Talk:The Silence of the Lambs (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Silence of the Lambs (film) article.
Article policies
Film Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B
This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High
This article has been rated as High-importance on the priority scale.
This article, category, or template is part of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to horror film and fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.

Contents

[edit] Award information

  • I highly doubt the accuracy about the information regarding the film Hush..Hush, Sweet Charlotte and The Exorcist.

I thinks it's pretty obvious that they weren't the most oscar nominated films ever. I got rid of that information Kiwiboy121 02:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The statement was that they were the most Oscar-nominated horror films. I reverted your deletion. Ward3001 03:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hannibal

I've expanded a great deal on the plot summary, although I think I got carried away and virtually wrote the book! Feel free to cut it down anyone, if you think it's a bit too detailed.

[edit] Category "Films directed by Jonathan Demme" really needed?

This article has too many categories . Shouldn't we stop at 3 or so? Why is the category "Films directed by Jonathan Demme" needed if we can click the name of the director in the main text and get a nice list of all his films there as well? Sounds like doing the same things twice to me. Peter S. 11:17, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I can see your point -- but it seems odd to deliberatly leave his most famous film out of the Films directed by Jonathan Demme category. I think a better solution would be to split the article, with one focusing on the book and one focusing on the movie. (That's how Beloved is treated.) -- Scarequotes 01:38, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

No, you got me wrong there: I was suggesting that generally, we don't need categories like "Films directed by X" or "Films starring Y". We should remove them all to remove clutter. No info is lost, because the article pages of X or Y already contain that very same information as part of their filmography. Peter S. 19:08, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Is the reference to Kansas City in Kansas? or Missouri?

I believe it is in Missouri. A movie review gives the state as Missouri.

In the screenplay, we see this line of dialog:

CAMPBELL (contd.):   Blue square for Belvedere, Ohio, where the Bimmel girl was abducted. Blue triangle where her body was found - down here in Missouri. Same marks for the other four girls, in different colors. This new one, today... washed up here.

(He marks with a Flair pen)

Elk River, in West Virginia, about six miles below U.S. 79. Real boonies.

There are only two instances of the word "Kansas" in the entire screenplay. One is about how the Kansas City police named Buffalo Bill, and the other is Clarice saying "We're not in Kansas any more". So the only reference to either of these states in which a murder took place (and so you would expect the police force to investigate) was Kansas City, Missouri. So I'll go ahead and disambiguate the link to Missouri.
--GraemeMcRaetalk 05:44, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comparison to the Source

I changed "Differences in the film version" to Comparison to the Source because I feel that it better depicts the topic of the section. --Sfox1125 15:39, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm changing it back, because its then difficult to understand if the differences listed are in the book or the movie! Es-won 02:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Filming Locations

In the locations of filming it gives Ohio as the primary location. However other sources I have consulted give many locations as Pittsburgh. This is certainly close to Ohio, and there were many locations filmed in Ohio. I'm not attacking the veracity of the statement; however the Soldiers and Sailors Museum is located in Pittsburgh. I believe the original author confused this with the Soldiers and Sailors Memorial (much smaller, more of a victory column), which is located in Ohio. Also I believe the building that stands in for Chesapeake Mental Hospital is also in Pittsburgh. My sole point, in so many words is that this article needs its facts checked and then edited accordingly.

  • I changed the location listed in the article to Pittsburgh. Prospective students of the University of Pittsburgh are told by tour guides that parts of the movie were filmed at that particular memorial hall (which is on the university's campus), and I recognized the exterior of the building in the film- it is the Soldiers' and Sailors' Memorial in Pittsburgh.

[edit] Music in the Movie

The song Goodbye Horses by Q Lazzarus is playing while "Buffalo Bill" is trying on his skin suit.

there is also a really great song called "Hip Preist" by "The Fall" when clarice is looking around the house, just befoer the night vision goggles

[edit] Novel references removed

I removed all references to things from the novel that were not in the movie and changed some accordingly. Moved the previous plot to the novel article —☆ CieloEstrellado 22:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cheap Seats

There were some references to it in an episode of Cheap Seats.

[edit] Influences Section

While Buffalo Bill may share some characteristics of a few serial killers, he is only based on three: Ted Bundy, Gary Heidnik, and Ed Gein. The references to Chikatilo and Kemper, while interesting are irrelevant in regards to this film. I propose that the Influences section be cleaned up, and steamlined.

[edit] Contradiction

This article contradicts Hannibal Lecter. This article claims that Gene Hackman was the original choice to portray Lecter, while John Lithgow was the second choice. The Hannibal Lecter article states that Robert Duvall was the first choice and Robert DeNiro was the second. Dr. Hannibal Lecter 05:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, I think Gene Hackman was the first, Duvall was the second, DeNiro third, Lithgow and then Hopkins. This order could be wrong though. No one wanted to do it because they thought the character was too disturbing, Hopkins was only too excited to do the part, even though he was like WTF?. I don't even know if DeNiro and Duvall were considered. I think I'll have to watch the documentary on my SoTL DVD again. --Majinvegeta 07:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok, good idea. My DVD doesn't have any features other than movie trailers for itself and other movies. Dr. Hannibal Lecter 17:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] the five most prestigious Academy Awards (in opening paragraph)

should best adaptation count as the fifth? i thought there were the top 4 - actor, actress, picture, director. The undertow 08:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The fifth in the top five for a film at the Oscars is always either Best Original Screenplay or Best Adapted Screenplay, which ever a film is applicable for. Therefore, yes it counts as the fifth. Dr. Hannibal Lecter 15:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Parodies

- The silence of the hams (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0111190/) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.190.201.136 (talk) 20:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Article Inconsistency

I noticed the following two inconsistent statements in this article. In the Introduction Section, it states: Hopkins' performance as Lecter remains the shortest lead acting, Oscar-winning performance ever, as Hopkins is on screen for less than 35' minutes throughout the course of the film. However, in the Section entitled PRODUCTION, it states: Despite the acclaim garnered for the role, Anthony Hopkins is only in the film for a little over Bold16 minutes. Does any one know which is the accurate statistic? I have more often seen/heard the latter figure. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JosephASpadaro (talk • contribs) 10:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

Yes, the latter, 16 minutes, is right. 35 is from vandalism that I already have had to revert TWICE! Someone might want to do something about that, such as watching the page.  :-) Dr. Hannibal Lecter 00:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Original Research

I removed some OR, I don't ever remeber hearing about Clarice understanding that "simplicity" was the name of a fabric company. Does anyone else? --Majinvegeta 03:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Plot's length, and give aways. Missing Refs/Source Links

The article is much better written than the novel's version on Wiki. Good sequence in the paragraphs. The Plot is very extensive and gives too much away. Have you considered writing a summary of the plot? As a reader, I feel that too much is provided, that I'd avoid watching the film as a result.

"Production Notes" do not have any references/sources to back up what is being written (with the exception of one Michelle Phiffer [2]). "Awards and Controversy" no refs/source links, "Differences of the book" (nicely done, but requires some reference to book pages as evidence of what is written), "Influences" and "Manhunter" also provide no refs. For verifiability, you should provide source links.

Cast - I think the cast would be better placed right after the Plot, so it is more like an encyclopedia, movie database. Get summary of story, cast, awards, etc. This is the order which people tend to review film information. Good luck, and I hope these suggestions help improve the article. Breathe200 17:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Horror film?

Is SOTL actually a horror film? I always thought it was partially one, but more drama. It's in the Drama section at the movie stores. --VorangorTheDemon 18:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I dont think it is a horror film. Thriller != horror, Hitchcocks films were not necessarily horrors. BatGnat 21:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

No - but Psycho is surely the forerunner of slasher flicks. Serial killers, cannibals, are part of the what is normally referred to as horror films. What disguishes a horror film from other types of thrillers ? -- Beardo 23:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  • another important stuff: It won the five biggest academy awards (Actor, Actress, Director, Screenplay and Movie) i think it should be mencioned: check out One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (film) in the beginning there is a reference about the 5 big prizes. (HelenoBR)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Silence!.JPG

Image:Silence!.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 02:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Manhunter sequel confusion

Some argue that The Silence of the Lambs is a sequel to Manhunter, but the fact that Orion was willing to produce the film without the rights to the three characters that previously appeared in Manhunter suggests that it was never intended to be a cinematic follow up to Manhunter

What a load of unreferenced speculation! Manhunter is the adaptation of Red Dragon, and SOTL is the adaptation of SOTL, a sequel to Red Dragon. The information I've read suggests that because Manhunter wasn't exactly a hit on release, Orion didn't want to market Lambs as being a sequel - that doesn't mean that it's not though.

It should also be noted that, in Manhunter, Lecter's last name is officially spelled "Lecktor", and no mention is ever made of cannibalism.

This again is wrong, Lecter's surname is simply misspelled in the film - and he isn't a cannibal (in Manhunter).

Further distancing The Silence of the Lambs from Manhunter is the fact that Frankie Faison and Dan Butler appear in both films, but as completely different characters.

There was no Barney character in Manhunter, just like there were any number of characters from the books that didn't make the movies - how is this relevant?

This matter was settled in 2002 when Manhunter was remade as Red Dragon, in which Hopkins, Faison and Heald reprised their roles from The Silence of the Lambs, establishing itself as the official prequel as it relates to the other two Hopkins films.

Again, this is an opinion. Just because it was marketed as a prequal doesn't make it more official then Manhunter. The fact of the matter is Red Dragon 2002 is a remake.

I suggest the entire article under "Manhunter sequel confusion" be removed from the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.9.137.70 (talk) 13:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the previous commenter.--Mooseman153 15:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I think mention of Manhunter is relevant but it's a prequel to Lambs the same way Die Hard is a sequel to The Detective. Essentially it's two adaptations of two books in the same series but Lambs was never meant to be a sequel to Manhunter or De Laurentiis never would have sold them the rights. Manhunter was a failure. Notice he's the producer on Manhunter, gave them the rights to Lambs because he thought it would fail because Manhunter did, and then after it's success has his name on Hannibal and Red Dragon. You can watch Manhunter and Lambs and it makes sense but it wasn't planned that way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.202.118.5 (talk) 17:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Hannibal was a cannibal in Manhunter. Remember Benjamin Raspail? Besides, even if it was plain, it turns out he was, since Hannibal Rising later showed he became a cannibal as a teen. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Silence!.JPG

Image:Silence!.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] As a part in the series

I'm not familiar with this topic and I find the order of films very confusing since the release chronology and the story chronology don't correspond to the same films. Eventually I found the sequel/prequel piece in the sidebar, but it took a long time. Perhaps a mention in the opening paragraph or a common template for all four films? --Ephilei (talk) 01:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question

There is a song somewhere that is, entirely, a gigantic reference to this movie. Oddly enough, I can't remember its name or who did the song. Here are some of the lyrics:

It puts the lotion in the basket,
It puts the lotion in the basket,
Oh put the lotion in the fucking basket,
Bitch, put the lotion in the basket!

Does anybody know the name of the song? It would be great to have it to add to a "References in popular culture" section of this article; I wish I could have been more helpful!

-209.102.188.220 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The song with the lyrics "It puts the lotion on its skin" was done by Greenskeepers.147.239.118.158 (talk) 19:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The Greenskeepers really ought to be mentioned in the Lambs article. (Avitor) 10:16, 8 March 2008 (CDT)

[edit] Best Picture

I remember there being a line in the opening about SOTL being the only horror movie to ever win best picture? Where did it go? Last time I checked, no horror has won Best Picture since. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 05:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I've readded it until someone can prove it wrong. It says it is a horror/thriller in the opening line, so it's the only horror to win best picture. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 05:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
It is unique and I'm a fan of the movie, but I don't agree. Most critics don't classify the movie as a horror movie. They class it as a thriller. Most of the movie is about the drama and the thrill, not the gore and bloodshed.Niteshift36 (talk) 08:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
A horror movie is not about gore and bloodshed. That's a certain kind of horror, but it's not all. This is more of a psychological horror. And I have never heard of it being classified as a thriller. It's always been horror to me. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 19:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
From Thriller (genre): "Thrillers are characterized by fast pacing, frequent action, and resourceful heroes who must thwart the plans of more-powerful and better-equipped villains". No-brainer; it's a thriller. Ward3001 (talk) 19:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
From Horror (film): "Horror films are films of the horror genre that are designed to elicit fright, fear, terror, or horror from viewers.". There are certainly bits of both genre in this movie; I'm not saying I'm jsut classifying it as a horror film, so don't say it's jsut a thriller. Either way, it says in the opening line: "The Silence of the Lambs is a 1991 Academy Award-winning horror/thriller film". Even if it is not a full on classic horror movie, it is still considered one, so hence, it is the only horror to win best picture. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 20:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I never said it wasn't both horror and thriller. You implied that it is not a thriller ("I have never heard of it being classified as a thriller"). I can accept the designation of horror, but I think it is much more thriller than horror. The older classic horror films had monsters and supernatural phenomena. Some of the newer horror films are more realistic, but usually involve lots of blood and gore (Chainsaw, Saw, Scream, etc.). The difference with SOTL is that the blood and gore are mostly implied rather than presented directly (with some brief exceptions, such as Lecter biting someone's tongue out). But it's mostly suspense, mystery, and psychological mind games. I'd say about 10% horror and 90% thriller. Ward3001 (talk) 22:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

