Why did Jodie Foster refuse the role in 'Hannibal'? (possible spoilers)

Cafe Society
1

I have heard two reasons given:

  1. She had moral qualms with the way the character turns out;

  2. She had schedule conflicts.

Both seem somewhat problematic to me.

The first reason, because the filmmakers did a complete ‘Hollywood ending’ job on the rather interesting plot of the novel. So she (presumably) shouldn’t have had moral qualms with the script.

OTOH, the second reason sounds too contrived – I would think he participation would be important enough to change pretty much any schedule.

The straight dope is appreciated!

PS: FTR, I thought Julianne Moore did a great job. But it doesn’t undo the damage done by the aforementioned ‘plot-plasty’.

2

Please replace “he participation” with “her participation”.

3

IIRC, Foster thought the material was too dark, and she didn’t like the way that her character turned out in the end (in the book).

Personally I think she just didn’t want to eat the brain.

4

I read an interview with someone associated with the film who said the ending was changed specifically because of Foster’s objections. He was pissed that they changed the ending and she still didn’t do it.

Sorry I can’t be more specific as to who the interview was with.

5

Maybe the ending was initially changed to please Ms. Foster, but when she left the film there was nothing to prevent them from going back to the novel’s ending… aside from the fact that it is the single stupidest fucking ending ever written. Thomas Harris should be ashamed of himself.

6

Total opinion ahead… I have no facts to back this up, other than a general tendency of Foster’s roles.

Jodie Foster has always been pretty picky about her roles. She doesn’t take a role if she thinks it’s stupid. Most of her roles are a challenge to her in some way, and the vast majority of her movies are worthy of respect.

Hannibal isn’t. Even before Ridley Scott got his hands on it, it was a bad story, and a terrible script. Lecter is an somewhat-classy version of Freddy Krueger in it, complete with pithy lines. Starling is a thin slice of her former self, lacking the depth and vulnerability that made her interesting in Silence of the Lambs. And Scott, instead of taking a subtle approach, went for the jugular and showed every gory detail whenever possible. The romance angle was completely mis-played. Gary Oldman couldn’t even help it, because his face was so slathered in makeup that he couldn’t act through it. And yeah, what grendel72 said about the stupid ending (book or movie).

Don’t get me wrong; I love a good gory film… but Hannibal is a bad gory film. I also like Julianne Moore a lot, and I think she did as well as she could with what was given her. This is one of the few films of hers that I didn’t like her in, but I attribute that to the script. I also like a lot of Ridley Scott’s movies, especially his early work. His more recent films have been disappointments for the most part, and Hannibal is the worst of the bunch. And as far as the book, Hannibal is the worst of the three “Lecter” books. Harris should indeed be ashamed.

My personal opinion on why Foster turned the role down? I think she saw the trainwreck coming a mile away, and avoided it. Anthony Hopkins should have done the same, though I think I understand the attraction to him playing his “signature” role again. I just think he’s a much better acctor than that. And though I might have liked seeing Foster play Starling again, I would have been embarrassed for her to see her in Hannibal’s version of Starling. I think she was smart, and got out of it while she could.

7

…even if she was working on a sequel to “Nell” ?

8

The movie was an unbelievably bad piece of trash, and I speak as a big fan of the original. I wish Hopkins had turned it down too.

I suspect Foster’s refusal had quite a lot to do with the fact that her role was quite tiny, compared to her role in SOTL. They (or Harris) practically wrote her out of the storyline. I would have been insulted.

Brain-eating or no brain-eating.

9

My take on it is this: Miss Foster won an Oscar for her role as Starling in SOTL and upon reading the script for H decided to quit while she was ahead.

10

Yeah, I think she just knew it was gonna bite more than brains, and opted out! :slight_smile:

11

She’s never struck me as a “sequel” actor. On the other hand, Julianne Moore has substituted twice for orginal actors in sequels that I know of (“Hannibal” and “Jurassic Park 2”)

12

Grendel, I respectfully differ on the ending to the novel Hannibal being stupid…

IN SOTL, we all pretty much decided that Lecter was pure, born evil.

