Talk:Hannibal Lecter/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Sociopath vs. Psychopath

While I agree that the character, as written by Harris, does not fit the label "sociopath" very well, Harris identifies him as one, and so he should be listed under the category. Treybien 15:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Diagnostic criteria (DSM-IV-TR)

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, a widely used manual for diagnosing mental and behavioral disorders, defines antisocial personality disorder as a pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others occurring since age 15, as indicated by three (or more) of the following:

  1. failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest
  2. deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure
  3. impulsivity or failure to plan ahead
  4. irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults
  5. reckless disregard for safety of self or others
  6. consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain steady work or honor financial obligations
  7. lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another


As a serial killer, he certainly fails to conform his behavior to social norms.

His deceit is masterful and frequent. He poses as a person very different from what he is... which he must do to kill as he does.

To be sure, he hardly seems impulsive (he is very deliberate), and he is not chronically aggressive; he doesn't get into fights. Disregard for the safety of others except to kill people involves more his self-centeredness (as in a desire to escape incarceration). Given the opportunity to get what he wants without causing trouble, he doesn't stir up trouble. Consistent irresponsibility? He has been brought up in aristocracy and fits its norms in cultural values which do not include work. His offenses never involve financial misdeeds. Aristocratic norms and affiliation are not themselves irresponsible.

That leaves one last issue: lack of remorse. Bingo!

Three points are enough, and if the other four are irrelevant to the storyline or are not shown. But the first, second, and seventh are met.

--Paul from Michigan 05:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Who's the sadist?

The bit about Lecter showing "sadism towards animals" in Red Dragon - in the movie, doesn't that refer to Francis "Tooth Fairy" Dollarhyde?

The book does say that it was Hannibal, I have linked it. --Oldak Quill 19:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


psychology vs psychiatry

Help a newbie here. The main page refers to Lecter's disrespect for pyschiatry. This is not true; Lecter has disrespect for psychology, in which Chilton has a Ph.D.. It is psychology departments that Lecter refers to as being filled with "ham radio enthusiasts".

I've tried editing this mistake twice but the changes don't last. How do I correct this mistake permanently in the main article?


Another newbie here. It has been some time since I read the books but I also remember this being the case. Psychology was the subject of Lecter's derision, not psychiatry.

Thanks “another newbie”. I don’t get why my edits don’t stay. Maybe I’m doing it wrong. This is why I asked for help.

The fact that it IS a plot point that Chilton doesn’t recognize “Billy Rubin” as the bile pigment bilirubin (which gives feces the same color as Chilton’s hair) speaks to Lector’s disrespect of Chilton’s lack of knowledge of biochemistry—Chilton being an “academic dilettante”—without real scientific training.

Lector actually leaves a piece of toilet paper with Chilton’s name and the formula for bilirubin in subscript superimposed on it when he escapes. Lector tells Clarice to bear in mind Dr. Chilton has no medical training. I think this is a plot point that should be corrected in the main page.

Off topic?

Does the following belong in this article: Graham spent months recovering from his wounds, both physically and psychologically. A tabloid reporter, Freddy Lounds, humiliated Graham by photographing Graham's wounds and publishing them in the National Tattler. Graham did not return to the FBI.


Its totally unrelated to Lecter. If I get no response I may remove it. DKK

Primary Headshot

This is a very trivial point and it is merely my point of view, but the primary image of Dr. Lecter appearing at the head of the page, to me at least, seems not to be very telling of his character in general, as it makes him look like a leering pervert (in my humble opinion). Additionally, the image is very, very large, and must take up a tremendous amount of space in this page. I would like to suggest this image as an alternative, as it's size is great enough for it to be clear and descriptive, without it being too large within the article and without it having to be shrunken (on that topic, in fact, my image is of such size that were it to replace the image already there, it would take up exactly the same amount of space, with almost 50% more of the actual picture being devoted to Lecter's face rather than his shoulders and his cell bars). Additionally, I feel it is much more relevant to his character, as it shows him to be calm and collected, but still evidently sadistic, and I believe my image greeting visitors to the article would have much more effect than that which is currently situated there. I would put it up myself, but I am certain that if I were simply to change the picture on my own, it would be reverted until I mentioned it in the discussion page anyways. This way, I can provide the picture and its web location for reference. – jove

Benjamin Raspail

I thought Benjamim Raspail was killed by his lover? That's what it says on Silence of the Lambs (as well the movie).

-In the novel of 'Silence of the Lambs', Benjamin Raspail is on Dr.Lecter's couch having a doctor-patient session when Lecter stabs him through the heart with a stiletto type blade or letter opener. Lecter lies when he claims it was Raspail's lover who committed the murder.

