Bryan Fuller's 3rd season of HANNIBAL: What is he up to?

[Sherrerd]

…with ‘what is he up to?’ applicable to either Fuller or Hannibal.

The third season of this NBC show begins Thursday, 4 June, and on this occasion I’m wondering a few things about the show and its direction.

First: the poll topic. In a 2013 AV Club interview, Fuller said:

I love the supernatural in storytelling. The Twilight Zone was a huge influence on me, in terms of writing and storytelling, where you’re not restricted to the parameters of reality to tell your tale. Hannibal is very much a secular story, even though we dance right up to the supernatural a few times in the show, and, arguably, you could say we dipped our toe in an instance or two.

http://www.avclub.com/article/bryan-fuller-walks-us-through-ihannibalis-debut-se-100644

He goes on to explain this seeming acceptance of a blurry line between Supernatural and Non-Supernatural plots elements in a fairly convincing way. But it still bothers me. For me, the line is not blurry at all: either there are supernatural interpretations of what Hannibal does and how he gets away with it, or there are NOT supernatural explanations.

But I was curious as to how much this matters to other viewers of the show.
The second area I wanted to bring up: the very odd fact that no one seems to discuss the show’s remarkably consistent use of 1970s costuming and hairstyling and décor. Well, remarkable to me, anyway. I have been searching for other remarks on the topic without much success.

Other, at least somewhat-comparable works have used retro styling for clothing, hair, and setting. I’m thinking particularly of two: Tim Burton’s use of vaguely 1940s costuming and 30s/40s expressionist architectural elements in his two Batman movies (1989 and 1992); and David Lynch’s use of 1960s design styling in his 1990-91 Twin Peaks.

So I suppose the wrap-dresses and wide ties and broad-check suits and loose, lank hair parted on the side and all the rest of it could simply be something Fuller sees as looking Cool. (As indeed it does.)

But I’m still baffled that those who work on the show never seem to mention the obvious seventies influence. Take, for example, this LA Times interview. After this beginning the Hannibal production designer being interviewed (Patti Podesta) goes on to talk about various elements in detail—but never says one word about the retro aspect:

(Q) What was your design brief, and what were your references?
(A) I remember Bryan Fuller saying first to me, “Elegant horror movie.” He has an immense appreciation for classical order and strange beauty.

'Hannibal' on TV: In decorating, he's a man of good taste

…if anyone has seen a discussion of the seventies element anywhere, I’d be grateful for a heads-up about it.

So, in sum: what do you think about where this show is going?

[Sherrerd]

Looks like I can’t edit the poll; note that the last word of the poll question should have been “response.”

(“HANNIBAL’s Fuller: “we dance right up to the supernatural…[and] dipped our toe in”. Your response?”

[Sage_Rat]

@Sherrerd

The second area I wanted to bring up: the very odd fact that no one seems to discuss the show’s remarkably consistent use of 1970s costuming and hairstyling and décor. Well, remarkable to me, anyway. I have been searching for other remarks on the topic without much success.

I never noticed.

Potentially, that’s just an aspect of the costumer’s tastes. That those match up with the 70s could simply be happenstance.

[Sherrerd]

@Sage_Rat

I never noticed.

Potentially, that’s just an aspect of the costumer’s tastes. That those match up with the 70s could simply be happenstance.

That is certainly possible. But the costumer wouldn’t be the one choosing furniture and wallpapers and set-dressing items–and with the exception of a few Apple electronic products, it does all seem to be 1970s-era (or thereabouts).

[grude]

The show has a surreal, fever dream feel along with such a slow pace the whole thing feels almost like Graham’s hallucination.

Things simply don’t make sense, from the absurdly over blown serial killers of the week(things like waiting decades to create a crime scene that is more performance art than anything) to incredible details like using particular fungi. The way others treat Hannibal as if they are totally blind to the fact he not only looks like a serial killer, he outright makes cannibalism quips and sly comments and they blow it off even when they are looking for a killer that has inside info from the justice department. Hannibal could outright say he kills and eats people and the other characters would smile and say oh you kidder!

Basically all this comes together to create a show with a “reality” that requires total suspension of disbelief, this goes waaay farther then even run of the mill stuff like CSI etc. It doesn’t even make sense in the universe created in show.

Watching the first season I really assumed it was going to turn out to be a case of unreliable narrator and parts or even all were delusions or hallucinations of Graham. Then the second season just ramped it all up even more.

With all that said none of this is really a criticism or even a negative, you just have to totally suspend all disbelief and view the show as a surreal dream like experience to enjoy it. And if you can do that you could enjoy it, if you can’t don’t bother. It definitely is not everyone’s cup of tea.

*One really wonders though how the senate and media will react to the fact a cannibal serial killer was so entwined with Justice department employees and their family, the fact they all were frequent dinner quests of his, the fact they ignored him basically screaming in their face he is a cannibal, the fact…oh what am I doing of course none of this will matter in the shows reality.

Anyway it is an odd surreal version of Thomas Harris’s already a bit out there book universe, just accept that and enjoy the weird ride.

[grude]

@Sherrerd

That is certainly possible. But the costumer wouldn’t be the one choosing furniture and wallpapers and set-dressing items–and with the exception of a few Apple electronic products, it does all seem to be 1970s-era (or thereabouts).

The use of 70s era costuming and props and set dressing is easily the LEAST bizarre thing about the show universe, and like I said is only one element of the surreal dream like quality of the show.

I was honestly confused when watching the pilot whether this show was set in the 70s or not, but the presence of cell phones and computers killed that theory.

It is absolutely intentional.

[Sherrerd]

I pretty much agree with your entire post, grude. An interesting aspect of this show, for me, is that though it is (as you say) a show in which “things simply don’t make sense,” it has an entirely different feel from other fever-dream works.

For example, the aforementioned Twin Peaks has a similarly long list of implausibilities–but every moment of that show is clearly surreal. By contrast, Hannibal contains long scenes of purely-pedestrian, mundane workplace conversations between people just doing their jobs (namely, most of the FBI stuff). There’s a grounding in the everyday in Hannibal that simply doesn’t exist in Twin Peaks or the Burton Batman films or in, say, Kubrick’s *The Shining *(another work overtly referenced in Hannibal.)

The whole ‘unreliable narrator’ concept that you mention is one of the possibilities that I’m sure many of us have considered as being the explanation for all the implausibilities. The late-in-season-1 revelation of Will Graham’s encephalitis certainly raised the stakes on that possibility (and was meant to, no doubt).

[Sherrerd]

@grude

The use of 70s era costuming and props and set dressing is easily the LEAST bizarre thing about the show universe, and like I said is only one element of the surreal dream like quality of the show.

I was honestly confused when watching the pilot whether this show was set in the 70s or not, but the presence of cell phones and computers killed that theory.

It is absolutely intentional.

Well, I think so, too. That’s why I’m surprised to see so little mention of it, either in reviews or in forums discussing the show.

[grude]

@Sherrerd

I pretty much agree with your entire post, grude. An interesting aspect of this show, for me, is that though it is (as you say) a show in which “things simply don’t make sense,” it has an entirely different feel from other fever-dream works.

For example, the aforementioned Twin Peaks has a similarly long list of implausibilities–but every moment of that show is clearly surreal. By contrast, Hannibal contains long scenes of purely-pedestrian, mundane workplace conversations between people just doing their jobs (namely, most of the FBI stuff). There’s a grounding in the everyday in Hannibal that simply doesn’t exist in Twin Peaks or the Burton Batman films or in, say, Kubrick’s *The Shining *(another work overtly referenced in Hannibal.)

The whole ‘unreliable narrator’ concept that you mention is one of the possibilities that I’m sure many of us have considered as being the explanation for all the implausibilities. The late-in-season-1 revelation of Will Graham’s encephalitis certainly raised the stakes on that possibility (and was meant to, no doubt).

I think the term that best applies to Hannibal is magical realism, it isn’t an outright fantasy but is clearly not connected in anyway to the real world either. Even Graham’s dreams in show contain these slightly off surreal elements like a stag you notice looks off somehow until you realize it is because it has black feather instead of fur.

It is kind of like the uncanny valley thing it creates the idea in the audience that something is not quite right but it is hard to place it. Makes it seem surreal and like a dream. Very effective and unsettling, instead of in your face strangeness like Twin Peaks.
I think most reviewers don’t mention the 70s costumes and sets because like I said it is the least surreal thing about the show, they focus on the more obvious things.
For what its worth Hannibal is one of the more interesting things on TV right now, but you almost have to view it as a surreal visual art rather than a gritty crime drama to enjoy it. One valid criticism I think is that the pacing sometimes becomes a bit too glacial to maintain interest, but that is a small criticism.

[grude]

@Sherrerd

I pretty much agree with your entire post, grude. An interesting aspect of this show, for me, is that though it is (as you say) a show in which “things simply don’t make sense,” it has an entirely different feel from other fever-dream works.

For example, the aforementioned Twin Peaks has a similarly long list of implausibilities–but every moment of that show is clearly surreal. By contrast, Hannibal contains long scenes of purely-pedestrian, mundane workplace conversations between people just doing their jobs (namely, most of the FBI stuff). There’s a grounding in the everyday in Hannibal that simply doesn’t exist in Twin Peaks or the Burton Batman films or in, say, Kubrick’s *The Shining *(another work overtly referenced in Hannibal.)

The whole ‘unreliable narrator’ concept that you mention is one of the possibilities that I’m sure many of us have considered as being the explanation for all the implausibilities. The late-in-season-1 revelation of Will Graham’s encephalitis certainly raised the stakes on that possibility (and was meant to, no doubt).

One thing I forgot to mention is that the whole show is basically put together to make you feel uneasy, even down to the way the characters are written. BUT the writing and dialogue is just grounded and mundane enough that you wonder what is really going on, are they just playing along? Are they sincere? I remember wondering if they were just humoring Hannibal to entrap him, and did he realize this? Was he just playing along as well?? It has this great tension in that things are just odd enough, but also grounded enough you’re never sure. Which brings it back to that dream like feel.

Same deal with the 70s costumes and props, enough to be noticeable and odd but not so much as to be blatantly ridiculous. Whole show has this uneasy ambiguous feel from the visuals to the writing.

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@grude

The way others treat Hannibal as if they are totally blind to the fact he not only looks like a serial killer, he outright makes cannibalism quips and sly comments and they blow it off even when they are looking for a killer that has inside info from the justice department. Hannibal could outright say he kills and eats people and the other characters would smile and say oh you kidder!

“Relax, kids; I have a gut feeling Uter’s around here somewhere. [chuckles amiably] After all, isn’t there a little Uter in all of us? [chuckles] In fact, you might even say we just ate Uter, and he’s in our stomachs … right now! AHAHAHAHAHAHA!..Wait, scratch that one.”

[Sherrerd]

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

“Relax, kids; I have a gut feeling Uter’s around here somewhere. [chuckles amiably] After all, isn’t there a little Uter in all of us? [chuckles] In fact, you might even say we just ate Uter, and he’s in our stomachs … right now! AHAHAHAHAHAHA!..Wait, scratch that one.”

That 1994 episode was made about three years after The Silence of the Lambs movie hit pop-culture with meteoric force. (In that same season of The Simpsons, another Hannibal reference showed up when Anthony Hopkins himself voiced Dr. Lecter in “A Star is Burns.”)

Of course, the dynamic present in that Simpsons scene (with the school staff gloating over the helpless students) differs from that noted by grude, with Fuller’s Hannibal quipping away to oblivious colleagues who would never even consider the possibility that he eats people.

[Sherrerd]

@grude

One thing I forgot to mention is that the whole show is basically put together to make you feel uneasy, even down to the way the characters are written. …

Yes, and in this Fuller is demonstrating yet again his admiration for Kubrick. (The Shining is, perhaps, the textbook example of how to make every shot and scene “off” in some way that tickles the sub-conscious mind.)

Yet Fuller didn’t go all-out in making his NBC show display (in your excellent phrase) “in your face strangeness” during every moment of its running time. Some scenes have a more grounded feel (though not free of suspense as to when the weirdness will crop up, again). As well as the FBI-staff interactions, the conversations between Jack and his wife could be swapped into almost any realism-based show with no difficulty.

I suspect this choice was wise, in that it gives a bit of respite to viewers. Non-stop weirdness can be wearing. (It’s worth noting that *Twin Peaks *ran for only 30 episodes, and by the end, wasn’t really ‘working’ anymore.)

[Eyebrows_0f_Doom]

@Sherrerd

(In that same season of The Simpsons, another Hannibal reference showed up when Anthony Hopkins himself voiced Dr. Lecter in “A Star is Burns.”)

Actually that was Hank Azaria. Hopkins has never been a guest voice on the show.

[Sherrerd]

@Eyebrows_0f_Doom

Actually that was Hank Azaria. Hopkins has never been a guest voice on the show.

You’re right; thanks (I misread the information). (Though my point was that the character of Hannibal Lecter was very much in the public eye, after the 1991 movie had been such a hit.)

[dasmoocher]

@grude

For what its worth Hannibal is one of the more interesting things on TV right now, but you almost have to view it as a surreal visual art rather than a gritty crime drama to enjoy it. One valid criticism I think is that the pacing sometimes becomes a bit too glacial to maintain interest, but that is a small criticism.

Or, smoke a joint first.

[Eyebrows_0f_Doom]

In tonight’s episode, when Hannibal walked in on Gillian Anderson on the floor, did anyone else hear him say “Gillian”? That was odd.

[Sherrerd]

@Eyebrows_0f_Doom

In tonight’s episode, when Hannibal walked in on Gillian Anderson on the floor, did anyone else hear him say “Gillian”? That was odd.

I didn’t hear that, but I’ll watch it again. It’s possible. Mads’ accent is sometimes hard to understand (and if he had said her real name, the editor might have mistakenly thought he was saying something else…)

Personally, I really liked the premiere episode’s emphasis on the points of view of Bedelia (which had been implied in the previews) and Abel Gideon –whose presence had NOT been telegraphed by previews.

One of my chief reservations about this show is that it inevitably glamorizes killing to at least some extent (and I’m not a fan of the viewpoint that Killing is Cool). I liked that we got to see something of what Hannibal *gives up *by choosing to be a killer: the friendship and even love he could otherwise enjoy from people of intelligence and substance such as Bedelia and Abel. And of course, Will. All he gets is their fear and dread.

[grude]

Did they really broadcast nudity like that? Neat, broadcast TV is loosening up a little.

So Hannibal is planning to kill and eat Bedelia, not really sure WTF she was thinking honestly.

[Sherrerd]

@grude

So Hannibal is planning to kill and eat Bedelia, not really sure WTF she was thinking honestly.

Possibly that if she runs, he would be willing to devote years (and millions) to finding her. And then when he inevitably finds her, he would be sure that she would suffer for having run.

She might have thought that living with him might engender some emotion in him–enough fondness for her to keep him from killing her. Which may have been overly-optimistic. But even if she hadn’t gone with him, she was on his radar, and nothing could change that.

So she hoped to make the best of it.