Hannibal Review: “Secondo” (Season 3, Episode 3)

“Technically, you killed him.”

NBC announced today that it would not renew its option to broadcast a fourth season of Hannibal. This came as sad news to many fans. But notice my wording in that first sentence.

Hannibal has always been an independently produced show. Just because NBC doesn’t want a Season 4, doesn’t mean there won’t be one. Last year when Season 3 was in question, there were murmurs of other networks who were interested if NBC passed.

The most important variable, in my opinion, in determining whether or not there will be a Season 4 is Bryan Fuller. His commitment to Hannibal has been undeniable. He is also committed to Showtime’s adaptation of American Gods. As sure as I am that he would have delivered a great Season 4 had NBC picked it up, I’m also sure it’s tempting as hell for him to see a silver lining here — no Season 4 of Hannibal would sure simplify his life.

Now for the question of why no Season 4 on NBC. In other words, who, technically, killed Hannibal? NBC itself. No, it’s not a question of inadequate promotion or lead ins or which night the show is on. Hannibal was dead the minute NBC decided to let Fuller do the show he wanted to. This is NOT a network show. The fact that we fans got THREE SEASONS (let alone one season) should have us jumping for joy. That’s a miracle. Let’s all count our blessings before we cut our own hearts out and eat them.

But this is supposed to be a review of episode 3. Thank you for allowing me the digression.

“Secondo” is a merging of the aesthetics of the first two episodes this season, giving us more of Hannibal’s adventures in Florence and more of Will’s search for Hannibal, this time in Lithuania. The juxtaposition is unfortunate. As much as I like the gothic aesthetics of the Will Graham storyline, there’s an electricity to Hannibal’s storyline that dwarfs the rest of the episode.

I found myself wishing for something more to happen. Things did happen, of course. Will met and allied himself with Chiyo. Chiyo resolved her dilemma over whether or not to kill her prisoner. But I didn’t find myself caring very much at all about these new characters and new developments. As I’ve said before, I’m confident I will appreciate this individual episode more once the full context of the season is known, but on first viewing I was ambivalent.

What I was not ambivalent about were two scenes in particular. First, the dinner party Hannibal throws for Sogliato. We’ve never seen the good doctor lose his composure the way he does when he drives the ice pick into Sogliato’s temple. Even when he was massacring Baltimore’s entire FBI field office in the Season 2 finale, he was a man in complete control. It’s quite revealing of the level to which Will’s declaration of forgiveness must have affected Hannibal.

Second was Will’s “design” of the dead prisoner. On first reading I thought it was a sign post to Hannibal, should he return to Lithuania. On second thought, I saw it as a reply to the valentine Hannibal left for Will at the Cappella Palatina. On third thought, I wonder if Will misses the dance he did with Hannibal in Season 2 where he was pretending to be his serial killer protégé, and this was a way for him to flex those murderous muscles. On fourth thought, I imagined a twisted and bizarre Season 4 where Will Graham is the moth-obsessed serial killer standing in for Buffalo Bill (which the television show does not own the rights to). That would be a crazy twist and elegant way to keep Hannibal and Will dancing once Hannibal is committed to the Baltimore State Hospital for the Criminally Insane.

Jack Crawford makes his first appearance of Season 3 in this episode. We’re not given much here except some conversations with Inspector Pazzi that echo too closely to Will’s from last episode. I did find it extremely interesting when Jack says, “I’m not here for the monster … I’m here for Will Graham.” I see two interpretations of this line. One, it seems that a consequence of the Hannibal House Massacre is that Jack has finally learned there is a price too high to pay when pursuing the bad guy. And two, that Jack can see the potential monster in Will Graham and is fighting for his friend’s better angels.


  • Did anyone else notice the scene “from” episode 2 in the recap that was not actually in episode 2? Will says to Abigail, “There are places within himself he can’t safely go.”
  • That suit Hannibal wears to dinner!
  • Fireflies! And snails!
  • Who keeps that dungeon stocked with candles??
Tagged , , , , , ,

Hannibal Review: “Primavera” (Season 3, Episode 2)

“More important than suffering”

In “Primavera,” Will Graham offers one of the most pointed insights into Hannibal Lecter’s psychology that the show has given us to date:

“Hannibal follows several trains of thought at once, without distraction from any, and one of the trains is always for his own amusement. He’s playing with us. Always.”

Based on this episode, I think just maybe the same thing could be said about Bryan Fuller, the showrunner behind NBC’s Hannibal.

The appearance of Abigail Hobbs — risen from the dead… again? — infuriated me. The “Buuuulllllshit!” that I screamed must have woken at least a few neighbors. What was Fuller thinking? To have Abigail survive would rob the Season 2 finale (one of the greatest episodes of television I’ve ever witnessed) of its emotional power. There’s no way someone as story-savvy as Fuller would do that, right?

hannibal-s03e02I envisioned a Season 3 of Hannibal that included Abigail alive, and it made me sad. I envisioned the next three months of me NOT looking forward to Thursday nights, and it made me sad. I envisioned a life of talking about how tragic it was that NBC’s Hannibal lost its way after only two seasons, and it made me sad.

So I spent the next 10 minutes of the show chanting under my breath, “She can’t be real, she can’t be real, she can’t be real,” until enough of Will’s repeated mixing of reality, memory, and nightmarish fantasy suggested that Fuller and company were still to be trusted. It was then a tense waiting game until the show finally revealed (at exactly 31 minutes 19 seconds, by the way) that Abigail was in fact dead. A deep sigh of relief.

My conclusion: Despite redeeming itself by the end of the episode, the recap filler + Abigail fake-out + Will weirdness = a disappointing follow-up to last week’s most promising Season 3 premiere.

That is, until I watched it a second time.

“Primavera” holds up MUCH better on a second viewing. The “resurrection” of Abigail as a representation of Will’s conflicted feelings about the choices he made that led to last season’s Hannibal House Massacre is brilliant. Will’s need to make a place for Abigail, if only in his mind, is heartbreaking. Interpreting the conversations between them about possibility and choice as Will working through his own guilt and ambivalence is fascinating.

“After all he’s done, you’d still go to him?” A silent part of Will nods yes.

I also love how moody the whole episode is. It has this creepy gothic feel that culminates in the catacombs beneath the Cappella Palatina in Palermo. What better place to look for the fallen angel Lucifer (Hannibal) than the dark underworld beneath God’s temple?

