Editorials
Finding an Underrated Performance in ‘Hannibal Rising’ [The Silver Lining]
In this edition of The Silver Lining, we’ll be covering Peter Webber’s 2007 entry in the Hannibal franchise, Hannibal Rising.
No character exemplifies our fascination with charismatic madmen like Thomas Harris’ most infamous creation, Dr. Hannibal Lecter. While the overall quality of the media he’s been featured in may vary, I’d argue that every single incarnation of this charming cannibal has been captivating for one reason or another. From Brian Cox’s cold-blooded grifter in Michael Mann’s Manhunter to Mads Mikkelsen’s nearly Luciferian performance in Bryan Fuller’s Hannibal, this iconic character is a gold-mine of storytelling possibilities.
That’s why it makes sense that we’d eventually see an origin story for one of the most celebrated killers in media. Back in 2006, Harris released the final addition to his Hannibal saga with Hannibal Rising, a prequel that detailed the titular character’s disturbing beginnings while also adding some controversial tragic elements to his backstory. A few months later, the Dino de Laurentis Company was already hard at work on a big-screen adaptation of the book, which was set to release the following year.
British filmmaker Peter Webber was soon hired to direct a script penned by Harris himself, with the up-and-coming French actor Gaspard Ulliel landing the coveted role of our liver-eating/chianti-guzzling protagonist. Like the novel, the film is a coming-of-age thriller that follows an orphaned Hannibal as he slowly discovers his passion for cannibalistic murder while seeking revenge against members of the Lithuanian militia that murdered his sister.
Fans of Harris’ true-crime inspired narratives were anxious to see what kind of murderous shenanigans led to Hannibal’s people-devouring habits, so when the first trailer dropped, folks were convinced that the flick was going to be a high-profile psychological thriller with a sinister edge.
SO WHAT WENT WRONG?
Grossing a little over $82 million dollars on a $50 million budget, Hannibal Rising wasn’t exactly the resounding success that the studio was hoping for. While the obvious lack of Anthony Hopkins’ star power is likely what kept the flick from reaching the same box office heights as its predecessors, the picture was also massacred by critics who accused it of cheapening Thomas Harris’ legacy. These days, the film sits at a disappointing 16% rating on Rotten Tomatoes.
Many complaints were directed towards Rising’s admittedly tacky approach to a previously complex and dignified character, with the film nearly turning Hannibal into a comic-book vigilante. The flick was even nominated for a couple of Golden Raspberry awards, though I wouldn’t put much faith in the institution that infamously criticized Shelley Duvall’s iconic performance in Kubrick’s adaptation of The Shining.
Of course, part of the problem with Rising’s negative reception is its source material. Harris was practically strong-armed into writing the novel after being pressured by producer Dino de Laurentis, who knew that a Lecter origin story was all but inevitable due to the character’s massive fanbase. Not wanting someone else to take over his beloved creation, Harris rushed out an unpolished yarn that pales in comparison to his previous work. Naturally, that lack of narrative finesse bled into his script.
Presenting audiences with paper-thin antagonists and several long stretches of movie where Hannibal deals with angst over the death of his sister, the film really isn’t as engaging as it should be. Vengeance is too simple of a motivation for a character as emotionally complex as Hannibal, so it’s hard to buy the protagonist’s Nazi-hunting adventures and clichéd moments of PTSD when we’ve already seen what kind of man he grows up to be. In all honesty, I think it would have been better to keep the iconic cannibal’s origins a mystery, as this anti-hero approach doesn’t add much to the franchise’s established mythology.
The choice to turn this chapter of the story into a prequel also sucks out much of the tension from what should have been incredibly thrilling scenes. We already know that the main character is going to survive to torment Will and Clarice as a ruthless villain in the future, so a lot of the story’s conflicts feel like characters are just going through the motions, with the experience often bordering on trope-heavy fanfiction.
THE SILVER LINING
This may be the weakest chapter in the Hannibal saga, but I’d argue that even Rising has its moments of brilliance. If you can get past the script’s shortcomings as a trope-heavy prequel with shallow psychological elements, you may find yourself enjoying a charming little revenge thriller with an underrated lead performance and some impressive production value.
While the film is impeccably shot and produced, with stunning European vistas and a nostalgic gleam that helps to set it apart from the gloom and doom of previous Harris adaptations, the real star of the show here is the late Gaspard Ulliel. No matter what you think about the rest of the flick, there’s no denying that the French thespian did this notorious character justice despite a less-than stellar script.
Ulliel is a joy to watch as this mild-mannered beast and I think it’s unfortunate that his unique take on the character was forced to live in the Hopkins’ shadow, especially when the actor made a visible effort not to simply imitate that iconic performance.
I’d also argue that Hannibal’s relationship with the Lady Murasaki makes for a genuinely human addition to his monstrous origin. The duo’s hesitant rapport becomes the true heart of the story and I wish that the idea could have been expanded further. A doomed love story between an honorable mentor and a deranged boy that’s destined to become a monster has a lot of potential for a compelling narrative, even if the film doesn’t quite nail the landing.
In fact, there are plenty of good ideas here (like the Samurai mask that foreshadows Hannibal’s iconic muzzle), but this tragic origin ultimately fumbled the execution. Fortunately, elements of the story were later salvaged by Fuller’s Hannibal series, which beautifully incorporated the titular character’s morally ambiguous motivations into the show sans the cheesy vigilante angle.
At the end of the day, Thomas Harris is a gifted writer and he still manages to deliver a compelling narrative even when rushing out a studio-mandated cash-grab. It likely won’t win over any new fans, but like its main character, Hannibal Rising has enough charm to be worth revisiting so long as you keep a safe distance.
