Don't Trust Your Safety in the Hands of The Lifeguard

Memorial Day weekend is the traditional unofficial start of summer, replete with barbeques and other outdoor soirees. Having been rushing from place to place all weekend, when I woke up early this morning, I just wanted to relax and sit back to watch something unexpected. I chose The Lifeguard, a 2013 film starring Kristen Bell. When this movie initially came out, I was excited to see Bell in a feature film that wasn't a B-level comedy and thus something very different for her that might show off the fabulous dramatic acting chops all we Veronica Mars fans know she has in her. But when I heard more about the film's premise, I wasn't sure if I'd want to watch if after all. In the end, when the movie showed up on Netflix, I decided to add it to my queue and today it seemed like the best candidate for my mood.

The Lifeguard is a slow moving but engrossing film about Leigh London, an almost 30-year-old ("29 and 10 months" as her mother points out early on) Associated Press journalist living in New York City and having an affair with her supervisor. When the latter gets engaged to someone else and seems to be dismissing what Leigh considers an important story by relegating it to a lesser section, she has a bit of crisis and decides to take a leave of absence. Leigh grabs up a duffle bag and her cat Moose before returning to her parents' house in Connecticut, where she picks up right where she left off. She gets a job as a summer lifeguard at the community pool and starts socializing with her former high school chums Mel and Todd. The trio end up spending a lot of their free time hanging out with a trio of current high school students, wannabe drop-outs who join the older crew in drinking and smoking weed out in the woods. And that's when things start to heat up between Leigh and 16-year-old "Little Jason," in a situation that every viewer knows will never end well.

It's hard to know where to even begin with discussing The Lifeguard. As I mentioned above, it definitely held my attention despite being a movie without any big special effects or honestly even a huge amount of backstory (the short time frame of an hour and an half meant that a lot of the past lives of these characters was mentioned in passing only or not fully explained). There is, however, a decent amount of time invested in exploring these characters right now and trying to elucidate their complicated feelings. The Lifeguard is one of those rare pieces of art in which you can enjoy the product without actually liking a single character. For instance, Leigh is the film's main focus and she's hardly someone you can root for, especially as her actions take her down more and more twisted paths. As the movie unfolds, you learn more about Leigh's past as the perpetual "good girl" - the school valedictorian who made all the right choices and never once before questioned where she was going. You can feel a little bit of sympathy for her as she starts to unravel and wonders what's next for her life; for instance, you can really see her conflicted feelings as she tries to council Jason about staying in high school and getting a college degree as she herself is back in her high school job making barely above minimum wage after years of pushing herself to do her best in school. At the same time, however, the rushed introduction to the movie leaves you wondering what exactly caused Leigh to have this un-epiphany that left her feeling so unfocused. The story that she wrote was certainly something to bother and unnerve her, but it was hardly something to make her abandon everything on seemingly a whim. As for her relationship with her supervisor, it should hardly have come to a shock to anyone that a person who is cheating is going to eventually disappoint. Meanwhile, Leigh seemingly doesn't use any of her time in Connecticut to reflect or mature. Instead, she reverts to becoming a rebellious teen, spending her time being completely inconsiderate to her parents, working in a dead-end job, drinking and smoking in the woods, and literally hanging out with teenagers. As someone roughly the same age as Leigh and her friends, I honestly can't see the appeal of many of their actions even if I can understand some of their philosophical concerns. Things finally hit bottom in terms of the viewer's ability to empathize with Leigh when she becomes involved statutory rape. She may be lost and confused, but that doesn't make it even remotely right for her to take up a sexual relationship with a 16-year-old boy. The fact that nearly ever other character is unfazed by this turn of events may tamp down the outrage factor a bit, but no viewer is giving Leigh the person of the year award by the end of the movie.

The other characters are similarly unlikeable, if not quite at the same level. Leigh's father is the only exception to the rule in the movie; he seems like a genuinely jovial guy that anyone would like to spend time with for a friendly brunch or something. However, he's so little seen in the movie that his presence is negligible. Leigh's mother is so wrapped up in her own affairs that she can provide absolutely no anchor or guidance for Leigh as she flounders about pathetically. Again, there's a little bit of sympathy as her mother tries to explain how for years she felt like her existence was tied up with Leigh's and now is the time in her life to do something for herself, but she is so cold and harsh throughout that it's not hard to see how Leigh could turn out the way she did. Mel is a hot mess - she was apparently the one who was the antithesis of the "good girl" in high school but now she's turned her life around and seems to have all the markers of success - she's married and holds a good, steady job as the high school vice principal. But with Leigh back in her life and her own fears about not getting pregnant - or about getting pregnant and not being a good mother - rearing their ugly head, Mel backslides and becomes involved in these stupid delinquent behaviors. Her relationship with her husband seems anything but happy for the majority of the movie, and Mel just seems to be floundering as well. Todd is unhappy with his small-town life but doesn't want to take the initiative to change anything about his life, hiding behind thin excuses and choosing to forget his troubles by drowning them in alcohol and drugs. Jason and his friends are typical conflicted teenagers but are arguably more on the "bad kid" side than most; they all appear to have a lot of baggage in their lives but most of that is explored only peripherally. For example, "Big Jason," the father of the teen, refers obliquely to some rough things that happened in his son's life but doesn't expand on this at all. Big Jason, although playing but a small part in the movie, is also a character you can't get behind. He seems to pay little to no attention to his son, despite professing that the child has had major challenges to get through, and doesn't have the slightest concern about a woman nearly twice Jason's age striking up a relationship with him.

One thing I could definitely say was of interest about the movie is that it certainly makes you think. You could argue after watching this movie that the film isn't just about a generation (specifically, my generation) of unfocused and confused people - those who are adults in name and age but haven't quite figured out what that really means yet. It's also about exposing this myth that small towns are full of wholesome goodness while big cities are where the filth lives. Leigh finds something horrific in her story at the beginning of the movie (and let's not even go in the symbolism of that story, as the movie does expound on this pretty well on its own) and leaves the city, but she doesn't find solace in her hometown. There is tragedy awaiting her in the small town, and no one there seems to be completely free of baggage or fears of some sort. Everyone seems to be in some sort of crisis, whether it's the agony of being a teenager and hating everything in your life, the confusion of being a young adult who is trying to figure out where life goes next, or the disappointment of being a middle-aged person having to re-invent yourself after a big chunk of your life has changed. It's like someone was illustrating Erik Erikson's stages of psychosocial development by showing only the negative crises.

The movie can also be seen as a commentary of gender roles and inequality in so many different aspects. While a small part of the movie, the crisis that Leigh's mother seems to be having after her daughter grows up and arguably doesn't need her any more is contrasted by her father being perfectly okay with her coming or going. Motherhood is an all-encompassing identity in a way that fatherhood isn't. This is reflected in the younger generation with Mel reacting extremely - and poorly - to the theoretical idea of becoming a parent while her husband seems completely unfazed by it. There's also the relationship between Leigh and Little Jason to consider. Early on, it's hinted that Todd is gay and Mel suggests that he may be interested in one of the boys. This seems to be condoned far more than her initial suspicions of Leigh and Little Jason's attraction to one another. Combine this with Big Jason's reaction upon hearing the news, and it's really not a pretty picture. It reflects real-life courts of opinion where older men having sex with teen-aged girls are consider perverts at best and rapists at worst while older women having sex with teen-aged boys is sadly brushed off by many as a sort of great achievement for the boys. It's a scary example of cognitive dissonance in which an age differential between sexual partners is both damaging and enviable, depending on the gender reversal. It was interesting to learn that this movie was written and directed by a woman; as I've noted before and many more articulate people than I have stated, when women get a voice in the arena everyone benefits from hearing their stories. In Hollywood, this means we get more than the standard fare of "chick flicks" that are simply romantic fantasies just as much about the leading man as the woman nominally at the heart of it. We get thought-provoking stories about all kinds of things beyond just romantic relationships and true female leads - sometimes strong and independent ones who we'd love to emulate, sometimes messy and confused ones who we vow never to become like.

Some final bits and pieces about the movie include a compelling soundtrack that meshed nicely with the cinematography and the overt themes. The cinematography was overall done very well, although there were a few scenes here and there with shaky camera work. I know this is a darling technique of filmmaker to symbolize any number of things including the characters' confused and hence shaken states of mind, but it's a pet peeve that I find distracting. When it's used too much, I feel like reprimanding the cameraperson with a stern "Just focus already!" With the pool and water being used as background - and symbols - a great deal, there's also a few times where we get the water on the camera lens issue also; this is another pet peeve of mine as I feel it serves to remind you of the fourth wall and thus takes you out of the experience of the movie's actions and into the experience of being a viewer. As I mentioned earlier, the beginning with Leigh's life in New York City was a little rushed with short clips of different situations all being sliced together in rapid succession. Perhaps the argument could be made that this was to give the viewer a sense of Leigh's confusion during this time period but I think it ended up providing a very incomplete view of what was going on at this point.

