Reading "Hannibal" again: About “ethics becoming aesthetics”

This will be a chapter dealing exclusively with ETHICAL CATEGORIES. I was very surprised to discover that “ethics” had become so important and that it “came in” so early. In fact, it had been an issue from the beginning but I NOTICED “ethics” much later than “aesthetics”, and that was not at all a coincidence.

In fact, ethical concerns pitched in as soon as I took note of the fact that Richard Armitage was in this series, and that I probably HAD to watch it. And, even though I have arrived at a place where I don’t understand the “probably” of it anymore, IN THE BEGINNING it had definitely been there. Maybe just for about five minutes, but these five minutes contained a very strong reaction of denial. Part of this reaction was ethical, and I WANTED to get rid of it already then. So, this blog will be about “ETHICS BECOMING AESTHETICS”, a quote which Hannibal uses as I would say cynically – though for him there is no cynicism involved, I am sure. But I’ll start with a synopsis of what I have written about the beginning of my reading.

I noticed that the categories of PERFORMING ARTIST and GENRE are tremendously important in my case for choosing texts for reading, but have also an impact on the reading itself in multiple ways. What I noticed about it was that from these categories arose more than one conflict of interest which informed the reading as well as made me realize how much, and in what way, I am influenced by them. Considering its being horror, I shouldn’t have “read” it at all, but I was lured by two of the performing artists. And this was further complicated by what FORMAT entails. Considering its being a series I should definitely have watched it from the beginning. With some series (for example “The Spooks” or “Dr. Who”) it doesn’t really matter where you start because they just reproduce the same patterns over and over again. But in others, like “House of Cards” or “Hannibal”, there is a REAL development as to what happens with these characters. Most of them don’t make any sense if you don’t know where they come from. But I couldn’t predict if I would want to buy the first season BECAUSE it is horror.

Not watching it from the beginning had a tremendous impact on HOW I was watching it because I couldn’t properly apply most of the categories we use for making a text consistent, (basically:  CHARACTERS and STORY). The outcome was that I applied almost exclusively AESTHETICAL categories – which I came to realize was as much for pleasure as for self-protection, maybe even more so.

This is already the NEGATIVE part of “ethics becoming aesthetics” which I realized and applied from the beginning even though I wasn’t aware of it. There is this kind of gut-reaction to horror which I have, and which makes me want to protect myself from it, and that was part of what made me angry a first – that I would HAVE to watch it! But it is NOT an ethical reaction. I noticed here that there are lots of “objects” we kind of select or discard when we are reading – or decide if we want to read something – which, in the first place, cannot be subsumed under any categories. For example, the “real” person of an actor, or anything at all we particularly like to see on screen, or dislike or abhor. And they are of course tremendously important for what we read, and how we are reading it. For example actors I like or dislike for which part of the story catches my interest, or even how I am disposed towards certain characters. But, disregarding the fact that this would be impossible, it would be ludicrous to make a “catalogue” of these objects, even just for one text – though a statistical survey of them might be tremendously interesting for film-makers, producers, and so on … But they probably don’t need it. These objects and “elementary” reactions – of dislike, pleasure, or fear – are neither ethical nor aesthetical, nor can be subsumed under any category whatsoever in the first place. But they are the “material” the text is “made” of. (And, by the way, proof of HOW MUCH the text “belongs” to the reader, even though other people have made it.) These reactions AS SUCH are neither ethical nor aesthetical but can become so, or almost inevitably will, if the context is “strong” enough. Many of them we could probably deduce from what we NEVER see in “mainstream” films or series. For example, “average” or old people having sex. It just doesn’t sell, I suppose. As I never see it, I don’t know how much I would want to look away, but I remember the few instances of seeing an old or overweight person being naked on screen. And, quite unlike when I see a perfect naked body on screen, there was always a very strong reaction of being thrilled, much stronger and ultimately more pleasant than the “mild” pleasure I definitely experience seeing a perfect naked body. And this is because I realize that it is a strong AESTHETICAL statement to which I HAVE to react. So, seeing an “ugly” person being naked ultimately gave me much more pleasure, and these few moments definitely stayed with me. And this kind of experience should have told me already that I might be WRONG about horror. Not about my gut-reaction – which I already knew was less about seeing blood than about being frightened – but about seeing horror MERELY as an ethical phenomenon. I was - and probably still am! - of the opinion that horror is nothing “we” should play with. Brian Fuller said that he doesn’t find rape the least bit entertaining, so he didn’t use these parts from the book. I totally agree with him about that! But I probably STILL feel the same about killing, violence, and mutilation … So I obviously shouldn’t have watched this in the first place!!!

There definitely was an ethical statement that I am reluctant to reverse completely. But I wasn’t really aware of the aesthetical potential which might be there, and I think I even knew that. At least I TRUSTED Richard Armitage and Mads Mikkelsen of not becoming involved with something AESTHETICALLY IRRELEVANT. And this is, in a way, the cynical connotation of “ethics becoming aesthetics” – and one of the reasons I wasn’t that unhappy about “Standards and Practices”: There is NOTHING we are not allowed to play with IF it leads to something beautiful. “Beautiful” being deliberately misleading, in this case. What I realized here, more than ever before, is that “aesthetics”, in my case, is much less about beauty than about the pleasure I experience when I “play”. So, basically, about having fun. But, like “beauty”, “pleasure” and “fun” are obviously debatable categories where “Hannibal” is concerned. Even something like the social worker inside the horse wasn’t “just” entertaining … What gave me so much pleasure was probably the “debate”.

But even though this was the cynical connotation I attached to “ethics becoming aesthetics”: aesthetics somehow “winning” all the time, it is NOT what it means. Maybe I don’t even know what it means, but what it turned out to mean FOR ME is certainly something like what I experienced watching “Hannibal” all the time, and which was partly disagreeable, and probably a huge part of the fun as well: ethics somehow interacting with aesthetics. “Trying” to become aesthetics in a way, and never completely succeeding. It DOES mean that “aesthetics” can overrule “ethics”, even obliterate it, but, at the same time, that ethical concerns are ALWAYS there. And they have to be because this is where “we” come into the text AS HUMAN BEINGS. If they were not there, and if they were not felt to be important, there wouldn’t be a “debate”.

And, just now, reading a book about the Globe Theatre and the beginnings of public theatre in London, made me more aware that it hasn’t always been like this. That aesthetics was supposed to overrule ethics. When “art” had to struggle for its place in society, together with other “unethical” occupations like bear-baiting and cock-fighting, people were well aware that it was ABOUT all the things that we don’t talk about in an everyday context, everything that gets buried, and, in the eyes of the “time”, SHOULD BE. And of course this appears ridiculous to us now – but I don’t think that it should. Even though I tend to be cynical about ethics in a fictional context I was very aware of people making ethical statements on “Hannibal” from the beginning. I always like it, and am thrilled, when people DARE to have and voice personal reactions “against” a text. Like my friend saying that she was SCARED of the “absolute evil” – which actually HELPED me to see something which I was too naïve to see for quite some time, being overwhelmed by beauty … I remember thinking: THIS is what I actually SHOULD be scared of! Not least because it implies taking Hannibal seriously – which is something that Mads Mikkelsen’s performance definitely DESERVES. IF you decide as an actor to do something like this you do it RIGHT! - But I am still not sure if I really DARED achieve this. I mean, taking him THAT seriously.

It meant as well that I was feeling very lonely reading “Hannibal”, and this is even something I like. Which is some kind of hubris, I know, but the main reason is that I don’t really like the kind of people I SUSPECT of enjoying the series. I rather like people who have – or think they SHOULD have and display! – ethical reactions. (As it happens, I probably dislike hubris in other people more than in myself …)

And of course I liked Richard Armitage’s statement about being relieved not to have to “perform” the murders himself. I even just realize that he hit EXACTLY the point that I am struggling with. As I have certainly written already, I am infinitely grateful for actors who “let us in” on the relationship they had with their character. And, not surprisingly, some actors obviously thrive on having a strong emotional tie with their characters, which in this case was being moved by Francis Dolarhyde’s AESTHETICAL approach to what he does. This would of course be something an artist can strongly relate to, and, as I realize now, was exactly how I “approached” the character from the beginning – because the “artistic” part of him is displayed so impressively from the beginning.  And I can still “prove” this, going back to the part from my blog where I wrote down my first reaction to Richard Armitage’s performance!

And this might even be the essence, and the most impressive example, of what Hannibal sees in serial killers. That they don’t just “suffer” their miserable life, but that they are compelled to become creative, to make a statement, and, in this instance, achieve to create something that actually IS beautiful. But, what is EQUALLY important, Richard Armitage kind of took this back immediately, saying that, “of course” what he does is “corrupt at the roots”. And, not for the first time, I am impressed by the preciseness of this statement because “corrupt AT THE ROOTS” isn’t just taking a step back. It’s a NO GO! - And I am getting even more thrilled when, analyzing this, I realize that I had EXACTLY THE SAME ethical reaction concerning Francis Dolarhyde though I didn’t realize that it was ethical. (The interesting part about it not being that I “had” it – which is probably quite normal – but that I was “performing” it when I was reading!) I indirectly stated it in my blog when I wrote about Reba kind of “complaining” that Francis Dolarhyde had used her. And the interesting thing was that my recollection of this scene, having seen it for the first time, was completely different from what it actually was about. I rather picked up a connotation about something that was important FOR ME and enabled me to put me into her shoes and distance myself from the seduction. I usually dislike doing something like this, “changing’” the text for my own ends, so I noticed it with displeasure. But, not for the first time, being at fault became relevant. So, THIS really worked!

And it works exactly BECAUSE this conflict between ethics and aesthetics cannot be removed. It will always be there and, even if it can become sad, or difficult and disagreeable, it will always make beauty more relevant, and, maybe even as often, ethical issues more seductive. So, at least for me, “ethics becoming aesthetics” is about making ethics - which has probably always been something we feel has to be left in the cloakroom when we enter the theatre – “adaptable” and relevant within an aesthetical context. And the successful application of this principle within the series in my eyes makes it extremely successful as a work of art – which is of course debatable and kind of slippery as to where we personally draw the line on ethics. I never “finished” it, it became kind of an “open debate”. But, maybe even BECAUSE of this, it worked in a way that definitely beat the bullshit.