Where'd My Heart Go? (Silence Of The Lambs (DVD))

Member Name: Peakly

Product:	Silence Of The Lambs (DVD)
Date:	10/08/01 (460 review reads)
Rating:

Advantages: General Acting, Imagination, Visual & Audio Greatness

Disadvantages: Hopkins Is Unconvincing, Not THAT Smart, Slightly Over-Rated

In 1991, The Silence Of The Lambs (based on a Thomas Harris novel by the same name) premiered in cinemas and quickly became highly acclaimed by audiences and critics alike. The winner of several Oscars (including the biggies), The Silence Of The Lambs is undoubtedly set to become a ‘classic’ after enough time has passed, and the general consensus that it’s a work of genius would take a lot to reverse – particularly since the character of Hannibal ‘The Cannibal’ Lector has became as fondly remembered as Hitchcock’s ‘Norman Bates’ or Lucas’s ‘Darth Vader’ in our collective memory. The film is widely acknowledged as the finest example in the other-wise bland genre of ‘psychological-thriller’, and, surprisingly for any big-budget release, is generally branded as ‘though-provoking’.

Perhaps it’s little more then a feeble effort to appear knowledgeable and strong-minded by opposing popular opinion, perhaps it’s negativity on my behalf sub conscious seeking flaws in a film with such high-expectations, but my first viewing of The Silence Of The Lambs did leave me wondering what exactly the fuss was about. More on that later.


The plot, for those of you who are unfamiliar, centres around trainee FBI agent Clarice Starling’s (Jodie Foster) attempts to track down a serial-killer nick-named ‘Buffalo Bill’(Ted Levine) – an investigation that requires her to question the other leading character (infamous ‘Hannibal Lector’) in his high security jail cell. It is believed that Lector, a man as brilliantly intelligent as he is truly insane, holds vital information concerning the identity of Buffalo Bill, who has really wound everybody up by kidnapping the daughter of high-powered American politician. The FBI, in their movie wisdom, decide recruiting a young, female rookie is more sensible then putting their top, m
ost experienced agents on the case. This apparently stupid move is justified in two ways as I see it – the excuse to have a beautiful woman in the role, and as beneficial to the plot, which sees Lector ‘playing’ with his interviewers mind. The film follows Starling’s often rocky path to tracking down Buffalo Bill, and, for a smaller amount of time, Hannibal Lector’s untimely escape from jail, climaxing predictably with a one-on-one between the Agent and the murderer she seeks. The search for Buffalo Bill takes Starling to a variety of locations and through several, often gruesome scenes – most famously, of course, a glass-sheet away from the most unthinkable and dangerous criminal alive.


Now, may I begin to tell you what I really think?


Tame at first then. Although I have my criticism of the film, and certainly do not agree with many of the compliments aimed at plot and character alike, it is undeniable that The Silence Of Lambs is a well-accomplished and executed movie. The pacing of the story is the result of fine editing, writing and reasonable penetrating direction on the behalf of Jonathan Demme, whose other achievements include the powerful ‘Philadelphia’. The movie does an excellent job of varying the scenes designed to excite, and those designed the familiarise and develop its characters – this ensures the film can not be labelled simply an ‘action movie’ and easier then it can be labelled a ‘thriller’ or ‘drama’. The best films stand alone, and can not be encapsulated in a single term such as ‘action flick’ liked (shudder) Jurassic Park 3, et al.

As well as being expertly paced, the film is also wonderfully imaginative and varied, both in plot and character – though I suspect this is more a credit to the book then the anything else. Starling’s journey to track down Buffalo Bill is refreshingly eventf
ul, and the timing of each plot revelation/advancement is perfectly in-tune with her character. The audience is slowly shown the extremes of both Buffalo Bill’s and Hannibal Lector’s capabilities as psychopaths, and a cool, calm approach is taken to revealing the films most shocking scenes - residing through-out the writing is a feeling of supreme confidence and willingness to be patient when playing its ‘trump cards’. As I say, the film also brims generously with imagination – particularly visual. Thanks to some truly atmospheric and well though-out lighting and an powerful set design, both Lector’s cell (and the walk to reach it) and Bill’s ‘dungeon’ looks and feels wonderful. The level of attention to detail in each set is wonderful, and yet another thing that separates the good movies from the great. Camera angles, unfortunately, do not vary as much as if often beneficial to movies of this ilk. Though competent, the typical array of establishing long-shots and ‘intimate’ close-ups aren’t quite as spectacular as a movie of this grandeur deserves, though there is an interesting POV perspective used during the films finale.

Another area where the move is triumphant is it’s musical score and general sound effects, which, though arguably of minor importance, do go a long way to giving the movie the impact it strives so hard to achieve. The soundtrack, as far as my knowledge allows, is void of recognisable names for me to offer, however, I can assure you that The Silence Of The Lamb’s music is as perfectly fitting as in any other movie I’ve seen (with the possible exception of Thomas Newman’s contributions to ‘American Beauty’). Other, more minor things, such as Starlings hollow, intrusive foot-steps upon the jail flow, or the metallic rasp of Lectors voice (more on that later) all result in creating a powerful audio experience.


On
then, finally, to the acting. Much of SOTL’s success if accredited to performances of both Anthony Hopkins as Lector and Jodie Foster as Starling. It is on this point I disagree with the majority of people.

Though Jodie Foster was fully deserved of her Oscar, I do feel that Anthony Hopkins is often over-rated by fans in love with his Hannibal character. To be honest, I found him detrimental to film’s overall mood. His deliverance is often described as haunting and memorable, though I found it to be the exact opposite – his efforts to act ‘insane’ were, I thought, as clichéd and embarrassing as a cartoon villain, and his glaring eyes and cutting pronunciation were, as I saw it, worryingly adherent to the mad-man stereotype. Put it this way – if I, or indeed you, were asked to play the part of a psychopath for the purpose of a party game (or similar), I suspect we’d do exactly what Hopkins did, which is to wear an intense stare and talk in muted-anger tones. He wasn’t terrible, by any means, though considering how widely loved he is for this role, I did expect to be better convinced. Worthy of an Oscar? I honestly can’t say I think so. Any actor should be able to portray a character as over-the-top and comic-book as Hannibal Lector – particularly given the array of quotable lines in his script, and I honestly didn’t find his performance chilling or freighting at all. To be honest, I thought Ted Levine’s depiction of ‘Buffalo Bill’, an insane cross-dresser, was much more intense – perhaps had the plot allowed the character the screen-time he deserved, it would be Levine who we slap on posters. Frankly, though the Lector is a more interesting character on paper, Ted Levine made a lot more his character then Hopkins did, and I think he’s been over-looked in this movie. The scenes in which Levine ‘wore’ his victims skin and applied make-up to h
is face was, I think, more haunting then Lector’s ‘interrogation’ of Starling. The fact is, in a role as perversely likeable as that of Hannibal Lector, Hopkins could never fail to become a hero.

Returning to Jodie Foster then. You’ll be pleased to know, she was magnificent in her role. I found her entirely convincing, and unlike all other characters, she never seemed to weaken or struggle with her dialogue. Although a bit life-less towards the start, be the end (particularly during her challenging final scenes), Foster had done more then enough to convince her audience – proving, again, what a fine actress she can be. During the exchanges with Lector, she portrayed perfectly her characters struggle between being professional, and succumbing to the probing and manipulation of her psyche. Her desperation to solve the case and track down Buffalo Bill was highly believable, and I honesty believe the film owes a lot to her performance.

Of the sub-characters, the general standard is high – again, another small factor that makes a superb movie. Most noticeable was the man who played Foster’s ‘boss’. Though I have reservations about his character and importance within the plot (more on that later), I can’t argue the mans fulfilment of his modest role. Even the Lectors nemesis and chief warden, an actor whose name I sadly can not recall (tell me in a comment if you know, and I’ll edit), was acceptable as the films ‘annoying’ character.


Sadly, despite generally excellent acting, there still remains a few things about the film I could not forgive.

The character I mentioned before, the FBI official who instructs Starling, seemed confusing and miss-leading to the point of distraction. For some reason I was lead to feel highly suspicious of the man – almost to the point were I suspected he was behind it all, in some bizarre way. His every scen
e stank of corruption… something not being quite right… in the end, nothing was made of it. He really was a good guy. I’m not sure if this was bad casting (I don’t think so, as I considered the actor talented) or bad writing, but his presence seemed to threaten being important, but never really went anywhere. A minor criticism, I expect, but worth a mention.

Another problem I have, and this is perhaps the most damaging in my estimation of the film, is that audiences and the film it’s self both seem to be under the impression that Silence Of The Lambs is some kind of a brain-teaser, or of real psychological impact. Returning again to the character of Hannibal Lector – much is made, again by audiences and the film, of the fact he is highly intelligent and of ‘penetrating mind’. To be honest, I think this is grossly over-stated.

Hannibal Lector was supposedly trying to ‘get in to the mind’ of Clarice Starling, though all this seemed to consist of is him asking her about her childhood – the ultimate result of which, was a story about her waking to cry of slaughtered lambs in the middle of night (hence the title). Then Lector’s ‘incredible mind’ deducts that Starling’s determination to save to captured girl (held by Buffalo Bill) is a manifestation of her desire to combat her memories of the slaughter lambs. This stinks of cheap psychoanalysis, and really should not pass as ‘the psychology of a brilliant mind’. The fact is, we never seem to find out why exactly Lector gives a cr*p about Starling’s past – other then to try and make the film seem more intelligent and deep then it actually is. As far as I can tell, the entirety of the Lector/Starling relationship is designed to set the film above typical crime-thrillers… it just doesn’t quite make it. All it did was the set the film up for an anti-climax – Lector e
scapes, and we expect something to happen between he and Starling… perhaps something to do with the analysis he made of her… then nothing happens between the two except a phone call at the end making room for a sequel. Anti-climax, and pointless. Anyone who thinks this film is anymore intelligent then any other typical crime-thriller is, I suspect, either swept up in the hype or genuinely seeing something I am not.


All in all though, I can’t fault Silence Of The Lambs for anything other the not being quite as brilliant as most people seem to think. It’s good, of course, just not the master-piece I expected – and certainly not as thought-provoking or intelligent as is claimed. The acting, despite my problems with Anthony Hopkins, was a general five star standard – particularly Jodie Foster, who’s performance almost makes the film worth watching on its own. The story is imaginative, and the action is well-paced. Scenes worth particular mention include the final show-down between Starling and Buffalo Bill, and Lectors murder of the two prison wardens prior to his escape. Recommended.

The film’s an 18, and runs for almost two hours – that means it’s best to send your kids upstairs, and make sure your comfortable. Enjoy, though don’t think you’re going to see Hannibal The Cannibal enjoy his favourite lunch – the movie isn’t quite that gruesome. Sadly.

Summary: