Showing posts with label The Silence of the Lambs. Show all posts
Showing posts with label The Silence of the Lambs. Show all posts

8.05.2025

12 (mostly) Loyal Pets

This isn't a Lassie or Willard situation. There'll be no Yearlings or friends named Flicka. These creatures didn't crave the spotlight and their relevance in the dynamics to the story ranged from fleeting to peripheral. But then they had their moment they made it all about them, and so today we show our respect to these supporting players of the Animal Kingdom. 

- Paul


Max
How the Grinch Stole Christmas!

Like the Whos, Max was always on the side of good, and he was the only one to witness The Grinch's transformation. Like everything else in the 1966 animated special, the marriage of Dr. Seuss and Chuck Jones was a union forged in the starts, but the best of both worlds was most prominent in Max: he was pure Looney Tunes but without the cynicism. 


Artie
Saved by the Bell

Artie is Slater's pet chameleon. Screech and Zack babysit Artie while Slater's away for the weekend. Zack predictably kills Artie due to negligence. Because Slater had spent most of his life moving around and changing schools, Artie was the only friend he could hang onto. Perhaps his death was existentially necessary to illustrate that his Bayside friends will ultimately be his "Friends Forever". That's tough love but there was a lotta that on this show. 


Basil
A Clockwork Orange

For a young, sadistic sociopath, Alex sure had a soft spot for that snake (who clearly died under mysterious circumstances). Funny story that you've probably already heard: supposedly Kubrick got the idea to include a pet snake (which wasn't mentioned in the book) when he learned of Malcolm McDowell's phobia of them. 


Precious
The Silence of the Lambs

Real name Darla, also famously worked with John Landis, Joe Dante, and Tim Burton. But her biggest and arguably her most integral part to a plot played out here - she was used as a negotiating tactic which ultimately went nowhere, but her fate most likely involves apartment life with Catherine and her cat. 


Wildfire
Song by Michael Murphey

Here's some mellow and manipulative Adult Contemporary for you; this chart-topper from 1975 tells the story of a young lady who dies in a blizzard when she was separated from her horse, Wildfire (the horse also presumed dead). A notorious tearjerker to all the prepubescent horse girls of the mid 1970s, but as a middle-aged man in the mid 2020s I can tell you that when that chorus hits it still hits hard. 


Elvis
Miami Vice

You'd think having an alligator as a cast member would guarantee some eventual carnage, but no. Elvis knew how to act threatening but was really nothing more than a slob who was only ever one step away from sporting sunglasses and a tropical shirt. He definitely brought some lightheartedness to the vibe and was a necessary ingredient in making it the most 1980s TV that there ever was. 


Gil
What About Bob? 

I'm not sure what the symbolism was but it wasn't subtle; a "fish outta water" story maybe? At any rate a lotta emphasis is put on Gil, up to and including being a prominent part of the opening title sequence, ultimately making him the sorta mascot of the movie. 


Khartoum
The Godfather

Some symbolism is less subtle - this message was loud and clear. It's tough to determine if Jack Woltz actually cared for this horse as a pet or just as a financial asset, but I guess it doesn't matter - in either case Khartoum was doomed to pay the ultimate price. Not personal, strictly business. 


Big Al
Beverly Hills Cop II

How do you make a turtle interesting without martial arts training or pizza? Saturate it in the cool neon ambience of a Tony Scott movie. Big Al's only real function was to provide vicarious character development, so all we really learn about him is that he definitely has a sweet life surrounded by ample plant life, and that he definitely knows where his own dick is located. 


Dart
Stranger Things

The "secret pet" is such a nostalgic trope (that's obviously the point) but the twist here is that the pet does not repress its animalistic instincts to bite people's heads off. And thank god for that - the last thing this series needed was a CG slug wrestling with morality like a STAR WARS villain. 


Dicky
The Beyond

Maybe the only instance I can think of when a dog successfully chases away zombies to protect its owner. Unfortunately we're in Fulci Land so naturally Dicky decides to turn on said owner and graphically devour her. 


Tina
Napoleon Dynamite

Really I just like llamas. Like, a lot. But equally, Tina is one of the few characters in the story who isn't a complete jerk; they suggest that she's grumpy or impatient but clearly they're just projecting. 

7.19.2025

CLEAN FIGHT : Manhunter/The Silence of the Lambs


The shared themes and overlapping continuity of Thomas Harris stories has been compared to the works of Emile Zola and Balzac - mostly for his casual use of recurring characters. I'd also include Dickens as a parallel for exploring the same character types across his novels. Hannibal Lecter is obviously the most famous repeat antagonist to emerge from the books, much with the help of Film & TV adaptations and initiating a slightly more modern analogy with The Universal Monsters - or simply Horror Movie franchises in general. Nowadays we'd probably just call it The Hannibal Multiverse. 


If the title of this brawl isn't a clue, I'm comparing the movie versions of these stories: Manhunter from 1986 and Silence of the Lambs from 1991. All other sequels and remakes and spinoffs will be ignored, as will the actual source material; I remember my parents immediately and entirely dismissing Manhunter for not being a hundred percent faithful to the novel, and it's that sorta dogmatic science that can make these kindsa things a lot less fun. And we all need to get more fun out of life. 


I wanna talk about Lambs first because I saw it first and that may play some subconscious role in my very subjective POV. I've told the story dozens of times, how I got to see it at the Drive-In in the summer of '91 which allowed me to have a strong enough opinion to root for it come Oscar season. But in hindsight I think my age at the time is a good objective indicator of how great the movie is; at 8 years old I responded to the suspense, the drama, the humor, the subtexts (mostly), not because the movie is dumbed down but because it's coherent and engrossing in competent ways. A lotta "Psychological Thrillers" can get too big for their britches and become bogged down in ham-fisted metaphors and psychobabble to differentiate themselves from the "Horror" movies - there were a lotta films like that around this time, and except for maybe a bare breast or climactic shootout they were always tedious -- very tedious. Lambs (like most Thomas Harris material) embraces the detecting side of detective work; the case is as fresh to Clarice as it is to us, so progress feels less like exposition and more like unfolding. So what that tells me is that there's no shame in holding the attention span of a child, nor is there ever any need to set the bar lower to appeal to kids. 


But apart from being "easy to follow" the movie had some other things going for it as well. Again, partially due to The Oscars, it was the first time I really took note of Acting with a big A, as in "Wow, these are Academy Award-winning performances!" Though as I got older I began to recognize some hokiness in that - Anthony Hopkins in particular (though that may've been due to his subsequent reprisals of the role). Now I'm in a place where I understand that if you change one ingredient in the movie (in any movie) then you get an entirely different movie, and picturing Silence of the Lambs with a different "approach" from its cast is almost unimaginable; those iconic closeups and line deliveries aren't only locked into the film, they're a permanent fixture of Pop Culture. It's more than fair to give the movie's director some credit for these qualities, but as a kid I certainly didn't understand what his contributions were or how they worked; again, I knew he was good enough to get an Oscar for it but I didn't know what the criteria was. 






It wasn't until my late teens that Directors and Directing became my predominant interest in Motion Pictures -- however it was not the master craftsmanship of Brett Ratner that beckoned me to see Red Dragon in theaters, but rather the pedestrian interest in the franchise fodder that these stories had become. Further still, it was this 2002 adaptation that made me wanna seek out the supposedly "inferior" version with the goofy title. Manhunter had been on my radar for some time anyway; I'd already become a fully fledged Michael Mann fan by that point, and like I said I'd already been aware of it as a big disappointment to my parents so I was never too quick to see it. But this was the sparkling dawn of the DVD era, and so what was $20 to add to my measly Mann shelf? I do remember it turned into a bit of a hunt in and of itself - all Circuit City had was a "Double Feature" set of Hannibal and a fullscreen(!) Manhunter. I wasn't having that, and so in this specific time period that still allowed me to be picky, I went across the mall parking lot to Newbury Comics and found a used copy of the 2-disc "Limited Edition" from Anchor Bay, which came with a facsimile "case file" inside full of Will Graham's notes, a director's cut version, and a big ass blurb from Entertainment Weekly on the front that declared "Superior to The Silence of the Lambs". I was definitely dubious of such a bold claim, but the packaging and presentation alone was at least better than all 120 minutes of Red Dragon. 


