Andrew Robinson
Three actors have portrayed Dr. Hannibal Lecter in entertainment: Brian Cox in the film Manhunter, Anthony Hopkins in the films The Silence of the Lambs, Hannibal, and Red Dragon, and Mads Mikkelsen in the TV show Hannibal. With respect to Cox, Hopkins and Mikkelsen are the better-known Dr. Lecters, and will thus be the ones judged here. Let’s first take a look at the overview of each actor’s connection with the character, and then get into comparisons.
Anthony Hopkins
For starters, Hopkins has the advantage of winning an Oscar for his portrayal, thus entrenching him in the minds of many as the one true Dr. Lecter. In fact, Silence of the Lambs is one of the most well-received movies of all-time, winning the Big Five at the Oscars, as well as ranking in the Top 25 on IMDb’s list of the greatest movies of all-time. Those factors alone make it difficult for Hopkins to not be the better of the Lecters.
Furthermore, Hopkins has portrayed the cannibalistic doctor in three separate films, all of which are plenty well-known. That makes him the preferred choice of many simply because of his stature.
Finally, Hopkins is an extremely well-liked actor; he even has the title of “Sir” after being knighted in 1993. He has been nominated for four Oscars (winning just the one), and is one of the most well-respected actors of his generation.
Mads Mikkelsen
Mikkelsen played Dr. Lecter In NBC’s darkly brilliant drama, Hannibal, which aired from 2013-15. Fans are still holding out hope that it’ll make a comeback. Despite not receiving any tangible awards for his portrayal, Mikkelsen’s performance – and the show as a whole – has been universally lauded by critics and fans alike, earning an impressive 8.5 rating on IMDb. It is also 92% certified fresh on Rotten Tomatoes. For someone tasked with following up the great Sir Anthony Hopkins, Mikkelsen puts his own spin on the character, and performs fantastically.
As for the actor himself, Mikkelsen certainly isn’t as well-known as Hopkins. He doesn’t have any major award nominations under his belt, and he isn’t a household name. However, he has gotten a few roles in blockbusters recently – Kaecilius in Dr. Strange and Galen Erso in Rouge One: A Star Wars Story – and is becoming a bit more of a familiar face in Hollywood.
Comparisons
Believability
Portraying a character as complex as Dr. Lecter can make for some believability issues. However, both Hopkins and Mikkelsen do a fabulous job at limiting said issues.
At times, Hopkins comes off as just a tad cheesy as Dr. Lecter, particularly in the later films of the series. However, there’s a reason he is a universally-beloved Oscar winner – he is fantastic for the majority of his screen-time. It’s just that, every once in awhile, his creepy smile seems a tad too cheesy.
Mikkelsen takes a different approach to playing Dr. Lecter. Granted, the majority of his time as Hannibal comes before he is caught, but he plays a much more sophisticated character, with next-to-no cheesy elements whatsoever. It is clear that Dr. Lecter is sadistic, but Mikkelsen also shows why he can be likable and useful to characters such as Will Graham (Hugh Dancy) and Jack Crawford (Laurence Fishburne). Hopkins, who played an incarcerated Dr. Lecter for the majority of the time, showcased some sophistication that one would expect from a man of Dr. Lecter’s pedigree, but focused more on the evil side of him. This led to some of the aforementioned cheesy instances.
Believability: Mikkelsen – 10/10 Hopkins – 8/10
Scariness
Whenever one is portraying a horrific character, scariness is a key aspect to include. Someone such as Kevin Hart, for example, would have an extremely hard time portraying a serial killer in a dramatic way; it just isn’t in his arsenal. For a character like Dr. Lecter, the ability to act scarily is extremely important.
Anthony Hopkins is absolutely terrifying as Dr. Lecter. All fans remember his iconic scenes – the brain scene in Hannibal, the face scene in Silence of the Lambs, his off-handed comments to Clarice – and, truthfully, all fans should be at least a bit frightened by the man on their screens. Here, Hopkins accomplishes his goal. Despite a bit of cheesiness that was mentioned earlier, Hopkins is terrifying.
Mikkelsen is scary, but in a different way. He is still free for the majority of the show; one simply doesn’t know what he’s going to do next. He has some iconic scenes of his own – the human mural, all of season three, and season two finale chief among them – and viewers are uneasy because the man in front of them looks the part of an upstanding member of society, but he is actually a cold-blooded killer who consumes his victims. Hopkins doesn’t have (as much of) an opportunity to portray this side of Dr. Lecter, but it’s unfair to fault Mikkelsen for that.
Clearly, Hopkins and Mikkelsen are frightening in their own ways. In this case, though, only one can be more frightening.
Scariness: Hopkins – 9/10 Mikkelsen 8.5/10
Delivery of Dialogue
Even the best of actors can be screwed by the ineptitude of a writer. However, in the cases of Hopkins and Mikkelsen, this doesn’t occur; the writers are very talented. So, the deciding factor in which actor portrays Dr. Lecter better is going to be the delivery of dialogue.
Hopkins is given a much more traditional horror-laden script than Mikkelsen. While his character is nowhere near as stagnant or predictable as Freddy Krueger or Jason Voorhees, his job is to be, well, scary. Dr. Lecter is one of the most complex villains out there, but Hopkins isn’t tasked with quite the same psychological dialogue that Mikkelsen is.
For Hopkins, much of his dialogue, particularly in Silence of the Lambs, is just a few lines and meant to be delivered as creepily – as strangely – as possible. He achieves these goals pretty well. Though, again, he borders on cheesy every once in awhile, Hopkins does what he is meant to do with his dialogue: make the viewer (and other characters) uneasy.
Mikkelsen, on the other hand, is tasked with a lot of ironic dialogue. Since the viewers knows he’s a cannibalistic serial killer, while the characters do not, he is given more than a few lines that are (very) darkly humorous. In a show like Hannibal where there is nearly no laughter or smiling to speak of, these oftentimes one-liners are very appreciated by the viewer.
So, for Mikkelsen, much of his dialogue is meant to be taken two ways. One: the way that those in the show take it because they think he’s a good guy, and two: the way it is actually meant, aka how the viewer takes the statement. This isn’t as easy to do as one would think, but Mikkelsen is fantastic at doing just that.
Once things start to go down, Mikkelsen’s dialogue becomes even more important. The difference in his tone with Will – a friend – and someone like Jack – a potential threat – is quite noticeable. His dialogue is meant to be increasingly psychological and creepy as the show goes along, and Mikkelsen delivers.
Delivery of Dialogue: Mikkelsen 10/10 Hopkins 9/10
Wrap-Up
Both Hopkins and Mikkelsen are fantastic at portraying an incredibly complex character. Both make the viewer feel uneasy, and both provide very memorable scenes. However, by the smallest of margins and with extreme respect to Sir Anthony Hopkins, Mads Mikkelsen is a better Dr. Hannibal Lecter.
