Well, it took me a while to take to my computer and form my thoughts, but now I’m thinking clearly and concisely as possible: Why did the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts & Sciences ignore “Hannibal”? This year would have marked the 10th anniversary of SOTL’s Oscar sweep, when Anthony Hopkins surprised just about everyone by snatching that little gold man from Nick Nolte (to jog everyone’s collective memory, Nolte won Best Actor at the Golden Globes, which is usually a good predictor of who’ll take the Oscar – not this time, though).

In 2002, “Hannibal” was shut out -- no nominations for Sir Anthony, Julianne Moore, Gary Oldman (which really has my mother in an uproar as she is a huge Oldman fan), Ridley Scott and Hans Zimmer, who I thought composed the most haunting, yet romantic score ever heard in a film. Heck, even the make-up effects crew didn’t get a nomination for their ability to render Oldman totally unrecognizable. “Moulin Rouge”??!!

As we wait for the Oscar ceremony later this month, all “Hannibal” fans can do is sit back and wonder what went wrong? I have a few opinions as to why, and I’d like to share them with everyone. Now, everyone remember, THIS IS JUST MY OPINION!

First, back in 1991 “SOTL” was a unique movie, something we had not seen before – a thriller-action-horror movie that featured a hero who wasn’t a hulking, male and an unrepentant antagonist (Dr. Lecter) who people actually liked. It was gritty and had a realism that showed how the pursuit of law and order takes its toll on the guilty and the innocent. Eleven years later, the serial killer thriller film is a victim of overkill. There was “Seven,” “Along Came a Spider,” “Kiss the Girls” and a host of others that had varying degrees of success. The genre got old very quickly and the novelty of the subject matter wore off.

Secondly, I think some people thought “Hannibal” was too gory. Personally, if you’ve seen an Italian zombie horror movie or anything by Wes Craven or David Cronenberg, you’d know that “Hannibal” paled in comparison in the gore category. Alas, to have such gore in a big-budget, mainstream film may have been too much for some members of the Academy, who probably shudder at the recollection of Ray Liotta getting a prefrontal lobotomy from Sir Anthony.

Third and finally, “Hannibal” may have become a victim of its own success. Dr. Lecter has become a folk hero in some ways, a pop-culture phenomenon who has become part of our everyday lexicon. He’s not really threatening anymore, is he? He only kills those who “deserve” it; he’s out of that ugly blue jumpsuit and wears the finest suits and gets the girl in the book (but not in the movie – that’s another column, folks). We cheer for Hannibal. We can’t get enough of him in books, magazines, movies and yes, even web sites. Hannibal Lecter’s elevation to superstar status in the pop culture pantheon did the movie in when it came to film critics who have a big effect on who gets nominated for Oscars. I firmly believe that if “Hannibal” had received the same sort of critical praise like “SOTL” did in 1991, Sir Anthony would most likely have another little gold man at the end of March.

Perhaps “Red Dragon,” which promises the return of a meaner, more brutal Hannibal Lecter, will get the franchise back on a path paved with Oscar gold.

Thanks, as always, go out to the GREAT TonysGirl!!! We salute you! --Chris


GO BACK

Hosted by www.Geocities.ws

1