I agree.
I definitely admire Moore for her lengthy and ongoing career - not an easy feat for women in this aegist industry competing for limited roles - and for her considerable contributions to indie film making; I also thought she was quite good in "Magnolia," among other projects.
However, in general, Moore tends to gravitate towards the same octave or two of acting range; her sweet spot seems to be playing a woman who is in some way suffering or suffocated - unraveling from the inside out.
To be objective and not unkind - IMHO - Moore's demonstrated range encompassing her entire filmography, her oeuvre, can be destroyed and outclassed by several of her peers in single films. Naomi Watts in "Mulholland Drive," Cate Blanchett in "Elizabeth," and Marion Cotillard in "La Vie En Rose," come to mind.
Acting, like singing, is about more than just range though. Moore may have the perfect "tone" for a lot of people. But she didn't work for me here.
In all fairness, Moore's capability to come out swinging with a knockout showing in "Hannibal," was severely hampered on two fronts. There is, of course, the iconic association of the Clarice character with Foster; secondly, there is the lacklustre writing - as you rightfully pointed out.
When Foster and Hopkins had exchanges in TSOTL, there was a sprinkling of pixie dust, some movie magic in the air. I don't remember any eye contact, body language, camera angles, nor even a single line of dialogue between Moore and Hopkins. Hannibal wanted to kiss Clarice, or have sex with her, or something obvious.
The association of Clarice with Foster, the reach and massive exposure of the first movie in the rental market, the passage of time, and TSOTL's psychological leanings all cannot be overstated; Clarice's profound baggage from the first film was, for all intents and purposes, imprinted onto Jodie Foster.
As someone affected by the original film - and either through a mind block or the deliberate refusal to suspend my disbelief or Moore's inability to hint at a rich inner life - I 100% did not buy that Moore's Clarice entered the world of "Hannibal," with all of her childhood memories and motivations intact - reluctantly drawn out by Hopkins / Lecter a decade earlier.
To me, Moore was "just another random FBI agent," a Faux Clarice imposter who is not Foster / Real Clarice... in the presence of Hopkins / Real Lecter.
So much of Hopkins' Lecter legend is defined by his shared history with Clarice (i.e. Foster.) Because I felt that this shared history was completely absent in "Hannibal," I sometimes zoned out as the events and dialogue transpired.
Moore and Hopkins were talking at each other and delivering lines - but they weren't really having a conversation.
Moore's performance in "Hannibal," from my vague recall, is nowhere near her strongest nor even particularly memorable.
To put it crudely, Moore got Foster's leftovers and sloppy seconds.
For what it's worth, Cate Blanchett - if given the Clarice part, and under the right script revision and director - probably would have nailed it.
I have no doubt that Foster was offered the role and that producers were willing to bend over backwards to please her. But Foster detected that there was something "off" and problematic with the necessity of a sequel, the value of her retreading the role, the script, the director, and / or the production.
Going ahead without her participation was the backup plan.
Dr. Hannibal Lecter is to The Manhunter / Silence / Red Dragon universe as Captain Jack Sparrow is to "The Pirates of the Caribbean," film series. Audiences would come out in droves even if a steaming pile of cinematic excrement were served before them. And in an alternate universe, people would debate hypothetically whether Natalie Portman or Keira Knightley has the superior, "Elizabeth Swann."
Maybe Hopkins had an upcoming home renovation at the time or something; to me, he seems to view the Hannibal character as "just a job" at the end of the day, and would probably sign up for more sequels if paid enough.
If Foster and her agent had really fought for it, she could have easily landed a $10-20 million dollar pay cheque, or dipped into % profit sharing for box office, disc media sales, TV screening rights - perhaps receiving compensation at near parity with Hopkins.
Let's remember the implication is that Foster said so much without words: "No thanks. It's not about the money. Not interested. Pass. Bye."
Insight into a person's character is sometimes shown through actions: I deeply respect that she doesn't seem to have a sellout threshold (at least financially) - and seemed more concerned at the time with her screen legacy and working with meaningful projects and compelling individuals.
My point is that the woman who - as a child - worked with Prime Scorsese and Prime De Niro in "Taxi Driver," said "No," to "Hannibal." The woman who had just done "The Lost World: Jurassic Park" a few years before - another sequel - said, "Yes" to a movie that maybe shouldn't have even happened.
That was the beginning of Moore's problems in "Hannibal."
I guess it can be argued that Foster herself seems to gravitate towards certain types of roles. But at least Foster has that career trademark intensity - and no one can take that away from her. IMHO Foster is far more effective than Moore at using her eyes to register emotional shifts, both subtle and seismic.
I also find it quite fascinating that - if the trend on these IMDB boards is anything to go by - 25 years later, Foster's performance is singled out as contentious and examined with scrutiny... more than any of the other principals. This just signals to me that she has an intense magnetism, a polarizing effect: People seem to love her or hate her for a part.
You and I both feel that she is a large part of what makes this movie great; others are repelled by her and feel that she is the weak link, nearly ruining the movie.
reply
share