Testaments to the Boom Times to Come

[Testaments to the Boom Times to Come]

Star Trek Discovery

[genufa]

J and I were pretty glued for the first three episodes (I’m now up to 5). It’s a show that benefits a lot from a binge viewing model, though, not the “maybe I’ll catch an episode of Star Trek tonight” model. If someone were thinking of picking it up today I’d advise them to wait until the first half of the season ends (Nov 12, with the rest airing in January).

The pilot two-parter hewed close to what I thought the most fruitful narrative path for AOS would be, before they uhhh went with Into Darkness – so close, in fact, that I wonder if that had once been the initial form of the pitch. It’s not the first time Bryan Fuller and I have had the exact same reaction to a movie. (You’d need a different reason for AOS Spock to go bugfuck upon encountering Klingons, but Burnham’s meltdown is not unlike how AOS Spock goes bugfuck. thx sarek as usual for doing a gr8 job wrt parenting for emotional resilience, literally the fixed polestar constant across the entire ST oeuvre) 

The rest thus far has been a kind of parlour game, like Jenga, where the object is to discover how many elements you can remove from the “Star Trek TV show” tower and keep it standing, albeit wobbly. Not – crucially – that the basic construct is thought to be outmoded, or valueless: rather that a structure kept ingeniously upright is more impressive than one that merely sits on solid foundations. I do like a formal play, but this is where I start missing Fuller. It’s impressive to try and match windowpane check with paisley, so to speak, but not everyone can pull it off when they leave the house. This was all Fuller’s idea, because he knew he could.

Keep reading

[Testaments to the Boom Times to Come]

Anonymous asked:

What do you make of Twin Peaks (the Return and also now the whole story, with what retconning and closure /none/ it got) - i haven't seen Evangelion (maybe i should?), and i get that they are similar, but your words always fascinate me ^.^

genufa answered:

It’s been a while since I got this ask so hope you see it, Nonnie!

Honestly it’s impossible to get a handle on the thing in a way that allows me to write less than 5k words about it. XD; The show was the highlight of my summer, but I probably should’ve jumped into fan discussions while it was ongoing. It might be easier for me to answer a more pinpointed ask about a particular character or scene or sequence, if you or anyone else have one.

To start at the end and work backward: as someone who’s dabbled in lucid dreaming, I think the last two episodes of The Return are the only filmic work I’ve watched that successfully convey the experience of lucid dreaming. I enjoyed Inception but none of the dreams actually felt like dreams - they felt like what they were, i.e. an extended metaphor for Christopher Nolan’s creative process. Satoshi Kon’s Paprika is more on point aesthetically but its blurring of reality and dreams is still predicated on a paradigm of dreams (fantasy) rupturing into reality in the subjective experience, the objective event being that the repressed layers of the psyche are rupturing via the Ego through the necessarily thin barrier between an artist’s self and the outside world - well; that’s Kon in a nutshell, not just that movie. But it’s still a metaphor, is what I’m saying. 

The Return shows dreaming as the thing itself, the nuts and bolts practice of it. The physical effort of coming awake in a brain that is completely awash in serotonin - of course you feel great; you feel euphoric. You know you’re the master of the universe, because the universe is the dream and the dream is a story you’re telling yourself. You can make the thing happen. Wunderbar.

Ever tried struggling with the first draft of a novel that wants to go its own way, while sky high on molly?

Your control slips.

The dream wants to be a dream. You have to let part of it go. The motel you wake up in isn’t the one you went to sleep in, fine. One of the characters has decided to be a different character, and she’s gone. Car’s different, too. Fine - you can’t deal with that. A huge amount of mental effort is going into just remembering who you are, and what your intention is for this practice (to channel my yoga instructor), and not waking up or losing yourself. So you pick the fastest way to get from A to Z, and from Z back to A. The Lost In the Movies blogger wrote that he somehow knew in advance - had an intuition - that Sheryl Lee would turn up as an alternate version of Laura Palmer, middle-aged and amnesiac and making ends meet in another town. The fact is, I knew this too. But I don’t think it’s weird that we knew. If you’re swimming through the collective subconscious looking for a Lost Girl - one who’s Not Murdered After All - where else would she be but working as a diner waitress somewhere in Middle America? And what else should you do but drive there to get her and drive her back? It’s the least-effort story you can tell, in order to get the Dreaming to spit her back out. Not because you’re lazy, but because the task is herculean.

