CHUD.com Community › Forums › SPECIFIC FILMS › Films in Release or On Video › Silence of the Lambs (1991)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Silence of the Lambs (1991)

post #1 of 59
7/12/10 at 3:51pm
Thread Starter 
Conversations about The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo and X-Files gave me a hankering for Silence of the Lambs so I popped it in. Jesus what an utterly fantastic movie.

The less said about Hopkins' turn as Lecter the better. I don't think any more CAN be said. He's electrifying when he's on screen.

But part of the credit for that performance has to go to Jonathan Demme. Shooting everyone from Starling's point of view adds an unsettling effect to an already terrifically creepy performance.

Jodie Foster is absolutely phenomenal as Starling. That first, unforgettable meeting with Lecter works so well because of her. He just tears into her and levies insults at her that would make that shitty 100 greatest insults video cringe, but she doesn't back down. Watching her absorb and overcome each nasty word is a wonder to watch.

I know Betty Friedan and a lot of second wave feminists hated/hate the movie. Friedan felt the subject matter was in and of itself exploitative (she's probably punching Steig Laarson in the afterlife) and she didn't like that Starling had to be objectified.

But I find the behavior towards Starling extraordinarily realistic and necessary. When women confidently waltz into a "boy's club" they ARE seen, at least initially, as a set of tits. To ignore that would have been unrealistic in a film much lauded for it's realism.

What's interesting is that while Starling is objectified by the men in the film, the men are the one's shot as objects. They all speak directly into the camera, and while that technique was intended to put us in Starling's shoes it also dehumanizes those characters.

Demme seems to want to have his cake and eat it to. He narratively objectifies Starling, but cinematically humanizes her. I think that's a neat trick and it's something I suspect Friedan missed in her viewing of the film.

Part of the reason I think Friedan didn't like/get the movie is because it seems to chronicle the transition from the Second to Third Wave of Feminism. Starling begins the film as a second wave feminist. She embraces a very specific idea of modern femininity (though, as Lecter points out, she's not entirely successful). Though she doesn't go about burning bras she's not afraid to call out others on their sexist attitudes and actions. Over the course of the film Starling's attitude changes. She grows more comfortable in her own skin (irony!).

Sadly the Third Wave is very muddled affair with no clear goal or message beyond BE YOURSELF. The film, in attempting to push Starling into the role of post-feminist feminist suffers from that.

What's also neat is that the movie was shot when we were in that awkward phase where the Second Wave had subsided but the Third Wave had not yet begun. In fact the Third Wave didn't really take off until about a year after Silence of the Lambs came out.

EDIT: And Silence of the Lambs is 012938129047124 times better then Girl With the Dragon Tattoo at addressing the evils of feminism. Seriously F that movie so much for trying to label itself as a feminist tome.
Reply
post #2 of 59
7/12/10 at 3:54pm
To continue the discussion in the X-Files thread, I really don't think Scully would exist as she did without this movie. The episode with Brad Dourif at times feels like a mini-version of this movie.
Reply
post #3 of 59
7/12/10 at 3:55pm
Thread Starter 
Carter straight up admitted as much. All Scully needed was an accent and an aversion to crazy cum flying at her face.
Reply
post #4 of 59
7/12/10 at 4:00pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mercury318 View Post
All Scully needed was an accent and an aversion to crazy cum flying at her face.
Implied.
Reply
post #5 of 59
7/12/10 at 4:05pm
*shudders to think of Phil's X-Files fanfics of the 90s*
Reply
post #6 of 59
7/12/10 at 4:47pm
This movie just completely draws me in, and the climax in Buffalo Bill's house, especially once the night-vision goggles come out, is pure and beautiful terror that would make Hitchcock himself envious. It's just marvelous.
Reply
post #7 of 59
7/12/10 at 10:20pm
Mercury, I'm really enjoying carrying our various discussions on chicks in films over various threads.

When thinking about these movies and 'if they were made today', I wonder if 2010's Silence of the Lambs would have Starling with a boyfriend on the side that we cut away to having his own crisis/being put in danger or coming to her rescue at the last moment. There was always....a lack of sexualization of the character that I appreciate. She's not painted as an alpha-female, yet we do see her hold her own in these various situations.

