Script Review: HANNIBAL

by Stax

WARNING: SPOILERS!

Stax here with my reaction to Steven Zaillian's screenplay for HANNIBAL! This is the most recent draft yet reviewed on the Internet, a revision dated February 9th, 2000. Ain't It Cool News critiqued an earlier Zaillian draft back at the end of January while I reviewed David Mamet's rejected HANNIBAL screenplay shortly before that. This new 128-page draft is dated just days before the casting of Julianne Moore as Clarice Starling was officially announced. Moore replaces the original Clarice, Oscar-winner Jodie Foster, and joins Anthony Hopkins who reprises his Oscar-winning turn as Dr. Hannibal "The Cannibal" Lecter. Ridley Scott directs and Dino De Laurentiis produces. The film begins shooting later this spring in Italy and the United States. HANNIBAL is adapted from the controversial bestseller by Thomas Harris and is, of course, the sequel to the multiple Academy Award-winning thriller THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS.

Ridley Scott recently informed Cinescape Online that the HANNIBAL script is "carved into stone," which I take as meaning that Zaillian's script is all set until filming begins. Expectations for this high-profile sequel are enormous so when word of David Mamet's rejected draft - and of Jodie Foster's subsequent bail out - were made public, the prognosis for HANNIBAL did not seem good. But rather than cancel the project, De Laurentiis forged ahead and brought Steven Zaillian onboard to save the day. After reading Mr. Zaillian's most recent rewrite all I can say is that it looks like he has done just that. Zaillian's script is a highly literate, engaging, and colorful story that does justice to the memory of SILENCE OF THE LAMBS. All of the major flaws that plagued David Mamet's horrible draft - convoluted plotting, under-developed characters, and an overall sloppiness - have been pretty much nullified by Zaillian. This script bears absolutely no resemblance to Mamet's rejected draft; it is a whole new interpretation of Harris' novel. This screenplay is intelligent, well structured, full of rich description and elegant characterizations. New scenes, a new structure, far better dialogue, better realized villains, and a better use of the exotic locations all make Zaillian's HANNIBAL a fabulous improvement over David Mamet's initial version.

HANNIBAL picks up several years after where LAMBS left off. Hannibal Lecter is now a fugitive living in Florence, Italy under the guise of "Dr. Fell," the interim curator of an art museum. His first victim, the wealthy and wicked Mason Verger, has set in motion a plan to get his revenge of the man who fed his face to a pack of dogs. A greedy Italian cop named Pazzi takes Verger up on his offer of a handsome reward for information leading to the apprehension of Dr. Lecter. Pazzi sets up Lecter to be captured by Verger's foreign accomplices. Meanwhile, FBI agent Clarice Starling is on the outs with her mean-spirited supervisors over a deadly shoot-out with a drug dealer that left a fellow FBI agent dead. Reassigned and buried in a basement "office," Clarice begins investigating the current whereabouts of her old "mentor" Hannibal, which leads her directly into the machinations of Mason Verger. Used as bait by Verger in order to lure Lecter back to America, Clarice Starling is drawn further and further into a dangerous battle of wits waged between two madmen that leaves her professional standing seriously jeopardized.

HANNIBAL picks up several years after where LAMBS left off. Hannibal Lecter is now a fugitive living in Florence, Italy under the guise of "Dr. Fell," the interim curator of an art museum. His first victim, the wealthy and wicked Mason Verger, has set in motion a plan to get his revenge of the man who fed his face to a pack of dogs. A greedy Italian cop named Pazzi takes Verger up on his offer of a handsome reward for information leading to the apprehension of Dr. Lecter. Pazzi sets up Lecter to be captured by Verger's foreign accomplices. Meanwhile, FBI agent Clarice Starling is on the outs with her mean-spirited supervisors over a deadly shoot-out with a drug dealer that left a fellow FBI agent dead. Reassigned and buried in a basement "office," Clarice begins investigating the current whereabouts of her old "mentor" Hannibal, which leads her directly into the machinations of Mason Verger. Used as bait by Verger in order to lure Lecter back to America, Clarice Starling is drawn further and further into a dangerous battle of wits waged between two madmen that leaves her professional standing seriously jeopardized.

Zaillian's script nicely captures the refined brutality, if you will, of Hannibal Lecter. Clarice Starling is also better realized here than she was in Mamet's version. Clarice is older, wiser, but still vulnerable despite her steely demeanor. This vulnerability naturally makes her the target for not only Hannibal Lecter and Mason Verger but also for those within the FBI who wish her career harm. Fortunately, all of the psycho-babble and psychiatrist visits that Mamet had Clarice enduring are not to be found here. Zaillian's Clarice seems to have outgrown some of the fears and trauma that she suffered from in LAMBS while Mamet's heroine seemed stuck in a perpetually angst-ridden state because of childhood tragedies she refused to let go of.

Zaillian's Clarice, however, did not seem to have anything in her life outside of her job. At least in Mamet's draft, for all the mistakes he made in portraying her, I felt that Clarice had a life outside of work that she cared about just as much. She had a romantic relationship that, although poorly handled by Mamet, did humanize her. Zaillian's Clarice is much more of a professional, far more in control and focused than she was in Mamet's version but somewhat colder and more aloof. Don't get me wrong. I liked Zaillian's characterization but I also would have liked a greater sense of who Clarice was outside of her job. Maybe the point about Clarice that I didn't quite get was that perhaps she really does not have an identity without her job. That without the institution of the FBI to ground her she cannot function in an orderly way, that it defines who she is.

