The Mind Palace of Will Graham

A lot of people have asked where I got the title of my story from. It comes from Charles Dickens’ A Christmas Carol. When the Ghost of Christmas Past visits Scrooge, the latter demands to know why the Ghost has come. The Ghost says, “Your welfare.” Scrooge protests that a night of sleep would do him better than the Ghost’s intervention, and the Ghost interjects, “Your reclamation, then. Take heed.”

me: (points out blatant homophobia in a homophobic scene whose dialogue fits homophobic narratives) 

Bryan Fuller: Absolutely. I think there were many more commercial approaches we could’ve taken to the material. It would start with casting. We cast Mads Mikkelsen, who’s a brilliant actor, but he’s foreign, and perhaps to some mainstream audiences a little bit hard to understand with his accent. If we had cast James Spader in that role, [or] if we had cast Hugh Grant, [we would have] played much more to the pop-cultural understanding of Hannibal Lecter as a character that had become camp in some of the later films. To the flourishes in the later performances of the role. There was a broadness that contributed to his mass appeal, because people were like, “Oh, he’s funny. He says Oh, goody when he’s about to gut somebody. That’s cute.” It’s an approach that’s also glib and a little dismissive of the subject matter, and that probably would have been a much bigger hit. But I think that version would’ve been inauthentic. And fortunately for us, NBC didn’t force us to take that path. (x)

you’ve heard of homophobic bryan fuller but get ready for

xenophobic bryan fuller!

don’t you love it when show runners completely shirk accountability for their series failing because of their own decisions and instead blame it on the strongest actor on the cast that, despite being the titular character of the series, was also the most under and misused? for three consecutive seasons? the actor whose transcendental performance was eclipsed entirely by reducing him to half of a fanmade slash pairing? the actor who was never once pushed to campaign for award recognition in favour of financing the campaign of another actor? the actor who has been sexualized, dehumanized, and repeatedly objectified by the production staff and by bryan himself? 

mads mikkelsen is, and has been quite consistently, one of the most talented, beloved, modest, praised, DECORATED, and phenomenal actors working today, both in america and in europe. to say that your series failed because you casted him? when in actuality the series came to be at all PRECISELY BECAUSE you casted him? because other actors on the show signed on JUST to work with MADS? to turn around and say “the show failed bc mads is foreign and he mumbles and no one understood him tbh” is the most offensive, xenophobic bullshit i’ve read since saturday night when he chose to only be homohpobic that day

what?

so for everyone shouting queer visibility and queer representation re: hannibal, have y’all read this dandy?

“Hannibal himself has already voiced his feelings for Will as “love” numerous times, though this love is a jealous, twisted, possessive, and obsessive quality that has cost Will everything good in his life (and nearly cost him his brain at one point). If Hannigram became overtly sexualized rather than just strongly hinted at, it would turn the cannibal Hannibal Lecter, one of the best-known villains in pop culture history, into a gay villain.” (x)

that sentence alone p much sums up the collective feelings towards hannibal lecter and even in a broader way, to the hannigram ship itself

if you think will and hannibal were on the same page in that last scene, i’ve got news for you, they weren’t even reading the same book. you think they were “becoming one” or “giving themselves fully to eachother”? nah. here’s what went down: will, eyes wide open and mind made up, killed hannibal while martyring himself. i’ll be the first to admit that i didn’t get this upon my first viewing, but with a second viewing and help from edwardmeechum, i could see that hannibal was absolutely caught off guard by the fall. they didn’t “die in eachother’s arms” - as they went over the cliff, hannibal’s arm was reaching out. will didn’t put his arm around hannibal’s neck for a hug, he preparing to pull him over.

will killed hannibal. it wasn’t a mutual true love suicide. was will happy to do it? was it easy for him? no. was he being genuine when he said, “that’s beautiful”? probably. but will knows that hannibal has ruined normal life for him. he can’t help himself when hannibal is around and he resents that. i’m not denying that will has a deep connection with hannibal. but he doesn’t get the same enjoyment out of their relationship that hannibal does, and will uses that to his advantage. the principle of least interest theory proposes that in a relationship, the partner with the least interest in continuing that relationship possesses the most power. at this point, hannibal has far greater interest than will in their relationship (i’m stating this as a sad fact - i personally believe hannibal’s relentless obsession with will degrades the lecter character). knowing this, will was able to manipulate hannibal right into that vulnerable spot on the edge. 

