Submitted by i_love_anachronisms t3_ygq09e in television
Comments
Skullparrot t1_iuajmzg wrote
I thought it was pretty clear that it's romantic. The scene where Bedelia tells Will Hannibal is in love with him and asks if Will "aches" for Hannibal and we don't see his answer (or maybe he doesnt answer at all, I don't remember) and he's still chasing after him, combined with their "death" scene I felt was pretty obvious. I always just thought Hannibal was Will's only exception, so to speak. Hannibal even got them a kid and a honeymoon! Very romantic. Such a shame he had to stab Will and take Bedelia instead last second.
Jokes aside, Fuller has stated that their relationship was intended to be romantic because it was at first meant to just be obsessive but over time just sort of naturally grew into a romance as well, and they apparently filmed a kiss for the last episode that never made it in. I think he wrote that it always felt incredibly obvious to him, but that he also didn't wanna "push it into your face" so to speak, because he was scared of it being considered pandering.
Instead, it apparently caused some confusion on something that was clear to some people but vague to others. Damn shame in my opinion, and an example of reactionary social media nowadays getting into authors' heads and fucking with their self confidence.
tl;dr theyre in wuv
nourez t1_iualeqh wrote
I don’t necessarily think that Hannibal can love, not in the way normal people do. Will as well, to a lesser extent. They both see a bit of themselves in the other, they can understand each other, and they allow the other to see themselves without their masks on.
I do think there is a love there, or something that looks like it. The shape but not the full form. But not the traditional romantic love. Which is what I think Fuller was building towards. If it’s love, but not in a way that that’s supposed to be truly understandable to the average viewer.
Skullparrot t1_iuaq58m wrote
Eh, he did state that the line "I see you." was Hannibal's declaration of love to Will, and I'd argue that being able to wholly see each other is a lot more crucial to romantic love than anything else.
All the murder aside (LOL) I do think Hannibal can love and I think Will is it for him. He clearly shows emotions and care for those he respects or finds interesting, he just views those more as pets or experiments while viewing the rest of the world as livestock. He didn't save Bedelia because he could use her later, he saved her cause he thought she was interesting and wanted to see what she would do, which already put her above the patient who was trying to kill her. Kind of like a fun science project.
The way he's treated Will has from the start been much more a show of devotion than anything. You never see him actually reach out to a "project" and go up to them and seek their attention and mutual appreciation like he does with will, he always just goes with the flow and just kind of comes across them willy nilly, but he actually seeks Will out all the time. Hell, the sole reason he manipulated Abigail into being dependent on him was so that she'd be dependent on him and stay so that Will could play house & live his dream of being a dad.
Sure they might not hold hands and buy each other flowers, but I think if you put them as a team in like, a medical series like ER or something, their behavior towards each other would 100% read as love. It's just that the way Hannibal shows love and dedication is by, you know...manipulating traumatized children and putting sculptures made out of dead bodies symbolizing his love for Will in Italian chapels. Which, you do you boo, I guess.
beebsaleebs t1_iubzhux wrote
It’s not love- they both struggle with the idea of losve. It’s intimacy. This desire for intimacy conflicts with both Will’s duty to stop Hannibal and Hannibal’s desire to pursue his passions. Will’s sense of duty and Hannibal’s passion have been unstoppable, immutable, driving forces for their entire existences up until this point.
This sudden Achilles heel in their entire engine left them both reeling in different ways. Ultimately their mutual need to control the others’ otherness if you will, was the schism that blew it all apart.
Interesting twist on the original works.
dumbidoo t1_iub5751 wrote
I would describe their relationship more as intimate rather than romantic. Romance implies certain things that relationship is completely devoid of and, as you said, perhaps even things these characters are incapable of.
Not every deep, meaningful and fulfilling relationship needs to be romantic to be so. It's a weird, somewhat fetishistic, and honestly rather reductive lens to view relationships. So no surprise redditors jump on it.
appletinicyclone t1_iubrc86 wrote
> I think he wrote that it always felt incredibly obvious to him, but that he also didn't wanna "push it into your face" so to speak
I think he played it perfectly
kinkycaleb t1_iuf4bds wrote
This concept of wuv confuses and infuriates us!
jumpsteadeh t1_iua3ybl wrote
I think a show accurate way of describing it would be that their relationship is the shadow cast by romantic love. The silhouette of love, but filled with an impenetrable darkness. But I would have liked them to kiss at the end. For closure.
matticusiv t1_iua7c4e wrote
Hear me out. Full. Penetration.
SjbIsHeavenSent t1_iua7u67 wrote
Crime. Penetration. Crime. Penetration.
beemccouch t1_iua8vun wrote
Penetrate the darkness. Penetrate the darkness.
appletinicyclone t1_iubr821 wrote
Season 2 was so damn good
firedrakes t1_iu9ws2l wrote
Old TV show and a slow news day
rpdreon98 t1_iua7xtt wrote
I don’t know if you’re a fan or know much about what’s going on right now, but fans are petitioning for another season and the director/actors are viewing another season favorably
Haslinhezl t1_iuabn0z wrote
You could have said that any time for the last several years
LycanHD t1_iuahbty wrote
That will never happen because one of the main actors is happy on law & order.
[deleted] t1_iuaxmph wrote
[deleted]
PaulFThumpkins t1_iu9zzth wrote
Agreed, there's definitely intimacy and a sort of attraction portrayed in the show, but neither are sexual, at least not necessarily. Whether people feel baited by reading into it I don't know, but the overarching problem will always be discomfort and sexualization of male intimacy in our culture.
xarabas t1_iuam6by wrote
That's exactly what Anthony Mackie was complaining about a while ago.
Basically, he was frustrated that because Sam and Bucky shared some sensitive moments people just started going “they’re gay” and shipped them. I don’t believe it to be coming from a homophobic place, more of asking a question - why does the fact that a man has sensitive moments with another man make people assume they’re gay with each other? I think it’s ok to ask that question.
It is pretty much saying “only gay men can be sensitive and if your male character shows sensitivity with another man he must be gay.” People are more complex than that. A man could be effeminate but not gay, or could be a “man’s man” and also be gay. A well-written character should also share that complexity
Act_of_God t1_iub7zou wrote
people ship characters who in-fiction legit hate each other all the time, it's not about the scene being innocent. Shippers project their own head cannon into the story because to them it's more fun that way, the only problem ends up being when someone doesn't have a healthy separation from the art and they actually get angry about it
Vestalmin t1_iueixu7 wrote
People are free to ship whatever they want, I get annoyed when their rhetoric starts to become how they are written that way, it’s just not stated outright.
Like you can have your fanfic, but don’t start calling it fact
sati_lotus t1_iugvypp wrote
Fans will get entitled over the stupidest things - relationship they think should happen, casting, storylines not being 'correct', CGI not being up to snuff etc.
Marvel just had a show that mocked this type of fan and nothing will change lol
DavidsWorkAccount t1_iub3smw wrote
I don't feel it's male sensitivity per se. Fandoms have been "shipping" characters in the same show for awhile now. While some of these ships are due to things in the story, many times it's just 2 characters that a group of that fandom are attracted to.
Sam and Buckey aren't ugly and sure have some fans that think they are good looking. Just being the same show and they probably would have been shipped, even without that scene. Just like how many fans shipped Sam and Dean from Supernatural (who are clearly brothers and not romantically linked).
Haslinhezl t1_iued5oy wrote
Anyone who ships any characters is mentally unwell
Olddirtychurro t1_iubjy97 wrote
Same with Sam and Frodo. Sure, gay representation is important and there should be more of it but not at the cost of being able to show emotional friendships between two men. Or even men and women actually, the more these things are shown the more they are normalized and we can slowly chip away at certain aspects that lead to unrealistic expectations.
It's why I'm also quite happy with the growing trend in shounen anime that shows more and more platonic friendships between boys&girls with zero romantic tension between them.
matticusiv t1_iuc0wab wrote
Reminds of Sam and Frodo in the LotR, people can’t see two men show affection for each other without screaming “gayyy”. Although these days it’s less derogatory, but still ignorant.
Imaybetoooldforthis t1_iud0acy wrote
The thing I find sad about it is if a man thinks that they’ve clearly never had a meaningful male friendship.
If a woman thinks that they clearly don’t understand good male friendships.
Dread to think of the number of people peddling this narrative that must fall into the above.
