But it's indicative of What he is- hungry for absolute control. He's plenty intelligent enough to know why (although, he might be psychologically incapable of accepting &/or sharing, it with someone else) Even if he could accept & share, he might get a special pleasure out of playing coy/refusing another, the satisfaction of illustrating his flaws. Hannibal probably got me into all types of psychologically based, interests- watching the story unfold as a child, with my parents, boggled my mind.
I think it's too simple to call Dr Lecter's feelings for Misha love. Those feelings are much more complicated and confused. Let's not forget that he ate Misha, and that saved him from starving to death, and as such tasted better than anything else, before or after. That he didn't know at the time that he was eating his sister and thereby saving his own life, has resulted in a very complex mental trauma, mixing guilt, revulsion and hate with the wonderful feeling of finally eating and surviving starvation. I believe that's why he goes to such lengths to create wonderful human dishes to serve his friends, thereby possibly alleviating his own sense of guilt by eliciting pleasure and adulation from his dinner guests who love the meal when being unaware of what they were actually consuming. A bit like: "See, you like it too" to make himself feel less like a monster.
I think this is the best analysis of why he does what he does. It makes alot of sense for him to try and alleviate guilt by feeding others human meat and seeing them enjoy it.
Maybe he wanted clairice to be misha as a way to alleviate his guilt by having a stand in so he could of shown her how well he would of treated her instead of eating her.
It's because he is always angry, he learned to hide it, that is why you find it truly terrifying. You look at him with a different mind, as someone who went through a lot of trauma, people get angry with someone being angry, because they cannot fathom the impact it has. So severe trauma must be hidden for society to feel better about turning a blind eye to evil people masquerading as fine upstanding citizens.
@@asmith1711 Fascinating. It is said that we are in the presence or proximity of serial killers on a regular basis so, your point is most apropos. Stay safe
And this is in one sentence why psychology isnt a science and noone educated takes it seriously. You did an academic dissertation....on a fictional character. That isnt how science works
Both Mads Mikkelsen and Anthony Hopkins masterfully portrayed their respective versions of Hannibal, but personally I find Mads's version slightly more terrifying. There's something bone chilling about how nonchalantly he carries out the most horrific actions, pulling strings on a grand scale with cold and calculated precision. It's also that the series gives him time to be fleshed out as a more adaptation-faithful character, which allows Mads to play a Lecter with more depth than the Silence of the Lambs version.
I don't think more time or depth makes a character better per say and I'd say for characters like Hannibal the less time you spend with him the better. Keeps the mystery of it all. It's probably why the writer never wanted to write a backstory for him. It takes away from him character rather than add to it. Sadly.
Brian Cox's version is the only one scary to me. Hopkins' Lecter is someone who's a obvious nutcase. Mads' Lector is an erudite sous chef. Cox's Lecter is a sophisticated, charismatic manipulator.
I loved Hopkin's Lecter, of course, however i'd have to agree with you that Mikkelsen's is much more terrifying. I suppose part of it is that you get to see the violence the character is capable of inflicting and you get to see him outside of his cell where he has much more power.
I think Dr. Lecter would be insulted being called a mere under chef. He would have considered himself chef de cuisine. But your point is interesting, since the Lecter character was only summarily presented in the first film, Manhunter. (Sorry, I don't remember much about his characterization in Red Dragon since I haven't reread it in over forty years.)
I personally prefer Hopkin's version, when you look into his eyes in the film, he's able to portray a psychotic man who's mind is constantly working. I'd never really enjoyed any of the performances Mads Mikkelsen has done, always to me the performances seem flat. Even his portrayal of Lecter seemed terrifying and cold to others simply because Mads just did the portrayal using a monotone voice and flat expression. But the magic of Hopkins performance is that Lecter isn't portrayed as flat and unfeeling, he truly looks like a cat amusing himself with his food.
I always assumed that an aspect of Hannibal's cannibalism was a form of trophy taking. A trophy that became a part of him and thus could never be taken away from him.
I see it as he is using the weak to make himself stronger. The irony of using the dead as fuel to kill more. It is a form of disdain, and contempt for those he kills, and will kill in the future. I think the trophy concept comes from what he chooses to take from his victims. I think that is valid. It is used as a final insult, e.g. he will eat the brain of a person he is intellectually superior to, or particular contempt for their lack of intellect.
