Dr. Lecter (played by Anthony Hopkins) seems to understand the red dragon most. Much like in The Silence of the Lambs, he offers insights to detective Graham in the form of riddles. From his advice, one can gather that Hannibal can relate to the red dragon much better than other people. Hannibal himself is a serial killer and thus can understand the mind of one that is in some sense more like him. This is something that Graham does not like, but he wants to know what Hannibal knows because it might help him crack the case. The understanding of Hannibal becomes apparent when Graham and Hannibal are discussing one of the murders: 

Graham: The noise woke Jacobi, and he had to shoot him on the stairs. That wasn’t planned. It was sloppy. And that’s not like him.

Lecter: We mustn’t judge too harshly, Will. It was his first time. You know, I believe we’re making progress. And that’s what our pilgrim is doing. He is refining his methods. He is evolving.

Here Hannibal has understood the overall picture of what is happening: Dolarhyde is trying to turn himself into the red dragon that haunts him and causes him pain. From Hannibal’s perspective, Dolarhyde is on a spiritual journey because he is only starting his “career” as a serial killer. The more the plot advances, the more internalized evil is in Dolarhyde and the more he delights in it. 

Dolarhyde’s trajectory, as Lecter knows all too well, is to become the red dragon. Later in the movie, we see Dolarhyde doing exactly this: he poses as a Blake scholar and goes to the Brooklyn Museum of Art to be able to look at the original Red Dragon painting. At the end of his visit to the museum, he knocks out the curator of the museum and eats the painting. The symbolism verges on becoming heavy-handed here – the message is obvious. As Crawford and Graham observe:

Crawford: We just got a fax. An incident at the Brooklyn Museum. A guy attacked two employees, and get this… ate the Blake painting.

Graham: What? That’s him. It’s got to be.

Crawford: If that painting meant so much to him, why destroy it? And why didn’t he kill those two women at the museum? They both got a good look at him.

Graham: Maybe he’s trying to stop.

Because the killer eats the painting and does not kill the employee, Graham guesses that this signifies that the killer is trying to stop. Eating the painting is a highly symbolic act; what you digest becomes a part of you. In this case, it is probable that the killer consumed the painting so that he does not perceive its evil influence as an external threat but something that is under his control. 

Later in the movie, when Dolarhyde understands that he is about to be caught, he kidnaps Rita and brings her to his home. Before the following dialogue takes place between him and Reba, Dolarhyde has set the house on fire: 

This dialogue reveals that Dolarhyde is torn between being “himself” and the “red dragon”. One side of him wants to give in and just enjoy the evil. The other side of him would like to do good, not to kill but to preserve Reba’s life. The dialogue ends with the sounds of a shotgun loading and a shot. Some blood hits Reba, and she is in shock. In a panic, she exits the house believing that Dolarhyde has shot himself. Reba, a woman who is blind, assumes at this point that the killer is dead and the story ends, but in fact, Dolarhyde has staged his death and shot another person instead of himself or Reba. In this case, it is worth noting that Dolarhyde is still indifferent to killing people generally. He only spares this particular person, Reba. Thus, the dragon has taken over almost every part of him, except the part that is like Reba. This is also confirmed by Graham in his dialogue with Reba after the incident: 

Graham: That’s all I need. I’d like to come back before I leave town. See how you’re doing.

Reba: Sure, why not? Who could resist a charmer like me? 

Graham: You know, whatever part of him was still human… was only kept alive because of you. You probably saved some lives. You didn’t draw a freak. Okay? You drew a man with a freak on his back.

At the end of the movie, Dolarhyde is no longer torn between being “himself” and the dragon. In a sense, one could say that his transformation/journey to become the red dragon is complete. The dragon has become changed from an external force to an inner reality that he does not fight against. He delights in evil and wants to cause as much damage as possible. 

