Skip to main content

You're very frank, Clarice. I think it would be quite something to know you in private life.

The Silence of the Lambs
(1991)

(SPOILERS) I was pleased for The Silence of the Lambs’ Oscar glory, a rare genre entry to be bestowed such garlands, even though I didn’t think it was the most deserving of that year’s nominees (that would be JFK, Oliver Stone’s crowning achievement, after which he would never be quite the same again). Indeed, while it’s generally regarded with hindsight as one the Academy definitely got right, I don’t think it’s even the best Thomas Harris adaptation.

Maybe it’s simply that I read the novel first, and so I was spoiled for its content, but even though I saw Lambs three times on the big screen, I was never on the edge of my seat, never felt I was encountering the page-turning tension Harris elicited. The film version is a curiously unterrifying affair, failing even to disturb on a psychological level, despite director Jonathan Demme evoking a compellingly brooding, overcast atmosphere, ably assisted by Howard Shore’s foreboding score.

Demme’s The Silence of the Lambs is very much horror as gothic drama, as evidenced by its acting category wins; it’s a case where characters tending to the theatrically larger than life or cartoonish works in its favour, the over-written rather than naturalistic dialogue delivered with lip-smacking relish by Anthony Hopkins in particular. Many of Demme’s creative choices work in Lambs’ overall favour – it’s nothing if not a crowd pleaser – but it’s also peppered with his usual entourage dating to his Corman days (including Corman himself), suggesting nothing so much as an indulgent John Landis movie and that he had no premonition of the recognition it would ultimately receive (compare it to the impersonality of his prestige pictures that followed, accepted into the ranks of Hollywood director royalty at the cost of the idiosyncrasy that made his prior work so appealing).

Now Manhunter, even given its rather dated (but still rather splendid) soundtrack, is a movie that gets under the skin, one that treats the procedural (rather than horror as gothic drama, it’s horror as police procedural) as central rather than becoming captivated by its guest-star serial killer, and which, despite its neon sheen, is suffused with unnerving moments and palpable dread. Despite being a visual showman, Mann underplays Harris’ taste for excess to the benefit of the whole; the picture might have been a box office failure, but it has as strong, if not a stronger, a personality as Lambs. It’s just that, crucially, it’s a less giving one. Demme is also restrained in many respects – he certainly avoids the Grand Guignol that Ridley Scott would subsequently bring to Hannibal – yet he simultaneously doubles down in other areas: the seedy, crumbling subterranean prison environment and medieval restraints, the very nature of Hopkins’ showboat performance (most impressive might actually be how Tak Fujimoto shoots the actor, certainly as striking as the Oscar-winning ham himself), the affected preening of Buffalo Bill.

Which, of course, received a fair amount of criticism at the time. In retrospect, while kicking a hot potato doesn’t help, I think it’s less that Harris and co were wading into sensitive territory with the transgender-as-killer theme – Clarice rather clumsily attempts to diffuse this with a few lines – than that Ted Levine’s performance is such an exaggerated display of lisping campness, complete with poodle called Precious.

Hopkins is highly entertaining, of course, amped up to eleven (“Thrill me with your acumen”), but he’s possibly been given too much rope; Lector’s a menace, but he isn’t chilling the way Brian Cox is. He’s too warm, too debonair, too chummy. Ted Tally services him with nothing but choice lines (“I myself cannot” in response to Multiple Miggs’ crude suggestion to Clarice that “I can smell your cunt”; “Love the suit” to the senator) and a winning irreverence. It’s the clearest evidence here that Demme’s roots lie in exploitation cinema. In contrast, Starling’s unadulterated, overwrought earnestness is almost too much of a different order, thus encouraging our siding with Lecter’s infectious cynicism and wit. She’s much better as an identification figure during the tail end’s protagonist-in-peril than showing off her guilelessness during the Lector meet cutes.