I don’t know what Transcendental Meditation teaches, but if The Return has esoteric lessons embedded - and I very strongly suspect it does - they are not that fantasy/dreams are an alternate modality one strives to attain, lest it attain one instead. Rather, if a lucid dream has anything to teach you, let it be that what you consider “real” is no more and no less. Needless to say, some fans got viscerally angry: as if David Lynch had actively trolled the audience by drawing them into a beloved world only to flip his hand and show the magician’s trick. Twin Peaks is just a dream Cooper (or Laura, or Audrey, or the Fireman, or Teakettle Bowie) is dreaming! Maybe the last 17 episodes you were so invested in have dissolved into Cooper’s giant overlaid face and he’ll carry on dreaming a different version of Twin Peaks, or a dream with no Twin Peaks in it at all! What kind of DISRESPECT to the FANDOM etc Fuck no guys, you missed the point. Twin Peaks is a TV show, you knew this. Twin Peaks is a dream. 

It felt real, deeply real and lucid and moving to you, while you were watching it? 

So does your so-called “life,” no?

What story are you telling?

Is it the least effort one? And is that because you’re lazy, or because the task is herculean?

(In any case, to take a step back, The Return’s ending really gives the lie to the idea that David Lynch is just slapping nonsense on the screen, or that his brand of surrealism is incomprehensible. Everybody understood what happened, even if some liked it and some didn’t, just like everybody understood the Season 2 finale back in the day. It’s possible to coerce “what happened” into a number of logical narrative frameworks, and that is fruitful and fun, but I didn’t see a single person who failed to grok the core of what Lynch intended to convey.)

[Testaments to the Boom Times to Come]

Specific Twin Peaks e18 spoilers behind the cut

[genufa]

Just trying to follow some rules here in the nonsense chaos of the universe XD

Keep reading

[Testaments to the Boom Times to Come]

vulture.com

The Best Show on TV Is Twin Peaks: The Return

No other series takes as many chances.

Matt Zoller Seitz

[minimoonstar]

MZS gets me.

I think Lynch is right that cable/streaming is currently the new art house. It wasn’t true a couple of years ago, when everyone began heralding a renewed Golden Age of TV. That stuff - Breaking Bad, Mad Men, Game of Thrones - certainly seems like excellent TV, but I have no more interest in it than I have in Updike novels; in a real way, I’m not a TV watcher. ^_^;

Now, though, what seems to have happened is that some writer-director types are pulling together a form of funding that allows them to do what they do for 6-12 hours with a built-in distribution deal, instead of 2 ½ hours with no built-in distribution. The former is called “TV” by default, instead of “independent film,” but in purpose they’re the latter, just longer. The Young Pope is the new Paolo Sorrentino, The Get Down is the new Baz Luhrmann, and so on. (Per personal experience, I suspect Netflix did not make enough people understand that The Get Down was the new Baz Luhrmann.) 

So there’s a bit of sleight of hand with Twin Peaks: The Return, which several critics predicted in advance, though I didn’t consider it until I literally sat down to watch the first ep on Showtime in my friend Ced’s NYC apartment: the original series was a 24-episode TV show where Lynch and Frost were the creator-showrunners. The new series is an 18-hour David Lynch movie with Frost as co-writer.** If Lynch had popped in 2k17 like “I made this 18-hour long movie and it’s going to play a limited engagement of special screenings in movie theatres,” who would have turned up for that after Inland Empire? It’s not a rhetorical question - to some extent, the person who would have turned up is the person the thing was made for, because the thing is the thing.

(I will note that I absolutely turned up for the Director’s Cut of Nymphomaniac, Vols. I-II in theaters, after which I thought: rather than being aggressively hipster, isn’t this just like… binging a limited TV series? In any case, Von Trier is currently remaking Hannibal, good times, can’t wait for that not to be terrible about to release a film that he started developing as a TV series, but then figured it wasn’t 5 ½ hours long.)

** Frost is why the new show’s plot is, in fact, perfectly intelligible, even over-determined, with loads of interlocked moving pieces. It would come off clockwork-orrery in any other director’s hands (i.e. first season of Fargo), but Lynch is imposing his rhythm and tempo on the thing. Frost’s weird is Lore weird, “you Americans are always liminal this, cryptid that” weird: he’s the “what if Jack Parsons used nuclear tests to open a portal to spiritual dimensions known to Native American tribes of the Pacific Northwest” guy. Lynch is the “what if a soot-covered hobo crushed skulls while reciting a creepy poem and a frog-bug crawled into your mouth” guy. The beauty is that these two dudes’ approaches complement instead of them talking straight past each other.

