The Numbers pick: The Silence of the Lambs

[a0161613]

My choice for this topic is Silence of the Lambs. Now I enjoy Tenta’s and Becker’s picks and would argue for those any day of the week but this is a more than worthy choice alongside them.

Awards List: Five Oscars, including Best Director, Best Actor & Actress & Best Picture. Multiple other awards including Golden Globes and BAFTA’s.So one of the most successful films ever

Cast List: Anthony Hopkins is a great actor but in his 16-minute role as Lector, he redefined the role of villain and in doing so, he touches on a kind of perfection that no one has ever come close to in such a short amount of screen time. Scary, intimidating, downright psychologically deranged. It was an incredibly performance. A simply wonderful performance. In sixteen on screen minutes, I would go so far as to say it would change the way bad guys were written.

Jodie Foster nailed the vulnerability here. She allows the Lector character to rip Starling to shreds yet emerges stronger and ultimately survives his game of cat & mouse.She made her career with this performance.

Beyond Hopkins and Foster, there is no mainstream or famous names but they each play their part to perfection. Really, it’s all about Foster and Hopkins. It’s their journey. Everyone else is totally on the peripheral.

History of book: The Lector trilogy is marred by the inferior sequels and remakes; both Hannibal and Red Dragon fail to capture the magic of the brilliant books as Julianne Moore and Edward Norton don’t get close but it only magnifies the brilliance of this film. Yet Silence’s prequel, Manhunter, is underrated if only for the performance of Brian Cox, who gets close to the Hopkins performance and sets the tone for the character.

The film itself:
This is the classic good vs evil story. Or should that be good vs evil vs evil but it’s a perfectly told story of how an innocent character prevailed despite incredible odds. So you have the greatest villain of all time and a perfectly cast heroine. It’s exactly what every horror film needs to start with. Throw in the incredibly psychological script, fantastic score direction which nails the taut and tense nature of the book and you have not only the best ever psychological horror film ever, but one of the greatest films ever to be made.

So there you have it. It’s one of my favourite films ever and definitely deserving of it’s place in this discussion. I look forward to discussing it.

Numbers for NWS mod, etc.

 

[klunderbunker]

I'm not sold here. To me it's not even the best of it's genre. That would be Psycho, which to be fair isn't the same exactly but a lot of the motifs are. Yes it won all the major Oscars, which would mean something to me if I thought anything of the Academy itself and its picks. This is indeed a very good movie, but it just doesn't seem to come up in my head as greatest movie of all time or even in the top like 15 or so. Ok maybe that's a stretch but it's not among the top. Still a very good movie and the pick makes sense.

 

[a0161613]

I'm not sold here. To me it's not even the best of it's genre. That would be Psycho, which to be fair isn't the same exactly but a lot of the motifs are. Yes it won all the major Oscars, which would mean something to me if I thought anything of the Academy itself and its picks. This is indeed a very good movie, but it just doesn't seem to come up in my head as greatest movie of all time or even in the top like 15 or so. Ok maybe that's a stretch but it's not among the top. Still a very good movie and the pick makes sense.

A fair point. I doubt Thomas Harris could deny the influence of Hitchcock in his writing of the source novel. But every major thriller since Psycho would be unable to deny the influence of Hitchcock.

I think more of the Academy then than I do now and at the time five Oscars would have been a big thing.

I admit I haven't seen a lot of the "classics" and even from Tdigs list of reccomendations, I am ashamed that I would only be content defending American Beauty in this manner of competition. But I enjoy this film like few others and hope it gets the discussion it deserves.

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

One thing to note here, guys: just like The Silence of the Lambs was an adaptation of a Thomas Harris book, Psycho was adapted from the similarly titled Robert Bloch novel. Thus, I don't think it's fair to declare The Silence of the Lambs to be even somewhat of Psycho retread.

That being said, there are a few things that make The Silence of the Lambs a better film than Psycho:

1) It's much more visceral. Of course, this can be thought of as just a matter of a opinion, but let's not kid ourselves here: killers kill, and an overwhelming majority of the time their work is not a pretty sight. Whereas a lot is left to the imagination in Psycho, we come face to face with the perverse and terrifying world of Wild Bill in The Silence of the Lambs.

