MovieChat Forums > Hannibal (2001) Discussion > Did anybody have a problem with another ...

Did anybody have a problem with another Clarice Starling?

posted 8 years ago by AndreiPavlov
19 replies | jump to latest

To me it is a problem. Well, you can explain her new looks by the fact that she, perhaps, did a plastic surgery in order to escape the maniac’s further attention... But it doesn’t work: another actress, another character… Yes, of course, it's just a movie, a piece of entertainment, but somehow it really spoils the continuation process and congruity for me. How come Mr Anthony Hopkins agreed to interact with another version of Clarice? Is it just me and everybody else is cool about this? If Anthony Hopkins had been substituted by somebody else as well (e.g. by Bruce Willis), would it be also OK to you?

[–] vortexrider 8 years ago

Yea, this actress in Hannibal isn't anywhere as good. Sorry, but I forgot her name. I actually particularly dislike her in most movies I see her in.

[–] Poopsey1 (893) 3 years ago

taps nose

[–] britten_mark 8 years ago

Julianne Moore did a great job IMHO, and brave move to step into such a well known role. She also looks tough enough to actually be an agent, which Jodie Foster never did.

"Well, let's not start suckin' each others dicks just yet......"

[–] TerryRome01 8 years ago

britten_mark, I agree. Moore handled that incredibly demanding and difficult reprise of such an iconic character as a real pro, with incredible results!
The looks are one thing and you couldn't possibly (or shouldn't) try and replicate. They didn't even try (they could have for example dye her red hair brunette which would have been easy and effective enough). Instead, they did the right thing and just approached the character unrelated to the physical attributes. So, no. I didn't find it distracting, especially because since the very first frame the film didn't seem like a sequel but stood on its own.
What I did like about Moore's performance is that she perfectly became Clarice Starling 11 years later in this new film that stood on its own. You believed that Moore's Clarice in 'Hannibal' had been an agent for over a decade, has had her ups and downs with the organization and is emotionally distant, still carrying some burdensome history. I can't imagine anyone else doing a better job, even Jodie, quite frankly. Foster, I've come to conclude, would, interestingly enough, be a complete wrong choice for 'Hannibal'.

[–] Reddragon840021 8 years ago

I think that Julianne Moore did an extraordinary job in it. One of the high points of the film, for sure.

[–] Doom 8 years ago

I agree.

I actually preferred her over Jodie Foster.



------

Wait a minute... who am I here?

[–] tearsnhoney 8 years ago

Moore did ease into the roll nicely. I think Foster did a great job as the hungry student, affected by her father's death and her dreams of frustrating loss of innocent life.
Julianne Moore did well with the older Starling, jaded, but still authentic in her quest for saving the innocent and being... decent.
The film was OK but could have been disastrous with another actress.

[–] aliasbrush 8 years ago

Moore was great. There was nothing wrong with her performance, but I do have issues with films/TV in general when they replace actors. Some people can easily get past it, but for me it's like a constant niggle that itches all through the film. I like to lose myself in movies, and stuff like this takes me out of the immersion, constantly reminding me it's all just an act.

I would rather they used a different character, and altered the script as much as needed to preserve the continuity.

[–] gottaluvafriend 8 years ago

In TV and movies, it's known to happen for a major character to be replaced by another actor. That on its own doesn't usually bother me as long as the actor is adequate or even better than the original. I think Moore is a very good actor and does well in Hannibal, and that if Foster must be replaced that Moore is a decent choice despite that she has an entirely different physical appearance from Foster's Starling. The problem that I have is not Moore but on the fact that Foster's Starling, an iconic movie character, is absent, and this is Foster's doing. She didn't like what Starling does and is in Hannibal, at least via the info she'd been provided prior to the start of the film's making. Who knows what that info amounted to, but it might've been the finished or close to finished script which includes, of course, the infamous dining scene. This might've been enough to turn Foster off, or the script she'd been shown might've gone in deeper, as it were, as the novel does in including Starling more gastronomically.