Then in Hannibal, we learned about the horrors the young Lecter went through. Horrors that would mess up most people pretty seriously.

And we saw how amoral and corrupt the FBI (the institution Clarice had dedicated her life to) and its parent orgs were capable of being.

It made Lecter seem a lot different than he did in SOTL. (Well, that and seeing a credible portrayal of Lecter living in the real world, with no need to kill and eat anybody).

In the final analysis, how you feel about the ending to the novel Hannibal probably depends on

  1. How you feel about moral relativism.
  2. How corrupt you believe our institutions are
13

wasn’t Julianne Moore’s character a new character in Jurassic Park 2? (as love interest to Malcom’s characater)

14

My take on the ending of Hannibal was that it was obviously set up for the 4th novel, “Clarice wakes up, kills Lector.”

15

What was the gist of the book’s ending?

how was it different?

16

I have three words for you MyFootsZZZ: Cannibal love slave.

17

I never really saw her as a love-slave at all.

Lecter is a predator, in the classical sense. He is the ultimate alpha-male. Starling is also an alpha, but because of her upbringing, and the society she is in, she’s not allowed to shine. Her true potential shows in areas (her shooting, reflexes, analytical ability) but overall she is buring in societal and habitual clap-trap.

Lecter, through deep therapy, did what nobody else, including Starling, were able to do… bring out her inner self.

More power to them. I think the symbolism and some of the sequencing in the ending was pretty shallow, but the overall gist was great. I liked it.

18

I recall hearing that after it was decided to do the sequel (shortly after SOTL became a box office smash) Foster would agree to do the sequel only if she got to be the director. Apparently, that wasn’t going to fly with the folks who were producing the movie and the project got shelved until someone dangled enough money under Scott’s nose to get him to do it.

19

spoiler/

In the book, Hannibal captures Starling, imprisons her some unspecified length of time while dripping various drug concoctions into her vains. Then they run off together and live happily ever after.

I don’t know which I like less, the book or movie ending. They were equally, and oppositely, improbable.

20

I claim fair use.

Highlight the white space below to read.

As the book opens, Clarice is about to take part in a joint-force drug raid. A mole tips off the crooks, and in the ensuing shootout several people die, both cops and crooks. The government is embarrassed, and decides to hang Clarice out as scapegoat (despite her exceptional, cool performance in the raid).

Clarice is chosen as scapegoat partly because of a personal vendetta by DOJ lawyer Paul Krendler, whose romantic advances she rejected years before. This vendetta is buttressed by a more diffuse, FBI-wide sexist resentment of Clarice’s long and distinguished career.

Meanwhile, a billionaire who has been hideously mutilated by Lecter hires goons to capture Lecter, to torture him to death in revenge.

Clarice continues to persue the capture of Lecter, even after being stripped of her badge. She figures out the billionaire’s revenge plan, and, (as a civilian acting alone) breaks in just before the torture begins.

After shooting some of the goons, she rescues Lecter, intending to bring both him and the billionaire to justice. She is then wounded by goons.

The freed Lecter saves her, and escapes, carrying the wounded unconscious Clarice in his arms.

She awakens in Lecter’s luxurious home. He has provided everything for her, and is not restraining her in any way. But he is subjecting her to extensive psychotherapy, involving ritual re-enactment, counseling and drugs. The effect is to remove the inhibitions that she has acquired, thus allowing her true personality to emerge. * As Tristan says, she is an ‘alpha’, like Lecter.

Also, very important: by this point in the plot, the government has increased the scapegoating heat: they have declared that Clarice has willingly run away with Lecter, framing the ex-FBI agent for murder. (This was done by Krendler at the behest of the billionaire, who wanted to disrupt her pursuit of Lecter).

At the much-touted dinner featuring Paul Krendler’s brain, she is a willing participant (unlike in the movie).

The book ends with Clarice Starling and Hannibal Lecter becoming a devoted couple sharing a luxurious, law-abiding lifetime together.

  • That’s my interpretation of the therapy – Grendel, et all may disagree. Their comments would probably give a different, and valuable perspective.