OddFeature t1_iuatei3 wrote
Quote from the article:
> “So many things are twisted and convoluted. There’s so many things that people latch on to with their own devices to make themselves relevant and rational,” Mackie said. “The idea of two guys being friends and loving each other in 2021 is a problem because of the exploitation of homosexuality. It used to be guys can be friends, we can hang out, and it was cool. You would always meet your friends at the bar, you know. You can’t do that anymore, because something as pure and beautiful as homosexuality has been exploited by people who are trying to rationalize themselves. So something that’s always been very important to me is showing a sensitive masculine figure. There’s nothing more masculine than being a superhero and flying around and beating people up. But there’s nothing more sensitive than having emotional conversations and a kindred spirit friendship with someone that you care about and love.”
Honestly kinda a weird and confusing take from him. I also want more sensitive straight guys, but there’s literally nothing remotely problematic about wondering if two sensitive dudes wanna fuck each other. I think he’s really overthinking it here and to be honest he does come across as pretty defensive and a little resentful of anybody that thought they might be gay—but whatever it’s just some random quote and doesn’t really matter much.
Also I can’t speak for everyone, but I personally just thought they might be gay because of that scene where they land on top of each other and also the therapy scene where they intertwine legs—which I personally read as similar to the romantic tropes you might see between a man and a woman. Me thinking they might be gay had nothing to do with their sensitivity or how deep their friendship was, I just genuinely thought the writers might be setting that up by including those tropes.
Edit: Curious what people disagree with here that is causing them to downvote. Feel free to leave a comment if you wanna have a discussion.
pasher5620 t1_iubegrn wrote
People are downvoting you because you are doing what Mackie was arguing against. You’re taking things that are not explicitly gay (I.e. two men being close as friends) and turning it into them potentially being gay. The issue is that those tropes are seen as explicitly romantic when it should be instead viewed as intimate instead.
OddFeature t1_iubh3hw wrote
Fair enough—I mostly disagree with Mackie’s point so that tracks. I just don’t see what the issue really is with interpreting a close male friendship as maybe being gay. It doesn’t invalidate the friendship in any way and I feel like he’s in some ways taking gay relationships a bit too seriously and inadvertently misrepresenting what they might actually look like in reality.
Like this comment he made about homosexuality is a little weird
> something as pure and beautiful as homosexuality
Gay dudes that are dating each other often have a deep friendship that in a lot of ways might resemble a deep friendship between two straight dudes. That’s all I’m really saying here. Like cool, they didn’t end up being gay and that’s fine—I just take issue with the implication that thinking they were gay really means anything or lessens the impact of their bond or really just says anything at all about straight male friendships. It’s just kind of a fragile and insecure take and I found it a bit disappointing.
DMPunk t1_iubk7by wrote
The issue is that people see close male relationships as ONLY being gay. The idea that emotional intimacy with a male friend means you want to fuck them is why so many men have difficulty being emotionally open. It's a core component of toxic masculinity
OddFeature t1_iubol6y wrote
I don’t disagree at all that emotional openness being seen as gay is a core component of toxic masculinity, but the best response to toxic-masculinity-fueled accusations of gayness is simply to be unbothered by accusations of gayness. The issue is the toxically-masculine viewpoint of gay = bad.
Also I more or less disagree that people see close male relationships as ONLY being gay. I personally don’t think that, for whatever that’s worth.
MagicTheAlakazam t1_iucut7t wrote
You're right despite being downvoted.
The writers i think intentionally queer baited in this show and then Mackie doubled down with being offended that anyone interpreted his character as queer.
Like it was a bad situation and Mackie came out looking awful.
OddFeature t1_iueb7yk wrote
Ya, agreed to an extent. Though I don’t personally put too much stock into “queer baiting” as a concept, as it implies an intention from the writers to deliberately trick the queer community into watching the show. I think the more likely scenario is actually that a heteronormative writer’s room just thought it would be funny if two straight dudes fell on each other or had to go through couple’s counseling and wasn’t thinking about how queer people would perceive it at all. That seems even more apparent when reading Mackie’s response, as he seems to be speaking directly to who he perceives as the intended audience for the show—straight dudes.
ChristopherCaulk t1_iudc0g5 wrote
How the fuck did the writers queerbait on that marvel show???? Did we watch the same thing or were you watching some xxx parody? I don't think anyone with common sense thinks he came out looking awful, quite the opposite.
MagicTheAlakazam t1_iudelf2 wrote
The couples counciling scene and the fall on each other through the field scene would be setting up romance if you switched one of the genders.
Also look up what queer baiting is. It is by default hinting or doing some subtle setups that the queer community will pick up on to interest them while going over the heads of straight conservative viewers with no intention of actually delivering on the relationship.
