Welcome back from my Hannibal hiatus. I'm actually happy I had one, because the way this show is going right now leaves me dissatisfied for the most part. And I don't really know what went wrong with it after a grandiose first season and great beginning of the second one. Maybe it's the social media commentary from Bryan Fuller that's affecting my enjoyment. But after watching "Naka-Choko" I can see that there are tons of problems that need to be addressed.
My opinions and commentary on social issues will be my own. So you're free to throw eggs at me.
The Plot
Randall's death as a result of self-defense after Hannibal set him up is supposedly kickstarting Will's cruelty. Will, of course fantasizes about killing Hannibal with his own hands. The scene when Hannibal takes Will's injured hand reminded me of the scene when Will had a seizure right in front of him. In a way we are supposed to feel that Hannibal still has power over him by taking care of Will.
Power plays a very important role in Will's coming of age murder spree, because that feeling is not something you can escape from. And the episode implies that Will owes Randall for making him feel that way. It would imply that Hannibal also gains power simply by helping Will to feel powerful. We as audience are led to believe that Will is that far gone. And I'm not buying it and we shouldn't. Because the intention is to make it seem real without it being so.
Randall didn't force Will to enjoy that kill, as he was pointing out correctly. But the enjoyment that Will gets from these acts should be coupled with a feeling of revulsion, subtle as it is to fool Hannibal. In order to help the audience root for him, Will's overall moral code should and needs to stay intact. The challenge between Hannibal and Will is not one of complete similarities between them. It's the conflict that drives this power play. The choices they make in similar situations. And the episode completely missed out on that.
The Vergers
I was waiting for Mason with bated breath and Michael Pitt didn't disappoint, but didn't wow me either.
Margot Verger and others
Margot (Katharine Isabelle) is a stunning personality and her character is adding much needed female gravitas after the slaughter party that was Beverly, Abigail and a missing Bedelia. I don't know why this show continues to praise itself for its feminist direction when Freddie is now gone, too. And while there are many male characters that also fall prey to Hannibal and others, I find it disturbing how they get more on-screen presence and importance in the story than the female ones. I almost sighed in relief after watching Freddie and Alana talking to each other even if it was about Will and Hannibal. Which brings me to Alana's treatment. And it can only be summed up as nothing more than sex object. She's barely in scenes about investigations and she's barely voicing her fear, doubts or beliefs. The narrative is not giving her the chance. Not even to voice her misguided support in different scenes. Instead I'm watching awkward sex scenes with predictable music in the background. And that sex scene was problematic for various reasons.
It was pointed out twice and for those that didn't catch it or don't know the source material or her character. Margot is lesbian and does have "the wrong provlivity for parts". That line is awful by the way.
@wakeupfine I don't see how it's homophobic, honestly. A lesbian has one really good reason to sleep with a man.
— Bryan Fuller (@BryanFuller) May 3, 2014If her lover Judy won't appear at any point in the story, it's gonna turn really ugly. That kind of ugly that contributes to queer erasure and plays right into the trope "not too gay". Margot needs a male heir and doing it the easiest way via Will just for some on-screen sex is also the most disrespectful one. And since when did sex become such an important part of the show?
And then we also have this gem here.
@elkrapsong I asked straight men on the crew if they would sleep with a hot lesbian if she came knocking on their door and they said yes.
— Bryan Fuller (@BryanFuller) May 3, 2014Just no. I'm absolutely 100% tired of seeing canonically queer characters, especially lesbians on TV put into heterosexual contexts, even if they have an ulterior motive for doing it. It's almost as bad as using lesbian characters to titillate the male audience. That's the last thing TV shows need. And by the way, making a butch canon lesbian character more feminine is disturbing as well, because it denies someone's personhood and mode of representing yourself in the way you feel most comfortable about. Lesbian characters should be shown in every ways, not just one. That counts for either being butch or feminine. Those things have nothing to do with whom a person wants to sleep with. And I will repeat it again.
The way you look has nothing to do with the people you want to sleep with. End of story. Making Margot turn out to be more "conventionally pretty" in ways that are accepted by society and then having her sleep with Will has done nothing but let the story and its social context go 100 steps back.
The actual sex scenes
Media has promoted this scene repeatedly and Fuller et al. also felt it necessary to point out the homoerotic context between Will and Hannibal, although the showrunner has reaffirmed Will's heterosexuality. The Fandom loves "Hannigram" and is excited whenever Will and Hannibal share moments of intimacy that go beyond the dreaded bromance that other shows like to fall into. That ship teasing however needs to stop!
I'm the type of fan who would love seeing Hannibal turning his obsession for Will into more physical ways that go beyond comfort. And not because m/m or f/m or any kind of sexual situation does it for me. I'm seeing narrative value with Hannibal's manipulations, no matter how they turn out to be. Seeing Will counteracting that kind of power and intimacy would be very interesting for the plot. At the same time I don't want to see the awful character of Dr. Lecter be hailed as queer representation, because Will's and Hannibal's relationship is problematic on all accounts. To see the producers and showrunner praising the sexual energy between them, going on and on about how Hannibal is beyond labels of sexuality and would do anything to possess Will...and then having a sex scene where Hannibal and Will aren't even touching (if you don't count the stag) and making much effort to use the female characters as barrier, Alana of all people (who has no agency of her own in that context)...
