MastodonMastodonMastodonMastodonMastodonUSD POLL : Which Actress Would You Eventually Like To See Play Clarice Staring (or a parable character) On Bryan Fuller's Hannibal?
Today's User Submitted Daily (USD) Poll was submitted by Darthlocke4 who was picked randomly from our Poll Submissions (see below).
Let us know in the comments what you voted for and why? Want to see your Poll posted on the site? Click the Button below
Rules
- Polls need to be TV/Movie related.
- Polls should NOT be time sensitive as they is no guarantee when the polls will be posted. eg Don't post polls like "Who will die on next weeks episode".
- You must supply a Poll Question, and the possible choices. Please try to keep the number of options to a reasonable amount (Max of 20 Items)
- You can only Submit 1 Poll Per Day. Previous polls submitted will still be eligible for posting (ie you don't need to keep submitting the same poll everyday)
Each day we will pick one submitted poll at random to post on the site.
I think you mean "parallel." Unless you mean the character Jesus talked about in chapter 3 verse 12 in the book of Hannibal.
On the list, I'd lean toward Anna Torv. I also like the idea of Elizabeth Moss, but Torv I think would be able to really go toe-to-toe with Mikkelson. Are they planning on doing a Clarice type character?
They really want to do Clarice by MGM hold the rights and won't let them but Bryan keeps on holding onto the hope that they may get the rights. If not they will do a parallel characte instead.
Ughh..some of those votes are really weird. Clarice should ideally be in her late twenties, very early 30s at most. She's a rookie and that's one of the reasons Hannibal could manipulate her. Naming women in late 30s or in their 40s completely misses the point of that character.
Ah. I don't know the show too well - I finally started catching up over winter break, got interrupted and never got around to finishing. Hopefully I'll be able to get to this summer. I think having a Clarice character would be very cool though, from what I've seen to far.
A lot of these choices are a little old. Shouldn't Clarice be in her 20s at this point? There's at least a 20 year difference between her and Hannibal. From these options, narrowing them down to the correct age range, Deborah Ann Woll is probably my favourite but I don't know if I see her fitting the role. So I'm going with Other, and I'm going to suggest Emily Van Camp. Now that Revenge is done, she'd be free to join the show. And whilst she didn't always get the recognition she deserved, she really did do an amazing job on the show, and I could easily see her holding her own in the acting department opposite Mikkelson. She may be 28, but she could pass for mid twenties, in my opinion. Alternate suggestions that would (most likely) never happen as they focus on films, but would be brilliant choices nonetheless: Elizabeth Olsen, Brit Marling, Kristen Stewart, or Gugu Mbatha-Raw. But definitely, from TV actresses, I'd go with Emily VanCamp.
Her appearing in the show is a dream of mine. But not as Clarice. Because the character should be young. But Jodie Foster appearing in any capacity needs to happen.
"Occasionally, on purpose, Dr. Lecter drops a teacup to shatter on the floor. He is satisfied when it does not gather itself together. For many months now, he has not seen Mischa in his dreams.
Someday perhaps the cup will come together. Or somewhere Starling may hear a crossbow string and come to some unwilled awakening, if she indeed even sleeps. We'll withdraw now, while they're dancing on the terrace--..." -Hannibal pg 544
"It occurred to Dr. Lecter in that moment that with all of his knowledge and intrusion, he could never entirely predict her, or own her at all. He could feed the caterpillar, he could whisper through the chrysalis; what hatched out followed it's own nature and was beyond him." - Hannibal (about Clarice) Pg523
Hannibal actually CAN'T manipulate her, that is ultimately Harris point at the end of Hannibal. They both change for no specific reason, accept to say that love is transformative and does separate us from animals.
I chose actresses of various ages between 20's and 30's, because 1. You have to have someone who looks right with this cast, especially Mikkelson. and 2. You need someone who can hold their own and represent BOTH versions of Staring (new to the game: Jodie Foster & experiences, but with in a broken system: Julian Moore), which I have to say, Jodie Foster did not look like she was in her 20's despite the actress was and that was the age of the character in SOTL. 3. You can make actresses look a bit younger and a lot of the actresses I picked for the poll are not tall and that always helps someone looking more child-ish.
Nah. You helped me learn something. Learning is good. Now I'll use it in the essay I'm currently writing and my professor will think I'm brilliant. See? Good. :D
Wow, this is actually a really good list of actresses who'd be great in that role. Except Tracy Spiridakos.
Of these choices, I could see Anna Torv, Elizabeth Moss, Mireille Enos, and Diane Kruger being the best.
I should really try again with Hannibal, shouldn't I? I watched the first three or four episodes, and it just felt really stylistically pretentious for a show that appeared to be a procedural-in-denial (at the time, at least). Too much try-hard imagery, not enough narrative substance in those first few episodes. But everybody keeps going on about how great it is.