Queer baiting is designed to look like nothing when viewed by a heteronormative audience. See bbc sherlock, dean and castiel on super natural or rizzoli and isles.
realblush t1_iub1r3i wrote
The article and Fuller very clearly state that the two are falling into a homosexual relationship.
myassholealt t1_iualnyu wrote
>but the overarching problem will always be discomfort and sexualization of male intimacy in our culture.
My perspective is that of a gay woman who in past shows would, for my own entertainment, decide I'm gonna pretend these two characters are together (biggest example that comes to mind is ADA Cabot and detective Olivia Benson in SVU).
One of the reasons I would read into interactions what is or isn't there is because back in the day there were not a lot of options to see a genuine lesbian relationship on my TV. The level of closeness and intimacy that you see all the time portrayed between a man+woman wasn't something queer audiences got to experience often if at all. So when you'd find a show that portrays a relationship that seems deeper than a typical friendship portrayal, you get a bit excited. And you assign this additional context to the scene.
So I would say it's not just a discomfort but sometimes a response to something you don't get a lot of but would like to. So when you see hints of it, you latch on. And often what you're reading into the scenes is not what's happening. But then sometimes it feels like it's exactly what they want you to think even if it's not what's happening. Hence the queer baiting label.
OddFeature t1_iuc4i8d wrote
>but the overarching problem will always be discomfort and sexualization of male intimacy in our culture
We definitely need to get over our discomfort of male intimacy as a culture, but I actually think the first and most important step for that is to completely discard the “no homo” mindset and fully embrace that a deep and intimate relationship with another man will inevitably share a lot of similarities with the relationships of gay men, who are also having a deep and intimate relationship with another man. We need to fully deconstruct our society’s belief that male intimacy is the sole domain of gay dudes and become completely comfortable with embracing our friends in a way where we don’t care whether people think we’re gay or straight. That will also inevitably lead to the realization that the belief in “sexualization of male intimacy” as a problem is itself a product of that same dynamic we just deconstructed.
omg-sheeeeep t1_iue4i9x wrote
I absolutely agree with your take.
A big part of the problem is the constant quantifier of male friendships a la 'its not a gay thing but they hug a lot'. If we can just get rid of that kind of thinking then ultimately it won't matter whether it is or not.
And especially right now when more and more people speak out about how lonely they are I think it is important to embrace a dynamic that a lot of men especially only associate with romantic partners.
PreenerGastures t1_iua3jxn wrote
This is well said
Modoger t1_iuadjn1 wrote
The “at least not necessarily” is what makes it queer baiting, or as I like to call it schrodingers gays.
PaulFThumpkins t1_iuadt1m wrote
Remembering that they said they shot some kissing takes does put a bit of a wrench in my argument. I should say that a bigger problem is the discomfort I talked about, along with a dearth of genuine gay relationships in mainstream media.
Modoger t1_iuae3pn wrote
Agreed. I haven’t actually seen this show so can’t speak to this specific example. I have no problem with veiled homoeroticism between characters if it makes sense. In a show/movie without any queer relationships whatsoever it can get annoying and feel exploitative.
highdefrex t1_iuapeuv wrote
> I haven’t actually seen this show so can’t speak to this specific example
That's why these things are nuanced. No offense, but you saying "The 'at least not necessarily' is what makes it queer baiting" while then admitting that you haven't even watched the show and therefore don't have any context on it from which to draw from is exactly the type of knee-jerk reaction that robs these sorts of conversations of said nuance.
Hannibal and Will's dynamic is unique, to say the least, but using OP's "at least not necessarily" as a way to dismiss it as queer baiting paints it as a black and white thing when the show itself is tackling the grey area, which, again - and I say this respectfully - you'd see (and get why OP said "not necessarily") if you watched the show before making a judgment.
Modoger t1_iuapwod wrote
I’m not making a judgement, if you read the rest of my comment, I find veiled homoeroticism fine and dandy if it serves the story. Still fits the terminology of queer baiting. I very specifically said that I can’t speak to this specific example (and was inferring that I can’t make judgement on whether this case of “queerbaiting” ie unresolved ambiguous homoromantic relationships, fits that definition or not) no need to jump down my throat friend, just having a conversation. I mean no harm.
Queer baiting is a loaded term, (which is why I prefer schrodingers gays). It’s often exploitative and annoying but not always.
whiskymusty t1_iua47as wrote
I don’t know the word for their dynamic but they are definitely like magnetic for each other. And that’s what makes them great. It’s a different kind of wanting.