[Testaments to the Boom Times to Come]

Anonymous asked:

Does Will enjoy being Hannibal's kitty-toy on some level, or is he putting in the hours for the sake of the neighborhood? Bedelia says that his experience of Hannibal's attention is "so profoundly harmful yet so irresistible", but she also likes to tease him. Doctor-patient Mentor-student murder-husband dynamics aside (if possible), focusing specifically on the facet of their relationship that involves poking will in the ticklish spot when bored, does Will have a quiet appreciation of the poke?

genufa answered:

Oh, Will definitely enjoys it. Aside from the fact that I’ve largely confined myself in fic to scenarios where Hannibal is just elaborating OTT ways of sexing him up. XD;; I think that was one of the instances where Bedelia was on the money – Will craves Hannibal’s attention, period, no matter what form it comes in, even if that form is objectively harmful and Will knows it’s harmful. He also knew this about himself before Bedelia put it in words for him (what Bedelia does for Will, most of the time, is recognize and validate his feelings, rather than deliver him some hitherto unprecedented insight), and I think it played a fair bit into his self-hate during the last half of the series. Like, Will isn’t oblivious to the fact that he’s ragingly jealous when known serial killer and all around horrible person Hannibal Lecter, MD pays attention to other murder interns, and that this doesn’t say anything great about him – is in fact socially inadmissible.

So like, if there’s no third party involvement or outside influence, it’s better for Will in the sense that he doesn’t need to be conflicted about how much attention he’s getting (all of it, none for anyone else) or how much he likes it (don’t ask, Hannibal, he won’t admit it). Unhealthy codependent relationship dynamics, but you get what I’m saying. ^^; And if it’s just down to the two of them in a post-S3 dynamic, Will isn’t going to let himself be taken advantage of by Hannibal’s boredom or curiosity or what have you. If Hannibal pokes him the wrong way he’ll just give Hannibal the pointy end of the business, and Hannibal can turn his overdeveloped brain to figuring out a better way of lavishing attention on Will.

[Testaments to the Boom Times to Come]

[genufa]

Actually… I’m reminded of an anecdote I read in an article about new representational painting, the other day, where someone overheard a couple coming out of a gallery, one saying to the other quite seriously: I know that artist is a genius, but sometimes I want to see art that I know is good just by looking at it. And the humour of that is that it’s either a highly naive or a highly sophisticated position, depending on who’s speaking, who’s listening, and how aware they are of all the assumptions encapsulated in that statement.

Like… Memorizing the Primavera so you can reproduce it in a sketch is like learning the guitar to play in a Beatles cover band, I grant you. Copying from memory some minor Neo-Classical Academic take on Achilles lamenting Patroclus while interpolating one’s own face and that of one’s loved one is a way weirder enterprise. Suppose Hannibal had sat in his cell for a week doing nothing but reproducing that sketch over and over: suppose Alana had filmed it. You are now solidly in Marina Abramovic territory. The kicker is, in this thought experiment, my instinct is that the performance would not be nearly as effective if Hannibal had simply done an original drawing of himself and Will. The layer of fossilized 19th century Salon detritus is essential.

[foyernormanchapel]

haha reading this reminded me of that ridiculous dog painting in Hannibal’s kitchen, looked it up, and yup it’s 19th century salon stuff… Chalon’s White Papillon Standing on a Cushion.

I’m also reminded of that scene in Brideshead Revisited where Charles Ryder first hangs out with Sebastian, comes back to his room, and the first thing he does is remove his Van Gogh sunflower print and Roger Fry landscape screen because they suddenly feel ‘jejune to him.’ Only the daffodils that Sebastian filled his room with seem real.

Then of course he does an aesthetic 180 degree, shedding his previous “middle course of culture between the flamboyant ‘aesthetes’ and the roletarian scholars” and adopting whatever you call the Flyte aesthetic… “strange jumble of objects - a harmonium in a gothic case, an elephant’s-foot waste-paper basket, a dome of wax fruit, two disproportionately large Sèvres vases, framed drawings by Daumier,” as Sebastian’s room is depicted. (um a little bit Hannibal Baltimore home, no?) And what does Charles do when he spends the summer at Brideshead? Paint really boring salon architectural art and basks in his ~aesthetic education~ (”Charles, modern art is all bosh isn’t it.” “Great Bosh.”)

So idk maybe this kind of trenchantly anti-modernist, (as you said) ‘so square as to be ironically hip,’ almost kitschy aesthetics is what appeals to the degenerate aristocratic mindset of the likes of Sebastians and Hannibals? I don’t know enough art history to really back this up -_^

[genufa]

Haaaa oh man, I remember getting to the Van Gogh sunflower print etc. and just thinking, man, Evelyn Waugh is brutal. 

(I have an inkling that Des Esseintes’ actual #aesthetic is misunderstood, but truthfully speaking I haven’t read A Rebours since I was 19.)

If we’re gonna spitball Charles Ryder… I feel like there’s more to be said about Will interfacing with Hannibal’s aesthetics. Hugh Dancy said, appositely, that the “bad version” of Will’s S2 seduction haircut would have been: Will shows up at Hannibal’s office wearing a three-piece suit. Up to that point Will had said word zero about Hannibal’s eccentricities and behaved not as if they didn’t matter, but as if he didn’t perceive them to exist. Then it was this sprezzatura move of, I can play the game as well as you, I just never bothered, because I like looking like a fisherman. I’ve never taken Will’s S2 or S3 styling as him adopting Hannibal’s taste, because they’re in fact not Hannibal’s taste - they’re Will’s. 

[genufa]

Will’s outfits’ semiotics update, courtesy of the auction catalogue: nice S2 coat was Hugo Boss, which Will continued to wear with his old cheap shirts, because it’s not like he bought a coat specifically to look good for Hannibal, he just happened to have budgeted to replace his winter coat that year. The deniability is plausible: we’ve made fun of Will having one (1) sports jacket that he wears to literally every occasion requiring a jacket, but according to the catalogue, that fucking thing is a Varvatos, so there’s a philosophy at work. (The message is analogous to the worldview espoused by Bourdain in his côte de boeuf recipe, which he suggests serving, quote, “with fries and a staggeringly expensive Burgundy in cheap glasses, just to show them who’s Daddy,” unquote.)

Nice S3 coat, jumpers, shirts, etc. are all pretty much J Crew. This is clearly a separate philosophy I will call “Molly bought these clothes,” because Molly is literally Your J Crew Girlfriend.

[Testaments to the Boom Times to Come]

Anonymous asked:

So if Will didn't consciously think that Hannibal was in love with him for the entire s2 span, but he still hatched the seduction plan, am I to infer that Will thought of himself as Hannibal's favorite plaything for that long? How do you think Will thought (consciously) of their dynamic in the latter half of s2?

genufa answered:

What’s the difference between “being in love with,” “being fascinated with,” and “considers as one’s favorite plaything”? Is it that a plaything doesn’t have feelings or desires – at least, none that matter? Is it a question of control? Is it the presence or non-presence of sexual or romantic sensation? Is it that serial killers typically demonstrate some of these motives but not others? I think Will leaned on and tested these questions, over the course of his “seduction plan,” and that by Mizumono he still didn’t have the answers. Putting neat labels on people and relationships isn’t Will Graham’s forte.

Would Will have planned differently if he knew for sure that Hannibal wanted to kill and eat him as an endgame to the befriending, versus seduce him to bed? Or both? It didn’t matter to the events that did take place in S2, IMO, and whatever that point was, it was never supposed to get that far.

[wellntruly]

Oh yeah I way agree! And following his general approach of avoiding thinking about certain things directly (given how Too Real that can quickly get), I think Will would probably keep all endgames sorta soft-focused, and just hope he can veer off before the crash.

Also, I’d guess that part of why Will doesn’t have definite answers by ‘Mizumono’ is because Hannibal doesn’t have them yet either. But questions though, hooo boy, they both have all the questions you can eat.

[Testaments to the Boom Times to Come]

[genufa]

#have you all watched the sad spy movie where all the spies are sad because it is gr8

I have! I have watched it exactly 12 times. It’s as dense as black pudding: I was at the Venice red carpet premiere (weirdly) and remember Ebert confessing in his review afterward that he lost track of the plot – as in, he had every confidence it hung together and made sense, he just couldn’t follow. The first 10 times I watched it I noticed something new I hadn’t noticed on any of the previous watches, even after having read the books. My kind of movie. XD

[lazulisong]

OKAY BUT THE WEIRDEST PART WAS HOW THAT ONE SHADE OF ROBIN’S-EGG BLUE KEPT SHOWING UP

WHY

[genufa]

Book canon, believe it or not!