"...Most crucial and notable things about Hannibal, his intellect" not gonna lie i thought it was his cannibalism but hey the dude is smart too i guess
His intellect is what makes his character though. Him just simply being a cannibal would be an injustice to describe all his character encapsulated and why he was such an interesting villain to watch.
He is basically the closest “human” character we get to Count Dracula. He basically is a supernatural ancient evil. He is what Dracula would be if he were flesh and blood.
@@BH-2023 Dracula still isn't a real person though. Magneto is based on Malcolm x but that doesn't mean there's a mutant out there that can control metal
20:44 In the Hannibal TV series he finds out Jack Crawford's wife Bella has lung cancer just by smelling her and said he realised one of his teachers had stomach cancer the same way. He finds out about Will Graham's encephalitis through it too but doesn't tell him as a sick experiment to see how it affects Will's thoughts and his ability to empathise with people including serial killers.
@Lex Bright Raven He goes to the doctor after he has smelled that something is wrong with him and asked him to draw a clock for him (which Will fails to do but Hannibal pretends that he did it correctly)
I met a man once who had an odd smell about him, he told us later he had late stage stomach cancer. It wasn't like bile or digestive fluid, it really was just kind of...a strange chemical combination. It was very foreign, like adjacent to a specific smell but off a few molecules. He was very lovely and open about his experiences and I hope he's found some peace
Yeah, this is practically a no-brianer. This "quote" you have here, it isn't deep nor is it insightful. It is quite common knowledge that the bullied can and will become the bully.
The chances of that are a very slim sliver of a chance. Killers like Hannibal Lecter falls into a very niche type of serial killer. Now, there are some very high crime areas where you might just be next door to a serial killer that falls into a different class- the opportunist killer- robbers, revenge killers related to crime or altercations, etc. Gary Gilmore is a good high profile example of that, although his is more spree killing. But with that said, the Bundys, Gacys, and Heidnicks only pop up once in a very blue moon. They are master manipulators who blend in with normal society, but secretly hunt and kill intended targets with the sole intent of pleasure. Lecter used any slight he saw in a person as a reason to hunt and kill them. Some of his kills were justified earlier in his life for the sake of revenge (his killing of the butcher is not justifiable just because he offended his aunt even though we learn after the fact he was a war criminal because he didn't know it at the time, it was only 🎶coincidental🎶), but later on in life, when he acquired a taste (pun kind of intended) for it, became less justifiable. Examples of unjustified attacks are the nurse (who survived but was mutilated), the art director in Florence, Dr. Chilton (yes he was a prick, but justifiable homicide?, not really), and the Baltimore musician. I'm sure there were others, but I can't think of them offhand- and I didn't mention those he assaulted or killed while fleeing because they were spontaneous kills for a self-serving purpose as opposed to premeditated.
In an interview Sir Anthony Hopkins stated that director Jonathan Demme pitched the Lecter character to him by comparing him to the chararcter of dr. Treves, played by Hopkins in The Elephant Man. He said that he was baffled by the comparison because dr. Treves was a good and righteous man and Lecter was the complete opposite to wich Demme replied : "that's what Lecter is, a good man trapped inside an insane mind."
The point on vigilantism is very important, especially in the book. The book seems to imply that the fact that the community agreed with his killing of war criminals left a lasting effect on his own justification for continuing to kill.
Hannibal Lecter is one of those characters that just makes me think “What I do if I ever came into contact with them? What would that interaction look like? What would I say to him? What would he say to me? What would either of us learn from having a 10-15 minute conversation?” I think characters that get someone to ask themselves those questions are particularly compelling.
Current psychology says you know tge names and care about around 150 people. It also says between 1 and 7% of people are sociopaths. So you likely know and care about between 2 and 10 sociopaths. Also from every one ive read about..if one targets you youre probably f*cked. The only people they avoid are people tgey fear
I’ve seen the Silence of the Lambs many, many times, and it took me at one of the most recent viewings to notice a magazine called Bob Appetit sticking out from under the drawing of Clarice. Very tongue in cheek, so to speak.
