The Silence of the Lambs (Book Analysis)

analysis
#1

I happen to be reading the Silence of the Lambs book now, and I would put Clarice in Mind, with Subconcious as her concern. I’d put OS in Physics…all the forensic work, running around chasing down leads, the officers gathering in meetings (that don’t include Clarice) and Clarice has an attitude about that. All the killing, inability to catch Buffalo Bill goes here too.

The author paints Clarice’s external problem to appear as though it’s a challenge for her to be in a male dominated working environment. But then there are scenes where Crawford (her boss) notices she’s giving him an attitude (usually the cold shoulder) and he tries to explain where he’s coming from—that maybe there’s a different reason he does the things he does. So, her Mind domain is the real subtext that the author is highlighting.

The author uses the external as a misdirection device for this Mind MC.

Since the book is written mainly in 3rd person deep POV from Clarice’s POV, Clarice’s mind domain colours her interpretation of most events the book. She has a chip on her shoulder and is insecure because she’s a rookie without field experience, but she automatically interprets her discomfort as though it was because she is a woman.

I’m only half way through, but that’s what I’m so far seeing. :slight_smile:

1 Like
The Silence of the Lambs (Film Analysis)
#2

I’d put Hannibal in Universe because he’s locked up most of the time, and this causes problems for him because he can’t go out and cannabilise whenever he likes.

RS is definitely Psychology for many of the reasons you all have mentioned already.

#3

Hmm, I wonder if the book is different from the movie? It’s been a long time since I saw it, but assuming that the official storyform is wrong (which I am not convinced of!) I would be inclined to think of Clarice as a Universe Character – as you say a young woman trying to make it in a very male-dominated field (and per @glennbecker’s photo above). In fact, isn’t the whole reason she’s even on the case is because she’s a woman–her boss thinks she’ll be able to use that to get something from Lecter? She might be giving him an attitude – but is that the root of her personal conflict? Seems to me she wouldn’t have so much of an attitude if it weren’t such a sexist environment.

As for Lecter, isn’t the whole reason he’s in prison his indulgence of his Innermost Desires (eating people?)

Again, it’s possible the book is different from the movie. Also possible that the official storyform is correct. I would love to hear a defense of OS Universe/Progress from @jhull or someone else.

1 Like
#4

The major story events are the same in the movie and in the book…so it could be that the movie emphasises some aspects and the book emphasises different aspects?

There are usually decisions that have to be made when transferring a book to a screenplay.

#5

Amazon will give you access to the first chapter of Silence of the Lambs for free…and it pretty much matches the movie event-wise. In the book, Clarice is right off the bat insecure. Her internal biases are causing her to assume stuff even before Crawford begins to talk to her. When Crawford does start, Crawford’s dialogue and action is straight-up… he goes through her credentials without the slightest hint of anything sexist.

In several scenes, later in the book, Crawford is having to explain his actions because she takes them the wrong way.

In the book, the reason she’s called in to work the job is because they are thin on the ground with qualified officers. It sounds like one officer, who had been working with Lecter, was somehow damaged in the work. Her twist colours that.

It’s interesting to see the differences!

1 Like
#6

Thanks for hopping in on the discussion!

I’ve read the book too, which I also loved. While I remember thinking the movie was a very faithful adaptation of the book, at the end of the day they are two different things, and I wouldn’t want to refer to them as the same.

That being said …

I’m with you there. :smile:

When I re-watched the film, I think there’s a good argument to made for Jack Crawford as hand-off IC. Especially the scene where he writes her off in front of that whole local police force as “the woman”.

Going off what @lakis said, would Clarice be so quick to assume the worst and jump to conclusions is she wasn’t a woman in a male dominated field? If she was a man among men would she have the same attitude? Would people treat her the same or differently?

Likewise, does Hannibal’s influence on Clarice come from his being a prisoner? Is that a challenge to her perspective on the world? To me, it’s more that he’s forcing her to look inward to things she’d rather forget or put behind her. He is a psychiatrist, after all.

Maybe the best way to think of this is Clarice’s wanting to put her past (her father dying, her time as an orphan, the summer with the lambs, etc.) behind her. As an opposing viewpoint “Memories are what I have instead of a view”. All Hannibal has are memories. His own, and then later, Clarice’s. She pushes outward to try to silence her demons, he looks inward to find some solace.

If she has a chip on her shoulder (Growth: Stop) and the OS is in Physics, then she has to be in Universe. I think she’s definitely holding out for something to stop. :wink:

If I remember right, the endings are different enough that it might change the storyform. I’d be curious what other differences you find!

I’m not necessarily, either. I hope I’m wrong because it would probably be a mind-blowing learning moment for me. I am feeling more confident about the domains the more I explain my position though. :smile:

2 Likes
#7

I hear you but the chip on her shoulder/attitude is a characteristic of a Mind character too so it can be tricky to say chip on shoulder is only ever a Stop story.

Again, it seems as though the author is using the subject matter of male dominated working environment as a misdirection device. Another reason I say this is because no talented author (and Thomas Harris is a talented author) is going to lay out their main character’s real problem in the opening scene. But we do get to see how she sees things at this starting point.

To solve her problem she has to Start to see what her real problem is, and heal the wound of the Silence of the Lambs. Thus, she is Mind/Start :wink:

There might be other indicators that could shed light on which way to go with this story. Or, it could simply be that the book has a different message than the film :)) Or, it could be that my analysis is off on the book. BTW, I hadn’t been actively analysing the book as I was reading it but since this discussion was here, thought it would be worthwhile to toss in some additional observations.

1 Like
#8

That’s fair.

The chip on the shoulder / hole in the heart thing is for Changed characters, which she is not (at least in the movie). We don’t get any of her internal monologue in the movie, and the things that are there are definitely not in her head.

The book could be completely different in that regard.

Thanks for splitting this off, Jim.

2 Likes
#9

Now I have extra motivation to finish the book and report back for this thread. Thanks, @jhull.

With a bit of leeway for Thanksgiving, I should be able to finish the book this week :slight_smile:

1 Like