While the “Il Mostro” backstory provided by Chief Investigator Pazzi was intriguing, I found his conversations with Will — especially Will’s warnings to him — to be a bit repetitive. Fans of the book, Hannibal, will remember Pazzi as the Italian police detective who tries to sell Hannibal to Mason Verger. This Pazzi, more interestingly, seems much more motivated by the opportunity to restore his reputation (tarnished 20 years earlier when he “wrongly” accused Hannibal of being the serial killer, Il Mostro, the “Monster of Florence”) than by financial gain. I wonder how this will lead him to Verger.

Despite an agonizing first viewing experience, I’m finding that “Primavera” keeps rising higher and higher in my estimation the more I think about it. Like God (and Hannibal), Bryan Fuller too seems to believe that “elegance is more important than suffering.”

“He’s playing with us. Always. You still want to go with him?”

Yes. Yes, I do.


  • The corpse unfolding itself into a deformed version of the stag.
  • It would be fun to drink my evening tea out of a Will Graham face-cup.
  • Why did Will lie to Hannibal? “The wrong thing being the right thing to do was too ugly a thought.” Is the wrong thing going away with Hannibal and the right thing not lying and/or sparing Jack’s life? I’m still chewing on this one.
  • A smile of fire burns through Will’s drawing of a clock.
  • Why does the priest see Abigail? Perhaps he sees the wounded part of Will.
Tagged , , , ,

Hannibal Review: “Antipasto” (Season 3, Episode 1)

“It’s not that kind of party.”


hannibal-s03e01And so, NBC’s Hannibal greats us with confidence and style in a season opener that could not have pleased this avid fan more. The champagne is popped and chopped with celebratory violence and in violent celebration. Following the carnage that ended Season 2 and revealed to all who Hannibal really is beneath his “person suit” — and thereby sounding the death knell for the show’s serial-killer-of-the-week formula once and for all — Season 3 brings us what is essentially a brand new “pilot episode” to herald the series’ grand becoming.

From the very first image in which a key ignites the internal combustion engine of a motorcycle, propelling our main character forward down a dark road, Bryan Fuller and his creative team propel us into this next chapter.

Taking inspiration from the setup in the book, Hannibal, the story finds the good doctor in Europe (first in Paris, then Florence), where he’s created a vacancy (in other words, murdered someone) for a prestigious post he covets at the Palazzo Capponi in Florence. But it’s okay, he tells his fellow fugitive and former psychiatrist, Bedelia Du Maurier, because he won the museum curator position fairly, on his merits!

In parallel with the present storyline involving Hannibal and Bedelia’s European vacation, we get a series of flashbacks to Hannibal’s last encounters with Chesapeake Ripper wannabe Abel Gideon, whom Hannibal abducted, fed him his own legs, and finally murdered in “Futamono,” an episode from Season 2. These are new scenes that take place in between the scenes we saw last season. These scenes flesh out the theme of eating and being eaten — the predator-prey relationship that Hannibal has with all who cross his path — that’s a recurring theme throughout the series. But it’s milked here for all it has to offer as we watch Hannibal struggle with his newfound peace in Europe. As we watch him struggle to find someone or something as interesting as Will Graham.

For a moment, we think Hannibal may have found his Will Graham in the morally ambiguous Anthony Dimmond, a seemingly ready-made murder-buddy. Alas, Dimmond is dispatched relatively quickly, bludgeoned with a bust of Aristotle. Hannibal does it in part to make a point to Bedelia that she’s not an observer, but a participant in his exploits. But I think it’s also because the Dimmond “friendship” is too easy for Hannibal. Perhaps all along he’s wanted an adversary more than a friend.

Bedelia has moved to the foreground, showing a greater range of emotion in this one episode than she had in Seasons 1 and 2 combined. I’ll confess, in past episodes I found this character’s fragile stoicism, though interesting, rather one-dimensional. But Gillian Anderson and the writers have given her so much nuance here that I can’t wait to see where they take her now that she’s a series regular (until she’s murdered — like every other supporting character on the show; and then brought back to life — like every other supporting character on the show).

The question of why she joined Hannibal on the run is explored but not answered, at least to this viewer’s satisfaction. In flashback, we observe (and, through our own biases for our favorite cannibal, participate in) her decision to ally with Hannibal immediately after his massacre of Will and company. She finds him in her shower cleansing himself of their blood. While interesting, the scene raises more questions than anything else. What motivates her? Is it professional curiosity about Hannibal or personal curiosity about herself and what’s waking up within her? Given that she was granted immunity for her role in the death of her patient (which we also get to see in flashback), what compelled her to run? Curiosity, yes, but is there more? She seems simultaneously drawn to and afraid of the flame. Later, in Florence, she sits in front of a security camera at a train station, as if hoping someone who might recognize her were watching.

The episode ends with Hannibal creating his latest murder set-piece. It’s his love letter to Will Graham; it’s an invitation to a bloody dinner that will likely take even bigger bites out of the both of them. C’mon, be honest, when Hannibal told Bedelia days earlier, “I’ve found a peace here that I would preserve,” did any of us really believe him?

“Antipasto” has indeed whet our appetites. All of the creative players behind Hannibal are at the top of their games — scoring, photography, acting, editing, directing, and of course, the writing. And like Hannibal, their declaration is loud and clear: We’re still here and you ain’t seen nothing yet.


  • How funny was that recap at the beginning of the episode? If it made a lick of sense to anyone who hadn’t already watched Season 2, I’ll donate my own tongue to Hannibal’s next dinner party.
  • The hopeful look Hannibal gives Bedelia right before he responds, “It’s not that kind of dinner.”
  • Snails!
Tagged , , ,

My Current Favorites (That You’re Probably Not Watching — Why???)

I love the following TV shows and movies and want to talk about them with YOU, but you’re NOT watching them!!!!

1. Hannibal

Okay, I’ve been screaming this from the rooftops and some of you are listening. Thank you. But will you hurry up and finish the damn series so we can talk full-on spoiler action to the max? Please?

2. The Fall

Cougar Gillian Anderson and fake jail-bait Aisling Franciosi compete for my affections while this mesmerizing cat-and-mouse story has me binge watching harder than Chinese calculus.

3. Kill List

Is it post-modern action movie? Is it post-modern horror movie? Is it post-modern family drama? None of the above? It’s a movie that got under my skin like very few do. I feel growing up with 80s horror and action movies made me primed to fall in love at first sight.

More to come…

Tagged , , , ,

Should Movies Be Reviewed Subjectively or Objectively?

The lowest rung of humanity is populated by the couch critics, the apathetic advisors who, from a detached perch of safety, believe that every whim that breezes over their small minds, and every one of their witless arguments, ought to carry the same weight as the hard-won wisdom of those who are actually in the fight, whose minds have been sharpened with real-world experience, whose legends are being forged by action.

—Brendon Burchard, The Motivation Manifesto, p. 39

Who is qualified to review a movie? And what kind of review are they qualified to make?

Personally, I think it’s absolutely necessary to consider context before one reviews a movie. That is, who is the audience you’re reviewing the movie for?

If it’s simply Joe Public, then we should embrace subjectivity.

I think Netflix gets it totally right with its rating system:

***** “Loved it”
**** “Really liked it”
*** “Liked it”
** “Didn’t like it”
* “Hated it”

Beyond star or numerical ratings, your review should reflect on the experience you had as a viewer. Optionally, you could also discuss the quality of that experience with the goal of informing potentially like-minded people and helping them choose whether they might or might not have a similar experience.

“I enjoyed it, I hated it, it forced me to rethink my position on X, it scared me, it annoyed me, etc. And here’s why I feel that way.”

The ONLY time I think it’s worth talking about the “objective” quality of a movie is in the context of filmmaking and film history. And that’s a really small audience: Basically filmmakers, film students, and film historians.

And if the reviewer doesn’t have some pretty awesome credentials or experience in filmmaking or film history before he makes his “objective” proclamations, then he’s just a poser with a podium. Or a blog. :)

Tagged , , , , , , ,

Hettienne Park talks NBC’s Hannibal

“The title of the show is not BEVERLY. It’s HANNIBAL.”

Hettienne Park, who portrayed crime scene investigator Beverly Katz on NBC’s HANNIBAL, took time away from her newborn baby (yes, I DO feel guilty about that), to talk to me about gallows humor, racism and sexism on TV, and of course, what it’s like to work on my favorite TV show of all time.

Spoiler Warning: We discuss a pretty major Season 2 plot point that’s related to her character’s story arc.

Question: How did you first get involved with the show?

Hettienne Park: I was performing in a play on Broadway and Bryan Fuller [creator of HANNIBAL] came to see the show. Later on, I auditioned for the role of Beverly Katz. And then I got offered the job.

Question: What about the initial meetings and/or script attracted you to the show and to the Beverly Katz character?

Hettienne: I remember reading the script for the pilot episode and I literally could not put it down. It was the best television script I had read — suspenseful, creative, unpredictable, profound, and seasoned with this great gallows humor. And Beverly Katz seemed like a real bad ass and sort of strange. At least that’s what impressed me about her.

Question: How familiar were you with Bryan Fuller’s earlier work?

Hettienne: I had seen PUSHING DAISIES and I loved the heightened reality and the whole look of the show. Once HANNIBAL was on my radar, I remember being immediately intrigued and curious when I realized Fuller was behind NBC’s HANNIBAL. It seemed like a complete 180 going from this colorful comedy about a pie-maker with these magical abilities to this intense thriller about the most dangerous cannibalistic serial killer in fiction. As it turns out, HANNIBAL is distinctly Bryan Fuller. It’s brilliant and so much fun to watch.

Question: How familiar were you with the source material and the movie adaptations? Some actors like to really dig into the source material and others like to free themselves of it and come to the part fresh — what approach did you take with HANNIBAL?

Hettienne: SILENCE OF THE LAMBS was already one of my favorite films so I was very familiar with Hannibal Lecter. And our show takes place before Thomas Harris’ RED DRAGON, which is before SILENCE OF THE LAMBS. I had only read RED DRAGON after booking the show. And Beverly Katz is only briefly mentioned in the novel. Then I watched MANHUNTER [the first film adaptation of RED DRAGON] after we shot season one, and Katz only briefly appears in the film. I guess I prefer going into things with my own ideas so I can feel creative. But if you’ve got the time and haven’t done it already, it’s amazing to read the novel and then see how Bryan adapts the source material to the TV show. And there’s so much in homage to the horror genre. It’s all in the details.

Question: The consensus is (and I agree) that you (and Scott Thompson and Aaron Abrams) brought a lot of humanity and life to characters that — on the page anyway — seem to be there simply to advance the plot. How much room were you given to find those creative opportunities to really make Beverly Katz come to life as a three dimensional person that viewers cared about?

Hettienne: It was fun to fill these characters out when they didn’t have much more to do than process crime scenes and provide some technical exposition. Bryan made it clear from the very beginning that he didn’t want any of us to just be generic crime scene guys you see on most procedurals. Plus with Scott Thompson and Aaron Abrams, there is no way they won’t bring humanity and life to their characters because they’re hilarious. I also talked a lot with our forensics expert who gave us a crash course training session before we began shooting. What these guys do, what they see, and how they cope is fascinating. Not that you necessarily see any of it, but I definitely tried to use all of that information and adapt it to Katz as much as possible.

Question: The original plan was for Beverly to die in Season 1, and you’ve said in other interviews that Bryan Fuller revealed that to you even before you started shooting the first episode. But when that changed, at what point were you informed that your character would be killed in Season 2?

Hettienne: Yes, Bryan told me at our first meeting what his plan was for Katz. Then while we were shooting season 1 he came to set and pulled me aside and asked if I would come back for season 2. He said he wanted to keep the rapport that Beverly and Will had established and then kill her during season 2 instead. So the only surprise for me was the manner in which Katz would bite it, which was pretty awesome.

Question: Do you play a character any differently knowing how her arc will end (in this case, in murder)?

Hettienne: No, I don’t think you can since there is no way the character is expecting to kick the bucket.

Question: Beverly Katz’s introduction in the pilot episode is the first real moment of humor in a very dark show. And from what I’ve read from you online, you seem to have a great sense of humor about life in general. Gallows humor, of course, is a part of how humans deal with the horrors in life, but how much of the humor in Beverly’s scenes is something you bring to the character, and how difficult is it to strike the right balance between drama and comedy in a show like HANNIBAL?

Hettienne: I think there’s a very thin line between drama and comedy. As you said, humor is how humans deal with the horrors in life. Some of the comedic dialogue came from the writers. And a lot came from us improvising. Bryan mentioned early on that he deliberately wanted comedic actors to play ZPK (Zeller, Price, Katz) because he’s smart like that. Man, I wish I had all the footage of the stuff that never got used. Laurence, Mads, and Hugh are all hilarious too.

Question: In your response to the accusations of racism and sexism directed at Bryan Fuller and the show following Beverly’s death, you wrote, “[if Bryan Fuller hadn’t made that choice] my character would’ve probably remained in the background processing crime scenes regurgitating technical exposition. Instead — albeit not for very long — he wrote enough for Katz to make people get to know her a little better, actually identify with her, and like her enough to care when she gets killed.” [Read her full letter HERE.] You’re addressing an interesting dichotomy: As an isolated story choice, it seems killing Beverly was the “right” choice; but in the greater context of cultural racism/sexism in entertainment, it’s the dearth of strong roles for women and minorities that makes such a story choice feel “wrong.” 

My question to you (finally, right?): Now that some time has passed, how do you look back on the controversy and it’s positive or negative impact on the larger diversity issue? And what signs if any do you see that suggest things might be changing for the better?

Hettienne: It’s absolutely a double-edged sword, I agree. I think if it wasn’t a show about a serial killer, I’d be more up in arms about the whole thing. Generally speaking, yes, of course, controversy is a great way to get networks and studios to take notice and maybe think twice. The reality is they ultimately only care about bottom lines. If there is a demand for diversity and that translates into dollars, they will make changes. And hopefully writers’ rooms will continue becoming more diverse as well. My main point when I wrote that post was that I just wish we could argue about it with some civility and that not all white guys are evil and that I’d rather focus on the positive. I think the more we see minorities in roles that aren’t stereotypical (like the quirky sidekick, or the computer nerd, or the best friend, etc.), those are signs that things might be changing for the better. A great example off the top of my head — Mindy Kaling [actor, writer, director, producer]. She’s definitely changing the game. But yes, we need to see more, absolutely.

Question: Even though I absolutely loved Season 2, one thing I thought was odd was that both Will and Jack seemed to have forgotten about Beverly by the end of the season. Not that we should have had a “This one’s for Beverly” scene, but I thought for sure Will’s guilt over Beverly’s death would be more overt. Do you have any thoughts on how Beverly’s death shaped Will’s and Jack’s choices as the season continued and why the writers didn’t make it more explicit in those final episodes?

Hettienne: I do think Beverly’s death marks a turning point for Will where we see him begin to change and decide to play the game with Hannibal. And I think it might be the last straw for Jack as well as we see how he plays his own cards by the end of season 2. But I can’t answer why the writers didn’t write more regarding the aftermath of Beverly’s death. My guess is there’s only so much they can cram in especially as they’re introducing new characters. I think Beverly’s send off was both horrific and respectful and they simply had to get on with the series. Or maybe they really are racist. Or sexist. Or both. I really don’t think so. But I just don’t know. Would I have liked it if maybe Price and Zeller shed some real tears and maybe weren’t so quick to get back to cracking jokes? Maybe Price falls off the wagon in grief and Zeller confesses to his secret love for Katz? And Jack gets the BAU [the FBI’s Behavioral Analysis Unit] to erect a bust of Beverly in memoriam in the morgue? Yes, I would have liked all of that. But the title of the show is not BEVERLY. It’s HANNIBAL.

Question: Thank you for being so generous with your time, Hettienne! I’ll continue to enjoy your work on HANNIBAL during my many Season 1 and 2 re-watches, and I’m looking forward to seeing what you do next. Best to you and your family!

Hettienne: Thank you, Curtis!

The HANNIBAL Season 2 Blu-ray and DVD comes out Tuesday, September 16. Season 3 will air on NBC early next year.

Tagged , , , , ,

Lara Jean Chorostecki talks NBC’s Hannibal

“This great fiery personality with this fiery red hair…”

Lara Jean Chorostecki graciously allowed me to grill, um, quiz her on her portrayal of the sophisticated but ruthless tabloid reporter, Freddie Lounds, on NBC’s HANNIBAL. While the Lounds character has appeared in two movie versions of Thomas Harris’s novel RED DRAGON, the TV show reinterpreted the character, even changing his gender from male to female. The result, in this fan’s opinion, is a much more nuanced and interesting character better suited to long-form story-telling.

For those of us familiar with the source material, we know Freddie’s ultimate fate. But the good news is that the writers have started deviating enough from the books that anything is possible. So hopefully we’ll see lots more of Freddie in future seasons.

Question: Hi Lara Jean, I love the show and I absolutely love your version of Freddie Lounds. As you know, you’re in some great company with Stephen Lang [who played Lounds in MANHUNTER] and Phillip Seymour Hoffman [who played Lounds in RED DRAGON]. Did you feel any pressure following in their footsteps?

Lara Jean Chorostecki: For me, it wasn’t really an issue because my version [of the character] is so different. Bryan Fuller had outlined how we were going to take her in a slightly more sophisticated vein, and that already in itself takes me away from Hoffman’s and Lang’s versions. And I really think the gender switch gave me so much freedom to kind of recreate her. If I was male playing another male version of that character, it would perhaps be a lot of pressure considering those versions were so fantastic but being female and taking her in a more sophisticated but no less ruthless way made it a lot easier.

Question: I love that you describe her as sophisticated because she’s a real departure from the other versions. I read that she’s modeled after Rebekah Brooks [real-life red-haired tabloid news editor], who’s a pretty complex character herself. With so much raw material to draw upon — Rebekah Brooks and also the source material — where did you start and how did you first get a handle on how you wanted to play her?

Lara Jean: I did actually start with Rebekah Brooks because Bryan had modeled [Freddie Lounds] after Brooks and had told me so when I started preparing for the part. So I read a great Vanity Fair article on her [“Untangling Rebekah Brooks” by Suzanna Andrews], and I kind of started there and thought about her world and relation with [Rupert] Murdoch, and what a woman would have to be like to be able to succeed in the tabloid world. And then from there it’s been throughout Season 1 and Season 2 some development for her that has changed [her] because some pretty crazy stuff happens in front of her and it seems not to phase her, but I like to think it has internally over time. I think in Season 2, her relationship with Will and her relationship to Abigail show perhaps the stuff that’s appeared in front of her has affected her subtly inside and she just tries really hard not to show it in order to succeed in her world and maintain her own sense of power.

Question: She’s kind of a paradox. She’s manipulative, she’s willing to lie, but there’s also this part of her that really wants to find the truth. There’s this sincerity to her search for what’s really going on.