Fun Fact: The real life doctor who Thomas Harris credited as inspiration for Hannibal Lector actually served his sentence & subsequently went back to treating patients with thriving success. He died a few years back
Not gonna lie, I love this "Analyzing Evil" series, and especially the longer ones like this. I understand that more work than I can possibly know goes into every second of produced content, so I don't mind shorter videos. Especially when there just isn't as much lore behind every evil character analyzed, I totally DO NOT mind the short ones. Mr. Vile Eye, your content is incredible, and I hope you are as proud of your work as we are happy that you produce it. Thank you very much.
I remember someone calling Hannibal "a comic book supervillain". And sure, he's kind of overpowered, but I think he's just a 'renaissance man', expert in several fields (medicine, music, cooking, perfumery, and to a lesser degree in painting), much like Leonardo Da Vinci or Goethe. In real life, any musician can do what he's shown doing, the same with any skilled perfum maker and cook. The senses can be trained to such levels. It's just not normal to find one person who is skilled in all of them.
@@folkloreofbeing That's because the existing body of knowledge was much smaller. Forget whole fields, it's difficult enough to master a small niche of just one specialty.
@@hunpo1 I would say that it's not that is was smaller, but that in the 19th and early 20th century and even earlier, when it was more common for someone to BE polymath - people with money had the luxury of being able to study and discover various subjects at their leisure. Not only that, but the methods and rules for getting qualifications were different then to now. For example, the early to mid Victorian period, you could set up your own chemists/pharmacy in your home or as shop. You didn't have to have a university degree to do so, or to obtain all the tools and nostrums for production. Chemicals and scientific tools were easily and readily available to the fine gent who wanted to take up a spot of chemistry. The same applies to any interest that they may take up - geology, archaeology and so on...they had the means and the time to hone these skills. And back then it was seen as part of BEING a gentleman. Today we focus on being specialised in one field.
Perhaps Dr Lector studies art and sciences with the same amount of focus that the rest of us use on social integration? It is apparent that he understands how people integrate, but it is, I think, merely a result of being so interested in the arts and sciences and just seeing how people respond to and interact with his interests.
I think starting with the Hannibal book Thomas Harris started to like the character of Hannibal too much which is why he went from an intelligent psychiatrist and serial killer in Red Dragon and Silence to a Gary Stu who was a genius at everything in Hannibal and Hannibal Rising. There's also him being retconned from being a clear villain in the first 2 books to an anti hero in the last 2. He had some deserving victims like his sister's killers and Mason Verger but the majority were innocents who fit his warped definition of "rudeness" or for petty reasons like killing Benjamin Raspail for being a bad flute player, trying to kill Will for finding him out and later sending Dolarhyde after Will and his family, killing the innocent Memphis guards when he escaped and killing Dr Fell and stealing his identity just so he could become curator of Florence's Capponi Library. He should have stayed as a villain. The TV series has his more mysterious characterisation from the first 2 books, does what little it shows of his backstory better than the last 2 books and films and keeps him a villain.
I've always love Hannibal but found the TV series oddly even better than the movies and books. The relationship between Hannibal and Will Graham in the series is fascinating. You're never sure how much Will is empathic and how much he's psychopathic. He seems able to emapthise with psychopaths but somehow never guesses Hannibal is the Chesapeake Ripper.
I always thought Hannibal from the books is a member of a newly evolved species from humans. He has red eyes and six fingers. He is short and skinny but still surprisingly strong. He is inhumanly intelligent and able to remember all details. He can directly control his heart rate and other biological processes. He is fine with eating humans because he is not human like how humans eat non human animals. He's not just a smart human but something beyond human.
I was happy with Hannibal’s backstory made perfect sense. Especially the part about him unknowingly eating his sister Mischa. And then turning into a cannibal.
@@Xehanort10 I sometimes love mysterious characters, especially villains, who have basically no backstory whatsoever explaining why they are the way they are, makes them scarier. Example, Judge Holden from Blood Meridian, one of the best villains ever written.
Brian Cox was interesting as Hannibal, but he appears briefly in the movie "Manhunter" from 1986 and his approach to the role is completely different. His Hannibal is also intelligent, but unpredictable. When you see Hannibal played by Anthony Hopkins, you really see a psychopath, someone whose appearance and look causes fear. Btw, another great video. Well done!