Anyone who ever watched this in its cropped 4:3 video version would and should understandably dislike the movie; there is nary a shot from beginning to end that doesn't utilize its 2.40:1 rectangle as the exciting canvas it was designed to be. Decades before he fully embraced handheld (and video) the Michael Mann Signature Style was a lot more about static symmetry and slow zooms and fast dollies and lingering compositions and shamelessly erratic lighting, and this film is his best example of all that. Ergo, not only do I nominate it as his greatest looking movie, but one of the greatest of all time -- if not the greatest. Suffice to say my mild apprehension about the quality of this movie melted away in the neon glows of Dante Spinotti's cinematography and the moody synths of Shriekback and The Reds. 






MY CHOICE: The style and aesthetic of Manhunter isn't exactly subtle by any means; it's colorful, it's sexy, it's sleek, it's cool. It's quite literally Miami Vice The Movie, 20 years before Miami Vice The Movie. And if that were the only requirement we could could pack up and leave now. But one quibble I've never been able to shake is how distant this movie feels from the Thomas Harris atmosphere that we didn't know we needed until Jonathan Demme and Tak Fujimoto seemed to perfect exactly how I feel it should be. Manhunter is an endless joy for me to watch for many reasons, but the suspense and spookiness and grossness of quirky serial killers doing weird serial killer things really came through with Demme - who also has his own not-so-subtle style; the grey dreariness of the setting, the actors staring directly into the lens, the icky extreme closeups of moth goo and nipple rings and ripped-off glitter fingernails, Howard Shore's haunted castle music, the diverse supporting cast of Demme regulars and seasoned character actors. Manhunter is a huge, impressive flex of technique and approach and panache and I absolutely have hearts in my eyes when I'm watching it, but Lambs feels like a richer, more personalized and succinct work that stays with you on a visceral level that you can feel deep within yourself. 

- Paul

3.01.2024

STATIC SHOTS

What do these five movies have in common?






2.18.2023

I'd Like To Thank The Academy (but I'm not going to)



"As the famous gather to applaud their seeming greatness. As the fools are fooled again. Humanity you sick motherfucker." 
- Charles Bukowski

There are a hundred identifiable, articulate reasons to dislike The Oscars. But to like them? That's a much shorter, more abstract list, and one I don't think I'd be able to compile convincingly. It's more similar to organized sports than people give it credit for; we cheer and boo the success and failures of an institution in which we ourselves take no part, feeling pride or defeat as though our own achievements are at stake. But when I started watching them as a child, I just absorbed it as a big loud TV show with the greatest cast ever assembled and everyone was just talking about movies: old movies, new movies, movies I liked. One could make the argument that that's all it ever was and still is. But that's the trouble with anything: once you invest your feelings into something you start to overthink it until there's a problem. And that's where I'm at now and have been for the past 20 years: I have a problem.


The first year I really took notice was in 1991 - that is, the 63rd Academy Awards, celebrating achievements in films from 1990 (yeah it gets confusing for me). What drew me in was that Edward Scissorhands and Dick Tracy were up against each other for Makeup Effects, and my first feeling was "wow this is something I really need to take seriously." And that was it, my neutral enjoyment was felt for a moment, and then immediately turned into bloodlust; I loved Dick Tracy, but it meant absolutely nothing to me once you put it up against Edward fucking Scissorhands. And so there I was, openly rooting for my movie to "win," which my mother assured me was not likely just based on the craftsmanship alone. And I understood that and I had to agree, and she was right and I took my loss like a man. But with that I was suddenly in the game; my opinions were biased and without any real constructive argument (that would certainly change) but hey, I had an opinion: I wanted the movie I liked to win a prize for being excellent. 


