Red Dragon [DVD] [2002]

Remakes of films are inevitably compared with the earlier versions, especially if the films in question are based on a popular book. Red Dragon, based on Thomas Harris’s book of that name, is not strictly speaking a remake of Manhunter, the earlier incarnation of Harris’s story; it should rather be regarded as a different version. Even so, the comparisons have been and will continue to be made. How does Red Dragon stand up to these comparisons?
My view is inevitably a personal one, especially as Manhunter made such a vivid impression on me, both before and after I had read the book (which by the way I prefer to Silence of the Lambs and the abysmal Hannibal). However, while watching Red Dragon I tried hard to be as objective as possible, and to avoid setting the film against its earlier incarnation. The result was a rather mixed view of the film.
I tried hard to like Edward Norton as Will Graham, but he lacks the steely-eyed determination and restrained intensity of William Petersen in the same part. Similarly, Ralph Fiennes did a good job with the monstrous Francis Dolarhyde, but I longed desperately for the formidable, truly terrifying presence of Tom Noonan in the same role.
It was with the celebrated character of Hannibal Lecter, though, that I felt things got a bit out of hand. The film’s makers seemed to be milking the character for all it was worth, and included some unnecessary scenes, such as Lecter lunging at Will Graham while attached to a kind of human exercise apparatus, and having a waiter serving him a meal jump with fright when Lecter suddenly appears on the other side of the cell barrier. These were apparently included simply to introduce a bit of gratuitous Lecter-shock-factor, which to be honest isn’t really shocking at all; we’ve seen it all before, in Silence of the Lambs and Hannibal, and overdoing it in this manner robs Lecter’s character of his power. Anthony Hopkins is a very fine actor, and I have always admired his work, but for me he goes over the top with Lecter. In the first two books, Lecter’s character is so compelling simply because he is subtle and restrained; the Lecter of Red Dragon and Silence of the Lambs would have scorned the kind of obviousness displayed by Hopkins’s impersonation of him. I know I am far from alone in finding Brian Cox’s portrayal of the Doctor in Manhunter far more sinister and menacing, precisely because of its subtlety and restraint. I can still hear Cox/Lecter’s voice, softly probing yet with a hint of steel behind it, as he asks Will Graham, ‘Do you know how you caught me, Will?’
The characters apart, what about the film’s general impact? In general it was well made, yet to me it lacked overall impact. The opening scenes apart, Red Dragon is actually slightly more faithful to the book (in the literal sense) than Manhunter, but I’m not sure that is necessarily a bonus. Sure, we were treated to some insight into Francis Dolarhyde’s earlier life, and were given a glimpse of his obsession with Blake’s painting The Great Red Dragon and the Woman Clothed with the Sun. But without the detailed information given in the book that did not really tell us much more than Manhunter did.
Some scenes which should have had us on the edge of our seats were simply flat, the most obvious one being the moment when Freddy Lounds, glued to the wheelchair, comes hurtling down the street in a ball of fire. In Red Dragon it lacked impact, possibly because the director stuck too closely to the book and simply had the wheelchair roll down the sloping street from right to left. The same scene in Manhunter starts with a view of a ramp curving out of sight into what looks like a multi-storey car park. We hear the whump! As petrol ignites, and see a sudden glow reflected against the far wall of the car park entrance. Then the squeak of the wheelchair’s wheels, and finally the dreadful sight of Freddy, all ablaze, hurtling towards the camera. Less faithful to the book, no doubt, but so much more dramatic and cinematically satisfying. Another scene where Manhunter scores hands down is the one in which Francis Dolarhyde takes the blind woman, Reba McClane, to see the tiger sedated prior to having its tooth capped. For me this is a stunning scene: Reba runs her fingers through the tiger’s fur ecstatically, laying her head against its side to hear the heartbeat, her face filled with wonder and awe. By contrast, Red Dragon again falls flat in a scene which should make the hairs stand up on the back of one’s neck. Finally the ending, while again truer to the book, simply seems to prolong an already longish film (or did it only seem that way? I actually found myself fast-forwarding in places, which I rarely do). Yet again, Michael Mann’s surer touch shows in the ending of Manhunter, with the unforgettable sight of Will Graham pounding towards Dolarhyde’s house in slow motion, finally hurling himself through the window into the room where Francis Dolarhyde is about to cut Reba McClane – and all to the pounding rhythms of Iron Butterfly.
Red Dragon lacked the charged atmosphere that was such a striking feature of Manhunter, thanks in no small measure to the latter’s music, a blend of electronic and heavy metal. By contrast I can’t remember a single thing about the music for Red Dragon, which seemed to me banal and lacking in atmosphere.
Overall, I felt that the makers of Red Dragon relied too heavily on the main actors to carry the film; it’s as if they thought everything else would simply fall into place around them. Well, it doesn’t. It’s not a bad film, and it does have some very good moments. But would I want to watch it again? Probably not.

