Silence of the Lambs – an analysis by Hamish Spencer

The Silence of the Lambs (film)

The Silence of the Lambs (film) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

One of the most successful horror films of all time, Silence of the Lambs has always been something of an enigma. I sat down again recently and watched the movie with some concerted effort. What I have learned, I think, transforms some of the unseen, psychological horror sensed by the viewer into something much more tangible but no less frightening. Themes of government sponsored brainwashing in the creation of serial killers are so expertly hidden in plain sight as to mimic the very processes they dare to expose. It is for this reason that Silence of the Lambs may be considered one of the most subversive, thrilling and thematically synergistic movies ever made.

The idea of a hidden narrative contained in an artwork is not new. Michelangelo and Leonardo, for example, were the masters of their day at burying controversial social commentary within their paintings. When producing a large artwork like a painting (or a film) an artist often needs to satisfy the vanity of wealthy patrons, hence the need to hide subversive messages in symbols and allegory. Like the great artists of history, the great filmmakers of today are very skilled in this practice.

Part 1 – Getting the butterflies

Perhaps the first image people came in contact with, when the movie premiered in 1991, was the poster. It shows Jodie Foster’s face with a moth covering her mouth. Her eyes, usually blue, are red. Close examination of the faux skull markings on the moth’s head, reveals the skull to be made up of 7 naked women in apparent homage to the master of illusion and the unconscious, Salvador Dali. The moth and its cousin the butterfly are probably the most important thematic symbols of Silence of the Lambs and visual prominence on the poster underscores this for the viewer before the picture even starts.

The metamorphosis from grub into flying creature sees the moth or butterfly as a traditional symbol of transformation. Indeed, there are many references to butterflies and moths, death and transformation, especially when it comes to Buffalo Bill. Clarice discovers a chrysalis in the throat of Bill’s first victim Frederica Bimmel. In Bimmel’s mother’s bedroom, just before she learns the truth about Bill, Clarice is surrounded by butterfly wallpaper. Inside Bill’s house, we see where he’s been breeding the Death’s Head moth and other, prettier butterflies. Once he tucks his private parts away and spreads his colourful dressing-gown wings, Bill takes on the symbolic form of a butterfly. Moments after Clarice kills Bill, we see a wind chime with painted pictures of butterflies spinning slowly.

(At this point, I’d like to say that this presentation will delve into areas that some people may find politically sensitive. If you are the kind of person who is easily upset by notions that challenge the dumbed-down left vs right, communism vs capitalism, good vs evil version of history, you may wish to stop reading/viewing now.)

Beyond the well established and endlessly discussed ideas about transformation, there is another compelling interpretation of the moth/butterfly symbol and it has to do with mind control experiments. These mind control experiments are not science fiction. The US MK Ultra program really existed – here’s what Wikipedia has to say –

In the summer of 1975, congressional Church Committee reports and the presidential Rockefeller Commission report revealed to the public for the first time that the CIA and the Department of Defense had conducted experiments on both unwitting and cognizant human subjects as part of an extensive program to influence and control human behavior through the use of psychoactive drugs such as LSD and mescaline and other chemical, biological, and psychological means. They also revealed that at least one subject had died after administration of LSD. Much of what the Church Committee and the Rockefeller Commission learned about Mk Ultra was contained in a report, prepared by the Inspector General’s office in 1963, that had survived the destruction of records ordered in 1973.[47] However, it contained little detail. Sidney Gottlieb, who had retired from the CIA two years previously, was interviewed by the committee but claimed to have very little recollection of the activities of Mk Ultra.[11]

So the American government has, in the past, illegally conducted mind control experiments on unwitting civilians.

The conspiracy wikia on Monarch Mind Control lists the following –

The Monarch Mind Control designation was originally applied by the US Department of Defense to a sub-program under the CIA’s MK-Ultra Program. However, the techniques employed in the Monarch programming system extend back further under various names, such as the Nazi marionette programming. (refer to operation Paperclip)

Monarch Mind Control is a form of mind control which creates a mind control slave by utilizing the human brain’s trauma response of dissociation to create a form of Multiple Personality Disorder (MPD) wherein various triggers can cause the slave personality to surface and respond to commands given by the master (“Handler” in Monarch parlance).

Despite the intuitive connection between the Handler and a King or Monarch, the Monarch in this context refers to Monarch Butterflies, not to a Monarchical form of government.”

Mind control experiments are, almost by definition, not something you would go telling everyone about. In fact, there are very few proven cases of MK Ultra mind control and the very existence of the Monarch program can be largely attributed to alleged survivor Cathy O’Brien. In her book Trance Formation of America (1995), she describes horrific, systematic trauma based mind control on a wide scale including women and children programmed to be sex slaves.

The idea that a totalitarian state could control people like Pavlov’s dogs had appeared in 1940s novels, notably Arthur Koestler’s ‘Darkness at Noon’ and George Orwell’s ‘1984.’ But it took Mao’s China and the forced ‘confessions’ of American prisoners of war during the Korean conflict to make brainwashing an everyday concept.

It is thought that MK Ultra and its purported sub program called Monarch (after the butterfly) were devised in the 1950’s in response to some very disturbing film, seen by the world, of US POWs seemingly ‘Brainwashed’ into renouncing their country, shortly after their capture.

Whether or not you believe something like MK Ultra and Monarch could possibly happen today, it’s fair to assume that astute novelists and filmmakers like Harris and Demme would have been aware of these concepts and/or events, in the late 1980s.

Of course, Silence of the Lambs wouldn’t be the only film to deal with themes of ‘Brainwashing to create the perfect killer’. There are many others – The Manchurian Candidate (Jonathan Demme went on to direct the remake in 2001) , The Bourne franchise, The IPCRESS file, Iron Man 3 and Universal Soldier to name a few. Silence of the Lambs differs from these other films, only in that it presents this frightening scenario in a much more subtle and therefore unnerving manner. Much like brainwashing itself.

“It is perfectly possible for a man to be out of prison, and yet not free – to be under no physical constraint and yet to be a psychological captive, compelled to think, feel and act as the representatives of the national state, or of some private interest within the nation, wants him to think, feel and act.

“The nature of psychological compulsion is such that those who act under constraint remain under the impression that they are acting on their own initiative. The victim of mind-manipulation does not know that he is a victim. To him the walls of his prison are invisible, and he believes himself to be free. That he is not free is apparent only to other people. His servitude is strictly objective.”

Brave New World Revisited, Aldous Huxley, 1958

The notion of trauma-based mind control, as represented by the transformation from grub into chrysalis and butterfly, is central to the understanding of the deeper themes of the Silence of the Lambs. This uncomfortable yet strongly implied counter-narrative asserts that; rather than catching them, the FBI and CIA used trauma-based mind control programs to, in fact, create serial killers like Hannibal the Cannibal, Multiple (Personality Disorder) Miggs, Bufallo Bill and the others as cold, programmable assassins to use for their own unstated purposes.     

The MK Ultra program officially halted in 1973.

Part 2 – It’s only a drill

In many ways the entire film can be viewed in terms of a staged event, drill or training run. The notion of film itself is of course an abstraction of life – All the world’s a stage, said Shakespeare. Here we have many levels to the drama. We start with Clarice’s initial FBI training and the various drills and simulations she sees or takes part in, and progress through her ‘other’ training at the hands of Jack and Hannibal as the story of her transformation unfolds. History tells us that staged events and agents provocateurs are often employed by intelligence services like the FBI. The FBIs COINTELPRO program saw agents pose as political radicals to disrupt the activities of political groups in the US, such as the Black Panthers, Ku Klux Klan, and the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee.

Training is, of course, part of becoming an FBI agent and the ‘training montage’ is a common time-saving device, particularly in action movies. But this doesn’t feel like an action movie. The repeated references to training and staging (verging on over-use) appear to be pointing at something much deeper. It may be argued that they reflect the Director’s views on training the mind or brainwashing. There is a certain Kafkaesque horror in not knowing what is real and what is not. The shock for us, the savvy viewer, is that Clarice will be traumatised/trained, via an extremely elaborate series of horrific but staged events, to be the FBIs next programmable killer. Perhaps not surprisingly, almost everybody missed that bit. Frankly, part of us would probably rather not know.

The subtle counter-narrative starts early – we see Clarice running through the forest on an obstacle course. You could call it a training run. Presently, she’s caught by an FBI agent who tells her that Crawford wants her in his office. She quits her training run, leaves the obstacle course and, on some level, leaves her regular FBI course behind altogether. As she nears FBI headquarters, she passes some signs nailed to a tree – HURT, AGONY, PAIN, LOVE-IT. These mottoes are presumably there to motivate the trainees on their way around the circuit. Below these, washed out and barely visible is another sign that says PRIDE, or does it say PR DIE? This could refer to the pride that the FBI once took in their work that is now just a faded memory. It may imply that Clarice will need to swallow her pride before Crawford if she wants to advance in the FBI. But it’s also possible that ‘washed out’ PRIDE and PR DIE both refer to the public relations nightmare experienced by US intelligence agencies in the 1980s as the result of botched covert operations, such as the Iran Contra affair, where top military brass went rogue.

As Clarice approaches the Quantico building, she first passes a group of special forces guys in what look like ninja outfits and then more agents in black who look like they might be breaking into the building with ropes. For a second or two, you could be forgiven for thinking the building was under attack. Of course, it’s only a drill.

Here are some interesting observances of staged events –

* Despite his rhetoric about ‘The rules – No pens, pencils, staples or paperclips’ – Chilton manages to somehow lose his own pen in Lecter’s cell, even though Lecter is in a full-body cage.

* Clarice has to pass many security doors to enter the cell-block area but there is a bizarre set of stairs, seemingly completely clear and unobstructed, right next to Hannibal’s cell. We could infer that he has the run of the place when she’s not around.

* The burly guards view Lecter on B&W TVs in their grubby office. We later learn that Lecter watches a colour TV and his cell is spotless. So just who are the prisoners and who are the guards?

* We cut from Clarice being yanked out of combat training to see cars screeching to a halt outside a building (presumably with Clarice inside one of them.) But we quickly realise it’s yet another training exercise and Clarice just happens to be walking past.

*We’re given the exact same view of the Polaroid as Clarice and there’s absolutely nothing visible lodged deep in Frederica Bimmel’s throat. The photograph clearly shows that we can’t see anything past her tongue and teeth. How on earth does Clarice divine this information?

* As evidenced by Lecter’s frankly impossible knowledge of the cut on Clarice’s leg – the tableau in the storage shed seems to have been set up exclusively for her benefit. We can only infer that the shifty shed’s owner got the bloody information back to Hannibal by some nefarious means.

* The lab geeks play a game of live bug chess, a very suitable analogy for Clarice’s situation. One of them says ‘No fair, you lured him with produce’ in reference to the beetle. Catherine lures Precious to the well with produce. Jack lures Clarice to killing with the promise of advancement.

* We’re given clues that the police and SWAT are unwitting bit-players in a much larger production – notice the uniformed mannequins in glass cases behind them in the elevator lobby appearing to silently mirror or mock their actions.

* The local police, ambulance and even the SWAT are easily fooled by a little bit of purely symbolic horror (the ‘crucified’ and ‘injured’ officers) – and this allows Hannibal’s escape.

* According to Frederica Bimmel’s father, police had been back ‘so many times’ to search her bedroom, yet Clarice instantly finds new photo evidence hidden in her music box, the first place any detective worth their salt would look.  

* The FBI raid in Calumet (the original Sin City) is full of Keystone-cops style action and clues that it’s ‘not real’. Note the over-the-top flower van and flower man, the comical door-busting entries and melodramatic close-ups.

* Obvious parallels are drawn between Jack’s farcical drill-like search in Calumet City and Clarice’s entry into Bill’s real house.

* Clarice’s search of Bill’s dungeon closely resembles the hostage drill where she ‘forgot to check the corner’. In the dungeon, she makes a laboured point of checking the corner.

* Jack appears to have arranged the final phone-call between Clarice and Hannibal.

With artful use of camera techniques, symbolic associations and (sometimes glaring) plot-line inconsistencies it would seem that the filmmakers are going to great lengths to pose the unconscious question – ‘What is real and what is not?’

So when does the real action start?

Part 3. Jack Crawford – Overseer

Now inside the building and on her way to Crawford’s office, Clarice encounters teams of agents grouped in distinctive blue and red shirts. This could be a sly reference to the redshirts, a white paramilitary group that was active in the Southern US in the late 19th century and the National Blue Shirt Minutemen, an American anti-fascist organization of New York from 1936. Wikipedia has this to say –

The Red Shirts sometimes engaged in terrorism and they had one goal, the restoration of the Democrats to power by getting rid of Republicans, which usually meant repressing civil rights and voting by the freedmen.”

But it may simply be that these colours depict both sides of US politics and their equal stake in funding and maintaining the FBI, no matter what the actual costs.

Clarice passes a room containing two senior looking agents. It’s clear they’re on the Buffalo Bill case. On the chalkboard behind them we see the words Skins and Signature and also the phrase Blue eyed boy now. Bill has blue eyes, but why the word ‘now’? This could be interpreted on many levels – Is it a reference to the creating of an engineered master race as explored in ‘The Boys From Brazil’, a nod to Jane Elliott and her ‘Blue Eyed’ experiments in hierarchical social control or a simple question as to whether Bill is a patriot or a rogue operative? Note Bill’s proficiency with night-vision, the Nazi ephemera, US flag , maps and propaganda posters in his dungeon. Of course, the real-life Buffalo Bill was many things but notably his Wikipedia entry begins like this –

William Frederick “Buffalo Bill” Cody (February 26, 1846 – January 10, 1917) was an American soldier

Clarice proceeds into Jack’s office where she gawps at his collection of VHS tapes, presumably of behavioral experiments, and his wall of Buffalo Bill evidence. After the headline ‘Bill Skins Fifth’, the sub headline on the National Inquisitor reads ‘How to escape the rat race and still keep your job’ – Is this what Clarice is about to do? Another newspaper clipping astonishingly, almost comically, reads ‘FBI Links “Skinning Murders” But Finds No Pattern.’ Hang on a second – the secret to Bufallo Bill’s identity is hanging right there in a newspaper on Jack Crawford’s wall at the start of the movie?!? This is a big hint that Jack knows a lot more about Bill than he’s letting on.

