Both are cannibals in there own right and both have been doing it for a while. Whos more sinister, the old man or Hannibal?
shareDude he was a trip.....Freaked me out........
You Have a Hard Lip, Herbert..
Better Living Thru Chemistry
To my mind Hannibal. We know his back-story. He's a highly refined, well-educated member of society. His parents were aristocrats. Hannibal didn't maltreat the 'under-dog' for amusement. He didn't take advantage of his wealth nor was he scathing of poverty at all. There's no envy in him; he seems free of the mind-numbing pre-occupation with materialism. He played his games amongst the well-to-do and educated. He has no particular axe to grind. He isn't 'entitled'. Hannibal likes women. He's a refined, intelligent, psychopath caught up in a convoluted fantasy that seeks to undo the laws of physics - reverse entropy - in order to bring back his cannibalised sister.
Should that day ever come about, not even his beloved wife will be safe.
The most dangerous creation of any society is the man who has nothing to lose - James Baldwin
That's an interesting question. Are characters like this scarier when we know their backstory or when we don't? I can see it both ways.
shareI think if the old man was more sinister, he would have more of a place in infamy right about now.
http://i61.tinypic.com/2v3j8gp.jpg
http://i62.tinypic.com/2yjufbk.jpg
The 'old man' is Italian cult film director Ruggero Deodato in a cameo.
share