In years past, there was another semi-popular tradition among TV genres: the adaptation of movies. These included shows like Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles and several animated spin-offs like Aladdin, Timon & Pumba, and The Mask: The Animated Series.
There have not been a lot of televised movie treatments lately, but this Spring, not one but two new shows join the prime time schedule. Not only that, but each of the two series is based on wildly successful horror films (and, coincidently, on the novels the films were based on). Also, the dual series feature two of the most infamous villains in motion picture history.
The two shows: Bates Motel (A&E) and Hannibal (NBC).
Why are shows like these necessary for television? Fascination with the lead characters is natural in the film world, as they spark viewer's imaginations about the events in the story. In addition, as they are adaptations of horror films, how are people honestly supposed to be scared of the central characters if they know what's going to happen to them?
SPOILER ALERT: If you have not seen Psycho or The Silence of the Lambs, I highly recommend that you not read the remainder of this post.
Bates Motel is the prequel to Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho, telling the story of Norma and Norman Bates when they initially purchase the Bates Motel. Norma, played with intensity by Vera Farmiga, is an overprotective mother, but Freddie Highmore's kid-next-door Norman is not exactly an average kid himself. Amidst several subplots and murders, the show attempts to explain why Norman goes off his rocker in Psycho.
Psycho remains famous for it's ingenious plot twist; if viewers knew nothing of the story before they saw it, they would have no idea that Norman Bates is actually the mother and killer. Norman remains one of cinema's best bad guys because he is so sudden and so subtle, recognizable and almost sympathetic in the viewer's eyes. In fact, the best thrills of the movie come because we know nothing of the character's past. The viewer's fascination is heightened when they have the chance to make up their own reasons for why Norman is insane. Ultimately, the best possible scenario for a movie is when those who saw it discuss it endlessly, and Psycho is certainly no exception; however, Bates Motel ruins this use of viewer's imaginations by literally telling them exactly what happened. It's an unnecessary adaptation that has Alfred Hitchcock rolling in his grave.
On the other hand, Hannibal is a little bit more kind to fans of the character. It is the tale of Red Dragon's Will Graham (played by Hugh Dancy), who has an innate talent for hunting serial killers. Lawrence Fishbourne also stars as FBI captain Jack Crawford, who orders Graham to see a psychiatrist- namely, Dr. Hannibal Lecter, with Mads Mikkelsen taking over the Anthony Hopkins role. Supposedly (the series premieres on Thursday), only the audience knows of Lecter's villainy, as the show makes no hint of his true nature. Other than these two character's interactions, Hannibal is otherwise just an average crime show, NBC's answer to brutal gore-fests like Criminal Minds.
Hannibal Lecter is one of cinema's favorite characters, landing on several "Best Of" lists and claiming the title of AFI's #1 Villain of All Time. Anthony Hopkins remains legendary because of his portrayal of this psychopathic doctor. Even though Mads Mikkelsen plays an impressive bad guy, why NBC would choose to cast anyone other than Hopkins is a minor insult to cinephiles. Besides that, like Bates Motel, audiences know the fate of both Hannibal and Will Graham, so the mystery is all but gone. Another pervasive issue remains the reason that Hannibal (Scott, 2001) failed to impress; Lecter is best when in a cage, as imprisoned he has almost animal-like monstrosity. By letting him out into the open, like he is in the TV show, he loses some of the thrill. Perhaps the crime show aspect will help keep audience attention, but the irrelevancy of the program is just too hard to ignore.
Maybe these shows are good as stand-alone entertainment; both Bates Motel and Hannibal are receiving positive reviews, for acting and story quality. Shows like these sometimes succeed solely because of the strength of the characters. Though Bates Motel remains an episodic soap opera, Hannibal is a crime show, and each genre has their own loyal niche fan base. And it's not like all TV adaptations of films are bad; in fact, M*A*S*H and Highlander: The Series are arguably improvements over their source films.
But then, in the same respect, MASH nor Highlander hold a candle to the classic qualities of Psycho and The Silence of the Lambs. Film to TV adaptations have yet to prove themselves, and they are especially unnecessary for the best that cinema has to offer. Instead, viewers should check out the movies. They will get more out of each. Plus, they will be done within two hours, not the thirteen-hour plus runtime of television seasons (which usually end up getting nowhere anyways).
Fans of Psycho and The Silence of the Lambs will respond one of two ways to Bates Motel and Hannibal: excitement at seeing their favorite characters on the screen in new adventures, or terrible regret that someone had the nerve to mess with their movie icons. Either way, the two shows are in for an interesting challenge.
No comments:
Post a Comment