Newsgroups: bit.listserv.cinema-l
Date:         Thu, 9 Apr 1992 19:40:15 BST
From:         Kerr Avon <lcc@WIN.ICL.CO.UK>
Subject:      Re: film content
X-To:         CINEMA-L@AUVM.AMERICAN.edu

From: Gayle Gleason <ST402486%BROWNVM.bitnet@AUVM.AMERICAN.edu>
>
>Kerr Avon, it seems, is a bit concerned over the popularity of a
>movie about a serial killer.  Now I know I don't speak for every one,
>but there are a few reasons why I was interested in the plot of SOTL
>and none of these reasons will contribute to the fall of American
>civilization as we know it. (at least, I don't think they will)

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.

>First, I liked the plot because it was a murder mystery...a 'who-done-it'
>and just because I like to try to figure out who the murderer is or like
>to watch some one else figure out who did it doesn't mean I think serial
>killers should be glorified.

_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.

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).

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

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

>Second, I could empathize with the female lead (I didn't forget that her
>name was Clarice Starling).  She was trying to use Lector for information
>without letting him use her.  It made a good subplot (conflict between
>the two characters).

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.

>Third, I do find the subject of serial killers interesting, but not
>because I wanna be like one, but because I want to know how to avoid
>one!

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).

>Of course, most people probably like horror movies simply for the thrills
>and scares.....the same reason people like roller-coasters or bungy-jumping.

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.

> So, I wouldn't worry too much about the public's interest in movies with
> these subjects.  Think of them as rollercoasters for the brain.

You are right, of course.  I hate it when the media attempts to link
every random murderer with film and television violence.  My original
post was a bit of thinking out loud about the popularity of SotL
compared to _JFK_, and the acclaim that the former has gotten.

I maintain that _JFK_ is oodles better than SotL.  It's basis is
also a roller-coaster ride, but this is one ride that we're all along
for the duration... and we can't get off.

		Liam.
		====-
                                   * "I am not trying to tell you
     KERR AVON    |   Work: ICL,   *  anything.  I am simply not
 aka Liam Cairney |Reading, England*  interested in attempting to
  All e-mail to:- | Home: Glasgow, *  compensate for your amazing lack
lcc@win.icl.co.uk |    Scotland    *  of observation."
                                   *            -- Orac (Blake's 7)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU