Talking To The Screen
Silence of the Lambs
?Silence of the Lambs? gives me hope in modern Hollywood cinema. Yes, the majority of what is produced is trite, or just bad, but occasionally in the vast wasteland there are acmes of film artistry and execution.
I?ll ruin the surprise of reading this review by coming right out and saying, ?I have no negative remarks to make about ?Silence of the Lambs??.
So, on to the positive.
1. Hannibal Lector is one of if not the most terrifying villain to come out of movies in the last, say, 20 years. (I?d also include, The Joker from Batman and Bill the Butcher in Gangs of New York.) Lector is established as fantastical immediately. (?His pulse never got above 85, even when he ate her tongue.? ?You use Evian skin cream, and sometimes your wear L'Air du Temps, but not today.? ?You see a lot doctor? He kills Miggs with his words.) This establishment of his extraordinary nature from the onset sets up the power plays between he and Clarice that run throughout the film.
2. Jodie Fostor as Clarice Starling brings the goods. Her arc from na?ve cadet to confident agent is flawless?and incomplete. By the end of the picture, she is so far from where she started, but there is no glorification of her transformation. She is still a cadet; kept out of the ?final? raid. She is still vulnerable; comforted by Crawford when leaving Bill?s house.
3. The treatment of sexuality is outstanding. Clarice v. Chilton. Clarice v. Migs. Clarice v. Lector. Clarice v. Crawford. Clarice v. room full of local cops. Bill v. victims. Bill v. Bill. Lector v. Sen. Martin. Every one of these pairings offers depth to each involved character, and augments the uneasy mood of the film.
4. Bill is the villain. Hannibal is fascinating, and terrifying, but still very much an assistant to Clarice. That Buffalo Bill never kills in the film, while Hannibal does, plays with the viewers sympathies. Neither of these serial killers are worthy of pathos. Bill: ?Put the fucking lotion in the basket!? is truly heartfelt; He is not a completely cold blooded killer, though he is extremely troubled. ?Would you fuck me? I?d fuck me.? The rapport that develops between Starling and Lector demands at least respect given to Hannibal. He is undoubtedly a monster, but the refined and sarcastic air he brings frames him as fairly likable. Until his escape, the monster within is completely hidden.
5. Actors are frequently shot in the center of the frame, facing the camera often in close up. This clear, bold shot is tragically underused by Hollywood film. Gratuitous pans and moving cameras while very professional, and technically difficult, feel wishy-washy. This shot says, ?look here, I?m showing you something?. (I don?t think Speilberg has ever used it.) It also allows the actors to communicate with their face better than any other. (?One Hour Photo? used it quite well, as did ?The Rules of Attraction?.) As an interesting side note, until my latest viewing of ?Silence of the Lambs?, I didn?t notice how abundant this shot was. I had noticed it elsewhere, fell in love with it, but didn?t make the connection back to ?Lambs?. Go figure.
One of the best movies I?ve ever seen.
I?ll ruin the surprise of reading this review by coming right out and saying, ?I have no negative remarks to make about ?Silence of the Lambs??.
So, on to the positive.
1. Hannibal Lector is one of if not the most terrifying villain to come out of movies in the last, say, 20 years. (I?d also include, The Joker from Batman and Bill the Butcher in Gangs of New York.) Lector is established as fantastical immediately. (?His pulse never got above 85, even when he ate her tongue.? ?You use Evian skin cream, and sometimes your wear L'Air du Temps, but not today.? ?You see a lot doctor? He kills Miggs with his words.) This establishment of his extraordinary nature from the onset sets up the power plays between he and Clarice that run throughout the film.
2. Jodie Fostor as Clarice Starling brings the goods. Her arc from na?ve cadet to confident agent is flawless?and incomplete. By the end of the picture, she is so far from where she started, but there is no glorification of her transformation. She is still a cadet; kept out of the ?final? raid. She is still vulnerable; comforted by Crawford when leaving Bill?s house.
3. The treatment of sexuality is outstanding. Clarice v. Chilton. Clarice v. Migs. Clarice v. Lector. Clarice v. Crawford. Clarice v. room full of local cops. Bill v. victims. Bill v. Bill. Lector v. Sen. Martin. Every one of these pairings offers depth to each involved character, and augments the uneasy mood of the film.
4. Bill is the villain. Hannibal is fascinating, and terrifying, but still very much an assistant to Clarice. That Buffalo Bill never kills in the film, while Hannibal does, plays with the viewers sympathies. Neither of these serial killers are worthy of pathos. Bill: ?Put the fucking lotion in the basket!? is truly heartfelt; He is not a completely cold blooded killer, though he is extremely troubled. ?Would you fuck me? I?d fuck me.? The rapport that develops between Starling and Lector demands at least respect given to Hannibal. He is undoubtedly a monster, but the refined and sarcastic air he brings frames him as fairly likable. Until his escape, the monster within is completely hidden.
5. Actors are frequently shot in the center of the frame, facing the camera often in close up. This clear, bold shot is tragically underused by Hollywood film. Gratuitous pans and moving cameras while very professional, and technically difficult, feel wishy-washy. This shot says, ?look here, I?m showing you something?. (I don?t think Speilberg has ever used it.) It also allows the actors to communicate with their face better than any other. (?One Hour Photo? used it quite well, as did ?The Rules of Attraction?.) As an interesting side note, until my latest viewing of ?Silence of the Lambs?, I didn?t notice how abundant this shot was. I had noticed it elsewhere, fell in love with it, but didn?t make the connection back to ?Lambs?. Go figure.
One of the best movies I?ve ever seen.