I think you could have Clarice become Carl and the film would not be obviously different, though certain touches wouldn't resonate as much as they do. The psychology of the film would be different.

And it's still a great procedural drama/thriller that has held up.
Reply
post #8 of 59
7/13/10 at 12:47am
This is a fantastic thread with some awesome points I hadn't considered before, especially in regards to this film and its portrayal of its female characters. I wonder if the complaints about the movie have to do with the fact that, despite Clarice being a strong woman character, the movie essentially turns into a slasher movie in the last twenty minutes when Jame Gumb turns the power off.

This is one of the few pieces of entertainment -- Jack Ketchum's The Girl Next Door, book edition, is another, as are Pet Semetary and "Objects in Space" -- to genuinely disturb me for days. It's so good.
Reply
post #9 of 59
7/13/10 at 1:14am
This is one of the best movies ever, and I've always thought the feminism works so well in it because it's pointedly not central. Most aspects of her job with the FBI are somehow affected by her being a pretty young woman (guys staring at her ass on the confidence course, the big local law enforcement meeting, the cross-eyed guy asking her out), and yet at no point does any of this cross pollinate with main storylines, except thematically. For my money, this makes it a way more effective feminist movie than a dozen less subtle approaches (Thelma and Louise, although at it's time, that did have a high degree of cultural impact). It's mixed into a really engaging horror movie in such a way that you could miss it entirely, yet your subconscious absorbs the myriad of petty annoyances Clarice puts up with on a daily basis. And yes, it worked so damn well that it practically created a new archetype. In addition to a new genre, of course (forensic procedurals).

There's honestly too many good things to call out about this movie. Some things that never get enough love are the portentous score, Anthony Heald's career-defining performance, and the stunning set design, particularly in the Baltimore asylum and Buffalo Bill's lair. Johnathan Demme deserved to win that oscar, and he was nominated against Oliver Stone's career best work.
Reply
post #10 of 59
7/13/10 at 1:25am
Don't forget Frankie Faison's best non-Wire role to date!
Reply
post #11 of 59
7/13/10 at 1:25am
One of the things I love best about Silence of the Lambs is Lecter's escape. Up until then, he's this, yes also mean-spirited sadist, erudite man with a great mind, that the savagery he displays is shocking. The book is even better at displaying this. I've said for a while that Silence is a modern Dracula, but the book displays the comparisons to Dracula even better.
Reply
post #12 of 59
7/13/10 at 1:31am
Yeah, and one of the reasons the escape is so effective (and I came to the film having read the book, and not being particularly unnerved by it) is the sense of dread that Demme creates, and that Hopkins embodies in his performance. They let you be charmed and disgusted by Lecter, but they almost draw you into a false sense of security and then -- bam, the escape.

One of the things I dislike about the sequel and the remake of Red Dragon is that Lecter becomes almost cuddly in them. He does ferocious things, but you don't feel them the way you do in Silence. And I think part of that starts with the last scene, which is effective, but could also very easily be played as an "up" moment.

As in "New shooter, new shooter, does the new shooter feel lucky?" "Yes, yes he does." *cue Sweet Home Alabama*
Reply
post #13 of 59
7/13/10 at 1:57am
The sequels are a whole nother kettle of fish. I think they're generally lucky Hannibal turned out as well as it did (which is to say, it was all right), and the others are about as whored out as is possible. But the ending of Silence is terrific, even in that Con Air way.

It does beg the question though, was Lector ever really a 'villain'? At the end, he's out there, but he's only a danger to pricks like Dr. Chilton. Despite the terrifying escape sequence, there's a degree to which, as an audience, we kind of want him to get away, beyond just so it's a cool dark ending. Or am I just tainted by those sequels, where he's practically Uncle Hannibal, and it was hugely upsetting in 1991?
Reply
post #14 of 59
7/13/10 at 2:21am
One of the great movies of the 90's and has aged very well. Part of me wishes that the movie version of "Hannibal" had the stones to follow the book's ending. That would have been glorious to watch.
Reply
post #15 of 59
7/13/10 at 2:28am
Quote:
Originally Posted by RathBandu View Post
Yeah, and one of the reasons the escape is so effective (and I came to the film having read the book, and not being particularly unnerved by it) is the sense of dread that Demme creates, and that Hopkins embodies in his performance. They let you be charmed and disgusted by Lecter, but they almost draw you into a false sense of security and then -- bam, the escape.