Does the tone change after the first few, or is it relatively the same?
well as long as what you are writing about can be seen as a moral or spiritual fable, you should be able to use it. Hannibal has some Faust, John Milton, and Grecian Myth built in...
I'm writing about Crime and Punishment, so I think the moral fable part more or less applies; or, at least, I'm examining motivation in terms of morality versus logic and the resulting legal and personal consequences of trying to, essentially, logic your way out behaving morally. There's certainly enough religious symbolism involved.
I think the tone does remain the same, but that's not to say that I think the story doesn't get better and better. I wasn't sure being a novel and film fan, and not being familiar with Fuller's previous work at the time, if I would like it or not, but I found that it's really is picking out interesting things from the novels/films and expanding on it. I didn't really know I loved it, until we got closer to the end of the first season. That's when I felt things fell more into place and I could see some of what Fuller had accomplished, but there is a continuous dark flamboyancy to it, so if you don't like that, then it just might not be your thing.
Was it flamboyant? I didn't at all get that impression. Dark, definitely. But darkness doesn't inherently deter me.
A think another big problem for me was that the character dynamics didn't quite feel right to me. I'd seen the Lector movies some years earlier, and I think that may have influenced my opinion of Hannibal too heavily. That, and for a show named after Hannibal himself, he wasn't very present in those episodes that I did watch. That annoyed me a lot.
But if it's a show that you grow more into as it progresses, then that sounds like a really gratifying experience to me. I'd rather watch a show that gradually improves over time than a show that starts excellently and then either tapers off in time, or desensitizes me to its world (something that I feel a lot of great basic cable shows do).
Maybe I'll try again once I catch up on some other shows.
It's less interesting 1500 words and a night of no sleep in, but thanks. And thanks for the link! Now I have one out of my other 300 words ready to go ...
Yes, because Hannibal is flamboyant, meaning his horrific/artistic side keeps escalating. Even though he is self controlled and civil in person, you can see his creativity and confidence in what he is doing flourish and there is an all out exuberance to him.
I loved Anthony Hopkins portrayal too (and I think you can see that persona in the character Dr. Gideon), but in terms of whom Hannibal was before Red Dragon and after Silence of The Lambs, I think Mikkelsen fits that novel persona and physical description (dark slick back hair like that of an "otter") of the character better IMO, which I think the film adaptation of Hannibal Rising picked up on. Hopkins verbally played him more whimsical and less poetically versed.
Ahh, I see what you're saying with the flamboyancy. Then yes, from what I have seen, I can absolutely agree. From the snippets I've seen outside of those first few episodes, Mikkelsen looks to be giving a fantastic performance. Flamboyant definitely appears to be a good descriptor.
If the show goes more between the lines of the crime drama, then I truly think that I could get into in time. That was my greatest fears with the episodes I'd watched: it seemed heavily interested in being more a crime drama with artistic visuals than it did with being a character study of Hannibal and his peers.
Between what you're saying here, and from what a friend has told me, it does sound like Hannibal evolved beyond that, and now I'm very curious to see how so.
I'm gonna be pretty upset with myself if I end up giving Hannibal a second chance and end up loving it this time :P
I think the best result would be if they don't get the rights to Clarice and instead use Miriam Lass in her place. Her history with Hannibal Lecter would connect the fourth season with the story from the preceding seasons and provide a new dimension to their relationship. I'm sure this is what Fuller had in mind when he brought Anna Chlumsky on board and I would love to see it come to fruition. There's just the matter of scheduling it around Veep.
I would of agreed if they wouldn't of had Hannibal manipulate her and if she came with an accent, but the end of the Hannibal novel, 7 years after silence of the lambs, clarinet changes, but I think Harris makes it clear that it had little to do with what Hannibal was attempting to do with her, as Hannibal freely admits this to the readers. Also there's a strange almost metaphysical aspect with that change, because it happens to come when another character dis sides to throw in the towel and dies...
Well Fuller has said if they can't get the rights it would be a parallel character, so GMR would be able to play that. But I get what you're saying about Clarice most likely being Caucasian.
NOTE: Name-calling, personal attacks, spamming, excessive self-promotion, condescending pomposity, general assiness, racism, sexism, any-other-ism, homophobia, acrophobia, and destructive (versus constructive) criticism will get you BANNED from the party.
I think you mean "parallel." Unless you mean the character Jesus talked about in chapter 3 verse 12 in the book of Hannibal.
ReplyDeleteOn the list, I'd lean toward Anna Torv. I also like the idea of Elizabeth Moss, but Torv I think would be able to really go toe-to-toe with Mikkelson. Are they planning on doing a Clarice type character?
They really want to do Clarice by MGM hold the rights and won't let them but Bryan keeps on holding onto the hope that they may get the rights. If not they will do a parallel characte instead.