  • it was Jame Gumb who killed Raspail's lover (the head in the car), then Lecter killed Raspail (according to the Silence of the Lambs book) (131.130.121.106 09:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC))
It's an inconsistency in the films. in Red Dragon, it's clearly Hannibal who kills him, and it's also mentioned in Hannibalbut in Silence of the Lambs, they say about the moth that it is "just like the one we found in Raspail's head an hour ago", meaning Buffalo Bill killed him. It's an inconsistency, and I pointed it out in a recent edit, but if you feel I got it wrong, please edit and discuss, because I'd love to hear if I'm wrong on this (the movies were perfect in so many other ways that I'd be delighted to hear they were right) Karwynn 20:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

It's actually an inconsistency in "Hannibal" only. In the books Lecter killed Raspail and Gumb killed Klaus but "Silence" screenwriter Ted Tally condensed the two characters into one. For the record, the literary Raspail was killed by Lecter but the cinematic Raspail was killed by Gumb.

The problem with "Hannibal" is that it wasn't written by Ted Tally. Tally passed on the project along with Jonathan Demme, Jodie Foster & Scott Glenn. Unfortunately the screenwriter of "Hannibal" (Stephen Zaillian) apparantly paid no attention to the changes Tally made in the previous film as he not only failed to reflect the changed Raspail situation in his screenplay but also included a scene from the original "Hannibal" novel (that was ultimately deleted for good reason) between Clarice and a mental hospital patient that makes no sense within the movie as it cannot be understood because the character was introduced in an unfilmed scene from the "Silence" novel.

A further continuity issue regarding "Hannibal" as it relates to "The Silence of the Lambs" is that the timestamp on the nurse video in no way matches the date that Chilton says that the incident took place on. I don't remember the two dates off the top of my head but if you go back and watch those scenes you'll see that the actual shown tape in "Hannibal" is literally YEARS off of what it should be, though it's likely that this was a mistake from someone else in the production as such a minor detail probably wouldn't be included in the screenplay. In any case, it demonstrates that continuity wasn't important to the makers of "Hannibal".

In any case, it's apparant that continuity IS important to Ted Tally because the Tally-written "Red Dragon" dances around the mess "Hannibal" made of the continuity. Those familiar with the Lecter books will notice that the opening scene of Tally's script details the story of the literary Benjamin Raspail but a more subtle fact is that the character modeled after Raspail in "Red Dragon" is NEVER identified by name in the movie, the screenplay or the credits. He is merely "flautist". Furthermore, he is completely bald whereas the head of Raspail in "Silence" has shaggy, curly hair. Since Raspail is never described as a flautist in "Silence" there are no continuity issues in regards to Benjamin Raspail when watching the two Tally-penned films. The continuity in "Hannibal" may be all messed up but at least Tally got it right.

The literary Lecter did indeed kill a flautist named Benjamin Raspail and served him to the symphony board but the cinematic Lecter of Tally's films did not kill Raspail, though he did kill an unnamed flautist identical to the literary Raspail in every respect but name.GuruAskew 09:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it's possible that he was killed by Dr. Lecter but he framed Bill with the moth. Also, hair grows even after death as well as the nails at a quite accelerated pace and since Raspail had been dead for about eight years in Silence of the Lambs his hair could have grown in that time. 64.12.116.203 19:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
The only thing I'm going to say to that is that hair and nails do not grow after death, that's a common misconception. It's actually the skin that does the size change and what it does is shrink, making it appear as though the hair and nails have grown. Also, the head was in a jar of phamaldahide, or something similar, since it was so well preserved for something that was 8 years old (as you said). Bignole 20:12, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Most Fearsome

"He is arguably the most fearsome serial killer ever depicted." Better to put this as the most fearsome fictional serial killer of all time. There were a few real-life killers that were more fearsome than Lecter -- although I would have to concur that among fictional creations, Lecter was the most fearsome.


Ok.

How many known victims?

"Lecter killed at least nine people before his capture. He had three other known victims who survived, including Will Graham, an FBI profiler who was Lecter's captor and who figures largely in Red Dragon. Another one of these, Mason Verger, figures largely in the plot of Hannibal.

Only two of the twelve victims are known by name in the books: Benjamin Raspail and Verger."


I am no expert on the subject, but according to the first paragraph were not three of the victims known by name, the third being Will Graham?

That seems strange to me also. I don't know much about the books, so hopefully somebody who is an expert on them can fix it.--kenb215 16:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


The nine victims were those before Lecter attacked Graham as the two worked to find the murder (ultimately Lecter). Truth be told Graham was not by any means a classic Lecter victim. Much like Freddy Lounds with the Tooth Fairy, Graham was an exception to the usual pattern of the serial killer. Lecter had none of the ritualistic behavior common to an organized serial killer like the Tooth Fairy, but all his crimes were heavily sadistic, designed to inflict the fullest level of suffering before the death of the victim, which may even have been secondary. It should be noted that the attack on Graham was not intended to garner any suffering at all, as it was necessary for Lecter to kill Graham if he hoped to continue to operate freely.

Reason behind cannibalism

I believe the books give the impression that one of the several reasons why Dr.Lecter cannibalizes some of his victims is that this act is possibly the ultimate display of power, to slay and consume ones enemies. "If one does as God does enough times, one will become as God is."

Well, according to a website I consulted, it's more to take revenge on the male soldiers who raped, ate and killed Misha, Hannibal's sister, when he was 10 years old or so. That's why all of his "planned" crimes (not counting the ones while he was in custody) are men in their 30's 40's. By killing (and eating his victims), he wants to give a place to Misha in the world (he succeed in the "Hannibal" book, saying to Clarice Starling, as they flee together, : "And so I came to believe,that there had to be a place in the world for Mischa, a prime place vacated for her, and I came to think, Clarice, that the best place in the world was yours."

It should be pointed out that there is at least one glaring factual error in that website you consulted. Lecter murdered a Princeton student, who, barring a middle-aged person returning to school, we can assume was young. The motivations given for Lecter's killings in Hannibal are given by Lecter, which means we should take them with a great deal of skepticism.

Did Hannibal murder Chilton?

"It is unknown whether he killed Dr. Chilton, although he went missing soon after Lecter's escape."

I am pretty sure that Lecter sought out to kill Chilton, but Chilton died of a heart attack before Hannibal could get to him (in the novel Hannibal)

The book implies Hannibal got him. It states that he goes missing and is never found. --Oldak Quill 19:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

POV

Do you guys get it? Adding "arguably" doesn't factualize an opinion. All opinions are, by their nature, "arguable."

Coward

One could say that the entry about Lecter being a coward is mistaken. He knows what he is and doesn't deny it. Lecter doesn't show disgraceful fear or timidity. Also the stated exchange between Lecter and Starling was in their first interview when Lecter did not have any reason to disclose himself to Starling considering how "playful" he was to the people who came to interview him. What he didn't do was cooperate with the psychological tests to which he captors wanted to subject him and also on the interviews and that certainly doesn't qualify as cowardice. Rebel.Crusader

I'm going to revert it again, but state that its a theory and add yours as a counterargument. Just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean it shouldn't be there.--CyberGhostface 14:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
It is agreed then. Rebel.Crusader
Noone's pet theories belong in an encyclopedia. If you can't find a reference, just stick to the facts and let people make up there own minds.Jameskeates 12:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


6th finger?

I assume Hannibal Lecter got got some medical training sometime in his life, makes me wonder if they had 6-fingered-surgical gloves for him? :-) (clem 09:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC))

And his piano playing - in "Hannibal" (the book), he's banging out tunes in a piano, but unless he'd learned to play in the last few years, he's now doing it with one less finger than previously. Genius indeed!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.210.152.38 (talk • contribs)

Another Point to be made is the fact that no reference what so ever is made about his sixth finger in the book Hannibal Rising but we are to assume he has an extra finger.


I believe the condition is "polydactyly" and, according to our wonderful counterparts, Lector indeed has an additional digit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polydactyly

Thanks, Aaron 12.8.2006

Sociopath?

I've changed the category from 'fictional sociopaths' to 'fictional psychopaths'. While far from sane, the only requirement Hannibal has for sociopath is a lack of remorse.--CyberGhostface 19:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Not true, he's also a habitual liar, but that still makes him one requirement short. Besides, psychopathy and sociopathy are really generally similar diagnoses, and there's a lot of debate as to what either of them even mean. - jove

His "nemesis"

Starling is not Hannibal's nemesis, so I changed it, and opened up a talk if anyone objects. I just think it's oversimplification and overdramatization of their relationship. Besides, what about the friendliness? Even if they were sometimes opponenents, I don't think they were ever really enemies. Karwynn 20:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

"Model patient"

Question: in the books, does it ever describe why Hannibal attacked the nurse in 1976? Tearing out her eye and consuming her tongue in the process... was there a reason? Did she offend him or was it random? The latter seems to be the case, but it also doesn't seem to fit his motivations. --AWF

Its not explained. I wouldn't be surprised if she did something to tick him off, although Hannibal's morality wasn't developed until later in the series.--CyberGhostface 00:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
The heavy implication from the source text is that he attacked the nurse for a pair of rather simple reasons: first, because he could; and second, because it amused him to do so. However, this is not ever explicitly stated, and thus probably should not be included in the article.
I noticed as well that the attack on the nurse didn't really seem to fit his "style". In my opinion, it was nothing more then to simply add to his reputation of being an unpredictable serial killer. That would also somewhat explain why he never took the psychological testing seriously when they administered it to him. (he folded the papers into oragami). Lecter even from the begining never wanted people to figure him out, a psychological profile was never done on him, simply because he never gave them any information that they could use, he even mocked them. Anyway, that's just a thought. Majinvegeta