With all that mind, I'd recommend The Lifeguard for people who enjoy movies that make them think and provide slice-of-life portrayals of characters who resemble real people more than stock stereotypes. If you want action and characters you can love, don't even think about checking out this movie. But if you don't mind a messy set of characters struggling with life choices, you might just get pulled in to the pool alongside The Lifeguard.

The Feast Continues with the Characters of TV's Hannibal

With my last entry, I began to discuss the television show Hannibal created by Bryan Fuller, addressing the mood of the show as well as the basic plot with as few spoilers as I could. (Beware, however, that I am not promising this post will be spoiler free. In fact, expect spoilers if you do read this post.) Therefore, in this post it's time to move on to discussing the characters that populate Hannibal, starting with the titular character.

Dr. Hannibal Lecter

Hannibal Lecter is the eponymous character and therefore the nominal center of the show, although I personally find Will Graham the far more compelling character, at least during this first season. That being said, Dr. Lecter is certainly an interesting person and, as usual for this character, is an intriguing study in opposites. Dr. Lecter has a calm, arguably cold, exterior regardless of circumstances - probably something which serves him well in his day job as a psychiatrist. He is part of the Baltimore elite, a debonair bachelor living in a pristine house with a professional-grade kitchen (of course) and working out of a beautifully furnished office that looks more like a palatial study (think of the Beast's library in the Disney version of The Beauty and the Beast) than a workplace. Dr. Lecter is knowledgeable on many subjects, uses his words sparingly and precisely, is always impeccably dressed (down to the matching handkerchief in his suit pocket), has acquaintances amongst the upper crust, listens to classical music, and attends the opera. In fact, one of the most fascinating scenes with insight into Hannibal's mind is the one in which he weeps during the opera - this from a man who is completely stoic at the sight of a gruesome murder. Which brings us to the opposite side of this man - for all his carefully maintained exterior, he is at heart a cold and calculating murderer. When it suits his needs, he changes the style of his murders, but it is nearly always brutal and almost always for the purposes of cannibalism. And this Hannibal isn't satisfied with just feeding himself from human flesh; he loves to share his culinary masterpieces with unsuspecting guests. Whenever Hannibal makes a meal on the show, I am both impressed by the presentation of his five-star-restaurant-grade dishes and repulsed by the idea of ever eating meat again because god knows what people have been serving me under the pretense of pork loin and lamb's tongue. In all seriousness, this show has been making me consider vegetarianism more so than any other argument for it ever has.

One of the things I appreciate the most about the actor Mads Mikkelsen and his expert portrayal of Hannibal Lecter is that he isn't trying to imitate anyone else's previous version of the character. In fact, Fuller noted in an interview the exact source of Mikkelsen's Lecter: "He talked about the character ... as Satan - this fallen angel who's enamoured with mankind and had an affinity for who we are as people, but was definitely not among us - he was other. I thought that was a really cool, interesting approach, because ... not that we'd ever do anything deliberately to suggest this - but having it subtextually play as him being Lucifer felt like a really interesting kink to the series. It was slightly different than anything that's been done before and it also gives it a slightly more epic quality if you watch the show through the prism of, 'This is Satan at work, tempting someone with the apple of their psyche.'" Once I read this interview, I couldn't help seeing Mikkelsen's interpretation of Hannibal Lecter through this lens. His cold exterior doesn't just protect his secret identity as serial killer; it is who he is. He simply does not care about human life because it is something so detached from himself. Lecter is the puppet master who loves to pull the strings and watch where the marionettes go; it doesn't matter if they fall or break for he will simply change the story of the puppet theater and/or incorporate new dolls into his cast. But this interpretation of Hannibal Lecter also makes that weeping at the opera scene even more poignant - is that a moment when Lecter stops being "other" and actually feels a connection with human emotion? Or is he simply putting on his own performance for the watching Franklin and Tobias?

Dr. Lecter also seems to be finally making a human connection of some sort when he begins to admit that he is feeling a friendship for Will Graham. But, of course, because this is Dr. Lecter's twisted psyche we are talking about, his being a friend to Graham is anything but helpful. Lecter is happy to hide a serious brain condition from Will just to see what will happen if he lets it run its course and wreak havoc on Graham's mental health and life. And, of course, as we know by the end of the season, Dr. Lecter has absolutely no problem with pinning his crimes on Will Graham rather than allowing Graham to come too close to solving the mystery on his own - or perhaps he does it with the exact purpose of guiding Graham toward his secret identity. Lecter-as-Satan is interested in seeing where the chips will fall when he throws a monkey wrench in to any given situation (sorry for the mixed metaphor but it says it best), even if it means that he could be compromising his own secrets. Then again, this latter supposition may be entirely off, as we've seen Lecter throughout the first season doing whatever it takes to cover up anything that might even remotely point in his direction where crimes are involved.

Lecter-as-Satan also seems to have an unworldly quality in which he is able to discern other serial killers from thin air. Tobias follows Lecter one night and sees him murder, but Dr. Lecter seems to simply intuit from a very brief encounter with the man that Tobias is a fellow serial killer. We still don't know how Hannibal and the Minnesota Shrike relate, but something tells me that Lecter may have spotted the latter's evil tendencies in a way similar to how he determined Tobias's proclivities: He simply knew by looking at the man. I could be wrong, but it just seems like the sort of thing Dr. Lecter would do.

At any rate, I definitely appreciate Mikkelsen's approach and think it adds so much depth and personality to the character. When I first saw The Silence of the Lambs more than a decade ago, I found it psychologically terrifying. In retrospect though, Anthony Hopkins's portrayal of the cannibalistic serial killer as a creepy, bone-chilling person was perhaps over the top. It's hard to imagine Hopkins's Hannibal Lecter eluding detection from a brilliant FBI profiler when he's right in front of him. But the way Mikkelsen plays Lecter, with all his cards held close to his vest as he displays an elegant and stoic exterior, it's easy to see how even Will Graham doesn't realize one of his closest confidantes is the serial killer he's seeking. Of course, since the two actors are playing the character at very different stages in his life, perhaps it's fitting that Hopkins's Hannibal uses his crimes as taunts while Mikkelsen's Lecter instead subtly plants hints to drive people away from suspecting his role in any wrongdoing.

Will Graham

As I mentioned earlier, Will Graham is the real focal point of the show for me, especially in the earliest episodes when we were still seeing so little insight into Hannibal's actions, let alone learning any of his motivations. Hugh Dancy hasn't let me down in past roles, and he doesn't disappoint here. He completely embodies the role of a character who has so much empathy that he sometimes has difficulty distinguishing himself from the killers he profiles. The flip side of that coin is he also has a well-spring of sympathy for the victims of these crimes and therefore wants very much to help them by bringing their killers to justice. Graham also feels an inordinate amount of guilt, protectiveness, and blind idealistic faith where Abigail Hobbs is concerned. Meanwhile, he can't shake the feeling of being connected to her cannibalistic murdering father, who continues to haunt him throughout the season despite being killed by Graham in the first episode. Graham also feels a deep and sympathetic connection with murderer Georgia Madchen, which is somewhat understandable given her sad fate.

As season one progressed, the nightmares Graham had after visiting particularly blood-curdling crime scenes began to turn into waking hallucinations. Other symptoms appeared that made Graham question his own mental sanity, and Dr. Lecter's not-so-subtle hints did nothing to ease his concerns. Graham's fear of becoming mental unstable is stoked by the constant stress of a new vicious murder that he must dissect in order to find the killer, and he spirals further downward. Dancy plays all of this believably, and the viewer feels increasingly concerned for him. When the viewer begins to know more than Graham does (i.e., the brain encephalitis that Dr. Lecter hides from him), the feeling is less of concern than simply great sadness. The viewer is constantly rooting for Graham because he's the good guy of the show. It's not simply that he's the hero (albeit, a somewhat unconventional one) of the show; he's just genuinely a good guy. Graham has shown his compassion and humanity over and over again as he works the various cases of cold-blooded killing. It's heartbreaking to see him feeling so alone and repeatedly turning for help to Dr. Lecter, the one person least likely to actually provide it (although he certainly maintains a good pretense of pretending to care for Will's wellbeing).

Despite all this (or perhaps because of this), Graham's background is the one I'd most like to have fleshed out in the upcoming season. Through little hints dropped here and there, we know that Graham used to be a cop before becoming an FBI lecturer. But it had been some time since Graham had been in the field before Jack Crawford came knocking at his door. Other than that, we don't know many details of Graham's past professional life and his personal life is pretty slim on details as well. We know that he's currently single, has a plethora of stray dogs he's adopted, likes to fish, used to fix boat engines back in Louisiana as a teen, and is arguably on the autistic spectrum toward the Asperger's side. Whether he has any living family is debatable - certainly no one ever appears for him and his support system seems virtually nonexistent, which is all the more lamentable when he feels himself beginning to crack.

