The physical violence in the film "Silence of the Lambs" is viscious. Polaroids of dead girls skinned post mortem tacked in a cork board, the headlines that scream Buffalo Bill's latest victim and the swift, ruthless, almost a craving kind of killing Hannibal Lecter does leaves the viewer with a visceral feeling while watching the movie. By visceral, I mean the splanchnic kind. The kind where you almost feel that you're the cadaver about to be skinned. Oh, god..is that a scalpel? Oh, no, it's my seatmate's ballpoint pen.
However, it is not the obvious and on most times brutal physicality involved in the film that makes it "violent". The cadavers, the craving for human organs, skinning of murder victims, Buffalo Bill--these, for me, are just mere by products of the real violence in the film. A violence I feel is strongly embedded in the psyche. It is a confection of sheer, unadulterated mental torture. The violence is psychological as much as it is physical and that is what eats the viewer the most. The story in Silence of the Lambs is not some petty crime such as thief or homicide. It is not out of a dystopic society or of a need to survive. The crimes run much deeper than the cuts made in the girls' flesh and blood. They are outputs of genius, years of alienation, of coveting & not getting what you want, of dreams one badly aspires to have, of society's non-acceptance, of homophobia and of both failures and triumphs, in general. I'd go as far as saying that the violence in the film is of an internal nature because that is precisely what I felt while watching the movie. Sure, I was quite disgusted during the scene where Lecter was killing the two police officers but that disgust paled nothing in comparison to the heaviness I felt in both my heart and mind during Buffalo Bill's "It puts the lotion in its skin" scene. I was more entranced with Lecter's genius and his ability to in an instant, talk someone out of existence than with the cadavers so adequately all over the crime movie. I think more than physical evidences or examples of brutality, it is what we cannot see or know that scares us the most. The movie made me realize that Lecter is not an ordinary killer but with Anthony Hopkins' superb acting, I also had a hard time discerning what he's thinking or what he's going to do next. It made me both hopeful and anxious about Clarice's safety. More than the fact that he's a cannibal, it was the "craving" in his eyes that made me feel so uneasy.
The violence in the movie was built-up up until the last scene. I do not know if I'm just too much of a thinker but it really stuck in my mind through all the scenes that showed not the physicality but the internal turmoil each character faces. The first scene, if I remember correctly, was Clarice running up a hill in the FBI training camp--the colors were of a dreary gray and the introduction for Clarice character was clear to the viewer. She's the protagonist, she's hardworking and just like the obstacle course she's going through, she will be in for a ride later on. Fast forward to a few frames later and there she is, in Jack Crawford's office looking at the many headlines, maps and pictures in the corkboard. It scared me for what's going to happen and I do believe there were a few tense moments during that time when I told myself I don't think I'd like the film (but that's out of an irrational fear of the unknown). I also liked how the movie ended, it left the audiences hanging and wanting more. I know that Lecter's going to kill again but as chilling as his psyche is, I also didn't want to let him go. I wanted to rally for him and rally against him at the same time. The angles of the movie made him both a mentor and a criminal in my mind. I think I can also attribute this as a reason why I felt the movie was more violent in psychological ways than physical matters. The proximity of the camera to the actors was so close that you can actually see them flinch, the fear in their eyes, the dominance over the other characters they were sharing the scene with. The framing of the movie was the perfect balance of tight and loose. The scene where Clarice and Lecter were talking through a glass showed how there is an impediment between Lecter and the protagonist but then Clarice is also very vulnerable. Hannibal Lecter was ultimately helpless during the scene inside the cell with his so-called nemesis, but I do believe that though he was tied and muzzled, he was scarier than the cocky, arrogant doctor. Anyone who will argue otherwise is an idiot. Lecter is a product of fiction and even I, a living and breathing human organism, was compelled to say a little prayer of safety for the people he shared the scene with. I also think that the close proximity of the shots was brilliant for it emphasized each characters' journey very well. The focus on the eyes gave us viewers a more knowing and probing edge. It also helped that the camera movement was slow--painfully slow on some crucial, very scary times--, it made the journey longer and harder. It made the violence a little too brutal and savage at times too.
The sound hierarchy also resonated the violence of the film. I know that by describing the soft, classical music I'd be discussing the sound effects of the movie but I just have to because it is in these soft, melodic notes that the scenes became the most chilling and intense. I can picture Lecter's smile while he was in Brooklyn whenever I hear a few notes of the music from the movie. I also loved the way the movie used silence as a method of intensity. It made the "Quid pro quo" scene more powerful that it already is, and the search for Lecter in the elevator scarier and more chilling that it already was. For some reason, the play on the soft but strange (as it truly made me uncomfortable at times--how can you play such soft, relaxing music at a time like this? On a story like Silence of the Lambs?) and the silence made the movie's violence deeper and well-resonated. I also liked how the movie is well-peppered with huffs and puffs and screams of reality. It made me able to associate with what the characters are going through more. Buffalo Bill's scariest moment, in my opinion, was the time when he was dressing in drag. Catherine was an annoying spoiled brat but I understood where her screams of helplessness were coming from. Clarice' sighs and introspective moments of silence made me feel such emphathy towards here and whatever she's going through. Even the scene where Lecter was killing the officers had a soft but effective music in the background. I'd call it beautiful irony if I wasn't so troubled and disgusted while watching.
The movie made violence almost tangible. It is a term thrown around all the time but the perception of violence is materialized in the movie. Hannibal Lecter was a psycopath, indeed but what made him scarier was the way he was presented throughout the film. With his probing eyes and a craving for human organs (sometimes, I felt like he was craving for Clarice too), Buffalo Bill paled in comparison. However, they both share a common sociology. They were troubled children and had issues with the past. They are both dissociated with society, or disappointed by it. These are troubles that run deep, the outcome of both personalities showed that and the movie made the violence that came with years of personal trouble more vivid, visceral and completely felt. If the movie was made for people to probe, look into the psyche of killers and get tormented by the ambiguity of crimes & the law then Silence of the Lamb more than delivered. The technical aspects of the movie and the violence embedded in the story went well together, complimenting one another like liver, chianti and some fava beans.