Putting aside these newspaper jokes or winks to the wise, which would likely be missed on a first viewing in any case, Crawford’s arrival sees him presented to us and Clarice as the benevolent, avuncular head of the FBIs Behavioral Sciences unit. He’s perfectly dressed and immaculately groomed. But almost immediately there are signs that Jack is less trustworthy than he appears. He calls Clarice – ‘Starling, Clarice, M.’ like he’s just been reading her file and apologises for ‘pulling her off the course’ – now does he mean the obstacle course or her regular FBI course? Jack’s words seem to carry double meanings. He goes on to compliment her, claiming to have given her an A on a paper. Clarice immediately reminds him that it was an A-, so Jack has either forgotten (even though he’s obviously just read her file), or he’s purposely lying to see how Clarice’s will respond when confronted with authoritative deceptions. Over the course of the film, we come to understand that it’s Jack’s Mission to train and test Clarice (via Hannibal and Bill), but in this early scene, we learn that his motives for doing so are usually covered by lies. We hear that Jack got a ‘grilling’ (suggesting his involvement) over the FBI’s civil rights record during the Hoover years. Hoover’s manipulative use of intelligence and ambivalence toward civil rights leaders like Martin Luther King are well documented.

Jack says he has a Job for Clarice, not a job, more of an ‘interesting errand.’ Already he’s talking about going outside the regular program, off the radar, so to speak and into a new part of her training. He establishes that she’d like to come and work for him and immediately launches into this rather stilted line –

Crawford: We’re interviewing all the serial killers currently in custody for a psychological profile –—- could be a real help in unsolved cases.

Is he interviewing them to find Buffalo Bill, or to find someone else? He might as well have said ‘and from what they’ve told us, YOU could be a real help in unsolved cases CLARICE’.

The innuendo continues –

Crawford: Do you spook easily Starling? – (NB. Spook is another word for a Secret Agent. In other words, Jack’s asking – Can we turn you into a Secret Agent easily Starling?)

Starling: Not yet sir.

Crawford: See, the one we want most refuses to co-operate. 

Soon enough, she will.

Part 4. Cannibalism today

It would be very convenient to be able to attribute all the horrible things that Hannibal does to the fact that hes a sick psychopath with no redeeming features whatsoever. And for the most part, this is the picture painted by the surface narrative. One look through the bullet proof glass, however, reveals this to be another rather clever piece of staging.

At Crawford’s first mention of the word Hannibal, Clarice automatically recites, what is now one of the most recognisable catch-phrases of the film ‘Hannibal the Cannibal.’ We find out quite early on that Hannibal eats his victims or his ‘evidence’ so there’s an obvious explanation for his moniker. But could there be a symbolic meaning to Harris’ choice of name for his iconic character? Like the ‘alien hand’ of Dr Strangelove, is Hannibal’s Cannibalism a symbol of harm directed towards one’s own kind in the form of illegal military operations? (Note Lecter’s penchant for consuming ‘state employees’ – census taker, EMTs, Police etc.) It could be argued that Harris was indeed taking a metaphorical swipe at programs like MK Ultra that seek to use trauma to control a civilian person’s mind so they can be used to commit further atrocities in the name of the state.

The moment Clarice arrives at the Baltimore State Forensic hospital, she’s informed by Dr Chilton that Lecter is –

a. A Monster

b. Their most prized asset

During the descent into the cells, Chilton grills Starling on The Rules – ‘No pencils, pens, paperclips or staples… Yet ironically, Chilton later manages to lose his own pen to Lecter, despite the fact that Hannibal is  in a whole-body cage. And Lecter then uses Chilton’s pen to escape the handcuffs and murder the police guards – oh the horror! How could such an unholy stuff-up happen? The clear implication of our alternate-narrative is that Chilton is Lecter’s ‘Handler’ in FBI/Monarch parlance.  He’s therefore fully aware of Hannibal’s skill-set (perception, charm and brutal violence) and what triggers can be used to draw them out. When Chilton loses his pen, we choose to believe it was a ‘silly accident’, despite the fact that this contravenes his first rule in his own facility. The fact that we completely ignore the possibility that Chilton supplied it to Lecter on purpose is surely evidence of our own wilful denial of the obvious. Hey, who’s being brainwashed here?

As a side note, I find it fascinating that we can so easily indulge in magical thinking when the facts don’t want to fit our picture of reality (Did someone say ‘Back and to the left’?) This is astonishingly clever directing or mis-directing of our attentions.

As we delve deeper, Chilton’s overtures become more sinister –

Chilton: When the nurse leaned over him, he did this to her… (shows Clarice the gory photograph)

Notice the sinister sound effects and symbolic opening of the red gates as Clarice is subjected to the horrific image, her first small piece of trauma in relation her new case – Hannibal.

Chilton: Save one eye…

Is it my imagination or does Chilton look to have make-up around his right eye like ‘Fascist mind control experiment gone wrong – Alex‘ from A Clockwork Orange, as he delivers this creepy line?

Following this harrowing trip toward the bowels, Clarice is let into the observation area. It’s fairly grotty. The burly guards view Lecter on B&W tvs – they probably see the world in terms of Black and White too. We later learn that Lecter watches a colour TV and his cell is spotless. So just who is watching who?

The camera pans past a group of photographs. Closer inspection reveals Malcolm X and Martin Luther King, both of whom were targets of assassins. These, along with the African idols pinned to the wall, could be passed off as merely the workplace trinkets of the two young, strangely similar looking, black guards (with oddly opposing personalities) but logic suggests the big old white guard with the medium-sized arsenal at his disposal isn’t going to be all cool about that. This is more probably where they keep some of the training tools and ‘primers’ for Hannibal and the other mind controlled assassins, known in polite company as ‘serial killers.’ These photos seem to suggest links between the assassinations of African and African/American leaders, programmed serial killers and covert FBI operations.

Clarice now has her ‘Goldilocks’ moment. As she walks past the cells of other prisoners, toward her first encounter with Hannibal, she sees the litany of failed would-be mind-controlled assassins who came before. The first guy is too sullen, probably broken by his psychological torment at the hands of Chilton and Crawford. The second is too gormless, smiling like he’s been lobotomised, he’s not going to be an effective agent for the FBI. Next is Multiple Miggs. His name, mysterious at first, is an obvious reference to multiple personality disorder – a medically recognised condition that is thought to result from psychological trauma. His treatment by Chilton and Crawford is exactly that. Finally she arrives at one who’s juuuust right, almost – Hannibal. But Hannibal is prone to going off-piste and needs constant supervision or ‘handling’, so Crawford will use him and his other creation Bill to train Clarice to be next in line, the perfect assassin, one who doesn’t know that’s what she is.

Clarice even tells Hannibal that she is ‘Here to learn from you’. Of course we, the smug audience, just think she is trying to play him. We don’t know that she is being played by Crawford and her words are the literal truth. The irony continues. In a later interaction, and with reference to Bill, Hannibal tells Clarice ‘Look for incidents of Childhood trauma involving violence’. An astute viewer would notice that these things refer equally to Buffalo Bill as Clarice herself – with the early death of her mother, the prolonged suffering of her mortally wounded father (the policeman) and her incident at the farm with the lambs, Clarice is psychologically predisposed to being manipulated into violence. She admits to not being top of her class, why else did Crawford choose her?  Bill was groomed for his role in this, just as Clarice was chosen for her psychological background of childhood trauma. Hannibal knows all this and is truly sad to be part of entrapping Clarice. When she finally reveals her deepest pain, that of the lambs, Hannibal knows his job is complete. He will get his kill-trip to an exotic destination as reward but for the loss of her freedom, he sheds a single tear – ‘Thank you Clarice’.

Fast forward to the end of the movie – When Clarice picks up the phone to unexpectedly find Lecter on the other end of the line, we assume he’s followed his ‘old friend’ Chilton to some exotic destination in order to eat him. In the literal narrative this holds true, but remember, we’ve long since established that Chilton is really Lecter’s FBI handler. And just look at where we are – a small African or Caribbean nation, just the kind of place a US intelligence agency might send their most accomplished killer (and his handler – note that Chilton accompanies a local dignitary) if they wanted to assassinate a leader and, say, foment political unrest… sound familiar? The CIA and FBI have long been implicated in this sort of activity, for example – The widely credited plans to assassinate Castro and, more recently, the successful operation to assassinate Bin Laden.