Lara Jean: Yeah, I think that’s part of the departure from Lang and Hoffman as well. Bryan has written in — and I hope I’ve brought it to life — that degree of sincerity to her and her work especially when it comes to Abigail at the end of Season 1 and the beginning of Season 2. There is a degree of “yes she’s ruthless, yes doesn’t have a moral compass,” but she does want to be authentic.

Question: She’s kind of admirable in a way.

Lara Jean: [She laughs.] I love that! Yes, she’s admirable. You’re the first person who’s ever said that about her [laughs].

Question: I’ve read about acting that you never want to play a villain as a villain. Instead, you want to find why the “villain” sees him/herself as the good guy, and then play them that way. What do you think is going on psychologically for Freddie Lounds that allows her to do the despicable things she does?

Lara Jean: She never feels unjustified. I think that’s a big thing. I think there’s a clear purpose and motivation to everything that she does. And that in itself takes her away from feeling that she’s a villain in any way. And she’s human. In the finale of Season 2 there’s a line where she talks about her start, which is authentic to the Thomas Harris novel [RED DRAGON], that she started as a cancer editor at a tabloid, writing about all these cures for cancer. And in that scene in particular I found in the writing a profound sense of loneliness to this girl. And that kind of isolation that she consistently has makes her to me — because I love her and I love playing her — not a villain in my eyes and therefore makes it pretty easy to not play a villain. And because of that need for truth and this kind of isolation, I think ultimately she is admirable in her own mind.

Question: Yes, I love that scene. And I think another thing about that scene is that maybe we even see a bit of sympathy in her towards Will. She says to him, “You really don’t know if you’re going to survive him, do you?”

Lara Jean: Mm hmm, I think what she reflects is that he’s an isolated, lonely character as well. I lot of the characters on our show really are trying to make these connections and not particularly succeeding.

Question: So it’s probably empathy she feels more than sympathy.

Lara Jean: Mm hmm.

Question: As you said, her role has evolved over the course of the two seasons. In Season 1, I saw her as kind of an obstacle for Will Graham, but in Season 2 she becomes an integral part of the plot and Will’s plan to bait Hannibal. How do you see her function on the show?

Lara Jean: I think you’re accurate in thinking in Season 1 she was definitely an obstacle. She was a very well-used tool. Being the kind of fiery personality she is, there’s a danger at times to over-use that character, and that’s where Bryan and his team of writers come in and craft something so well. I don’t feel that she’s ever over-used, and I really don’t feel she’s under-used either. I think they’ve balanced her quite perfectly in Season 1 and Season 2 to come in and make an impact whenever she does instead of kind of being this character that consistently does the same thing over and over, which is particularly a danger in Season 1 had they over-used her. I think the evolution that you see pivots around the Abigail storyline and how the writers have woven all of the characters around that core basis of humanity. I think Abigail was really used for every character as a touchstone of humanity — particularly Hannibal and Will — and then in Season 2, where I got to come in with Freddie and have that touchstone of Abigail and be in that horror that we’ve all been through together because we all were [connected] by this one storyline.

Question: One of the things that’s really interesting about Freddie is how she’s introduced. She’s sitting at her computer naked, she’s presumably just gotten out of the shower in what looks to be a motel room, and the implication later is that she slept with Agent Zeller to get access to the crime scene. Introducing a female character that way seems to require a delicate touch because you don’t want to fall into any kind of misogynistic caricature — like the evil temptress who makes men go bad. How do you walk that line to keep her feeling like a real person?

Lara Jean: I don’t feel there’s any degree of misogyny to her character. What I loved about playing her is that she basically always appears with the boys. So I’m either doing a scene with Laurence [Fishburne] or I’m doing a scene with Mads [Mikkelsen] or I’m doing a scene with Hugh [Dancy] or Eddie Izzard, so she always comes in on par with the boys. So I don’t really feel that she’s objectified in any way. And I think that intro is clever because it instantly tells you that she’s going to make an impact in your world. To introduce a character naked is just to say, “She’s going to be here and you’re going to notice her.”

And I thought it was quite a clever way to put the focus on this long mane of red hair also, which is, yes, a nod to Rebekah Brooks but also a nod to the RED DRAGON storyline and what may or may not happen to her when Francis Dolarhyde comes into the world, and what was already played out fakely in Season 2. So this great fiery personality with this fiery red hair, and that’s all she needs, she doesn’t need anything else. And then she gets into all this armor, this clothing that she wears that’s really out there, that again — getting back to the end of Season 2 — masks this isolation and loneliness by putting herself out there in such a bold manner. In the courtroom in Season 2 is a perfect example. I mean, who wears a big hat into a courtroom? Well, she does because it disguises her. I remember in Season 1 talking with Bryan and the wonderful costume designer Chris [Hargadon] about it. It’s the idea that this is the armor that she puts on as kind of a disguise to mask whatever her truth is inside.

Question: Another thing that stands out about the show is the writing and the dialogue. I think there’s a poetry and an eloquence that puts it on the same level as Aaron Sorkin’s THE WEST WING or even David Milch’s DEADWOOD. Being a writer yourself, what do you think makes the writing so effective and has resonated with this core audience — including myself — that’s just crazy about the show?

Lara Jean: I think you hit the nail on the head to say that there’s a poetry to it, and I love that you brought up DEADWOOD because DEADWOOD to me — it’s so tragic that it ended so soon — DEADWOOD is modern Shakespeare as far as I’m concerned. That series was excellent in terms of the writing. Sometimes fellow actors will ask me, “How much freedom do you have with the text,” and my response is, “Well, none because you don’t want to mess with it” because it’s like Shakespeare in that way. Good writing, good television writing like Sorkin or DEADWOOD or what Bryan does is so good there’s no other words you can choose other than the words that are on the page. And the joy of it is to mine that text. I come from a Shakespearian background actually, I started at the Stratford Festival here in Canada — it’s the largest repertory theatre in North America — and I have a Master’s in Shakespeare, and the same joy that I get from mining [Shakespeare’s text] I’ve re-found mining the text that I get to work with on HANNIBAL. Which is super-exciting because what’s on the surface is not necessarily what’s underneath — and that’s why it’s poetic — and what you’re trying to bring out is what’s underneath, through the cadence and the rhythm and the character. And I think Bryan’s work is fantastic, and Steve Lightfoot and the rest of our writers are so good.

And then of course the actors that we’re blessed to have and I’m blessed to work with bring that text to life so beautifully. I think Gillian Anderson and Hugh and Mads and Laurence and everybody does it so well that you get these incredibly well-rounded characters that are really exciting, and I think that’s why our show critically and with the fans has been so successful because it really resonates with people.

