In re: Hannibal Lecter
In the pantheon of fictional sociopaths, Thomas Harris achieved the pinnacle of same with his remarkable character of Lecter. Gifted beyond comprehension, educated and well-read in classical and modern literature, history, and current events, medically trained, aware of the vagaries and distinctions between classes and castes, and horrifyingly charismatic, he is the ultimate formidable villain .
I am virtually certain that Trump never read the series of books, but he probably saw at least one of the films, and remarked to himself, and probably anyone else who would listen, that the persona of Lecter, the gestalt, would be the highest achievement of any individual. For Trump, Lecter is equivalent in his sphere of Jesus or Gandhi in a normal person’s mind.
One of the aspects of the series is that Lecter was in fact apprehended, stood trial, and was sentenced to a psychiatric institution from which he managed to brilliantly engineer an escape and continue his behaviors elsewhere, defeating in the most horrifying manners all who came to destroy him. He has been stated by many to be the most villainous individual in cinematic history.
This entire oeuvre appeals to Trump who believes that as a “stable genius” on trial for a crime he knows he committed and for his personal knowledge of the existence of crimes and deeds of which the general public knows nothing, he is capable of equaling the notoriety of this psychopath and has drawn many parallels between himself and Lecter. The difference between them of course is that Lecter was a character created to possess an extraordinary intellect whereas Trump simply believes that he is incredibly brilliant, manipulative, and shrewd, the truth being quite to the contrary.
Finally, Trump’s quotation “the late, great, Hannibal Lecter” implies that the character exists as a real individual within Trump’s maladaptive psyche. And you know what they say: neurotics build glass houses and psychotics live in them.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Years ago, I heard a rumor on an internet message board that Thomas Harris sold the rights to his characters before Jonathan Demme made "Silence of the Lambs," into a multiple Oscar winning dynamo. He (supposedly) had first crack at subsequent books and (supposedly) deliberately ruined the story. I tend to believe it, because the subsequent books stunk.
In "Hannibal," Lecter drugged Clarice and kept her drugged, even bringing her a skull and claiming it was her beloved deceased father's. He had it "talk" to her. Mason Verger was a pedophile who recorded orphan children brought to his mansion being made to cry and "collected" their tears; he had a body builder sister who ended up in the shower with Barney in another gross scene; the whole thing was just ICK.
Yes, Lecter kept Clarice drugged, they became "lovers," and he took her to the opera in Europe or whatever. The garbage that was "Hannibal" is why Jodie Foster passed on doing the movie. So did Jonathan Demme. Julianne Moore tried too hard IMO, and in no way was Clarice.
"Silence of the Lambs," was awesome, both the book and the movie; the movie "Red Dragon" was okay, although "Manhunter," based on "Red Dragon," with William Peterson was far better, but was made before "SOTL," and doomed to irrelevancy with a lame Lecter, unfortunately. The way Peterson's Will Graham slammed the slimy tabloid jerk onto the hood of a car was so much better than Edward Norton's wimpy lame push against Philip Seymour Hoffman.
Thus ends my lengthy lecture. 
AND MORE KETCHUP !
Kick in to the DU tip jar?
This week we're running a special pop-up mini fund drive. From Monday through Friday we're going ad-free for all registered members, and we're asking you to kick in to the DU tip jar to support the site and keep us financially healthy.
As a bonus, making a contribution will allow you to leave kudos for another DU member, and at the end of the week we'll recognize the DUers who you think make this community great.
