From all that I've read, it seems the world sees INFPs as "driven to help people and make the world a better place." or perhaps only focused on "how they can best serve humanity." Some may even call them "true idealists." and while much of this can generally be considered true, it seems the world feels their greatest flaw could be over-sensitivity. Sure, I should probably find this flattering, but I actually find this to be almost an injustice. Who's to say I am incapable of rash destruction and righteous fury, or of merciless justice? I for one, find it liberating to be fallible, so I've begun my own collection of INFPs at their worst. Elizabeth Bathory 'the vampire' was the only one that may or may not have been an INFP, so I decided I'd look elsewhere, and found literature and movies.
To begin, I would like to say I am going to be focusing heavily on the INFP 9w1 variant, and the trait I have observed of "Masks" among them, and myself. Basically I will begin by stating that for me in particular, I often steal traits of people around me, and of people I admire, firstly to gain acceptance from my peers, and secondly to distance them, and myself. In a way, I present a personality unique from my own, to protect the one true to me. In another way, I am often unaware of the one true to me. But I digress.
The Hannibal I speak of here is actually more specific of the "Silence of the Lambs" Hannibal, who shows a much greater grasp of introverted feeling than any other series had. Now, the general consensus is that he is most certainly and INTP/INTJ, but there is also an impersonal nature to him: he behaves however he needs to satisfy the needs of the situation. The fluctuation between the two personalities is actually seen whenever he deals with people. In the end of the second movie, however, hannibal and Starling share a moment of brief and uncharacteristic emotional honesty that is not befitting of the sociopath we know and love!
I'll, admit however, that this is tenuous proof, but please give me a moment to expand, and by expand I mean begin on thee phantom of the opera. In here our Phantom is a horrific and mysterious beast of a man doing everything he can to maintain control over his opera, and win the love of his angel of music, who loves another. The Phantom is actually generally accepted as an INFP, so instead of arguing over that, I'll dissect his behavior: Firstly, he expects control over the people in his opera, however, it is less about him, and more about the opera: the last piece of his old life he still maintains. When the new owners disrespect the stage, they earn his aggression.
Now, returning briefly to Hannibal, respect is something deeply important. In the new series it is portrayed selfishly, but in the movies he actually only acted upon the disrespect of others; particularly those that mistreated Starling. When someone was rude or immoral, he acted as judge. But further more; why Starling? According to the overgeneralized definition of a sociopath (I hate it. I have a friend that's a sociopath. He can love.) they can't feel love, but that is perhaps exactly what it is here. Perhaps, however, the destructive sociopath you see is only a portion of his mask, removed briefly for the final scenes with Starling. I will speak on that later.
Returning to the Phantom, let's look at his relationship with Christine. There is a heavy amount of respect and dependence seen here; that above all of the things he had, she was the most important to him. He sacrificed his control over the opera for her, and did everything to make her perfect, but ultimately felt defeated in a way. Perhaps the most revealing details are that of the ending scene, where he says that were they together, they could leave and make all of the violence end. Here you see, in a way, that he wanted her to be the excuse to stop fighting for power. She was a reason to give up the mask, the literal mask, that he wore, and be himself without conflict.
Transposing this one last time to the Silence of the Lambs, I will elaborate that in their final scene together; Hannibal asks Starling to leave behind their lives and be together without violence; without the masks of destruction he wore. He asks her to be an excuse to give up violence and be himself without masks.
Now, what I've got here is mostly just incomplete Ne ramblings, but there are a few important things I should add: firstly, I am aware Hannibal may not be INFP, but particularly in the second movie (which was not well received by critics sadly) he shows a side of him dominated by Fi. If this is true, then the INFP villains we see here all allow masks to override mercy, and to give righteous fury and judgement to their cause. It ultimately is a way to do what they think is right without any guilt, but beneath that they feel it so strongly that they pray for someone to take away the masks, and let them be the harmlessly oversensitive INFPs they were meant to be. That means Hannibal too. I really want to believe hannibal wanted a reason to live in peace. He might still eat people, cause it wouldn't change the fact that he's a sociopath, but hey, he really did want to leave the violence of it behind, cause it was never about hurting people.