I hadn't seen any of the Best Picture nominees at the time of the telecast, but Dances With Wolves seemed like an obvious choice. I mean it just looked like a "Best Picture" - my first sorta conceptual understanding of "Oscar Bait." So I was pretty indifferent with the outcome overall, but in the course of just the next few months, I began to see these very films as they trickled out onto Home Video: Ghost, Misery, Godfather III, Total Recall, and of course, Goodfellas and Dances With Wolves. Gradually The Oscars as a concept started to resonate with me: "I don't know how it works exactly, but they clearly know what they're doing." And yes, I very much enjoyed both films, but I found Goodfellas to be entirely more engaging and memorable than the movie it lost to. But what did I know? Obviously Dances With Wolves was more important, more socially conscious, and just all around better made... This is the mentality of an 8-year-old folks, just keep that in mind the next time you decide to publicly lick boot.


The following year was more of the same: I'd seen enough to get by, but not enough to have a strong opinion in some of the categories. No matter, because this was the year of the Lambs and I was fortunate to have caught it at Tri-Town Drive-In over the Summer. It was an immediate Family Favorite, and as Awards Season started to roll in, my mother informed me of the established protocol: it's a Horror Movie, it came out too early in the year, it's too controversial. Through that and through her, I started to become fully aware of the "buzz" - I was paying attention to general Entertainment News and had an active interest in the mechanics of this weird political side of what I'd always otherwise considered to be a defining hobby.


Night of the broadcast and Billy Crystal is wheeled out onto the stage like Hannibal Lecter and it fills me with this euphoric sense of Community and Humanity and Cinema. I feel grown up, I feel in on the joke, and I'm excited by this blatant prospect that my movie of this year may have a good shot at being honored beyond this flattering parody. Along the way Terminator 2 picks up 4 technical Awards, and again it somehow validates me and my interests in a way that teachers or classmates or even other leisure acitivtes weren't able to address. My parents could - particularly my mother, as this was sorta carrying on her own tradition from throughout her own life. That and my father had difficulty staying up late, so at some point she and I would move the festivities to one of the other TVs in the house and finish out the show. 


I didn't really know what what the odds were that year (or that there was such a thing) but we were just openly overjoyed as we watched The Silence of the Lambs win Adapted Screenplay, then Actress, then Actor, then Director, then Picture. I mean they all seemed like the obvious choice to me, but my mother had to explain how unprecedented this was and that I'd witnessed history (which is a loose expression but I understood what she meant). So in addition to the excitement of rooting for the ultimate champion of the evening, I felt like I was part of something - a globally televised event during which a statistical rarity occurred, sure, but more than that I was excited to legitimately like the popular thing, to be on the winning side, to be part of something larger. It was a big party and I liked being there. 


In the year that followed I really didn't consciously have the wherewithal to seek out much of the Prestigious Cinema that I thought might recreate that celebratory feeling I had with Lambs; I wasn't dragging my dad to go see Howard's End (or even Aladdin for that matter). I did get to see Bram Stoker's Dracula pick up three trophies and Last of the Mohicans nabbed one (to this day the only Oscar won by any Michael Mann movie). But Dracula was my movie of that year (amongst a few others) and I was more than happy to watch it beat out Batman Returns for Makeup. ("Now there's a bat man.")


I could go on forever, baby! But this isn't gonna be like a year-by-year hopscotch down my own Memory Lane - how boring would that be for you. Suffice to say my interest and anticipation in the event grew with each passing year and I started to see more stuff and read more news and just generally settled into the idea of my movie watching hobby as my dominant personality trait. It became like a holiday that I looked forward to every year, with rituals and counting down the days etc. But in 1998 I started taking it to a new level. 


