Tell me a Story

*In the interest of pushing more content to this blog given the glacial rate at which I am developing some longer, more formalized pieces, I am going to go ahead and offer some reflection on each week’s episode of Bryan Fuller’s beautiful Hannibal TV series on NBC.

"Hannibal Title Card." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 1 Mar. 2014.

“Secondo” (aired 6/18/2015)

            Of the three episodes of Hannibal that have aired thus far this year, “Secondo” feels the most focused. Where “Antipasto” and “Primavera” were generally centered on Hannibal and Will, respectively, and bringing the audience up to date on their activities while positioning the two against one another and setting the tone for the nature of this relationship this season, “Secondo” is largely concerned with a single question. Two-thirds of the plotting this time around is devoted to addressing the question of Hannibal’s past and the issue of his sister Mischa’s death and the role it has played in his development. While Jack Crawford finally arrives this episode and spends some time conferring with Pazzi in the same cathedral where Hannibal previously left his broken heart—and while their conversation further drives home the theme of forgiveness the show is pursuing while also insinuating that Hannibal is Will’s god—both Hannibal and Will’s stories circle the aforementioned singular question/issue. Molly Eichel of the A.V. Club makes some good points about how the events of the Hannibal and Will plots even parallel and mirror one another here.[1]

“Secondo” is still visually stunning, but it feels altogether more grounded than the previous two installments. The colors are still vibrant, dark, and lush, and I love the series’ devotion to color when many other thrillers strip it away to make themselves look “gritty.” The imagery of the ruinous, fog-shrouded grounds of the Lecter family estate and of the snails living in an old fountain and wine cellar remains strikingly dreamlike; however, while there are still visually experimental moments like a transition from Hannibal’s face to Chiyo’s in a cup of tea and the way that the show plays with uncertainty by giving us what looks like Chiyo’s murder at the hands of her former prisoner only to literally rewind time and show her killing him (an effect made all the more potent thanks to the tension built over a commercial break), “Secondo” feels much more clear-headed and focused overall. The dialogue is still stage play serious and art film pretentious, but it is also good to see that Hannibal can double down on a key piece of plot when it wants to, though its focus need not be confused or an absence of ambiguity at the end of the day.

I think it is safe to say that the addition of Mischa Lecter to Hannibal’s back-story (first in Hannibal and then in Hannibal Rising) has been a divisive one. The major thrust of “Secondo” seems to be to establish the TV series’ stance on her and what her death means to Hannibal. Mischa and the tragedy of Hannibal’s past in Lithuania first comes up in the novel and film Hannibal but is further expanded upon in Hannibal Rising. This is not the first we are hearing of Mischa in the series either, but for those who have not read the books or seen the films, she likely remains a figure very much on the periphery of the story. “Secondo” does not take the easy way out by offering flashbacks of young Hannibal and Mischa. Nor does it allow any one character to sit down and explain things via a handy exposition dump. The rest of the cast is as dodgy on the subject of Mischa as is Hannibal himself. How “Secondo” ultimately leaves things will likely resonate most strongly with those viewers who have some knowledge of the larger Hannibal mythos, while those who only know of Mischa through the series are likely to feel a bit more confusion.

As I suggested before, Mischa is a problematic part of the Hannibal lore—largely because the childhood trauma of her death and cannibalization by Soviet soldiers weathering a harsh winter near the Lecter holdings during World War II makes Hannibal himself less of a mystery. The character that had previously been established in Red Dragon and The Silence of the Lambs as too complicated and devilishly smart to diagnose was suddenly reduced to a convenient childhood trauma. It was too much and too easy for fans to swallow (so to speak). Additionally, some critics of Hannibal Rising also take issue with the supposed logic of Mischa’s violent death and consumption by evil men (a scarring experience for Hannibal certainly) leading to her brother’s decision to cannibalize his own enemies. It seems like the mere thought of doing what was done to his sister to others would evoke those memories that he prefers to keep locked away in unvisited parts of his memory palace. Since Hannibal Rising suggests that Hannibal was, by all account, normal prior to the incident, Mischa’s death becomes the sole cause of his own madness and cannibalistic behavior. It is both too convenient and too simple of an explanation. As Eichel suggests in her review, one could justify staying away from Hannibal Rising on the grounds that its explanations ultimately do more harm to the legacy and mystique of the character of Hannibal than they do good.