Question: Yeah, and I think it’s so incredible how these characters will say exactly what they mean AND the complete opposite of what they mean in the same exact line!

Lara Jean: Oh yeah.

Question: Thank you so much, Lara Jean. I know you’re working on a new show called CAMP X. I’m looking forward to seeing that and, of course, more of Freddie Lounds on HANNIBAL.

Lara Jean: Thank you. I’m looking forward to Season 3. And yes, I’m shooting CAMP X right now. I’m back in Budapest at the moment, and it’s also a great show, a World War 2 drama, so it’s very different but just as exciting.

The HANNIBAL Season 2 Blu-ray and DVD comes out Tuesday, September 16. Season 3 will air on NBC early next year.

Tagged , , ,

Katharine Isabelle talks NBC’s Hannibal

“It’s my favorite show ever. It’s my favorite character.”

I sat down with Katharine Isabelle recently to talk to her about her role as Margot Verger on the TV show, HANNIBAL.

The character of Margot Verger, despite playing a significant role in Thomas Harris’s book, HANNIBAL, does not appear in the movie version. So this is the first time we’re seeing this character on screen. And based on her performance in Season 2, I think Katharine Isabelle has created the defining version of Margot, and I hope we get to see more of the Vergers in Season 3.

While I would have loved to have asked her about other roles like Ginger from GINGER SNAPS or Mary from AMERICAN MARY, I focused our conversation on the joys and challenges of portraying such an interesting and complex character on HANNIBAL.

Question: I’m a huge fan of the show, and I’ve read that you’re also a fan. Is that right?

Katharine Isabelle: I am a big fan of the show. I’m a huge fan of [Hannibal star] Mads Mikkelsen, who I originally saw at the Ritz in a Danish film called GREEN BUTCHERS. He played my favorite character ever, named Svend “Sweat,” and I totally fan-girled all over him when I saw him for the first time, while in the back of my head telling myself to shut up because I sound like a raging dork and psycho [laughs]. But, yeah, I binged-watched the whole first season [of HANNIBAL] they gave me when I arrived in my hotel the night before. It psychologically affected me enough to the point where at 3 AM when the fire alarm went off, I looked out the window and saw a cop car, and I thought I saw in the reflection of an open window an eviscerated body in my lobby. And I started thinking, “Oh my God, if someone has been murdered in the lobby, why would the cops turn on the fire alarm? Unless it was the killer who turned on fire alarm to get all of us running down the stairs so he could fucking murder us.” And I looked around and thought maybe I’d watched too much Hannibal. It’s an amazing show. Something that could psychologically affect me, it’s pretty good.

We were invited by Bryan Fuller [the creator and showrunner] to go watch the first two episodes of the second season in a theater he had rented, and it’s probably one of the only TV shows you can watch on a feature-sized screen and just be absolutely captivated. It’s beautifully shot, beautifully written, it’s smart, it’s dark, it’s scary. It has everything I love.

Question: Margot’s backstory is that she’s been abused by her brother for years. I can imagine it would have been an easy choice to play her as a victim, but instead you brought a complexity to her — a toughness that she’s presumably developed just to survive; plus a vulnerability that arouses the sympathy of both Will and Hannibal. How difficult was it to strike the right balance?

Katharine: Fortunately, it’s so well written that I didn’t have to fill in a lot of the blanks myself. I had a couple conversations with Bryan Fuller before my very first day where he talked about what his feelings and his thoughts about the character were. And not necessarily any direct commandments, but the overall gist of it. When something is so well written and someone takes the time to tell you themselves how they feel about it, there’s just an amalgamation that happens along the way. I’m not the kind of actor who sits and overanalyzes because I find that if I do that I just second-guess everything, I second-guess any natural instincts. So to have it be well-written and to be given an overall feeling from Bryan Fuller, they did the work for me and I just have to show up. And working across from Mads, he’ll get things out of you that you didn’t see coming.

We definitely wanted Margot to not be victim-y. She has a strength and a patience, like a sociopathic sort of patience, biding her time until she can really get even with her brother, which is what I think is so exciting about the end of the second season. It leaves this window of opportunity in the third season for her to have the upper hand, to be a power player in that relationship. And I’m glad for that. I play a lot of characters that could be viewed as victims but had strength and ended up not being too much a victim.

Question: How did you approach that final scene between Margot and Mason?

Katharine: They have such an interesting relationship. And I think they really do have some kind of deep fucked-up connection because otherwise I don’t think Margot would stick around so much. I don’t know if she tried to flee and he just finds her every time or whatever, but I couldn’t see her finding him in that physical predicament and then just be like, “Okay, awesome I’m free and I’m going to live my life now.” She’s not. She’s going to stick around and make sure that she either gets her revenge or has the power or the control. I don’t see her just running away from this situation. I think it was thrilling and scary and challenging for Margot all at once to find herself in that position. I don’t think in that scene that she’s really even decided how she’s going to approach this new phase in their life together. I think she was just sort of tickled at the idea that there would be a switch in power. Or maybe there won’t be, who knows? Maybe he’s got such a psychological line on her, who knows? I have no idea what they have planned for the third season or what’s happened to their relationship.

Question: You mentioned acting with Mads, and you also got to work closely with Hugh Dancy. Are you guys given the room to experiment from take to take or does the shooting schedule move too quickly for that?

Katharine: They’re very, very generous with the time that they allow actors to have, which they have to be because it’s so intense, such deep subtle shit. It’s so well shot that there are five or six or seven set-ups for every scene, even if it’s just two people. And by the time you get around to it, you do a few takes the way that you see it in the morning, and you do a few the way the director has seen it when he was thinking about it the night before, and then something that you do or something that he says inspires a new thought and you do it again a couple of other different ways. It’s always interesting to see what [takes they use] when they edit it. Like on the first and second episode I was in, I was really trying to suss out Margot for myself. It’s not like I’m there and in the clothes on the day and I’m like, “I got this, I got her locked now.” It takes a little while. And hopefully people don’t find out what scenes I’m still trying to figure her out in [laughs]. But I definitely threw down a lot of different ways to go with her the first couple days, and when I got to see finally which ones [the editor] had used, that informed my decisions going forward with the character. Once you see what they’re all putting together and how it comes across, you go, “Oh, okay, okay, I get it.” Seeing it objectively after the fact and looking at it, you get the gist and the feeling of what they’re going for, and that informs me going ahead.