IMDB classifies it as a thriller too. Just for giggles, I looked how Netflix classed it: Thrillers/Psychological Thrillers/Crime Thrillers/Crime Dramas/Suspense. I'm not surprised a horror magazine calls it a horror movie. Whatever. Do what you want with it. But the idea of "I'm adding it until someone can prove it wrong" is backwards. It should be proven right for inclusion. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Most of the sites I see now classify it as a horror/thriller or drama. It's kind of sad when the definition of a horror movie nowadays is apparently "It has lots of gore in it". I wouldn't say this has straight-on horror qualities, but it certainly has psycholigical and contemporary horror in it.Something that is called part of the horror genre doesn't need to be filled with the same kinds of things people expect from a horror movie. As long as it comes down to the bottom line - does it elicit fright, fear, terror, or horror - then I think that means it's a horror movie. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 23:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Without regard to the specific classification of SOTL, I think it's overly simplistic to call a film "horror" just because it scares the audience. There's an older film, Wait Until Dark, that scared the hell out of me (it's the only movie in which I've screamed out loud uncontrollably, as did most of the audience). But it's definitely not a horror movie, and I think most people (critics and lay viewers) would agree with me. IMDb calls it "Thriller/Drama/Crime". It's a realistic story about something that could really happen, with absolutely no blood, no dead bodies (that I remember), nothing "monsterish", and nothing supernatural. It's just a very "edge-of-your-seat" suspenseful thriller. Ward3001 (talk) 00:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, once again, not all horror involves things that aren't realistic. Movies like Psycho and whatnot are realistic and they can still scare the living daylights out of people. Rotten Tomatoes has a strange definition of this movie. It says it is a drama on it's page, but it is included on it's "Top 50 Horror Movies", and in that list they call it a thriller. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 00:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
And once again, I never said that all horror movies are unrealistic, but they usually involve something that's quite bizarre in a scary sense, such as Psycho's Norman Bates' assuming the identity of his dead mother. Wait Until Dark wasn't bizarre, just very scary. Ward3001 (talk) 00:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of sourced material by User:Ward3001

User:Ward3001 just reverted my change (for the third time) which included three different sources. The reason he gave is: rv unsourced. Please state some reasons why this makes sense. --87.189.74.47 (talk)

Did you actually put the source in the article? Putting it as the edit summary isn't enough. There probably won't be a problem if you add a source. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 08:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I did. See the diff linked above. --87.189.74.47 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 09:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Dali women skull.jpg

The image Image:Dali women skull.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --19:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DVD releases

I came into this article expecting info on the DVD releases but found none. There are at least 4 different versions: regular, special edition, definitive edition and ultimate edition. All are 2-disc except regular which is a single disc. --Mika1h (talk) 21:06, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

At one time there was info on the DVD releases. I think it was removed because of inadequate sources. If you have reliable sources, add some information. Ward3001 (talk) 22:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DVD releases

[edit] Homophobia Allegations

I removed this section because it had no source and therefore does not comply with Wikipedia source guidelines. Nightshift36 reversed my change and now I am reversing it again to remove it. Nightshift, if you wish to keep this section in, it must be sourced. The default editing procedure at Wikipedia is that if material is not properly sourced it should be removed, not to leave in unsourced material in the hopes that someone can find a source. C08040804 (talk) 18:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the default is to go ahead and challenge the material with a fact/date tag, which I did. I'm not saying it should or should not be included. But we should give the original editor the opportunity to defend it. Just leave it for a little while and see if they can support it. Will that really be such a big deal? BTW, It is NITEshift, not NIGHTshift. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I provided a NPOV source for part of the paragraph, so I believe it should remain in place for at least a little while. Also, this is a strange category event, where much of the protest is froma "community", so the references are in blogs etc., which aren't normally considered good sources. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I added a total of 4 NPOV sources, which should be enough to not blank the entire paragraph. It is clear that the controversy did exist. If you'd like to discuss specific parts, let's do so before removing. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Niteshift36. Great job on the sources. C08040804 (talk) 19:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)