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.
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.
However, trying to fit in, Iris starts to discover a terrifying secret within this tight-knit group of friends. A deadly secret…
THOUGHTS ON COMPANION (SPOILER-FREE)
Never would I have thought I would be saying that a writer of ‘Fred: the TV Show’ and ‘Fred 3: Camp Fred’ wrote a damn fine film. But here we are.
Writer/director, Drew Hancock, created a funny, clever and interesting gem of a horror film. COMPANION is a great adventure film in the horror genre, focusing on the ideas of identity, self-preservation, the cogito, ergo sum of life, and women’s rights.
And, trust me, I know that sounds like a lot, but that’s pulled off by the superb writing and the acting – it flows together really well. It’s an incredibly precarious job to balance humor, horror and drama. If you go too hard with humor and it’s cringey. You give too much drama and it’s tonal dissonance. If there’s too much horror…well, that’s okay, actually.
But with heavy hitters with incredible comedic timing like Harvey Guillén and Jack Quaid, the cast only elevates the writing and story. Quaid and Sophie Thatcher have so much chemistry and work so well together that the drama feels authentic and raw. Thatcher is such an engaging actress, working with what could have been a very flat role. But she portrays Iris with such intelligence, wit and vulnerability, it sells the idea of COMPANION that would usually require more suspension of disbelief.
I liked the soundtrack by Hrishikesh Hirway. Both the original soundtrack and the songs chosen work well with the tone and plot. Super fun bop. You can tell that the song selections were picked with intent and care, for example, the Goo Goo Dolls’ song playing in Josh’s apartment.
The effects in COMPANION were terrific by being used sparingly but grotesquely, for example, the scene with the slow, tortuous scene with the candle. Most of it is practical, but there are some key scenes with CGI that are really well done.
BRAINROLL JUICE: THIS HAS VAGUE SPOILERS
I love horror films. Yeah, I know, big surprise. But this type of film highlights why horror is such an important and crucial part of our history and culture. Horror is a lens of a society of the times. Looking back, we can see what creatures scared us. What people were afraid of or should be afraid of.
Horror, by large, is a very social and progressive genre. Monster movies and mad scientist movies of the 1950’s were en vogue due to the rising fears of the atomic bomb and the Cold War. The same is true for the rise in space horror as we had the Space Race and landed on the moon.
Coralie Fargeat has been exploring this with great success with her most recent film, ‘The Substance‘, but first really dove into this with her fan-favorite, ‘Revenge‘. ‘Freaky‘ and ‘Happy Death Day‘, while comedic, explore girlhood, femininity and social expectations. ‘Don’t Breathe‘ turns the trope on it’s head (in a still gross way). ‘Babadook‘ shows the difficulty with being a mother, and ‘Hereditary‘ is a deep drama on matriarchal generational trauma.
Written like a person who understands the nuances of an “adult and juvenile human female” and is definitely not an alien
What does this have to do with horror and COMPANION? Well, pretty much everything. COMPANION is about what it means to be a woman. Her fears are real and reflect the fears of our society currently. Loss of agency. Loss of identity. Loss of her voice and decisions.
But like all good horror, it will stand the test of time. It will be on the right side of history, as they say. With an incel proxy as the villain and a woman learning about herself, it’s clear what Hancock envisioned for COMPANION. It’s a film about empowerment and reflection of our society right now. And unlike the newest Black Christmas, it doesn’t shove a diva cup down your throat.
“The Demon of Sex” is the third episode of Evil’s season 3, created by Michelle King and Robert King. The central cast includes Katja Herbers, Mike Colter, Aasif Mandvi, Michael Emerson, Christine Lahti, and Andrea Martin. As of this review, it’s available through Netflix and Paramount+ and its add-ons.
The assessors investigate a new marriage that struggles with intimacy. Kristen (Katja Herbers) takes control of her family. Ben (Aasif Mandvi) has an existential crisis after facing plumbing difficulties. Sheryl (Christine Lahti) struggles with the new work culture. Sister Andrea (Andrea Martin) battles a demon.
Evil Season 3 Cover
What I Like about “The Demon of Sex”
Ben usually seems underutilized as a character, especially in personal development, but season 3 works hard to rectify that issue. A skeptic’s disillusionment is an obvious choice for this type of character, but the writing and Aasif Mandvi’s performance drive the execution. It also adds another dynamic to his character referenced throughout the series, if rarely shown again, in the Science League.
“The Demon of Sex” is also a good episode for Sheryl, who struggles and triumphs in her new position. While her character trajectory teeters back and forth, “The Demon of Sex” shows what her development can look like when given the attention it deserves.
Last update on 2025-01-31 / Affiliate links / Images from Amazon Product Advertising API
“The Demon of Sex” also furthers the frenemy relationship between Kristen and Sister Andrea, providing ample material for both characters to explore. “The Demon of Sex” shows Kristen’s willingness to compromise and furthers Sister Andrea’s character flaws.
Leland (Michael Emerson) finally finds an attack that might work on Sister Andrea, beginning a plot thread to explore across the season. Commenting on this plot point might give credit to future episodes, but it’s a compelling example of Leland actually being devious and in control.
“The Demon of Sex” leans on Evil’s dark comedic tone, not intending to haunt the viewer but to entertain them. It dives further into the comical nature of corporate evil and marketing, showing a general shallowness in both arenas in which exploitation occurs. It’s dark, troubling, and entertaining without pulling its punches.
Disclaimer Kimberley Web Design
Tired Tropes and Triggers
In an episode titled “The Demon of Sex,” the titular demon seems to hold conflicting motives. First, it grows strong in the married couple’s abstinence, which suggests a different focus. But when acts become carnal, it’s the general kinkiness that makes the demon strong. Considering the couple talks about their troubles with a licensed therapist, it seems to evoke a general kink shame to the execution. However, the therapy also fails to resolve the underlying issues.
A slightly gory moment might unsettle some viewers, but it’s a single moment in an otherwise goreless episode.
A Nun with a Notebook to Save Your Marriage
What I Dislike about “The Demon of Sex”
As mentioned in a previous review, another demon seems to indicate a more direct concept of “sex,” while the motives of this demon seem more complex. It’s a minor point, but I can’t fathom why they didn’t connect this title with the more literal succubus that’s plagued this season already. Addressing that demon also seems like a more logical entry point as the audience sees what it’s been doing.
“The Demon of Sex” sets the groundwork for future plot points. While not a fault of the episode, it blends in the background, doing what it needs to and little more. I don’t mean to pretend this is a negative, but it doesn’t haunt the viewer like past or future episodes.
Final Thoughts
“The Demon of Sex” delivers but remains buried around more memorable episodes with more lasting power. It sets up key points for several characters and allows some to shine, but it doesn’t hold iconic moments to look back on. Ultimately, it functions as intended and keeps the audience eager for future developments.
Dark City (1998) is a Cosmic Horror film directed by Alex Proyas, though I’ve seen labels of tech noir, which certainly fits. This R-rated film stars Rufus Sewell, Kiefer Sutherland, Jennifer Connelly, and William Hurt. As of this review, Dark City is available to Kanopy and Amazon Prime Video subscribers, with additional purchase options on other services.
John Murdoch (Rufus Sewell) wakes up in a hotel bathtub, plagued with strange memories and amnesia. Chased by strangers, he follows his memories of Emma (Jennifer Connelly), avoiding those who hunt him in his desperate attempt to understand his situation. As mysterious forces hinder him, Dr. Daniel Schreber (Kiefer Sutherland) claims to know secrets that might help. Emma Murdock (Jennifer Connelly) haunts him.
Dark City Alt Cover
What I Like about Dark City
Dark City earned 12 awards and an additional 19 nominations. These recognitions include the 1999 Saturn Award from the Academy of Science Fiction, Fantasy & Horror Films and the 1998 Bram Stoker Award. In short, Dark City earns a strong critical reception.
Part detective tale and part cosmic horror, Dark City lures its viewer in with its aesthetic and premise. I hesitate in saying that the mystery drives the film as the beginning narration does spill most of the finer points. However, Rufus Sewell delivers a performance of someone so overwhelmed and out of his element that the terror shows despite our knowledge. This film wants the audience to know the mystery, focusing on characters learning the truth to hook them.
Rufus Sewell, William Hurt, Kiefer Sutherland (Actors)
Alex Proyas (Director) – Alex Proyas (Writer) – Andrew Mason (Producer)
Last update on 2025-01-31 / Affiliate links / Images from Amazon Product Advertising API
Every performance nails its particular niche. From Kiefer Sutherland’s Dr. Schreber’s untrustworthy scientist to Jennifer Connelly’s mysterious Emma, each performance enriches the plot. This praise belongs to the entire cast, as many performances hold nuances that make sense after learning the entire truth.
Dark City maintains tension for most of its runtime, with the ending being an exception. That isn’t to say that the film fails to create a haunting story, but the focus shifts as the characters learn more about their situation. While both parts of the film accomplish their objectives, it does minimize the horror.
Disclaimer Kimberley Web Design
Tired Tropes and Triggers
At the backdrop of this story, there’s a serial killer murdering sex workers. It’s a familiar plotline, and Dark City doesn’t push against its familiarity in most aspects. However, the reasons behind this plot are somewhat more complex beyond simple shock value.
There was one notable voyeuristic nude scene, but the first naked body is Rufus Sewell’s John. Besides these moments, Dark City doesn’t lend itself to voyeurism. Instead, it prefers a largely sexless and detached perspective, which seems common among Lovecraftian-inspired properties.
Rufus Sewell as John Murdoch
What I Dislike about Dark City
As briefly mentioned, Dark City doesn’t deliver a traditional mystery because the beginning narration spoils most of that mystery. While this doesn’t inherently hinder the film, it’s a decision that doesn’t seem to make much sense. Most of the narration gets shown or told to the audience later. It’s as if the audience isn’t trusted to understand these elements. However, this film repeats this information or shows it with better execution, making the narration unnecessary.
Without divulging too much, the ending empowers a particular character that hinders the cosmic horror influences. It’s hard to believe the danger of cosmic forces when they prove to be your equal.
While not a fault of Dark City, The Matrix would focus more on empowering its main character through realizing some truth. Since The Matrix came out a year after this film, Dark City holds a stronger claim to the trend. However, the execution of this plot point goes to The Matrix. Despite the drastically different focus and genres, I can’t help but wonder how much The Matrix’s success has overshadowed this film’s lasting power.
Final Thoughts
Dark City creates a tense journey for audiences to follow, combining cosmic horror and tech noir to create something unique. It’s a cult classic that earned an award after its digital re-release because few films provide its unique mix of genres. If you crave a dark mystery where humanity must adapt to overcome the impossible with a flare of cosmic horror, this film might satisfy your craving.