I have nothing more to say. Either go all out and have Hannibal approach him in a sexual way for plot reasons or just stop talking about Hannigram and their epic seduction. I've had enough disappointments with other shows that like to pretend they are super inclusive and accepting of m/m or f/f narratives. (Jeff Davis, the Supernatural Writers, Sherlock, Once upon a Time, everyone). This 'yes but not really' is just awful even for a show with awful characters like Hannibal.
I apologize for my long rant and my obvious disappointment. Special shout out goes to Freddie who (in my mind) is judging the hell out of this episode.
What did you think of "Naka-Choko"?
You know I simply didnt care much for this rant. It felt very judgemental of characters without understanding their motives. You like the books then stick to them. You like the movie well then watch them. TV show can expand so much more on characters development. It seems that will is playing high stakes poker game that is either fooling us all ( which is a rare gift to deceive its audience) or really falling for the temptation which is also cool because it just awesome to see him so badass. We all know how it's going to end but the journey is something of an unknown. As for the margot and will sex scene- all I saw was 2 damaged souls taking comfort with specific goals in mind. What a lesbian women can do and doesn't do is no ones business. Every lesbian women is different and they don't all have to follow the same code in life. As for shippers- you are never going to stop them so save your voice. You can interpret the show as you want and I can bask in the bromance of hannibal and will. My rant has ended. Also I don't believe is Freddie is dead. This show is revealing its pattern like hannibal is.
ReplyDeleteI thought this was just simple debate of difference of opinions . I don't think my input was a waste of time nor was trying to be hurtful. I like reading both reviews and discussing it with everyone
ReplyDeleteHi Veronka! Wow what a commentary this week!
ReplyDeleteI won't be throwing eggs, just not my style, but I think we shouldn't count anybody that we didn't see die, post morduem, and buried, out of the running. I feel certain that we will see characters like Du Maurier, Chilton, and maybe even Freddie again...
As for the Margot situation, setting my dislike for some of Bryan Fuller's remarks outside the show aside, I can understand given that Will is main character here and because in the novels she was trying to get pregnant by her brother anyways, that she really is more of a bi-sexual IMO. So I don't find her pull towards Will that out of line or character, especially when the show is making really interesting points about being attracted to people's minds, as opposed to just one's body, as Will orgy extrapolation scene almost implied he had become psychically bonded with Hannibal. I think they made us of a unique parallel between them here, especially also because both Margot and Alana are playing ultimately to Mischa and Clarice...Margot happens to have a similar hairstyle to Abigail Hobbs...you could argue that Margot represents both the pain of loss over Hannibal's sister and an "elevated to taste" Abigail...
I totally understand what your saying about Will and Hannibal's relationship being a "queer" symbol, but if you look back to Hannibal film and the flashback bondage scene with Mason Verger, it's implied that Hannibal might engage or partake with those of the opposite sex physically just so he can get close and manipulate them...It might be what Margot is doing to Will too for some undisclosed reason...but I think there have been SO many Starling references to support her upcoming importance, that I think that as long as when the time comes they really go out the way to prove to us Hannibal's love of her, I don't think these things will be a problem.
Will I think is going to sea-saw his way through this. I think he's definately baiting Hannibal, but that doesn't mean that he might not occasionally get lost in it. I definitely think though that Will still has control, as long as he only kills other serial killers, I think the audience will end up being ok with, assuming we are still working towards the beginning of Red Dragon by the end of next season..
Then you shouldn't have prefaced your commentary with "didn't care much for this rant" because it doesn't align with your detailed comments nor with your assumptions that I would be more of a book or movie purist. Which is something I've explained before I'm not. And the thing I dislike the most is when people misunderstand and assume right away. Only in this case Margot's sex scene didn't work for me and that has nothing to do with being more into the books. I know and have supported the show for basing their story on it and deviating from canon as much as possible. And they've done that well so far. Just not this time for me. For all the reasons I mentioned. As for Will becoming "badass". Fuller already mentioned it's not gonna happen and we are supposed to be fooled. Also not particularly happy with any derogatory comments against shippers. They are just as much of a fan as anyone else is. Thanks for clarifying.
ReplyDeleteHey again :) Yes the thing about Hannibal and the attraction of minds is something that I've always found fascinating. It's just that whenever attraction happens in a queer context and is subtly manifested rather than being text (also given the comments from the showrunner), it becomes problematic for me. Because it reveals such a double standard. Unfortunately Fuller even revealed that euphemism for oral lesbian sex is not even allowed. And that tells me a lot about the behind the scenes politics of this network. It's awful. I'm also doubtful about the connection to Mischa and Clarice, but it's definitely something to keep in mind. Chilton and Bedelia will probably return. Abigail as well. Hopefully, you're right and they uphold that connection to Clarice. As for morality issues. I think that depends on where we as fans draw the line. I've seen many others already saying they're kind of hating Will and can no longer emphatize with him. And that proves that the show is really walking a fine line of perception.
ReplyDeleteInteresting review, though I disagree with a lot. I don't really get your criticism on Will/Margot there. A child is also what she wants in the book and her method here is slightly less insane. Of course, I have no idea what's coming, but I really don't see this story making her into "less of a lesbian" just because of what she did with Will and why.
ReplyDeleteAs for Alana, all of this will depend on what's coming next. I have enough trust in Fuller to make Alana a more relatable character that is not just a sex object. But as Hetienne Park said after Beverly's death, this is the story of a relationship between two men, and the other characters (male or female) are mostly here to be pawns in their game, which means they won't always receive the best treatement (her statement is very interesting and deserves to be read).
And Freddie, well I just don't know. Her fate was already sealed in Red Dragon, but I really hope she's still alive. Most importantly, considering the fact that Fuller himself is gay and the very cool female characters he has already created, I don't think he can be accused of being misogynistic or homophobic in the slightest over his treatement of these three characters.
Thank you :)I wasn't accusing Fuller of being homophobic, nor would I do the same with showrunners like Jeff Davis or even the guy from MTV's faking it. Even if they say awful things. Thing is, subtle stances on how to position the characters reveals a lot about the worldview of the team behind a show. Not necessarily in the way that they are completely aware of it or anti-women. But simply because our society likes to make a lot of assumptions that are so ingrained in our thinking. Like the Margot transformation from butch lesbian for example. Or the way Alana is positioned in the narrative so far. I know all of them are just pawns, but a couple of scenes here and there to make sure that they are people and not just objects would help a lot. Additionally, a lesbian having a motive and thus sleeping with a man doesn't make her less lesbian. However, there's a distinction we need to make in TV queer rep. and real life. I don't walk with a neon sign on my head saying I'm belonging to a particular group. But on TV you need to make sure that her sexuality and her stance on being who she is becomes clear and not muddled in ways that contributes to turning someone less gay and working your way up the ladder towards m/f sex. Even when the character has a motive and thus agency. I've seen people who weren't getting the lines regarding proclivity at all, and in order to prevent this lack of visibility, I'd be happy with anything that counteracts this potential ignorance on the audience's part.
ReplyDeleteAnd as for Freddie. Watch the promo for next week. There's some speculation going on about the wheelchair.
I saw the wheelchair, but I'd be surprised if they were straight up doing the scene from RD. I can't wait to find out, though.
ReplyDeleteI get your problem with Margot, but I actually had the opposite reaction to her line from last week's episode. I thought that was the most subtle way I ever saw someone announce their sexuality on a TV show. Had she been a bodybuilder like in the book, people would have just assumed she was a lesbian, and they would have been correct. Maybe the show is subverting expectations the other way around, though considering the absolute insanity that is this show, I really wouldn't claim to have any insight in the writers' minds!
This episode specifically had Hannibal mention his sister to Mason, while at THE SAME TIME also being introduced to the iconic flesh eating pigs (a representation to Hannibal's love of Starling - iconic film scene).Lambs are also brought up by Hannibal again (he was petting one at the stables in a previous episode) So I believe very much, as things from Hannibal and Hannibal Rising have been referenced in almost every episode this season, that Alana and Margot are reflections to those two important females as well and it is why season one looks at Will and Hannibal from a more parental perspective with Abigail and why season two now gives them parallel romances (child to lover)
ReplyDeleteAs a GOT reader who is seeing the books be changed a lot on TV (and by that I mean irreparably damaged), I understand your pain and your reservations towards the show. But let me try to put your mind at ease on some aspects (although I agree with others): as a non-book reader, I do not see Margot as being any less or more of a lesbian due to the sex scene this week. I think the show made it pretty clear the interaction was between Will, Alana, and Hannibal. Margot was there as a tool, just as much as she was using Will as a tool (but we don't know it yet, since it was only hinted that she was trying to get pregnant).
ReplyDeleteHowever I agree 100% with the need for the show to decide whether or not it will give any female character a meaningful role. Anyone who tried to be the least bit proactive either died or disappeared. Female characters are all downplayed at the moment, put in a position of dominance, including Margot (just a quick observation, to be fair: I wouldn't rule out Freddie being alive quite yet. She could be hidden somewhere, as part of Will's plan to make Hannibal believe he is turning into a murderer.)
Lastly, regarding the Will/Hannibal relationship. Truth be told, I have a hard time seeing Hannibal as either homo or heterossexual. For me, Hannibal is interested in one thing, and one thing only: power. That is why he's sleeping with Alana, and also why it's completely possible that he would have sex with a man, if it suited him. His pleasure comes from the power he can exerce on someone else, IMO. I know Will is supposed to be heterossexual, but we are going so deep down the rabbit hole I wouldn't find it odd if he shared some intimacies with Hannibal, specially if it was instrumental in winning Hannibal's trust. Which leads me to Will's intentions. I don't find it particularly troubling that the show is leaving Will and his persona in a grey zone. On the contrary, I think it is deliberate, exactly so the viewer will have doubts herself. Is Will turning into Hannibal? Is all of this part of his plan? How much does Jack know? Does he know anything at all? They want us to be confused.
