they stopped. Suddenly the actors back pedal claiming Oswald isn’t even gay, he’s a virgin so he doesn’t know what he is. Both men are given female interests who act like them and its awkward and forced and dies fast. The show’s final season introduces a bizarre homoerotic relationship between Oswald and an older man…. The showrunners proclaim that Oswald and Mr.Penn have a father/son bond, that Penn is like a father to him…..despite the fact Oswald literally has this man on leash and collar and yknow already has a dad.

The show returns to teasing an idea of Ed and Oswald and a romance only to find them awkwardly embracing and claiming a sibling bond instead as if two seasons ago Oswald didn’t want to fuck his brains out. Allegedly the network is the cause of all this, but I don’t accept that. You would learn quickly if the network would not allow gay romances and work accordingly with that instead of pushing some of the worst handled non romances I have seen in modern TV.

What We Do in the Shadows I still clump with Gotham because I see and have seen the exact same tactics with both shows. The poor handling of queer love is at this point the least of my issues with What We Do in the Shadows, at this point finding out the chairman of FX wanted the sixth season to be the end because Paul Simms fucked himself by turning Guillermo into a vampire for one second then undoing it because Simms wanted to just “get it over with” is hilarious to me at this point. waikiki was open about Guillermo’s final choice as either slayer or vampire would be the story’s end and Simms somehow translated it to mean “get this shit out of the way so we can write jokes about ball hair”. The show had potential overall and was heading in a good direction. Season four was so fucking beautiful I can write a ton of pieces on the beauty and tragedy of it and I despise Simms with an intense passion for spitting on that.

In terms of queerness and romance….Guillermo and Nandor as friends or platonic or family or lovers all work fine narratively. I just despise how the show always promoted the idea and tease of romantic love, only to eventually get to the point of Simms joking or not to ask “who wants to see that?” In response to the idea of two men kissing, treating a kiss or exchange of love confessions as if it is obscene and repulsive.

I think the wildest thing for me is when shows are more and more current and still fall into this pattern of promoting a gay romance that was never truly intended in the first place. Mostly I despise this because shows end up wasting a lot of fucking time they could spend on actual plot and character development instead of polls on twitter about if in this new episode a kiss may happen when they know it never will.

#hannibal #gotham #what we do in the shadows

49 notes · View notes

feydfuckernation · 2 months

Note

Okay, I just got back from seeing Dune part 2. Feyd-Rautha is a bald, murderous, cunning, cannibalistic, raspy-voiced sociopath who would probably kill me as soon as he'd look at me.

...So why the hell do I want him so badly lol?!

its gonna take more than a three hour bald cap to deter ME #feydfuckernation

in all honesty tho he is GENUINELY captivating. feyd is already such an interesting character in his own right because of how he's set up as both a mirror to paul and potential alternative (in the eyes of the bene gesserit). it's no surprise that a good villain is just as if not more memorable than the hero sometimes, especially when you have an actor like austin AND a director like dennis who can take an already incredibly rich source material and make magic like that onscreen. feyd is regularly touted as a murderous sociopath but he's portrayed in a way that feels more fully realized than just "look at me i'm a psychopath and i'm cRAZYYYY" (ex: resident dead horse jared leto joker). villains tend to offer something forbidden, a way for us to examine the more unsavory aspects of the human condition within the confines of fiction. austin plays feyd rautha the way anthony hopkins plays hannibal lecter; there is something oddly charismatic and captivating at work in his performance that we simply cannot help but be drawn in.

#once i've seen dune a few more times i'll probably have more to say about this tbh #films like dune have sooo many layers to them that i thoroughly enjoy looking for on a rewatch #it's why succession is one of my favourite shows #answered #arianatheangel-girl #feydposting #feyd rautha harkonnen #dune #dune part two

21 notes · View notes

shannankle · 4 months

Text

The Sign Episode 7 Thoughts

Showing abs is apparently necessary for good art (taking notes)

Okay but are they talking about having him paint him, make love, or kill him and make him a part of the art (they keep showing the art tools like torture tools)

That love scene was really beautiful, love the way it makes the art very visceral. The way it's framed reminds me a bit of Hannibal and the way bodies there are framed as art.

Ah so we are intentionally blurring the lines here between love making, art, and potential murder--cause the scene of him washing off the paint is pulled straight from a crime thriller. I like the contrast between the red paint and the blue lighting.

Interesting bathroom, the shot is really pretty, but logistically how do you shower without getting everything wet. The mirror is really interesting though. Practically it's a good way to make sure he gets all the paint off. But it also highlights how alone he is here, with only his own reflection to keep him company.

Yai why are you trying to stop Tharn from saving someone?

These guys are so bad at working, meanwhile Yai is telling Tharn not to get distracted from the job they're already all not doing

Oh I like the way the actor plays Mr. Montree. A lot of actors would overplay the sinister aspect to make sure the audience really gets it, but instead of any tension in his voice or body language, he comes across quite genuine and warm in his responses. We can still pick up the tension if we observe the captain and read between the lines of what he's saying. Nice!

Tharn, darling, maybe don't tip the guy off! I'm glad Yai told him that was stupid

Ah hello again Nat's abs!

Interesting that most of the guests are in black, white, or beige, but Mr. Montree is in blue and Phaya's grandma is in red. Of course those are the colors used in the painting and earlier with Art. It makes sense that Mr. Montree would stand out, but I'm curious why Phaya's grandma in particular. Will she become more important? Is she related to Mr. Montree in some way?

I'd love to know more about the artists and art they used for this episode. There's some really gorgeous pieces

Oh no a broken statue I'm getting Shadow flashbacks

Wait why would they detain Art? It was clearly an accident

Dr. Chachacha stepping up to say Art is his patient, what is this Hannibal? Dr. Chalecter over here! It's got to be an influence right? Cause I was getting similar vibes in the opening scenes too

I wonder if hysteria as a term has the same connotations as it does in Western psychiatry. Like is it still a term that's used medically? Or is it clearly outdated? If it's the later, why doesn't that raise any eyebrows? Either way it fits with his sinister role in the story and the way he riles Phaya up to cause problems and make it seem like Phaya is dangerous or hysterical. Say Art is hysterical and off his meds and you can discredit him. How much of that is Dr. Chalecter using some sort of power on people is hard to say.

Huh, even after that back and forth, I'm not quite sure what the show's perspective is here on mental illness. They aren't necessarily pushing back on the idea that it can make you dangerous, even if there's some nuance added. Though Dr. Chalecter did get in a funny burn telling Phaya: you're not mentally ill, your personality just sucks.

Okay I get that Phaya is acting like an idiot because he's scared, but my patience is a little thin. It's just not a dynamic I enjoy. I'm kind of hoping it really is Dr. Chalecter's doing.

Oooof Dr. Chalecter is over here distinguishing "normal" people vs mentally ill people. Rich and ableist! Despite the copganda the show is at least giving us evil psychiatrists.

No don't bring the charismatic psychiatrist into your police investigation! It's like the captain hasn't even seen Hannibal!

Did Kao's body get put into the art and that's why they can't find him?

Okay I guess I'm glad it wasn't portrayed as him killing out of madness or mental illness, that's a relief.

Tharn's visions are getting super convenient and helpful now. I like the touch of focusing on the clock in the flashback

Imagine being the poor cab driver. You pick up a guy with a bleeding neck and instead of going to the hospital he asks you to drop him somewhere sketchy

Why would you sit in the car to get evidence? Wouldn't that disrupt things?

These two have no chill, why are they bickering in front of everyone's salad. Also not sure why we needed a montage of the meeting.

Kitty Kitty Kitty Kitty!!!

Oh Phaya's little meow to deflect, adorable!

Huh the grandma's comments about not understanding people's motivations and everyone losing their minds are troubling. Feels in line with what the episode seems to be bringing up around mental illness. Even with Tharn's response, I'm not really sure what the show is trying to say about the topic. Kind of similar to last week's take on justice.

Kitty makes the perfect transition shot!

Interesting how the final scenes between Phaya and Tharn here mirror Art and Kao but with very different endings. Both begin in spaces where Art and Phaya make and display their art. Tharn and Kao are invited into these intimate spaces. But the couple's follow opposite trajectories--one betraying that intimacy (Kao) and the other (Thar) deciding to take a leap of faith and trust in it.

Art and Kao make love in a scene that may have just been a fantasy, but, real or not, the scene has a dream-like aesthetic that is edging into nightmare. We then learn they fought and separated.

In contrast, Phaya and Tharn talk, resonate with each other emotionally and come together. They then make love. Like, Art and Kao's love scene, there's a fantastic quality, but this one stays out of nightmare territory.