One of the things I dislike about the sequel and the remake of Red Dragon is that Lecter becomes almost cuddly in them. He does ferocious things, but you don't feel them the way you do in Silence. And I think part of that starts with the last scene, which is effective, but could also very easily be played as an "up" moment.

As in "New shooter, new shooter, does the new shooter feel lucky?" "Yes, yes he does." *cue Sweet Home Alabama*
Hannibal is pretty faithful to the book, but should have kept the book's ending because it showed that, no, you should NOT root for Lecter. He's a monster. The movie has that horrible "Awww, he sacrificed a part of himself for her!" and I liked the movie up until then.

The less we speak of Hannibal Rising, the better.
Reply
post #16 of 59
7/13/10 at 2:45am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wayward_Woman View Post
Mercury, I'm really enjoying carrying our various discussions on chicks in films over various threads.

When thinking about these movies and 'if they were made today', I wonder if 2010's Silence of the Lambs would have Starling with a boyfriend on the side that we cut away to having his own crisis/being put in danger or coming to her rescue at the last moment. There was always....a lack of sexualization of the character that I appreciate. She's not painted as an alpha-female, yet we do see her hold her own in these various situations.

I think you could have Clarice become Carl and the film would not be obviously different, though certain touches wouldn't resonate as much as they do. The psychology of the film would be different.
What's neat is the film actively avoids sexualizing these characters. Even the objectification of women in the film somewhat desexualized. Bill doesn't want to do the women he wants to be the women. But I don't think we would have had the same film if Starling had been a man. The film is about how nasty sexism can be. Starling is brought in, not because of her intelligence or qualifications, but because she's a nice looking woman. In nearly every scene we're reminded that she's a woman.


As for the Hannibal question. I've actively avoided the other films. I know all about Uncle Hannibal who lusts for Starling and is really just a misunderstood dude, but I like being able to watch Silence of the Lambs sans the cuddly baggage. He's evil in this movie. Genuinely evil. He helps Clarice, not because he loves her, but because it's fun and he sees it as a way to escape Chilton's grasp. He's selfish and manipulative and his escape is absolutely horrifying (especially the Baconesque corpse on the bars).

And I love that ending. You're a little terrified because Chilton is going to be eaten, but you're also delighted. It's unsettling and wonderful.
Reply
post #17 of 59
7/13/10 at 2:52am
Quote:
Originally Posted by RathBandu View Post
Don't forget Frankie Faison's best non-Wire role to date!
Nope.

Reply
post #18 of 59
7/13/10 at 4:04am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mercury318 View Post
As for the Hannibal question. I've actively avoided the other films. I know all about Uncle Hannibal who lusts for Starling and is really just a misunderstood dude, but I like being able to watch Silence of the Lambs sans the cuddly baggage.
Interestingly, Silence stands completely unmolested by the ravages of the sequels. That's tough to pull off.
Reply
post #19 of 59
7/13/10 at 4:18am
Thread Starter 
That's because although Hopkins is very good and flashy he doesn't carry the film. This is Foster and Demme's show.
Reply
post #20 of 59
7/13/10 at 10:29am
^
See, that's the thing I love about Silence: while Lecter is such a memorable presence that he, to paraphrase Ebert, looms over the film, this is still Clarice's story. Actually, Clarice and Lecter's strange relationship might be the most interesting thing in the film; he's clearly dismissive of her at first, but soon becomes impressed by her fortitude and intelligence, and you get the feeling that they respect each other to a degree by the end.

Also, I feel like people are overlooking Brooke Smith and Ted Levine's contributions to the film. Smith is a believable scared victim, but she also brings Catherine Martin's tougher, resourceful side to life, and Levine is truly loathsome and terrifying as Buffalo Bill.

Fun fact: When Lecter briefly imitates/mocks Clarice's accent, Hopkins did not inform Foster that he was going to do this so he could get a better reaction out of her.
Reply
post #21 of 59
7/13/10 at 10:46am
Quote:
Originally Posted by dynamotv View Post
One of the great movies of the 90's and has aged very well. Part of me wishes that the movie version of "Hannibal" had the stones to follow the book's ending. That would have been glorious to watch.
A thousand times this. The fact that the film follows Starling's emotional beats from the book pretty well, her increasing frustration, anger and alienation but chickens out in the end stinks of focus group intervention.

And as for the movie's comment on feminism and female empowerment you don't need to look any further than the scene with Clarice trying to get the local cops to leave the room so they can examine the corpse. her awkwardness and the cops' resentment are pretty apparent.
Reply
post #22 of 59
7/13/10 at 11:43am
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelios View Post
A thousand times this. The fact that the film follows Starling's emotional beats from the book pretty well, her increasing frustration, anger and alienation but chickens out in the end stinks of focus group intervention.
I think the truth is less conspiratorial, Foster's reason (one of) for passing on HANNIBAL was because she hated the ending of the book and felt it was a betrayal of Starling's character.
Reply
post #23 of 59
7/13/10 at 11:47am
And she's bang-on about that.
Reply
post #24 of 59
7/13/10 at 12:08pm
It's not a betrayal of Starling's character. She gets seduced and twisted by Lecter's evil much in the same way the audience was when Silence Of The Lambs came out. You may not like what Harris wanted to say with Hannibal but you can't deny his intent.
Reply
post #25 of 59
7/13/10 at 12:12pm
That's a really interesting way of putting it. I always felt it was some sort of happy end cop-out made because the character took off so well.

Hannibal does have its moments as a film, though.
Reply
post #26 of 59
7/13/10 at 12:27pm
Harris always seemed ill at ease with how the audience welcomed this monster that he created. In the movies especially so since they're missing some stuff he had in the books to show just how inhuman Lecter really was. I've always understood Clarice's turning in Hannibal to be Harris saying to the audience "This is what you're doing."

But anyway, this is a discussion for a different thread.
Reply
post #27 of 59
7/13/10 at 12:35pm
I think he's tryign to give the people what they want. I don't think Harris is a sophisticated enough writer to attempt to damn his own audience like that. Plus, it just doesn't read like a negative ending.

And I say this as someone who enjoys Harris' writing.
Reply
post #28 of 59
7/13/10 at 12:48pm
I can't seem to find the interview where I read it but he has pretty much straight up said so. Whether it was retconning or not, I don't know. But it fits.
Reply
post #29 of 59
7/13/10 at 1:00pm
It's worth checking out Demme's commentary for some of the themes mentioned here.

The Feminist Wave thing is interesting. I'm not familiar with that break-down though my Grandmother and Aunt would be considered First and Second Wave Feminists by your descriptions.

Thinking about that take on the movie, I wonder if that 3rd Wave Confusion you mention isn't also at work in the presentation of the male roles. Lector is a sort of classic, dangerous, commanding patriarch type, while Gum is the confused, resentful and angry modern man (snag, metrosexual or similar confused type/role?) hiding his cock in shame. While the other men are ineffectual nothings (like the bug nerd who hits on her - it's a ridiculous bit of pantomime) or part of a safe group of masculinity (the cops at the funeral). All symbolically speaking of course - this would be more a result of the filmmakers' instincts rather than planning, so much. Though Demme seems really on the ball about a lot of things.

Lector even questions Scot Glen's position in Foster's world. Is he putting her on this case so he can take a swing at the much younger woman, but isn't up-front enough or confident enough in himself to ask her out without the trapping of his rank and flattery of putting her on Lector duty. Or is he setting her up for a humiliation? What's his agenda?
Reply
post #30 of 59
7/21/10 at 4:28am
Please believe me when I say that I am not saying this just to be contrarian, but Hopkins' performance as Lecter just bothers me. It is so incredibly over the top that it borders on silly. I think the fact that I saw Manhunter first plays a big role, but I always found Cox to be the more effective and disturbing Hannibal, by a wide margin. Cox played him with a creepy detachment, whereas Hopkins played him like some kind of evil Santa.
Reply
post #31 of 59
7/21/10 at 5:46am
Lector had to be larger than life, so they could be real and creepy with Gum and still get a big audience.

Hopkins understands ensemble performance from all his years in repertoire theater/stage performance and probably realized instantly that he had to play Lector "big" to help the other performers do what they needed to do with more subtlety.