The plotting, at times, is retrospectively forehead-slapping – what a tiny, tiny universe of interconnected killers Harris has created, whereby Lector just happens to know the psycho he’s being consulted on? – while Lector proffers the kind of clues and verbal plays that suggest he knows he’s in a work of fiction. The dark memory of the Lambs’ titular centrepiece confession meanwhile, is rather trite cod psychology, not something one can imagine the disgraced therapist would genuinely get a kick from. And as for the wrong house being SWAT teamed, that was, to my recollection, a familiar twist even then. But there’s some good interplay between Foster and Glenn (“Do you think he wants to fuck you?” primes us for just one wrongly positioned intonation from the latter), and Anthony Heald is simply marvellous as legend-in-his-own-mind Dr Chiltern.

The Silence of the Lambs, of course, spawned both the ‘90s serial-killer genre and that of the FBI hero protagonist (okay, Dale Cooper came first, but then there was Fox Mulder), so has a lot to answer for. Even more in the clamour for a sequel, which ended up seeing Harris, if not killing his children, then perversely besmirching them. If he had been sensible, rather than desperate to divest himself of the responsibility and so give the public something they didn’t want, he would have dispensed with Clarice for the third Lector instalment the way he unceremoniously did Graham following Red Dragon. Generally, I’d say The Silence of the Lambs holds up. It hasn’t dated so much as the tropes it spawned now make it seem so much more familiar than it was at the time, but it was never quite the work of unsung genius its reputation suggested.




Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

No matter how innocent you are, or how hard you try, they’ll find you guilty.

The Wrong Man (1956) (SPOILERS) I hate to say it, but old Truffaut called it right on this one. More often than not showing obeisance to the might of Hitchcock during his career-spanning interview, the French critic turned director was surprisingly blunt when it came to The Wrong Man . He told Hitch “ your style, which has found its perfection in the fiction area, happens to be in total conflict with the aesthetics of the documentary and that contradiction is apparent throughout the picture ”. There’s also another, connected issue with this, one Hitch acknowledged: too much fidelity to the true story upon which the film is based.

He’s so persistent! He always gets his man.

Speed (1994) (SPOILERS) It must have been a couple of decades since I last viewed Speed all the way through, so it’s pleasing to confirm that it holds up. Sure, Jan de Bont’s debut as a director can’t compete with the work of John McTiernan, for whom he acted as cinematographer and who recommended de Bont when he passed on the picture, but he nevertheless does a more than competent work. Which makes his later turkeys all the more tragic. And Keanu and Sandra Bullock display the kind of effortless chemistry you can’t put a price tag on. And then there’s Dennis Hopper, having a great old sober-but-still-looning time.

How would Horatio Alger have handled this situation?

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998) (SPOILERS) Gilliam’s last great movie – The Zero Theorem (2013) is definitely underrated, but I don’t think it’s that underrated – Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas could easily have been too much. At times it is, but in such instances, intentionally so. The combination of a visual stylist and Hunter S Thompson’s embellished, propulsive turn of phrase turns out, for the most part, to be a cosmically aligned affair, embracing the anarchic abandon of Raoul Duke and Doctor Gonzo’s Las Vegas debauch while contriving to pull back at crucial junctures in order to engender a perspective on all this hedonism. Would Alex Cox, who exited stage left, making way for the Python, have produced something interesting? I suspect, ironically, he would have diluted Thompson in favour of whatever commentary preoccupied him at the time (indeed, Johnny Depp said as much: “ Cox had this great material to work with and he took it and he added his own stuff to it ”). Plus

But everything is wonderful. We are in Paris.

Cold War (2018) (SPOILERS) Pawel Pawlikowski’s elliptical tale – you can’t discuss Cold War without saying “elliptical” at least once – of frustrated love charts a course that almost seems to be a caricature of a certain brand of self-congratulatorily tragic European cinema. It was, it seems “ loosely inspired ” by his parents (I suspect I see where the looseness comes in), but there’s a sense of calculation to the progression of this love story against an inescapable political backdrop that rather diminishes it.

