Wednesday, March 1, 2017

The Silence of the Lambs


After the Lecter appetizer in Red Dragon, I dove into film The Silence of the Lambs (1991) with an appetite for a terrifying and startling psycho. I have seen the movie before, numerous times, but watching it again with more attention to how the story works brought me another perspective. This movie is even more impressive once it is viewed with a critical lens.
The portrayal of the FBI was solid. As I’ve mentioned before, I’m not an expert on FBI/Police work, but everything in this film felt real. Not just the basic protocol or tools of investigation, but the interactions between the authority characters. There is some tension between local police and the FBI in almost a bit of a territorial manner. I would expect this is true to some degree in the field. The FBI, especially Crawford, uses every possible advantage to get information. Crawford essential uses the ambitious Starling as a tactical tool to get Lecter’s cooperation. A fake deal is offered to Lecter, which is countered by Chilton’s deal. A higher degree of politics weaved through this plot than what one might realize if viewing it just for entertainment.
The dog eat dog mentality of many of the characters makes Starling stand out as almost an innocent among the wolves (or in this case, a lamb among those who would slaughter her). Crawford will use any means possible to catch his man and Chilton would do the same to gain notoriety. Starling’s focus is on saving the girl, which gives her a more heroic vibe among the rest of the cast. This is why her interactions with Lecter feel real. He can see the genuine need to protect and rescue that is missing from the other people that have come to consult him. This fascinates Lecter, who lacks the very empathy that is Starling’s defining feature.
Such a polite host

This film features two serial killers. This actually works well to heighten the growing tension and danger in the story. There is a heavy sense of psychological terror in Starling and Lecter’s encounters, while Buffalo Bill is the physical threat. The killers are also beautifully contrasted. For Lecter, killing is a pleasure in and of itself. He has no sympathy for his victims. Buffalo Bill kills for an end product. He purposely dehumanizes his victims, calling them “it” as the killing is a chore to get him what he really wants. Buffalo Bill does have the capability for sympathy but he makes a choice to ignore it. While both are horrific killers, Lecter rises as the more chilling psycho.
The main criticism of this film is typically the presentation of Buffalo Bill as an LBGTQ character. When the film premiered in 1991, positive portrayals of LBGTQ character were rare. I have torn feelings on this. In some ways, this character did seem like he was sending the message that LBGTQ people are mentally ill and potential dangerous. It’s hard to ignore the only character that isn’t straight in this film is a serial killer whose gender orientation/sexuality is one of the greatest motivating factors in why he kills.
Nice nipple ring dude

However, I also don’t think it’s fair to assume that a negative representation was the point for the character’s confused sexuality/gender issues. It is mentioned by Lecter that Buffalo Bill isn’t really transsexual, rather he just hates himself so much he desires to be someone else and being a woman would fulfill that desire. This is vital to the motivation for his murders. He needed to have a reason that made sense in his head for abducting, killing, and skinning his victims for his suit. I know I might get slack for this but I don’t think this is a purposeful jab at the LBGTQ community, just like there are many women or black characters in fiction that may be antagonistic or villainous not because of their gender or skin color but because of their personality and actions. There is more to Buffalo Bill that has led to his warped interpretation of the world.  I’m going to chalk this up to freedom of expression in art, even if I found it personally on the distasteful side for the LBGTQ community.
There are oodles of motifs and themes coursing through this story. The idea of transformation is clear here in Buffalo Bill with the moths. Not only does Bill feel he is transforming into a new form with his suit, but he feels the women he kills are transformed as materials for his purpose. Death is also transformational in other regards, such as for Starling. Her father’s death and her uncle’s slaughter of the spring lambs transformed her from girl into one seeking to save others. Animals as representation of characters appear for both Starling as a lamb and Buffalo Bill as the moth. Lecter’s god complex is visually shown through his treatment of the guards body splayed open and positioned on the cage like an angel. The treatment of women as inferior or objects is repeated through the murders and how Starling is treated throughout the story.

Overall, this film lives up to praise and awards it’s received. It’s visually disturbing at points and hits all the right psychological notes to conjure nightmares. This solid of a tension fueled plot will never become dated. Watch it again, and then again.

4 comments:

  1. Vanessa, I totally agree with you about Buffalo Bill. There's no telling what Thomas Harris was thinking when he wrote the character, or if he thought that LGBTQ people are inherently mentally ill. But, I think in this instance the Jame Gumb character's desire to be a woman is less about gender identity than his place in the world. He loathes himself for some reason (and I haven't read the book in a looooong time, so it might be in there), and he desires change. That's it. Unless Gumb was trying to turn into a cat or butterfly, this was the only way I can think of for Harris to use this plot.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Buffalo Bill dehumanizing his victims is probably everyone's favorite part. Or at least it's mine. "It puts the lotion in the basket." However, even thought Buffalo Bill is transgender, I never thought about how that might be perceived to the LGBTQ community. Actually, I never thought about it much at all. I felt it was just a part of his character, a part of who he was and what he wanted. So, even though I agree with you in the fact that it wasn't a jab at the LGBTQ community, I'm glad you pointed out.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Honestly, whether or not the LGBTQ community "took offense" at Buffalo Bill's character, or not (and it did, incidentally) should be irrelevant. Bill wanted to be something "else" -- for him, that was female. For Patrick Bateman, his "something else" was to be "less bored." And really, what says "complete acceptance into the larger culture" better than having a transgender character get to be a serial killer like everyone else!
    Besides, Harris has already noted that Buffalo Bill was an amalgamation of Ed Gein and a few other serial killers. If anyone was getting "jabbed", it was serial killers (who would probably enjoy it.)
    Aside from all that, I loved how you picked up on all the threads of transformation running through this movie. Great post.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I did not like Crawford in any of Harris's books or in this movie. It's obvious that he's a manipulator, and he'll send the lambs to the slaughter if there's even a hope he'll catch the wolf.

    ReplyDelete