ReplyDeleteAnna Torv would be a great choice, she needs to be back on my TV.
ReplyDeleteClaire Danes
ReplyDeleteUghh..some of those votes are really weird. Clarice should ideally be in her late twenties, very early 30s at most. She's a rookie and that's one of the reasons Hannibal could manipulate her. Naming women in late 30s or in their 40s completely misses the point of that character.
ReplyDeleteJodie Foster :)
ReplyDeleteHmm Yvonne Strahovski or Anna Torv.
ReplyDeleteDeborah Ann Woll, Noomi Rapace or Sarah Jones
ReplyDeleteAh. I don't know the show too well - I finally started catching up over winter break, got interrupted and never got around to finishing. Hopefully I'll be able to get to this summer. I think having a Clarice character would be very cool though, from what I've seen to far.
ReplyDeletethat would be the dream.
ReplyDeleteA lot of these choices are a little old. Shouldn't Clarice be in her 20s at this point? There's at least a 20 year difference between her and Hannibal. From these options, narrowing them down to the correct age range, Deborah Ann Woll is probably my favourite but I don't know if I see her fitting the role.
ReplyDeleteSo I'm going with Other, and I'm going to suggest Emily Van Camp.
Now that Revenge is done, she'd be free to join the show. And whilst she didn't always get the recognition she deserved, she really did do an amazing job on the show, and I could easily see her holding her own in the acting department opposite Mikkelson. She may be 28, but she could pass for mid twenties, in my opinion.
Alternate suggestions that would (most likely) never happen as they focus on films, but would be brilliant choices nonetheless: Elizabeth Olsen, Brit Marling, Kristen Stewart, or Gugu Mbatha-Raw.
But definitely, from TV actresses, I'd go with Emily VanCamp.
Her appearing in the show is a dream of mine. But not as Clarice. Because the character should be young. But Jodie Foster appearing in any capacity needs to happen.
ReplyDeleteall the fringe feels came back with anna torv's name, her being in hannibal would be so amazing
ReplyDelete"Occasionally, on purpose, Dr. Lecter drops a teacup to shatter on the floor. He is satisfied when it does not gather itself together. For many months now, he has not seen Mischa in his dreams.
ReplyDeleteSomeday perhaps the cup will come together. Or somewhere Starling may hear a crossbow string and come to some unwilled awakening, if she indeed even sleeps. We'll withdraw now, while they're dancing on the terrace--..." -Hannibal pg 544
"It occurred to Dr. Lecter in that moment that with all of his knowledge and intrusion, he could never entirely predict her, or own her at all. He could feed the caterpillar, he could whisper through the chrysalis; what hatched out followed it's own nature and was beyond him." - Hannibal (about Clarice) Pg523
Hannibal actually CAN'T manipulate her, that is ultimately Harris point at the end of Hannibal. They both change for no specific reason, accept to say that love is transformative and does separate us from animals.
I chose actresses of various ages between 20's and 30's, because 1. You have to have someone who looks right with this cast, especially Mikkelson. and 2. You need someone who can hold their own and represent BOTH versions of Staring (new to the game: Jodie Foster & experiences, but with in a broken system: Julian Moore), which I have to say, Jodie Foster did not look like she was in her 20's despite the actress was and that was the age of the character in SOTL. 3. You can make actresses look a bit younger and a lot of the actresses I picked for the poll are not tall and that always helps someone looking more child-ish.
If you pick someone who looks too young,
I added Debra Anne Woll because she has the accent down. Jodie Foster underplayed it in SOTL, but Julian Moore got it right in Hannibal.
ReplyDeleteParable can actually mean "to take on the characteristics of" and isn't limited to Allegories.
ReplyDeleteHuh. I have never once heard that, but it's good to learn new things.
ReplyDeleteBut you right, it probably would have been better if I used paralleled instead. :)
ReplyDeleteI wish she would guess star! It would be so cool! But she seems completely done with the Franchise...
ReplyDeleteNah. You helped me learn something. Learning is good. Now I'll use it in the essay I'm currently writing and my professor will think I'm brilliant. See? Good. :D
ReplyDeleteWow, this is actually a really good list of actresses who'd be great in that role. Except Tracy Spiridakos.
ReplyDeleteOf these choices, I could see Anna Torv, Elizabeth Moss, Mireille Enos, and Diane Kruger being the best.
I should really try again with Hannibal, shouldn't I? I watched the first three or four episodes, and it just felt really stylistically pretentious for a show that appeared to be a procedural-in-denial (at the time, at least). Too much try-hard imagery, not enough narrative substance in those first few episodes. But everybody keeps going on about how great it is.
Does the tone change after the first few, or is it relatively the same?
well as long as what you are writing about can be seen as a moral or spiritual fable, you should be able to use it. Hannibal has some Faust, John Milton, and Grecian Myth built in...
