Editorials
3 Different Faces Of Hannibal: Comparing The Lecters!!
The second season of ”Hannibal” premieres tonight at 10PM (9PM Central) on NBC. In an age where many network shows are struggling to compete with the freedom that cable provides in terms of content, this show is the rare exception where the quality actually measures up. This is a show that matches or exceeds the violent content of most cable programs – all the while managing to sustain a uniquely baroque beauty throughout. It also doesn’t hurt that the focus on character here is as strong as it is in the most compelling of dramas.
Speaking of characters, one of the most daunting tasks creator Bryan Fuller and his staff faced when bringing this show to the screen was finding someone to play the title role. After all, whoever they found would be following in the footsteps of some truly iconic actors. Sir Anthony Hopkins (Silence Of The Lambs, Red Dragon, Hannibal) and Brian Cox (Manhunter).
Yet, they really made it work with Mads Mikkelsen. Let’s find out why below in a look sponsored by NBC!!

Hopkins is, of course, the 800 pound gorilla here (for our younger readers I’ll go ahead and point out that this is a figurative statement, not a pejorative). Not only did he play the role three times (in the aforementioned Silence Of The Lambs, Red Dragon and Hannibal), he won an Oscar for the part. In the minds of the vast majority, he is Hannibal Lecter. His performance was certainly the showiest and most flamboyant – which made total sense back in 1991 when there was less of a shorthand between audiences and the idea of the anti-hero. Back then we needed the “fava beans and a nice chianti” to get onboard. That’s not to say his performance doesn’t still resonate, it does (and Silence is an unmitigated masterpiece), but it’s not the only way to play the part.

You guys know (though the general public is still unaware) that Silence wasn’t the first time Hannibal Lecter appeared onscreen. Nor was the film Red Dragon the first time that particular Thomas Harris tome had been adapted into a film. Michael Mann used the book as the basis for his 1986 film Manhunter in which Brian Cox played Lecter (if you haven’t seen it – it’s heads and tails better than Ratner’s Red Dragon). The role was smaller than Hopkins’ take, in terms of both screentime and the general feel. Cox played Lecter as more of a direct presence. There was nothing heightened about him, if anything his evil was played as more of a cold pragmatism. But that doesn’t mean it wasn’t effective – he’s the perfect Lecter for Mann’s understated masterpiece.

Casting Mikkelsen was a coup for Fuller and company. Not only is the Danish actor immensely talented, he’s a complete and total break from what came before. I’m sure you remember Don Draper’s advice, “If you don’t like what’s being said, change the conversation.” This applies here. Mikkelsen is so different that there’s no point in wasting time comparing similarities between him and the other actors, because there are none. Of course, he’s not great by virtue of difference alone – his take on the character is fully realized. He’s quiet, assured and has a strangely wounded quality. It’s as though he’s at odds with (and resents) the fact he’ll never truly connect with humanity in a substantive manner. He also eats well, which is huge for me. He looks like he’s enjoying his food so much I almost get hungry for a slice of human. “Hannibal” is rightly praised for the beauty of its carnage, but I don’t hear enough about the beauty of its cooking sequences.

I never saw Hannibal Rising and it’s not currently available on Netflix, so I have no real ground to stand on when it comes to weighing in on Gaspard Ulliel’s performance. I’ve heard good things, but I want to hear from you, dear readers. Hit up the comments below and let us know how you’d rank the various versions of Hannibal. If you’ve seen Hannibal Rising please include it in your defense (or derision) of its depiction!
Editorials
Neon-Soaked Cult Classic ‘Vamp’ Starring Grace Jones Still Has Bite 40 Years Later
College kids, strippers and vampires—those were Donald P. Borchers’ only requirements when he approached Richard Wenk about writing and directing a movie for New World Pictures. As requested, Wenk cooked up Vamp (1986), a tailor-made blend of the decade’s teen movie craze as well as its horror boom.
Grim and earnest stories were still very much a part of the ’80s horror landscape, yet Vamp is something of a comedy. One difference between it and, say, Saturday the 14th, though, is the former avoids using schtick. Wenk’s movie proves that horror comedies also don’t have to subtract thrills from their recipes. Of course, it takes a minute before reaching that point; college antics and culture shocks preface this one macabre misadventure.
Vamp‘s initial setup is apt for a typical college-set, sex-driven comedy; to bribe their way into a fraternity house, two pledges (Chris Makepeace, Robert Rusler) go looking for some adult entertainment. Without wasting time on any further exposition, the characters embark on an all-in-one-night trip that quickly detours into terror.
To procure their elusive MacGuffin—a stripper willing to gyrate for some frat boys—Keith (Makepeace) and AJ (Rusler), plus a third wheel named Duncan (Gedee Watanabe), trade the safety of their remote college campus for the seediness of some unnamed city. The setting is recognizably L.A. by day, but as soon as night falls, downtown, along with the characters, slips into a kind of surreal universe. Director of photography Elliot Davis gave this early entry on his prolific résumé an unusual yet distinctive look; that Mario Bava-esque, magenta-green lighting is omnipresent, so much so that it’s almost its own character.