Very true. Unfortunately the parallel romances (in Alana's) case is not the point of my criticism at all. It's the representation of it. The lack of agency, the way the show almost bulldozes over both characters to achieve that endgame with these references. It's an endgame that might not even be fully realized despite the rich ways in which quotes and scenes are incorporated. Since that connection to paternal perspectives also didn't have a satisfying conclusion in the way it was supposed to tell the audience "look guys, pay attention", I feel this is the same case. People just took it as is. There's the lack of finesse in order to be smart parallels that is missing imo. And hopefully they actually rectify that for me in order to be believable and smart. For that though, Hannibal and Will also need to talk about Hannibal's sister.
ReplyDeleteMe neither. But we'll see how it continues. Fuller's AV club interview was just disappointing in that regard.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your last paragraph whole-heartedly. Without directly getting book/film references I still see a clear line of site with them being presented in almost every episode in terms of Hannibal's affections and I don't feel like this situation is taking away from it, but feeding into it. The only thing that makes things I think harder on non book readers is not knowing where Hannibal is coming from.
ReplyDeleteI actually agree with your last paragraph. I'm mostly angry with the ship teasing that in my opinion contributes to absolutely nothing. Especially for Hannibal's part. As for Will's morality. Differences in opinion I guess :)
ReplyDeleteYeah, these always make me crave more too!
ReplyDeleteExcept that I think everyone is using everyone equally, except maybe Alana. I think Mason may be infatuated with Hannibal and us using his sister has bait, Margot is using Will maybe to get pregnant, Will is using Margot to be as closely linked to Hannibal as possible (his ability to feel others means he can "become" others), and Hannibal uses everyone for reasons the show hasn't revealed yet, but is most certainly referenced.
ReplyDeleteIt's true that it may not be fully realized, but if it were to be, you could how doing this way without revealing itself early would be genius, because all it's done is feed into it by using Will and this time period to the series advantage in really fleshing it out. I think Fuller went in with the intent that most viewers knwo who Hannibal is, but doing it in way that Harris ended up trying to make Hannibal be in the third Hannibal titled novel from the start, as opposed to Harris own 'lets start behind bars' limited approach and then bam!
I'll bet that Hannibal mentions Mischa to Will before the season ends.
I was waiting for Mason's infatuation to somehow show on his face. To hint at anything that would point in his interest in Hannibal from a more personal pov. The scene however also left me kind of cold. too much businesslike on his part. But that's an acting problem to me and only just the beginning. I hope they eventually will go there with them. I prefer if they'd eventually made a point rather than letting it dwindle as happened with Abigail. but I think Margot's and Alana's reactions and Hannibal's subsequent brainwashing will reveal more. I still have some hopes left.
ReplyDeleteWow! Boy did I miss a lot, or maybe I should be on some drug while watching the episode. I'm not a fan of Will doing things that make him into a criminal or maybe even a murderer. Wouldn't it have just as effective to have Will kill Randall and then call the FBI? Will can always go to Lecter and say so much of the same things without the physical part of putting the body on the table. I certainly did not like the Freddie scene in the barn, sorry it is just stupid. And what is all this stuff about not understanding Margot and her need to find someone to protect her. Would you believe her brother and Lecter are people she can trust?!?!?!? Her brother is openly threatening her by using her clothes and scent to prep the pigs, wonderful. And Lecter is telling her to kill her brother. Will catches killers, Lecter is Will's adversary and Margot has that figured out. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." Margot can obviously be bisexual, she is attracted to Will, and people do have sex when situations are stressful. And then there is the need to find a donor for a male heir. And if Will is the daddy, won't he protect her more? Did I really have to say all that? Finally, loved the scene with Will, Lecter and Alana. She is angry and shows it. She doesn't like the dance and maybe the situation she put herself in. She doesn't like being judged and everyone is judging her. Who would have "thunk it"... I hope all this stuff over the last couple episodes hasn't ruined the thread of the show.
ReplyDeleteThank you for your completely necessary input.
ReplyDeleteMargot can obviously be bisexual, she is attracted to Will, and people do have sex when situations are stressful.
ReplyDeleteTo quote the novels: She came and grabbed him in a hug that might have injured a less powerful man. “Listen, if it was gonna be a guy it would have to be you. But that’s not my thing. It really is not. Not now, never will be. - Margot to Barney
What you're doing right now is classic lesbian erasure. And I suggest you stop that instantly! Because it's offensive!
Getting a degree from Zurich probably shows a lot about your attitude. You look young and probably not very experienced and you write like it. Good luck with that. Maybe your having a hard time understanding American writing/comments.... Who knows. Fuller is not following the novels or the movie that's for sure. We have a saying, "get off your high horse".....
ReplyDeleteYou are deviating from comments about the show and making it about me. I won't tolerate your condescending attitude on my review, language or educational background. I didn't like this episode and I stand by it. If you are incapable to argue in ways related to the show, find yourself another website or review that fits your "mature" attitude.
ReplyDeleteAs a person who was in a war(Vietnam) who has seen and experienced acts of death, and having PTSD, I may have a different take on what is shown on this program. Also being a former teacher I have seen and observed lots of kids and adults deal with stress. So somehow I have offended you by disagreeing on how a person reacts, specifically sexual(which I think seems to be fluff), especially in TV program, seems a little absurd. If you want to put your comments on the internet, expect blow back.... Life can be hard.....
