Masterpiece of Horror Theatre- Silence of the Lambs

    The Silence of the Lambs, Harris' 1988 sequel to Red Dragon, was originally optioned by actor Gene Hackman and Orion Pictures, with Hackman starring in the role of Jack Crawford. Hackman would exit the film eventually (uncomfortable in violent roles after starring in the Civil Rights drama Mississippi Burning), but Orion covered all costs, confident in the film and the developing script from Ted Tally. Eventually, Jonathan Demme (known at the time for quirky films like Melvin and Howard, Swimming to Cambodia, and Married to the Mob) was chosen as director. Demme cast Anthony Hopkins as Lecter based on his performance in David Lynch's The Elephant Man. Jodie Foster was interested in the role of FBI agent Clarice Starling, but Demme didn't consider her until he had exhausted other actresses. Ted Levine (a friend of William Petersen and Michael Mann, the star and director of Manhunter) was cast as the villain Buffalo Bill. Filmed in Pennsylvania, the cast would research the FBI's Behavioral Science Unit and actual serial killers to study their roles. Released in 1991, it is, of course, one of the most iconic films ever made, and was the first horror film to win the Academy Award for Best Picture (indeed, the third film to win the Oscars for Best Picture,  Best Director (Demme), Best Actor (Hopkins as Lecter), Best Actress (Foster as Starling), and Best Adapted Screenplay (Tally, adapting Harris). The film would become a perennial favorite, and would make Hannibal Lector a household name. 

      Clarice Starling (Jodie Foster) is a trainee at the FBI Academy in Quantico, who is called by Jack Crawford (Scott Glenn) of the Behavioral Science Unit. He wants her to interview notorious cannibal serial killer Hannibal Lecter (Anthony Hopkins), stuck in a Baltimore asylum run by arrogant Dr. Fredrick Chilton (Anthony Heald). Lecter could give insight into the whereabouts of Buffalo Bill (Ted Levine), who has been kidnapping women and murdering them. Lecter gives some clues, which is useful as Catherine Martin (Brooke Smith), the daughter of a prominent US senator, is kidnapped by Bill, upping the stakes.

         The film is very well shot. That's the first thing that stood out to me when I watched this many years ago. It's well shot, a lot of interesting angles, an especially interesting climax with complete darkness and night vision goggles. It helps build the tense atmosphere of the film, while providing both the investigation and the scares with intense action. Anthony Hopkins is iconic as Hannibal. Again, not necessarily sure if his performance is better than Brian Cox's, but it's definitely the definitive version. A lot of his quirks and coldness shine through, and Hopkins makes the character work despite him not being in the film. Foster does well as the main character, carrying the film with her chemistry with Hopkins and her Southern accent is fine. The film is easier to follow and less confusing than Manhunter. 

      The biggest thing hanging over my head watching this was the transphobia. As a newly out trans person myself, I did look at this film in a new light, especially an excellent documentary on Netflix you should watch called Disclosure, about transgender representation in film. Even as a questioning person, I figured that the film does explain that Bill wasn't actually trans, but merely thought themselves trans (itself a faulty concept in retrospect), so the film had an out in that . Rewatching the film, I'm less convinced of that. The character has all the signifiers stereotypically attributed to trans or other LGBTQ people, and whether or not they were actually  trans, the portrayal does resemble the stigma of us being mentally ill, especially the idea of a serial killer making a suit. So, that aspect is probably the most uncomfortable part of watching this in the modern day, especially as it may have contributed to the aforementioned stigma. Also, after a rather deliberate first two acts, the film just rushes to an end. Clarice doesn't even find out Buffalo Bill's identity, and she stumbles on them by accident. 

    It's definitely a well-crafted, well-directed film with good cinematography and good acting all around. The main specter on this film is Buffalo Bill and the transphobia, so I wouldn't quite know if to recommend this film. Maybe check the facts, and see if you, as an individual would be comfortable seeing this film. 

    I suppose it's an impromptu trilogy now, because for my next review, I'm doing the second adaptation of Red Dragon.

(Corona-) Summer of Terror/Masterpiece of Horror: Psycho

    This summer has been rough for everyone on Earth. It was definitely rough for me. I unfortunately didn't plan out this series very well, admittedly, and the anxiety just got very overwhelming (Seasonal depression has also reared its head). However, I do feel like finishing off the Universal Monsters. However, this went into October. As I laid in bed, suddenly, an idea came: Why not do a transitionary phase here. 

