Newsgroups: bit.listserv.cinema-l
Date:         Fri, 10 Apr 1992 10:16:10 -0500
From:         ed.j.hahr@UWRF.EDU
Subject:      Re: JFK vs SotL
X-To:         Discussions on all forms of Cinema <CINEMA-L@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU>

>I'm not concerned about the popularity of SotL.  Puzzled, yes, but not
>concerned.  It is a very... average movie, and it's popularity is mainly
>thanks to Anthony Hopkins' portrayal of Lector.  All I wanted to point
>out was how strange it is that the public adore this film, and Hopkins'
>character despite his rather... unsavoury behaviour, while they are
>nowhere near as impressed with Jim Garrison's real life fight to
>uncover the truth about the assassination of Kennedy.  _JFK_ was a
>much better film than SotL, in many ways.  In  almost every way, if you
>want my opinion.  Except it didn't have Hopkins giving a wonderful
>performance as a likable, psychopathic cannibal.

Average, Silence Of The Lambs is not. When Thomas Harris first stormed
the HORROR fiction world with The Red Dragon many authors such as
Ramsey Campbell, Stephen King, and Clive Barker wrote little articles
saying we should expect great things from this man. Silence Of The Lambs
is one of the most exceptional HORROR novels in a long time, pure joy
for a connoisseur of this artform.

The movie was an exceptional adaptional of the novel. It may have even
been better. I believe it had a lot to say about the world (mixing black
and white). Even Buffalo Bill wasn't painted as a purely evil character.
The pyschological aspects of it, and its subtle way of getting out a
point about our culture surely doesn't seem average to me.

In fact, the popularity of Hopkins character, in an ironic sort of way,
is more horrifying than the actual movie.

Next point: I also enjoyed JFK. It was extremely compelling and well-made.
But it is not much better than SotL in harly any categories. It may have
been equal in some, but the award must go to someone.

>_JFK_ was also a murder mystery.  Not so much a 'who-done-it' as a
>`why-did-they-do-it'.  As Donald Sutherland's character says, the real
>question is "why?"  The who and the how are almost beside the point.
>Of course, _JFK_ is an uncomfortable movie to watch, because when you
>see Kennedy being shot (and we see it repeatedly, courtesy of the Zapruder
>film, in the courtroom scene), you cannot distance yourself from the
>murder.  This is not an actor.  That is real blood, not a special effect.

>We are watching a real person die, in his wife's arms.

>And not only do we see a real person die, but it is suggested to us that
>the people responsible for the murder, are the very people we expect to
>protect us at night as we sleep.

You are absolutely correct. The movie does tend to make you ask why. It
is intended to make the audience think, and it does this....quite successfully.
It is a real person that died. None of this is necessarily the basis of
a good movie (although JFK is certainly a good movie).

>This 'who-done-it' has no neat conclusion.  There may never be one.  The
>explanation given by the film may well be partly, or mostly innaccurate.
>We don't know... but there is enough in those three hours to make us
>think carefully about what we have been told.  If we assume that there
>was some kind of cover-up, it means that senior members of the most
>powerful agencies, and high-ranking politicians, lied to the world.

>If you still believe that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone, then you've
>probably already stopped reading.  If not, and if you have doubts, then
>surely you must admit that a film like _JFK_ is more deserving of praise
>than an average murder mystery than SotL.  Both films were well made and
>well acted.  I have no argument with the Best male and female actor
>awards (apart from my opinion that Hopkins was in the wrong category).

I lost track of the reasoning in here. Yes, people like OLIVER STONE
and JIM GARRISON may be worthy of praise for standing against the system
and making the audience think about the current attitudes and state of
affairs in the U.S., but that is no reason to praise the qualities of a
movie which stands indepenent of the message (although both movies contain
messages).

If you meant that SotL was an average murder mystery, you need to see more
murder mysteries.

>But, on balance, in most, if not all ways, _JFK_ certainly the better
>film.

Well, let's think about this....

Screenplay

Actually, the screenplay adaption of SotL was incredible. It kept the
entire feel of the book and most of the undercurrents of social issues
as well as being nerveracking and very entertaining.

JFK was almost written from scratch. Oliver Stone took enough liberties
to make it even hard to define it as an adaptation.

SofL takes it in this category.

Actress

Jodie Foster.......geez, I can't find anyone in JFK to compare her to.

Actor

Hopkins did deserve the lead role. It is clear in the book that Lector
is intended as the lead male character. It is the story of Lector and
Clarice that is so powerful.

Costner's performance doesn't hold a candle to it.

Sidenote: Joe Pesci and Tommy Lee Jones turned in fascinating, powerful
          and definate recognition worthy performances in JFK

Director

Stone is good, but Demme maintained a feel and attitude and pacing for
SofL that matched the book and created a very powerful effect. Stone used
a lot of editing techniques (but that isn't direction -- and it did win
best editing) but the actual directing wasn't too exception -- the compelling
story came from the plot.

Best Picture

Well...when you pull down  Screenplay, Directing, Acting that basically
makes you a shoe-in for best picture.

>And it _is_ rather sad that Hannibal Lector is idolised, while Jim
>Garrison is ignored.

I agree 100%.

>Like I say, the acting was the best thing about SotL.  This is the one
>area in which I might concede that it was better than _JFK_.  And, yes,
>Clarice was a strong role for a female actor.

>It is an interesting subject, no question.  But, how more interesting
>is a real life case of a high-level plot to assassinate the President
>of the US?  It may be uncomfortable to watch, but, for me at least,
>it is a hundred times more compelling than another fictional psycho killer
>mystery (however well acted it might be).

It wasn't just another fictional psycho killer movie. It has a lot to
say about psychology, the state of the mind, and how the world is viewed
from various perspectives (very similar to JFK -- just more subtle).

>The conclusions reached by Garrison and Stone, even if only fractionally
>correct, are a damn sight more frightening to me than a fictional
>cannibal.  And I'm not even a US citizen.

The conclusions reached by Garrison and Stone are basically fact. Things
like that have happened sinced cavemen have picked up clubs. History
shows that this type of thing occurs again and again in government. It
comes as no big  surprise to me. And it certainly is scary in its fashion.
But I don't see what fear level has to do with how good a movie is.

charles.j.hahr@uwrf.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU