RED DRAGON (Brett Ratner, 2002) R

Reviewed: September 16th, 2002

Cynics, skeptics and purists be damned: despite being a proud Manhunter DVD owner and huge fan of Thomas Harris's source novel, I am ecstatic to report Red Dragon is a film of high visceral impact which renders Michael Mann's inferior adaptation moot. Whereas Manhunter is hopelessly dated and features a positively awful leading performance from William Peterson, director Brett "Antichrist To Film Geeks Worldwide" Ratner and The Silence of the Lambs scripter Ted Tally have expertly compacted Harris' expansive narrative into an angular, but still dense new entity. Featuring flawless performances from Anthony Hopkins (as good as ever), Edward Norton (with a sorrowful understatement), Ralph Fiennes (creepily effective) in the leads, and a handful of indentative supporting turns (particularly from the always fabulous Philip Seymour Hoffman as a seedy, tabloid journalist and the remarkable Emily Watson as an angelic, blind woman), Red Dragon is a worthy successor to Lambs' enduring legacy.
___________________________

The questions nagging most buffs' brains probably are:

(1) Could the man behind Money Talks, Rush Hour, The Family Man and Rush Hour 2 actually have crafted a superb, thoughtful, chilling, block of adult entertainment? Could the man behind that rancid quadruplet actually have made something that isn't disposable?

A resounding hells, yeah. Red Dragon is the film Ratner will most likely be remembered for (especially since he's allegedly helming Superman soon; why he'd wanna waste his considerable talent on that shit I dunno) and this movie alone will make for an impressive legacy. Working with famed cinematographer Dante Spinotti (who also shot Manhunter, and is possibly the best DP in the whole business with other credits including Heat, L.A. Confidential, The Insider and Wonder Boys; he has an unrivaled capacity for finding great aesthetic beauty in the mundane), Ratner seems to have taken his cue from Jonathan Demme's lensing on Silence of the Lambs. He favors a lot of simple, centrally-framed close-ups (and with such an astonishing array of actors at his disposal, he has good reason to), each interaction cut together with patient elegance. But don't think this is a visually bland film; as static as Ratner's camera often is, there's a plethora of truly iconic images, masterful, painterly compositions that advance the story in a single shot or two. Plus everything is exquisitely lit and drenched in this gorgeously dirty, high-contrast, heavily saturated, silky foam.

(2) Did Ratner overdose on violence a la Ridley Scott & Hannibal?

No way, not even close. While there are necessary sprinklings of graphic horror, Ratner's mantra seems to have been subtlety and implication always beat a show-all gorefest. Red Dragon has the perfect amount of bloodshed; enough so you know you're watching a powerful R-rated film about two vicious serial killers, but not enough that the word gratuitous would ever enter into your vocabulary. Again, his model seems to have been Demme.

(3) You keep mentioning frickin' Jonathan Demme. Is Red Dragon just a Silence of the Lambs rip-off?

Certainly not, but sadly there will inevitably be those aforementioned cynics/skeptics/purists who label it as such. These are the curmudgeons who are so snobbish and close-minded, that they are unable to accept Brett Ratner -- by virtue of his past credits -- has actually made a pretty amazing film. These are same the bastards who are unable to recognize that Red Dragon is very faithful to its text, just as Lambs was, and since the two novels are so different the films are inherently as different. These are the same hidebound fiends who are unable to recognize that even though Lambs will always be the apex of Hannibal Lecter film achievements there is still room for other big accomplishments (which embrace and pay specific tribute -- right down to Dragon's aping of Lambs' small, courier font title cards -- to their predecessors). And perhaps these are the same people who maintain that Hopkins's portrayal of Lecter pails in comparison to Brian Cox's Manhunter Lecter, because, you quickly realize, these are the people who must always tout the underdog as the superior artistic endeavor even at the expense of actually being accurate.

(4) Well if Red Dragon's so fucking great, why the heck will Silence always be the Lecter pinnacle?

Three reasons: (A) Any way you slice it, Clarice Starling is a more complex character than Norton's Will Graham. Which is not to say Graham's not fascinating. But Starling's stiff-as-hell competition, one of cinema's most effective female characterizations ever. (B) Consequently, the off-the-charts compelling rating of the Starling/Lecter dynamic is unrivaled. Lecter and Graham have a history and Norton and Hopkins' wonderfully written interplay practically slow-burns the screen, but it still can't quite compare. (C) Sheer novelty. The fact that Silence of the Lambs was first most definitely accounts for a lot. I grew up with Lambs, it's an integral part of our pop-cultural consciousness.

(5) Wait, so does Red Dragon do anything better than Lambs?

Absolutely. Dragon's Francis Dolarhyde, a.k.a. The Tooth Fairy, is a fuller, richer, more sympathetic portrait of a serial-killing monster than Lamb's drawing of Buffalo Bill. I guess some people get turned off as soon as they hear "sympathetic" used to describe a murderer, worried that means either the film will go through extravagant, obscene lengths to present the killer kindly or else the killer's motivation will be too pat. Neither is a problem in Dragon, though: Ratner and Tally effortlessly cram just enough Dolarhyde backstory into the mix. A tease here, an unobtrusive hint there and everything pays off. I'm all for ambiguity when crafting villains, but frankly even Demme on Lamb's Criterion commentary track notes that he really regrets not referencing Buffalo Bill's abusive background a little more. (However: admittedly by virtue of being a big movie star Ralph Fiennes just can't eclipse the truly terrifying Ted Levine as Bill in sheer fear factor.)
___________________________

Many people view Ridley Scott's Hannibal as a blight on Hannibal Lecter's character, a blasphemous reduction of everything that made the guy so memorable in the first place. Red Dragon is Lecter's redemption. To all the people that say this film never needed to be made, independent of its innumerable production and acting merits, you mustn't forget that -- at the very least -- Red Dragon respects Thomas Harris' original vision of Lecter, while shading in with deft charcoal strokes a few critical (subtle) aspects of Lecter's personal history. I'd argue that Lecter, seen in The Silence of the Lambs alone, is an incomplete characterization. Michael Mann was unable to recognize his biggest asset when transferring Red Dragon from book to screen. As such, he inappropriately pared down Lecter's role from the novel and thus most of us came to know and perversely love Hannibal Lecter only through Lambs. This love formed because of the words Ted Tally (courtesy of Thomas Harris) put in Lecter's mouth. Well, the master's met his maker one last time. Red Dragon is Hannibal's much-needed return to form: sequentially Lecter's birth, but literally his swan song. There's no better way to see him go.

Return home.