True enough, and I find that the old maxim of "good book = bad film, bad book = good film" applies less than 50% of the time.
As for Hannibal, it was reported that producer Dino DeLaurentiis, eager to get the sequel under way, was hanging over Harris's shoulder developing the script as the novel was written. Logic and practicality suggest that the adaptation is therefore pretty faithful.
The book's plot dynamic, and corresponding "development" of the characters from Silence didn't sit well with me - nor did they with Jodie Foster or Jonathan Demme, who both refused to do the film. Sexual undercurrents aside (for they were the main cause of dispute, I gather), I'm not averse to a bit of on-screen violence. But towards the film's end it seemed to get gruesome just for the sake of it. It was mostly unjustifiable, which made it even more sick. I can't think of many other films - even bad films - that I'd write that about.
Got to agree with you re: Red Dragon. Definitely ahead of its time when it was first published. And the character of Lecter was a really bold step on from literary precedents like Mr Hyde and Dracula, with whom it seems fair to draw parrallels.
Funny how much difference a tranlator can make, eh? Theirs is a thankless task usually, though. If they do a good job, we say the author is brilliant. But if we don't get on with the book (for whatever reason), we say it could be their fault. Having written that, I will add that I read a lot of translated Japanese novels, and if I hadn't read EG Seidensticker's vibrant rendering of Kawabata Yasunari's Snow Country as well as J Martin Holman's plodding go at The Old Capital then I'd still be wondering how on Earth Kawabata won - or was even considered for - the Nobel Prize.
It's things like this that make me regret that I can't read more languages. At least you've got the jump on me there, old fruit.
Tobytook
