How many people consider Hannibal to be part of sci fi? I personally do. His abilities to manipulate people would not work in real life, so I would classify this as sci fi.
Printable View
How many people consider Hannibal to be part of sci fi? I personally do. His abilities to manipulate people would not work in real life, so I would classify this as sci fi.
Horror/psychological thriller, sure.
Sci-Fi/Fantasy? Not in the slightest. There's no sci-fi element to Hannibal at all, he's not "enhanced" in any way.
Oh I don't know, Charles Manson pulled it off. As said, I certainly wouldn't class his character as SF in the slightest.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenneth2
Not really s.f./f, but I would add him to horror. Some readers don't want to admit non-supernatural works to horror, but I think the first two Lector novels form one argument for doing so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenneth2
Randy M.
I wouldn't say he is horror. I didn't find Silence frightening. It was interesting, but not frightening.
Just because you didn't find it frightening doesn't mean it's not horror. I doubt most people would find early horror films that scary, but when they came out they were terrifying.
Horror without a doubt. Silence of the Lambs, at least, has as much of a connection to Science Fiction as does CSI.
I agree with Loerwyn, and Rob makes a good point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenneth2
If we go strictly by reader reaction, then probably by now Poe's work, Lovecraft's stories and Dracula and Frankenstein are not horror: We've seen it so often, there's nothing there to scare us and if we still read it, we read it for reasons other than, as M. R. James called it, "a pleasing terror."
But if we classify by the intention that seems implicit in the work and by the structure of the work, all of those are still horror. And I think that's true of Red Dragon and The Silence of the Lambs. For instance, the scenes in Buffalo Bill's cellar and the feel of much of Francis Dolarhyde's conception of the Red Dragon all hark back in the approach to the Gothics and the stories we think of as classic ghost/horror/Gothic stories, I think more so than they do most mystery/detective/crime stories.
Randy M.
You can get that vibe with Poe, definitely. Taking The Tell-Tale Heart as a clear example, the pacing of that story builds up tension and this rhythm that keeps pushing you on. In its day it might have been truly horrifying, but now? Not so much, but that pacing still remains. That heart-beat tempo is still thumping beneath the text.
Does anyone know what the author is up to now? Does he have any intention of returning to the character?
I can't go along with the any of the Hannibal Lector films being horror, they are psychological thrillers plain and simple. I just had a similar conversation the other day about where the lines are drawn between thriller, horror, sci-fi, and gore. Grant it, they are all kissing cousins figuratively speaking but just because a movie might have a few scary moments in it doesn't make it horror, just because there is blood doesn't make it gore. The Lector films shouldn't even be considered horror, good movies, just not horror.
This argument may depend on whether you find anything non-supernatural to be horror. If not, then you can't argue persuasively that either the book or movie Psycho is horror. And if all the above are psychological thrillers (which they are), so is most of the work of Edgar Allan Poe, and "The Fall of the House of Usher" and "The Tell-Tale Heart" and "The Black Cat" are no longer horror stories, and all anthologists must stop using them in horror anthologies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Gray
Horror is a broad category, and really it's not a category so much as an emotion that can cut across genres. The Gothic approach, the dread and sense of imminent danger the characters are in, to me make the Harris novels horror as well as being other things like thrillers and satire.
Randy M.
Horror is a broad category but I can't logically call anything that has a dark tone to it a horror film. Where do you draw the line between horror and psychological thriller? Silence of the Lambs to me belongs on the side of psychological thriller/mystery, I don't remember one on screen murder or any stalking, no supernatural elements, it basically just Clarice trying to find a serial killer. Psycho on the other hand does show murders and stalking, it's closer to a slasher film than a psychological thriller but it does have a psychological overtone, it's a psychological horror. That's just my take on it, I'm not saying I'm right your wrong, it's just my viewpoint.Quote:
Originally Posted by Randy M.
And I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just enjoying the debate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Gray
I do think, though, by that standard, the original The Cat People [Val Lewton] is psychological thriller rather than horror: No on-screen murder, no depicted supernatural element only innuendo. And that would include the original film version of The Haunting.
As for The Silence of the Lambs, the use of human skin is horrific and the killing of the two guards was extremely effectively shot in the manner of older movies (like the original The Cat People) that hinted at what was happening rather than showing it.The line between psychological horror and psychological thriller is rather porous.
Randy M.
Cat People is a psychological horror, it does have a supernatural element. The Haunting had plenty of on screen supernatural elements.Quote:
Originally Posted by Randy M.
Yes, some movies blur the lines but the lines are still there, it's up to each of us to decide where we draw them.