ReplyDeleteMy daughter said you are one of those wack jobs from tumblr.....
ReplyDeletei agree that mason's introduction was cold, but I think the underwelming part was an intentional misdirection for whatever they are going to expand on. I felt thay pitt really echoed the voice of the film version minis some obvious physical differences..I think wanted to confuse the audience about margot's perception of reality.
ReplyDeleteAbigail was briefly shown in the promo, I think. I'm interested to see what they will do with that. They also talked about a tamer version of The Joker in an interview. So I wasn't surprised with the portrayal. But Hannibal's reactions to him were intriguing.
ReplyDeleteI still think that Thomas Harris point was a debate about whether art and civility really spiritually elevate us and separate us from animals or if those things are a false facade and smoke screen for a more complicated game survival of fittest, suggesting humanity is still primal...
ReplyDelete*****Hannibal Novel Discussion Ahead SPOILERS!
spoiler
spoiler
spoiler
spoiler
spoiler
spoiler
spoiler
spoiler
spoiler
spoiler
spoiler
spoiler
spoiler
spoiler
I still think Margot's change reflects the end of the Hannibal novel, as when we look to Clarice, we see a character that goes from essentially having no taste and an accent which deflects from her own strong mind, sense of duty, and intelligence, is elevated to a romantic (partially due to her philosophy crushing around her through corrupt FBI) and where Hannibal too elevated to acceptance where Mischa us concerned. So I can see Margot as a tasteful elevation from Abigail meant to reflect that aspect of the series.
But I'm thinking it wouldn't hurt anything if either they create a juxtaposition where Margot breaks down and becomes more butch, or if we explore that part of Margot through a Margot love interest who could serve as a type of alter ego...
I again understand your concern with the book changes, but I think Margot herself isn't necessarily a pillar of truth of her own self. What I mean is, even by sleeping with her brother to get pregnant, she creates some discreditably with her own sexuality/identity, because simply she's willing to go there and she doesn't find another way to do this
ReplyDeleteI'm not saying that Margot doesn't prefer woman, just that I think she's a screwed up character like many of them and that her own perception of truth may not be how a viewer/reader takes it, because her statements don't always match her actions.
Not to get to off topic, but nne thing I JUST realized is that I don't think Hannibal has mentioned his sister to anyone yet. If so then the fact that Mason Verger knows, as he is the one to press Hannibal on subject and not the other way around, doe perhaps show an infatuation and that Mason has been researching...
ReplyDeleteAnd maybe when (and if) we get to season six, and Hannibal the novel, Margot will be feeling a little more powerful after her brother's defacing (after he obviously causes her a baby loss, Defeminizes her, and she needs her brother's sperm for her girlfriend instead), hits the gym, beefs up, and the rest is canon.
ReplyDeleteThen we can revisit this ridiculous Mindset attack on the sexuality of people, that can never be set in stone, despite our own misinformed opinions.
Live and learn.
Yes, well, shippers are the same in every fandom, they freak out and sometimes don't really add anything very interesting. But I respect their investment on the show, there's no denying they are usually the most passionate viewers.
ReplyDeleteAs an asexual, I don't feel comfortable saying something isn't lesbian erasure because I wouldn't know (though I'm all to familiar with non-representation) so I'm not going to mention that part. Instead, I will comment on the idea of the whole scene.
ReplyDeleteTo me, Margot is a tragic figure who has maintained an amazing amount of agency and strength. She has been oppressed by her father for first being female and then being a lesbian, and she's been horribly abused by her brother. She has no control or claim over the money, business, property, anything and now she's in fear for her life. The scene with Mason using her suit and perfume on the that meat carcass, as well as recordings of her screaming, was the tipping point and she did the only thing she thought she could do without involving risky financial transactions: going to Will. You could see in the beginning of the scene how reluctant but determined she was (her expression was heart breaking) and how she was doing this for necessity and not lust. (As an aside, I hate the "the hero is so irresistible even lesbians want to have sex with them" tropes and I feel that is what is actually offensive and problematic.)
As for Will, I think he wanted some kind of physical connection after god-knows how long, and when Margot reminded him how similar they are in their powerlessness and betrayal, he just caved. I'm sure it could be seen as him fantasizing about being with Alana, but I read the whole scene as him actually empathizing with Hannibal. At first he sees Alana's face, but right after that moment he stared off into space and saw Hannibal/the Wendigo with Alana. Not only that, but he saw both Alana's face and Hannibal's. If we go based on fantasy, that means he was technically fantasizing about both of them and not just Alana (which I guess could be the case).
I don't know, I see the scene from a more psychological standpoint than a social one so I didn't see what others have, but I do understand the anger or disappointment. I just feel context is important because this scene didn't come across to me as the standard "marginalize the lesbian" trope I've seen in both TV and movies and I feel some sort of distinction should be made.
Those reviews of Hannibal are getting progressively more badly written and less relevant to what is happening on the show.
ReplyDeleteThis one is not even a review just a rant focused on sexism, feminism and sexuality on the show, while Hannibal as TV show has in reality zero interest in social issues. Bryan said few words about feminism because he has personal convictions on the subject but he has never pretended to make a feminist show: it's just a thriller about a FBI team who tries to catch a cannibal serial killer.