ReplyDeleteI'm writing about Crime and Punishment, so I think the moral fable part more or less applies; or, at least, I'm examining motivation in terms of morality versus logic and the resulting legal and personal consequences of trying to, essentially, logic your way out behaving morally. There's certainly enough religious symbolism involved.
ReplyDeleteThat sounds interesting! XD
ReplyDeleteWikipedia gives a pretty good definition I think, if this helps?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable
I think the tone does remain the same, but that's not to say that I think the story doesn't get better and better. I wasn't sure being a novel and film fan, and not being familiar with Fuller's previous work at the time, if I would like it or not, but I found that it's really is picking out interesting things from the novels/films and expanding on it. I didn't really know I loved it, until we got closer to the end of the first season. That's when I felt things fell more into place and I could see some of what Fuller had accomplished, but there is a continuous dark flamboyancy to it, so if you don't like that, then it just might not be your thing.
ReplyDeleteWas it flamboyant? I didn't at all get that impression. Dark, definitely. But darkness doesn't inherently deter me.
ReplyDeleteA think another big problem for me was that the character dynamics didn't quite feel right to me. I'd seen the Lector movies some years earlier, and I think that may have influenced my opinion of Hannibal too heavily. That, and for a show named after Hannibal himself, he wasn't very present in those episodes that I did watch. That annoyed me a lot.
But if it's a show that you grow more into as it progresses, then that sounds like a really gratifying experience to me. I'd rather watch a show that gradually improves over time than a show that starts excellently and then either tapers off in time, or desensitizes me to its world (something that I feel a lot of great basic cable shows do).
Maybe I'll try again once I catch up on some other shows.
Emily VanCamp.
ReplyDeleteIt's less interesting 1500 words and a night of no sleep in, but thanks. And thanks for the link! Now I have one out of my other 300 words ready to go ...
ReplyDeleteYes, because Hannibal is flamboyant, meaning his horrific/artistic side keeps escalating. Even though he is self controlled and civil in person, you can see his creativity and confidence in what he is doing flourish and there is an all out exuberance to him.
ReplyDeleteI loved Anthony Hopkins portrayal too (and I think you can see that persona in the character Dr. Gideon), but in terms of whom Hannibal was before Red Dragon and after Silence of The Lambs, I think Mikkelsen fits that novel persona and physical description (dark slick back hair like that of an "otter") of the character better IMO, which I think the film adaptation of Hannibal Rising picked up on. Hopkins verbally played him more whimsical and less poetically versed.
Ahh, I see what you're saying with the flamboyancy. Then yes, from what I have seen, I can absolutely agree. From the snippets I've seen outside of those first few episodes, Mikkelsen looks to be giving a fantastic performance. Flamboyant definitely appears to be a good descriptor.
ReplyDeleteIf the show goes more between the lines of the crime drama, then I truly think that I could get into in time. That was my greatest fears with the episodes I'd watched: it seemed heavily interested in being more a crime drama with artistic visuals than it did with being a character study of Hannibal and his peers.
Between what you're saying here, and from what a friend has told me, it does sound like Hannibal evolved beyond that, and now I'm very curious to see how so.
I'm gonna be pretty upset with myself if I end up giving Hannibal a second chance and end up loving it this time :P
I think the best result would be if they don't get the rights to Clarice and instead use Miriam Lass in her place. Her history with Hannibal Lecter would connect the fourth season with the story from the preceding seasons and provide a new dimension to their relationship. I'm sure this is what Fuller had in mind when he brought Anna Chlumsky on board and I would love to see it come to fruition. There's just the matter of scheduling it around Veep.
ReplyDeleteHannibal never would have done to Clarice what he has done to Miriam. Clarice has the ability to change Hannibal. Miriam doesn't.
ReplyDeleteOlivia Wilde
ReplyDeleteI would of agreed if they wouldn't of had Hannibal manipulate her and if she came with an accent, but the end of the Hannibal novel, 7 years after silence of the lambs, clarinet changes, but I think Harris makes it clear that it had little to do with what Hannibal was attempting to do with her, as Hannibal freely admits this to the readers. Also there's a strange almost metaphysical aspect with that change, because it happens to come when another character dis sides to throw in the towel and dies...
ReplyDeleteWell Fuller has said if they can't get the rights it would be a parallel character, so GMR would be able to play that. But I get what you're saying about Clarice most likely being Caucasian.
ReplyDeleteAlicia Vikander!! She has the look, talent, and worked before with Mikkelsen with great chemistry
ReplyDeleteShe might be too young but... Abigail Breslin. Innocence and softness but there is a toughness lurking behind her eyes.
ReplyDeleteThat would be great to have her on the show in any capacity. If not Jodie, I'd also love to see either Scott Glenn or William Peterson.
ReplyDelete