He is a brigand and a lout. Pay him no serious mention.

The Wind and the Lion (1975) (SPOILERS) John Milius called his second feature a boy’s-own adventure, on the basis of the not-so-terrified responses of one of those kidnapped by Sean Connery’s Arab Raisuli. Really, he could have been referring to himself, in all his cigar-chomping, gun-toting reactionary glory, dreaming of the days of real heroes. The Wind and the Lion rather had its thunder stolen by Jaws on release, and it’s easy to see why. As polished as the picture is, and simultaneously broad-stroke and self-aware in its politics, it’s very definitely a throwback to the pictures of yesteryear. Only without the finger-on-the-pulse contemporaneity of execution that would make Spielberg and Lucas’ genre dives so memorable in a few short years’ time.

The game is rigged, and it does not reward people who play by the rules.

Hustlers (2019) (SPOILERS) Sold as a female Goodfellas – to the extent that the producers had Scorsese in mind – this strippers-and-crime tale is actually a big, glossy puff piece, closer to Todd Phillips as fashioned by Lorene Scarfia. There are some attractive performances in Hustlers, notably from Constance Wu, but for all its “progressive” women work male objectification to their advantage posturing, it’s incredibly traditional and conservative deep down.

Another case of the screaming oopizootics.

Doctor Who Season 14 – Worst to Best The best Doctor Who season? In terms of general recognition and unadulterated celebration, there’s certainly a strong case to be made for Fourteen. The zenith of Robert Holmes and Philip Hinchcliffe’s plans for the series finds it relinquishing the cosy rapport of the Doctor and Sarah in favour of the less-trodden terrain of a solo adventure and underlying conflict with new companion Leela. More especially, it finds the production team finally stretching themselves conceptually after thoroughly exploring their “gothic horror” template over the course of the previous two seasons (well, mostly the previous one).

What do they do, sing madrigals?

The Singing Detective (2003) Icon’s remake of the 1986 BBC serial, from a screenplay by Dennis Potter himself. The Singing Detective fares less well than Icon’s later adaptation of Edge of Darkness , even though it’s probably more faithful to Potter’s original. Perhaps the fault lies in the compression of six episodes into a feature running a quarter of that time, but the noir fantasy and childhood flashbacks fail to engage, and if the hospital reality scans better, it too suffers eventually.

That’s what people call necromancer’s weather.

The Changes (1975) This adaptation of Peter Dickinson’s novel trilogy carries a degree of cult nostalgia cachet due to it being one of those more “adult” 1970s children’s serials (see also The Children of the Stones , The Owl Service ). I was too young to see it on its initial screening – or at any rate, too young to remember it – but it’s easy to see why it lingered in the minds of those who did. Well, the first episode, anyway. Not for nothing is The Changes seen as a precursor to The Survivors in the rural apocalypse sub-genre – see also the decidedly nastier No Blade of Grass – as following a fairly gripping opener, it drifts off into the realm of plodding travelogue.

You were a few blocks away? What’d you see it with, a telescope?

The Eyes of Laura Mars (1978) (SPOILERS) John Carpenter’s first serial-killer screenplay to get made, The Eyes of Laura Mars came out nearly three months before Halloween. You know, the movie that made the director’s name. And then some. He wasn’t best pleased with the results of The Eyes of Laura Mars, which ended up co-credited to David Zelag Goodman ( Straw Dogs , Logan’s Run ) as part of an attempt by producer Jon Peters to manufacture a star vehicle for then-belle Barbra Streisand: “ The original script was very good, I thought. But it got shat upon ”. Which isn’t sour grapes on Carpenter’s part. The finished movie bears ready evidence of such tampering, not least in the reveal of the killer (different in Carpenter’s conception). Its best features are the so-uncleanly-you-can-taste-it 70s New York milieu and the guest cast, but even as an early example of the sub-genre, it’s burdened by all the failings inherit with this kind of fare.