Villains: The Highs and Lows of Recasting
Filed under: Drama, Horror, Critical Thought, Fandom

Why recast the relatively small role of a doctor in a thriller? Michael Mann's Manhunter was an excellent thriller, featuring Brian Cox in a small role as the imprisoned, chillingly cold cannibal Dr. Hannibal Lecktor. When the time came to adapt another one of Thomas Harris' bestsellers, Jonathan Demme went in a different direction, casting Anthony Hopkins as the good doctor. The character's family name was restored (Lecter, not Lecktor) and a whole new set of tics and tricks were placed on display. Hopkins may have been the only actor alive who could have hammed it up to such extreme levels and yet, somehow, made Lector creepy rather than campy, unnerving rather than unbelievable. For his memorable efforts in The Silence of the Lambs, Hopkins won an Academy Award.
Recasting villains is a tricky business. Everyone needs to love, identify with, and cheer the hero or heroine, but if the villain doesn't provide the requisite level of opposition, the picture runs the risk of becoming unbalanced, leaving a gaping hole that cannot be filled in with special effects. And if an actor has established the character in the public's mind, it's difficult for anyone else to measure up.
So Dylan Walsh has an advantage in The Stepfather, which opens tomorrow. Terry O'Quinn originated the title role in the 1987 original, and was a truly memorable monster. Yet the film is not steeped in the public consciousness to a high degree, and O'Quinn has become much better known from playing John Locke in Lost. Walsh's fame, such as it is, comes from the lesser-seen TV series Nip/Tuck. Walsh has a shot of creating his own distinct brand of villain.
In a similar way, Manhunter had been little-seen, so Hopkins didn't have to overcome any entrenched perceptions of what Lecter should be, though fans of the novels surely had developed their own ideas on how Lecter should be portrayed, even as those of us who love O'Quinn as the original Stepfather have difficulty with anyone else playing the part.
Now consider the task that lay before Heath Ledger. Campy it may have been, but Jack Nicholson's version of The Joker loomed very large. His stardom overshadowed that of Michael Keaton in Tim Burton's Batman, and he made the character his own. It's all the more amazing, then, that Heath Ledger in The Dark Knight wiped away all thoughts of Nicholson's version. Much of that has to do with the moody, atmospheric tone that Christopher Nolan had already established in Batman Begins, which paved the way for a more thoughtful psychological exploration. Ledger pushed the character to the far edge of crazy, pulling back just enough to reveal a ghastly personality with deep, disturbed, recognizable roots.
On the other hand, consider the fate of poor Gaspard Ulliel. Even though he played Dr. Lecter as a much younger man in Hannibal Rising, it was impossible to imagine he would grow up to be Anthony Hopkins. Sorry Gaspard! He was callous rather than calculating, outwardly nasty rather than driven from within. It wasn't fair to the actor, perhaps, especially considering the weaker source material (yet another Harris novel), but there you have in one role the highs and lows of recasting villains.
Ulliel wasn't the worst recast villain in movie history, of course. My nominations would include Kevin Spacey as Lex Luthor in Superman Returns, a surprisingly bland and by the numbers performance from the Academy Award-winning actor, and William Hurt as General Ross in The Incredible Hulk, an interesting casting choice that just didn't work out because Hurt floated through the movie without leaving much of a mark. Maybe it's just me; I can't forget Gene Hackman or Sam Elliott when I watch the rebooted villains. Hackman played Luthor as a colorful, larger than life villain, while Elliott's growling menace made him a very threatening father / cold-hearted military figure.
But when you talk about villains who should never have been recast, you must pay homage to Boris Karloff. He was identified in the credits for James Whale's Frankenstein as "?" and became known simply as "The Monster." Karloff made a hulking, reanimated corpse not just "Alive! Alive!" but human, setting the stage for Freddy and Jason and Hannibal and The Joker and all the other villains we love to boo and hiss.










Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
10-15-2009 @ 9:47PM
Pretty Paula said...
I absolutely love O'Quinn in The Stepfather!! I don't see how Walsh can do that part justice....but I'll give him a chance....
Reply
10-16-2009 @ 12:13PM
Holly said...
Huh...my mind automatically goes to John Shea (from Lois and Clark) for Lex Luthor. So it wasn't Spacey's best work, he still made Brandon Routh basically invisible. By the way, who's idea was it to pit him against Kevin Spacey, didn't they want me to cheer for Superman?! Guess not.
I think Hannibal Rising was just a bad idea all around. Prequels are all well and good, but Hopkins owns Lecter at this point. No one (other than the die hard "Brian Cox's Lecter was so much better!" people) was going to really embrace a movie about Lecter that had no hint of Clarice and no Anthony Hopkins!
Reply
10-16-2009 @ 1:49AM
Clint said...
I have never left a movie theater feeling so disturbed as after seeing the Dark Knight.
Never.
Ledger drew from the scarred psyche of 'broken' humanity that is American society. There are few, if any, who can't identify with the depth of pain and need to "lash out" at anyone available brought to light by the Joker. His pain is so great that his 'outer' scars have simply become props to fit the situation at hand. His internal drive to break everyone around him no longer has cause; it merely is.
Reply
10-16-2009 @ 8:08AM
Mister T said...
The Hannibal Rising phenomen can also be seen in Episode II and III: there is no way Hayden Christensen's character of an overacting teenager would become Darth Vader. Which is somewhat interesting, considering Darth Vader wears a mask all the time and therefore offers a lot of possibilites who to imagine in there. Well... it's certainly not Hayden Christensen.
Reply
10-16-2009 @ 8:17AM
Mangorilla said...
No mention of Vince Vaughn as Norman Bates? Not only a completely unnecessary remake that destroyed everything great about the original, but it launched Vaughn's type-cast comedy career.
"Mother, you're so money, and you don't even know it. Earmuffs."
Reply
10-16-2009 @ 8:26AM
Shaun said...
well that movie came out about 11 years ago... Unfortunately, most of these articles focus on movies that came out in the past 3.
I agree completely though!
10-16-2009 @ 12:45PM
Holly said...
Oh hell yeah, worst recasting (or just casting) decision ever! Did anyone buy him as an actor, let alone as a character that would grow up to be Vader?!
Reply
10-19-2009 @ 6:39PM
Ben said...
You missed a huge section in replacing the Joker. Mark Hamill played the role in the animated series starting in 1992, three years after Jack Nicholson, and his last crack at it was in 2005. Whenever I read the comics, it's Mark's portrayal that goes through my head no matter how far from having seen him. However, two days after watching Heath Ledger's interpretation, you think I could remember. I have a clearer memory of Cesar Romero than I do of Heath.
Reply