In addition to getting more backstory, which is my hope, I feel certain that season two will bring more forward character development for Will Graham. And he sits imprisoned for crimes he now knows were committed by Dr. Lecter, Will is going to have to prove himself as being able to convince others of his sanity and by finding the evidence to condemn Hannibal, thereby exonerating himself. Of course, I want to see Will cleared of all false charges, but I'm also a bit concerned as to where the story will go if we already see Dr. Lecter in prison this early in the game. Fuller apparently has an ambitious seven season arc planned in his mind, which will eventually - by season four, in fact - get to the source material we've already seen on the silver screen, so I trust that he knows what he's doing. In the meantime, I'm definitely curious to see where this roller coaster is going to take us next. Within a teaser video, Fuller notes that while the first season was a game of cat (Hannibal) and mouse (Will), the second season will be a game of cat and cat. I for one am interested to see how that will play out.

Jack Crawford (and to a lesser extent, Phyllis "Bella" Crawford)

Jack is the linchpin of the series in many respects for making Will Graham and Dr. Lecter come together as well as for taking Graham out of the classroom and exposing him to horrific crimes firsthand. Some time is given to developing Crawford as a character, but I think still more could be done. Crawford is clearly a sympathetic man who tells Will from the outset that he will be there for him. But when push comes to shove, he's nowhere around when Will needs him. His locker room style speech, in which he provokes Will to be a quitter but says it will haunt him, is arguably the opposite of supporting Will. In fact, by the end of season one Crawford seems to be actively working against Graham (of course, fueled with false information given by Hannibal). Given his own potential guilt in the situation as well as his position as head honcho in his department (and therefore first to be blamed by the even higher ups), it's not absurd for him to have this reaction. Nonetheless, it's disappointing to see someone who claimed to be there for Will to turn around so quickly to be against him. However, Crawford keeps his emotions far from his sleeve, so what he's feeling at this time still remains to be seen. I have hope that we'll see more of him - both physically obviously but also a deeper look into his character - in season two.

That all being said, there were two situations in season one where we really got insight into Crawford's mentality. The first came when we learned that there was some marital trouble between Jack and his wife, whom he calls Bella for her beauty. Bella reveals in a secret session with Dr. Lecter that she has terminal lung cancer but hasn't been able to tell Jack yet. Jack knows something is wrong but doesn't suspect anything close to the truth. As Crawford and Will question a serial killer's wife and she describes how his cancer caused him to drift away from the family, we see the light bulb go off for Jack. It's such a wonderful moment of acting from Laurence Fishburne - we see Crawford come to a stunning and horrifying realization, thinking through its ramifications, and then having to put on a professional face to finish up his job but not before he starts to tear up a little. This moment also highlights an important aspect of Crawford - he's a profiler himself and one who has done remarkably well for himself. This fact is often eclipsed when Will Graham arrives on a crime scene and imagines much more about the killer than anyone else there has reasoned out yet. Unfortunately, the cancer subplot is one that gets left along the wayside as the rest of the season speeds along toward its tragic conclusion. We really don't hear of Bella's cancer again let alone see her on screen. However, knowing that Crawford has this personal crises lurking in the background makes it more understandable that he is not as available to support Will as he thought he would be back when he promised Graham to be by his side should the going get tough.

The second situation that shows off Crawford's personality is when the Chesapeake Ripper case resurfaces. We learn that this was one of Crawford's cases that went cold and the killer eluded him; worse still, a young cadet who Crawford pulled out of training to work on this case was murdered by the Ripper as a result. Thus, we see Crawford struggling with his own guilt and becoming obsessed with finding the Chesapeake Ripper once and for all. The Ripper - who we know is Dr. Lecter, a man even closer to Crawford than ever - plays on the harp strings of Crawford's conscience, sending him messages of the trainee's dying words to get under his skin. It certainly does and in moments of weakness, we see Crawford having nightmares that rival Will's nighttime fears.

One last side note on Jack Crawford: as the show progressed into the winter months, Crawford began walking around more often in a trench coat and fedora-style hat. He looked the very picture of a film noir detective and also reminded me of Pushing Daisies's private eye Emerson Cod, which just made me happy. With that silly note aside, let's move on to the "lesser extent" of this part. Crawford's wife Bella is an interesting character of whom the viewer unfortunately sees little. She's a NATO worker who has been married to Jack for some time, presumably happily all that time. When she gets her cancer diagnoses, she shuts down and refuses to talk to her husband, deciding instead to confide in Dr. Lecter - albeit a psychiatrist but also one who works with her husband. But perhaps telling such a burdensome secret to a person she's only met once is less emotionally upsetting to her than talking to someone who cares for her and for whom she loves very much. I think it would be telling to see what Bella was like before her cancer diagnosis for the present Bella is very cold and is actively trying to emotionally stonewall those who love her. And here's one more Pushing Daisies connection before moving on to the next character: Bella Crawford is played by Gina Torres, who also played the role of Emerson's former love interest Lila Robinson.

Dr. Alana Bloom

Dr. Bloom is another character I'd like to see more fully developed in the coming season. Although she is member of the regular cast and shows up in most episodes, she often seems more like a vehicle to move the show in one direction or another than a character in her own right. Dr. Bloom is an FBI psychiatrist who works on cases and in the classroom, thus having a history with Will Graham previous to the pilot episode. She is the one who first recommends Dr. Lecter to Jack Crawford as someone to act as the unofficial psychiatrist to Will Graham; she also serves as a potential love interest. These two facts seem to be her biggest functions in the show, but Dr. Bloom has other important roles to play. Despite obviously respecting Dr. Lecter so much, she is not afraid to disagree with him when Jack asks for their help on a particular case. Dr. Bloom worked on the original Dr. Gideon case (more on this later), which heightens her role (and threatens her safety) in the episodes where he appears.

She is also the closest thing Will has to a friend, although he clearly feels more for her than just friendship, which is perhaps why the Dr. Alan Bloom of the books became the Dr. Alana Bloom of the TV show. As the season progresses, it's clear that she also feels more for him although she's not ready for a relationship with him (or anyone else for that matter). Although I'm not usually much of one for romances, the scene in which they kiss for the first time made me feel all gushy and "aww" for them, even if nothing came out of it. Nonetheless, I was rooting for them to get together then and I'm still hoping it's something that can come to pass later on in their lives. For a show with so much darkness and depravity, it would be nice to have some relief for that. Likewise, for characters who have such sadness around them always, the viewer wants them to have a happy ending in there somewhere, somehow.

Incidentally, there's also an earlier scene in which Dr. Lecter makes some wry comment toward Dr. Bloom and she responds that he's being just like Will by trying to "flirtatiously change the subject." As this occurs before the episode with the on-screen kiss between Dr. Bloom and Graham, it's a moment that allows you to realize that Dr. Bloom is intuitive enough to read Will's feelings for her even if she hasn't otherwise let on to this fact at this point in the series. It's also a very telling moment for Dr. Lecter and his personality. Whenever Will would make flirty comments towards Dr. Bloom, you could tell that underneath the grin he puts on as a front, he really means this stuff - perhaps he's even secretly hoping that Dr. Bloom will call his bluff and agree with him wholeheartedly. But when Dr. Lecter makes his supposedly flirtatious remark, he comes across then as more asexual than in any other moment in the show. It's as though he's simply reading a line that he thinks he should say at this moment, as though he's been studying humans from a distance and now tries - and fails - to recreate their speech patterns.

Like with Will Graham and Jack Crawford, we don't get a ton of backstory on Dr. Bloom. There's little information given on her personal life or what she does outside of the FBI. This is something I'd like to see more of in the next season, especially if she and Graham do eventually get together as a couple. Despite not a lot of depth in the source material, I give lots of props to Caroline Dhavernas for filling this role with so much passion. The scene in the series finale in which she sits in her car alone and mutely screams over and over again was one of the most poignant moments in a very emotional episode. In fact, I'm embarrassed to say that she so fully entered this character that I didn't even realize I was watching the same actor who portrayed the main character in Wonderfalls.

Abigail Hobbs

Abigail Hobbs is an incredibly complicated character who adds so much depth to the show. The daughter of a serial killer who was nearly killed by that same man, she is emotionally damaged as well as physically injured by the evil acts her father committed. It is perhaps because of this that she is so lost and willing to cling on to anyone, even Hannibal Lecter. Despite realizing that her father's last phone call came from Lecter, Abigail trusts Hannibal completely - far more than she trusts Will, who is actually the one interested in her wellbeing rather than protecting his own interests. Abigail also latches on to Dr. Bloom, but it's only to Dr. Lecter that she will confess her darkest secrets. Abigail's troubled soul really amped up the emotional impact of Hannibal, and it's sad that her character will most likely not be appearing again in the second season.

