Cannibalism in Titus Andronicus and Hannibal

While for the most part following along different lines, Shakespeare’s play Titus Andronicus and the television show Hannibal (a series following the notorious Hannibal Lecter of the Red Dragon series prior to his arrest) do maintain one crucial connection; cannibalism. Each work utilizes the consumption of fellow humans as a central aspect of the narrative (though, admittedly, the cannibalism in Titus Andronicus only appears near the conclusion of the play whereas Hannibal deals with the concept in the majority of its episodes). However, the primary detail connecting these pieces isn't the cannibalism on its own; without further context, this would prove a bit weak in connecting two so different works. Rather, it is the specific act of tricking others into cannibalizing then watching said act that proves most interesting within these pieces, and the relationship this has with the piece’s audience.

            In Titus Andronicus, Titus tricks Tamora into eating a pie cooked from her own deceased sons; he does this as an act of revenge, to repay Tamora for the crimes/wrongs she has committed against Titus and his family. Alternatively, in Hannibal, Lecter does not act out of revenge. Rather, he appears to gain pleasure simply from the act of tricking others into becoming cannibals (and for other, no more revenge based reasons later on in the show (spoilers!)). In each case, the act appears sickening, a grotesque oddity; yet it proves enthralling not only to the characters of the play/show, but to the audience as well. In the case of Titus, one might argue that this is because of the fulfillment of his revenge, the audience rooting for Titus as he avenges dear Lavinia. However, when the aspect of revenge is removed, such as the case with Hannibal, the question remains. What draws an audience to, if not sympathize, than at least continue to follow the actions of such a malevolent character/action?  Not only this, but why would a work such as Titus Andronicus fall somewhat by the wayside (in regard to its appearance/prevalence in the modern “spotlight”) when Hannibal, with its similarly gruesome content, has become so popular? 
Also to consider is the focus placed on gender by another cannibal portrayed in Hannibal, Garret Jacob Hobbes. While this man similarly performs acts of cannibalism and tricks his family into doing the same, he also restricts his victims to only young, brunette woman of the same age and general appearance as his daughter. Hobbes does this, his daughter later claims, so that he won't be "forced" to kill his daughter herself. This adds something of an incestuous aspect to the situation, in addition to portraying an obsessive focus on gender and sexuality as well as the preservation of innocence (Hobbes' daughter's innocence) not apparent in the case of Hannibal himself but echoed by the treatment of Lavinia in Titus Andronicus. Thus the grotesque/twisted nature of Hannibal is further strengthened, once again raising the question as to its continual popularity despite the lessened interest in such works as Titus Andronicus.

 I would argue that it is perhaps due to the intimacy of the stage. Despite the work being a play, and the actions performed by the actors only imitations of cannibalism and other unsavory acts, the audience would likely feel more personally linked to the occurrences due to their actual closeness/presence in regard to the acts. Alternatively, despite the much more graphically intense depictions found in Hannibal, its depiction through a television provides some degree of separation, a sort of barrier between audience and narrative. While this is just speculation (as I lack sample groups to poll regarding these questions), I feel this watching cannibals watch cannibals eat from behind a sort of two-way mirror could act along similar lines to the internet, anonymity providing some sense of “security.”