That's what happens when reviewers are graduates woman with the head full of academic theories on feminism, by the way completely disconnected from reality: they try to define what is to be a woman, to be a lesbian, how the writers should write about women and their sexuality as if the reviewer keeps the ultimate and definitive interpretation of those words and concepts, and can speak for all of us and especially those who belong to a community in minority like lesbians.
I'm a woman and reading this kind of so called feminist comment, full of judgemental presumptions on why Bryan Fuller is wrong baffle me. It's incredible how you come off as someone who just believe to know better than all the writers of the show reunited despite their experience, someone who can prove to us viewers with few lines how the characters could have been perfectly transferred from books to screen without loss.
I don't get why the books canon should be relevant to help define Margot in the context of the show. She might be "a butch canon lesbian" in the books but season 2 is not an adaptation of the books, but a prequel to it. Red Dragon and the other books are for season 4 and beyond. So the actual Margot as an younger version of book Margot can perfectly be a woman with a more feminine appeareance without it getting in the way of her having steroids and being more masculine in few years.
I'm absolutely 100% tired too: but i'm tired of people who like you tend to define characters only by their sexuality. Contrary to you, Bryan is not interested in Margot only because she can be potentially a role model for lesbians, he's trying to tell her story as woman who is struggling with patriarchal norms, who is terrorized on all levels (physical,moral and emotional) and forced to face violence and a real danger for her life. In this context, to survive is her only goal, even if it means denying temporarily who she is. That's the common point that she shares with Will and the reason why she chose him as lover and father of her child: they are in the same situation, fighting similar contradictions and it goes way beyond the people with whom they want to have sex with.
Moreover sex with Will didn't not alter her character (she's still a lesbian), didn't make her weak ( she took the initiative and has an agenda) or stretch reality (sexuality in real life is more complex than classifications and definitions).
The rest of the review can be summarized as "Bryan, stop doing this, it's so annoying for me".
How about you stop pretending that every work of fiction must deal with social justice and representation even though the author (be it Thomas Harris or Bryan Fuller) is so clearly just looking for entertainment?
I applaud Fuller's decision to change the way Margot was depicted in the book, because frankly Thomas Harris had some very homophobic elements in his writing. I was disgusted that Harris implied Margot became a lesbian after being raped multiple times and taking steroids to appear more masculine. Fuller made the right choice discarding that stereotypical bulldyke lesbian trope and making Margot a brand new person, still haunted by her brother's abuse but her queerness is a natural part of her, not an aberration brought on by trauma and medical tampering.
ReplyDeleteIf the "reviewer" really thinks Freddie is dead, she isn't paying close attention to the show. Will's strategy was clearly outlined in the ice fishing scene earlier in the season, where he talks to Jack about becoming the exciting bait to catch his prey, the bait that makes his prey forget what he knows. Will must appear to be the serial killer to Hannibal, but it is only a lure. Freddie will turn up safe and sound.
I for one have been thrilled with this season, especially because Will is finally on more even footing with Hannibal. Hugh Dancy has a new fire in his performance that gives Will more edge. Every week the show continues to impress.
"Those reviews of Hannibal are getting progressively more badly written and less relevant to what is happening on the show.This one is not even a review just a rant focused on sexism, feminism and sexuality on the show, while Hannibal as TV show has in reality zero interest in social issues. Bryan said few words about feminism because he has personal convictions on the subject but he has never pretended to make a feminist show: it's just a thriller about a FBI team who tries to catch a cannibal serial killer."
ReplyDeleteCompletely disagree as I will post something I have already said above:
"Thomas Harris point was a debate about whether art and civility really spiritually elevate us and separate us from animals or if those things are a false facade and smoke screen for a more complicated game of survival of fittest then suggesting humanity is still primal..."
Everything Fuller has been doing has been about this, as he has gone BEYOND out of his way to reference the source material though this time periode. It's why Randall was killed. It wasn't just about Hannibal giving what he thought Will wanted (to kill someone) and for there to be reciprocity for each of them now sending someone else to kill each other ("even Steven"), but also because Randall went as "high" in his metamorphosis that Hannibal deemed possible, which is opposite to Hannibal's own SOCIAL standards by which he wants to rid the world of all 'the pigs', as Hannibal is fighting God and the physical limitations of humanity (hence Stephen Hawking Time in Reverse = Will's ability), as means to try and "get something he lost" back!
"Fuller made the right choice discarding that stereotypical bulldyke lesbian trope and making Margot a brand new person, still haunted by her brother's abuse but her queerness is a natural part of her, not an aberration brought on by trauma and medical tampering."
ReplyDeleteI'm not saying your wrong, but in truth, because this is so much earlier than when book fans were introduced to Margot, could still tell a story about "how" she becomes more of a book-versions definition of character.
Personally I find the choice non offensive because I can see how it plays into the immediate story well (a tasteful elitist like Hannibal) and altogether thematic with "taste" in having her yet be another reflection of the two not yet introduced female characters oh-so-important to Hannibal from past and future, in addition to being a kind of evolution to Abigail Hobbs...
You've got a point there. I'm loving this second season of the show, I liked this episode, but your analysis is very accurate. I especially agree about the "pretty" Margot; Katharine Isabelle is stunningly great in this role, but I'm disappointed by this conventional (and quite disrespectful) representation of this character.