Watching a bad movie doesn’t necessarily have to be a bad experience. Even the worst films can boast a good idea or two, and that’s why we’re trying to look on the bright side with The Silver Lining, where we shine a light on the best parts of traditionally maligned horror flicks.
In this day and age, the word “troll” is often used to describe various online nuisances. Yet as abundant and irksome as the modern troll can be, they aren’t usually as fearsome as their mythological counterparts. I’m not talking about the small and gentler versions that have become more common to see in media. No, there are much bigger and scarier trolls out there—and André Øvredal’s movie Troll Hunter is one of the best places to find them.
It doesn’t take long for Troll Hunter (or Trolljegeren) to dump the Blair Witch Project-esque setup and aim for something a lot fresher. The trajectory of the story is augmented by Otto Jespersen’s character Hans, the titular Troll Hunter. The second he comes barreling out of the deep, dark woods and shouts “troll” at the camera, this movie takes a turn into what feels like uncharted territory. Not only subject-wise, but also conceptually.
For fantastical and made-up subject matter in cinema, found footage is a fast way to add a guise of believability. After all, what we accept to be the most crucial aspect of documentaries—the truth—rubs off on pseudo-documentaries, despite our understanding of the pretense involved. That is what Øvredal delivered with Troll Hunter: a movie so convincing that some viewers wondered if trolls really do exist. So, had this been straightforwardly made, it likely wouldn’t have been as effective. Conventional narratives would be more inclined to treat something like trolls as flat out unreal, and never try to convince the audience to think otherwise.
Hans petrifies the three-headed Tusseladd troll.
The viewers, like the characters trailing Hans, are quickly thrown into the deeper end of that extraordinary story. They have to process all this new information while staying on the go. So, although there is no significant amount of meandering, narratively or physically, there is still a good amount of atmosphere, not to mention tension building. It’s never anything frightful, but then again, Troll Hunter isn’t your standard offering of horror; it’s more on the low end of the dark fantasy spectrum. We aren’t ever spirited away to a faraway world—we stay in rather familiar surroundings, as well as dip into those less so. The outcome is a movie where you’re constantly more in awe than in terror.
As fantasy fiction might do, Troll Hunter prefers not to deal with incredulity. There is no time to waste on doubt, as interviewer Thomas (Glenn Erland Tosterud), soundperson Johanna (Johanna Mørck), and cameraman Kalle (Tomas Alf Larsen) all follow Hans around, recording whatever this character is willing to reveal about his bizarre job. Of course, the Troll Hunter himself is not an open book; in that respect, the diegetic documentary fails to fully capture and unpack the more interesting of its two subjects. Yes, all those giant, monstrous trolls are indeed incredible, but understandably, your mind wanders to their pursuer. What kind of person signs up for this gig and then chooses to stick with it for so long?
Reviews have called out Troll Hunter for its lack of character development. In regard to Thomas and his fellow documentarians, that criticism is valid, but bear in mind, they aren’t the focus of the story, either. Meanwhile, Hans is a well-crafted character. At least better than first realized. Before he was introduced, Hans had already grown tired of the troll grind. Fed up with that low compensation for his services, resentful of the bureaucracy, and wanting to expose his employer on a large scale, Hans’ discontent is glaring.
Then there are those finer details about the Troll Hunter, such as that indifference to both the natural splendor of his everyday surroundings and the affections of an obviously smitten colleague, that also suggest some level of despondency. So it is fair to say this movie doesn’t feature any sizable growth for its characters; however, the namesake isn’t underwritten. No doubt, putting a real-life character like Otto Jespersen in that role is partly why Hans is so fascinating—maybe even relatable.
Otto Jespersen as Hans the Troll Hunter.
There is always a small risk whenever using the term “mockumentary” to describe a found-footage movie, as the word could imply humor where there is none. In the case of Troll Hunter, the term’s usage is appropriate. Some folks have claimed the English-dubbed version has the more comedic tone, however, the Norwegian cut isn’t exactly humorless. Apart from the trolls’ absurd appearances, this is a movie where the characters nearly choke on the monsters’ farts, and Christians are like walking targets. Hans’ complete apathy towards everything is another cause of laughter. Overall, the comedy is intentionally dry and inconsistent. Unfunny, though? Absolutely not.
In a movie where endemic creatures are maltreated, as well as disavowed from living freely and peacefully, it’s hard not to notice the ecological message buried beneath the story. In addition to that is the unmistakable political satire. There is this whole business about intrusive and unsightly power lines—like trolls, they’re big blemishes on the land—that leads to what is perhaps the movie’s funniest moment. The scene in question is that one where certain electric lines, the ones secretly being used to keep the trolls at bay, go in a loop and don’t actually send power to any residents. Yet the monitors of said lines don’t find this at all weird. So it stands to reason that Øvredal was having a go at those who accept the government’s doings without question.
Looking past the fact that trolls aren’t actually real, this movie is an enlightening source of information. And not just for international audiences; Norwegians, too, get schooled about their homeland’s own mythology. It’s also evident from everything on screen that Øvredal and his crew were enthusiastic about the topic. The creature designs are the most indicative of that zeal; those imaginative yet myth-accurate manifestations are equally amusing and grotesque. One second you’re laughing at their phallic noses, the next you’re white-knuckling during a hairy sequence. Most surprisingly is how well the trolls’ visual effects hold up after fifteen years. It’s not all spotless, but on the whole, they remain impressive.
Vouching for a mockumentary about trolls isn’t easy, but those who do come around and give it a shot will more than likely be grateful for the recommendation. For Troll Hunter is a real find in that vast and varied genre we call “found footage“.
A bridge troll reaches up for food and finds Hans decked out in armor.
You must be logged in to post a comment.