As a long-time horror enthusiast who has witnessed the evolution of special effects in films, I can confidently say that Ridley Scott’s “Hannibal” (now streaming on Peacock) serves as a testament to the timeless artistry of practical effects and visual storytelling. The infamous “brain-eating” scene, which Julianne Moore spoke of so casually, was indeed a sight to behold, leaving audiences both captivated and repulsed in equal measure.
It was incredibly surprising, bordering on unbelievable. Yet, we genuinely enjoyed the process of filming it.
The “it” Julianne Moore speaks of is the infamous “brain-eating” scene from Hannibal (now streaming on Peacock), Ridley Scott’s much-hyped 2001 sequel to director Jonathan Demme’s The Silence of the Lambs (also streaming on Peacock). Moore took over the role of FBI Agent Clarice Starling from Jodie Foster, and found herself seated at the table of Hannibal Lecter (Oscar-winner Sir Anthony Hopkins) as the cunning cannibal made Clarice’s colleague and former lover, the misogynistic Paul Krendler (Ray Liotta), his next victim.
As a devoted fan, I found myself in a state of shock and disbelief as I watched Dr. Lecter casually serve a portion of poor Paul’s still-living brain during the climactic scene of “Hannibal” in 2001. This scene left viewers equally enthralled and appalled, much like it did for readers of Thomas Harris’ 1999 novel. Now that “Hannibal” is available on Peacock, I can’t help but delve into the fascinating behind-the-scenes details of how they managed to pull off this grotesque sequence: a near-perfect fusion of three distinct visual effects that have only grown more captivating with age, like an excellent bottle of Chianti.
For More Horror on Peacock
Why Rob Zombie’s Halloween Films are an Underrated Watch20 of the Best SNL Halloween SketchesWhy Now is the Perfect Time to Start Watching the Terrifier Series
How Ridley Scott’s Hannibal Served Up Ray Liotta’s Brains
Despite some viewers and critics finding it excessive, the dinner scene in Hannibal is widely considered the most memorable part of the film. This scene overshadowed other aspects within the movie, such as the controversial casting swap between Moore and Foster, which made headlines at the time, as well as the departure of Demme from the project. Contrary to Demme’s view that it was too graphic, Scott found it to be just the right amount. (No intention of wordplay here.)
In the realm of film adaptations, the chilling end met by Krendler in the movie version of Harris’ work was one of several jaw-dropping moments drawn straight from the original source material. It’s said that Harris deliberately incorporated this scene, along with other shocking elements, as a response to years of relentless pressure from producers like Dino De Laurentis of Lambs and Hannibal, who had been urging him to pen a sequel. This scene might have been Harris’ subtle way of saying, “Go ahead, Hollywood, give it your best shot at adapting this intricate tale.” Indeed, director Scott and his team of makeup artists and visual effects specialists gladly took up the challenge.
As a dedicated fan, I can’t help but recall the intricate, downright chilling sequence that we were tasked with bringing to life during the making of “Hannibal.” Working in harmony with The Mill, a visual effects powerhouse responsible for some of the CG work, I, along with lead make-up artist Greg Cannom, embarked on the creation of an animatronic full-body puppet of Krendler. This involved taking a body cast of Liotta and equipping the face and neck of the puppet with interactive capabilities. In essence, this meant our lifelike puppet was capable of blinking, opening its mouth, and moving its head to mimic the movements of the actor on set, making it a truly remarkable spectacle.
From there, both the puppet and Liotta received a detachable green cap. For Liotta, this cap hid a half-helmet decorated with greenscreen, which would facilitate combining the puppet’s “brain” as a digital effect during post-production.
Vanderlaan stated that Scott was willing to consider the advantages if we opted for using a makeup or animatronic alternative instead of a live actor, as he mentioned.
When it came to making the brains to be used on set, Vanderlaan and his team went all-out.
Vanderlaan clarified that the structure contained actual animal brains and was designed with a sac filled with blood. When sliced open, the sac would leak its contents. He emphasized that this process was quite challenging as there was no room for mistakes.
The effects teams’ effort paid off, both in terms of shock factor and verisimilitude.
According to Riddy Scott in the 2001 bonus features, there are a few shots where it’s hard to distinguish between the puppet and Liotta. In fact, some of those shots actually feature the puppet, not Liotta himself.
Scott appears exceptionally joyful, even exhilarated, having successfully achieved a scene that Hannibal’s author himself had questioned its feasibility. Scott’s movie is a grisly blend of B-movie terror and grand melodrama. It can be described as an R-rated soap opera transformed into a bloodbath, featuring two of the most remarkable and captivating characters ever brought to the big screen, albeit portrayed in their most exaggerated, flat, and stereotypically horrific forms for slasher films.
From my perspective, as a fan, the concept initially seems intriguing, but the execution feels more repelling than relatable. Scott, following a script penned by David Mamet and Steven Zaillian (winner of an Oscar for Schindler’s List), appears to adhere rigidly to the novel’s tone rather than using its unsettling elements as a launchpad. In stark contrast, The Silence of the Lambs, despite its grim source material, transformed those horrors into a profound character study – a decision that contributed significantly to its status as an Oscar-winning masterpiece.
Simultaneously, the chilling spectacle of Krendler unknowingly consuming his own frontal lobe serves as an apt representation of Hannibal’s deliberate, exaggerated objectives. This image, perhaps, is why it frequently stands out in viewers’ minds when they reminisce about the sequel.
The setting effectively serves as a prophecy about the upcoming evolution of visual effects in cinema. Looking back two decades, Krendler’s “last meal” provides a strong case that filmmakers should consider computer graphics not as replacements, but rather as enhancers or tools to supplement or improve upon traditional, hands-on special effects.
In Vanderlaan’s opinion, there has been a common belief in our field that Computer Generated (CG) effects would put an end to makeup effects. However, he finds this idea misleading. Instead, he believes that the integration of makeup effects, puppetry, and The Mill’s creations underscores the significance of our work as a foundation for the technological advancements. The character Krendler, for instance, was brought to life through a combination of practical effects on set, CG effects in post-production, which emphasizes the importance of blending practical effects with modern technology.
Fava beans and a nice Chianti optional.
Read More
Sorry. No data so far.
2024-11-20 21:16