Freddie Lounds

Another complicated character, Freddie Lounds is a crime reporter working for the blog TattleCrime. In the beginning of the series, she is especially antagonistic toward Will Graham, calling him insane and writing that he can catch psychopaths because he is one himself. As the first season proceeds forward, Lounds becomes closer to Abigail and intends to help her write a book about being the daughter of an infamous serial killer. Freddie's dubious information-collecting methods and tabloid writing mean that sometimes she is hampering police investigations while other times she is actually helping out the FBI. Meanwhile, her motivations are never entirely clear: Is she doing this just for money and infamy? Or does she also believe that her actions will help to take down criminals and thus bring justice? Usually, it seems like the former but at times the latter seems to prevail. For instance, she seems more sincerely concerned with Abigail's finding closure than Dr. Lecter does. Actor Lara Jean Chorostecki does a great job with this character; the scene that she really nails on the head is when Dr. Gideon kidnaps Lounds and forces her to be his assistant as he dissects the still living Dr. Chilton. She appears cool, calm, and collected yet you can still read the fear and concern underneath the facade she puts on to make it through the situation.

An interesting thing about this character is how Hannibal creators decided once again to play with the cannon. In the original novels and movies, Freddy Lounds is a male reporter who is described as unattractive and slovenly. Here Freddie is a beautiful woman with good taste and perfect grooming. As the world of Hannibal is already very male-centric with Will and Hannibal taking up most of the screen time, it feels right to inject another woman into the story. In fact, Fuller says as much in an interview: "I wanted to have more of a [gender] balance. In the last six episodes, I was so happy with the richness of the female characters and how they were representing many different points of view of the world’s stories." It's not the 1970s anymore; women are crime reporters as often as men are and are just as determined to get to the story no matter what cost, so this was a brilliant move on Fuller's part. In an interview, Chorostecki notes how Fuller told her the newly imagined Freddie Lounds was based on Rebekah Brooks, the real-life tabloid news editor who scandalized a nation when accusations emerged that she hacked victims' voicemails to get the scoop. Chorosteck goes on to explain: "I went home after this meeting and read a great Vanity Fair article about Rebekah Brooks ... and it was a great kind of insight into who Freddie might be. She’s a younger version and I call her spirited. She’s unflappable and she ignores the rules at every point possible, if she needs to. And she’s really good at her job, so I think that’s something. She sometimes fails, but she always manages to find her way around things." Freddie Lounds is such a rich character, with a whole depth of motivations and history to explore yet, that I'm sure we'll be seeing more of her in season two as well.

Dr. Bedelia Du Maurier

Dr. Du Maurier is a new addition to the characters of the novels and thus a way to play with the cannon, keeping viewers on their toes. She is yet another complex character whose motivations are murky at best. Dr. Du Maurier serves as Dr. Lecter's own personal psychiatrist, and indeed is his very own all alone, for after being attacked by a patient, Dr. Du Maurier went into retirement. Dr. Lecter refused to take a referral for another psychiatrist and now goes to Dr. Du Maurier's house to continue his sessions as her one remaining patient. This is a mystery that continues to simmer; there is clearly a lot more going on with this backstory of the attacking patient who knew both Drs. Du Maurier and Lecter. What role Hannibal played in either orchestrating or stopping the attack (or in all likelihood, given Hannibal's nature, both) remains to be seen. The relationship here is tense: Dr. Du Maurier is clearly comfortable enough to continue seeing Lecter as a patient even in her own home but in the very first episode in which she appears, she says in no uncertain terms that they are not friends - despite Lecter noting that they are friendly. Dr. Du Maurier seems to know or at least sense that Hannibal is dangerous, but she does not seem to be concerned that he is a threat to herself. Of course, we know that Hannibal has no concern when it comes to hurting or killing someone close to him if it will suit his purposes, so Dr. Du Maurier might want to take notice.

Again, I thought it was a good move to add some more female members to the cast to help round it out. Dr. Du Maurier is a compelling character because she appears equally fragile and tough all at once, as though this attack on her both rattled and strengthened her at the same time. This seems like a very true-to-life response, although we'll have to know more of the attack details to see if this supposition of mine is correct. Dr. Du Maurier has only shown up in a handful of episodes so far, though I suspect we will see more of her as we delve into this secret shared by her and Hannibal. (Indeed, a very brief teaser for the second season has Dr. Du Maurier popping up several times.) She is expertly portrayed by Gillian Anderson, who plays Du Maurier as almost emotionless so placid is her face and calmly evenly her voice, thus hiding anything that might betray this secret history. It was actually a headline about Gillian Anderson taking on this role that first alerted me to the existence of this show and made me a bit curious to find out what it was all about, although it was discovering that Fuller was at the creative helm that made me decide to start watching it.

Beverly Katz

Perhaps the influence of CSI has been so great that no crime procedural show in the modern era can exist without someone somewhere analyzing to death every scrap of anything left behind at a crime scene. Hannibal seems to be no exception to this trend. This is all well and good, but there are already enough shows out there that do this and the introduction of the next three characters I'm about to discuss do little to add to the complexity of Hannibal's world. Beverly Katz is one of three FBI crime scene investigators who interact with Will Graham when he's on a case. She's the one who is the most interested in Graham's ability to get into the minds of serial killers, provides helpful advice to him when she can, and seems occasionally to get through his emotional barriers to act as a friend. But for the most part, she's a pretty blasé character with no real depth of her own. Nevertheless, she is a series regular, and I struggle with determining why she was considered as an essential character on the show. The times when she acts as a sounding board for Graham could just have easily been times he turned to Dr. Bloom if Beverly were not a character on the show. At times, I think she was meant to serve as the "comic relief" of the show as she frequently has a snarky comment to make at a crime scene. But generally the dark humor she spouts comes across more as a sad testimony to how hardened the crime scene investigators are to the horror they see than as something actually humorous. By the final episodes of season one when Will is spiraling further down his personal descent, this character finally felt useful for me because her former almost permanent smirk is replaced by deep-seated worry about Graham becoming mentally unstable. Portrayed by Asian-American actor Hettienne Park, Beverly also brings some much-needed racial diversity to a show that is largely populated by Caucasians.

Z and Jimmy

Tweedledum and Tweedledee here round out the trio of crime scene investigators who interact with Will regularly on cases. For some reason, despite appearing in nearly every single episode of the show thus far, these two actors are listed as "guest stars" every week rather than series regulars like Hettienne Park. Portrayed by Aaron Abrams and Scott Thompson respectively, Z and Jimmy also seem like they are there to serve as the comic relief (especially given that Scott Thompson is known more as a comedian than an actor). However, just like with Beverly Katz, I don't necessarily find them that entertaining. Take a snippet of conversation between the trio and Will as they discuss the bodies left behind by the Angel Maker serial killer:

Beverly Katz: "Death makes angels of us all and gives us wings where we had shoulders smooth as raven's claws."
Brian Zeller: Robert Frost.
Will Graham: Jim Morrison.
Beverly Katz: Even a drunk with a flair for the dramatic can convince himself he's God. Or the Lizard King.
Jimmy Price: God makes angels. Jesus was fond of fishermen. Are we talking hardcore Judeo Christian upsetting, or just upsetting in general?
Will Graham: This is a very specific upsetting.
Brian Zeller: Increased serotonin in the wounds is much higher than the free histamines, so, uh... she lived for about fifteen minutes after she was skinned.
Jimmy Price: Powder residue on the neck of the soda bottle shows Vecuronium - scotch and soda and a paralytic agent.
Brian Zeller: Kneeling in supplication at the feet of G-dash-D.
Jimmy Price: Supplication is the most common form of prayer. "Gimme, gimme, gimme."

This quick exchange is no doubt meant to be funny but it mostly came across as callous, with only Will's doubly meaningful line of "This is a very specific upsetting" reminding us that these are people who have been horribly treated both in the manner of their murder and the desecration of their bodies after death. Like I said earlier, Will is always the one to provide the context and the human compassion in every case.

But I do have to admit that the two of them finally being stunned into silence by the revelation that Will might be a serial killer within their midst made that moment even more hard hitting. If they hadn't been goofing around at previous crime scenes, their reactions wouldn't have been so priceless. Nonetheless, their roles are so limited that I didn't know Z's full name was Brian Zeller or even have any idea with Jimmy's name was at all until I looked up the show's cast. In an early episode, Z remarked something to Freddie Lounds about her using him for information, which gave the impression that we might learn more about him outside the crime scene/crime lab, but so far that has not been true. Maybe these characters will get larger roles with deeper characterizations in the future; if not, I don't see much of a point of them being around and would be fine with them slowly fading away into the background.