VashWolf t1_iuaj94b wrote
Admiration. That is the best way I can describe it. Will admires Hannibal's brilliance and Hannibal admired his empathy and problem solving. Amazing writing all around.
JayAPanda t1_iua1eas wrote
I'm queer and the way unfulfilled homoeroticism in fiction is vilified now is soooo boring
skybluepattern t1_iuas5ka wrote
Yeah fr. Everything is labeled 'queerbaiting' nowadays, like personally I love me some homoeroticism over explicitly , it adds layers
MintyTyrant t1_iuaas60 wrote
Killing Eve died when the writers gave in to the fans crying about 'queerbaiting' and made Villanelle and Eve 100% lesbian, one of the coolest parts of the show for me was how complex and imbalanced the two characters' sexualities were. S2 was alright but I gave up after S3E1.
euphoricpizza96 t1_iuajweq wrote
Killing Eve died when Phoebe Waller Bridge was no longer the head writer
MintyTyrant t1_iuaothl wrote
It was still ok under Emerald Fennell - Not as amazing as PWB, but I still thought it was good TV. Everything after s2 was absolute ass
midnight-monstera t1_iubj6gv wrote
Gotta disagree, not a huge fan but the books actually ended with Eve and Villanelle happily in a relationship. I'm still unsure why the show deviated from the source material as it was really touching. Killing Eve is one of the few shows where I agree with the queerbating angle (speaking as a bisexual woman).
Modoger t1_iuadttx wrote
I’m totally with you. I like some veiled homoerotic tension, it’s when movies put it in to avoid controversy by having explicitly queer characters that it bugs me. The monk and his beefy boy in Rogue One being an example of the bad kind. Disney sucks for this.
JayAPanda t1_iuaet24 wrote
Agreed!
thewidowgorey t1_iua4bhj wrote
The kids don’t understand how difficult it is to get gay content in TV and major films.
MrPotatoButt t1_iua6yae wrote
Typical "woke" morons who think they can bully an out, homosexual cinematic genius into molding his show to an artistically dead propaganda vehicle. Go back to shipping Batwoman!
Gato1980 t1_iua4adx wrote
I feel like I haven't heard Bryan Fuller's name associated with something new for a while now. Is he working on anything that he'll end up abandoning after a year of production?
CurseofLono88 t1_iua69pt wrote
He just recently released a documentary series on Shudder called Queer for Fear: the history of Queer Horror, if that’s anything you’d be interested in. Outside of that I don’t know what the hell he’s up to these days. I think I heard him say in a podcast a while back that he was working on a new adaption of Stephen King’s Christine
silashoulder t1_iua5dey wrote
I think we’re all still a little sad about Pushing Daisies.
Sea-Forever-Rabbit t1_iuad0je wrote
I want this Pushing Daisies comic book we were promised six years ago. I've even seen panels from it
Vincent_adultman98 t1_iugemzd wrote
They keep changing what it'll be. It was a comic, than it changed to a musical, than a movie. I think we've just gotta wait until there's no hope for a movie for them to realize it in another format.
bros402 t1_iud8esn wrote
I half wish a Pushing Daisies episode had come out during the height of the zombie TV craze, then at the end Ned wakes up and is like "i had the worst dream Chuck"
Petrichor02 t1_iua8cm8 wrote
He’s actually stayed with more projects to their cancellation than he has left projects early. But it’s a closer number than it should be.
DisturbedNocturne t1_iuawxuu wrote
Last major thing I heard he's working on is a remake of Stephen King's Christine, which he'll also be directing.
bros402 t1_iud8bau wrote
we're all still mourning Pushing Daisies
tomc_23 t1_iuap0q9 wrote
It was never queerbaiting, but it also was much more nuanced than just shipping two characters and then waiting for their connection to be confirmed as explicitly romantic.
Will and Hannibal have something far more intimate, and it’s no coincidence that both characters also each possess heightened states of awareness (empathy for Will, smell for Hannibal); they both understand one another so deeply that it makes the moral struggle for Will’s soul at the center of their conflict all the more meaningful. Neither wants to be the other’s enemy, and their intimacy and connection makes it one of the most compelling relationships in any series.
In many ways, they complete one another, but their entire story has a tragic quality of being doomed from the outset, since there’s no place in the world for the kind of existence Hannibal tries to tempt Will with. It’s a tragic romance that makes for one of the best “hero”-villain dynamics ever explored.
[deleted] t1_iuavzwh wrote
[deleted]
Mrtheliger t1_iua61ks wrote
Queerbaiting is when two guys have an intimate relationship without boning
MiloTheMagnificent t1_iuak070 wrote
Could Hannibal daily feel a stab of hunger and be satisfied at the sight of Will?
Yes.
But does Will feel the same?
Probably.
How can a show that pays off the love story be baiting? Hannibal got what he always wanted for the two of them. Will always knew he must kill Hannibal regardless of what he might have felt or wanted and Hannibal loved Will because Will Graham would do what he must. The wrath of the lamb.
NotLukeL t1_iua2zwq wrote
Honestly if you give a shit about this you need to realign your priorities
sillystevedore t1_iud2yqx wrote
While queer baiting is an annoying trend in some circles, the idea that any piece of art that gestures at romance but doesn’t explicitly show it is somehow problematic is just so dumb. It’s called “subtlety,” people. Hannibal — and that central relationship — is an extremely romantic show. The imagery, the direction, the music, the writing of those characters… it’s all right there for the viewer to parse.
Pretty annoying (and ironic) that there are seemingly tons of people who balk at sex and nudity on TV and also people who throw a fit when there isn’t explicit romance between some characters. You can’t win with these losers.
JohnWhatSun t1_iuegt0i wrote
I think that queer baiting is frustrating to see because this kind of "leave it up to the viewer" thing only seems to happen with same sex relationships. If we saw a similar trend with opposite sex relationships, I'd get it, but as far as I can see, it's not the case. If you have any examples of hetero relationships as a counterpoint, then fair enough.
Queer baiting won't ruin a show for me on its own and I don't need to see characters have sex on screen to confirm the relationship, but it's a trend that has been long outgrown and the current talking point of "intimate male friendship is misunderstood by fujoshis" is being applied with broad strokes wherever the phrase queer baiting is mentioned, regardless of merit. I'm just tired of the lack of nuance from both sides.
I can love Hannibal as a show and still wish that we got that kiss scene.
sillystevedore t1_iueyvqc wrote
As I said, I think it’s a legit gripe sometimes, and you’re right about there being few heterosexual examples (Mulder and Scully is the biggest one I can think of). But the way it’s getting thrown around (like so many other buzzwords that people fundamentally misunderstand) is getting a bit ridiculous. And, like, it’s fine that you wanted them to kiss — a lot of people did while still enjoying the show, which was excellent. But when people start suggesting that those characters should have kissed, as if the writers behind the show were cruelly and incorrectly depriving the audience of that, that’s where I draw the line. That can lead to toxic fandom in which people are claiming ownership over something they didn’t create and isn’t theirs.
I don’t think the show was ever about explicit interpersonal romance in the traditional sense. In fact, it was about an extremely unique, extremely taboo, very obviously untraditional sort of intimacy between them that I think a ‘climactic’ kiss or some reveal that they’re both bisexual would have dumbed down quite a bit, honestly. But that’s just me. I’d argue that the two of them teaming up to take down Dolarhyde and then jumping (or, Will pushing Hannibal — it’s left a bit ambiguous) off that cliff is the kiss, for all intents and purposes.
Queer-baiting (when it does actually happen) is essentially indebted to the “will they or won’t they” trope of two main characters on a sitcom taking years before they get together. It’s a tried and true device that gets viewers coming back for more and waiting for the eventual hook-up. When it’s being clearly dangled and never given in a context like that, I’m more inclined to call it what it is. Then it becomes part of the bigger issue of media being super chaste with regards to showing gay sex and gay intimacy. That’s finally changing, at least a little bit.
JohnWhatSun t1_iuf6fpf wrote
I think in the case of Hannibal, you are right. Mizumono and the cliff scene had incredible emotional payoff. Just fantastic storytelling.
I was probably being argumentative for the sake of it here, so I apologise, and your comments have shown me that we're largely thinking along the same lines. Your last paragraph resonated with me - I find it hard to call out any one show for queer baiting, especially when they're otherwise great shows, but it's the broader trend of media up until the last few years that, when you look back on it, was not great.
Thanks for the detailed response, I really appreciate it
sillystevedore t1_iugm5hu wrote
No need to apologize! Didn’t find you argumentative at all, really.
gergafulmatos t1_iu9zvxf wrote
I bought swampland in Florida but got this article instead.
dolphin37 t1_iuc7e10 wrote
When a shows characters are too complex for idiots to understand:
Silent_Palpatine t1_iuconp5 wrote
Only thing I’m accusing Hannibal of was have a terrible sound mix.
