(no subject)

[proximoception]

Re. the last sequence, I think they've done better, and even did better in a number of places earlier in the episode. It was quite good for the very specialized thing that it was, though, since they needed to simultaneously:

1. Make an ending that could be a real ending in plot terms.
2. Make an ending that could be a mere between-seasons pause.
3. Make an ending that could jettison some or all supporting characters, since coming back a) much later, or b) with a leaner budget, or c) as a film, might all require streamlining.
4. Make an ending that didn't give away what they'd been building to, if proving to not be the final ending.
5. Make an ending that felt like something had been built to, if proving final.
6. Make an ending that secretly did provide culmination for what they really had been building to, for all of those who somehow knew exactly what that was, if proving final.

Neither can quite get rid of the other, but is either a coherent self within the undeniably incoherent and conflicting whole that they form? Who's parasite, who tree, in the relationship between our judgement and our illest-judging drives and appetites? That's the question the show probes near-methodically from the start, and exploits our own perpetual doubts about. It's a live issue, no? Society may want us to suppress all animality, and it may be in our interest to want all others to do this since theirs is a threat, but if our animality IS us this is ultimately not a good deal (unless we can cheat and save ours secretly). But if we have become rebased somehow through consciousness and rationally extended empathy, live viably as feelers of each others' feelings, then selfish and especially violent impulses need to be maximally restrained, perhaps destroyed. There's room in this conflict for a whole lot of permutations, ambiguities and ironies, and the show runs through a respectable number of them in 39 episodes.

But is there a position? The "more lump than sum" line hints at one, but given who he's talking to and what he's talking about not even that (which really IS close to Dancy's father's position) clesrly carries the day: he may just want Bedelia to kill Hannibal if everything goes haywire (has she poisoned her leg?). Or may want to save her by warning her, but doesn't want to give away his real plan so she can't tip off Hannibal about it, so instead pretends personal ambivalence. He's recently discovered Hannibal can still murder via proxy, and maybe even via himself, after all. His earlier idea of keeping Hannibal refrigerated, to be thawed only when needing advice about the Hannibalesque, has now proved too dangerous. So, back to the kill plan. But of course he may be lying to Hannibal about the refrigeration, may be telling the truth to Bedelia about the lump.

The Dante content was an amusing nonsequitur - the engine here has always been Blake's Milton, or perhaps Milton's Blake. The closing "beautiful" and what follows is an absolute ambiguity, as to whether:

Will means the pure violence he and Hannibal have just committed together.
Will means the cleansing violence he and Hannibal have just committed together.
Will means Hannibal's vision of that violence, shared by him only via innocent empathy.
Will means that what went before has enabled him to get Hannibal where he could kill him.
Will means that he and Hannibal have been able to act in concert for a first? last? only? time.
Will means some or all of these things.

And whether by their deaths:

Will is committing an even purer act of violence by destroying Hannibal.
Will is committing an even more cleansing act of violence by destroying Hannibal.
Will is allowing Hannibal to kill him as a final gift to someone he feels for.
Will is killing himself because Hannibal may have infected him with Hannibalism.
Will is suicidally escorting Hannibal downward as the one way of being sure of killing him.
Will is killing both of them because it is the only way they can be together.
Will is doing some or all of these.

And even if some are true, which are necessary conditions? Which sufficient? Which mere riders? Which mere pretexts? The "lump and sum" line sets this moment up.

But did they want that, or anyway only that? Do we only see what we wish when we separate strands, search out secret emphases? The Fall went to a similar place in its s2 conclusion, interestingly, but with hair-raising, invasive-feeling and highly dubious gender politics. Hannibal and Will stay safely gay, or gay enough, to keep it about just love, whatever lump our love turns out to be.