Dolarhyde receives a message from Hannibal Lecter that gives him the address of detective Graham. Now Dolarhyde is on a mission to kill Graham’s whole family. Since Graham thinks Dolarhyde is dead, he does not suspect anything. Dolarhyde comes to Graham’s residence in Florida while he and his wife Molly (played by Mary-Louise Parker) are outside on a pier close to their house in the late evening. Their son Josh (played by Tyler Patrick Jones) is inside looking for marshmallows when Graham notices that it takes a long time for their son to come back. He goes looking for their son and notices to his horror that the mirrors in the house are broken, just like at the crime scenes where the dragon was. He finds his son and the killer upstairs. Graham manages to provoke the killer and gets into a fight with him. During this fight, Molly enters the building and goes upstairs. Graham is stabbed, but manages to escape from the red dragon/Dolarhyde. The scene ends so that Graham jumps to the floor and Molly shoots the red dragon/Dolarhyde.

What is important to note when watching the movie is the crucial difference between the murders of the two first families in the movie and the attempt on murdering detective Graham’s family. The first two murders were extremely well planned by Dolarhyde. He had watched home videos of the families, made sure that they had quiet yards, lived in remote areas, and that he had all the necessary tools. These tools included bolt cutters, guns, and other things. Meanwhile, the attempt to murder Graham’s family is much more sporadic. It is not planned in a very good way. This is shown through the fact that the killer does not enter the house when everyone is sleeping, and he does not have a gun but attacks the family with only a knife. Thus, the attack on Graham’s family shows that there is no more control over the dragon/evil, but it is something that the killer has completely accepted and given himself to. This seems to suggest that the attempt on Graham’s family is more passionate than analytic. While Dolarhyde can withhold his evil on a particular person, Reba, he finds his evil to be most fully-fledged (and less effective) when attacking a family he has a grudge against.

“The killer consumed the painting so that he does not perceive its evil influence as an external threat, but something that is under his control.”

“We only vaguely know that everything is not all right”

Analysis and Theological Conversation

In Red Dragon, one can see the dragon as a symbol of evil. That the dragon is pure evil is apparent since it commits savage crimes, it murders, rapes, and destroys. Here one can note that it targets especially happy and stable families that seem to have a balanced life.

One of the main themes in the movie is Dolarhyde’s journey to becoming the red dragon. The plot reveals a process where in the beginning the dragon is something that is to a certain degree external to him. He can decide when and how to interact with it. For example, Dolarhyde kills at certain times, during certain intervals, and limits the dragon concerning Reba. During the movie, Dolarhyde starts to identify more and more with the dragon and it gets a larger role in his life. This again can be seen in his interaction with Lounds and how he talks to himself about becoming the dragon. After this Dolarhydes seems to get anxious about his dragon and tries to gain control of the dragon, possibly trying to stop it by eating the painting. This action, though, is already too late and thus he finally succumbs to the dragon and gives in to him. At the end of the movie, Dolarhyde has integrated the dragon to such an extent that he delights in evil and tries to kill the whole family of detective Graham. This happens in a very spontaneous way which indicates that there is not much control over the dragon and that his “evolution” is, in a sense, complete. 

The view of evil portrayed by the movie is that evil is something primarily external. At the same time, it might be a possible force in all of us. Dolarhyde makes a journey from violent thoughts to becoming a violent killer. It is natural to have all kinds of thoughts, of which some might be violent, but to become a killer is something very different. In addition to this, to be a killer who delights in violence and evil is still a degree further. Evil is something that all people can relate to on a very superficial level, but few find it understandable on a profound level. Instead, a normal reaction is to be disgusted and feel bad when one is confronted with something like this. The big question is how evil makes sense and how can we understand it. Or is evil just something we have to accept and hope that we do not confront it?

Theologians like to talk about evil, and it is often related to discussions about sin. In his article about original sin, James Heiser tries to correct a superficial understanding of what sin is. Heiser argues that in many modern churches, the role of a pastor is that of a therapist, and confession and absolution have become more about psychological counsel than forgiveness of sins. From the Lutheran Confessions and the early Lutheran fathers, Heiser argues that this not only undermines our understanding of sin but also our understanding of justification.

To the same degree that the church takes sin seriously, it also takes the Gospel seriously. The understanding of sin directly correlates with forgiveness, since where there is no sin there is no need for forgiveness. Then again, where there is sin there is also the need for forgiveness.

Heiser defines sin as something that “is a defect or inclination or action in conflict with the law of God, offending God, condemned by God, and making us worthy of eternal wrath and eternal punishments, unless there be forgiveness.” In addition to this Heiser also emphasizes that the original sin is far greater than the sum of our actual sins, that is the sins we commit. 

A question that is closely related to Heiser’s argumentation is to what degree we can understand our true nature (cognitio sui) and the depth of our sin. In traditional Lutheran theology, if we ask whether we can truly understand our condition before God, the answer is a clear “No.” The fall has taken away not only our knowledge of God but also our knowledge of ourselves (cognitio sui). Man is thus captured by a certain ignorantia invincibilis in himself. Hans Joachim Iwand has very astutely recognized that the expectation that the Delphic admonition, “know thyself,” led to a confession of sin in medieval times, but would have had a very different answer in Greek antiquity. The Greeks found pride when they came to know themselves instead of the need of a confessor.

“In Lutheran Theology, sin and evil are not seen, but believed.”

The implication of this is that philosophies and psychologies that claim to understand evil are largely affected by a theology that teaches the harmony of Revelation and natural reason. In Lutheran (and, I would argue, biblical) theology, the understanding is more that sin and evil are not seen but believed. As a consequence of this, evil in Lutheran theology is something that you fundamentally cannot understand or grasp, but is nevertheless a fact of existence. Evil is something that we confess before God and the world, not completely comprehend. 

Another perspective is provided by Gustaf Wingren to this question. Wingren makes the argument that everyone suffers from guilt to a certain degree. This guilt is then confirmed by the second use of the law that reveals sin. That is, the second use of the law shows that the guilt human beings have is not their invention, but is based on breaking God’s commandments. Wingren’s perspective implies that a person might not recognize that he is sinful (by nature) or that he has broken the commandments of the law, but he certainly can understand that something is wrong with him and the world. Guilt can be understood as an indication of the natural knowledge of God and his commandments that, although dim, still exist in human beings. 

To summarize a traditional Lutheran understanding of sin, one has to have both these perspectives in mind. The first is that human beings cannot understand sin but confess it when confronted by the witness of Scripture. The second perspective is that, even though this first perspective is true, there is an understanding in the form of guilt and disgust at certain actions that a certain degree of evil has entered the world. This is something that human beings cannot name or understand. They only understand vaguely know that everything is not all right. 

In the movie Red Dragon, the dragon is interpreted as a symbol of evil. The movie presents a view of evil as something terrible and irrational. It is something that can be related to vaguely by normal human beings and is only somewhat understood by people who exercise it themselves. In a sense, evil becomes something that you only can hope to avoid, because there is no explanation for it. What becomes apparent in Heiser’s article is that evil remains abstract on some level, it is something that we confess but not something that we see too much. In Red Dragon, evil again becomes very concrete and discernable even though not understandable. Thus, both Heiser’s article (and traditional Lutheran theology as well) and the movie operate on different levels and remain a bit vague in their descriptions of the human condition. A part of the vagueness is the mysterious character of evil, that is, it is something that we cannot understand but only confess in the light of the Biblical witness. 

The movie Red Dragon reveals very clearly an existential perspective of sin as a capacity for terrible and irrational evil. To answer the question of evil more extensively, both to those who are in the church and outside of it, the church needs a supplement to the view of Heiser, with a definition of original sin in a more existentialist frame. A definition of original sin as “a mystery and a capacity for terrible and irrational evil” is something that does not contradict a traditional Lutheran understanding but rather confirms it. It attends especially to the perspective of sin as something that cannot be understood by our reason while maintaining that there is true evil in this world that can severely damage people. While Heiser is right to show that the pastor-as-therapist model is wrong, he does not go far enough in showing that sin is, fundamentally, something we cannot intellectually grasp, but only confess.

The reason why this supplement is important is threefold. First, it unfolds a biblical understanding of the world and sin in all its brutality. Sin is not only a theoretical concept but something very real, concrete, and terrible in this world. It destroys families, states, and individuals. Second, it provides the Christian church with a language that the world can understand. Thus, original sin is not only related to God and the past, but something that modern people can listen to and function as a concept that relates to their reality and makes it clearer. The third reason is that it grasps something of sin and evil as a mystery. It is not something that we can fully understand through the means of psychology, philosophy, or even theology, but remains a mystery that we confess in light of Scripture.