Which is Better? The Red Dragon

Whereas Silence of the Lambs was a masterpiece and a movie that was so unexpected that it won a few Oscars, the movie Red Dragon unfortunately, a prequel shot 10 or so years after Silence of the Lambs, falls flat. Now, I am unsure if my opinion on the movie Red Dragon is the result of over saturation of all things Hannibal Lector or if I really was just underwhelmed with the movie in general, but I digress.

There are a few major problems with the movie.The first problem was the casting of Will Graham. In the book, Harris takes you through the downfall into madness of Graham and his relationship with Hannibal Lector. Lector isn't very involved in the book, but Graham, in looking at Francis, starts to lose his sense of self. In order to catch a serial killer, he has to think like one, and in the book, it just tears him apart. In the movie, Norton is just walking around like he owns the place and that he is not phased by what he has to do.  In the movie, Edwards Norton is a badass. He isn't overpowered by Francis at the end and he sort of regains his life after Francis is shot by Molly. His relationship with his wife and stepson falls apart in the book and alludes to a divorce.

The second major problem with the movie is that the book, is set before Silence of the Lambs, but the movie is made over 10 years later. Anthony Hopkins is noticeably older and my husband pointed out that Hopkins wore a girdle to keep himself trim. They recasted Crawford... and I get why they brought Hopkins back, but I think it would have been well served if they got a younger Hopkins look alike to play his younger self. In the movie, after watching Silence of the Lambs, he just looks ridiculous.

I really liked the backstory of Freddy Louds in the book. I was able to see his inner workings and how he was shafted for most of his life and just decided to take control of it. He was really valued at The Tattler, but everyone hated him in the journalists world. Throughout the book, he was a guy that knew that no one would look out for him but him, and he did what it took to be successful. All he wanted was to be a serious journalist with lots of money and it was very sad when The Dragon took him. In the movie, I didn't really didn't feel any sort of way for him. He was played by Phillip Seymour Hoffman, who does sarmy very well. There was never any sort of backstory to him other than skeevy gossip journalist.

In the movie, they alluded to his backstory and showed the time with his grandmother when he wet the bed when he was a child. What is lost in the movie is the time frame. This whole serial killer case was done in the 1970s, which makes Francis' low self-esteem and self loathing due to his cleft palate much more probable if the audience knew that he grew up in the 40s and 50s.

Reba's interpretation in the movie is mostly spot on. She's white with golden pageboy hair and she's blind. I liked her inner monologue in the book, but in the movie, you lose that. You feel for her because she genuinely likes Francis and he can't get past his own abuse (or really, into therapy) to be available for her. He is so far gone by the time he meets Reba. It's sad because The Dragon helps him be more confident and strong but also drives him to kill people and encourage him to kill Reba.

All in all, Red Dragon is better as a book than a movie. You get more material and the motives of characters which is lacking in the movie. It would have been better served to recast Lector just for the simple fact that Hopkins is noticeably older in a movie that was supposed to take place before Silence of the Lambs. The movie is entertaining, however, so if you want to just settle for watching something thrilling, then it's a good way to spend a few hours.

Which is Better? Silence of the Lambs

It was incredibly hard to review the book without also reviewing the movie, but I think I succeeded! Nevertheless, now it's on to see which is better, the book by Thomas Harris or the movie, that won a few oscars, including best picture.

Confession time: I watched the movie before I read the book (I've been doing that a lot lately....) but honestly, now that I've been a teacher and worked with students who have reading challenges, unless the adaptation blows (which sometimes it does), I don't think watching the movie before reading the book is a bad thing. Now, I think sometimes people don't want to read the book after they watch the movie because they've seen the movie so there is no point in reading the book which is bad! Unless the book blows (and sometimes it does), read the book too! 

Ok, now back to the Silence of the Lambs movie. First of all, I watched the show Hannibal with Mads Mikkelsen. I loved the casting for that show because Mads Mikkelsen has an other wordly persona and look to him. I knew he was a serial killer before it was revealed in the show (most audience members did), but he gave off that vibe that he was different from the others. That he was wearing a "person suit." Anthony Hopkins was a very different direction but I equally liked him. He's a great actor, and Anthony Hopkins' Hannibal is terrifying in a different way. He sort of looks like a Dad, or a therapist. He seems to blend in and melt away into the crowds, whereas Mads definitely stands out. No wonder so many people died with Hopkins as Hannibal. Eventually, I will go into what went wrong with the other movies and the show, but for now, Silence of Lambs deserves every one of those Oscars. 

Jody Foster as Clarice Starling is magnificent, but of course she's awesome. That's what makes her Jody Foster. She's understated, gritty and determined to prove herself. She brings more life to the character and even though I try to separate myself from the movies when I read, all I could think about when I was reading was her as Clarice Starling. 

What I liked about both Hopkins and Foster is that they brought more life to the story than the book itself. Not only was it acted well, the script and the direction of the movie makes it a masterpiece. The reveal of Buffalo Bill, the downfall of Chilton (who, to Harris' credit, creeped me out MORE in the book) and the cinematography just brings the story of Hannibal and Clarice together. Whereas the book does a lot of tell, instead of show, the movie does a great job of doing both showing and telling. They interject information into dialogue that the audience needs to know, but doesn't do it overtly where it makes me want to roll my eyes. 

It's very clear to why Silence of the Lambs Oscars. When I was telling a few friends that I watched Silence of the Lambs for the first time and then read the book, they all agreed that the movie was better than the book, and they also commented that type of film wouldn't have been nominated for an Oscar today. I'm not a huge film buff. I like movies and I have some knowledge of them, but I don't actively follow them or care about awards season. However, I can see how they could make the statement that Silence of the Lambs wouldn't have made a big dent in Oscar season. That type of movie now and days don't really get nominated for Oscars. 

Keep an eye out for the rest of my reviews on the Hannibal series and the movies. I did watch all the movies (besides for Manhunter) before reading the books for "Shock-tober." My husband states that the books get progressively worse as the series goes on, but that is to be determined! Stay tuned! Comment below if you disagree with my review of the movie or my opinion of the book! 

Silence of the Lambs by Thomas Harris

So, confession time. When I was growing up, I was terrified to watch Silence of the Lambs. I thought the poster looked terrifying, and I imagined that Hannibal Lector eating people in the most gruesome way. I had, (and still have) a very vivid imagination, especially when it comes to horror movies. Ghost movies? Haunted Houses movies? Totally out. Zombie movies? Dawn of the Dead terrified me for the longest time. The Ring? The Grudge? I can't even do it. Torture movies? SAW is seared into my brain forever.

Interestingly enough, my husband LOVES scary movies. He was a film major before switching to English (therefore, going into teaching) and took a class on scary movies. He enjoys watching them, but we never embarked on watching them together. 

Fast forward to this year. He and I both LOVE Halloween, and he has taken to call this month, "Shock-tober" (I know... you wonder how I snagged such a man). We also discussed what Halloween-y things we could do this month (that you know, don't cost a lot of money) and he suggested a few scary movies. 

And guys... I wasn't immediately, "Hell to the naw!" about it. I thought for a few seconds, and I realized that I should watch more scary movies. I'm older now, experienced more life and I'm not scared out of my mind so much anymore. So we discussed a few movies to watch, and the topic of Silence of the Lambs came up. Now, he and I watched the show together, and he stated that the movie wasn't completely scary and more of a thriller. He also suggested that I do a "Which is Better?" posts about all the movies and the books along with the show. That's what I'm going to do now! First I will review the books, and then the "Which is Better?" post will come out next for each book and each movie. 

After watching the movie, I went ahead and read the book. It's going to be really hard to not review the movie with the book, because well, the movie follows the book with a few minor absences that weren't really needed in the movie. It opens up to Clarice running through the FBI training grounds when she gets a notice to go see Jack Crawford. They begin discussing Buffalo Bill and Hannibal Lector, with Jack sending Clarice to go see Hannibal because he feels like she can get something out of him. Finally, Jack warns Clarice to not give up any personal information because Hannibal likes to amuse himself. A lesson that Jack learned with Will Graham. 

Harris' style of writing is very straightforward. He's a mystery and crime novelist and his mode of writing is very direct and to the point. At some points, especially during action scenes, I felt as if I was watching the fight happen, instead of experiencing it. When intense dialogue and conversations taking place, especially with Clarice and other characters, I felt like I wasn't experiencing her discovery and realizations. I was just sort of reading about it. Finally, I thought that some of Harris' descriptive language was a bit odd. There was one part of the story where he describes a female character who puts her hand on her vagina to hide while in the well. I can't speak for other women who are scared, but I felt as if Harris was sexualizing her? Why point out that she covered her vagina? I'm not sure what the purpose of that was. 

Harris also switches between perspectives jarringly and sometimes I would have to reread in order to figure out that the inner monologue of characters switched. I don't mind experiencing a shift in perspectives, but the transition wasn't smooth. 

Finally, even though I'm not a fan of crime novels, I thought it was an enjoyable read. After watching the show, I liked reading the novel that began it all. 

My husband's favorite book, which is my next book in the series (after I take a break from Hannibal Lector), is Red Dragon. He thinks that it's the best book of the series and even better than Silence of the Lambs. 

What do you all think? Stay tuned for Which is Better? Coming out in a few weeks!