Dr. Abel Gideon

Portrayed by the always wonderful Eddie Izzard, Dr. Abel Gideon is a patient at a psychiatric hospital for the criminally insane, where he ended up after murdering his wife and her entire family. While there, Dr. Gideon becomes convinced that he is the Chesapeake Ripper, opening up a Pandora's box of mayhem after he kills a hospital nurse using the modus operandi of the Ripper. The real Chesapeake Ripper (aka Hannibal Lecter) can't stand by idly and let an imposter tarnish his good name so he is compelled after years of (seemingly) inactivity to kill again. Dr. Gideon is a horribly wicked character who it's just so hard to hate despite his evil acts. His genuine confusion as to whether he is the Chesapeake Ripper or not makes it abundantly clear just how mentally ill he really is. His hatred of the psychiatrists who did little to help him is perhaps understandable; his desire to brutally kill them as a result is not. His witty repartee belies his true intelligence hidden under the haze of mental illness. Izzard did wonders with this character, making him at turns laughable, pitiable, and horrifying. Although he's mostly served his purpose on this show, I wouldn't mind if Dr. Gideon popped up again on Hannibal in the future.

Dr. Frederick Chilton

Dr. Chilton is an important character in the Hannibal Lecter cannon, but here he has only shown up in a couple of episodes so far. Nonetheless, he played an instrumental role in Lecter's life by being the psychiatrist to convince Dr. Gideon that he was really the Chesapeake Ripper and thus resulting in Lecter's subsequent rampage to show the world that the real Ripper was still at large. Dr. Chilton is a very unlikeable character not only for driving a patient to believe himself to be an even worse murderer than he is, but also for antagonistically taunting Will about his ability to see through the eyes of a serial killer. Nevertheless, he doesn't deserve the fate he got of being nearly eviscerated to death at the hands of Dr. Gideon. And despite being a character so easy to dislike, I did enjoy the interactions between him, Dr. Lecter, and Dr. Bloom in which they discussed various aspects of psychotherapy and criminal psychology. I doubt that we've seen the last of Dr. Chilton in this series, so I hope than when we see him again, we'll get more of the psychological talks and less of the cruelty. After nearly being murdered, perhaps Dr. Chilton will have toned down his haughty attitude. Pushing Daisies fans will be recognize Raul Esparza, the actor who plays Dr. Chilton, as Alfredo from season one of that show. Kudos to him for displaying his acting chops with a character so very different from the sweet door-to-door salesman of homeopathic mood-enhancers with a secret hankering for Olive Snook.

Georgia Madchen

Georgia Madchen was both one of the creepiest and most pathetic of the killers to appear on the show so far. Unlike the others, she is not a serial killer but a mentally ill woman who murdered one person so viciously that Will was called in on that case. Still, she's the one who is the most spine-chilling and haunting, perhaps because of her disheveled appearance and inability to see clearly, even if in a warped way. Although she only showed up in a couple of episodes and won't appear in future ones, Georgia Madchen was such an engaging character that I feel it wouldn't be right to walk away from this post without mentioning her briefly. Georgia has a very rare psychological disorder that affects her perception. For starters, she doesn't even realize that she's still alive. Georgia also can't see the faces of others, which is what caused her to rip apart the face of her friend when she murdered her. She has been/feels abandoned by her mother and the professionals who can't find a cure for the mental illness she's had since childhood. When Will is able to see into her mind clearly and figure out her motives for killing a childhood friend, she becomes obsessed with Will and stalks him, not with the intention of hurting him but so that she can find out if she really is still alive. This ends up being her undoing as she stumbles across Dr. Lecter in the process of murdering someone in order to frame Graham. He doesn't realize - or at least not right away - that she couldn't see his face so he kills her as well, pinning that murder on Will also. Besides her rare mental illness, one of the other interesting things about Georgia Madchen is that she is played by Ellen Muth, star of Bryan Fuller's show Dead Like Me, in which she played a character also named Georgia who was actually dead.

In addition to Ellen Muth and those I've mentioned above, three other actors who made appearances in Hannibal also had roles in Fuller's past TV shows: Ellen Greene (Aunt Vivian in Pushing Daisies) made a brief appearance as one of Hannibal's socialite acquaintances, Molly Shannon (a guest star on Pushing Daisies) guest starred in an episode where she coached young children to kill their biological families (one of those episodes where the killer's motivations were never fully explained to my satisfaction), and Chelan Simmons reprised her Wonderfalls role of Gretchen Speck in episode two of the first season of Hannibal. My personal favorite crossover tidbit is that there's talk of an upcoming guest star who will play the role of an acupuncturist named "Katherine Pimms" - the pseudonym used by Chuck's character in Pushing Daisies whenever she went undercover.

All of these appearances suggest that we'll see other fan favorites from the "Fullerverse" in Hannibal's season two. Personally, I think I'd love to see Lee Pace make a guest appearance on a future episode; with his acting prowess, he'd be sure to do great in any role given to him. But then again, given that his likely choice of roles would either be serial killer or victim, I'm not sure I want to see "Ned" tainted in that way. In all likelihood though, we'll be seeing him as Fuller has already noted that he originally intended to find a place for Lee Pace in season one.

How about you, dear reader? Is this anyone you'd like to see guest star on Hannibal in the upcoming season(s)? What characters would you like to see further developed? Where do you want the plotlines to go? Pray, do tell!

A Feast for the Mind: Hannibal on the Small Screen

As some of you loyal long-time readers may recall, some time back I was on a quest to watch all the shows developed by Bryan Fuller, making my way through the charmingly surreal Pushing Daisies, the puzzlingly bizarre Dead Like Me, and the quirkily comic Wonderfalls. Having thought I had exhausted all that Fuller's creative mind had come up with so far, imagine my delight when I discovered that a new show I had heard some buzz about was another of Fuller's creations. Fuller's latest venture is in many ways starkly different from the others, although there are certainly some similarities as well.

But just what is that venture, you ask? It's none other than a television show based on everyone's favorite villain, Hannibal Lecter. The latest Hannibal delves into the mind of the psychiatrist turned cannibalistic serial killer in the years before he is caught. Hannibal begins with Jack Crawford, the head of the FBI's Behavioral Sciences unit, seeking help from Will Graham, cop-turned-instructor in profiling at the FBI academy, in catching a serial killer known as the Minnesota Shrike. Graham is highly effective because he doesn't just think through what a killer would do; he reconstructs the events of the murder casting himself in the role of the killer. He so completely identifies with the killer that the lines between him and the killer are beyond blurred - they no longer exist as Graham wholly takes on the identity of the murderer. Concerned for Graham's mental wellbeing, Crawford consults with Graham's friend and FBI psychiatrist Dr. Alana Bloom, who recommends that Will be paired up with her colleague Dr. Hannibal Lecter to keep an eye on Graham's mental health. Thus, Dr. Lecter becomes privy to the inner workings of Will Graham's mind while also learning a great deal of detail about FBI cases involving grizzly murders, usually at the hands of serial killers.

Hannibal is such a multi-layered show that it's hard to know where to begin when discussing it. One of the things I very much enjoy about the show is that it is, as the credits put it, "based on the characters" from author Thomas Harris's novel Red Dragon, rather than based on his novels themselves, which have already been treated in Hollywood movies. Because of that, Hannibal plays with the characters and plotlines of the story already well known by fans of the novels and/or movies. It does not stray from the characterizations (for instance, Hannibal Lecter is not suddenly a great guy who would never dream of killing and eating other people), but it can play around with the timing of certain events as well as add or take away interactions between Graham and Lecter as needed/desired to make new emotional impacts and plot twists. Creator Bryan Fuller speaks to this in an interview, in which he said: "I felt that there was an opportunity to tell a chapter of [Lecter's] story that hadn't been told before. We've see him incarcerated, we've seen him post-incarceration having escaped, and we saw him as a young man, but we haven't seen him as a practicing psychiatrist and a practicing cannibal. That's the most interesting part of his life and for some reason, it hadn't been the subject of any of the stories. The backstory was the only indication that we got of what he was like when he was out in the world. It just seemed like it was rich, unexplored territory - so it seemed like that was valid. ... As a fan of the books, I wanted to be true to the novels and yet be able to go to new and different places with the characters. But you have to honor the source material, you have to respect it, because… it's great!" Being such an avid fan of the original novels and movies, Fuller is clearly happy to embrace them but to also do so while adding his own dramatic flair. And while the show is in some ways trying to find a place in the canon (several interviews with cast and crew have indicated that the events in the show are occurring four or five years before Red Dragon), it is not a period piece. Fuller made the bold choice not to have this set in the late 1970s, which would be the correct time period for these events if they are occurring just before the events of Red Dragon, but has it set instead in the present day. Thus, all the conveniences of modern-day life - including and perhaps most importantly, all the fancy equipment in today's crime labs - are seen throughout the show.

This means that Hannibal's fresh new insights allow for uninitiated audiences to the Lecter cannon to be able to watch the show without feeling lost. If you've never read or seen The Silence of the Lambs, you can still watch this show from the beginning without missing any major plot points. What's especially fun (if anything about this incredibly dark show can be called fun) about that is there was almost an air of mystery to the first few episodes of the show. Viewers in the know are aware that Lecter is a cannibal, that he is the Chesapeake Ripper, and other such facts, but these points are only very vaguely hinted at in the show's introduction. It's only later that Hannibal's crimes begin to be revealed without a doubt. But before then, all bets are on. For instance, when the Minnesota Shrike was introduced in the pilot episode and Graham is the first one to deduce that he is eating his victims, my gut reaction was that this serial killer would turn out to be Dr. Lecter. I was of course wrong, although the show did allude to a connection between the actual killer and Lecter - a connection that continues to remain a bit of mystery as the show approaches its second season.

