The Silence of the Lambs

Thanks to one of my faithful readers, Matt, for the suggestion of a horror-based Retro Review given that it is October and all! Great idea, and thanks for the recommendation of this particular film!

As many of you already know, horror is not my favorite genre. I can appreciate it when it is done well, but I find that a good horror movie is a rarity.

Another tidbit you may have picked up on with my Retro Reviews is that sometimes, age, or perhaps the films that have released between the time of the film I'm watching and now, can often hinder it. But I always try to keep the film's lasting impact on the industry in mind.

Something many of you may not know is that, from a general standpoint, I am somewhat knowledgeable about the mythology behind the Hannibal Lecter series, much of this stemming from the incredible TV show, Hannibal, which I will touch on later.

The reason I tell/remind you of these three things is in a pre-defense for this statement: I was underwhelmed and disappointed with The Silence of the Lambs. It's still a good, even great, movie, that much I agree, but for a movie that won Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor, Best Actress, and Best Adapted Screenplay (often referred to as "The Big 5" at the Oscars) and is still talked about over two decades later, I expected so much more. Sadly, I feel as if this is one of those films that has been outdone in the years since it released (by other horror films and most certainly by the new TV show), which led to a considerable amount of my disappointment. Given the times though (1991), I'm sure this movie dropped multiple jaws in the cinemas and disturbed audiences for a long time.

Jodie Foster's reflection is an old man. Creepy...

Doctor, this mask is made of pretzels. Damn you!
You've found my weakness!

First off, and this may earn me some scorn, but how on earth did Anthony Hopkins win the Best Actor performance? And how did his villain, Hannibal Lector end up on so many lists that rank such a thing? Is he creepy? Absolutely. There is no doubt about that. Is it an amazing performance? Yep. Hopkins is truly one of the best. But in all sincerity, his screen time is lacking and probably the number one thing that shocked me most. For a film where nearly all the buzz over two decades was about Hopkins' performance, he was hardly on the damn screen! Now, when he was on screen, he owned those minutes, but I still don't think it was enough to justify the Academy Award, nor the character's infamy. If I'm being completely honest, I think Mads Mikkelsen's current portrayal of the character is superior (as in, it's basically perfect). Disagree with me all you want, but I'd be willing to bet that those of you that have seen both performances would agree with me. As for Jodie Foster's win, I can understand that one a little better. She plays a smart, but rather green FBI field agent well, and stands up to Hannibal's mind games, including being strong in the "OMG-I'm-freaked-out" department. Not to say that Hopkins' performance is bad by any means, but I feel as if Foster's portrayal of Clarice warrants a bit more critical reception. Most everyone else does an okay to great job, the tertiary highlight of which being the supremely creepy Ted Levine as Buffalo Bill, the serial killer on which the movie circulates around. His ability to change his persona at the drop of a hat was amazing, and I found him genuinely terrifying, particularly during a night-vision stalking scene of Clarice.

The rest of the film is an example of a quality thriller/horror film, but I still question its merits as the year's "Best Picture". From a direction standpoint, the movie flows effortlessly from scene to scene and keeps the audience on the edge of their seat while the script is vulgar, yet smart and doesn't pull any of its punches. Given that this is an adaptation of a novel (one of which I have not read), I imagine it did a solid job. That being said, and having the television show in the back of my mind, I wish that it would have dove into the mythology of Hannibal a bit more, rather than hinting at it here and there (i.e. the fact he used to be a stellar psychiatrist, that he is a exquisite cook...of human flesh, etc.). Again, this could be an after affect of the show that does it so damn well, but for the film's villain to be so "iconic", I found his background just as thin as his actual screen time. The original score is a strong one by Howard Shore, equally parts epic and creepy. Lastly, the cinematography is generally great, save for a few awkward conversation scenes where we have to get a straight faced shot of the actors speaking directly into the camera, even though they are talking to another person in the film. It borderline broke the Fourth Wall a few times and it was a bit odd.

A truly creepy scene and one of the few aspects of the film
that defeats the tests of time.

I feel like I've bashed on Silence of the Lambs pretty hard in this review, despite the fact that it is a very well made movie and one that changed the industry for the better upon its release. It's creepy, thrilling, and features many strong performances all encased in a professionally well-made film. But, from this amateur film critic's perspective, over two decades after its release AND after being two seasons deep into the fantastic new television show, Hannibal, I'm not sure that I agree with all the hype that has surrounded the film during its lifetime.

Which I'm not sure is more of a compliment for the TV show, or a criticism of the 1991 movie.

Either way, the audience is getting a strong adaptation of the Hannibal Lector story that will keep them glued to their screens, grossed out, frightened, and disturbed, all attributes of the month of October when in speaking about Halloween.

CONS:

• Hopkins' performance is phenomenal, BUT it is not entirely worthy of its "Top Villain" or Best Actor Oscar winning status. The screen time is too minimal. Mads Mikkelsen's portrayal is better
• I wish that the film would have explored Hannibal's past a bit more. For such an intriguing character, he came across as a singular plot device at times. The mythology is something the show excels at greatly
• Some odd flashbacks to Clarice's past are not frequent enough throughout the film to warrant their existence and ultimately the couple that occur aren't really necessary
• Odd, straight-on camera angles during some conversations
• In the film's defense, it ages well technically, but from a plot perspective, this is well travelled territory. More a fault of me for waiting so long to see it though

PROS:

• Great performances out of the main cast. Foster's Oscar was well deserved, Hopkins is fascinating to watch, and Levine is equal parts gross and creepy
• A well done adaptation that features a strong script. There are many shocking moments and the film makes sure to earn its R rating
• Strong direction that helps the film to flow well from scene to scene, all while making sense. A very thrilling and intense film
• Good original score
• It really did have a large impact on the industry and many subsequent films after it
• A few very well orchestrated scenes. The night vision terror scene deserves its iconic status
• A well made horror film that is equal parts mystery, gore, and scares

Rath's Review Score: 8/10