Putting Jodie Foster opposite Silence Of The Lambs has gone down in history as one of the greatest films of all time, and part of a very elite group of films to have won Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor, Best Actress and Best Adapted Screenplay at the Academy Awards.
The film spawned both a sequel and a prequel (and another prequel that no one really cares about), that each garnered praise, but to a lesser extent than the first film. Thomas Harris is the author behind the franchise, and we’ve gathered five differences between his novels and their film adaptations.
The Ending (Red Dragon)
Despite Edward Norton’s portrayal of Will receiving rather a lot of criticism and Anthony Hopkins being decidedly too old to portray the classic cannibal, the response to Red Dragon was rather positive on the whole. However, the film decided to take a slightly more upbeat note to end on. While the book shows Will contemplating his own thoughts, suggesting that there isn’t really an escape from Hannibal Lecter or the darkness within himself, the film provides a slightly less introspective conclusion. Will is reunited with his family and lives out, as far as we know, a normal life by the ocean.
The Presentation Of Will Graham (Red Dragon)
One of the key differences between the book and film versions of Red Dragon comes from the characterization of Will Graham. Not only is Norton’s performance rather lackluster (which negates somewhat from his existence in the first place), the character's intentions drift from those in the book.
The book shows him to have a direct impact on the decisions made and where the story actually goes, while the film just seems to depict him as an outsider, plodding alongside the storyline as it unfolds next to him. The conflict going on inside his own mind is one of the key parts of the book, and you don’t really see it in the film at all.
“A Nice Chianti” (Silence Of The Lambs)
It may be a minor change, but it’s certainly a noticeable one. Pretty much all of the most famous lines in Silence Of The Lambs come from the mouth of Anthony Hopkins, as he draws on the theatrically camp cannibal he so cleverly brought to life. One of those famous lines describes the accompaniment to one of his human delicacies: “I ate his liver with some fava beans and a nice chianti.” In the book, this “nice chianti” is “a big Amarone”.
The Federal Politics (Silence Of The Lambs)
One of the storylines that underpins Silence Of The Lambs in book form is the politics within the FBI. Sure, we’re getting the feminist side of things and the struggle Clarice has in getting her voice heard with sincerity amongst her male co-workers in the film, but the actual internal conflict is mostly gone. This means we end up losing out on some of the key pieces of background character development in order to progress the plot of the film with a bit more speed.
Jack Crawford (Silence Of The Lambs)
It is widely agreed that the character of Jack Crawford doesn’t translate well from page to screen. In the film, we don’t learn much about his back story, we also learn very little about how he much he sacrifices for his job and most importantly, the connection to Red Dragon and how he sees Clarice as a way of redeeming himself from his treatment of Will Graham is gone.
This is probably because audiences hadn’t yet seen Red Dragon, so they wouldn’t have made much sense of this connection to an unfamiliar character, but still, it doesn’t really do the complexity of Crawford justice.
The Discussion Of Gender (Silence Of The Lambs)
While Harris’ discussion and depiction of gender might not hold up perfectly in 2020, there is a distinct undertone of progressive politics threading through the novel. Clarice’s struggle is certainly told from a feminist perspective, and the discussion of transgender people is something that would have rarely been seen elsewhere in 1989. Clarice’s struggle is present in the film, sure, but not to the same extent. The mention of transgender issues is pretty much reduced to a single line of dialogue.
The Ending (Silence Of The Lambs)
In the film, we see Hannibal call Clarice, reassuring her that he won’t pursue her. He also asks her not to pursue him as he wanders off to eat Frederick Chilton. The book ends slightly differently, with more overt references to the title of the book, via a telegram.
Again, he tells her he won’t pursue her, but rather than the subtle request for her to not follow him, he suggests she will never truly be at peace. Despite this, the book ends with her peacefully sleeping in “the silence of the lambs”.
The Character Of Margot (Hannibal)
Hannibal was written after the success of the first Silence Of The Lambs book. Apparently there was no plan for this, but there was certainly money to be made. The character of Margot as introduced in the book is implied to be lesbian and plays up to all of the stereotypes. Wisely, this character doesn’t exist in the world of the film, giving her impact on the story to the character of Cordell. It removes the LGBTQ+ representation, but also the problems that come with that particular character.
The Existence Of Mischa (Hannibal)
One thing Ridley Scott made sure to do in his adaptation of Hannibal was to remove all and any mention of Mischa. In the novel, the character was introduced as Hannibal’s sister, who was killed when they were taken captive by Nazis.
It sounds pretty ludicrous already, so avoiding this one was probably quite a smart move. This gets rid of the pointlessness of Hannibal’s desire to replace Clarice with his (dead) sister.
The Ending (Hannibal)
The main difference between Hannibal in film and book form is the ending. The film ends with Clarice maintaining her morals and attempting to stop Hannibal from eating the brain of Krendler. He escapes by cutting off his hand, but still. In the book, the ending is rather more controversial. Clarice is manipulated away from her morals and ends the book eating human brain... and... offering Hannibal a taste...
