Lecter's sexuality?

[deleted]

n the books it discusses him being gay, but also going out w/ women who are socialites. her name was "Rachel" to b exact...



"Come here, my piggy. I've got some gingerbread for you. -Freddy Krueger

In the TV series Hannibal, he is a pansexual.

http://www.g7gaming.net/

Hannibal is likely heterosexual in the books and movies, but this is never explicitly stated. In the films and books, we only see him sexually attracted to or involved with women (namely Lady Murasaki in Hannibal Rising and Clarice Starling in The Silence of the Lambs and Hannibal). Paul Krendler theorizes that Hannibal is homosexual in Hannibal, though this is only because of his refined and artistic tastes. In the novel Hannibal, Clarice interviews a woman who was romantically linked to Hannibal. At the end of the novel Hannibal, Hannibal and Clarice become lovers. He also kisses Clarice in the film version of Hannibal, but she doesn't return it. He pretends to be gay in order to attack Mason Verger.

According to Bryan Fuller, in the TV series Hannibal he is "omnisexual". In Season 2, we see him in a sexual relationship with his student and colleague Alana Bloom. In Season 3 while in Florence, he and his psychiatrist Bedelia du Maurier are eating dinner with an acquaintance of Hannibal's named Anthony Dimmond, who wonders if they're planning on having a threesome, Hannibal is clearly open to the idea. Bedelia and Hannibal are seen in clearly sensual or sexual situations while in Florence, and they are pretending to be husband and wife. When Jack Crawford and Will Graham figure out Hannibal is in Florence, Hannibal and Bedelia kiss. I don't believe they were truly in love though either, they were just using each other. Will Graham asks if Hannibal is in love with him, and Bedelia responds, "Could he daily feel a stab of hunger for you and find nourishment at the very sight of you? Yes. But do you ache for him?" This doesn't necessarily mean that Hannibal is sexually attracted to Will. I don't believe their relationship is sexual or romantic in the traditional sense, but it's certainly possible.

Subscribe to my YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwMaMhPGk3zCskWYG3CjPmw

I never really picked up in the film that Lector was gay.

If it suited him, he would psychologically toy with a gay guy... Heck... He psychologically toyed with everyone, depending on the time of day and how "bored" he was. I think that Lector only murdered people he was contemptuous of, which was pretty much everyone he came into contact with. Except for Clarice of course. Oh, and I don't think he would have touched those innocent tourists, as he had his sights set on his "old friend".

[deleted]

[deleted]

The existence of this thread and its varied replies just highlights one of the many brilliant textures of TSOTL.

Everyone has his / her own interpretation and source on Lector's sexuality, it seems.

In the self-contained world of "The Silence of the Lambs," (pre-dating all subsequent projects) viewers in the 90s who hadn't read the books nor seen "Manhunter," are left in the dark.

I could never be sure whether Lecter is heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, sexually fluid, or asexual.

Was he attracted to Clarice? Was he trying to figure out if she was a "good" or "bad" person placed on a scale of morality despite his own perpetual transgressions? Was she a "project" for him? Was she replacing an estranged or passed daughter or younger sister? Was she being manipulated - nothing more than a toy for a bored sociopath?

In fact, until the movie's conclusion, I could not ascertain and settle on exactly what he wanted from Starling. After the Miggs incident, I was fairly confident that Starling would never be harmed at the hand of Lecter (directly), but that's about it.

This ambiguity throughout is precisely why the dialogue and character interactions were so fascinating to me. I paid rapt attention and tried to read between the lines, but what existed was nebulous.

Many things in this film are never "explicitly stated" - and that's part of the allure.

My own interpretation (in the self-contained world of TSOTL) is that Lecter is either asexual or heterosexual. He could also, perhaps - outside of the TSOTL universe - temporarily assume any other sexual orientation as long as the means suited his endgame, just like a sociopath can fake an external display of empathy or emotions he / she doesn't feel inside...

The moment Starling reluctantly discloses the farm story is the moment something changes inside him. He approves of her motivations and he becomes full tilt "Team Help Clarice Help Others To Help Herself."

But I also would like to believe that he only sees himself as a paternal figure, like the Judge pervading the atmosphere of Kieslowski's "Trois Couleurs: Rouge." And, like the Judge, Hannibal (due to practical application of his IQ) is given an eerie, almost semi-omniscience over the movie's proceedings - as if he has the ability to see most of the end at the very beginning.

[This accounts for why Lecter seems to be in the film for much longer than just his screen time. Not only does he get in the heads of Clarice (and the audience) , but he always seems to be lurking "around," a hovering parent or jump scare waiting to happen, checking to make sure things are turning out the way they should.]

Even if Lecter were attracted to Starling, he understands that it is "inappropriate" i.e. "rude" Miggs, and they are mismatched in this lifetime unless there were to be a cosmic shift in the time-space / universe making them both born of the same generation.

I know follow-up project$ would $ugge$t otherwi$e... but I prefer my own take :)

Lecter, as a character, works much better for me when he seemingly comes out of nowhere, an established figure shrouded in a modicum of mythology / mystery , and leaves just as suddenly - as opposed to having his whole life outlined by some tediously traumatic and unnecessary - if trendy - "Origin Story" and "Epilogue."

No to, "Hannibal Begins." No to "The Dark Hannibal." No to "The Dark Hannibal Rises."

In my own take, we never know if that planned dinner visit is a success or fatal failure (leaning towards the former) , whether he contacts / visits Clarice ever again after the credits roll (leaning towards never, perhaps an occasional handwritten letter in the years that follow.)

In my universe, he never kisses Clarice in the future, and he never convinces a star federal agent to abandon a career she's half-obsessed with, only to run off with him, together forever, into the sunset. (pffft)

He's more like the out-of-town stranger at a bar who strikes up a brief but impactful conversation, or someone on public transit who says something profoundly healing in passing to a visibly distressed stranger on the subway, and then he gets off at his stop... and they both never see each other again for the rest of their lives.

We don't need to know if he is angel or demon, Boogie Man or night light. We don't need to know who he wants in his bed; for me, that's what makes his TSOTL incarnation so disturbing, haunting and timeless.