StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Do you think Hannibal Lector (from Silence of the lambs, Red Dragon, Hannibal) is insane?

I don't actually think he is. The intelligence he shows in his escape in SotL and how he carefully avoids leaving anyway to conclusivle identify himself in Hannibal (barring the letter(s) to Starling) indicate to me that his mind is working well.

He knows damn well what his actions are, and he still does them. He should
have been shot a long time ago.

Insanity is being unable to understand the difference between right and wrong.

Hannibal is not insane, nor is he slow (which almost seems to be what you're implying).

He's a sociopathic genius.

Insane does NOT equal stupid. Most serial killers are fully functional members of society (Gacey even owned a construiction business IIRC) they just have this disconnect in their moral development where they don;t see anything wrong in their actions or do but don't care.

He just has a twisted value system that is incompatible with ours. He knows exactly what he's doing, though.

MKSheppard wrote:He knows damn well what his actions are, and he still does them. He should
have been shot a long time ago.

As he admits at the end of Red Dragon ("any rational society would have put me to death a long time ago," or something to that effect).

Ever read any of the books? In Hannibal, the author says something along the lines of "Lector's intelligence, like his sanity, cannot be measured by conventional means".

He may be crazy, but he's not insane.

As Stravo said, insane doesn't equal stupid. In fact, Lector's insanity stems from his intelligence - he considers himself superior to the rest of humanity.

He's a pure psychopath.

innerbrat wrote:As Stravo said, insane doesn't equal stupid. In fact, Lector's insanity stems from his intelligence - he considers himself superior to the rest of humanity.

He's a pure psychopath.

Is he? I thought psychopaths didn't know the difference between right and wrong. Didn't Lecter, only he didn't really care?

Look at Ted Bundy.

But yes, intelligence has no correlation with insanity. Actually, you could probably claim a lot of our geniuses were in someways demented or suffering under dementia (note: the usage of the word demented which CAN include the definition of insanity).

As for Hannibal Lecter, he did have his own set of moralities and values. He just did not accept SOCIETIES morals. If something offended him he got rid of it. If something intrigued him he appreciated it. Look at Clarice, he sacrificed his arm for her.

So he is a sociopath? Probably. Gifted? Definately.

I must reitirate, if you haven't read any of the books, please do so immediately!
I really enjoyed Hannibal the movie, until I read the novel. The ending is as different as night and day. Not to mention the story arc that gets zero mention in the film. You get a much deeper insight to Lector's motivations, as well.

I've never read the book, but am vaguely familiar with it. I understand why they changed it so much in the film, the ending as originally written by Harris wouldn't have made it past focus groups, much less the moviegoing public.

Insane is an imprecise term. It generally means that the mind or brain does not function properly. Now, the brain is highly compartmentalized. It is possible for only one part of the brain to be completely screwed up and for the rest of the mind to still work perfectly well. A person can be psychotic, complete with voices and delusions, and still behave in a rational, methodical manner. For example, there was a boy, around 19, who went into a men's room and slaughtered a little boy. He then ran away, washed up, and took some steps to change his appearance and hide. After he was caught, he was examined by psychiatrists who determined that he suffered from schizophrenia. He had delusions that God wanted him to start the apocalypse by being a force of evil in the world. Yet, despite such absolutely irrational beliefs, his behavior was still quite rational, and so he was not found by the jury to be insane and was sent to prison for life rather than treated. There is a prevalent misconception that insanity means a person is irrational and "loony". That is simply untrue. Logic does not require a grounding in reality to still be rational. "All men are green, Socrates is a man, therefore Socrates is green." That statement is absurd yet rationally valid.

As for Lector, as has been pointed out, he suffered from (or enjoyed) sociopathy. I am not sure exactly how psychologists use specific terms, but it is a disorder. The mind of the sociopath does not function properly, so in layman's terms you might say that he is insane.

Does a bear shit in the woods? He eats people; if that isn't an insane thing to do, I don't know what is.

I've read all of the books except the last one. Anyone care to give me a quick and dirty about the differences between the book and the film. (I have no intention of reading Hannibal so you won't be spoiling it for me)

Also I read in the Hannibal DVD special features section that Hannibal was born to an aristocartic family in the Baltics and that during WWII either Russian or German soldiers invaded his estate and took his younger sister and ate her. Is this true and jibe with the book concerning his origin?

Durran Korr wrote:I've never read the book, but am vaguely familiar with it. I understand why they changed it so much in the film, the ending as originally written by Harris wouldn't have made it past focus groups, much less the moviegoing public.

I believe that would be an understatement.

I've read all of the books except the last one. Anyone care to give me a quick and dirty about the differences between the book and the film. (I have no intention of reading Hannibal so you won't be spoiling it for me)

Its been a while, but i believe the killing of the guy in florence involved chukcing him out of window with his guts hanging out.

and the ending was almost completely different... i think he actually fed then guy to the pigs... im not sure, its been a while since i read it... and for that matter seen the film

BoredShirtless wrote:Does a bear shit in the woods? He eats people; if that isn't an insane thing to do, I don't know what is.

Don't ask me; I'm just waiting for someone to pop in and declare "Maybe in the future society will learn to accept people with different values like him."

I wouldn't be surprised if people could be able to differentiate between right and worng, and still be enough of a sociopath to just not care. Sounds like a few people I went to middleschool with.

there are a lot of people who don't care about rights and wrongs...but i think lector is a step above those people though

Zac Naloen wrote:

I've read all of the books except the last one. Anyone care to give me a quick and dirty about the differences between the book and the film. (I have no intention of reading Hannibal so you won't be spoiling it for me)

Its been a while, but i believe the killing of the guy in florence involved chukcing him out of window with his guts hanging out.

and the ending was almost completely different... i think he actually fed then guy to the pigs... im not sure, its been a while since i read it... and for that matter seen the film

That's in the movie. Except that he doen't feed the guy to the pigs, he (Hannibal) persuades the guys carer to push him in.

He's actually something of a Nietzschian anti-hero. He's aristocratic, he preys on the weak, and he has no interest in conventional morality. He does what makes him feel good, and has no regrets about it. Lecter isn't evil so much as he is mentally beyond any concept of good and evil.

2000AD wrote:The intelligence he shows in his escape in SotL and how he carefully avoids leaving anyway to conclusivle identify himself in Hannibal (barring the letter(s) to Starling) indicate to me that his mind is working well.

Your sanity is defined by ALL your actions. Eating people is enough to push you all the way to "insane".

Stravo wrote:I've read all of the books except the last one. Anyone care to give me a quick and dirty about the differences between the book and the film. (I have no intention of reading Hannibal so you won't be spoiling it for me)

O.K., if anyone doesn't want to see SPOILERS , skip to the next post.





In the end, he kidnapped Clarise, drugged her, "treated" her hangups with her father and the screaming lambs, and eventually trained her to follow in his footsteps. They became lovers, with the full knowledge that either one might kill the other at any time. It was also revealed that Lector was trying to figure out a way to reverse time to save his sister who was brutally killed in WWII.

You had your heart in the right place by posting the spoiler warning, but as a general curtesy we ask that you also shrink your text ~ Sceptre

Shrink that text right now, before anyone who doesn't want to sees it.

Stravo wrote:I've read all of the books except the last one. Anyone care to give me a quick and dirty about the differences between the book and the film. (I have no intention of reading Hannibal so you won't be spoiling it for me)

Also I read in the Hannibal DVD special features section that Hannibal was born to an aristocartic family in the Baltics and that during WWII either Russian or German soldiers invaded his estate and took his younger sister and ate her. Is this true and jibe with the book concerning his origin?

SPOILERS AHOY!!!!









Basically, Clarice recieves treatment at the hands of Lector for her many hangups over her father. During the course of this treatment, which involves a great many drugs, she falls in love with Lector, or accepts that she'd always been in love with him. They ride off into the sunset, to be seen in Argentina months later by Barney the orderly from Lector's hospital days. Who also happens to be on a world tour funded by ill gotten gains.

During the dinner scene with Paul Krendler, Clarice asks for another slice of brain. She was cruelly used by the Justice Department and FBI in the book, though.

Gary Oldman's paralysed character dies at the hands of his twin sister, after she forces him to ejaculate into a condom by means of a cattle prod. This is so she can artificially inseminate her lover, and recieve the family fortune by having an heir of her own. She being sterile due to her steroid regimen. All this was Lector's idea,BTW, they were both patients of his way back when.

And yes, his sister was eaten by starving German soldiers, Harris' description of the last time Lector saw her is best not described.

A light hearted read, fun for the whole family....