Hannibal Lecter is effectively creepy here, flaunting his graceful Old World manners and his Machiavellian intelligence. His dialogue is lyrical, soothing, and seductive. His disappearing/reappearing act was far more plausibly presented here than it was in the ludicrous and unbelievable Mamet draft. Zaillian gives Anthony Hopkins just the right vocabulary, behavior, and motivations in order to successfully reprise his most famous role. The supporting characters also hold your interest when our two leads are off-screen in a way that they failed to in Mamet's draft. This is important because the thrust of the story essentially belongs to two key supporting characters, Mason Verger and Pazzi. (More on how I feel about this point later.) Pazzi, the Italian cop shadowing Lecter, is better utilized here than he was by Mamet. He does not chew up as much screen time as he did in Mamet's version and yet accomplishes the same results. How Pazzi tries to ensnare Lecter is more thoroughly illustrated despite his lesser presence in the overall story this time around and that is greatly appreciated. Outside of Starling, the other character that is portrayed much more differently here than he was in Mamet's draft is the story's other elusive madman, Mason Verger. Verger has a Hannibal-esque dry wit in this draft that he lacked in the original script I reviewed. Hannibal and Verger are much more equals here than in Mamet's where Verger seemed to overpower the story. In my critique of Mamet's screenplay, I likened his portrayal of Mason Verger to the creepiest Scooby Doo villian ever. Mamet's Verger had far more screen time than Lecter did. In fact, Mamet's HANNIBAL really should have been entitled MASON VERGER since Lecter and Starling were only along for the ride.

The biggest and best decision Zaillian made is also the most logical one. In his screenplay, Mr. Zaillian made sure to put the focus of the story back onto Clarice and Lecter. He then nicely melds their two plot lines together. What stunned and disappointed me the most about David Mamet's HANNIBAL was that he overlooked these characters in favor of Pazzi and Verger, two supporting characters who we really should only be interested in to a lesser degree. Zaillian remembers whose story this screenplay is about and that is what makes his draft of HANNIBAL a far more entertaining and successful follow-up to THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS than David Mamet's version.

Although I found Zaillian's rewrite to be far better than the HANNIBAL I had read before, I still have some serious concerns about the basic story Thomas Harris has given the filmmakers to work with. The basic plot is propelled not by Hannibal or Clarice but by Mason Verger. Verger's scheme to bring Lecter back stateside in order to get his revenge is then realized through the leg work of Pazzi and how he sets up Lecter to be captured. If it were not for the actions and motivations of these two supporting characters then Hannibal Lecter and Clarice Starling would never have been reunited. Because the story is so dependent on these two other characters HANNIBAL is still not as much about Clarice and Hannibal as I would have liked it to have been. The Verger-Pazzi agenda just makes the Clarice-Hannibal relationship seem like a fortunate by-product. And even though Zaillian did a far better job in making sure his draft focused on Hannibal and Clarice than Mamet did, I still find this basic plot to be fundamentally flawed. Maybe it works nicely in Harris' novel but that doesn't matter here. I am only interested in this movie and when the narrative is driven by the agenda of characters other than the major characters then the entire story is less immediate than it could have been. I'd just prefer to see Clarice and Hannibal drive the plot and not merely be participants in a drama concocted by supporting characters.

Now for the infamous ending. Although somewhat different than Mamet's closing scene, I still found Zaillian's finale to be just as revolting and nauseating. Honestly, the story really is over by the time we get Hannibal and Clarice under the same roof and Lecter has decided to serve a very disgusting dinner involving the brains of a certain law enforcement official as the main course. I could walk out of the film by this scene and have witnessed the real story of HANNIBAL; this notorious scene is really more of a coda. Yes, it does have the final confrontation between Hannibal and Clarice but in both this version and in Mamet's I was rather underwhelmed by it. Not to sound like a wuss but I really don't wish to see this scene at all in whatever incarnation they come up with. I still can't understand what it really contributes to my filmgoing experience except to be the ultimate gross-out moment. I don't think I'd feel any different about HANNIBAL if I walked out of the theater at this point and didn't witness what happens afterward. It is repugnant in every way imaginable and makes you want to vomit just to read it. For such an intelligent screenplay, this sequence remains worthy of lesser, more gory thrillers.

The production has been hampered by how to adapt the ending of Harris' book from the start. Maybe the problem is that the scene itself, the concept of it, just doesn't work. Instead of trying to force the screen version to end at this house with this gross-out moment perhaps the filmmakers could just try something else entirely. This scene is sure to be the most talked-about in the film but I just can't comprehend anyone in their right mind enjoying it. This is the moment people will remember as they leave the cinema. If they are put off by it then that will color their appreciation of the overall experience. The value of a good ending can never be overlooked. I still feel like this "brains for dinner" scene just doesn't add anything that magnificent or vital to the final story no matter which talented writer tries his hand at it. Surely whatever point this scene is trying to make could be done in an entirely new and more agreeable way rather than forcing an old and universally repugnant concept to try and work?

Despite these lasting reservations, however, I still found Steven Zaillian's rewrite of HANNIBAL to be gripping entertainment, a smart and well-paced thriller that more than made up for the pain I endured reading David Mamet's stunningly bad draft. After reading Mamet's script, I couldn't help but feel that HANNIBAL was doomed to fail. One of those high-profile Hollywood projects that apparently just wasn't meant to be. I no longer feel that way. After digesting (sorry!) Zaillian's draft, I was pleasantly surprised to feel that HANNIBAL now stands a very good chance of being the top-notch movie fans desire it to be. Zaillian's latest rewrite gives Ridley Scott and company just the start they need in order to succeed. - STAX