    Okay, like I said last time, this film is a lot more of a stretch to be on here, namely in that it technically originally wasn't even a Universal film. Let's go back a bit though. In 1957, a Wisconsin handyman named Ed Gein was arrested for the murders of two women living nearby. A search of his place revealed that items made from various parts of the human body, including skin lamps and shrunken heads. At the time, this was unknown to horror writer Robert Bloch, despite living only 57 miles away. A correspondent and friend of HP Lovecraft, Bloch started out in that style and genre before the advent of the atomic age caused him to switch instead to psychological horror. He wrote a story about a man isolated from civilization in a motel who has an overbearing mother and kills multiple women. When he heard about Gein, he was disturbed to learn the parallels. Nevertheless, the book would be a big commerical success, and it would reach acclaimed director Alfred Hitchcock, fresh off hit North by Northwest through his assistant. Hitchcock, very impressed, chose this project over several others, including an adaptation of Casino Royale, and even bought up all the copies he could of the novel to prevent the twist from being revealed. However, Hitchcock saw resistance from tradition backer Paramount, so he shot the film on a low budget, using the crew from his television show in the Universal Studios lot (part of the reason I decided to include it here), and shooting the film in black and white. Joseph Stefano (later the co-creator of the 60's Sci-fi anthology series The Outer Limits) wrote the screenplay. Starring in the film were Vera Miles (who had appeared in several Hitchcock productions beforehand), John Gavin  (who starred in the critical success Spartacus that same year), Janet Leigh (who had starred opposite Charlton Heston in Orson Welles' A Touch of Evil) and as the unsuspecting killer Norman Bates, relatively unknown supporting actor Anthony Perkins was cast on account of his boyish charm. Hitchcock regular Bernard Hermann would do the iconic score. Entire books and even films have been made about the production of this movie, so not too much more detail here, but the film was fairly controversial upon its release in 1960, as the Production Code was dying due to an influx of racy European films. It was also extremely successful, with audiences shocked by the big twist of the film. It has gone on to become one of the most iconic films of all time, and is something of the prototype for modern horror as we know. Also, despite Paramount releasing the films, the rights were ultimately sold to Universal, so it does count. 

     Marion Crane (Janet Leigh), a secretary in a real estate company in Phoenix, Arizona finds herself in hot water when she steals some money from a client, to pay for a home for her and boyfriend Sam Loomis (John Gavin). She flees to California, and eventually, comes across a motel run by the mysterious Norman Bates (Anthony Perkins), who has a close relationship to his mother.... (You know what, you probably already know how the rest goes, so, yeah.)

      It's hard to really discuss this film, because it is  monumental in the history of film. Everyone knows the central twist, everyone knows the plot, the music cues, the shower scene. Given this film has been studied, dissected, and parodied so many times since 1960, does it still hold up as its own film? Yeah, it definitely does. It helps that it constantly keeps you on your toes, changing its focus multiple times to throw you off. First a standard Hitchcockian thriller, than a proto-slasher, then a murder mystery. The film does a good job of hiding all the necessary elements, especially with its now iconic twist. (NORMAN BATES WAS DRESSING AS HIS MOTHER WHEN HE COMMITS THE MURDERS, in case you don't know). Anthony Perkins shy, delightfully charming, but ultimately psychaotic presence also helps to cement the character as a new kind of monster, less supernatural, but no less menacing. He is easily the most interesting part of the score. And the things to praise about this film have been noted. Hermann's score, Russell's cinematography. 

     The film does spend a lot more time than I thought was needed on the investigative part. Maybe it is the fact that the twist is very well known now, but the audience might've been able to piece together part of the twist towards the middle of the third act. Also, the subplot about the private investigator could've been cut, but does serve an important plot driver, so eh. 

     Even though you probably know how the film goes, I still recommend seeing it, if only to see the various techniques used both narratively and cinematically. It is still a fascinating film, and it is still very scary when it needs to be. I very highly recommend it as a piece of horror history, and just film history. 

    I was going to end this with an overall look at the Universal Monsters, but I'm really tired and just want to end this, so I'll make it brief here. Needless to say, they have had an incredible influence not only on the horror genre on film, but on the general culture. Most people, even if they've never actually seen any of these films, have a good understanding of them. And despite the presence of more contemporary monsters in films like this and Targets, they still have a presence in the culture, whether through the various Hammer remakes in the 50's and 60's, or the severely botched Mummy remake from 2017. 

  Speaking of..... Tune in tomorrow for a review of that.