2) The acting is The Silence of the Lambs is much, much better. Although also a matter of opinion, Anthony Hopkins and Jodie Foster do have one thing in their favor that Anthony Perkins does not: a boatload of awards for their turns as Hannibal Lecter and Clarice Starling. Furthermore, Psycho's infamous shower scene is wholly attributable to Hitchcock's genius and has nothing to do with Janet Leigh or Anthony Perkins. Unfortunately, we can't say the same thing about Jonathan Demme when it comes to the prison interactions between Hopkins and Foster; this had everything to do with their acting skills rather than Demme's work behind the camera.

 

[The Crock]

Hell of a movie. First time I watched it I got scared shitless by Hopkins, but to be fair I was a kid. This is a movie I can always rewatch. I always thought that Hopkins should have had a bigger role, and I truly think that this was Jodie Foster's finest role. All that being said, I don't think it is the finest movie, story wise it doesn't even compare to the second Godfather. Still, good movie.

 

[a0161613]

Since he won't post outside of his own thread...

The Godfather is more violent and suspenseful than Silence of the Lambs

For suspense it can match it on some scenes. I'm thinking of one scene in paticular but it doesn't beat it. Also the point on violence is just crazy. And wrong. The scene where Lector escapes is more violent than anything done in Godfather.

Personally, I feel SOTL is a complete hack job, and have no idea why Numbers chose it, nor does it seem his pro does.

If he isn't happy about it, then he will come and tell me himself. Until then, butt out. I get the impression he wasn't delighted but that may actually work in my favour here as I can post to show at least what I believe. He has given me support and motivation so far and that's helped.

That said, all of the brutality in the Godfather is done in a classy manner, if that makes any sense.

Not really. Coppolla just sticks to his strengths which is allowing the character development to shine through. Another point which SotL matches given that Michael's and Starling's characters are both relatively innocent to begin with.

Also the brutality is secondary to the motives that lead to it and the resounding consequences.

The suspense behind Vito Corleone's shooting, and consequentially whether he'd get whacked in the hospital, and who's behind his demise, is something that keeps you gripped throughout the movie, much more than SOTL.

The problem is Vito Corleone is not the focus of the film. It is the development of Michael which is what keeps you interested. Ultimately, his father's death is the inevitable key because it truly allows Michael to become the head of the family. It's the catalyst, the crux to the whole film.

Tents has ignored the best scene of the film, which is in the cafe, where Michael shoots all involved and in doing so, he becomes a true mafioso.

SotL has a number of great scenes. But anytime Foster and Hopkins share the screen, it is guaranteed to be as intense as any of these films that we are talking about.

 

[IrishCanadian25]

I was personally THRILLED when Numbers picked Silence of the Lambs for the greatest film of all time. It's the one I would have chosen. And since, despite being a judge, I am also a poster, I'll be glad to back Numbers up on this one.

There are 4 major awards at the Academy Awards each year. Best Actor, Best Actress, Best Director, and Best Film. In the history of the Academy, only three films have swept all four of these awards. Those films are:

• It Happened One Night
• One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest
• Silence of the Lambs

That's damn fine company to be in. It Happened One Night was made in 1934 and was a comedy. Cuckoo's Nest was a drama / dark comedy made in 1975.

The fact that Silence was from 1991 - well past what is considered the 'golden age' of film making and still prior to the CGI era, won all 4 awards while up against films like JFK and Bugsy, actors like DeNiro and Beatty, actresses like Sarandon and Midler, and directors like Stone and Scott, is amazing.

Add in the fact that Silence is the only one of the three to also win "Best Adapted Screenplay," and it's considered one of the biggest sweeps in the history of the awards.

Here are some of the films that won 3 out of those 4 major awards, clearly falling short of the completeness of Silence:

• Gone With the Wind
• Ben-Hur
• On the Waterfront
• Patton
• Annie Hall
• Gandhi
• Rain Man
• Forrest Gump

That's damn fine company, and yet Silence stands above them all.