But yeah, Cox is my favorite take on Lector too. My love of Manhunter colored my original viewing of SotL the same way. But over the years I've noticed the layers in the movie and the incredible level of craft and instinct.

Even the Feminism Reading seems pretty bang on and that was new one on me.

Give it another chance when you're in the mood. Hopkins definitely is doing "Evil Santa", but there's a point to it. The rest of the movie is utterly bleak in tone. He's like an island of safety/familiarity almost. The Lector "Super-Serial Killer" trope was new to the mainstream at the time, but he was really just doing Dracula or any number of Shakespearean villains in new clothing.
Reply
post #32 of 59
7/21/10 at 5:46am
But Ted Levine is way scarier than either of them.

I would agree that Cox gives the more naturalistic performance, but I find Hopkins to be magnetic, particularly in Silence. I kind of like that the movie has room for a well done, theatrically chatty psycho in Lector alongside a more Henry Portrait of a Serial Killer type in Buffalo Bill.

ed: huf, Nardo and I think alike. But I prefer Hopkins to Cox, at least in this role.
Reply
post #33 of 59
7/21/10 at 6:13am
I just can't compare the two. Cox is barely a character in MANHUNTER.
Reply
post #34 of 59
7/21/10 at 6:29am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nardo View Post
Lector had to be larger than life, so they could be real and creepy with Gum and still get a big audience.

Hopkins understands ensemble performance from all his years in repertoire theater/stage performance and probably realized instantly that he had to play Lector "big" to help the other performers do what they needed to do with more subtlety.

But yeah, Cox is my favorite take on Lector too. My love of Manhunter colored my original viewing of SotL the same way. But over the years I've noticed the layers in the movie and the incredible level of craft and instinct.

Even the Feminism Reading seems pretty bang on and that was new one on me.

Give it another chance when you're in the mood. Hopkins definitely is doing "Evil Santa", but there's a point to it. The rest of the movie is utterly bleak in tone. He's like an island of safety/familiarity almost. The Lector "Super-Serial Killer" trope was new to the mainstream at the time, but he was really just doing Dracula or any number of Shakespearean villains in new clothing.
I really like Cox's take on it, but going from the book, Hopkins' take was more faithful.
Reply
post #35 of 59
7/21/10 at 6:38am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arjen Rudd View Post
But Ted Levine is way scarier than either of them.

I would agree that Cox gives the more naturalistic performance, but I find Hopkins to be magnetic, particularly in Silence. I kind of like that the movie has room for a well done, theatrically chatty psycho in Lector alongside a more Henry Portrait of a Serial Killer type in Buffalo Bill.

ed: huf, Nardo and I think alike. But I prefer Hopkins to Cox, at least in this role.
Heh, yeah I was going to focus on the Henry meets Dracula aspects, but figured someone else would come in with that.