This film is poor. The fear generated by 'lambs' and the dark humour of 'hannibal' are betrayed by a a film that has the production values of a poor tv film. The 1980's Red Dragon film, Manhunter, is far superior and stars William L. Petersen the star of CSI. The new Red Dragon fails to provide the tension and atmosphere of the book. How can a film with Norton, Hopkins and Fiennes be bad? Well it is. I blame the director, Brett Ratner (Rush Hour), who has never done a film of the type before. The psychological dimension of the series is glossed over and the subtlety of earlier films is lost. This is dumbed down Hannibal.

The key thing about watching "Red Dragon" is to realize that this is not a Hannibal Lecter story. The character was a compelling but relatively minor figure in both the Thomas Harris novel and "Manhunter," the original cinematic adaptation by Michael Mann. Obviously screenwriter Ted Tally and director Brett Ratner have enhanced the role for this 2002 film, but Anthony Hopkins's part is not a central part of the story. Once you understand that you will discover that "Red Dragon" exceeds your expectations. But if you cannot get around this idea then you are probably going to be bitterly disappointed with this film.

Clearly a major strength of this film is the stellar caste, which in addition to Hopkins has Edward Norton, Ralph Fiennes, Harvey Keitel, Emily Watson, Mary-Louise Parker, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Anthony Heald, and Mary Beth Hurt (add to the list Ellen Burstyn as the voice of Grandma Dolarhyde). But what makes this film work is its intelligence, for which Harris and Tally get the credit. Will Graham is an intelligent man, an F.B.I. profiler who constantly shows throughout this story that he has a gift for saying the right thing, whether he is talking to Lecter, a room full of police officers, the head of a company, or the Red Dragon himself. Yes, he has been scarred psychologically as well as physically by his capture of Lecter, but it is not an incapacitating condition as was the case with Clarice Starling. In "Silence of the Lambs" the climax of the film involved a cinematic commonplace that has always enraged me, when a law enforcement officer has a gun drawn and aimed at a suspect who then manages to get away. I thought the climax of "The Red Dragon" involved an exhilarating series of intelligent, brilliant moves by the good guys.

The other aspect of this story that makes it compelling is that the villain is a monster with a soul. The idea of a serial killer falling in love, struggling to thwart the demonic voices and try to stop his descent into hell is brilliant. The circle becomes complete when you notice that all of the main characters in this film are complex; granted, not as complex as the Red Dragon, but enough that the actors reading this script would be drawn to the parts. But the ability of the villain to be surprising is critical because usually in the final analysis it is the villain that makes the film. Again, this underscores the fact that Lecter is not the villain of the piece. But he was in "Hannibal," and look how well that film was received. Here we are back to the pivotal idea that even when this character is bound and gagged in a cell he is still capable of killing you.

Ultimately Hannibal Lecter remains the problematic element in the film; more often that not his scenes are suggestive if not outright reminiscent of scenes from "Silence of the Lambs." One of the obvious questions that springs to mind is whether Hopkins's Lecter would have made as big of an impact if "Red Dragon" had indeed been the first of the reconstituted trilogy. Ultimately the answer has to be "no," but because this is clearly a prequel made fully cognizant of the film that comes after it. To appreciate how difficult this is to pull off look at other recent prequels such as "Gods and Generals" and either of the two Star Wars films. The argument here is not that "The Red Dragon" is a better film than "The Silence of the Lambs," but that it is a worthy successor to that classic film, even if it takes place first.

Final Note: The commentary track with Ratner and Tally is well worth a second viewing of the film, more so in terms of tidbits about the production than analytical insights into the adaptation. The rest of the DVD extras are at least average, but the commentary is the big attraction here.