How Does the Character of Hannibal Lecter Use Language to Manipulate Others?

How does the character of Hannibal Lecter use language to manipulate others? By Hazel Meades Introduction……………………………………………………………………………...….2 Methodology………………………………………………………………………………...2 Analysis………………………………………………………………………………………..3 Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………………....7 Evaluation…………………………………………………………………………………….7 Bibliography………………………………………………………………………………....8 Appendices…………………………………………………………………………………...9 1 Introduction At AS level, I was particularly interested in the topic of power within linguistics and wanted to explore it further. Originally, I wanted to research this area from a more psychological point of view, analysing conversations between therapists and clients. However, I soon realised that such data would be difficult to acquire for a number of reasons. There were issues of patient confidentiality to consider and accurate, unedited transcripts also proved difficult to access. Instead I settled for a more available media approach. I decided to explore the enigma of fictional psychiatrist Hannibal Lecter, the cannibalistic serial killer created by novelist Thomas Harrison and popularised through films such as Silence of the Lambs. I aimed to determine what features, from a linguistic standpoint, make the character so entertaining, manipulative and, in the words of Phillip L Simpson, “a lethal paradox”. Methodology I transcribed conversations between Hannibal Lecter and other characters from the film Red Dragon. Initially, I transcribed conversations from Hannibal Rising and planned to go through the later films within the Hannibal series, transcribing them appropriately. However, I realised that there were too many variables to take into account because the portrayals of the character would vary depending on the actor, director and writer of the film. I chose to limit these variables through only analysing data from Red Dragon; therefore I only concerned myself with the combined creative forces of Anthony Hopkins (Lecter), Ted Tally (the man who wrote the screenplay for Red Dragon and Silence of the Lambs) and Brett Ratner (director) in portraying the character. I also decided not to transcribe scenes of violence because then I would no longer be measuring how language was used to manipulate others, simply action. 2 Analysis How does the character of Hannibal Lecter use borrowings and latinate forms to influence the viewer? Latinate forms French borrowings German borrowings Precision Bureau Eidetiker Souvenirs Bon appetite Fascinating Suspected Confidence Atrocious Collboration Implication Intellectual The character of Hannibal Lecter uses a variety of latinate forms, some of which are displayed in the table above. This is a recurring theme throughout the data and contrasts with Will Graham’s not necessarily blunt, but less precise language. The lexical field of latinate forms may be present in order to illustrate Lecter’s fine articulation, uncharacteristic of spontaneous speech. Already, this highlights his unusual status to the audience. The character of the special agent, whilst using a similar amount of latinate forms such as “anatomical” and “mortuary” maybe to indicate his intelligence and competence within the field, is shown to be less linguistically sophisticated in other ways when contrasted with the educated murderer. Lecter’s emphasised use of these terms opposes Trudgill’s suggestion that men tend to use more non-standard forms in speech, highlighting Lecter’s more unusual speech pattern. Lecter also uses a few French borrowings, particularly appropriate for when he is dining with the high-class musicians (e.g: “bon appetite”). A sense of overt prestige is taken from this, implying a taste for fine luxuries, in this case cuisine. However, Lecter’s intelligence and education is truly shown through his references to classical literature, when quoting a Roman poet and referring to “Epicurus’ herd”. In this sense, the character seems almost theatrical, not talking like a typical film character. This may act as divergence, setting Lecter apart from those around him. Ted Tally, who was responsible for the novel’s adaptation to screen, claimed that he wanted to emphasise Lecter’s wit and charm in the form of “dramatic strategy so that we can’t just dismiss him”. However, it is important to note that the people whom Lecter dines with also have an understanding of his continental references and use of overt prestige. For example, he congratulates one of the guests in picking up on the reference and another of the guests refers to the food as an “amuse-bouche”. It could be argued that this crowd of high-class diners, who we first see Lecter conversing with, are used to demonstrate his educated background and social prestige to the audience. Lecter also uses a German borrowing when discussing more psychological topics with Graham, in explaining the concept of an “eidetiker”. This enhances the semantic field of psychiatry that surrounds Dr Lecter’s language and interactions with others. German words may have particular resonance in this area, given that Sigmund Freud, a very well-known figure in the history of psychiatry, spoke and wrote his papers in German. This highlights Lecter’s sophisticated knowledge of his chosen profession and hints at his uncanny ability to understand and manipulate the human mind. Alternatively, another reason for the inclusion of these borrowings in the script may be because of their occurrence in the original book Red Dragon, which the film is based on. Tally readily admitted that he preferred to use dialogue from the book wherever possible; therefore many sections are taken almost word for word. For fans in the audience, this may create a sense of inclusion, which is particularly pleasurable. 3 How does the character of Hannibal Lecter manipulate discourse structure to demonstrate his personal power? In places, even the discourse structure of dialogue mimics the pattern one would stereotypically expect within a therapy session. Terms such as “couch” create a stereotypical image of psychotherapy that viewers would be familiar with. Before Lecter’s innocent façade is broken, the early conversations between him and Graham have the doctor as a fairly quiet linguistic presence, mostly asking questions within the conversation such as “why keep them”. The special agent explains his situation as the doctor backchannels with “yeah” and utilises an occasional tag question (“sound good”). From this, it could be argued that Graham is already “on the couch” being analysed. This is particularly apparent in the way conversations are initiated and closed between the two, for example, “what’s on your mind” is an open question that gives Graham the pragmatic room to speak freely about his thoughts. Open questions are important in therapeutic settings as they give the client more freedom to explore their problems and the therapist more room to analyse them through reflective listening. This classic technique is used in motivational interviewing for example, as highlighted by Sobell and Sobell in 2008. “That’s the end of our session doctor” is another example of an utterance, which, if taken out of context, could seem like the end of a therapy session. This may be a very deliberate move on the scriptwriter’s part, to emphasise the character’s supposed intellect to the audience, through dissecting his opponents’ thought process and motives. Alternatively, the technique might be used to create a sense of prestige in association with Lecter’s profession, the same prestige that increases his authority and status within his professional relationship with Graham. In its simplest form, this is shown through the honorific term “doctor”. In some parts of conversation, Lecter also displays traits of IRF (Initiation, Response, Feedback – a discourse structure pattern often utilised by teachers in the classroom to help develop the students’ knowledge and understanding of a topic). He treats Graham like a student through manipulation of the discourse structure, despite the fact that the special agent, contextually has the upper hand since he is not imprisoned. One example of such an interaction is shown below; Initiation: And what do we make of that symbol? Response: Asian studies at Langley identified it as a Chinese character. It appears on a Majong piece. It marks the Red Dragon. Feedback: Red Dragon. Correct. This boy begins to interest me. The character of Lecter sometimes uses praise in the form of feedback, similarly to a teacher (“well done” and “very good”). This may be a feature of male talk, supporting Janet Holmes’ theory that men use compliments in the form of evaluative judgement. The use of such praise may also emphasise his control over the situation. Despite initiating the question, he tends to already know the answer and is more interested in the subject’s response. This relates to the suggestion that him and Graham are “alike”; Lecter may be continuing to nurture their similar qualities through IRF. This may also help to create the feeling that Lecter is always “3 steps ahead of everyone else - including the audience”. Again, this was one of Tally’s aims in making the character come to life onscreen. Viewers of Red Dragon may well have viewed Silence of the Lambs, the film that came beforehand, so certain expectations of the character are already set in place. It’s up to the script to fulfil the audience’s ambitions and make Lecter intriguing to watch. Another way in which Lecter twists the power in discourse to his advantage is through brief monologues, often veering wildly off

Load more