The mirrors are particularly notable. We end with mirror's capturing Phaya and Tharn together, intimate. While we began with Art in his bathroom, the mirrors highlighting how alone he is.

A final thought: It has been 4 weeks since Sand has graced our screens, now we must wait at least a week more and that is a true crime!

#thought i'd start writing some reactions to shows rather than just meta #though i definitely slipped into meta at the end there anyway lol #the sign the series #the sign #the sign episode 7 #the sign spoilers #my posts #my reactions

27 notes · View notes

pumpkinfreak · 4 months

Text

Watching Hannibal for the first time Ep 8-11

Episode 8. I need MatPat to figure out if you could turn a person into a cello. THAT IS THE FILM THEORY I WANT! Anyway, Franklin comes back in this episode. Another fun fact, I work in dentistry, and I did not know Catgut was real animal innards. My instructors left that little tidbit out. I love that Hannibal is offered friendship by Franklin, his little fanboy patient. Lecter is so annoyed by it, he just could not care less. Then Tobias, who is also a deadly psychopath, Hannibal seems just as bothered. It's great. Tobias swinging around that wire tool thing, looked a little silly. It was giving weeb kid busting out their special attack. I did appreciate men in suits beating the Hell out of each other. Also Will and Alana kiss, it's whatever, I feel no chemistry between them.

Episode 9

Abigail finally comes back, she's haunted by the man she killed and is going to write a book about the murders with Freddie. We learn that Freddie is a smug vegetarian. I just know this woman fat-shames people. She eats half a cutie orange and just gushes about how full she is. I'll fight this woman in a parking lot. Also, Abigail did help father capture girls for him to kill. I won't lie I lost a lot of sympathy for Abigail. However, It makes sense that Hannibal would be so interested in her. I think he sees Abigail and Will as kindred spirits, in his own way. Yet, he still views them as things to be played with.

Human totem poll. It was such a good design. The skulls are the corners.

Episode 10

Skin just slipping off the body. It got me. It's the little things that get me. Just slid off her like a rubber glove.

Hannibal has an interesting way of treating his friends. I think lying to Will about his encephalitis, is an attempt on his part to keep him close. He wants will, but I don't think Hannibal is capable of seeing other humans as, well people. I think he views them more like animals, something he can control.

Every time Will has an episode he runs to Hannibal. So it is working, if Will was well, he might spend less time with him. Hannibal's own psychiatrist mentions that he needs someone who deserves his friendship. I think this may be a way for him to test Will.

Bisected head. I cannot praise the SFX makeup enough.

Episode 10

This might be my favorite episode of the season. Being awake during your own dissection, grizzly. The tongues pulled through the slit necks. Simple, and very effective. I like seeing Freddie have that smug grin wiped off her face. I was bothered that Alana was put into protective custody, but Chilton was not. Like, he was the guy who messed with the serial killer, of course, he was going to get got.

They seemed so surprised, y'all are FBI agents pull it together.

Hugh Darcy does a great job, acting like someone on the brink. Another fun fact, they often use baby oil to make actors look sweaty. Hugh was probably swimming in the stuff.

Three more episodes. That I will post about later, and give my feelings on the first season as a whole.

#hannibal #hugh dancy #mads mikkelsen #horror #first time watch #will graham

23 notes · View notes

suchawrathfullamb · 5 months

Note

Interesting 🤔 I watched the show and till the end I thought the story was about a man who fell into his dark temptation. As for the shipping, I think it's one sided , in canon I always saw Will rejecting Hannibal and didn't he throw them off the cliff. After the show I came to Tumblr and wow here things are very different, especially how u guys see the cliff thing I thought it was a sad move for Will to decide to end his life . But now I see GIFs and people make it romantic, well forgive me if I am wrong but I am open to new interpretations.

If they were a het couple we wouldn't be having this conversation but, here it is:

I'm assuming then that you interpret Will saying he defines his past and present as before Hannibal and after Hannibal, saying they're conjoined, they can't survive separation, he wanted to run away with him, etc. as lies and manipulations? I guess that's the only way you'd see this and still think it was one sided.

Yes, it is about him giving in to his "dark" side, but mostly it is about self acceptance, it's also a metaphor for anything divergent that suffers from societal judgement and alienation (they even give a little hint at that in the first episode mentioning Hannibal's article).

Will could've killed Hannibal many times, but didn't. He didn't need him to "give in to his darker side". Hannibal did many things to him. We are quick to cut off a friend who hurt us but not so easy to do the same when we're in love.

About the Cliff, Will threw them off because of how good it felt, he knew it would've been impossible to go back to "normal" after that. The fandom never made that romantic, not sure where you got that from. We know it was tragic and sad, although they didn't die, Bryan Fuller, the creator, already confirmed that, but we don't think it's romantic, we understand why Will did it and it is independent from his romantic feelings. Gifs exist for every scene, doesn't mean we think it's romantic, just means we think it's interesting.

This show is packed with parallels and metaphors, Will's feelings are shown through subtle narrative elements, specially because of censorship (still very real but even worse at the time the show was on). If you pay attention to that, you can see it is not one sided. The whole plot happens BECAUSE Will and Hannibal are in love but cannot handle that love and it triggers their behavior and actions.

The actors also confirmed they are in love and so it's also in their interpretation which is far deeper than our own since they have access to the characters inner motives.

I understand not liking them but not seeing it as canon I think it's actually a reflection of society. It just proves the whole point. Believe me, if they were a man and a woman there is absolutely no way of seeing it as non romantic. The eye gazes, the intensity of scenes, the things they say to each other, the intimacy. You may deny that but unfortunately it is very real. You may not be homophobic, but it is internalized, it's heteronormativity, we all do it at some point, because it's how we were programmed to perceive things.

I don't think it's up to me to "give you" a new interpretation. Maybe think about these things and rewatch with more attention to detail? You're not really obligated to have a new interpretation, you can see it however you do, it's a reflection of your inner self and perspectives and we may disagree but I don't think there's anything wrong with seeing it as you do, it's just simply not canon, but that's not a crime? Art is meant to be interpreted, it serve as a mirror.

#ask the lamb #difficult topics #hannigram #nbc hannibal #hannibal #will graham #murder husbands #hugh dancy #hannibal lecter #mads mikkelsen

24 notes · View notes

sempercredens · 5 months

Text

Post about fannicalcascade because I have a lot of throughts and using this situation to ramble a bit, yay. Inserting myself in some fun conversation here, only. Let it be said, I don't wanna be tooooo standoffish and just formulate my own reading of the show and give some counterarguments to the points they make. :D

Just to start off with: different from them, I'll use an ''the author is dead'' approach, so for my own reading and interpretation of the show it doesn't matter what Bryan Fuller or any of the actors said or read into it. I wanna try and go solely by the three seasons of text that we've been given. I just find it way too easy to just appeal to authority, especially, as fannibalcascade admits themself, Bryan Fuller has said contradictory things, so going by his words just seems counterproductive to any discussion.

I've collected some of the points fannibalcascade has repeated on their blog and while discussing them will probably make them blur into one another, I'll try my best to do it orderly.

1. Basically their big point is that Hannigram is one-sided from Hannibal's side. Will doesn't really love Hannibal.

Where I believe, we agree is the subject of Will's internal conflict throughout all three seasons, really. That being that Will is torn between his own darkness and propensity for violence and killing, his enjoyment of it even, - for brevity's sake I'll just call it his ''darkness'' from here on out -, and his compassion for others, a certain sense of justice, and ''normalcy''. I think we'd also agree that Hannibal represents a personification of that darkness. The difference of opinions lies within whether or not that makes his attraction to Hannibal romantic.

My reading of this conflict and how it plays out in the show and the s3 finale is that for the conflict to work at all, it is a necessity even that Will does love Hannibal. What fannibalcascade majorly focuses on is Will's desire for a ''normal'' life like the one he has with Molly for a few years, or just Will's ''good'' qualities if I were to generalise. A huge fear of Will's is to become like Hannibal, after all. What this approach ignores, imo, is exactly the immensity of the other half of the conflict. The half of Will that does love Hannibal, as a symbol of his love for his own dark urges.

From what I read of them and how I understand it they subscribe to the interpretation that, ineloquently put, Hannibal's manipulations are the sole reason Will's morals got fucked up in the first place. Which is a reading I disagree with. We're told in s1e2 already that this darkness has been within Will from the beginning when he confesses to Hannibal that he liked killing Hobbs. This is why Hannibal becomes so infatuated with him in the first place, because he sees the potential in Will and attempts to help him to reconcile with his darkness. Hannibal sees this - uniting Will with his dark aspects - as an act of friendship.

The crux of the matter here is that Will doesn't hate committing violence and murder. He hates that he likes it. And this is an important distinction. Again, I'm of the opinion that for Will's internal conflict to work and play out as it does, it necessitates that Will loves Hannibal in some way. When he attempts to ''honeytrap'' Hannibal throughout s2b there is a real and genuine ambiguity to his actions that makes one question whether he really is still working for the FBI, f.ex. the Randall Tier situation in s2e10 and e11. Finally: that he does call Hannibal to warn him about Jack in s2e13 Mizumono is a strong indicator that Will cares for Hannibal enough to want him to get away. The same ambiguity carries into s3a when Will sets out to find Hannibal in Europe with no decided objective of what to do when he finds him eventually, even telling Jack that ''part of me will always want to run away with him''.

My point here is that while you can of course always call into question whether Will's love for Hannibal is romantic, you cannot argue that there is no love at all.

Which brings us to:

2. Will throwing Hannibal and himself off the cliff is a murder/suicide attempt to free himself and the world of Hannibal. A rejection of Hannibal.

fannibalcascades likes to quote Bedelia's ''Can't live with him, can't live without him'' for this debate, and solely this quote, which I find a little lackluster because this too ignores a lot of other dialogues in the show. In fact, it ignores the context this particular piece of dialogue appears in.

There are many instances in the show where Will acts very much like Hannibal, going with the theme that they've ''begun to blur'', which is even visually demonstrated at many points. F. ex. when he plots to kill Hannibal via Matthew Brown and his embracing of his darkness is visualised by him growing antlers in s2e5. This, being a dialogue from s3e13 is where Will is arguably at his most Hannibal-ish, openly taunting Bedelia by essentially going ''yeah, I'll free Hannibal and then we're coming for you'' - which is what ends up happening if you want to believe the Bedelia post-credit scene.

Going back to the internal conflict Will's character is concerned, fannibalcascades argues that the quote opens a dilemma which can only be solved with Hannibal or both of them dying. Which is certainly one way to interpret. It is interesting to me how fannibalcascades seems to think that the best outcome for Will is to be without Hannibal, wishing that in a hypothetical s4 Will would leave Hannibal, when Bedelia's words would imply that that, too, would not be ideal for Will because he's too attached; he's ''found religion''.

I wouldn't even necessarily disagree that the answer to the dilemma is both their deaths. But I do disagree with the specifics. When Will tells Hannibal ''It's beautiful'', the final words spoken in the series, we are coming full circle from s1e3 where he tells Abigail that ''[killing] is the ugliest thing in the world''. In that very episode you can interpret that as denial since he told Hannibal only one episode earlier that killing Hobbs felt good and just. To reiterate: Will doesn't hate committing violence and murder. He dislikes that he likes it as much as he does because it conflicts with what is expected of him by the FBI and of himself in regards to complying to ''normalcy''. The reason Hannibal is attractive to him is that Hannibal is the only one to offer a complete acceptance of that darkness in him, should Will cultivate it.

So while ''can't live with him'' implies that Hannibal is indeed destructive to Will's life and well-being and those surrounding him which would be a good reason to want to be rid of him, ''can't live without him'' also implies that Will and Hannibal have become to entangled with one another to rid each other. Will even muses in s3e6 whether they could survive separation and Bedelia's words would suggest that no, they couldn't. Being without Hannibal would be equivalent to death, if one'd want to phrase it so drastically.

Repeating my point again that for Will's conflict and how it plays out to function, it necessitates that he does love Hannibal in some way. Just as fannibalcascades points out in this post how:

it has to be equally true that his struggles make no sense if you just say ''oh, he never loved Hannibal''. After all, Will did many Hannibal-ish deeds, especially in s3 when he orchestrates for Chiyoh to kill the prisoner in Lithuania and goes on to string the guy up in a very Ripper-esque, artful display - for no other audience than himself, or when he orchestrates Dolarhyde's mutilation of Chilton. He actually shows very little remorse for his actions in these instances, even going back as early as him killing Hobbs (s1e2)

and he shows even less remorse when he and Bedelia hold their dialogue as shown above.

All in all, my point here is that a reading such as fannibalcascades reads Will as leaning primarily towards normalcy, as opposed to acknowledging the extent of which Will also leans towards Hannibal.

As already mentioned, Will's fear resulting from this conflict is that he fears becoming (like) Hannibal. But the thing is that becoming like Hannibal is not entirely unappealing either. Because if it was there would be no conflict. It's really a testament to how complex a character Will is.

So returning to the cliff scene, Will admitting that ''it's beautiful'' is a self-acceptance of his own darkness, by extension an acceptance of Hannibal. fannibalcascades argued, however, that if it were a confession, Will would not attempt to kill himself. Sure, tipping them over might speak for a motivation of murder/suicide but that is rooted in the very same conflict Will's been dealing with this entire time. It is the culmination of both conflicts being solved, if you wanna see it that way; Will's darkness and his want for normalcy both won in some way. To put in convolutedly: by his acceptance of his darkness and Hannibal, Will triggered his fear of becoming like Hannibal because he just admitted to having become Hannibal, causing him to choose murder/suicide to fight said fear.

Is it tragic? Yeah. Is it romantic? We'll get to that.

3. ''it's a horror show first''

In my reading, I very much identify Hannibal as a Gothic show, which is not that far off from horror and overlaps in significant enough ways to be conflated. I hesitate to call the show horror because horror films aim to make you scared and scream along with the characters, whereas Hannibal doesn't.

There is no exact definition of what the Gothic is. It's not as much as genre as it is a mode that can be applied to different genres, such as Gothic horror, Gothic fantasy or Gothic romance. But what is important to note is that the Gothic has its roots in Romance, the 18/19th century kind with a capital R. So while you've got tales of chivalry and enlightenment and such, you've also got those revolving around the conventionally less savory themes and topics; death, trauma, all those ugly emotions, murder, torture, incest even or generally speaking any kind of perverted or ''forbidden'' love. Within the Gothic mode, these topics are allowed to be explored and discussed without outside conventions impeding upon it. That inherently makes its grasp on clear morality-binaries of good and evil null and void.

We see this in the show when the film language of sweeping camera shots over the displays of the dead bodies seems to emphasise the beauty of them more than their grotesqueness. When Hannibal's cooking is presented to us in extravagance so that we forget that he's serving human meat. Hannibal the character is endeared to us by film language (and also through Hannibal's humour. He's a funny lil man and because we can understand his jokes but the other characters can't, we can feel like we're conspiring with him). By these means, the show is very little concerned with actually condemning him. He even argues himself that he is no more evil than storms or fires (s2e10) and often pulls the ''well, God is worse''-card (ex. s1e2, s2e9).

Point being: we cannot apply a basic morality of ''murder bad'' onto the show and much less the development of its characters. There is no longer a clear separation between ''this is a good thing to happen'' and ''this is a bad thing to happen''. Especially when the characters begin to work against each other and good/bad becomes entirely subjective to whichever character's view point you'd want to take. The closest we probably get to a ''normal'' pov is Jack Crawford. Catching serial killers to make the country safer is obviously a noble goal. We can empathise with that, and how he is stressed enough to let it out on Will by using him as a shortcut to catching said killers. To the detriment of Will's health. And Hannibal does point out in s1 that working for Jack is unhealthy for Will, which is correct.

However, regarding Will we must ask: what is his best outcome? Is there really an objective ''good'' ending for him, or just a subjective one from his own perspective? And what would that look like?

In the light of that, a reading wherein Will finds his good ending in self-acceptance, indulging in how good violence and murder make him feel, and accepting Hannibal after Jack had nothing more than used him to the detriment of his health, after Alana rejected him for the same things Hannibal accepts him for, after he antagonised essentially everyone else, should be equally valid to one wherein Will gets to return to his average American family. And even his relationship with Molly is shaky and not as ideally happy. I'm not denying that Will loves her and she loves him, but the series also shows us that not all is so idyllic as Will still reads Hannibal's letters that he hides from her and she still watches Baseball because she's also not quite over her late ex-husband.

So in summery, I guess:

fannibalcascades' lines of arguing do little to convince me, personally, because I feel like a lot of context is omitted from the argument and lines like ''can't live with him, can't live without him'' are being cherry-picked.

I probably made my point pretty clear about how I think that they neglect half of Will's internal conflict in favour of arguing against any notion of Will loving Hannibal in whatever way. His conflict hinges on how his love for Hannibal is equal to his adherence to common morality, so the idea - as they present - of viewing the show through ''a realistic lense'', aiming for a ''nuanced understanding'' doesn't work for me because denying that Will loves Hannibal is omitting a large part of that very nuance.

Furthermore, reading their blog, I found myself unsatisfied with the lack of specification regarding Will's wants and needs, surrounding the point around what his ideal outcome would be. Most notably, a post they reblogged from bonearenaofmyskull, which contains the lines ''there’s no reason to believe that Will “went completely dark,” that he’s killing with Hannibal, that he’s alive at all, that he’s in his right mind after that fall'' made me wonder what Will's ''right mind'' would be. Because in my reading of the show, the state of Will's mind or what would be the truly right and beneficial thing to do for Will has always been a subject of ambiguity.

fannibalcascades is a self-admitted fan of the ambiguity in the show (x) (x). However, from what I read on their blog the overall tone of their posts nevertheless seems to be vehemently against any other interpretation of the s3 finale than their own, strictly anti-Hannigram one.

In the end I just find it a real shame to hold such a rigid position in media analysis as to omit the whole romantic aspect of the show's central relationship, canon or not, when the joy of media analysis is precisely to analyse a thing you like from every angle possible. So I don't want to dismiss their personal reading and interpretation of the text as invalid - everyone is entitled to have their opinion after all, and this is mine and I hope I explained why I disagree with theirs - and I personally also did try a reading of non-romantic Hannigram because thought experiments are fun.

Lastly, I want to ramble briefly about the Gothic again and how its inherent ambiguity has historically lent itself amazingly for the telling of queer stories, precisely because the ambiguity allows for queercoding. And how as discussed above the feeling of lacking self-acceptance and resultant self-hatred that Will goes through that could all be solved because Hannibal accepts him serves as a metaphor slash wish-fulfillment for the queer experienceTM - which is why we here on tumblr dot gay flock to this pairing lol. It's the romance of the unconditional love, it's the romance of loving even one's most fucked up parts, it's the romance of being seen (and the whole theme of ''being seen'' is not one I'm gonna start now but I have a lot of thoughts about that too) And lastly - really lastly - I want to propose the question whether romantic is synonymous with healthy. Especially in the context of this show in particular, with all the stuff about Gothic mode I went into, is the romanticising of the cliff scene really that terrible? Or just an exploration of unsavory themes and topics? Is perverse love not still love?

Bonus thing where I go a little ad hominem, I'm sorry

I think it comes across as very strange to send multiple anons to an active Hannigram blog essentially baiting them into discourse only hours before starting their own blog about it. From the timing I very much assume it's the same person at least.

I find it very odd how fannibalcascades claims that they're not anti-Hannigram and ''uphold the freedom to ship as you please'' (x) and then tag their posts as #there's no murder husbands and #anti-Hannigram, invading the actual Hannigram tag, and also reblog pro-Hannigram posts to play moral apostle

Just doesn't look very ''ship as you please'' to me. Also the anon thing.

Starting of one of their posts with a big, bold red heading of ''It's tragic that people don't understand what the story really is'' which just gave me the same feeling as glancing at boulevard magazines does. Sorry to be sarcastic here but, yeah, sure, you're the only one who knows the real story, you're the only one who's eaten wisdom with spoons while everyone else picks at the wisdom soup with forks. I'm sorry but just the way that post was presented came across as kinda conceited.

Okay, post over.

Have a list of recommended further readings because I'm totally normal about this show and the Gothic mode, I promise, please believe meeeeee

Jeffrey Jerome Cohen: Monster Theory

Deborah Russell: Gothic Romance in Romantic Gothic

Julia M. Wright: American Gothic Television in American Gothic Culture

Andrew J. Owens: Queer Gothic in Twenty-First Century Gothic

Linda Williams: Film Bodies: Gender, Genre and Excess

Alexandra Carroll: 'We're just alike' - Will Graham, Hannibal Lecter, and the Monstrous-Human

Ewa Ziomek: Hannibal Revived: an Aestheticized Portrayal of Hannibal Lecter in NBC’s TV Series Hannibal

Stephanie A. Graves: 'A breach of individual separateness': Multivalent Queerness in Bryan Fuller's Hannibal

#hannigram #nbc hannibal #hannibal lecter #will graham #hannibal meta #question mark? is this meta?#i'm normal about this show i swear #i didn't just spent over four hours writing and compiling this. it's totally not 4.30am :)#i just........ love media analysissss so muuuuuuuch....................#last time i made an op my post didn't show up in the tag #so maybe this was all for nothing lol. unseen post #oh well will loving hannibal is just as much part of his character and conflict #as him trying to adhere to whatever social construct 'normalcy' is send tweet #can you tell i also watched a certain 4h video essay on plagiarism and am now paranoid about citing sources hahahahaha

39 notes · View notes