I don't think all narcissists are extroverted about it. I think he fits that somewhat, but he's too intelligent to let his true opinion of others show because it would foil his plan, whatever it may be.
Thats correct. There is an Grandiose Narcissist, and the Vulnerable Narcissist. Grandiose Narcissists are mouthy, threaten, etc. The Vulnerable Narcissist is far more dangerous. They pretend to be victims, and appear quiet, and ahy. Dangerous, quiet little spiders.
Anthony Hopkins role in "The Elephant Man" won me over many years ago. He has a screen appearance and manner few actors can achieve. How he molded all the traits that are mentioned in this video to optimal effect was again brilliant! Actually, I felt that although he is a monster, that I'd show him the respect he deserves and maybe to be a friend too...lol.
The director of the silence of the lambs saw Hopkins in the elephant man and loved his work and that’s where he came up with the idea to cast him as Hannibal. The studio only agreed if they could choose the female main role.
My absulute favourite bad guy of all time. I'm sooo happy you included the books, Hopkons, and Uliel as well. (I know, most people hate Hannibal rising, but I'm not.) I only missed Mads Mikkensen's Hannibal... but maybe someday? Anyway, THANK YOU, it's a brilliant video!
I think a video discussing vigilantism would be a great idea considering the content of your channel and how so many villains and real life criminals have used it as a motivating factor/sole purpose for their actions. Plus its a relatively less-discussed topic in this area so please consider making one!
Vigilateism is actually almost never a motive for murders, even more so a serial killer. Rather, its usually a shallow, transient faux excuse given during questioning by a suspect of a violent crime who is eventually found guilty (somewhere between "I didn't do it" and a full confession to avoid the death penalty that involves exactly no secret altruistic crime fighting whatsoever.)
I think monster describes the Doctor well. To be able to empathize with people, yet choose to torture and murder them means you revel in their pain and suffering. It means you enjoy it, you get off on it. To me, that's the definition of a monster.
I'm still amazed at the movie fact that Hannibal Lecter doesn't blink through out the old movies. If i'm remembering that fact correctly(?) Edit: Yeah I made a mistake, I done some proper research and watched the movies myself. He does infact blink in some scenes lol.
If I remember correctly they edited out a LOT of his blinking in post along with Hopkins using eye drops and tricks to limit his blinking where he could
They actually temporarily removed Anthony Hopkins eye lids for the scenes when there's no blinking. It's a common procedure that was used in older movies and staring contests but now it's done with CGI instead
I recently watched the show Hannibal and another interesting villian you could cover is Mason Verger, the guy who likes to feed people to pigs in seasons 2 and 3.
Mason Verger the character was fictional upon creation in 1999 in the novel Hannibal and the 2001 film titled the same. A year later after its release Robert Pickton in Canada was arrested for doing the same thing except worse. A writer came up with a character with a fictional concept, only to find out a couple years later that it wasn't so fictional after all.
One thing that I really enjoyed about Mads Mikkelsen's portrayal of Dr. Lecter is how controlled his movements are. Just like in the books, Mads's movements were always preordained and carefully executed. Similar to a stalking cat. Hannibal's body moves intimately when required then viciously when necessary. The Mind Palace and "Person Suit" were often referenced in the show Hannibal, as well. For those of you who have not seen the show I highly recommend it! It's a fun watch and gives you even more details about Dr. Lecter's character that were never mentioned in the films. There's not a lot of canon plot points, but if you watch with an open mind it's awesome!
When I watched Hannibal with Mads. That’s the first thing I noticed, how in control he was with the way his body moved. It really gave it another layer of enjoyment to the Hannibal series.
I see him as an allegory for human intellect and how it can go horribly wrong when not supported by family, love, and emotional stability. He even has a strong sense of empathy, but even that is skewed by his PTSD and lack of emotional guidance as a child.
The feral assault on the nurse is always what I think back to when it comes to understanding Hannibal Lecter. He can put on all the pomp he wants, but at his core, he’s nothing more than a psychopath who eats people. No better or worse than a crazed killer who sleeps in a cardboard box, yet he believes himself to be of some higher standard when all it takes for him to snap is to cut off his meat supply. A deranged addict succumbing to impulse is all the same even in a sharp suit. Such a good character.