The 70th Academy Awards (which recognized the 1997 movies) was the Titanic year. If you were there for it, it was A Night to Remember: it wasn't just the biggest movie, it was the biggest thing; a bonafide cultural phenomenon that permeated every corner of human life for what felt like an entire year, and this was the night that would determine if the Academy was hip enough to fall in line with the moviegoing public. (It was and still is the highest-rated Oscar telecast to air, as well as any other televised awards show ever.)


This was the first year it occurred to me to tape the show - and not for nothing, I rewatched it dozens of times over the following months to the point I memorized Billy's entire opening musical number. There were memorable appearances and some clever commemorative stunts in honor of their ineffectually round numbered anniversary, including a decent Chuck Workman montage of the "Evolution of Film" or something to that effect that would partially inspire me to edit similarly-themed spectacles several years later. But more than any of that, this was the one that felt most like history - maybe because of the Titanic hype, maybe because I recorded and analyzed the fuck out of it everyday after school, maybe because 55.3 million people watched it right along with me the night it aired, but it did kinda feel like a moviemaking milestone in my lifetime. If my interest in Cinema had been waning, this gave me a bit of a jerk - but didn't jerk me in the way AFI's 100 Years... 100 Movies did later that year. 


I've professed its impact in the past, but in June of '98 TNT aired a list of the "best films" of the past 100 years as selected by the American Film Institute. I bring it up again now because because it cooperatively influenced the way I was consuming movies with the peak of my Oscar enthusiasm; I was engrossed in concepts like prestige and influential and groundbreaking. It was an entirely necessary phase in the life of a cinephile to experience what the majority thought was worthy to represent the medium; I'd seen the rest, now see the best(?). Entertainment Weekly also published an incredibly in-depth and self aware issue covering the recent Indie Cinema boom which helped guide me into the margins from time to time. 


We were teetering on the DVD evolution (and the internet), and so I was still at the mercy of Blockbuster's embarrassing VHS library; suffice to say 40 copies of Jungle 2 Jungle left little room for even the most mainstream "classics." Rough times - saddled with an insatiable lust for new stuff or stuff that's new to me and much of it was unavailable in any immediately gratifying way. From the need to stay actively involved in a passion that wasn't meeting my needs came a mostly-pointless undertaking that resulted in very little satisfaction: with the aid of my immediately outdated Handbook, I copied by hand every Oscar nominee in every category since 1928. 


To be fair (mostly to myself) it resulted in a literal encyclopedic knowledge of Academy Award winners and losers. And then, to be real (mostly with myself) I've retained very little of it since then -- I mean I know National Velvet won Best Editing, but I can't tell you who it was, or even when actually. Apart from passing the time and further discovering even more movies I had no way of viewing, I felt a sort of solidarity with the past; I'd missed an entire history of this thing of which I found to be so fascinating and this was giving me a sense of being there for it, or at least being alive at the time. And I looked at all these decades of old movies, a lot of them I'd seen but most I hadn't, and just through that I recognized patterns and peaks and streaks and slumps and upsets, and I was able to see parallels and evolution to my then-current era that I was most familiar with - not just in award-giving, but in Film.


I loved what a big stupid game it was: I loved how pointless it was when they got it wrong, I loved how important it was when they got it right. I felt true joy when my picks got a trophy and legitimate depression when they were robbed. In 1998 I began to go to great lengths to see at least all the Best Picture nominees before the night of the telecast. (That streak officially ended with Return of the King.) And it was around this time that The Great Divide began to take form; the gulf between myself and Modern Cinema. As the 21st Century pressed on, The Oscars (second only to critics and sometimes box office) were informing me what was supposed to be "good," because I began having trouble determining that myself. And every year as the buzz began to blossom, it always felt forced or off; I could recall many head-scratchers in terms of nominees (and winners) just in my own lifetime, but now year after year after year it just felt like a cakey buildup of mediocrity and I'd ask "so this is it, huh? The Gold Standard, Best of the Best." And in nearly every instance, yes, these were clearly the best of the year, and that clarity was the inconvenient truth that the Academy was using to pummel me in the face: this was sorta the tone of mainstream movies from now on and we've accepted it to the point that we're rewarding it. 


