Don't get me wrong, I like this movie, but it never really scared me. Yes, the infamous "basement scene" is well-made and tense, but I never doubted that she would get out of there alive. I dunno, it never had any emotional hold over me for some reason.

That said, the movie is still great. Great performances all around, and some killer writing to boot.

P.S.

Anyone else think it's a little strange that Anthony Hopkins can win Best Actor for, what, 20 minutes of screentime, and Heath Ledger, who was easily on-screen as much as anyone else in The Dark Knight, won Best Supporting Actor? Hopkins is great, but he's far from the male lead.

But let's take the alternate scenario from the Terminator: Salvation commentary. Let's say that Christian Bale only showed up for five minutes at the end (and some radio broadcasts), but the entire film centered around him. Without him, the story could not have taken place. And let's say that he really knocked it out of the park. Would he be eligible for a Best Actor award? I guess it has to do with perspective. In my opinion, Lecter is just as important to the narrative as the Joker was. You may be able to tell just any old Batman story without the Joker, but not that Batman story.

I know. My point is that the Joker was as necessary to the plot of The Dark Knight as Lecter was to Silence of the Lambs. It's perfectly possible for a film to have more than one leading male performer.

I think people overestimate how much there was of Heath Ledger in Dark Knight. As I remember from the calculations I did a while back, and according to what I'm finding on the Internet now, he only had about 20 minutes of actual screen time. Out of 152 minutes, that's not very much (13%).

Compare that to Hopkins' 24 minutes of 118 (20%), and combine that with the arguments made here that the movie was ABOUT Lecter (it's certainly from a series of books about him), and it makes a lot of sense that he gets submitted to Best Actor rather than Supporting.

Here's a thought experiment:

Describe the plot of Dark Knight without mentioning Joker. Now do the same thing with Silence and Lecter.

Another argument is simply that the studio knew that Hopkins' performance was good enough to win Best Actor that year, and then that Ledger's was only good enough to win Best Supporting. You submit for the award you think you can win. That's why Gilmore Girls was submitted as a comedy every year, even though it was more dramatic than all the other submitted comedies.

Last edited by Gregory Harbin (2010-10-04 00:57:51)

That was probably the weakest argument of my three, but I still think it holds up. Batman and the DA are trying to take down the mob, not the Joker. He just keeps getting in the way.

How about this:

Best Actor nominees influence the plot
Best Supporting Actors influence the characters

Silence of the Lamb up and moves to Lecter's jail cell so Foster can talk to him, just as Dark Knight follows Batman all the way to Hong Kong.

The Joker is never in control of the plot, he just shows up from time to time to distract Batman from his true goal.

No one's saying that Supporting Actors aren't important to the plot, or could exist without them: in good screenwriting, there should be nothing that's not essential. But there's a marked difference between someone that the movie is about, and someone that does something in relation to that person.

Last edited by Gregory Harbin (2010-10-04 01:13:55)

I didn't really like that Bardem was nominated for Supporting.

I think this could lead us to another theory of the Oscars: villains will always be nominated for Supporting. I can't think of an exception to this 'rule.' Hopkins wasn't 'the villain' in Lambs, he was just a bad person.

That's disingenuous. You can easily manipulate the presentation of the logline to suit the point.

To wit "Batman teams up with an idealistic DA to fight an escalating crime wave in Gotham."

Certainly the Joker is central to said crime wave...but Lecter is also central to Clarice's investigation.

I like Gregory's definition of lead characters influencing plot vs. supporting characters influencing characters. I don't think Bardem in NO COUNTRY presents an exception at all.

You guys started off talking about the movie as a horror film, which is obviously not the case, but at some point someone used the word thriller. Yeah. See, the structure of thrillers gives away the mystery up front, a bomb under the table for the entire story, and then you have to watch and wait. There's a tradition of including a very patient character right in the story to set an example of how to watch. Here, Lecter will wait ten years to reveal where he left that body, just so he can use that as a ploy when he sees the opportunity.

It's a game. The narrative structure is playing with us, like Lector is playing with Clarice, deciding when to reveal what information.

I'm writing a thriller now, and the situations they set up to have one trainee solve every aspect of the crime strained my credulity, but the film uses so many great techniques to distract us. This isn't a genre that builds its meal on plot, and Demme is a master here because he's being like Kubrick, taking us on an emotional journey, just manipulating that tension all the way through, and it's good to hear that finally working for Teague.

Also I have to point out, Precious from the movie based on the novel Push by Saphire is only called Precious. Her real name is Clarice.

I just started to listen to the commentary so I don't know what all was said. But, I want to point out some misconceptions that I have heard about the story. 
I read in one book about real life killer Ed Gein that he was the basis for Lecter. He was NOT the basis for Lecter but was one of the serial killers that was used to create Bill. Lecter is much more based on Ted Bundy (due to his intelligence and escape from jail) and cannibal serial killers like Albert Fish and Andrei Chikatilo.
Bill was mainly a combo of Bundy (the arm cast trick was one he used), Ed Gein (the female skin suit), and Gary Heidnik (kept sex slaves in a pit he dug in his basement). 

Funny story: I had an odd first viewing of Silence. My brother tried to tell me the story but I confused what he said about Bill and Lecter. I thought they were the same guy and Lecter was breaking out to kill and then sneaking back into prison. I kept waiting for Lecter to be revealed as Buffalo Bill. I wondered why they were showing a different guy.

Last edited by fardawg (2010-11-13 20:12:14)

That's Ms. Foster to you, buster.

I think she's hot, but I've got things for Beth Gibbons and Tilda Swinton, so I'm probably in a very small minority. I think Jodie Foster looks a lot better than most other actresses simple because she looks like a person and not like a real doll. Also one of the best in terms of acting ability.

If you were going to make it today, tho, Portman is probably the best possible choice. People say Noomi Rapace is right up there in the acting department, but I don't think I've ever seen her in an actual movie. No, I still haven't seen Girl With The Dragon Tattoo...

Last edited by Squiggly_P (2012-03-28 04:34:24)

Jodie Foster is beautiful, but doesn't have much sex appeal (altho she does pretty well in Inside Man). I think that's why the male gawking feels wrong.

I saw this in the theater (with a date!) and liked it a lot. The movie is Teague-terrific until the lights go out and Bill starts following Clarice with the night-vision goggles. That just just felt ridiculous to me.

EDIT: Great commentary, by the way. Really fun and insightful.

Last edited by Zarban (2013-01-19 10:33:19)