NilocStros55 t1_iuaho1h wrote
Indie Wire is an absolute turd of a website. Can we please stop posting their clickbait garbage?
ParanoidMoistoid t1_iudmwsp wrote
I think explicitly sexualising the dynamic between Will and Hannibal would obfuscate the nature of what characterises their growing intimacy - namely, the pull towards killing and the growingly synchronous way that Will and Hannibal view the "artistry" of their violence. It would be a waste of words to argue that there's nothing queer about the relationship, as Fuller explicitly frames the queer nature of their relationship in the article:
“It certainly started out as a non-sexual same-sex couple experiencing a greater intimacy than they’ve ever experienced before. Then being able to transition through that to an intimacy that was qualified as love. Then a physical intimacy between them, where they are both penetrating a man, that is a culmination of their relationship with each other. Then falling into each other’s arms and over a cliff."
However, it is allegorical, they aren't normative lovers because the relationship doesn't exist along normative lines. Hannibal is drawn because of Will's unique hyperempathic capacity to see the world through the eyes of a killer. He wants to erode Will's inhibitions and completely share his perspective and "art" with him - since Will is the only person who will ever be capable of understanding him. Everything else (love, sex, friendship, parenting Abigail) is just set dressing for attaining the end of extending his capacity as a horrifying, predatory force of nature.
I know Fuller states that it "became explicitly queer in terms of the conversation about loving each other and where that love was going to take them", but this is not love as we know it - it is love as Hannibal knows and experiences it. As they grow closer, it is probable that they will be taken to dark places (e.g. at the table with Bedelia), but the idea that they will have something resembling a normative romantic relationship doesn't square with the forces which bind them together.
[deleted] t1_iuarxlr wrote
[deleted]
anasui1 t1_iuaz1ex wrote
man, who gives a shit. Even if that were the case, who cares?
cousinoyaya t1_iubs4bo wrote
Imagine if he still run Interview With a Vampire lol, by this time Lestate and Louis would have just gotten to the long silent pauses as they sit across a table.
Lecture would have still beat the shit out Louis but the far they would have gone would be looking at each other's lips. THE HIGHT OF INTEMANCY!
jk still love ya B. Idk about the car move but id love another show.
BlackSpinedPlinketto t1_iuczmw6 wrote
It was all kinds of what the kids call ‘queer’, and that’s a much trickier thing to pull off. Even Asexual people can see their own relationships in the deep relationship between the key characters.
Also there’s a lesbian couple who have sex on screen.
[deleted] t1_iud6o3u wrote
[deleted]
noyrb1 t1_iugkc03 wrote
😑
loboMuerto t1_iuctofv wrote
Again that weird US obsession with sex-related love and romanticism. Bonds between people are not necessarily that.
omg-sheeeeep t1_iue53bk wrote
I actually believe people just like labels in these scenarios. Everything needs to be defined nicely and tied up with a bow. No room for interpretation and that's what's taking the life out of any type of media.
Allow people the room to put themselves in there instead of restricting access.
loboMuerto t1_iue8n38 wrote
Absolutely agree, thanks for sharing your point of view.
SteelmanINC t1_iufg2ev wrote
It’s weird that it comes from the same people who are so vocally against labels and defining people neatly though.
Cook_0612 t1_iud43hj wrote
Whole show is cynical.
Bonezone420 t1_iub6wy5 wrote
Hasn't every show he's ever worked on had massive issues with this that he keeps just going "What? Noooo that's a you problem"?
shivam131 t1_iubslrs wrote
Stupid shippers be like, "You are Gay, They are Gay, Everyone is Gay!"
PrettyPunctuality t1_iudooq5 wrote
Except it wasn't just "stupid shippers" seeing something that wasn't there. When they were shooting the series finale, they literally filmed takes of Will and Hannibal kissing during the final scene and chose to not use them in the final product.
HPmoni t1_iuaejo7 wrote
I like how this show started out as forensics and ended as a gay relationship where neither man was gay. You can tell they stopped giving a fuck about making something commercial.
Oh, he killed Beverly!
Codysseus7 t1_iu9upqn wrote
I don’t know how romantic their relationship is, but it’s the best part of the series in my opinion. They’re the only two people who really know each other.