It may also be worth noting here that Thomas Harris was semi-coerced into writing Hannibal Rising in the first place. Apparently the Hannibal prequel story would have happened with or without him, and cranking out the book (the leanest of the series) was the only way he could maintain some kind of creative control over the way that the story was handled. Hannibal Rising is Harris’s best written book, though. Like many thriller writers, though I say as much at the risk of generalizing heavily, Harris’s writing in his first novel Black Sunday and in the Hannibal books was serviceable (and understandable) but fairly barebones, with the occasional odd turn of phrase or awkward bit of poeticism creeping in here and there. His writing improved noticeably with each book, however, and Hannibal Rising, while perhaps the weakest in terms of story, is capably written. It is also a fairly straightforward revenge story. Hannibal’s sister is murdered and eaten by a group of men who escape justice because of the chaos of the war and because Hannibal is only a child when they first meet. He grows up and he seeks revenge. He kills all of the men.

“Secondo” departs noticeably from the plot of Hannibal Rising by having Mischa’s ostensible killer and consumer kept alive and as a prisoner by Hannibal. The episode further deviates from the version of the story in the novel and film by strongly suggesting that this man is innocent (at least of killing and eating Mischa). Hannibal’s story about the shattering of the teacup of his former life—of Mischa’s death—may be just that: a story, which, as the newly introduced Chiyo suggests, is simply a coping device. Hannibal’s version of the Mischa story which is implied to be similar to the one from Hannibal Rising is his way of dealing with the pain of events “only he experienced.” Who knows what really happened? Only Hannibal knows for certain, but Will has his doubts and guides Chiyo to a similar place of uncertainty when he makes her realize that she only knows the man she is keeping isolated in the basement is guilty of his supposed crimes because Hannibal told her (a story).

Meanwhile, Bedelia asks Hannibal outright how his sister tasted. She sees Hannibal well enough to suspect what the readers of Harris’s novels always knew: that the Mischa story is a bunch of bull and that a man like Hannibal, who roots for the Devil rather than Faust and can easily snap a man’s neck or stab someone in the head with an ice pick (someone without any lingering moral concerns), could never have been created by mere trauma. Will likewise tells Chiyo that there is no way Mischa can account for all that Hannibal is or be responsible for making him what he is. He has always been the way that he is. Hannibal confirms everyone’s suspicions by telling Bedelia, “Nothing happened to me. I happened.” Nothing happens to Hannibal. He is the one who orchestrates events. The phrase “I happened” gives him the quality of a force of nature, a force which is impossible to stop for anyone, including the force itself. Hannibal is inevitable. He can no more change who he is than someone else can render a change in him. Rather than fight his fated nature, he accepts it calmly and with great poise. “Secondo” reveals the Hannibal of the series to be everything the Hannibal of the novels and films ought to have remained. He is impossible to understand because there is no cause of his behavior. He simply is and always has been.

The moment between Bedelia and Hannibal at the end of the episode is still a poignant one, however. First, we do finally get the line in-episode that NBC’s promos spoiled weeks ago—that is to say that we learn Hannibal can only forgive Will if he eats him as he did Mischa. Second, though, while Hannibal is revealed here to be no more and no less than his own nature (“I happened” and continue to happen), there is something affecting about what Bedelia suggests to be the root of his cannibalistic behavior—a cause if there ever was one. It seems that Hannibal ate Mischa because he felt for her in ways that he could not express otherwise. If we do still conceive of Hannibal not necessarily as Satan incarnate but as a man with an illness or disorder, then this may very well be it. Hannibal seems to feel things like Will does: without a filter. He is unable to contain his love or hatred of someone else and express it as words. Does he eat the rude simply because they are rude or because his reaction to uncivilized behavior is so strong that he cannot do anything else with it? Is the seemingly emotionless Hannibal such a slave to emotion that he can only ever eat his feelings (in more ways than one)? We know that Hannibal feels for Will what he felt for Mischa, and even though he told Will at the end of season two that he could forgive him his betrayal, we now get the sense that Hannibal will not (or cannot) forgive an offense without eating the offender.

Speaking of Will’s offense in season two: I have to wonder what Hannibal had planned for Will and Abigail if they had all left together. He eats the people he hates and the people he loves. If he was not planning to eat Will or Abigail at the time, then it suggests that the implacable force of Hannibal can conceivably change, or possibly even that he wanted to change for Will and Abigail, making Will’s betrayal of him all the more painful and perhaps suggesting why Hannibal is now killing openly. Ostensibly he wants to draw his victims to him (again); however, it may also be possible that this is his grieving process. The man who can never change may have thought that he could (or at least make an exception for two people he loved). He has had his heart broken and responds by dispensing with pretense and lashing out.