ReplyDeleteHow is disrespectful in any way? If anything is much than the source material and it's stereotypical view of lesbians.
ReplyDeleteI think it's a bit disrespectful to the spirit of the original character, which was plagued by the frustration of infertility and unattractive physical appearance. I don't think the novel describes a stereotype: Margot's character is very credible and much, much more desperate than how it appears in this TV series. But this is just my point of view. I felt closer to Margot in the novel than in the episodes, but definitely for other people it could be not be the same!
ReplyDelete(Sorry for my terrible English!)
I didn't like how she was portrayed as a butch lesbian and it also reinforced the idea that homosexuality is a choice. I don't know, I just didn't like the view it was presenting.
ReplyDeleteAs I previously said, it's just a question of point of views! I suffered very much reading the story of her childhood in the book, and it seemed credible to me that a little girl raped by her brother didn't want to have anything to do with the male gender. It's clear it was a different character: maybe the show is describing a Margot whose homosexuality was simply inborn, and not a result of a psychological trauma...
ReplyDelete(Thank you, you're very kind!)
I agree with you. Liked what you had to say. I too think Freddie is alive. I think the meat was Randalls. Will is going deep undercover to get Hannibal. Freddie is tucked away safe but scared as hec. LOL
ReplyDeleteGood point!
ReplyDeleteAs I previously said, it's just a question of point of views! I suffered very much reading the story of her childhood in the book, and it seemed credible to me that a little girl raped by her brother didn't want to have anything to do with the male gender. It's clear it was a different character: maybe the show is describing a Margot whose homosexuality was simply inborn, and not a result of a psychological trauma...
ReplyDelete(Thank you, you're very kind!)
ggg
ReplyDeleteThank you. but also because Randall went as "high" in his metamorphosis that Hannibal deemed possible, which is opposite to Hannibal's own SOCIAL standards by which he wants to rid the world of all 'the pigs', as Hannibal is fighting God and the physical limitations of humanity (hence Stephen Hawking Time in Reverse = Will's ability + teacup allusions/motifs), as means to try and "get something he lost" back! Exactly.
ReplyDeleteI think Fuller also said that he wanted to distance himself from the portrayal of a gay woman as a result of abuse. So that confirms it.
ReplyDeleteI can't see Will willingly eating human meat. I suspect he would have actually gone out and killed some frightened female animal and merely told Hannibal it was human. After all, Randall probably wasn't frightened when he died as the meat that Will gave to Hannibal was. Randall was too caught up in the animalistic desire to tear Will apart to fear for his life.
ReplyDeleteThank you for pointing out the Margot-issue. I didn't read the books. I watched the movies and I love the show. And to be honest? Somehow I even skipped the part where Margot reveals her sexual preferences. From the beginning on she has been presented to us as a possible sex interest for Will. You know, since god-like and above all earthly things-Hannibal has someone to cuddle now too. I really like the writing on that show. That's why it's so sad having to admit that willgot/marwill (do we have a name for them yet?) is just a stupid male fantasy that the writers had on the "to do" list for hannibal.
ReplyDeleteThat is a really interesting fact. Now the presentation of Margot makes more sense to me. There is still the way willgot has been introduced. In my opinion just to obvious and "male centric"
ReplyDeleteAgain this is an earlier introduction to the character so I think there's still room to see Margot become that character by season 5 or 6, but even if not, it's not like Hannibal isn't all about an elevation of "taste".
ReplyDeleteLooking down the line some book fans have a problem with Starling's transformation, because I think there's a fair argument about what it exactly is that allows her to transform to that romantic with taste, when we also know that Hannibal could not alter her, because her mind was too strong...Margot in the novel considers herself a friend of Starling...So perhaps by changing Margot's appearance (which I also see as representation of an Abigail tastefully evolved/and in parallel as an elitist with Hannibal to create another interesting juxtaposition between Will and Hannibal) could be used as way to have Starling become that woman at the end of Hannibal, through a friendship/dynamic with Margot.
You think book Margot is somehow a positive (and subersive!) representation of a lesbian? Book Margot is roided out, violent, and hyper-masculine character... That's not subversive. The "angry masculine lesbian" is literally the most traditionally negative stereotype of lesbians that there is in pop culture.
ReplyDeleteNot to mention that the book's narrative essentially equated her homosexuality with her abuse, which in turn denigrated it.
Fuller's version is far superior, and calling him homophobic over it is ridiculous.
This post is unnecessarily defensive. There was nothing wrong with @Jennifer Decker's critique of your review, even if she said something about ityou didn't agree with. There's a reason it has over 25 upvotes.
ReplyDeleteThanks for that rant, it was much appreciated!
ReplyDeleteI felt very uncomfortable with the sex scene between Margot and Will, and while I felt slightly better knowing that she did it with reason other than "I'm a lesbian but now I fancy a man" (like Irene Adler in "Sherlock"), it's important to note that there are still problematic elements and your review helped me pick up on some other layers. Bryan Fuller's comments are definitely not helping.
He didn't go out of his way to add female characters: he just genderswapped two secondary characters because to tell a story with only male characters in our days would provoked rejection from the target audience.