Question: It’s like this really interesting unspoken creative collaboration with the editors.

Katharine: Yeah, the editor and I never talk but something happens along the line that definitely solidifies choices that I’ve made.

Question: HANNIBAL has such a great sense of humor. How important do you think it is to bring humor to such a dark show?

Katharine: I think you have to otherwise this dark material is just so over-the-top. I mean, every single person in the city of Baltimore is a serial killer [laughs]. You have to have a little bit of dark humor when you’re dealing with eating people. I think the character of Hannibal played by Mads Mikkelsen is fucking funny. I think that sort of intense sociopathic nature also involves a little bit of a sense of absurdity with the world, and I think that comes across. Like when Michael Pitt is cutting his face off and eating it and he goes, “I’m full of myself,” I literally fell on the floor laughing. It’s this sick, twisted, fucked-up scene, and I’m laughing because it’s hilarious. I think you need these moments once in a while otherwise your stomach is in such a knot and you won’t be able to eat. And Bryan Fuller who created it is such a genius. Like WONDERFALLS and DEAD LIKE ME and all these other shows he’s done that have dark material but have this levity and this absurdity and a sort of magic to them. That’s the same reason why WILLY WONKA, the original movie, is one of my favorite movies of all time. It’s dark and fucked up that he’s murdering bad children, but it’s hilarious and fun. I think when you’re going to make people see the world and how terrible everything is, if you can add a little bit of levity and the absurdity of the human experience, people are going to connect with that.

Question: You worked with Bryan Fuller on the TV movie, CARRIE. Had you guys stayed in touch, and how did you come to get involved with HANNIBAL?

Katharine: After CARRIE I did go and screen test for [Bryan’s show] WONDERFALLS. There were three girls that went in, and Caroline Dhavernas [who plays Alana Bloom on HANNIBAL] ended up getting it. And Bryan Fuller is known to be very loyal to people he likes. I was astonished. I got the audition [for HANNIBAL] and I thought, “Oh Bryan Fuller, oh I know him and I worked with him and I love him and he’s great.” And the network looked at my tape and went, “I don’t know if she’s strong enough.” So Bryan Fuller, who had somehow seen AMERICAN MARY, sent them a copy of it and they went, “Yup, she’s strong enough. Book her.” And I was so incredibly grateful to Bryan for remembering me.

And also, one of the directors of the first couple episodes, Vincenzo [Natali], he worked on GINGER SNAPS, and I think [he and Bryan] had a conversation or my name came up or something, and he was like “Oh yeah, she’d be great for this.” And they sent me a request for an audition and it just came to me like anything else does. And I realized a little bit later that Bryan thought about me and remembered me and pushed me for it, and I was so grateful and very honored to have been thought about for this. I was incredibly tickled. When you work with somebody who’s so amazing and they actually remember you and call you up like ten years later, that’s like, “I feel pretty good about myself today!” [She laughs.]

Question: You can sense that loyalty even from Bryan’s tweets as he’s talking about all these actors he wants to bring back for Season 3. Do you know for sure that Margot will be back next season?

Katharine: I only know from conversations I’ve had with Bryan and other people that Margot would definitely be coming back at some point. I don’t know how much or how little, I have no idea where the character’s going. He did do an interview with AfterEllen — that was tweeted at me and I read it and was like, “Oh my God that was awesome” — and he said something about a BOUND-inspired storyline and a love interest for Margot, and I think there’s going to be some really cool stuff for her, which makes me just so happy because it’s my favorite show ever. It’s my favorite character and I’m super-excited to see what they come up with. But basically I’m the last one to know. And I only get the scripts of the actual episodes I’m in so I don’t even know what’s going on at all. I’m totally in the dark until I show up on set.

Question: Since you’re a fan of the show, is there anything you think other fans would find especially interesting about your experience working on HANNIBAL?

Katharine: As an actor, I’m not privy to all the ins and outs of stuff. My experience is like I’ve won some kind of contest and I got to do a walk-on part [laughs]. I’m so thrilled to have anything to do with it at all. Walking into Hannibal Lecter’s office is quite something. And sitting down across from him is… it takes you a while to get over. You leave and you’re like all jittery and “I can’t believe that happened,” and you run it through your head like a million times. But I think everyone there, the whole crew, they know they’re making something different. They know they’re making something unique and special, and everyone really cares. No one wants to let down their peers and their co-workers and Bryan Fuller. I think everyone feels pretty special to be a part of it, I know I do.

As far as anecdotes, there was one day I got to wear a $25,000 Alexander McQueen and wear 6-inch stilettos and drive a Tesla. And there was a day we called “Orgy Monday” where the very first thing up was the sex scene between Hugh and I, which turns into being about Hannibal and Alana and then the Stag-man, and we were like, “Okay, let’s have a good orgy, guys. Who’s going to tag in? You, go.” That’s the absurdity, like, “What are we doing? Oh, we’re having an orgy? Okay cool.” I think most of us know we’re making something special and are happy to be a part of it.

Question: Hopefully it will continue for a very long run. I know as a fan I would love to see HANNIBAL continue for many more seasons, and I hope that Margot comes back.

Katharine: Yeah, me too!

The HANNIBAL Season 2 Blu-ray and DVD comes out Tuesday, September 16. Season 3 will air on NBC early next year.

Tagged , , , , , ,

Hannibal Review: “Mizumono” (season 2, episode 13)

“A bloodbath that leaves no one unscarred”

There comes a moment in watching a television show when you go from being a fan to being… well, an avid fan. Let’s call it a becoming of sorts. It’s at that point the show takes on an abnormal importance in your life. I discovered that was true for me when I sat down to watch the Season 2 finale of Hannibal. To my dismay and horror, I found myself staring dumbfoundedly at a baseball game in its seventh inning. After a bit of Internet scurrying, I was able to watch the episode, and holy crap. Without exaggeration, I think I’m ready to declare this the most gut-punchingly amazing non-series-ending season finale I’ve ever seen.

At the beginning of Season 2, we were teased with a flash-forward of a brutal hand-to-hand combat fight between Hannibal Lecter and Jack Crawford. We rightly assumed that the show would build over the course of the season to this deadly confrontation. But what we didn’t expect was that this seemingly straight-forward fight between two characters would culminate in a bloodbath that leaves no one (including the audience) unscarred.