I also thought he was just 'normal', even intelligent, sensitive and caring. But due to extremely traumatizing experiences, more specificly : evil mindedness ... he might have made a choice many people make : either become that evil or fight against it. He became evil as result of trauma. His genius state of mind made it a very sophisticated killer, experimenting with the dark side of humans. Thanks, really enjoyed this. It's fun to try and make observations but we can't forget that Hannibal was a ficticious character.
Hannibal reminds you any kind of freakish way that we're all attracted to things that could kill us like tigers they're beautiful from a distance but if you get too close yikes
Id love a separate video on Mads Mikkelsen's portrayal of Lecter. It’s Similar to Hopkins and the books, while also having a unique twist. Mikkelsen's portrayal is more skilled in physical combat, is much more sexually active ( at least 3 women confirmed, not counting his love for will.) and is pansexual . His relationship with Will is also an excellent change as it shows lecter having a greater fascination in other people and a desire to be understood, if not loved.
@@erithrone more like in love with his mind and his complete empathy. There is not a single erotic scene between the two, they are close as friends or brothers that completely understand each other are.
@@erithrone he was in as much love as you can be with your best friend or closest sibling that knows you like no other. Hannibal has never felt seen the way he does when he is with Will and all he wants is a person to share his true self. "Nobody wants to eat alone."
Also I liked the Hannibal rising. It made sense that he was trained as a ninja essentially. That makes all of this weird almost supernatural powers to appear and reappear and disappear and move really fast makes sense. During world war II it wasn't uncommon to have Japanese in Germany obviously. It was kind of campy in some places but it really made Hannibal relatable which is a really impressive feat.also I like the way he chooses his victims mainly he only kills people that he finds to be rude.
For all the flak it gets, I genuinely like Hannibal’s origin story. If not for the tragedies of his childhood, he may have been a tremendous force for the good of humanity.
I know you have done the movie version. And while I don't mind Anthony Hopkins' portrayal of Hannibal, I would really care to hear what you have to say about the 2013 NBC tv series adaptation. Personally, I think Hannibal is more fleshed out in the tv portrayal by Mads Mikkelsen. His relationship with the incredibly gifted but disturbed FBI profiler Will Graham is an unusual one and very tantalizing.
I agree. Mikkelson’s portrayal of Hannibal was masterful. He did such a good job of being able to show Hannibal as this cultured, kind, and brilliant man who also carried a sinister danger under the surface that could flip in an instant. Hopkins’ portrayal is legendary for different reasons, as that version of Hannibal was usually just blatantly evil and insane. In the series, we definitely get a better look at what actually makes Hannibal tick.
Love your series on analizing evil. This is one of my favorite villains and I love your voice its really soothing and helps with the analysis. Keep doing what your doing, there are so many good villains in film and TV still to cone.
I had no idea Hannibal was even a book series, just a random character from an old horror movie. I really want to read it now that I know how much emotional depth is in him like the mind palace. That's the best part of books imo.
Hannibal is only a minor character in the first (and by far the best) two Thomas Harris novels (Red Dragon and Silence of the Lambs). The idea of his "mind palace" is fleshed out in the eponymous novel "Hannibal", in which the character serves as one of the narrators. The last one, Hannibal Rising, is pretty much all about his backstory, but unfortunately is the worst book out of the four.
Dr. Lecter is the greatest of all villains. Erudite and extremely knowledgeable in a variety of fields. Courteous and callous both. A superb character. ^^
Sir Anthony Hopkins is of course Hannibal Lecter but the Series that starred Madds Mikkelsen was just absolute perfection as well, he took inspiration from Sir Hopkins obviously but he made it perfectly his own. Of course the series has some holes and did things differently but I absolutely adored Madds version just as much as Sir Hopkins.
You should do Jean-Baptiste Grenouille from perfume (specifically the book). That would be very interesting, since both characters (Hannibal and Grenouille) are very similar to each other, I think moving on to the sense of smell after sight would be kinda cool.
He would be interesting but short, as he isn't evil, just not in touch with his humanity. As the end of the movie says, the only thing he ever did out of love was to kill himself
I wouldn't mind another TV series that delves a little deeper into his backstory between Hannibal Rising and Red Dragon/Silence of the Lambs. I have seen the one with Mads Mikkelson, but that was mostly centered around Red Dragon, there is a lot of time between Rising and then that needs to be fleshed out.
Since you covered a Hopkins character....could you do a vid on the villains of The Mask of Zorro (1998)? Such an underrated film with great, interesting antagonists. Love your work!
You do a really good job man. I personally find Your vocabulary and verbiage very efficient and when it needs to be exceeds expectations in verbal explanation. I appreciate you.
I meant to say more effective in my compliment what I meant was you offer perspective with the utmost of resilient support and make your points very much so in a talented manner.
One of the main things that make you so much more interesting than most RU-vid reviewers and analyzers is that unlike pretty much all of them you actually seem to read! I love that you use multiple medias to examine these characters and go really deep into their characters!
Good video, thank you for this. If I may suggest the next Villain, it would be Max Cady from Cape Fear. This villain went from illiterate brute to a sneaky, intelligent man. His speech pattern ranges from shakesperean to prisontalk and his methods are pure psychoterror. An interesting individuum
Original Cady acted by Robert Mitchum was quite simplistic villain, but De Niro made him very complex. Max Cady is clearly driven by clear and defined mission and everything he does serves that mission. He might target his defensive lawyer because he learned that he had deliberately withheld evidence helping Cady's case and thought that Cady belonged to jail.
@@vksasdgaming9472 i agree it was pure deniro. I never knew he could be that scary. His taxi driver character was supposed to be but all i could think was "id snap this punk like a twig". Max cady id likely freeze in terror.. (He does remind me of my abusive dad though). When hed really lose it and speak in tongues i was thinking "id nope right the fuck put of there"
@@cdreid9999 My judgement about Taxi Driver is completely diffrent. De Niro's character in it was never meant to be scary. He is much more pitiful character - wreckage caused by loneliness and difficulty of expressing emotions. Travis Bickle is much more of a victim than perpetrator.
You've done a Herculean amount of work to make these videos, anyone can see that. I've watched maybe 10 or so in the past few days, all fascinating and extremely well made. Thank you so much for these videos, man. I appreciate you- we all appreciate you, clearly.
He's good buuuut: The show feels like it takes place in a parallel universe. He's almost comical or like a caricature. I don't think people would feel _"good/normal/relaxed/whatever"_ in his company. He's just so out of place, all the time. Like an alien. And that's what bothers me most. I binged the show, although not to the end, and I always thought: _"Why is everybody acting like Hannibal isn't a COMPLETE WEIRDO?"_ Hopkins Lector is supreme to Mads one in every way. But like I said before, the TV show itself doesn't feel _"real"_ anyway. But in this exaggerated setting he does fit and of course he's a brilliant actor too.
@@yannick245 agree to disagree. (I believe that Sir Hopkins portrayal was perfect for a Dr. Lector who has stopped holding pretences and Mr. Mickelson was perfect for that same individual holding his mask of humanity in place.) I'm of the opinion that this is like when I took my Mom to the opera for her birthday. All the "regulars" seemed almost Alien to me. That is what I think they were going for that Hannibal's personality was the apex of that cultural difference between the exceptionally cultured to a mechanic from the Midwest.
@@geoffreyweights7697 I don't think Mickelson was holding his _"mask of humanity"_ in place. Rather the exact opposite. He always looked like a complete psycho to me. But in the show it was brushed off with: _"Yeah, well, he's European..."_
The part about Hannibal being able to get his wealthy clients to sign away parts of their money to him would be him testing and perfecting his mental and manipulation skills. As he was already very wealthy, he really wouldn't need to get a hand on their money out of necessity. He, as brought out in the video, holding a near-superhuman intelligence, could easily create or invent or invest in something that could net him a vast fortune.
Fun fact: the part in which Hannibal says "do you know what happened to the neanderthals? We ate them" is 100% true paleontologists find more evidence for this every year.
Love these. Just watched your entire analysis. My aim now is to create a villain worthy of your analysis in my stories. Whether or not I achieve that is besides the point. Thanks for inspiring me.
"Nothing happened to me, Officer Starling. *I* happened." Loving your channel. Some vids I'd love to see: Gus Fring (Breaking Bad) David8 (Prometheus/Alien) Marc (Peeping Tom) Cady (Cape Fear, either version) Asami (Audition) Mr. Blonde (Reservoir Dogs)
One thing I remember from seeing Silence of the Lambs: he knew from the beginning where Bumble was. All the early drawings we saw were of the type of building occasionally called a "Belvedere".