Anyway, I've watched the movie numerous times and miss Foster in the role more on each viewing.

[–] Brocardi 7 years ago

Her problem with the original version of "the infamous dining scene" was that Clarice falls for Hannibal and they run off together, that's how Thomas Harris wrote it, probably as a troll because he didn't want to do it anymore, just stating that for those who may not know.

[–] gottaluvafriend 7 years ago

Yes, I know that was Foster's issue. Maybe Harris didn't see any future in a Starling/Hannibal conflict.

[–] mattjoes 7 years ago

I don't know about that. I think it's likely she read a script with the new ending, that is, without Clarice falling for Lecter. I think her precise reason for turning down the role remains unknown.

(see http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0212985/board/nest/245897364)

[–] Dazed_are_numbered 7 years ago

From the wikipedia page on Hannibal.

Salary demands may also have played a part in Foster's non-participation. De Laurentiis said, "I call the agent of Judy [sic] Foster. He say to me 'I have instruction. She no want to read the script if you no give her an offer of $20m and 15% of the gross.' And I say, 'Give my love to Judy [sic] Foster, goodbye.'"

I've always rather liked this story, although how far one can trust De Laurentiis is questionable!

What I've gathered is that Jonathan Demme and Foster both disliked the direction Harris took the character of Starling.Their prerogative of course,but the character " belongs" to Thomas Harris.She may have had other film commitments too but the bottom line is both turned it down.

I think it was widely understood that Hopkins had become the iconic character of Hannibal and would be essential to the film.Foster not so much.

It seems from the quote below that Harris was prepared to be movable on the Starling character.

Not sure why one movie about Hannibal was deemed too violent and yet one about a serial killer who skinned women was not.Maybe the violence in one is mostly implied?

Although Scott had accepted the job Demme had rejected, he said: "My first question was: 'What about Jonathan?' and they said: 'The original team said it's too violent.' I said, 'Okay. I'll do it.'" Scott did, himself, have some uncertainty with the source material. In particular, he had difficulties with the ending of the novel, in which Lecter and Starling become lovers: "I couldn't take that quantum leap emotionally on behalf of Starling. Certainly, on behalf of Hannibal—I'm sure that's been in the back of his mind for a number of years. But for Starling, no. I think one of the attractions about Starling to Hannibal is what a straight arrow she is." He also "didn't buy the book from the opera scene onwards, which became like a vampire movie." He asked Harris if he was "married to his ending". Harris said he was not, so Scott changed it

Although there's been rain and it's coming again
Change has to be here obviously

[–] mattjoes 7 years ago

What I've gathered is that Jonathan Demme and Foster both disliked the direction Harris took the character of Starling.

For me, this is the mystery, what exactly bothered them (and more specifically Foster) about Clarice?

The ending? Scott had reservations about the ending and had it changed, but Foster left anyway.

The original team said it's too violent.

The violence, then? But that's not quite the same as saying the "characterization of Starling in Hannibal had "negative attributes" and "betrayed" the original character".

I think it was widely understood that Hopkins had become the iconic character of Hannibal and would be essential to the film.Foster not so much

This may have been a contributing factor. The lead in The Silence of the Lambs is Clarice, the lead in Hannibal is Hannibal.

[–] Dazed_are_numbered 7 years ago

No on the contrary I think Julianne Moore was a far better Clarice.

As others have said she captured perfectly the more mature world weary Clarice.

I may be biased as I did not enjoy Jodie Fosters portrayal at all!

Although there's been rain and it's coming again
Change has to be here obviously

[–] bigmal (93) 6 years ago

Yeah, I thought the casting was wrong. It's not like the role of CS is a James Bond in that a change of actor is inevitable. I heard that Foster did not take the role because of the way that the Hannibal Lecter character was effecting Anthony Hopkins.

[–] janelsenor (2042) 6 years ago

Moore is closer to how I imagined Clarice when I first read Silence of the Lambs.