Last episode closed with Will Graham offering up Crawford to Hannibal as bait. As “Mizumono” opens, we learn that Jack is in on this plan. And in a crafty bit of editing we get two separate conversations (Will and Jack, and Will and Hannibal) juxtaposed. We’re seeing both sides of Will, and while it’s tempting to believe Will is lying to Hannibal (“Will’s the good guy!”), I don’t think it’s that black and white. As the editing shows us, these two sides of Will have merged. Somehow two entirely dissonant beliefs exist side by side in his mind — the belief that serial killer Hannibal must be caught, and the belief that friend Hannibal must be saved. “You were supposed to leave,” Will tells Hannibal in that final scene. That’s when I understood. Will expected Hannibal to run. Despite all his empathy and his gifts for insight, Will wasn’t privy to the flash-forward we saw. He didn’t know this confrontation was inevitable. I think he and Hannibal both believed it could somehow be avoided.

For Hannibal that belief was shattered when he smelled the supposedly dead Freddie Lounds on Will. But Will’s belief lived a little longer, right up until Hannibal gutted him. This gets me to the big surprise of the season: The “resurrection” of Abigail Hobbs. (Which makes me wonder, was it Abigail who Beverly Katz found in Hannibal’s basement? I’d assumed it was Miriam Lass.) In a show where off-screen “deaths” are rarely deaths, some viewers might say they saw this coming. But did you see the I’m-still-alive-and-I’ll-shove-you-out-the-window moment coming? I didn’t think so! Seriously though, whether or not you expected Abigail to return (and for the record, I did NOT), Will’s surprise-confusion-betrayal-love at seeing her alive again was heart-breaking. And then to lose her again, right in front of him… F**k you, Hannibal!

Will’s allegiance to Hannibal, no matter how shaky and complicated it was, cost him dearly. The body count hasn’t been tallied yet, but whatever it is, Will’s guilt at his own complicity will surely birth some major personal demons (as if he didn’t have enough already) while he mourns the violent death of Abigail, et al. The drop of blood in Alana’s tears not only foreshadowed the episode’s bloody and tragic climax, but it’s also the perfect metaphor for Will’s becoming. His folly with Hannibal Lecter cost him blood and tears. And we can count on a lot more blood (and at least a few more tears) on what will likely be Will’s Season 3 rampage for revenge.

Speaking of aesthetics, the cinematography and scoring, while always exceptional, reached a new level of artistry toward the end of this season. In Hannibal, these elements rarely call attention to themselves, yet boldly heighten the emotional resonance of the storyline. And in “Mizumono,” ALL of the ingredients of film production — story, cinematography, score, editing, acting — combined perfectly into a magical witch’s brew that left me by the end both choking on it and wanting more. The bar has been set very high for Season 3 of Hannibal. And for this avid fan, it can’t get here soon enough. Continue reading

Tagged ,

Hannibal Review: “Tome-Wan” (season 2, episode 12)

“The event horizon of chaos”

There are very few secrets left between Will Graham and Hannibal Lecter. And “Tome-Wan” begins with a frank conversation that picks up immediately after last week’s final scene. Will “warns” Hannibal he’s set Mason Verger out to kill him because, well, he “was curious what would happen.” Will is playing Hannibal, in both senses of the word: He’s performing a version of Hannibal; and he’s doing so in order to lure Hannibal onto his hook. Hannibal of course is aware of this possibility. From his perspective, it’s irrelevant whether or not Will has actually murdered anyone; Will is dancing so close to that line that Hannibal is sure to be delighting in the effects of his influence.

We are witnessing a psychological game of chicken, as Mason calls it. But with two completely different styles. Hannibal’s “veneer of self-composure” is impenetrable. He’s the rock that you don’t see move until it’s crushed you. Will, on the other hand, is like an old coal-fired train racing at dangerously high speeds. You’re never quite sure if it’s going to stay on the tracks, and when it does, you’re amazed that it didn’t crash. An unstoppable force about to hit an immovable object.

At the end of that opening scene, Hannibal instructs Will to close his eyes and imagine what he would like to happen. And as I watched Will’s fantasy of him feeding Hannibal to Mason’s pigs, it felt incredibly satisfying — a culmination of all of Will’s suffering, a vindication of all of his efforts. And at the same time, I could not help feeling sad (and this is coming from someone who thinks all this “Hannigram” stuff is cray-cray). Their friendship is a fascinating dance on “the event horizon of chaos,” and as much as I want Hannibal to get caught, I don’t want the dance to end. But as Will acknowledges, “This is not sustainable.” [Subtextually, imagine how different that line would have felt had the show been canceled last week instead of being renewed — yikes, I don’t want to even think about that.]

Gillian Anderson returns as Dr. Bedelia Du Maurier, Hannibal’s former psychiatrist, to finally fill in her backstory and to warn us that Hannibal is still in control, no matter how confident Will and Jack seem. She also prophecies two significant plot developments: One, that Hannibal will persuade Will into thinking the only choice Will has is to kill someone he loves; and two, that Hannibal’s downfall will be the result of “whimsy,” or “self-congratulation at his own exquisite taste and cunning.” Concerning the first prediction, we can make a pretty good guess at whose life Will has chosen to offer up (Jack Crawford), based on the flash-forward from the beginning of this season plus Will’s suggestion to Hannibal in the final scene of this episode. But that second prediction… that’s intriguing, and likely something we will see develop over the course of Season 3.

We also get the conclusion (for now, that is) of the beautifully bizarre Verger storyline. Margot Verger has become the surrogate surrogate daughter (redundancy intended) for Will and Hannibal, taking the place of Abigail Hobbs. This complicates their plans for Mason. Both Will and Hannibal know that by killing Mason, they will be hurting Margot, which neither wants to do. How fitting then that Hannibal finds a solution to humiliate Mason by “eating” him (not literally but by proxy), but without killing him. And in a clever twist on the book, Mason feeds his face not to his own dogs, but to Will’s dogs!

Small changes like this remind us of how skillfully Bryan Fuller and his creative team are building on Thomas Harris’s Hannibal Lecter mythology. It’s rare that a derivative work outshines its source material. But I think that’s what we’re witnessing with Fuller’s Hannibal. Fuller has found a way to honor and respect the spirit of the original while shaping his Hannibal into something that’s different — transcendent even. And with just one episode left in Season 2, I can’t wait to see how he pays off that tantalizing flash-forward that began the season and sets up Hannibal’s downfall in Season 3. Continue reading

Tagged ,

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 143 other followers