In the wake of every show, the two things that attract the most scrutiny are the red carpet fashions and just how much the telecast generally sucks; people adore the pageantry and then demonize it for its self-indulgence and decadence. The movie-related stuff was always secondary and maybe rightly so; as a kid it was a big magic act, like a movie unto itself. Then I got older and learned about the politics and campaigning and money and favoritism and racial anxiety and everything else that has zero to do with the art and science of filmmaking, and the interest began to gradually wane. Teleprompted riffing from flavor of the month hosts carrying a 4 hour drag-athon showcasing flavor of the month films no longer sparked much passion in me. Now I'm just here out of habit. I'm here for Quentin and PTA. I'm here for the montages. I'm here for the fist fights and envelope mixups. 


Were they right all along, is it just an irrelevant bore? Did it start circling the drain after Y2K? In 2021, for the first time in over 30 years, I consciously skipped the ceremony - due largely to skipping every single movie nominated in every category that year. That was also a first, maybe ever: not seeing a single thing in the whole lineup. These were films from 2020 and nobody saw much of anything that year, but even still I didn't feel the least bit deprived. I skimmed the results the following day and thought, "boy, that Fran McDormand and Tony Hopkins are gonna go far in this biz." Even though I was marked absent, this debilitating joylessness was still palpable even from beyond its broadcast grave; it looked and sounded like it was pretty fucking depressing and I'm possibly healthier for having not seen it. 


I thought maybe this was the beginning of some defiant trend of "who gives a shit," but of course Licorice Pizza had me coming back so I could pay my respects upon its inevitable losses. But even that was a logistical headache: I don't have cable TV anymore, just a small handful of borrowed streaming channels, and so I had to sign up for a free trial of some goddamn service which turned out to be the wrong one and had to be cancelled so that I could then sign up for the correct free trial of some other channel. All this and for what - I remember Will Smith and that's about it, and god bless him because that petty crime of passion was the liveliest bit of business the show had seen since that streaker ran across the stage back in '74. But you can't depend on that kinda stuff, so we're just stuck with musical numbers and acceptance speeches. What a nightmare.


This year I've got even more shared passwords so it seems entirely likely that I'll at least have the option to watch. And that's funny in a kinda circular way: for decades now this show (and the entire Awards Season) has been a calming (as much as it's been a disquieting) reminder of my ultimate "option to watch." The sting of obligation died so long ago; I didn't really wanna see Chocolat but I was playing my own little game that was fun till it wasn't. I used to have this incredible angst if I didn't go into the show with a well rounded itinerary of everything that was up for a statue. Once I got past that mentality it was such a goddamn relief; if I needed to do all this outside reading to enjoy the thing, was it really even worth it? It became apparent very quickly that the nominees were not the pinnacles of artistic form, and even just as a list of suggested viewing it was a pretty watered down cocktail. I mean who needs it - I've got Rotten Tomatoes and IMDB and Letterboxd and Sight and Sound and you and your friends and strangers to tell me what the best films of the past 5 minutes are, and I owe it to no one (especially myself) to try and keep up. 

For the last 15 years of her life I don't think my mother saw any of the nominees (at least not prior). But it didn't matter to her - she wasn't wound up in whatever pretentious approach I have. She liked the celebrities and the fashion and the glamour and the possibility of some humor throughout. And even with that superficial approach she was vocal about the dip in the quality of the show. It's become a finicky, pampered Chihuahua that's just as frightened of the world as it is of itself. Now more than ever people are lifting themselves up by calling out Hollywood as some kinda "freak show," while the irony is that it's as bland as it's ever been. It's palpable in the films themselves, and this show has become a condescending high five between its own two hands. Sure, throw some Marvel movies in there so the Sound crew can get some trophies (which is the same trick they used to hook me in the first place), but now when I watch I have the same thought as when I'm cruising through the streaming thumbnails or digging through the Walmart bin of physical media: they gotta start making some better movies.

- Paul