Let’s not forget, it’s the always-ambiguous Crawford who reminds Starling about the phone call to Hannibal. By now some viewers and readers will be all too aware that Jack is the ringmaster in this serial killer/covert assassin circus and that he’s teed up this call with Hannibal as one final piece of trauma to control Clarice’s mind and keep her under his thumb. Consider the seemingly incidental trauma that Clarice has endured in order to advance her career and arrive at this point – murder, unending sexualisation, semen, suicide, corpses, rotting corpses in bathtubs, kidnapping, human liver consumption, insect insertions, hospitalised psychopaths, escaped psychopaths, craniofacial removal, her first ‘kill’ etc. Now, whenever Jack needs Clarice to kill someone, all he need do is cast that person as another of Lecter’s evil offspring.

With the killing of Bill and her continuing acceptance of Crawford’s lies, Clarice’s final transformation is complete. Trauma based mind control has induced and fed her metamorphosis from scared little girl into the FBI’s newest and sexiest covert assassin. On a conscious level, we probably don’t know this, but we’re not alone, Clarice doesn’t know it either. Whilst funny and hard to believe on some levels, this is very important. We’ve been subjected to the same trauma and manipulation as Clarice over the course of the film and, as a result, are in a fragile and suggestible state of mind ourselves. If we’re not careful we’ll come away, as millions of us did, safe in the knowledge that psychopaths are awful and the intelligence services do great work in catching and containing them. To do so is to completely miss the film’s subversive central theme. We missed it because we were victims of it – brainwashing. The surface narrative is there – yes. But the masterful use of symbols, staging and innuendo discussed in this presentation tell almost the opposite story, one of state-sponsored mind control and assassination.  Only careful analysis can prevent our perception of events being hijacked.

Similarly, if you come away from this article skeptical about the film’s hidden narrative, I encourage you to watch it again for the examples mentioned here. I’m confident you’ll soon start to see many other instances of symbols, staging and innuendo that support this alternate take on events.

Seconds after Clarice shoots Bill dead, we see the famous wind-chime spinning – On one side, a brown butterfly, on the other we see it joined by a white butterfly.

Monarch has new baby and she is Silent Starling.

A programmable killer who cannot tell.

As we leave the theater we might see the poster and the moth covering Clarice’s mouth, maybe even in a new light.

Part 5. Silent Stirrings

But ‘where are the Lambs?’ I hear you ask. The Lambs, dear reader, are us. Childlike, kept in the dark, unaware of the malignant forces that seek to control our fate, silently screaming. A Starling may have tried to save us once but we were too scared to even run away. If we’re not slaughtered in the spring we’ll grow into sheep. It is our failure to comprehend the hidden agenda that lends its horror to the movie and to life itself.

Is there a positive outtake of any kind here? – maybe not.

Perhaps, if we’re smart enough and brave enough, we’ll lift the wool and unravel the knotted story-lines that wind up the city – they’re right there in front of us, just take a good look.

With thanks to Rob Ager for inspiration and the wording of the disclaimer.


38 thoughts on “Silence of the Lambs – an analysis by Hamish Spencer

  1. i really didnt see all these hidden messages in the movie but i agree that there are hidden messages and that’s why whenever i saw this movie i felt i felt this movie is not as simple as it seems and there’s more it is a work of art just like a clockwork orange. in the beginning i was scared of hannibal but in the end i kind of felt sorry for it because he is just an insane guy who has a story of his own(a creepy one ).

    • You’re right, there’s plenty going in A Clockwork Orange too. I feel the most interesting and artful films often contain a hidden or counter-narrative. The sadness you feel for Hannibal may be the unconscious realisation that he is just a normal person whose murderous impulses were actually created and then exploited by the intelligence services. The same thing happens to Starling over the course of the movie. Given the right cocktail of trauma and psychedelics, I believe it could be anyone in the bite-proof mask.

    • I’m surprised no one has ever caught an error in Hannibal Lecter’s renowned sentence, “A census taker once tried to test me; I ate his liver with some fava beans and a nice Chiant.”
      I was employed by the Dept. of Commerce & Labor to work on the 2010 census. Census takers are entitled as “Enumerators” and we go to assigned addresses of those that didn’t send in their census forms. We simply gather their family information so they can be counted in accordance with the constitution. There is absolutely no “test” of any kind involved. Therefore, Lecter’s statement about being “tested by a census taker” is wrong.

      • Nice to get some information straight from the source – a real life census taker! I must admit to not having actually considered it before, but what you say makes perfect sense – the census is not a test. So what’s he talking about? I always just sort of assumed that the census taker had ‘tested his patience’ as the saying goes. It doesn’t take much to turn Hannibal murderous and if you’re a government official of any sort, then you represent the people who made him what he is, and you’re automatically ‘on the menu’. Lecter lost his freedom and became a monster somewhere along the line, thanks to Crawford and the FBI (another government agency). Now all government representatives must pay the price. Fun fact: from Redditer mrchapman – Fava beans, Liver and Wine are all foods to avoid or strictly limit if you are using monoamine oxidase inhibitors or MAOIs, as the combination can be fatal. MAOIs are used to treat a variety of psycological and personality disorders. By eating those particluar foods, it’s thought that Lecter was making a sly joke about being ‘off’ his medication. Cheers H

      • Test is a pun. Tested his patience. Hannibal kills people who are rude. Obviously the census patient irritated him or offended him, and because he’s brilliant he finds it funny to tease Clarice with this. Especially after she asked him to look in the mirror and analyse himself.

  2. Happened here on accident, but a happy one. Was the explanation of themes I didn’t realize my brain wanted for years. I can finally digest all those irritatingly creepy scenes 😉
    By the way, think there’s a typo you might want to fix : “…..advance her career and arrive at this point – hair-cum,”. Had me pause for a minute since the article was so perfect otherwise 😉

    • Many thanks for the kind words. I’d love for more people to stumble across it. Please feel free to share with any friends who may be interested 😉
      Yes, the terminology was a little coarse, have amended, good suggestion.
      Cheers H.

  3. “If we’re not careful we’ll come away, as millions of us did, safe in the knowledge that psychopaths are awful and the intelligence services do great work in catching and containing them.” Throughout this whole analysis you seem to be defending serial murder but at the same time criticizing the government for assassinating political figures. It’s like you’re saying that human life has little value and serial killing is no big deal and then getting upset that the government (maybe) kills politicians. Also, I don’t think anyone came out of that movie thinking that the FBI did a great job catching killers. I mean, Crawford’s so desperate he picks this inexperienced student, seemingly at random, to ask a highly dangerous psychopath what his thoughts on the case are (what the hell business do they have putting any trust in what this crazy friggin asshole says anyway???). And then the cops manage to lose Lecter when there are like 20 of them in the building and only 2 of them are actually watching him? That doesn’t exactly inspire confidence in law enforcement.

    Anyway, there’s definitely a ton of symbolism in this movie, but I think you’re way off in your interpretation of it. Also I feel like you’re forgetting that this movie was based on a book. How could all of the examples you used to support your brain-washing argument that come out of the movie but have nothing to do with the book actually support your argument when the original story isn’t about brainwashing? I mean, I certainly don’t interpret it that way; I can’t find any evidence in the novel of brainwashing, subtle or otherwise. Are you saying that the director added this in afterward or what?

    Alright, sorry for any negative feels caused by this criticism. I don’t mean to say that you’re stupid or anything like that. I think it’s wonderful that you’re reading more into this movie than what’s on the surface. Keep writing!

    • Hi Em, I’m certainly not defending serial murder. Who would? I kinda don’t see where you found that in this analysis. I’m glad you considered the FBI to be dodgy in this movie too – great! I think lots of viewers would have found Crawford’s unusual methods insightful or resourceful or something, but maybe I’m wrong about that.
      Films that are based on books often explore divergent themes – have a look into what Kubrick did with Stephen King’s ‘The Shining’ as a great starting point. Keep in mind – this is not an analysis of the book.
      The fact that Demme directed the remake of The Manchurian Candidate, the quintessential brainwashing movie, is pretty good evidence of his thematic leanings imho.

    • So trance-like, and another hint as to her brainwashed state I reckon. I always found that scene and line very creepy – it’s almost the same dissociated voice she uses when she first says ‘Hannibal the cannibal’. We fade out as Hannibal follows Chilton (and the local emissary guy) into the distance – are they in Grenada? Thank you for reading this Irving.

  4. Hannibal had no way of receiving information from the storage unit owner; blood has a scent and he already made it perfectly clear during his & Clarice’s first meeting that he could smell her skin cream (and even the skin cream she wasn’t using that day) through the six or seven holes in the thick glass that separated them. Considering he’s a cannibal, the scent of her cut probably hit his nose the moment she approached the glass, and he probably loved it.

    • You could be right. I do have trouble believing Hannibal can smell that her ‘bleeding has stopped’. If Clarice is being brainwashed by Crawford then everything is being stage managed to terrorise her. I know it’s ‘just a movie’ but in reality it would also be nigh on impossible for Hannibal to discern her skin cream regime by smell alone. Again, if we credit Demme with creating a conspiracy/brainwashing theme, this information could easily have been supplied to Lecter by Crawford/Barney/Chilton via Clarice’s room-mate.

  5. Pingback: The Silence of the Lambs Is Secretly About Mind Control – Gizmodo

  6. You could also explore the significance and symbolism of their names – Lector/Starling Teacher/Mimic.

    You suggest that the story is staged for Starling’s benefit/brainwashing which makes her the unreliable narrator of our story. To look more closely at it we could probably break down every sequence: into scenes that are directly viewed from Starling’s point of view – her unreliable view of events – scenes/shots that establish Starling in a location or situation, perhaps scenes that do not involve Starling that imply a conspiracy.

    What is most fascinating about the third group of scenes is the courthouse sequence. Lector is moved from the psych hospital and kept in a cage inside the courthouse. Starling doesn’t enter until the main action of the sequence is finished. I don’t know how how it would fit into your theory, perhaps as a traumatising tableau.

    What interests me most about this sequence is that it is the only time in the film that we see from Lector’s point of view – the lock pick. Until this point Lector has been built up as so clever,
    so other, so wicked that we couldn’t possibly understand what it is like to be him. Now we are with him. At that point Hannibal has also hijacked the story. He has transformed from being a source – something like The Monster Book Of
    Monsters in Harry Potter – dangerous but containable, into a player on the stage of Clarice’s story, bigger and badder than Buffalo Bill will ever be.

    But how does that work with your theory?

    Lector is Starling’s teacher, there is no doubt about that. None of her later actions reflect Lector’s (and Buffalo Bill’s) cold enthusiasm for grotesque violence. Starling’s actions are consistently empathetic towards the victims – sending the police out of the room before she takes prints – and her killing of Buffalo Bill is obviously driven by terror which is then not transformed into retributive violence to his corpse which you might expect of a traumatised victim.

  7. Pingback: Speaking of art… – L. Scot Everett

  8. Pingback: Great Job, Internet!: On its 25th anniversary, what is The Silence Of The Lambs really about? - The Daily Jobard

  9. Pingback: The Silence Of The Lambs Is Secretly About Mind Control | Gizmodo Australia

  10. Pingback: The Silence Of The Lambs Is Secretly About Mind Control – Get Your Geek Fix

  11. You seem so keen to analyze facts where for me this movie is about feelings . When Hannibal touches Clarissa hand when passing thru information. The feeling of touching someone during incarceration would provide incredible emotion..sexual and otherwise. The conversation about Billys history of abuse and Clarice s sharing of her farm life and ,”screaming of the lambs” is sad and haunting.
    The feeling Hannibal got from delving into her “soul” would be immense (especially as an unpracticing psychiatrist) One could also see anti meat eating themes here…human as well as “the lambs”.If you don’t “feel” this film and analyze instead, what else it could be about beyond the story then I think this tangent could go on and on and on and off track eventually. Glad I can share my enjoyment of this film .Peter

  12. –If Chilton gave Lector his pen, why is Chilton later surprised when he can not find it in his coat pocket? He’s not “acting” either (in a sense….), he naturally reaches for his coat pocket and realizes it’s missing.

    –Frederica isn’t the third victim, she is the third be found. She is the first victim, and was found later because Bill disposed her differently. This is niypicky, but in this case it’s a very crucial plot point to the movie. Getting facts in the movie as clear as you can will help your essay.

    -You do see the cocoon in the mouth. It’s the black hole where the flash should have illuminated the reddish back of the throat + uvula.

    • Thanks for the comments. I believe Chilton feels for his pen four ‘our’ benefit.
      Yes, you’re right, Federica Bimmel’s finding was third. This is perhaps important to the surface narrative but less so to brainwashing themes.
      We’ll have to agree to disagree on what can or can’t be seen in that photo. Thanks for reading.

  13. The problem with your analysis is that the movie was originally supposed to end with Dr. Lector brutally killing Dr. Chilton. They changed it because they did not want the movie to end so brutally, they thought it would not be very cinematic. So Dr. Lector really is not working with Dr. Chilton, he is stalking him to kill him. Interesting analysis regardless, found some of your ideas very interesting.

  14. Pingback: The Silence of the Lambs – Horror Films and Gender in the 1990s

  15. The book “Hannibal” has overt brainwashing of Clarice near the end that the movie hardly touches on.

    Then there’s the Hannibal TV series which makes references to “psychic driving”, and If I recall correctly, there’s also a reference to the renowned but under-publicized brainwashing drug scopolamine. Not to mention Hannibal’s constant manipulation of his patients, and the fact that psychiatric “shock troops” are the weapon of choice for the Tavistock Institute’s social engineers.

    Even Hannibal’s name, which I think was chosen less because of a convenient rhyme, as the Carthage general. According to Wikipedia his name means:
    “grace of Baʻal”,[4] “Ba’al is gracious”, or “Ba’al has been gracious”;”

    Ba’al being the god of the Canaanites who were infamous for human sacrifice, and said to be the forbearer’s of the Satanic, ritual abuse, brainwashing cabal operating this very day.

    Thomas Harris has a reputation as a recluse, and I get the impression he is well versed in these subjects.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s