ReplyDeleteAlan Bloom before he becomes Alana wasn't even especially relevant to the plot and that stays true for Alana. The show could perfectly do without her.
Freddie is however essential to the plot, but she's not here to stay given what happens to her in Red Dragon, and the actress has only a guest star status on the show, so she only appeared 3 times since the start of the season.
In Thomas Harris books, female characters are only supporting characters with very few good storylines, with the exception of Clarice of course. The writers of the show have obviously no interest in changing this situation. They're doing an adaptation that they are trying to keep very close from the books, so women won't the be center of the attention and won't be served as well as men on the show.
I seriously don't get how you can consider the fact that Hannibal consider that the 3/4 of humanity are pigs who are only worth to be eaten and the fact that he has developed a a God complex as a reflection by the writers on the differences between classes and social standards, but since it's beyond me, i leave it to you.
...Remember in the episode during Margot's session with Hannibal Hannibal is talking about Legacy that if Margot has no Legacy she must "Make" one. Seed of idea planted. She goes to Wills house with every intention of becoming pregnant. Will knows she's their for another reason as he tells her he has all the wrong parts for her proclivity. I found the sex scene like the previous one this season to be taste full as ever. The way that Will and Hannibal projected each other sharing Alana while Will was with Margot reminded me of the film Dead Ringers with Jeromy Irons.
ReplyDeleteI disagree. You can disagree with reviewer without being distasteful, labeling (ie "rant"), and or making it about the reviewer and not the review...
ReplyDeleteShe could have more easily said, I'm not sure if I find your commentary on sexism and/or sexual labeling a fair assessment in relation to Margot character changes, Freddie's possible death, and/or Bryan Fullers' comments because of 'this', 'this', and 'that'....
She gave fair points in the end, but she started her rebuttal by being defensive.
I didn't say "add" I said he went out his way to "change the sex". That means I said he gender swapped!!!
ReplyDeleteYour arguments are exactly why Veronika should be able to talk a little bt about sexism and sexual orientation and/or treatment of female characters on this show.
You don't need to change genders of characters and make them main characters, if you don't intend to make a cultural statement about them, especially when this story is also moved to modern day for a modern-contempary audience.
I agree with you that sexism is being too much of an excuse to rip art apart. I especially think something like GOT is not meant to be a contemporary discussion piece, especially without knowing it's ending to get better clarity on it's actual meaning, but something like this is about social justice>
If you have read Hannibal Rising, then you SHOULD understand the "pig" analogy and concept which is furthered by Hannibal's battle with Mason Verger in "Hannibal" via flesh eating pigs. Every episode this season has referenced Hannibal and Hannibal Rising with a dash of Silence of the Lambs. Bryan Fuller is attending to tell the whole story siting that the books will serve as the back bones of later seasons...
Mads Mikkelson and Fuller have stated that Hannibal is like "the devil", but it's like John Milton's devil, one of the most HUMAN characters ever written in fiction fighting against the philosophy of Judeo-Christian God. If you haven't noticed the show and the novels are also full of tons and tons of Religious and Philosophical allegories....why do you think it is that he didn't let Bella die peacefully, because Hannibal likes "the fight" against death---a symbol of the unknown and the powerless.
Blah blah blah blah blah.
ReplyDeleteI don't understand the criticism around Margot's behaviour. She did it for very particular, pragmatic reasons. Not romantic. And she is a little crazy. What's so wrong with that?
http://i.imgur.com/SxZUAL4.gif
ReplyDeleteExtremely opinionated people.
Can only laugh at their brash and offensive responses that are completely unnecessary.
And that was the point. As soon as people commenting here will make it about me rather than the actual content, they lose any sort of credibility for me to take them seriously.
ReplyDeleteI disagree completely and I repeat again. I didn't accuse Fuller of being homophobic.
ReplyDeleteI'm not even sure if Harris was intentionally stereo-typing as means to deflect real-life lesbians. I found she's just a character that fits into a spectrum of various character types counter acting/opposing someone like Buffalo Bill and adding an intentional extreme visual contrast to Clarice by the end of the novel in particular.
ReplyDeleteThe problem with Bryan Fuller is it's hard to know if he's seriously gratuitous or mockingly gratuitous? Not trying to stereo-type, but I do have gay friends who tend to say ridiculously inappropriate things for some kind of weird shock-attention-grabbing reasons. On one hand I understand, because it's their way of being heard, but on another it almost discredits their own equal-rights pursuits because it comes off as disrespectful.
ReplyDeleteI hadn't thought of that, but you're right. He could just be joking/sarcastic, unfortunately sarcasm doesn't travel well over the internet, and so he comes across as gratuitious.
ReplyDeleteI don't see as an attention seeking comment, he was clearly just joking/being sarcastic. Unfortunately, people took the wrong way and while trying to fix it he made it worse.
ReplyDeleteI never said it wasn't, I'm just saying you could take it more than one way, vouching from personal experience. Just as Artur said, as he understood what I meant, it could easily be sarcasm...but since none of know Mr. Fuller personally and because it's hard to here a "tone" in once's voice when reading things on the internet, it surely could be up for debate.
ReplyDelete