I didnt see empathy. I saw understanding. He studied people and knew what drove them. He didnt have feelings for anyone. Except starlimg but the whole him starlimg romance was bad fanfic
As a child, he had empathy. As a teenager he had a hybrid of psychopaths and empathy (he wasn't completely lost yet), but once he started his quest for revenge, he morphed into a psychopathic killer. He didn't really FEEL for anyone or anything. He was amused by some and knew what to say to APPEAR empathetic. Ted Bundy was like that- he felt nothing for the women he was romantically involved with, but kind of used them as stability, cover, and/or access to things he needed. He knew how to sound like he cared through saying the right things, because he was very bright.
It’s easy to comprehend it when you stop looking at the situation from the eyes of a sane person. Lector looks at a person like a farmer looks at cattle. A farmer can raise a calf to adulthood, cleaning it, feeding it, peering it, nurturing it and keeping it healthy, and yet can kill that same calf and eat it for dinner because the farmer sees that calf as a source of food. The calf had a defined purpose. Was born for a specific purpose and died for a specific purpose because at the end of the day that calf’s existence only occurs to the end of the farmer. That end being to slaughter and render the flesh for food or sale. That’s Lectors mindset towards humanity. To him, the whole of humanity is one giant farm ready to be harvested and so far beneath him that they’re basically a different species that couldn’t comprehend his depths if given a thousand years to analyze. They aren’t people. They can barely even create a functional society that doesn’t make use of true greatness when it stands before them. See where I’m going with this?
@@canderoussnurd4265 I agree with the majority of what you said regarding Lecter's arrogance (seeing majority of people, if not all, beneath him) and the ability to interact with his prey in an affectionate manner similar to a farmer who kills or sells his livestock with purpose of slaughter, but raises the animals with care and affection while they're alive. I disagree though on his viewpoint being one where he sees ALL people as potential food sources. This practice seems to be reserved as a spot of honor (or dishonor) for a select few who've slighted him or offended his sensibilities in some way. If it was purely satiating a taste, Lecter was wily enough to target at least 1-2 people a month to use in this way without getting caught. However, he tended to be very specific about the people he killed- except the ones that were coincidental killings while fleeing or self-defense.
Excellent work as always. But you still have to cover the most evil and maniacal character of all.. Grandpa Joe from Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory.
He had some nerve calling Willy Wonka an inhuman monster while Charlie's mother worked herself to the bone to look after everyone but Joe with his cocaine nails stayed in bed all day until Charlie got the golden ticket at which point he danced around like he'd gotten 50 years younger. He grabbed Mrs Teavee's ass, stole the Fizzy Lifting Drinks and so on.
@@Xehanort10 and was so gonna give Slugworth the Everlasting Gobstopper, with the intent to put Wonka out of business. Charlie was the one manned up and decided to do the honorable thing.
Really surprised you didn’t show Mads Mikkelson. Although it was a different take, he seems to be closer to the actual book version. And man did he kill it
It's an NBC show that later aired on Showtime. There's rights issues unfortunately keeping it from going further. But it seems that there's still life. If we all keep pushing it could happen
I never comment, but if you see this, you did an AMAZING job. Hannibal has always and will always be my favorite character ever written. The amount of thought and effort you put into this is very apparent. Seriously loved this video.
In all 3 continuities books, films and the TV series Hannibal feeds some of his victims the best food to improve their flavour before killing and eating them himself.
as a longtime Hannibal Lecter fan, this analysis is immaculate, and it really got me thinking. If you ever decide to make a podcast discussing "evil"pop culture characters, I'll certainly be an avid listener; this was mindblowing. I'm subscribing.
To this day, and even when typing these sentences, i cant hold my tears on that scene when they take her sister from him. I cant even start to imagine such an event happening, since i have a sister 2 years younger than me who i love and would die for. And she was taken from him. In such a brutal way, being powerless as u see someone you love with such devotion...
I have a sister 6 years younger than me. I haven’t felt bad for book characters since I was a child, but during one of the flashbacks in Rising I felt a wave of sorrow.