Furthermore, look at the challenge of the horror genre. The Academy - and main stream critics - often shit all over the Horror / Thriller genre more than any other. Silence is considered by some to be a horror film, and by others to be a thriller. Even assuming it's a hybrid of the two, it's in a very small room. Here are the other horror / thriller films to be nominated, of which Silence is one of only two films to ever have won:

• Rebecca (Hitchcock's first US film, won Best Picture in 1940)
• Suspicion (1941)
• Gaslight (1944)
• Spellbound (1945)
• The Excorcist (1973)
• Silence of the Lambs (1991)
• The Sixth Sense (1999)

The Academy considered Exorcist and Silence to be "horror" films - they are the only two in Academy history to be nominated, and the only winner was Silence.

There are only a handful of films I'd allow in the debate against Silence of the Lambs for greatest film of all time - Godfather, Cuckoo's Nest, and a handful more. But the fact that Silence was such a complete film and such a well respected film despite being in the unlikliest of genre's earns it more points, the same way a gymnast or diver in the olympics gets a higher score based on difficulty.

 

[a0161613]

One thing to note here, guys: just like The Silence of the Lambs was an adaptation of a Thomas Harris book, Psycho was adapted from the similarly titled Robert Bloch novel. Thus, I don't think it's fair to declare The Silence of the Lambs to be even somewhat of Psycho retread.

It's far from a retread. Silence is much more visceral and personal.

That being said, there are a few things that make The Silence of the Lambs a better film than Psycho:

1) It's much more visceral. Of course, this can be thought of as just a matter of a opinion, but let's not kid ourselves here: killers kill, and an overwhelming majority of the time their work is not a pretty sight. Whereas a lot is left to the imagination in Psycho, we come face to face with the perverse and terrifying world of Wild Bill in The Silence of the Lambs.

Psycho requires you to discover Bates's secret as the film progresses. Silence is quite obvious. Lector is maniacal but he is not subtle and doesn't hide his intent or motives. Lector dominates the film because he seems to control it. He gets the escape on his terms, he exposes Buffalo Bill when he wants to. The visceral nature is something that comes about because it is in Lector's personailty - he is a cannibal after all.

2) The acting is The Silence of the Lambs is much, much better. Although also a matter of opinion, Anthony Hopkins and Jodie Foster do have one thing in their favor that Anthony Perkins does not: a boatload of awards for their turns as Hannibal Lecter and Clarice Starling. Furthermore, Psycho's infamous shower scene is wholly attributable to Hitchcock's genius and has nothing to do with Janet Leigh or Anthony Perkins. Unfortunately, we can't say the same thing about Jonathan Demme when it comes to the prison interactions between Hopkins and Foster; this had everything to do with their acting skills rather than Demme's work behind the camera.

Hitchcock makes Psycho the film it is. It's effectively a one man show.

While Demme does a good job, Hopkins and Foster carry it to its classic status. KB can criticise the Academy all he wants but as IC points out, the clean sweep achievement is something special for a special film.

I was personally THRILLED when Numbers picked Silence of the Lambs for the greatest film of all time. It's the one I would have chosen. And since, despite being a judge, I am also a poster, I'll be glad to back Numbers up on this one.

Delighted to nhave your input.

There are 4 major awards at the Academy Awards each year. Best Actor, Best Actress, Best Director, and Best Film. In the history of the Academy, only three films have swept all four of these awards. Those films are:

• It Happened One Night
• One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest
• Silence of the Lambs

That's damn fine company to be in. It Happened One Night was made in 1934 and was a comedy. Cuckoo's Nest was a drama / dark comedy made in 1975.

Damn fine point. It is a special achievement and as you point out, the nature of the film means it wouldn't normally get close.

The fact that Silence was from 1991 - well past what is considered the 'golden age' of film making and still prior to the CGI era, won all 4 awards while up against films like JFK and Bugsy, actors like DeNiro and Beatty, actresses like Sarandon and Midler, and directors like Stone and Scott, is amazing.

Add in the fact that Silence is the only one of the three to also win "Best Adapted Screenplay," and it's considered one of the biggest sweeps in the history of the awards.