Mann and Cox played "Lecter" (I think the spelling is different in each movie) a variety of different ways during the shoot but settled on the "reserved/withholding" take. Where his dangerousness comes not from his physical impression, but the security measures around him. He's a guy who could operate as a serial killer as they exist in real life because he's so non-descript. Hopkins is the seducer and is all about the dark fascination with death (hence the ultra-gothic dungeon cell).
Reply
post #36 of 59
7/21/10 at 7:10am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cameron Hughes View Post
I really like Cox's take on it, but going from the book, Hopkins' take was more faithful.
Yeah, Cox was great but he seemed a little thuggish to me. Like an unusually well educated Mafia hitman. Not exactly how Lecter was written.
Reply
post #37 of 59
7/21/10 at 7:25am
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelios View Post
Yeah, Cox was great but he seemed a little thuggish to me. Like an unusually well educated Mafia hitman. Not exactly how Lecter was written.
Yeah, Lecter is theatrcal and mean-spirited. I did like that Manhunter kept Lecter's hobby of keeping track of Churches with people in them getting destroyed.
Reply
post #38 of 59
7/21/10 at 7:29am
Cox's Lecter is like a blue collar thug. Isn't he even smacking on gum in a scene? Bleh. Lecter's performance has passed into the pop culture lexicon at this point, imitated and parodied to the point of dilution, but when you saw that movie in 1991 he was astonishing.
Reply
post #39 of 59
7/21/10 at 7:33am
Yeah, because of that oversaturation there's a weird movement to boost Cox as the one true Lecter, when he's basically just playing a run-of-themill murderer. Even Cox himself thinks comparisons between the two are crazy talk. I remember reading one TV guide critic's baffling take on SOTL as an "oddly camp, menace-free slasher" in comparison to "MANHUNTER and Brian Cox's brainfreezingly scary portrayal". I just don't think there's anything in MANHUNTER to back up anything like that.
Reply
post #40 of 59
7/21/10 at 1:59pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Merriweather View Post
Yeah, because of that oversaturation there's a weird movement to boost Cox as the one true Lecter, when he's basically just playing a run-of-themill murderer. Even Cox himself thinks comparisons between the two are crazy talk. I remember reading one TV guide critic's baffling take on SOTL as an "oddly camp, menace-free slasher" in comparison to "MANHUNTER and Brian Cox's brainfreezingly scary portrayal". I just don't think there's anything in MANHUNTER to back up anything like that.
That's awfully dismissive of you, I don't see how it would be considered "baffling" or "crazy talk" to prefer Cox to Hopkins. It's 2 actors playing the same role, within a 10 year time period. It's hardly an unfair comparison, even if Hopkins has more screen time.

Like I said, seeing Manhunter first is probably the root cause of this, but why would it be wrong to say Hopkins' as Lecter is more than a little bit campy? Particularly when compared to Cox.

I wasn't aware that Hopkins' Lecter was closer to the Lecter of the book, and I'm certainly not saying Hopkins gave a poor performance, just for the record. That would be ridiculous.


On a side note, did I imagine that Lecter was a college counselor for coeds that was caught killing is patients in Manhunter? And if so, why would they change that in SOTL?
Reply
post #41 of 59
7/21/10 at 2:37pm
If that's what it was in Manhunter, it's because they changed it in Manhunter. I think.
Reply
post #42 of 59
7/21/10 at 4:14pm
My take on the Cox over Hopkins thing is that it's more about disliking Hopkins, likely because of the way the character became oversaturated in the culture. Cox isn't bad, but calling it great seems to be lowering the bar for great.
Reply
post #43 of 59
7/21/10 at 4:32pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by RathBandu View Post
Yeah, and one of the reasons the escape is so effective (and I came to the film having read the book, and not being particularly unnerved by it) is the sense of dread that Demme creates, and that Hopkins embodies in his performance. They let you be charmed and disgusted by Lecter, but they almost draw you into a false sense of security and then -- bam, the escape.
Not only that, but it sort of puts your dread to sleep. You get this big build-up to Lecter and you're ready for a frothing-at-the-mouth madman -- and you don't get it. You get talk and insinuation, but in the back of your mind you're waiting for the moment when he finally snaps and lets loose. In a way, the escape works as a release because the awful glory of Lecter has finally been revealed. The waiting is over.

He's kind of like the shark in Jaws in that way. If we'd gotten scenes of Lecter being Lecter all along, that escape would lose so much of its impact.
Reply
post #44 of 59
7/21/10 at 5:32pm
"Understated" can very much mean great in the right context.

You might also want to consider which version of Lector/Lecter/Lecktor plays better against a female or a male protagonist, a Pro and an Ingenue.

Comparing Manhunter and Red Dragon's realisation of the Lector/Graham relationship could be better discussion fodder.

The SotL/Manhunter split was there from day one. Many people who'd already seen Manhunter and read the book had problems with the broad interpretation that Hopkins took, so there's nothing retrospective about it (SotL's Lector seemed "obvious" when compared to Cox's understated version).

But as I've said, I think Hopkins works as the Protagonist's (audience's) guide through hell if we're going to get into storytelling mechanics. Or in terms of performance-in-context he's the devil you know. Something the audience can feel safe dealing with (if that makes sense) while other much darker stuff is going on.

The genius of Harris was to put his biggest, scariest monster behind bars so you could get up close to him like a lion at the zoo, but without making him toothless/ineffectual. Once Lector is out and about, the story is over. The audience's own mind is going to play out scarier fantasies than a filmmaker can. But with characters like Dollarhyde and Gum, they're so weird and unfamiliar that you need a guide into their world, which is Lector.

Edit:
Just remember that while Lector's escape is "big" and bloody, it's about mis-direction of both the characters and the audience. The guy strung up on the cage and gutted is there to draw full attention away from the other guy on the floor. It works on two levels, both conceptually and as "peak" emotional moment. While you're meant to be impressed by the "glory" of it, you're also being tricked into letting your guard down. Lector's effectively out of the movie after that, but the idea of him being out distracts the audience in regards to Gum. Which gives you that ending where Starling suddenly finds herself face to face with the "unfamiliar" devil, isolated and with no back-up.
Reply
post #45 of 59
7/21/10 at 7:08pm
Thread Starter 

Re: Silence of the Lambs (1991)

Well damn it. All this talk of Cox in Manhunter means I'm finally going to have to pop the cherry and see a Lecter film besides Silence.

But all the focus on Lecter still bugs me. He's essentially Virgil to Starling's (and Graham's?) Dante. These other characters are meant to be just as important, if not as flashy.
Reply
post #46 of 59
7/21/10 at 7:45pm
You and me both, Mercury. After recently rewatching the Criterion edition of Silence of the Lambs, I"m keenly interested to see Cox' take on Lecter. (And the commentary, though strange - it sounds like recorded clips from each individual rather than them sitting down to watch the film - is superb).

I thought Manhunt was a videogame...
Reply
post #47 of 59
7/21/10 at 7:49pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wayward_Woman View Post
You and me both, Mercury. After recently rewatching the Criterion edition of Silence of the Lambs, I"m keenly interested to see Cox' take on Lecter. (And the commentary, though strange - it sounds like recorded clips from each individual rather than them sitting down to watch the film - is superb).

I thought Manhunt was a videogame...
They sometimes do just that for audio commentaries, actually.

Manhunt is a video game. Manhunter is a Michael Mann movie. Coincidentally, the villainous warden from Manhunt is voiced by Brian Cox.
Reply
post #48 of 59
7/22/10 at 2:08am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mercury318 View Post
Well damn it. All this talk of Cox in Manhunter means I'm finally going to have to pop the cherry and see a Lecter film besides Silence.
I'd be curious to hear what you think. I don't like Manhunter very much, but a lot of people really seem to. My self-serving theory is it's a contrarian view. I really dislike William Peterson in it, and the 80s cop show funk sticks to it like cat hair. I think I'd rather watch Red Dragon again, because it at least had Ralph Fiennes.
Reply
post #49 of 59
7/22/10 at 2:22am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Macken View Post
That's awfully dismissive of you, I don't see how it would be considered "baffling" or "crazy talk" to prefer Cox to Hopkins. It's 2 actors playing the same role, within a 10 year time period. It's hardly an unfair comparison, even if Hopkins has more screen time.

Like I said, seeing Manhunter first is probably the root cause of this, but why would it be wrong to say Hopkins' as Lecter is more than a little bit campy? Particularly when compared to Cox.

I wasn't aware that Hopkins' Lecter was closer to the Lecter of the book, and I'm certainly not saying Hopkins gave a poor performance, just for the record. That would be ridiculous.


On a side note, did I imagine that Lecter was a college counselor for coeds that was caught killing is patients in Manhunter? And if so, why would they change that in SOTL?
Do they even mention him being a cannibal in Manhunter? I don't remember.
Reply
post #50 of 59
7/22/10 at 5:43am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arjen Rudd View Post
I'd be curious to hear what you think. I don't like Manhunter very much, but a lot of people really seem to. My self-serving theory is it's a contrarian view. I really dislike William Peterson in it, and the 80s cop show funk sticks to it like cat hair. I think I'd rather watch Red Dragon again, because it at least had Ralph Fiennes.
Ralph Fiennes, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Edward Norton, Harvey Keitel, Emily Watson, Lambs screenwriter Ted Tally, and Hopkins as what he called "an angrier Hannibal"...how do you fuck up Red Dragon with that group? (Yeah, yeah...)
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Films in Release or On Video
CHUD.com Community › Forums › SPECIFIC FILMS › Films in Release or On Video › Silence of the Lambs (1991)