Silence of the Lambs: A Psychological Review

Silence of the Lambs was a near perfect film on all accounts. The writing was excellent and thought provoking; the director pulled off several interesting shots, thus bringing the story to life with an amiable performance. Additionally, the acting was superb, especially in the part of Hannibal Lector, whose character Anthony Hopkins embraces wholeheartedly. While the film is not rife with outright terror, relying more a diabolical thought processes and twisted characters to make sure the audience does not get to comfortable, it still remains as one of the top horror films to date.
The movie begins with the introduction of our first main, Clarice Starling, an FBI trainee and favorite of Jack Crawford, head investigator of new set of grisly murders. Crawford wishes to use the mental faculties of brilliant Dr. Hannibal Lector to solve the case. The only problem: Lector is an insufferable psychopath, wishing only to feast on human flesh. Sending in Agent Sterling, in hopes of getting Lector to talk, and thus reveal something about the case, Crawford thus introduces us to our second main, Dr. Lector. This first scene of interaction between our two mains is probably one of the most powerful in the entire film, setting the stage for Starling’s perseverance and Lector’s dark ruminations.
The film moves on with Starling’s continued investigations into the “Buffalo Bill” case, following the clues left by Lector, rather than by more conventional means. After another attempt to enlist Lector’s help in the matter, the interrogations come to a halt, following another murder at the hands of Bill, this time the body washing up near Starling’s home town in West Virginia. After other clues are uncovered by autopsying the newly found body, Starling lures in Lector with a false deal, guaranteeing him limited freedom in return for his help. After discovering this Lector makes a real deal with Bill’s newest victim’s mother. He is then brought to Tennessee to meet with her and, after some disturbing dialogue, drops both a name and description of the killer.
Crawford and Starling are both removed from the case, due to the false deal they created, but not before Starling has one last chance to speak with Lector. This last scene of face to face dialogue is the best, trumping even the first in its excellent execution. In the end Lector gives out a few more clues, just before Starling is escorted off the premise. It is not soon after this that Lector escapes his new prison in, perhaps, one of the most original ways to date. The action then shifts to Starling, who, following Lector’s clues, draws closer and closer to the killer. Eventually she finds him, and after one of the only, but frightening none the less, scenes of dramatic terror, confronts Bill and, in the end, shoots him to death. The film ends with one last conversation between our two mains, and while short, remains just as entertaining as those prior.
Now, however, we must turn to the application of various psychological theories to the film, in regards to its disturbing content. Fortunately this was a stellar film and therefore a true critique is unnecessary. First up, Freudian Theory. In the film Silence of the Lambs, the, perhaps, most prominent example of the Freudian Theory can be seen in many of the psychotic patients near Lector. Of these the insane man known only as “Miggs” is the most powerful example. The ego giving away completely to the id and the complete lack of any sort of recognizable superego accurately presents itself in the most horrid sexual manner. The character in the film lacks every social or cultural cue regarding sexual advancements, debasing himself and others with his overbearing sex drive, shedding light on what a human might be like with only the id controlling one’s action.
The id can also be seen in the primary villain of the film, Buffalo Bill, who also seems to have an overbearing id, albeit one that still has uses for both the ego and, to a minor degree, the superego. Another interpretation could be that his id is simply dysfunctional, needing things that one would not normally place in the normal person’s id’s jurisdiction. Once again sexual implications are a primary focus, very Freudian. As for Hannibal Lector, there could be multiple arguments for his actions, ranging from the dysfunctional id from the last example, to a dysfunctional ego, simply “thinking outside the box” to achieve the id’s needs.
Regarding another piece of Freud’s work, defense mechanisms, Silence of the Lambs offers plenty of fertile ground. Repression is most obviously seen in Starling’s purposeful forgetfulness regarding her own past, something Lector helps her out with near the end of the film. Isolation is also seen presented by Starling and Crawford with their extremely cavalier attitude to Lector’s rather distasteful enterprises. Reaction formation could be said to be displayed by Lector himself, in regards to his refusal to harm Starling, even after her constant attempts at deception and gregarious mistrust of him. Introjection is an easy one to see, as the villain is one whom thinks of himself as a transsexual. Regression is also a prominent piece at the beginning of the film, with multiple flash backs by Starling when in uncomfortable situations. Sublimation is, once again, displayed by our female main, who takes her fear of slaughter and transforms it into a drive to catch those whom slaughter.