[wellntruly]

HELLO MY PEOPLE, HI. Fully fact, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy is both one of my very favorite books and one of my very favorite movies — A Feat. It’s largely the way they each use their languages, I think, John le Carré using lingo how he does for his atmosphere and character, both so deeply deeply realized, and then Tomas Alfredson using the visual language of film in much the same way.

A small thing but one that sticks with me (like everything Tinker Tailor, frankly) it’s one of the only movies I’ve ever seen where they made none of the usual effort to create the illusion that all the actors are roughly the same height. Colin Firth has never seemed so tall, Gary Oldman more slight. Repeat: it is gr8.

[Testaments to the Boom Times to Come]

Anonymous asked:

"That script’s been nested into a bigger script, which Will both controls and not-controls. And it’s that quality of simultaneous knowing and un-knowingness, deliberate control and not-control, that Hannibal recognizes and acknowledges as the process of any artist." I feel like I have just read something very smart that I do not yet have the capacity to understand, can you rehash this bit in smaller words ;-;?

genufa answered:

OK, sorry XD I will walk this back. 

Keep reading

[Testaments to the Boom Times to Come]

Here’s another question

[genufa]

Which no one seems ever to put forth: if Will always had a conflicted attraction toward violence and murder (sure), and if that means he was always a potential killer (sure, whatever), could Hannibal have convinced him to stop worrying and start enjoying murderation w/ Hannibal at his side without, like, killing people he loved and shoving an ear down his throat and sending him to hospital and jail and all that jazz?

‘Cos, imagine, if I were Freddie Lounds in a post-S3 world and I had somehow managed to set up this exclusive Skype with Hannibal Lecter ON THE RUN and toward the end of the interview I was like, real talk Dr. Lecter, if you had it all to do over again would you have done anything differently? I kind of feel like Hannibal would allow that he MIGHT have done SOME things differently, in retrospect, knowing what he does now. And that might not have ruined what he has with Will (whatever that is, if you’re optimistic).

What I’m saying is, Hannibal had a goal in mind, or a few goals in mind.  That doesn’t mean what he executed in reality was a failproof #nailedit plan where every action advanced dark!Will’s development or their relationship or whatever. I’m not saying this to prove a point, just that I don’t believe in Xanatos chessmaster!Hannibal so there’s a chunk of logic that doesn’t follow, and maybe that actually opens up avenues of character speculation when you take a step back.

[confusedkayt]

This is a super-interesting question!  I was jawing something related over with @wellntruly recently, to wit:  a huge driver of the development of their relationship was Will trying to conceive of and act as Barbie Dress Up Murder Husband in the back half of S2.  The Will that really flipped Hannibal for a loop was, in large part, Will’s construct of what Hannibal might like, the successful creation of something to project on based in part but certainly not in whole on the raw personality materials available.

But Hannibal was also outright fascinated with Original Flavor Will in S1.  I don’t think Hannibal really had a paradigm for that; his MO was a sort of… forcible moulding of Promising Candidates (cf Randall Tier, the Zachary Quinto guy) that presupposed that Hannibal’s psychic driving was going to take folks to their most interesting (and, not coincidentally, murderous) place.

To my eyes, Digestivo-forward Hannibal had come to the conclusion that Will was more interesting when driving his own psyche, and his more hands-off approach (which, yes, was partially necessitated by being in prison, but then there’s how he ENDED UP in prison).  I wonder if part of that was that, having had some time to reflect, Hannibal was able to identify the most dazzling moments from the back-half of Season 2 as times when Will’s Murder Barbie performance slipped.  The real righteous rage aimed at Clark Ingram, for instance.   I’m not sure that Randall Tier’s death would have played out so differently if Will had not been mid-entrapment (with the notable exception of the visualization of beating Hannibal specifically - maybe Season 1 Will would have seen a ravenstag, or something else slithering symbolically around in the murky soup of his psyche).  I will grant the aftermath would not be the same, but the kind of… amateur-hour mounting efforts in the Natural History museum cannot possibly have been the real thrill of that experience.  

And then there’s the heavy losses Hannibal has sustained along the way.  I couldn’t agree more that Hannibal is not a chessmaster, especially when Will Graham, Agent of Chaos, is in the picture.  His “plans” consist more of keeping a lot of resources in his back pocket and deploying them impressionistically as needed in response to outside circumstances (what @wellntruly calls Fate and Hannerstance).  I don’t doubt that he’s spent some time and equations thinking on how he could’ve used different tools, made slightly different moves, in ways that did not require him to abandon his longstanding identity, to spend three years in a very boring prison, to suffer the loss of Will and his attention again and again and again.

The language is kind of forced forward by the Red Dragon, and to a lesser extent Jack, but I got the sense that Hannibal had come to appreciate Will as a dispenser of specifically violence he is willing to call “righteous.”  Now he’s the Lamb of God, and Hannibal doesn’t seem too put out by that.  The slaughter of the Dragon is more of a change in method than a change in action or principle from taking potshots at Garrett Jacob Hobbs and Eldon Stammetts.  The aesthetics have changed.  Have the ethics?  I think Hannibal may gras that he might’ve got a lot more milage out of pushing the definition of “righteousness” than trying to remove it from the equation altogether.

I think I may be out on a bit of a limb here, but I see less an evolution from Regular Will to Dark Will, and more motion around him.  I see much more character change in Hannibal, from icy orderly planned killer to Murder Lion, Weilder of Hammer and Teeth and Maybe Impulsive Ice-Pick, from would-be puppet-master to would-be partner.  The rules of the game seem also to have changed.  Alana and Jack both hardened and became more willing to deploy very dark grey, murdery schemes of their own where they felt they were “justified.”  Where’s the moral distance between slaughtering Mason and slaughtering Randall Tier?  Between planning a murder-suicide for the Red Dragon and carrying it out?  A Will with fewer costs to count might be much more susceptible to Hannibal’s persuasion to stop berating himself for the delight when everyone around him slides toward allowing and condoning extreme acts of violence for the “special cases” that pop up right like clockwork.  Then again, a Will who delights might generate much less beautiful distress, and I’m not sure that’s what Hannibal really wants, in his heart of hearts.

ETA:  Given the other discussions swirling around, I don’t mean any of the above to suggest that I think Will is actually righteous, or that his violence (or Jack’s or Alana’s, or god no Hannibal’s) is ~justified,~ or even justifiable.  I am actually extra-interested in the show’s interrogation of the very concept of “good violence.”  A lot of my love for the show, and for Will especially, is grounded in how painful even textbook Justified Use of Force is, how ugly and complicit everyone is.  One of the major “pleasures” of the show, for me, was that feeling of gradually becoming a dirty - a worse person, somehow, for every judgment I made, for every ounce of sympathy I managed to muster up, for my stomach-deep desire for Those Two Crazy Kids To Make It Work when I couldn’t justify it as a Good Outcome.

[wellntruly]

Obviously I’m just gonna take up the fanciest fountain pen here to CO-SIGN THIS, with too much ink and flourishes and little hearts and stuff.

Actually, this probably ties in to another thing @confusedkayt and I have been talking about recently, which is how Hannibal got everything he ostensibly wanted in Italy — nice things, nice food, nice wine, nice beautiful Murder Wife who goes dancing with me and makes devastating jokes at the dinner table and lets me wash her hair and put her in murd-maybs sort of situations — and ultimately he’s just like “siiighhh, Bedelia I miss Will.” And I think Kayt is so right about “Digestivo” being a big turning point, because the Will Hannibal can’t bear to lose is not Will with combed hair talking about ~using his hands~, but Will in a flannel shirt in Wolf Trap telling him that he can’t be what he thinks Hannibal wants. But I think the only thing Hannibal even knows that he wants anymore is just Will. Hannibal wants to put the teacup back together and find he holds in his hands a world where Will can want him too. He doesn’t throw him right into another Murder Aptitude Test to try to prove Will wrong and him right, he just GOES TO PRISON to WAIT FOR HIM. He hopes, now, that he has actually changed Will as much as Will has changed him, and prays that he’ll come see him, bless Hannibal with the sight of him and the glory of his wrath. Really, Will has changed Hannibal to a man of faith, which is an impressive trick to pull on the Devil.

Anyway, I’m just really glad the whole world gets to appreciate the term Barbie Dress Up Murder Husband now.