Another thing the show does very well is open a Pandora's box of mystery and mayhem with plotlines that hold significance beyond a single episode, unlike the typical cop procedural show in which each murder(s) grips the viewer for one episode only and then disappears. There is some of the latter in Hannibal, and I found it unfortunate that the larger (and certainly more important) stories sometimes crowded out the full fleshing out of other storylines. But let me step back and try to explain my meaning here a little better. As I mentioned, the first episode introduced a serial killer known as the Minnesota Shrike, who had purportedly kidnapped and murdered eight college girls in his state, although their bodies were never found. Graham's insights caught the murderer, but not before he killed his own wife and attempted to kill his daughter Abigail (who just happens to bear a remarkable resemblance to the missing girls) and not before his crimes inspire a copycat killer. In a typical procedural show, that would be the end of the story. But here, this story continues on. Both Graham and Lecter take on the role of guardian to the newly orphaned Abigail, although they each have their own motives for doing so, and she shows up several more times throughout season one. Throughout the rest of the thirteen episodes of season one, Graham is haunted by visions of a giant elk, which symbolizes the Minnesota Shrike and the disturbing antler room where he mounted his victims. The copycat killer, who we deduce almost immediately is Dr. Lecter, remains at large and thus is someone whose existence is constantly lurking in the back of Graham's and Crawford's minds. The other major ongoing plotline is the search for the Chesapeake Ripper, a serial killer who has eluded Crawford in the past and left a heavy emotional impact on him as a result of his actions. Now that Graham is on the case, there's perhaps hope of finding him at last ... but, of course, we know the Chesapeake Ripper is Dr. Lecter, and even Graham cannot imagine (at least not at this point in his life) that his confidante is the evil person for whom he is seeking. Thus, the Chesapeake Ripper is a recurrent concern for all the major characters.

Still, like I said, there are some serial killers introduced that I feel get the short treatment. For instance, the second episode introduces a pharmacist who is putting diabetic people into comas so that he can bury them alive and use them as a plant food for his mushroom garden. When he learns that Graham can get inside his mindset, he decides to do Graham a "favor" by kidnapping the then-comatose Abigail to add to his mushroom garden. When Graham stops him before he gets out of the hospital with Abigail, the pharmacist tells him that Graham is missing out on the opportunity to communicate freely with Abigail via the mushrooms. This serial killer and his very bizarre theories were never fully explained to my satisfaction. What exactly is his obsession with mushrooms? Why does he think they can help people communicate? And most importantly, if he thought Graham needed to communicate with Abigail, who was he himself trying to communicate with via his garden? It certainly didn't seem like the random patients he saw in his practice were the goal audience. This particular storyline dropped away as quickly as it appeared and seemed all along only to be a vehicle to further show off Will's prowess of getting into the serial killer's mind as well as a reminder of his deep connection with Abigail. This is only one example; there were other serial killers, such as the Angel Maker, who came along and committed horrific crimes that were never mentioned again outside of their set episode.

Speaking of such horrible things, an important disclaimer is that this show is not for the faint of heart. The crimes concocted by the serial killers here and displayed in all their gory detail make shows like Criminal Minds seem like tales for kids. As one of the actors from the show explained in an interview: "Quite frankly, I don't think that there's anything on network TV that can compare with Hannibal and I think that's really exciting. It’s very smart of NBC to be picking up a show that has so much of a cable feel to it. ... If the networks really want to keep audiences, [dark shows are] what they're going to have to cater to in a good way because it's good TV. We need more Breaking Bads, Mad Men, Walking Deads and Homelands on NBC, ABC, CBS and FOX." While I agree with her in general, there were actually times I had to put a hand out to cover up what was shown on the screen because it was just too unsettling. Over time, Graham begins to have nightmares and hallucinations regarding the things he's seen in the field, and I can certainly sympathize. Having watched a bunch of episodes in one day, I found myself that night having a hard time falling asleep with all those creepy images in my head. In Fuller's other shows Dead Like Me and Pushing Daisies where, yes, death was a thing - and with murder being the subject in the latter - the victim's bodies weren't gruesome per se. Indeed, on Pushing Daisies, the strange deaths that met these victims often gave a comic look to their corpses, allowing for the dark humor that show excelled at achieving. Here there really is little humor beyond the occasional witty line to lighten the very bleak mood of the show, although I think perhaps that's for the best as it's fitting with the show's mood.

Speaking of mood, the show's plot is enhanced by an appropriate atmosphere that covers every aspect of the show. Each episode of the show is given the French name of a course in a five-star meal, quietly reminding the viewer each week of the cannibalistic nature of one of the show's main characters while also gently evoking the elegant lifestyle he fronts. The music is subtle but always fits any given moment perfectly whether it's a light-hearted piece of classical music for a dinner party or an eerie tone for one of Will's darker moments.  Largely set in the mid-Atlantic region of the U.S. as well as Minnesota but filmed on location in Ontario, Canada, the backdrop reminds me of the early seasons of The X-Files, which were filmed in Vancouver, Canada. The landscapes are largely rural areas where it's cold, it's rainy, it's snowy, and/or it's grey. These landscapes serve to perfectly capture the bleak outlook of a show about a finely tuned but heartless serial killer matching wits with a mentally unstable but righteous FBI profiler. To quote again from one of the show's actors, she notes that "Hannibal is filmic -- there are a lot of surreal elements in it. It’s very psychologically-based. Hannibal’s tone is so different than anything I’m seeing on network television right now. ... Hannibal is very film-like with high production values and great actors." Indeed, there were a lot of times - especially with Will's crime re-constructions, nightmares, and hallucinations - when I would think to myself that the special effects were visually stunning and most of have cost a boatload to create, both in money and time. But the finished product is worth it, with a result that does indeed feel more cinematic than the usual fare on TV. The fine directing also pushes toward this finished masterpiece; several of the episodes were directed by the excellent David Slade, who also directed the pilot for NBC's one-season cop drama Awake (ah, but what a season!). And the icing on the cake with Hannibal is that the viewer is in a special place of almost omniscience throughout the show. While we don't know every single thing going on here (we are certainly kept in the dark about the characters' past lives and many of Hannibal's actions as well as his motivations), we get to see a lot more than any other single character knows at any given time (with the exception maybe of Hannibal himself, who can probably surmise a lot of what he doesn't physically see himself).

This post is a bit rambling, but I think I've covered a decent amount of the basic plotlines for newbies without giving away too much in terms of spoilers as well as discussed some of the thematic mood. As it's already a lengthy post, I've decided to break this down into a two-part post to spare you a very long read. In the next entry, I'll dig deeper into the character development and acting as those components are a huge part of what makes this show so successful.

"Great Expectations, We Had the Greatest Expectations"

For a week now, I've not been feeling particularly well so I've been spending my spare time resting as much as possible. Mostly, this has meant laying down and watching something or other that I've already seen so that I'll fall asleep sooner rather than later. But last night I was getting a little bored of just re-watching TV episodes I'd had seen once or twice already. So I scrolled through my Netflix queue looking for something to lift my spirits a little and ended up choosing the most recent TV adaptation of Charles Dickens's classic novel Great Expectations from the BBC and PBS's Masterpiece Theatre - I know, super cheery, right?

Going into viewing the 2011 version of Great Expectations, I didn't have much by way of expectations actually. Somehow, despite my love of costume dramas based on great literature (and in this case, based on a beloved book by one of my favorite authors), I hadn't really heard any buzz about this adaptation. Basically, the only reason it was on my radar at all was because I had heard that Gillian Anderson played the character of the eccentric Miss Havisham. Based on the strength of Ms. Anderson's previous acting chops alone (okay, and my love of Dickens), I decided to check this version out. Almost immediately, I was blown away on how well done this adaptation was and enjoyed this fresh look at the work. Stunning cinematography, haunting music that enhanced the ambiance, authentic settings, and excellent costuming and make-up were just the beginning of great elements brought together for this adaptation.

I'd be the first to admit that Dickens can be melodramatic at times (hey, it was the Victorian era he was writing in), and it seems that previous adaptations of Great Expectations liked to yuk this up. Instantly, the viewer sees that's not going to be the case in this version. Instead, we have a realistic view of Victorian England, the gritty underside to all those beautiful costume dramas to which we've become accustomed. The miniseries opens - as the book does - with Magwitch escaping a prison ship and coming across the young Pip on the marshes on his way back home after visiting his parents' graves in the little churchyard nearby. Dickens describes Magwitch as "A fearful man, all in coarse gray, with a great iron on his leg. A man with no hat, and with broken shoes, and with an old rag tied round his head. A man who had been soaked in water, and smothered in mud, and lamed by stones, and cut by flints, and stung by nettles, and torn by briars; who limped, and shivered, and glared, and growled; and whose teeth chattered in his head as he seized me by the chin." In past versions, Magwitch seems only frightful to a young boy like Pip and perhaps has a smudge of dirt on his face and some unkempt hair. But this Magwitch is terrifying on first sight and shocks the viewer as much as he does Pip. He is covered in mud and blood and is more than menacing (nearly savage) when he happens upon Pip along the dreary and isolated marshes, and that's when the viewer immediately knows this is going to be a different kind of adaptation. Everywhere you look, there is something realistic about the characters and settings, down to the minutest details like the peeling paint on the Gargerys' house and the constant mud holes in the lane leading up to their home. It doesn't matter if some of those attempts for realism involve grit and grime: this is the England that Dickens knew and wrote about and not all of it is pretty.

And it's not just in appearances alone that we have a different take on the classic novel - it's also in the characters. Two of the most iconic characters from Great Expectations are that of Miss Havisham and her adopted daughter Estella. Miss Havisham is perhaps best described as the melodramatic extreme of the scorned spinster. After having been jilted on her wedding day, time just stops for Miss Havisham and she never picks up her life again. When introducing this character for the first time, Dickens describes her as thus:

In an arm-chair, with an elbow resting on the table and her head leaning on that hand, sat the strangest lady I have ever seen, or shall ever see. She was dressed in rich materials,—satins, and lace, and silks,—all of white. Her shoes were white. And she had a long white veil dependent from her hair, and she had bridal flowers in her hair, but her hair was white. Some bright jewels sparkled on her neck and on her hands, and some other jewels lay sparkling on the table. Dresses, less splendid than the dress she wore, and half-packed trunks, were scattered about. She had not quite finished dressing, for she had but one shoe on,—the other was on the table near her hand,—her veil was but half arranged, her watch and chain were not put on, and some lace for her bosom lay with those trinkets, and with her handkerchief, and gloves, and some flowers, and a Prayer-Book all confusedly heaped about the looking-glass. It was not in the first few moments that I saw all these things, though I saw more of them in the first moments than might be supposed. But I saw that everything within my view which ought to be white, had been white long ago, and had lost its lustre and was faded and yellow. I saw that the bride within the bridal dress had withered like the dress, and like the flowers, and had no brightness left but the brightness of her sunken eyes. I saw that the dress had been put upon the rounded figure of a young woman, and that the figure upon which it now hung loose had shrunk to skin and bone. Once, I had been taken to see some ghastly waxwork at the Fair, representing I know not what impossible personage lying in state. Once, I had been taken to one of our old marsh churches to see a skeleton in the ashes of a rich dress that had been dug out of a vault under the church pavement. Now, waxwork and skeleton seemed to have dark eyes that moved and looked at me. I should have cried out, if I could.

...

It was then I began to understand that everything in the room had stopped, like the watch and the clock, a long time ago. I noticed that Miss Havisham put down the jewel exactly on the spot from which she had taken it up. As Estella dealt the cards, I glanced at the dressing-table again, and saw that the shoe upon it, once white, now yellow, had never been worn. I glanced down at the foot from which the shoe was absent, and saw that the silk stocking on it, once white, now yellow, had been trodden ragged. Without this arrest of everything, this standing still of all the pale decayed objects, not even the withered bridal dress on the collapsed form could have looked so like grave-clothes, or the long veil so like a shroud.
So she sat, corpse-like, as we played at cards; the frillings and trimmings on her bridal dress, looking like earthy paper. I knew nothing then of the discoveries that are occasionally made of bodies buried in ancient times, which fall to powder in the moment of being distinctly seen; but, I have often thought since, that she must have looked as if the admission of the natural light of day would have struck her to dust. 

In previous adaptations, Miss Havisham is presented almost as a quaintly eccentric woman who doesn't leave her house much and occasionally dons her would-be wedding dress but otherwise seems to hold it together. In this adaptation, Gillian Anderson plumbs much deeper psychological depths to bring to the screen a truly pathetic - and in turn, frightening - Miss Havisham. This Miss Havisham is fragile both psychologically and physically. She has a deep fear of abandonment - a self-fulfilling complex of abandonment, actually - and hungers desperately for the little companionship she has in Estella. She stands with her head tilted toward her listeners and eagerly awaits to see how her words will impact the listener: 'Am I getting the desired result or not?' she seems to worry.

Anderson as Miss Havisham

Her hair is not brushed and coming more undone and wild over time, her feet are bare and dirty, her lips are severely chapped, and her skin is unearthly in its paleness. Miss Havisham still carries herself as a lady in her posture and gait, but her mental illness manifests itself clearly - and outside of her control when she is nervous - in a self-mutilating tic of picking at her hand in the same spot until it festers. To play Miss Havisham, Anderson adjusted her voice to a breathy falsetto, which serves to reinforce the idea of her being fragile while also giving her an otherworldly eeriness. She is truly an object of pity mixed with a frightful glimpse at what mental illness can do to a person. This Miss Havisham makes you wonder what she was like before being jilted and how stable she would have been even if she had married Compeyson as she wished.

Again, the setting for Miss Havisham doesn't shy away from the grime and it's through this disturbing lens that we gain further insight into Miss Havisham's clouded state of mind. Other adaptations have shown a house that looks more or less pristine with some items related to Miss Havisham's planned wedding remaining untouched like a monument of woe. Not so here. Satis House is crumbling beneath Miss Havisham's feet, and she is doing nothing to fix it. If anything, she is actively working against its upkeep. Everything is covered in a layer of dust, nay, layers of dust. A banquet hall with a set table - complete with a three-tiered wedding cake - falls further into decay as time passes. The house, not terribly far from the damp marshes, suffers other decomposition as well, including moldy, rotten walls and moth-eaten curtains. As the years pass and Miss Havisham increasingly unravels, her mansion follows suit. In this respect, Satis House becomes a character of its own and like its mistress, it is a fascinating train wreck: you can't tear your eyes away from it, but it is terrible to behold.

With her addled mind, Miss Havisham has extrapolated from her experience with Compeyson that all men are evil and must be punished for their eventual betrayal of the women who love them. She plans to enact her revenge through Estella, the little girl she adopted for the purpose of raising up to be a heartbreaker, although her exact means of achieving this are unclear (i.e., she intends for Estella to marry well, which seems an odd means of breaking hearts and manipulating men. This is the Victorian era after all and married women have basically no rights over their husbands; far better for Estella to enter and break engagements if Miss Havisham's goal is to punish men). As such, Miss Havisham sends for Pip to become Estella's occasional playmate when they are both children for Estella to practice on and perfect her skill of making men love her. Poor Pip, an innocent young boy unused to such mind games, is completely unaware of this and his money-grubbing sister and uncle see nothing but dollar signs in the arrangement so they do not stop to consider the motives behind such a request.

With this unhealthy arrangement and upbringing by a such a sad character as Miss Havisham, Estella is generally portrayed as a cold and cruel; in fact, she says as much in the source material: "do you reproach me for being cold? ...  You should know," said Estella. "I am what you have made me." But here both actresses who play Estella (Izzy Meikle-Small as a child and Vanessa Kirby as an adult) add another dimension. This Estella is clearly damaged by her life experiences, emotionally as well as psychologically. When she says the line above, it is not merely a statement of fact as some actors deliver the line, it is also a haughty payback meant to wound Miss Havisham as well as an expression of regret. This is an Estella you can empathize with and one that allows you to see why Pip has loved her for so many years. She is someone who has no concept of how to interact naturally with other human beings, whose manipulations are perhaps just as much a product of not understanding the workings of a sane person as they are an enactment of Miss Havisham's wishes for vengeance.

This new interpretation of Estella made me start really thinking about the female characters of Great Expectations. Perhaps because this was the first full Dickens novel I ever read (after first being exposed to his arguably most famous work, the novella A Christmas Carol), it hadn't occurred to me before how unlike a typical Dickensian heroine Estella is. As much as I love Dickens, he was a product of his era and as such, his female characters - when they aren't throwaway characters of little consequence or evil villains like Madame DeFarge of A Tale of Two Cities - are mostly the Victorian stereotype of "the light of the home." Think of sweet little angel characters with no personality of their own who make a welcoming home that shelters the men in their lives from the cruel outside world, and you've got the main idea. You've got your Lucie Manettes (A Tale of Two Cities), your Agnes Wickfields (David Copperfield), even your Mrs. Micawbers (also David Copperfield), etc. Estella, however, does not fit this mold - she's a far more complex heroine and perhaps that's why she's one of the few female characters in Dickens's novels to have such appeal that even contemporary songwriters are sitting "by my bedside with papers and poetry about Estella" ("Great Expectations" by The Gaslight Anthem; the title for this blog post also comes from this song's lyrics). And, even though she clearly inflicts emotional and psychological damage on both Estella and Pip, Miss Havisham is by no means an unredeemable villain like Madame DeFarge or even Miss Murdstone from David Copperfield. As I explained above, she is at times a pitiable character and when it starts to dawn on her what monsters she has created out of her own unquenchable grief, there is nothing left to do but forgive her for her role in creating turmoil in the young people's lives.

And then there's Mrs. Joe - another complicated character. Mostly she's a character you like to hate, or at least dislike, and that's the quality most picked up in this TV adaptation. Despite being Pip's first guardian and his sister, she's always referred to in reference to her husband, as it is the lovable Joe who cares the most for Pip emotionally. But despite Mrs. Joe's "rampages" against both her husband and Pip and her frequent desire to see herself "raised up" above her station by any means possible (even if it means selling out her younger brother), she is the one who raises young Pips and cares for his physical needs. In this way, she is still a variation of the light of the home stereotype. When she is later bludgeoned and turned into a vegetable, there is nothing left but pity for her unenviable life. Meanwhile, because there apparently needs to be the obligatory light of the home stereotype from Mr. Dickens, we also have here some perfect examples of that character. We occasional hear of and see the perfectly amiable, lovely, and complete forgettable character of Clara, the fiancé of Pip's friend Herbert Pocket. Not seen in this TV adaptation (because even with a three-hour miniseries, Dickens needs to be condensed) is the character of Miss Skiffins who also exemplifies this stereotype.

 

Having thoroughly examined the female characters, now it's time to explore the men of Great Expectations. Of course, we have to start with the hero - and narrator, in the book - of our story, young Philip Pirrip, known to all simply as Pip. I absolutely loved Oscar Kennedy, the actor who played Pip as a child. He so perfectly captured Pip's many emotions from fear of the escaped convicts to enraptures with Estella. His tour de force is most likely in the scene in which he and Joe travel on special request to Miss Havisham's estate to discuss his future. Pip is all smiles as he listens to Miss Havisham's praise of his exceptionalism, expecting to be given something to make him a gentleman worthy of Estella. Instead she offers to pay for his apprenticeship to become a blacksmith like Joe. Instantly, the light goes out of Pip's eyes and the smile fades as he realizes that Miss Havisham means for him to be shamed with this proposal, that she is reminding him of his place as a tradesman. Still, Pip realizes that this is gift should be recognized as generous and one that will please Joe especially. So he holds his tongue and tries to show appreciation for Miss Havisham's deed. But it is indeed a struggle to do so, and we see this in a look he gives Miss Havisham that seems to convey that he could murder her in that moment. It is a magnificent, albeit heartbreaking, scene.

Booth as Pip

Compare this to the rather emotionless expression we see on the older Pip's face when he reacts to the news that he has a benefactor and will receive a fortune. As you might gather then, I was less endeared to Douglas Booth as the older Pip, who seemed miscast to me. Something about him - perhaps his "pretty boy" looks - did not seem fitting with the "boy from the forge," even if most of adult years on screen are part of his life after he receives a gift from an anonymous donor (who he presumes to be Miss Havisham come around on the idea that he and Estella are meant for one another) to make a gentleman of him and send him off to London. Nonetheless, there is nothing I can say that was technically wrong with Booth's performance in the final two episodes of the series in which he stars. He did a fine job of conveying all of Pip's emotions during his roller-coaster London years, which include such scenes as: embarrassment at Joe's arrival to Pip's fancy club in London; jealousy of Mr. Drummle's attention to Estella; betrayal and anger on so many occasions; and many others bundled up together over the course of a dramatic denouement.

Rounding out the male cast is Shaun Dooley as Joe, who does an excellent job portraying the long-suffering blacksmith married to a woman who is first argumentative and then severely disabled while being guardian to her rather ungrateful brother. Dooley's portrayal makes your heart say "aww, poor Joe" or "yeah, good old Joe" every time he is on screen, depending on the situation. Joe is the linchpin in Pip's life and he is undoubtedly one of the most endearing characters in Great Expectations. Another very likable character is Herbert Pocket, who becomes Pip's mentor in gentlemanly ways and closest friend in London. Herbert is ever cheerful and optimistic, with a smile on his face whether he's talking about how his family cut him off financially or an escaped convict is literally holding a knife to his throat. Herbert is played expertly by Harry Lloyd, who is apparently a direct descendent of Dickens (an interesting turn of events given that the character was most likely originally based at least in part on Dickens's son Charley).

Pip's other notable London acquaintances include his solicitor Mr. Jaggers (a slippery character of questionable morals who holds nearly all the secrets of Great Expectations close to his vest); Jaggers's chief clerk Wemmick (outwardly rough but with a kind heart); and Mr. Drummle (a cretinous son of a baronet who is attracted to Estella). And, of course, we have the two escaped convicts - Magwitch and Compeyson. Magwitch is well played by Ray Winstone, who does excellent work convincingly changing Magwitch from savagely aggressive to fatherly compassionate at a moment's notice. Compeyson's bit role is played by Paul Rhys, who perfectly embodies the stereotypical Victorian gentleman villain. I leave it up to the viewer to decide whether that it is a good thing or something irksome. Back home, we have Uncle Pumblechook who is always looking for an angle to increase his stature or wallet and Orlick, Joe's assistant at the forge who stops at nothing to bring down those who he feels threaten him - namely, Mrs. Joe and Pip. For the most part, these characters are all well cast in this adaptation, although I felt that Orlick was perhaps over the top in looking the role of a villainous character. (That being said though, I think that if he were cleaned up a little bit, he would make a really great Uriah Heep if someone were to adapt that classic Dickens novel.) Wemmick also seemed perhaps a bit older than I expected for that role and sadly, his part was so condensed in this version that we saw little of the great friendship that ended up existing between him and Pip.

Indeed, as I've mentioned already, this adaptation did take some liberties with the original text. Because in the book we are told the story through Pip's narration, we never see anything outside of his perspective. The TV adaptation is not tied to this literary device, however, and occasionally makes use of seeing things outside of Pip's limited view. More than once, we see shared moments between Miss Havisham and Estella, which further reinforces how twisted Estella's upbringing is. (However, these seemed to come at the expense of seeing more scenes between young Pip and young Estella, which was regrettable. I felt their childhood spent together was rushed over and thus the roots of Pip's unshakable obsession with Estella were not given a great foundation, to mix metaphors a bit.) A later scene shows Miss Havisham writing yet another letter to a now distant Estella asking why she is so silent only to receive at that moment a stack of returned, unopened letters. In her grief Miss Havisham screams Estella's name and in the process ruins that scene for me. As the camera panned to the outside of Satis House with us hearing Miss Havisham belting "Estella!" from inside, my mind immediately went to A Streetcar Named Desire and I was pulled out of the moment into an entirely different literary work.

Although having to condense the lengthy novel into a three-hour miniseries probably plays a part, other changes are not merely a question of eliminating some "extraneous" scenes or reducing some characters' time on screen. The fire at Satis House becomes a far more dramatic - one might even say, melodramatic - moment in this version, although it seems to be fitting with the entirety of Miss Havisham's self-absorbed and ever-grieving persona. Likewise, Magwitch and Compeyson's fights are far more extreme and gritty on screen than in the book. I think changes like these ones work well actually, but the purists will not be pleased with them. There are other times when this modern production seems to think that sexing things up a little bit will make this series more of a hit with today's audience. (I will never understand why producers and/or writers think that fans of Austen, Dickens, Gaskell, etc. will want their classic literature to become more like the sex-filled stories that already everywhere else on TV and in movies.) So here we end up with a very awkward scene in which Drummle takes Pip to a brothel and offers him a pick amongst several women of various ethnic backgrounds. (Sidebar: Drummle is far more antagonistic toward Pip in this version than I recall him being in the book. One can only presume this was to make him an even more an unlikeable character - and I do believe Dickens did not want us to like him - but perhaps this was a bit over the top at times in this production.) There's also a more touching but still out of place scene in which Estella and Pip engage in a Victorian version of skinny-dipping. The ending is rushed along much faster than the decades that drag on in the novel, but I find it difficult to think of any screen adaptation that would not try to speed along that conclusion.

Besides characters and/or events being rushed over or bypassed altogether, there is one other key thing missing from this adaptation: humor. Dickens was a master wordsmith who could write a witty remark into just about any scene (except, of course, for apparently the entirety of the novel A Tale of Two Cities) and he himself noted of Great Expectations, "You will not have to complain of the want of humour as in the Tale of Two Cities." But as most of that comedy comes from narration (although sometimes it's present in dialogue), there's little room left for it on the screen. And this adaptation seemed to like to highlight the more macabre and dark moments of the novel, creating suspense and drama to pull viewers in to the story. But this is not a problem with this adaptation only; indeed, I find it sad that anyone who only watches adaptations of Dickens's work will never know how funny he was, for it seems that none of that ever translates to the screen. Hopefully this adaptation will be intriguing enough to draw in new readers to the original novel and perhaps other works by Dickens; I know that I for one am now eager to re-read Great Expectations yet again after watching this production.