Dir. Brett Ratner, 2002, US/Ger, 124 mins
Cast:
Anthony Hopkins, Ed Norton, Ralph Fiennes, Harvey Keitel, Emily Watson, Philip Seymour Hoffman
It's tempting to think of Thomas Harris as the father of the serial killer thriller as a modern cinematic genre. The film adaptations of his first two novels, Red Dragon and The Silence of the Lambs, not only made Hannibal Lecter everyone's favourite cannibal, but also gave mainstream audiences a glimpse into the minds of society's most deadly offenders - and those who track them down.
Red Dragon is the second film version of Harris' initial bestseller (the first, entitled Manhunter, was released in 1986), but is not a remake. This is a very different film to Manhunter and, in my opinion, is a far superior adaptation. It also marks a welcome return to the gritty, atmospheric style of Harris' early writing after the grotesque excess of Hannibal.
The two main protagonists in Red Dragon are Will Graham (Edward Norton) and Francis Dolarhyde (Ralph Fiennes). Graham is a brilliant FBI agent, now retired after surviving a vicious attack by Lecter (Anthony Hopkins). Graham's manipulative former boss, Jack Crawford (Harvey Keitel), persuades him to help the team trying to track down Dolarhyde, a photo lab worker who has committed two brutal mass murders. While Graham represents 'good' and Dolarhyde 'bad', the two men (and this is the most frightening aspect of serial profiling) think in similar ways. This is the secret of Graham's success and, as the film shows, it is both a blessing and a curse.
Ted Tally (who won an Oscar for adapting The Silence of the Lambs but, crucially, was not involved in the film version of Hannibal) has been faithful to Harris' novel. His screenplay allows us to see the crimes from the perspective of both Graham and Dolarhyde, a key feature of the book. He introduces and develops the key relationships in the story expertly, notably that between Dolarhyde and Reba McClane (Emily Watson), a blind girl who provides Dolarhyde with the closest thing he has ever had to love and happiness. It is just a pity that Tally decided not to alter the book's dreadfully clichéd and scarcely credible ending.
Red Dragon is full of excellent acting from a talented cast. Fiennes does some of his best work in years, portraying Dolarhyde sensitively rather than simply making him a monster. Fiennes isn't nearly as physically imposing as the novel suggests Dolarhyde should be, but so powerful is his acting that you never notice. His scenes with Watson are amongst the best in the film. There are typically reliable performances from Keitel and Philip Seymour Hoffman (as ill-fated journalist Freddy Lounds). And, although Hopkins has already played Lecter twice before, there is much to admire in the way he pitches the character this time around. This Lecter is only recently incarcerated and is less assured than in the later novels.
Norton is, perhaps, the film's one weakness. He is a talented actor, but he looks far too young to play Graham. And while he succeeds in conveying Graham's fear (especially the fear that comes from knowing he can think in the same way as a serial killer), he fails to convince me that Graham is a tough, driven investigator. Once he is on the case, Graham is determined to hunt the killer down, but Norton conveys an almost relaxed approach that belittles the challenge he faces.
Much praise should be given to director Brett Ratner. A filmography consisting of just five full-length features and highlighted by the first two Rush Hour films would not seem to mark him out as the ideal candidate to make this crime thriller, but he captures the atmosphere of the novel perfectly with the help of Dante Spinotti's terrific camerawork. This Red Dragon is a far cry from Michael Mann's high-octane Manhunter. It's appropriately dark and unsettling, and excellently paced throughout. Ratner is clearly a director of some talent and, aged only 32, his is a name to watch out for in the future.
How you relate to Red Dragon as a film will largely depend on your feelings towards the subject matter. Fans of the gory violence in Hannibal will be disappointed, because this film relies more on suggestion and imagery than on blood-stained sets. It's an absorbing film without being taxing, and I think it's fair to say that it's not quite as polished as The Silence of the Lambs. But it's good entertainment, and fans of the novel will be pleased.
Justin Whitton
|
