"Successful change in the directors' chair with each part of the trilogy."

To start with, often the director has a plan or is chosen to direct the entire trilogy. There are not many series where the director changes with each film. However, not when it comes to the Hannibal Lecter trilogy - “The Silence of the Lambs” directed by Jonathan Demme, “Hannibal” directed by Ridley Scott, and “Red Dragon” directed by Brett Ratner. Perhaps one of the best trilogies, with the director changing with each part. Having said that, yes, the 2nd and 3rd are not as good as the first one. I won’t focus on the books in the analysis, however, I very much recommend them too.

I am a big fan of this trilogy because each of the films is connected thematically, with its style and storytelling but on the other hand, there are clear differences that each director applies. Not only focusing on the first part but also giving some new ways of how the story is being told.

I wanna particularly focus on one similarity and one difference. To begin with similarity, in each part of the film, Hannibal is just an informer, an outsider from the main conflict, even though he is considered the main antagonist by some. His mystery, knowledge, and fear of him create a great character over the course of three films. Each director focuses on him on a different level. In the first film, “The Silence of the Lambs”, chronologically in the 2nd part, he is in prison and has to help an F.B.I cadet played by Jodie Foster catch another serial killer. He isn’t the antagonist or a protagonist of the story but seems to be one of the more fascinating individuals due to the great acting of Anthony Hopkins and his character development.

Moving on, chronologically the last film “Hannibal”, again, he isn’t the main protagonist, nor is he the antagonist, Hannibal living in exile, tries to reconnect with Clarice Starling and finds himself a target for revenge from a powerful victim.

Finally, in “Red Dragon'' the prequel to both, Anthony Hopkins again helps, creating a feeling of need for him to be alive, as a great source of information about how the serial killer act, now, being asked by A retired F.B.I agent, who caught him in a first place, help to find track down another serial killer, both characters, supplement each other as both are psychologically knowledgeable. Just as with Clarice in previously mentioned films.

On the other hand, Ridley Scott presents the most of Hannibal Lecter in action, which makes it less mysterious, however, the fact that he is able to be so quick but also confuse the audience makes it a lot better. I once read that he has “little of humanity in him, not believable”, and I tend to disagree. Based on internet sources, Hannibal Lecter is an unhealthy INTJ personality type. He is convinced that he is right and is closed-minded to other points of view, no matter how they are presented to him. Carrying a certain arrogance, it's clear that he thinks he is better than everyone else, yet he finds his targets, that he is intrigued by and able to work. He as well gets caught in “Hannibal” by Italian guys, which shows the imperfection of the human mind, even of psychopaths, and that everyone makes mistakes, but what if that was a plan in the first place, to get caught? Just like Edward Norton said in “Red Dragon” - “I let him kill me”, and if he wouldn’t get caught he would never meet with Mason Verger. So there is still a lot to analyze and interpret.

What I find fascinating is how different Hanniba presented by Ridley Scott is. He seems more “human” yet literally “eats someone's brain”!, but because of gaining time and ability to present the character to the fullest by Anthony Hopkins, the master of pursuing, the audience begins to feel something about Dr. Lecter. He is not just a psychopath in a cell, but he has everything planned out, he is incredibly intelligent, knowledgeable, and unable to change his perspective.

Each film presents a certain story and doesn’t feel like a continuation of another film, which often is very visible, especially in the middle parts of the trilogy, that is impacted by the time between films and different visions of wonderful directors.

The mentioned films had been analyzed over and over during past years and the majority of the people agree that Hannibal is one of the best characters portrayed in films while not being on any side of the conflict.

To sum up, I do believe that each of the directors developed Hannibal Lecter in a significant way, with so little time on the screen. At the same time the entire trilogy shows how important the director's vision of a film is, and what style or techniques they want to use in order to present a great piece of the puzzle, without feeling incomplete, because after watching the entire trilogy, it doesn’t feel like one. It does feel connected but simultaneously, you are able to watch one film and have a great look at the story.