Here are some of the films that won 3 out of those 4 major awards, clearly falling short of the completeness of Silence:

• Gone With the Wind
• Ben-Hur
• On the Waterfront
• Patton
• Annie Hall
• Gandhi
• Rain Man
• Forrest Gump

That's damn fine company, and yet Silence stands above them all.

It's this kind of achievement that means it has to be admired because who knows when a film will match the clean sweep.

Furthermore, look at the challenge of the horror genre. The Academy - and mainstream critics - often shit all over the Horror / Thriller genre more than any other. Silence is considered by some to be a horror film, and by others to be a thriller. Even assuming it's a hybrid of the two, it's in a very small room. Here are the other horror / thriller films to be nominated, of which Silence is one of only two films to ever have won:

• Rebecca (Hitchcock's first US film, won Best Picture in 1940)
• Suspicion (1941)
• Gaslight (1944)
• Spellbound (1945)
• The Excorcist (1973)
• Silence of the Lambs (1991)
• The Sixth Sense (1999)

The Academy considered Exorcist and Silence to be "horror" films - they are the only two in Academy history to be nominated, and the only winner was Silence.

So you can shit all over the Academy's choices nowadays but they do recognise great films. There are no sympathy picks here. Silence deserves every single accolade it achieved.

There are only a handful of films I'd allow in the debate against Silence of the Lambs for greatest film of all time - Godfather, Cuckoo's Nest, and a handful more. But the fact that Silence was such a complete film and such a well respected film despite being in the unlikliest of genre's earns it more points, the same way a gymnast or diver in the olympics gets a higher score based on difficulty.

I love the Olympics analogy. It's ideal. They took this great source material but still had to the hard graft in translating it on screen. Not only did they do it but they created one of the great films of its type in the modern era.

 

[a0161613]

There are so many reasons why this is better than any old psychological thriller. The two stars give a pair of incredible, almost career-defining performances. Hopkins goes beyond maniacal. He manages to do what very few actors achieved in that he changed how bad guys were written in the future. He always teeters on the edge of bloody extreme and absolute composure but he dominates the film for his 16 minutes.

And Jodie Foster manages to match her Taxi Driver performance with one of increased maturity. That is an achievement in itself however she does it with such fear, innocence and bravery that Starling allows Lectors’ pure insanity to drag her to its conclusion.

Psycho is a lesson by Hitchcock in how to direct a thriller. SotL is a masterclass by its’ actors.

But I’ve talked enough about this. If awards mean anything in this discussion, then these two match anybody.

The film itself is handled immaculately. From beginning to end, the taut atmosphere never lets up from incredibly tense. The somewhat grainy look, the great Bafta-nominated score and in particular, the brilliant screenplay adapted from a fantastic source-novel all contribute. Is there another horror movie that is as quotable?

“I ate his liver with some fava beans and a nice chiante.”

The visceral action flows between gruesome and classic. And it blends fantastically well with emotive talking scenes, which is essentially a game of word chess between the main characters, is superbly handled by director Demme. The entire courthouse scene from start to finish is a personal favourite as it demonstrates the story and the characters from top to bottom. It shows Lector as this incredibly gruesome, smart and dangerous threat.
 
Silence of the Lambs over Manhunter.

“Anthony Hopkins acts Lector, Brian Cox IS Lector.”

As soon as I read that line, I knew this has to be discussed and I am surprised nobody mentioned it, though if I had chosen Manhunter, I am sure it would have come up. If I am going to make the claim, then I have to at least show it’s the best of its’ series.

Two reasons for this in my opinion.

The cast/stars: William Peterson and Cox are very good. Cox in fact is superb. A very different Lector; Cox plays it very vacant and detached, where Lector is constantly engaged, probing and teasing Starling. It’s this activity, this exchange of dialogue which seals their classic performances.

As good as Cox was though, Hopkins & 16 minutes screen-time = Oscar. Have I mentioned that already?

The source material: Personal preference maybe but I feel all around, this film is the better book also. Buffalo Bill is better and a more developed villain than the Tooth Fairy, Graham is more bullish and so lacks the very feature that makes Jodie Foster so good as Starling; her innocence.


******

Not only is it the best film of its genre, it's one of the best films in the last twenty years.