The Silence of The Lambs

One of my favorite films is Jonathan Demme's The Silence of The Lambs and its not because of the [little amount of] gore or the disturbingly profound ideas of human cannibalism and mutilation. The writing is clever, the acting is spot-on, there was clear direction and the violence/gore was tasteful in a Hitchcock-in-the-90's kind of way.

Hannibal (2001), in contrast, was apphaling and shabbily directed and I only say that because it was Ridley Scott and he should have known better. The only scene that's worth a damn in the entire movie is the final five minutes at the dinner table. Hannibal de-evolved into a slasher -- that wasn't scary -- where the gore is merely there for shock value and provides nothing for the context of the movie, especially considering how well the violence, or rather, the absence of it in Silence, plays to audiences today.

Red Dragon (2002), however, reminds us that violence doesn't have to be overdone to still be effective. People like to criticize Brent Ratner for fashioning a film that so clearly evokes Jonathan Demme's direction of The Silence of The Lambs in 1991 but really, it was exactly what the film needed.

You don't need gore to be scary. I've posthulated that untalented directors will use an overabundance of gore to make up for their inadequacies as a director. This is not true most of the time, however. Keep in mind the adequately scary Evil Dead and the delightfuly screwed-up Dead Alive. In that respect, I offer a different view on movie violence.

There is "gore", and there is "necessary violence". Gore is having a guy's face get ripped off by zombies. Necessary violence is a disemboweled soldier in Saving Private Ryan.

Remember to watch movies with an eye for intent. What was the director's intention of showing us the mutilated soldier? War is hell. What was the director's intent of showing the fountain of blood spewing horizontally out of the wall? To make us laugh. What was the intent of showing a guy's head get blown off with a shotgun? To make us gag.

The point to all of this, as Mystery Science Theater 3000 so rightly reminded us, is that a movie, no matter how poorly made, as long as it is entertaining, can still be a lot of fun to watch. The Silence of The Lambs entertains us because it's raw and disturbing and fun all at the same time. You are entranced by Hannibal Lecter and Buffalo Bill; completely engaged by them.

And in the back of your mind you want Clarice and Hannibal to have a romantic relationship. She's terrified yet completely attracted to the good doctor. Meanwhile, Lecter is... well, it's pretty clear how he feels. Remember how he caresses her finger moments before she is torn away from his holding pen in Memphis? Ah, the notion of a never-can-happen relationship. Reminds you of real life, doesn't it? Oh how I'd love to be in Nicole Kidman's arms right now.

Silence was fun. Hannibal was not. If Hannibal had been fun, then the gore wouldn't have mattered. Instead they tried to make the movie fun by making it gory. In retrospect, Silence wouldn't have been as much fun if it were as gory as Hannibal.

I have no ending for this, so I take a small bow. :)

"Ready when you are, Sargent Pembry."