Connect with us

Published

on

Some characters are better when presented mysteriously, and such is definitely the case with Dr. Hannibal Lecter (Anthony Hopkins) in Jonathan Demme’s The Silence of the Lambs. Then again, he isn’t the only character harboring mysteries and secrets. In addition to the film’s other main serial killer, Jame “Buffalo Bill” Gumb (Ted Levine), you have FBI agent-in-training Clarice Starling (Jodie Foster). From the film’s beginning, we get a sense of her somewhat cold, distant, detached personality, and a lingering sense that she may have some mental ailment, something holding her back yet forcing her to prove herself.

Obviously, as The Silence of the Lambs progresses in its cat-and-mouse games, Dr. Lecter explores certain elements of her psyche, and there are no strong hints she is putting up a false front. Also, curiously, Hannibal seems to respect her for doing this, rather than sadistically toy with it as much as he could. This is, of course, in stark contrast with how he treats certain other characters, such as U.S. Senator Ruth Martin (Diane Baker), who is particularly victimized by his snide humor. So the question becomes: What is with Dr. Lecter’s decisions in this film? That’s as interesting as it is mysterious.

Dr. Lecter’s Perception as Shown in ‘The Silence of the Lambs’

Before he worked in Florence, Italy under the stolen identity of Dr. Fell in the film Hannibal, most of us knew Hannibal Lecter as an exceptionally unique inmate at the Baltimore State Hospital for the Criminally Insane (obviously, this title might now be deemed politically incorrect, but it flew back in 1991). We quite instantly recognize Lecter as a complex, intriguing, menacing character, who creepily never seems to blink and always has insight into the psychology of anyone in the room. Yes, he makes it clear to Clarice that he’s dangerous, but (in his own ways) tries to reassure her that he’s somehow a civilized murderous cannibal.

It’s a strange and volatile cocktail of character elements, and the average viewer surely wonders how many he has killed and fed from versus how many he has spared, and for what reasons. Also, because Clarice is difficult to read, we don’t quite know how vulnerable she really is to Dr. Lecter. We do know that, if he is unconvinced she is being genuine, he’s unlikely to assist her in any way. This already provides some insight into how his mind works. Like practically anyone else, Dr. Hannibal Lecter has some respect for honesty, integrity, and a willingness to engage one seriously and with fairness. At the same time, Lecter is aware of the dual nature of his engagements with Clarice, so he knows there must always be some level of deceit between the two of them, making The Silence of the Lambs a psychological game of cat-and-mouse.

Advertisement

Lecter’s More Refined Side vs. the Articulate, Brooding Brute Behind Glass

Because of the groundwork laid by The Silence of the Lambs, audiences came to know and respect who (and what) Dr. Lecter is. The events of this film helped us believe that, yes, Lecter can speak near-perfect Italian and is widely knowledgable about things like the history of Florence, Italy. We also recognize that, to a considerable degree, this veil of high culture and encyclopedic knowledge base allowed him to conceal his brutal side. In fact, we are given the impression that, if Clarice isn’t careful, she might think the stories she has heard about him are lies.

In a way, Clarice ends up lowering Dr. Lecter’s own defenses in the cat-and-mouse game, too. It seems he cannot approach her from any single angle, due to her often unassuming manner, yet she’s fully capable of challenging him if he is deceitful, showing a lack of fear and enough charisma to impress him. For example, Lecter blunders noticeably in his attempt to prevent her image from being sexless, as he improvises stories about her sexual encounters. She notes he is being crass, and he noticeably retreats from this psychological line of attack, or maybe even clumsy flirtation. It’s still interesting how this interpersonal mystery between the characters ties into solving the Buffalo Bill murders.

Would Dr. Lecter Kill Clarice?

I only vaguely remember the first time watching The Silence of the Lambs. However, I’m pretty sure I never assumed he planned to kill Starling by the movie’s end. Yes, he plans to make Dr. Frederick Chilton (Anthony Heald) into a special project, but there’s every reason to assume Dr. Lecter’s honest about not making her life a living hell. Quite simply, he likes her too much. It’s hard to say exactly why, but it doesn’t seem to be merely because he’s attracted to her, but he seems to respect her dedication.

Let’s face it, he also has the ability to pick and choose victims based on his own calculations, be they plain or esoteric to our own understandings. Although he is cold and calculating, he also seems capable of grasping things like empathy, at least intellectually. Thomas Harris-based films often play with this idea about killers being complex and evolving. As another example, Red Dragon‘s “Tooth Fairy” killer decides to torch his house to fake his own death (and ostensibly eliminate some evidence of his crimes).

In the end, all movies can be interpreted in any way we choose, with some ways being more plausible than others. In the universe firmly established in The Silence of the Lambs, it seems Clarice would have the luxury of safety from dying at his hands (or teeth). FBI Agent Jack Crawford (Scott Glenn) and Dr. Chilton are not wrong to call Lecter deadly, and that’s part of why his story has branched out well past 1991, and he has become one of the more complex horror icons out there.

Advertisement

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Movies n TV

Low point or a daring experiment? Halloween VI (1995) Review

Published

on

To a lot of fans, this is the film that killed the franchise. It says a lot that the next installment is yet another retcon. Halloween VI: The Curse of Michael Myers attempts to explain Michael’s unrelenting evil, which lead to mixed opinions from longtime fans. There are two cuts of the film, theatrical vs producer’s. For a lot of people, the latter is the only one worth mentioning. Aiming to be as accurate as possible, I will be talking about the producer’s cut. Let’s begin! 

Plot

We start Halloween VI with a six-year time jump from part five. Jamie is now barefoot and recently pregnant, running away from Michael as he wants her baby. While she manages to hide the little one away, Michael finally gets his hunger satiated by killing her. The moment is one of the most brutal ways in the franchise up until that point. Rest in peace, Jamie, you held your ground for as long as you could, the sequels were just too relentless. 

The movie then cuts to a whole different scene going on. We have a new family living in the Myers house and their youngest child is hearing voices telling him to kill his loved ones. Tommy Lloyd is watching the family, played by none other than Paul Rudd in his first-ever theatrical role. Tommy still carries trauma from the events all those years ago when Laurie Strode was babysitting him. So when he finds Jamie’s baby, his part in the story becomes even more essential. 

Advertisement

Dr Loomis also stars in what was Donald Pleasance’s final role before his passing. He and Tommy try to stop Michael once and for all before the cycle can repeat itself. As it turns out, Michael is a victim of a druid cult which makes him want to kill his family members every Halloween. Thorn, the cult in question, thinks they can control Michael and make him do their bidding. This results in catastrophe and Michael goes berzerk and kills all the cult members. Once again, it’s one of the most gruesome montages for the franchise up until that point.  

Tommy and Kara are left to face Michael on their own which they manage to do with some corrosive liquid and good luck. However, nothing stays dead in this franchise as it’s soon revealed Michael somehow escaped and this time Dr Loomis might not be so lucky… 

Overall thoughts

I would say for me personally Halloween VI definitely ranks somewhere near the bottom. The whole point of Michael is that there is no rhyme or reason to his killings and this film tries to go against that. I am glad the mistake was rectified by the upcoming installment. There were still some good things about it, such as Paul Rudd’s acting that reveals some raw talent as far as I’m concerned, as well as some direction choices and musical score. However, I also think it absolutely deserves all the criticism that it gets. 

Advertisement
2.5 out of 5 stars (2.5 / 5)

Continue Reading

Movies n TV

American Horror Stories, The Thing Under The Bed

Published

on

We’ve reached the final episode of American Horror Stories, season three. After the ups and downs of the season, I didn’t know what to expect. I felt that we were due a big finish, Killer Queens. But I feared we were in for a big letdown.

As it turns out, The Thing Under The Bed was neither.

The story

We begin our story with a little girl named Mary, who is scared of something under her bed. She sneaks out of her room, only to be caught by her father and sent back to sleep. And of course, there is something horrible waiting for her under her bed.

Debby Ryan in American Horror Stories.

This scene cuts away to a woman named Jillian. She has strange dreams, including one about Mary. But her husband, Mark, doesn’t want to hear about it. He’s only interested in a little lovemaking because he wants a baby. Jillian doesn’t, which makes total sense because she’s already married to one. But her irritation with her childish husband goes away when he goes away. And by goes away, I mean he’s sloppily devoured by something vicious under their bed.

Advertisement

What worked

In short, this episode just worked. The acting was professional and believable. The cinematography and lighting work were wonderful, adding spooky effects and startling moments without impairing visibility.

Best of all, the story was solid. There were no plotholes to be found. Our main character, Jillian, was relatable and sympathetic.

This was maybe my favorite part of the story. I thought Jillian was a remarkably sympathetic character. She was dealt a hand she never asked for, having her husband slaughtered in their bedroom. I don’t think she missed him, so much as she was afraid of the legal ramifications of being caught with literal blood on her hands.

Then, when it would have been safest for her to just lay low and save up for a good defense attorney, she instead goes into unlikely hero mode. She does her best to save people, putting herself in legal and physical danger. It’s hard not to root for her.

It’s also a little hard not to root for the antagonist, too. I don’t want to ruin the twist for you, so I’m going to tread lightly here. But it’s great when you have an antagonist who might be off their rocker, but also maybe has a point.

Advertisement

What didn’t work

I can only really think of one complaint with this episode. And that is how frequently one character says the word Chickadee. And if you’ve seen the episode, you know what I am talking about.

I get it, he has a pet name for his daughter. It’s adorable. It’s meant to convey that the two of them have a healthy loving relationship and I get it. We all get it. Blind monks get it. But the fact remains that no parent on Earth calls their kid by their pet name every single time they speak an individual sentence to them. It was just too damn much.

All in all, this was a good episode. It was a classic story, turned on its head, told by professionals from start to finish. And I hope that if there is another season, we see more stories like this one. But after the efforts put into this season at large, I wouldn’t be surprised if this is the last we see of American Horror Stories.

4 out of 5 stars (4 / 5)

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Movies n TV

American Horror Stories, Leprechaun

Published

on

If you’ve watched enough short-form horror anthology shows, you’ll notice that some stories are mainstays. Each show seems to put on the same sort of episodes, with the occasional surprising storyline that we’ve never (or at least rarely) seen before.

Leprechaun was an example of a repeated story—the story of a greedy thief whose punishment far outweighs the crime.

The story

We begin our story in 1841, with a drunk man leaving the bar one late night. He’s distracted by something glowing at the end of the well. When he reaches down for the glowing thing, he falls in. Moments later, he screams.

We then cut to the modern day. The well is still there, and now it’s surrounded by a dying town. In this town lives a young man named Colin. He’s married, his wife is pregnant, and he’s out of work. Like many of his friends.

Advertisement
Hudson Oz in American Horror Stories Leprechaun.

Desperate for cash, Colin and his friends decide to rob a bank. They put together an Equate version of Ocean’s Eleven, and break in one night. But, of course, they find that the gold is nothing more than bait. And the creature waiting for them is something they never expected.

What worked

The first thing I want to point out is how real this episode felt. At least to anyone currently living in the same small town they grew up in. These characters felt like guys I went to school with. Guys I would see at the bar.

I appreciated the real anger and frustration these characters are feeling. Especially Colin. He’s bitter, and maybe he has a right to be. He did exactly what he was supposed to do to succeed. He went to school and invested in his career, and yet now he’s out of work and struggling to support his family. I probably don’t need to tell you how that feels. Because of this, we can all kind of understand why he was tempted to rob a bank.

I also want to talk about the fact that this was, as I said, an often-explored story. That can be a bad thing, but it can also be a good thing. This story is told over and over because it’s a good story. A relatable story. And there’s nothing wrong with that.

What didn’t work

That being said, this version didn’t try to do much to break out of the mold.

Because we have seen this story so many times, most of us could tell the story themselves. I would have expected something new, or some twist. But, in the end, the story didn’t bring anything new to the discussion.

Advertisement

Maybe because of this, the ending left a lot to be desired. Trapped in the basement of the bank, everyone just sort of stares at everyone else, until the thieves give up. And that’s it. The ending wasn’t scary, shocking, or funny. It was just sad, on multiple levels.

Overall, this was an okay story. It was entertaining, if not surprising. I would compare this episode to homemade macaroni and cheese. Everyone’s got their own version, they’re all pretty good, and none of them are exciting.

There’s just one episode left in this season of American Horror Stories. Let’s hope they’ve saved the best for last.

3.5 out of 5 stars (3.5 / 5)

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending