The Vampiric Mesmerism of Hannibal Lecter

Alex Jiao Ziheng | IEM2201F | Research Paper The Vampiric Mesmerism of Hannibal Lecter An insight into society’s fascination with Lecter from the vampire perspective Enshrined by the American Film Institute as the greatest villain in cinematic history, Hannibal Lecter holds an unforgettable place in the hearts of true-blue Americans. If you could ask any of the die-hard or casual filmgoers who is their favourite villain in Western cinema, Hannibal Lecter will surely be named. Thomas Harris took the world by storm with his Hannibal Lecter tetralogy. His novels are a phenomenal success, with the movie adaptations as box-office hits. Aside from being a commercial success, Hannibal Lecter is widely adored by the public as a cultural icon. Why are we so enamoured with the cannibalistic psychiatrist? Numerous explanations have been given by academics, yet such explanations are disjointed. To put a finger on this hazy discussion, this research paper offers a concrete explanation: we are fascinated by Lecter’s vampiric traits. With respect to the vampire motif, Lecter will be compared with Dracula. Following that, I will explore how the vampiric traits of Lecter are used to perpetuate his allure in popular imagination using the reverse colonization framework, which is rooted in the psychological state of anxiety and fear. The popularity of Lecter as a villain cannot be understated. We have adapted him into an anti-hero, commodifying his wickedness for legions of consumers. He is the protagonist in three novels by Thomas Harris: Red Dragon (1981), The Silence of the Lambs (1988), and Hannibal (1999). These books have been translated into dozens of languages and have sold tens of millions of copies (Random House, 2005). In addition, these books have been made into four feature films: Manhunter (1986), The Silence of the Lambs (1991), Hannibal (2001), and Red Dragon (2002). These films earned nearly one billion dollars at the box office (The Numbers, 2005). Apart from being a commercial success, Lecter is also celebrated as a pop culture icon. In ranking the screen’s 100 greatest heroes and villains, the American Film Institute (AFI) selected The Silence of the Lambs’ Hannibal Lecter as the number one villain of all time, inching out villains such as Darth Vader (American Film Institute, 2005a). Hannibal Lecter’s quote – “A census taker once tried to test me. I ate his liver with some fava beans and a nice Chianti” – was selected by the AFI as the number 21 film quote of all time, placing ahead of classic lines such as “Bond. James Bond” (number 22) and “Houston, we have a problem” (number 50) (American Film Institute, 2005b). At the height of his popularity, “Hannibal Lecter was, arguably, the most publicized and recognizable personality (real or not) in America during February 1991.” (Skal, 1993) With all this talk about societal fascination with Lecter, we may wonder who this intriguing character is. Hannibal Lecter is a literary character conceived by Thomas Harris. He is a serial killer of Lithuanian descent, who sprang into notoriety for his habit of consuming his victims, earning the nickname “Hannibal the Cannibal”. Orphaned during his formative years, Lecter moved to the USA, becoming a successful psychiatrist. He has a small and sleek physique, but is deceptively strong. He did not fit any known psychological profile, but was classified by his jailer as a “pure sociopath” (Harris, 1988). He possesses above-average intelligence, to the extent that it is not “measurable by any means known to man” (Harris, 1988). To the uninitiated, Lecter’s identity is nebulous as he is a multi-faceted character, defying convenient categorisation. Despite his multi-faceted identity, Lecter is known to his fans as the infamous cannibal-cum-serial killer (Oleson, 2005). However, my research paper takes an uncommon approach by focussing on Lecter’s status as a vampire. In literatures that address our fascination with Lecter, they offer disjointed factors that cause our fascination. In dissecting the criminology of Lecter, James Oleson takes a comprehensive approach. True to Lecter’s multifaceted nature, Oleson analysed the societal fascination with Lecter from various perspectives, such as the serial killer, the cannibal and the vampire. However he glosses over the treatment for each, even for the vampire perspective. He argues that the society is fascinated with monstrous figures, and Lecter embodies the archetypal vampire. Yet he fails to explain how the vampire motif in Lecter trilogy drives his allure in popular imagination. In their paper about serial killers in cinema, Caroline Joan Picart and Cecil Greek argue for the gothicization of reel-life serial killers as vampiric. To prove their point, they identify vampiric traits of famous reel-life serial killers. In Lecter, they identify two pertinent traits – hypnotic gaze and cannibalism - that underscore his vampire status. While they address the societal fascination through these vampiric traits, their treatment of such discussion is brief. However, Picart and Greek establish that there inextricable link between the serial killer/cannibal and the vampire. As a result, Oleson’s multifaceted treatment of societal fascination with Lecter can be condensed into the vampire perspective. Hence this allows my research paper to consolidate the disjointed factors into one coherent factor – the vampire motif, ultimately to explain our fascination with Lecter by emphasizing his vampiric traits. To validate the vampire perspective, it is necessary to compare Lecter with the archetypal vampire – Dracula. With respect to Bram Stoker’s classic rendition of the vampire, Lecter shares similarities in terms of physical appearance, vampiric abilities and modus operandi. Like Dracula, Lecter has superhuman strength; he has dominion over wild animals; and he has a nocturnal lifestyle (Sexton, 2001). In addition, both of them have eyes the color of maroon, “extraordinary pallor” and lips of “remarkable ruddiness” (Sexton, 2001). While there is a plethora of vampiric abilities, one of the most traditional abilities is their hypnotic gaze. Through eye contact, vampires are able to seduce and manipulate their victims, eventually leading them to their demise (Brooks, 2011). Even though Lecter’s gaze lacks the supernatural effect of Dracula’s, his gaze still works up a hypnotic effect on his victims, as I will explain later on. An additional vampiric ability that would be worth noting is the ability to transform the victims into monsters. Dracula transforms his victims into vampires through bites, whereas Lecter leaves deep physical and mental scars, transforming his victims (e.g., Mason Verger in Hannibal) beyond recognition (Brooks, 2011). In comparing their modus operandi, we note that the defining feature of the vampire is the need to feed on living creatures. Dracula sucks the blood of the living, whereas Lecter incapacitates his victims and consumes their flesh. It should be pointed out that both of them have a need to do so, Dracula drinks blood because of a physical need and Lecter consumes human flesh because of a psychological deformity (Brooks, 2011). Having established a credible link between Dracula and Lecter, we can now proceed to identify vampiric traits of Lecter that drives the societal fascination. The pertinent vampiric traits of Lecter in question are his hypnotic gaze and his cannibalism. Throughout their analysis, I will be referencing two films featuring Lecter, The Silence of the Lambs and Hannibal, due to their quintessential portrayal of his vampiric traits. Indeed, the synthesis of these two traits, succinctly termed “vampiric mesmerism”, is necessary to explain our fascination with Lecter. Lecter mesmerizes us not only through the gaze, but also through his persona as a cannibalistic gourmet; one is no less important than the other in perpetuating the societal fascination. In order to explain how his vampiric traits captivate the audience, I will use the reverse colonization framework which is rooted in psychological state of anxiety and fear. The framework is adapted from Stephen Arata’s seminal article on Bram Stoker’s Dracula. In this article, Arata claims that Dracula is a reflection of the national anxiety that gripped Britain in the late 1800s. The anxiety revolves around reverse colonization: the threat of the primitive trying to colonize the civilized world (Arata, 1990). Dracula’s arrival in Britain portends the onset of racial strife that was prevalent in Europe, with Dracula enacting reverse colonization by propagating his race through the bodies of British women. In Arata’s article, the framework is used to illustrate the national psyche, revealing the collective fear against the marauding Other which is Dracula. In my paper, I will adapt the framework to illustrate the individual psyche, ultimately to reveal our fearful fascination with Lecter. Our fascination with Lecter begins with the gaze. Similar to Dracula, Lecter mesmerizes the viewer through the hypnotic gaze. Yet instead of enchanting the viewer through supernatural ways, his approach is rooted in psychology. In The Silence of the Lambs, the exchanges between Lecter and the protagonist, Starling, are arguably the most climatic moments in the entire film. Lecter’s vampiric gaze, unbounded by his prison cell, bores an incisive view into Starling’s psyche, controlling and threatening her at the same time. As a result, with each subsequent meeting Starling is increasingly attracted towards Lecter. On the surface, the dynamics of Starling’s attraction to Lecter seemingly only exists on the silver screen. However we have to be cognizant that we are viewing (and being viewed by) Lecter through Starling’s eyes, as seen from extended close ups of his face during their exchanges. Indeed, Lecter’s gaze is intended to be an extra-diegetic gaze directed at us, the ‘fourth look’ that transgresses the boundary between the cinematic space and the real world. To achieve this effect, special care had been taken by the production designers to ensure that the bars on Lecter’s cage would not obstruct the camera’s view of his face. The actor playing Lecter, Anthony Hopkins, went so far as to avoid blinking while he was in character, adhering to the fundamental rule that a hypnotist should not blink while performing ‘direct gaze’ hypnotism. This results in his hypnotic gaze resembling the look of the Gorgon, because it transfixes the viewer in a state of willing immobility. What we can abstract from this phenomenon is that those theatrical tricks centre on the viewer being the object of the gaze. This is reverse colonization in full swing, illustrating the psychological state of anxiety within the viewer. In this context, the viewer’s anxiety results from being the object of the gaze. At the beginning of the film, the viewer is safe in knowing that he is the voyeur of Lecter’s diegetic world, ‘colonizing’ it by turning its inhabitants into the subjects of his gaze. Yet throughout the film, Lecter’s ability to return the gaze turns the tables on the viewer, transgressing the theater space in which the viewer inhabits, and ultimately his comfort zone. This phenomenon resembles a well-known trope within vampire literature – the vampire must be invited before it can enter our home. In this case, the home is a metaphor for our subconscious mind. Our inability to deny the vampiric Lecter access to our psyche is attributed to our willingness to be rendered immobile under the effect of his hypnotic gaze, much like how Starling is rendered powerless under the trenchant scrutiny of Lecter. Through the gaze alone, Lecter is able to exert a pull on us, albeit uncomfortably. We are inextricably drawn to him while at the same time grappling with the anxiety of being the objects of the gaze. It is the hypnotic pull of his gaze and the resultant anxiety that causes us to be so fascinated. Indeed, our widespread fascination with Lecter enacts on a larger scale the dynamics of Starling’s attraction to Lecter. With Starling as a proxy, Lecter’s allure lies in his ability to return our gaze with a hypnotic effect, even in confinement. True to his status as a vampire, Lecter is able to command our attention through the reciprocal gaze alone, ultimately imprinting his visage in our popular imagination. In addition to the hypnotic gaze, Lecter also mesmerizes us through his cannibalism. Admittedly, there exist some technical differences between cannibals and vampires. Yet we have to concede that the blood-soaked man-eating teeth of Lecter are placed ambiguously in between cannibalism and vampirism (Picart & Greek, 2003). Both involve the sinking of the teeth into the flesh; it is just that Lecter actually consumes it. Perhaps Lecter’s cannibalism is the “real life” version of the vampirism, a supernatural horror that exists only in imagination. The mere utterance of the word “cannibal” conjures images of the primitive savage, red in tooth and claw, feasting on human flesh for subsistence. Indeed, society fiercely condemns cannibalism, resorting to it only in situations of extreme necessity. That being said, cannibalism is not a societal norm; it is the normative perspective to treat it as a social taboo. Yet the mesmerism of Lecter lies in his ability to subvert our normative perspective, by dressing his cannibalistic primitive self in the trappings of an upper-crust gourmet. This echoes the persona of the aristocratic blood-sucking Dracula, while restoring to the cannibal the vampire aristocracy. In Arata’s illustration of reverse colonization in Dracula, she postulates that Dracula represents the threat of the primitive Other trying to colonize the civilized Britain. In Hannibal, Lecter arguably represents the threat of the primitive Other subverting the normative perspective of our civilized society. Towards the end of the aforementioned film, a well-dressed Lecter prepares an elegant dinner for his ‘guests’ – Starling and Krendler, with both of them been drugged. The grisly meal is brains dished from the lobotomized Krendler’s cranium, sautéed in a pan with shallots and white wine. This utterly gruesome instance of highbrow savagery, contrary to normative perspective, is widely celebrated by his fans (Picart & Greek, 2003). As Novelist A. L. Kennedy puts it, “the nice folks in my cinema cheered” when Lecter announces his intentions for yet another cannibalistic dinner date (Kennedy, 1995). It is now normal for society (or rather, fans of Lecter) to celebrate cannibalism, but only because of his status as a cannibalistic vampire with class. As Artie Megibben (2001) puts it succinctly, “not since Bela Lugosi has a villain had more class and style than Anthony Hopkins’ Hannibal Lecter.” (Megibben, 2001). Indeed, just as Dracula enthralled the viewers of 1930s with his blood-sucking antics, Lecter seizes the imagination of the present-day viewers through his persona as a “highbrow cannibal”. Drawn from contradictions, Lecter is a cannibal, engaging in the same taboo acts no less, yet he possesses the decorum of the upper crust, with his impeccable manners and fine tastes. As a result, viewers of Hannibal may experience a kind of kennetic strain, a cognitive tension that exists when the viewer’s mind grapples with incongruous statements (Sarbin, 1972). When the viewer is presented with ostentatious incongruous claims (e.g., Lecter is a highbrow cannibal), the viewer must exert a mental effort to reconcile those claims. This mental effort may lead to increased attention, deeper semantic processing, and therefore improving retention and retrieval (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1979). Thus in order to understand the enigmatic Lecter on a deeper semantic level, we subconsciously subvert our normative perspective by putting ourselves in his shoes. We become receptive of his classy cannibalism, celebrating it for its sophisticated quality yet being fearful of it becoming the new normal. The irresistible mix of barbarism and sophistication of Lecter leads us to reconcile what is normal and what is not, resulting in a kennetic strain that sears him into our collective memory. Hence we are mesmerized by Lecter because of his ability to subvert our normative perspective through his “highbrow cannibal” persona, and because he is a vampire figure we ache to understand. As the Latin maxim goes, “What is allowed to Jupiter is not necessarily allowed to an ox” (Quod licet lovis, non licet bovis) (Oleson, 2005). Indeed, Lecter can partake in acts of moral transgressions and not be judged harshly because of the mesmerizing qualities he possesses. Perhaps we find his vampiric traits too fascinating to condemn him entirely. In sum, Lecter’s mesmerism stems from his ability to return our gaze with a hypnotic intensity and to subvert our normative perspective through his “highbrow cannibal” persona. The double standard inherent in our fascination with Lecter is understandable due to the allure of the vampire motif. After all, we accord him way more idolatry than we do to other run-of-the-mill criminals. Perhaps through the vampire motif, we elevate Lecter to the pantheon of higher life forms, while we are mere cattles on mortal soil. Shrugged off from societal conventions in a Gothic realm, Lecter perpetuates the persona of a cannibalistic gourmet who occasionally returns our gaze with a hypnotic stare. Indeed, there is something alluring about these tantalizing vampiric traits, which will endure in popular imagination for generations to come. Bibliography (2005). Retrieved October 2013, from Random House: http://www.randomhouse.com/features/thomasharris/foreign.html#reddragon (2005). Retrieved October 2013, from The Numbers: http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/series/HannibalLecter.php American Film Institute. (2005a). Retrieved October 2013, from http://www.afi.com/tvevents/100years/handv.aspx American Film Institute. (2005b). Retrieved October 2013, from http://www.afi.com/tvevents/100years/quotes.aspx Arata, S. D. (1990). The Occidental Tourist: "Dracula" and the Anxiety of Reverse Colonization. Victorian Studies, 621-645. Brooks, C. (2011, January 6). Hannibal the Vampire. Retrieved October 2013, from The Screamsheet: http://screamsheet.wordpress.com/2011/01/06/hannibal-the-vampire/ Eysenck, M. W., & Eysenck, M. C. (1979). Processing Depth, Elaboration of Encoding, Memory Stores, and Expended Processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 472-484. Harris, T. (1988). The Silence of the Lambs. St. Martins Press. Kennedy, A. L. (1995). So I Am Glad. 52. Megibben, A. (2001). Hannibal. Journal of Religion & Film. Oleson, J. (2005). King of Killers: The Criminological Theories of Hannibal Lecter, Part One. Picart, C. J., & Greek, C. (2003). The Compulsion of Real/Reel Serial Killers and Vampires: Toward a Gothic Criminology. Journal of Criminal Justice and Popular Culture, 39-68. Sarbin, T. (1972). The Social Context of Conduct: Psychological Writings of Theodore Sarbin. Sexton, D. (2001). Mr Harris's cookbooks. Retrieved October 2013, from http://www.theguardian.com/books/2001/aug/18/highereducation Skal, D. (1993). The monster show: A cultural history of horror. New York: W.W. Norton and Co.