That being said, I am not sure what to make of Hannibal’s suggestion that “betrayal presupposes forgiveness.” I am not sure that it actually means anything. It may suggest that all traitors act assuming that they can be forgiven down the road, which is highly suggestive if Hannibal is the Devil/Satan/Lucifer on the show, but I do not think that is exactly the case. Not every traitor wants or even expects forgiveness. This is also only one of several problems I had with “Secondo.” The biggest was with the part of the story where Will releases Hannibal’s prisoner. Given the fact that he is still a stranger to Chiyo, I could not imagine how or why she would leave him alone long enough to spring the man and take him into the woods. Second, I felt that Jack’s introduction, walking toward the camera in the cathedral and slowly coming into focus, is composed like it is meant to be a major reveal; however, given that Fishburne’s name has been in the credits for two weeks now and that NBC’s promos already spoiled his character’s return, the moment ends up feeling like an anticlimax. Maybe that scene is meant to evoke some other feeling or serve a different purpose.

Third (and finally), I am not sure how I feel about Will’s characterization in “Secondo.” I am referring, of course, to the way that he sets Hannibal’s prisoner loose even knowing that he will likely attack Chiyo and the way that he later creates a human insect (probably a firefly) from the man’s corpse. Chiyo suggests that Will’s decision to release the man and see if she will kill him is similar to what Hannibal would have done, and as I noted last week in my analysis of the stag/wendigo motifs of the show, there is definitely an argument to be made that Hannibal’s nature is corrupting Will. Jack continues to insist that he broke Will, but he has been saying that since season one, and, frankly, I am a little tired of hearing it. Both of the prior seasons have had their fun with the uncertainty regarding Will’s nature. Will he or won’t he/did he or didn’t he become a killer like Hannibal? The fake-out with Freddie last season seemed to put a capper on this particular idea. Will might be taking on some Hannibal-like tendencies, but he is ultimately still concerned with justice. Freeing the prisoner and allowing him to attack Chiyo is extreme, but it is within the realm of what is plausible or acceptable with Will. The ready mutilation of the corpse is another thing altogether. It reopens the will he or won’t he/did he or didn’t he argument again, and I find it hard to believe that Will will or should walk away from all this unscathed.

It is increasingly difficult to see this Will becoming the family man from Red Dragon, which is not a problem in and of itself; however, I question whether even Hannibal has the gumption to follow this character development to its natural conclusion. Will considers himself already among the dead. Jack asks Pazzi how Will could put his imagination back together after returning from the dead like he (Jack) has, and the rather obvious answer is that Will has not. He has not recovered or really returned. He continues to live in a dreamlike state. His mistreatment of the dead prisoner’s corpse sends him further down the path of no return, and sooner or later Hannibal has to acknowledge this fact once and for all. If it continues to dance around the issue of will he or won’t he/did he or didn’t he then it will seem to lack conviction. Killing off such a major character would be surprising given how shows like this are typically so fond of their main cast that they refuse to part with them (case in point: the fact that everyone except for Abigail survived the kitchen incident last season), but I do not think the Will we are seeing now can return home as if nothing happened. Since we are approaching the events of Red Dragon anyway—the only book in which Will actually appears—the introduction to Clarice that I speculated about last week might come to pass. Maybe.

Although the fact that Will is no longer trying to woo Hannibal and win his confidence as he did in season two gives him zero excuse for making art of the prisoner’s body, there are still pieces of the story we are missing. In “Primavera,” Will seemingly goes from hospitalized to abroad in Europe in a matter of minutes. We do not know what transpired in between the scene with “Abigail” in his room and their entering the cathedral. We suspect based on what Jack tells Pazzi in this episode that Will is here without any kind of official backing and that Jack has come to retrieve him. Still, we do not know what passed between Will and Jack back in the states. We do not know if either of them have spoken with Alana. In short, there may be some plan here that we are not seeing yet. Jack certainly could be lying to Pazzi, a stranger who, though he has his own seemingly professional reasons for wanting Hannibal caught, remains an unknown element. I am excited to get Alana’s story next week and to see more Margot and Mason Verger… and possibly Chilton? (God, that guy is some kind of survivor at this point if it is him and he really did survive being shot in the head last season.)

Note:

[1] http://www.avclub.com/tvclub/hannibal-secondo-221094 (Molly Eichel’s review of “Secondo” for the A.V. Club)