Chris Makepeace and Robert Rusler in Vamp
The faint comparisons to Martin Scorsese’s After Hours are merited, although not just because of Vamp’s distinguishing nighttime aesthetic. Save for the primary characters, the supporting roles in Wenk’s movie are also quite colorful and transactional in their behavior. The difference here, though, is the additional urge to ruin Keith and his friends at every turn. Some of that harm is humorous and tolerable enough, whereas the moment Vamp dishes out its first fatality, it’s abundantly clear how this movie qualifies as horror.
Vamp falls into that category of horror movie that reveals its genre with a scream rather than a series of whispers. The opening scene can function as a hint of what lies ahead—things are not at all what they appear to be—but otherwise, Wenk is more than happy to hold off on the horror. When that time does come, though, it catches the viewer off guard. In addition to the pure shock value is that sudden decision to upend the movie’s foremost feature. Or so it would seem.
If afraid of major spoilage, those new to Vamp would be wise to stop reading here. There’s just no skirting around the fact that the central fellowship in this buddy movie hits a serious snag when AJ is killed. That development causes the story to become more of a “long, bad night” journey for Keith and his romantic interest. So while Wenk scores points for subverting expectations, there is also a touch of sadness in his decision. Because if Vamp does anything well, it’s making the characters likable.
Something that comes easily to Vamp—and other teen horror movies from this same era—is its ability to invent young characters worth caring about, or at the very least, are interesting and not so immediately off-putting. More impressive is how Wenk did all this without actually fleshing out those characters. Still and all, Keith and his kind are a grade above cookie-cutter, and in some cases, aren’t completely devoid of growth.

Grace Jones in Vamp
Vamp appeals with an assorted cast of characters. No two are the same, nor are they operating on the same wavelength. The cinematically extroverted AJ, whose actor conveyed charm and vulnerability in near equal amounts, comes alive when he’s at his most undead. Makepeace then makes the chronically cautious Keith a sympathetic fellow, even as he’s more and more affected by the night’s bizarre events. Meanwhile, Duncan is indeed the designated loser of the whole bunch, but Watanabe still manages to humanize him. As a bonus, the role didn’t require him to pull a Long Duk Dong.
As for Dedee Pfeiffer, she is plain adorable as the mysterious After Dark server nicknamed “Amaretto”. She spends all night fixing her dress strap while at the same time trying to get Keith to remember how he knows her. As their offbeat romance grows, it becomes another highlight of this movie. Whether or not Pfeiffer’s character is really a vampire also creates some welcome tension in the story.
Like a lot of its contemporaries, Vamp went on to become a bit of a cult classic. That current status is determined by several factors, but without a doubt, the casting of Grace Jones is the most considerable. The image of her writhing on that unique-looking chair, a Keith Haring original, springs to mind whenever this movie is brought up.

Chris Makepeace, Billy Drago and Paunita Nichols in Vamp
Prior to that first display of unequivocal horror, local vampire queen Katrina (Jones) took to the stage and delivered a strip show like no other. One would expect nothing less from that renowned model and performance artist. By now reports of Jones’ tardiness on set are no secret, yet it’s also hard to deny her commitment to the part of Katrina. It was, in fact, Jones who took charge of her character’s appearance—on top of Haring painting her body and that now-iconic chair, she had Andy Warhol handle her costuming. And not too many actors could seize a room’s attention without saying a single line of dialogue.
In 2022, Vamp received a retrospective novelization from Encyclopocalypse. This literary union of preexisting source material—Wenk’s original screenplay—and new ideas from author Christian Francis amounts to a more comprehensive visit to the After Dark Club. The basic story there is no different than what’s shown on screen; however, Francis gets creative with the characters’ origins and designs, and he enhances a number of key scenes.
The novelization expands on the urban and social decay of the main setting, and supplies a background for the After Dark Club. Sandy Baron’s character, Katrina’s emcee and familiar, is given ample motivation for sticking around; up until the fiery end, he is loyal to his friend and former business partner “Squeak”, who looks like he was “fed through a combine harvester, and left as nothing more than a heap of mangled remains”. Then there is Billy Drago’s character Snow, the leader of a street gang called The Dragons. His reason for menacing Keith and AJ is more altruistic than in the movie; he and his peers act tough to scare off any potential food for the vampires.

Lisa Lyon in Vamp
If not for all the backstories, Francis’ Vamp would be a hell of a lot shorter. Instead, this tie-in read dives into how AJ met Keith—the orphaned Anthony Joseph hailed from a broken home back in Brooklyn—and how their friendship flourished over the years. Keith’s archership is no longer just an assumed part of his entire being; it’s a confidence-building extracurricular for a boy who got picked on before coming into the protection of the new kid in town. These supplemental, in-depth looks at the protagonists, plus their close connection, are maybe unnecessary. The movie already did a fair and concise job of addressing their platonic intimacy without the need for flashbacks and insights, specifically in that scene where AJ lays it all out as he sacrifices himself.
Where the novelization gets off course is its approach to the minor characters. Intermittently backstorying the likes of Katrina’s indentured servants, Seko (Leila Hee Olsen) and Vlad (Brad Logan), ends up disturbing the flow of the writing. Was it absolutely essential that readers know Vlad was the Grand Duke of the House of Romanov, or how Snow’s accomplice Maven (Paunita Nichols) became so dentally challenged? No, not really. However, one’s mileage with these random biographies may vary.
The novelization is a more substantial experience, but for a movie like Vamp, less is more. And as plentiful as they are, it never simply coasts on its campy charms, either. The character work sits comfortably in that realm between cursory and meticulous, the script is sharper than first realized, and Greg Cannom’s vampire makeup is straightforward yet effective. Most of all, the movie didn’t squander its out-of-the-box concept. Richard Wenk made his vision of a “comic nightmare in which just about anything that can go wrong does” come true, and it is very enjoyable.

You must be logged in to post a comment.