Friends?!?

what the fuck does the Chandler Bing quote have to do with ANYTHING? I'm sure many quotes have been made about Lecter in popular culture, why is the friends one special enough to mention? Like much of friends, its not even funny.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.211.88.147 (talk • contribs)

If it bothers you that much then remove it yourself. Sheesh.--CyberGhostface 13:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

New pic for early childhood section

I uploaded a new pic from Behind the Mask of Hannibal and his sister for the first article as I think it better represents his past. I moved down the Gaspard Ulliel pic but I couldn't find a good spot for it. I've temporarily removed but once Behind the Mask comes out and the section is extended I think it can be returned. But in the meantime, if someone else finds a good spot for it, go ahead.--CyberGhostface 22:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


Will Graham

Should Will Graham be considered an enemy of Lecter? He may be better described as his nemesis or rival, but I could easily be mistaken with their rather odd relationship. 71.243.154.29 00:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe 'enemy' is too simple, but they obviously weren't friends considering Lecter sent Francis Dolarhyde over to disfigure him.--CyberGhostface 19:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

"Rival" would be better. Is there a popular term equivalent to "respected rivals" or somesuch? Ours18 00:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that maybe even "counterpart" may be a good description, Lecter even states that him and Graham are surprisingly alike. The only difference being that Graham was able to make decent choices with his abilities while Lecter was not. Majin Vegeta

Editing "Hannibal" in the Hannibal template

The link in the Hannibal template redirects to Hannibal Barca, not Hannibal Lecter. Can someone change this?

I've fixed it. Bignole 15:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Spoiler warning?

I started to read the article (after having read a few pages of the Hannibal Rising novel) but stopped incase the article contained any spoilers. If it does would someone please add one of the Spoiler warning templates to the page? Ta.GiollaUidir 16:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Just put up beginnig and ending spoilers. Bignole 16:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

New Picture?

Would anyone be interested in changing the picture at the top of the page? It is a semi decent picture, but it is edited by a fan. The way you can tell is that Sir Hopkins's eyes are blue (and stayed blue in the film), while the fan edited the picture to have Lecter's eyes to be maroon, as described in the book. Also, it simply shows a close up of his face, that way it's difficult to tell what his typical appearence is. Majinvegeta

Sense of Smell

I removed this - he can also smell perfume which was worn the day before - as there is no citation in any of the books to support this. In the novel The Silence of the Lambs, Lector identifies Clarice Starling's perfumery preferences because her identity card was passed to him and he smelled it. This scene is not depicted in the same way in the film, where he sniffs in the direction of air holes in the front of his cell, but as for detecting perfume "worn the day before" I think it is more likely that the odour of that perfume (worn sometimes but not that day) remained on Starling's clothes. Darcyj 08:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, no. He says that he smelled it when she opened her bag to get the ID out. Silence of the Lambs (novel) p. 18:
"How did you know about the perfume?" (Starling)
"A puff from your bag when you got out your card. Your bag is lovely." (Lecter)

-Majin Vegeta

Year Barney sighted Lecter and Starling?

What was the year that Barney sighted Lecter and Starling in Buenos Aires? I don't think it was 1993 like the article says, more like 1995 or possibly 1996. All we need to do is find out When Starling interviewed Lecter and add 10 years to it. (The seven Year gap between Silence and Hannibal, and then the 3 year gap between Krendler's Death and the sighting by Barney.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Majinvegeta (talk • contribs) 23:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC).

I originally thought Silence took place in 1988, but Harris has stated, as well as implied by events such as the mention of the sky at the end of the novel, that it takes place in 1983. Therefore, the siting was in 1993. At least your dating was better than in the film adaptation of Hannibal, though :-). I am wondering, though: did Barney know who the couple he saw really was, and do you think it implies that he reported it? 71.243.136.190 07:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
LOL! I agree the film adaptation of Hannibal does take place in 1998 I think. I don't think Barney would've reported it, he probably figured that he would leave them alone, in the novel somewhat stated that Starling had in a way domesticated Lecter with sex, so he wouldn't kill anymore (But it is stated that Lecter and Starling were capable of murder at any time). I think Barney thought Lecter saw him while he was in the crowd at the opera in Buenos Aires, whether Lecter did or didn't is a mystery. Majin Vegeta

Trivia?

Can someone decipher what the trivia is that says something about Lecter passionately listening to Goldberg variations and then killing the two guards? I either can't think right now, or the sentence doesn't specifically state what the trivia is....... can someone help? Majin Vegeta

It seemed like it was trying to attach some form of irony to it, but I don't see what that could be. I think it should probably be removed. As it's just one of those "this is what happened" kind of things. Bignole 01:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh, okay, so it wasn't just me! :D .....Thanks, it's better removed anyway. Majinvegeta