majorjoe23

I was watching the three movies over the weekend and was wondering about one thing. In Red Dragon we see the Lector wasn't suspected to be a murderer until right before his capture, in fact, he was helping on the case.

In Hannibal we find out that Mason was Lector's fourth victim, and the only one he left alive. Since Mason knew Lector, why didn't he turn him over to the police?

My only guess is that Mason was in a coma for awhile after his attack, so he couldn't identify his attacker.

Anyone have any thoughts on this?

milo bloom

Been awhile, but if Mason was the guy with the messed up face, then he was probably waiting so that he could get his own bacon flavored revenge as we see him attempt. He didn't seem to be all there in the head IMHO.

Remember, Red Dragon (and Manhunter, same story) are set before SOTL and Hannibal.

Mr. Cricket

Not to mention that the Lector helping out on the case was (if I'm remembering correctly) limited to the movie Red Dragon. It was not in the book, and therefore not a part of the ongoing story.

I believe in the book, it was a bit similar, but Lector wasn't directly involved in the investigation. However, it's been many, many years since I read Red Dragon, so I could be wrong.

QuiGonJosh

In the movies you can say that Mason was just in a coma or perhaps incapable of talking...

In the books...well that part was never in the books...so...

dyerjp

in the book of red dragon, lecter was a minor character. his portrayal in manhunter was alot more like the book than the film of red dragon. i even remember while red dragon was being filmed, the makers were saying how they were going to beef up lecter's character for the film, since is probably what people wanted to see.

Josh-da-man

The problem is, Hannibal Lecter was introduced as a minor character in the novel, "Red Dragon." In that novel, he was referred to as having killed "college girls."

Then, in "Silence of the Lambs," Lecter is re-introduced as a type of Dracula-type character. Seductive and evil.

By the time "Hannibal" was written, Harris had turned Lecter into a full-on anti-hero. Now, his victims appear to be the scum of the earth. Mason was a child molester, so we have zero sympathy for him at all, and actually cheer whatever tortures Lecter inflicted upon him. The Mason thing sort of presents a plot hole in the novel, but that was the second time Harris had re-written/redefined the character, so it's not surprising that a plot hole like that presented itself. Even if Mason was waiting to extract his own revenge, it's common knowledge that he was a victim of Lecter's in the book.

Supermallet

Ahh, now I need to go back and re-read all three books. Thanks a lot.

Now, I don't remember from the films or the books, but is it possible that Mason was a victim of Lecter after he escaped in Silence of the Lambs? I suspect the answer is no, but I thought I'd throw it out and let someone who remembers the details better sort it out.

Giantrobo

Mason was a victim while Lecter was still had a practice Pre Silence and Pre Red Dragon.

spoilers...


After Silence Lecter went all over the world and ended up in Italy. IIRC, He went to South America to get a sixth finger removed from one hand. An identifying mark well known to law inforcement all over who knew of him.

Lecter talked Mason into cutting his face and letting his dogs eat it off while he was high. As mentioned above, Lecter did this because by the book "Hannibal", Lecter killed not only those who got in his way...but people he deemed lowlifes. Mason was a scumbag child raping creep.

Another major thing they left out of the movie was Mason had a lesbian bodybuilder sister(important character in the book) who Lecter had also treated. In fact, Lecter and the sister had a good relationship. IIRC, Mason had been molesting/raping her when they were younger and her need for therapy brought Lecter into their lives.

Giantrobo

When I read Red Dragon years ago Lecter only took up on page if that....

For the theatrical version of Red Dragon with Hopkins they did in fact beef up his role.


FYI, the guy who played the bad guy in X2 was the original Hannibal Lecter in Micheal Mann's "manhunter".

dyerjp

manhunter was the better picture IMHO

RocShemp

I always felt Brian Cox was the better Hannibal Lecter. To be honest, as much as I like Anthony Hopkins' acting, I never liked him as Hannibal Lecter since I never found him creepy. He was too "cartoony". I've never read the books but I have heard that Anthony Hopkins' portrayal of Lecter in Silence of the Lambs was not how the character was written in the book but rather his own spin on the character.

In any case, I really felt creeped out by Brian Cox, despite his all too brief appearance in Manhunter, but was indifferent to Anthony Hopkins.

Professor Frink

Sorry for going off-topic a bit, but since you guys remember the books so well......

In the book Red Dragon, wasn't Francis Dollarhyde really ugly and hideous? I mean, like his "hair-lip" made him look like a monster? If so, why in the hell did they cast Joseph Fiennes in the role? He still looked handsome!

LivingINClip

My thoughts..

1: Manhunter is the superior flick to Red Dragon. Manhunter presents the book the best way possible. The Hannibal Lector character is minor and it's more of a story about Will and his own personal demons. While we are on the topic, I also am a fan of Brian Cox's portrayal of the character.

2: Silence of the Lambs is a great film, but once again Hannibal Lector is really a minor character. This is Clarice' story, not Lector's. It a lot of ways its just a rehash of Manhunter - 'cept it has a more high profile cast. Jodi Foster, Anthony Hopkins and so on.

3: Hannibal was medicore. I read the book and while the book is nothing to be excited about, it's certainly better than the film, which leaves out a lot of main things (namely Mason's sister and her desire to have a child). The main problem with both the book and the film is they took a minor character, who had become a pop-icon and made him something more, yet there really wasn't anything for the character to do. It was all a boring mess.

4: Red Dragon, also known as the unessarcy remake. Yes, Edward Norton done a great job, but there was no reason for this remake, other than to give Anthony Hopkin's another Hannibal film. Once again, they took the minor character and made him more than what he was. By no means was it a bad film, but it was not needed.


I have to say that was some of the best casting, actually. I'm a fan of anything Fiennes does, but he done a great job with the character. Him looking "handsome" only helped the role. It gave the character a human element, almost like a Ted Bundy character. Someone you would never take for a serial killer.


Also, it's a shame that most people do not realize that 'Silence of the Lambs' is really a sequel. I won a bet the other day about that. We was talking about films and I somehow mentioned how I loved the prequel to Silence of the Lambs and my co-workers looked confused and wanted to argue that there was no prequel.

Josh H

To answer the question at hand, Mason wanted to exact his own revenge. That's why he was going after him in Hannibal rather than going to the police.

For the Manhunter comment, I hated that movie and loved Red Dragon. Manhunter was just full of 80's "cheese." Crappy music, crappy cineamatography. It just seemed like a bad 80's made for TV movie in the vain of Miami Vice.

LivingINClip

Manhunter was limited by the decade it was made, a decade where studio's was pushing out any beat down cop film possible. It was also limited by budget. With that said, I still think some of the performances was top-notch in Manhunter, namely Brian Cox's subtle portrayal of Hannibal Lector.

Mr. Cricket

See, I felt that his role was Norton's weakest. He, by no means, was terrible. But I felt that he was just going through the motions.

I agree with you here. When I first heard Fiennes was cast, I thought it would be all wrong. He is too handsome. But I felt he was the strongest part of the film, and carried it.

While you do have point with the dated feel, I happen to love the blue tones of the film. If you give it a chance, the movie is more than a Miami Vice rip-off. I think William Petersen gives a great performance of a haunted man. And it's hard (in my book) to top a good story in Michael Mann's hands.

daniel18

It's Lecter, not Lector.

milo bloom

I also liked the tone of Manhunter, but also enjoyed Red Dragon. While I really like Ed Norton, and thought his portrayal was good, I just kept hearing a buzzing in the back of my mind that he was too young for the part.