Moving on to Karl Hung’s philosophies, we can observe the various archetypes present in the film. Of the most prominent of these in the film, the shadow archetype certainly takes center stage. Here the animalistic needs present within all of us lie and in some cases, as much of the evil presented in Silence of the Lambs, rises to the top of our consciousness. In Bill we see the dark side of sexuality. For him it takes on a twisted form, for in the film he is constantly shown to be doing things that in other circumstances might have been considered just normal horniness, but through comes out to be something rather sick. In fact many of the shadow like representatives in the film are presented as perversions of normality. But one cannot forget the most prominent example of shadow presented in the film, Hannibal Lector. He presents another aspect of the shadow, one of viciousness and brutality. In fact, later on in the series Hannibal is even alluded to a prominent example of the shadow, namely the dragon.
Naturally there are many other archetypes present in the film. As in nearly all film and other works of art both anima and animus are present. There is a father figure present, albeit briefly, as seen in Starling’s father. The child is also present, which could be said to be represented by many different characters, from Starling, to Bill himself. Naturally we have the hero, represented by the naive and idealistic Clarice Starling. We have the maiden, taking the aspect of the Senator’s daughter whom has been kidnapped by the villain. The wise old man archetype can be seen in Crawford, as he is continuously taking Starling under his wing and giving guidance and care as needed. Additionally, one can see lector as the dark father archetype, as he too is constantly giving the hero much needed advice and guidance, albeit in a much more twisted fashion. Finally, the hermaphrodite is a large part of the film as the villain very much so embraces such an archetype.
It is easy to tell why these things would scare us, loss of control over the id or even our one shadow archetype, are frightening thoughts. But, what else makes this film so disturbing? If you apply Evolutionary psychology, a most prominent example is evident near the very end of the film. When Starling is alone in the dark, being stalked by an unseen menace that can no doubt see her, one can almost feel her fear. According to the Evolutionary theory of fear this is due to the universal fear of both the dark and the unknown. It is during this scene that our main character fully realizes her fear of death, another universal fear. A final example of this theory lies in the fact that none of the prison guards tasked with keeping Lector locked up can stomach the thought of truly examining the “near dead” guard supposedly struck down by Lector. Naturally, this leads to Lector’s escape.
As for King’s theory, that we are fears are reflected by our culture and vice versa, this to can easily be seen in the film. Primarily these fears are represented by our two monsters, Lector and Bill. The primary reason the two to be so terror inducing lies in the fact that they could be anyone. They have no outward signs of what truly lies with in, and this is something that, in today’s society, we are afraid of. It is the reason we lock our doors at night, it is the reason we try not to go anywhere alone, we do not want to be eaten by a psychopath or skinned by another.
The moralistic fears evident in the film have to do primarily with our cultures views on sexual immorality. Miggs, with his blatant “immorality”, using sexual slang and masturbating in his cell, dies soon after he is introduced. The question is: do we feel sorry for him? No, certainly not, we cheer Hannibal on as he calmly speaks of the matter. Additionally, there is the cautious practice of not helping strangers. The third victim of Bill learned this the hard way.
Perhaps most prominent of all, however, is the extreme homophobia present throughout the film. The most obvious example is the difference between the two monsters in the film. Hannibal is actually portrayed as a sympathetic character. We tend to fear him, yet who did not applaud his ingenuity evident in his escape. No, he is not the true villain in the film; the true villain is Buffalo Bill, a despicable creature whose problems arise from his homosexual type tendencies. The film is created in a fashion as to force the audience to view Bill with the most blatant disgust we can muster. Why? Because he wants to be transsexual, he acts gay, he is, to “proper” society a monster simply for those reasons and the filmmakers attempt to exemplify this by creating him to be a true monster.
The film is good, I will most likely watch it again, something I do not do very often. It provides a wealth of examples for all the various theories and philosophies of the human mind, and with that, human fears. The film provides the perfect balance of thought provoking dramatics and shocking scenes only seen in our own nightmares. Truly a most excellent leader of its genre.