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.

Popular posts from this blog

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

In a few moments, you will have an experience that will seem completely real. It will be the result of your subconscious fears transformed into your conscious awareness.

Brainstorm (1983) (SPOILERS) Might Brainstorm have been the next big thing – a ground-breaking, game-changing cinematic spectacle that had as far reaching consequences as Star Wars (special effects) or Avatar (3D) – if only Douglas Trumbull had been allowed to persevere with his patented “Showscan” process (70mm film photographed and projected at 60 frames per second)? I suspect not; one only has to look at the not-so-far-removed experiment of Ang Lee with Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk , and how that went down like a bag of cold sick, to doubt that any innovation will necessarily catch on (although Trumbull at least had a narrative hinge on which to turn his “more real than real” imagery, whereas Lee’s pretty much boiled down to “because it was there”). Brainstorm ’s story is, though, like its title, possibly too cerebral, too much concerned with the consciousness and touting too little of the cloyingly affirmative that Bruce Rubin inevitably brings to his screenplays. T

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989) (SPOILERS) There’s Jaws , there’s Star Wars , and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws ’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy , to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “ more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie ”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “ mainly boring ”. Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013) (SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight ; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.

Do you know that the leading cause of death for beavers is falling trees?

The Interpreter (2005) Sydney Pollack’s final film returns to the conspiracy genre that served him well in both the 1970s ( Three Days of the Condor ) and the 1990s ( The Firm ). It also marks a return to Africa, but in a decidedly less romantic fashion than his 1985 Oscar winner. Unfortunately the result is a tepid, clichéd affair in which only the technical flourishes of its director have any merit. The film’s main claim to fame is that Universal received permission to film inside the United Nations headquarters. Accordingly, Pollack is predictably unquestioning in its admiration and respect for the organisation. It is no doubt also the reason that liberal crusader Sean Penn attached himself to what is otherwise a highly generic and non-Penn type of role. When it comes down to it, the argument rehearsed here of diplomacy over violent resolution is as banal as they come. That the UN is infallible moral arbiter of this process is never in any doubt. The cynicism