as far as surviving the fall? i really don’t see how they could, but even assuming that they did, what would the point of that be? faking their deaths? no one was there to see them fall. there is nothing to accomplish there. but wait, you ask, what about that after credits scene? does the table set for 3 not indicate that hannibal and will made their way over to bedelia’s for supper? not necessarily. how on EARTH could hannibal and will, both seriously injured, have swam to shore, gotten back to baltimore, cut off bedelia’s leg, cooked it, and set the table all in one night? and more importantly, why would they? if they were going to run off together it wouldn’t make much sense to HANG AROUND at the house of one of the first people the fbi would pay a visit to upon learning of lecter’s real escape. i believe that final scene is bedelia realizing she’s made a huge mistake, arrested development style. when she heard will’s plan, she knew that hannibal would come for her. so, she decided to offer a peace treaty of sorts. as a doctor, bedelia would indeed have the skills and tools necessary to amputate her own leg. people in dire situations do these kinds of things, it’s not unheard of. but if you’re still not buying it, head over to edwardmeechum, who has the logistics ironed out and can assist you in quashing any doubt.  the table is set for 3 because she knows that if he’s coming, he’s bringing a plus-one. of course, seeing as hannibal is otherwise engaged on a date with the angel of death, it’s all for naught. that look on her face? that’s not “julianne moore in hannibal 2001 high”, that’s “dear god what have i done”. 

what?

okay but have you read anything i’ve posted tonight? being gay doesn’t automatically mean you’re a good person that cares about the queer community

you didn’t come off as rude at all dw bb!

i honestly totally understand craving romance without sex but romance itself can exist only in a mutually acknowledged relationship between two consenting parties. i’m of the mind to argue that even intimacy is something exclusive to an actual relationship, esp where queer relationships are involved. queer romance and queer intimacy have been exploited systematically through films and television for years by normalizing “queer things” between straight people, something done more commonly with women than with men. but in hannibal, it’s done exclusively with men, those men being hannibal and will. i’ve heard the argument that they’re asexual before but how can two people only be asexual for each other? and no one else? i’m not sure that’s how asexuality works, you can’t really be only situationally asexual the same way a person can’t be situationally queer. it totally delegitimizes that entire community of people.   

to be injecting “romance” and “intimacy” into a heterosexual male friendship, or one where one party is queer, is so irresponsible, esp to actual queer people who are in friendships where they are in love with their friends and its wholly and totally unreciprocated. to exploit that kind of power imbalance on tv and try to ascribe to it some kind of progressiveness? you’re literally biting your thumb to how shitty that situation is irl, esp between men where that kind of romance and intimacy from a queer man to a straight man could end in a beating, or worse, death. and ultimately this did end up in hannibal’s death so peanuts to me i guess.

bryan literally said himself from his own mouth that this was an “exploration of heterosexual male friendship”. he’s been calling will graham straight since the beginning of time. he only called hannibal pansexual recently bc he needed to start tossing around a queer buzz word so people would keep praising him mindlessly. mads and hugh (almost) kissed during alternate takes because based on what has happened to them throughout this series, that would have made sense for them! but the fact that bryan did not use those takes, that bryan did not want them to be “too gay” or “actually homosexual” is really all you need to know. bryan wanted them to be gay but not fully gay. just half gay. just enough gay to seem gay but not actually full gay. because that’s gross and this isn’t brokeback mountain. 

i can appreciate where you’re coming from but you’re knocking for answers to the wrong person. you shouldn’t be coming after people like me with your concerns, that’s shit you have to take up with bryan, with the writers. if you’re looking for a romantic relationship without sex, you need to look elsewhere bc hannibal did not deliver that. it was nothing but exploiting queerness without committing to the queer label.