Randall_Oelerich
Veteran
What archetype role (protagonist, antagonist, villain, mentor, etc) does Hannibal Lecter fulfill? Buffalo Bill?
Discuss.
Discuss.
Silence of the Lambs
- Thread starter Randall_Oelerich
- Start date
Randall_Oelerich
Veteran
Get serious!
Crawford, Hannibal and Bill are all supernatural aids. They all push Clarice onto the journey, provide magical gifts and help her mature (graduate the FBI Academy).
The characters have multiple archetype roles (antagonism, major threshold guardian, peer brother...).
Kal Bashir's got a good video up on his youtube channel.
The characters have multiple archetype roles (antagonism, major threshold guardian, peer brother...).
Kal Bashir's got a good video up on his youtube channel.
Randall_Oelerich
Veteran
Funny-- as I started reading your post I thought 'Is this guy Kal Bashir in cognito?' and then i kept reading and saw you last sentence! I purchased and have read a couple of [expensive] Bashir's PDFs (warning to anybody reading this, no refunds, sales are final). Expensive, but i did think the 510+ Hero's Journey steps (or a title close to that) was a worthy interesting read, though still overpriced.
CallaghanFilms
Veteran
It's a pretty cut & dry case of cat -n- mouse.
Lambs is not so different from a Sherlock Holmes narrative formula.
Clarise being the cat (who just got her stripes), Buffalo Bill being the mouse (with his wee mousey bits tucked between his wee hind legs).
Hannibal is the "How to Catch a Mouse" book, as seen in various Tom & Jerry episodes...
It is that simple really, IMO.
Lambs is not so different from a Sherlock Holmes narrative formula.
Clarise being the cat (who just got her stripes), Buffalo Bill being the mouse (with his wee mousey bits tucked between his wee hind legs).
Hannibal is the "How to Catch a Mouse" book, as seen in various Tom & Jerry episodes...
It is that simple really, IMO.
Randall, I'm not Kal Bashir but I have watched ALL his videos. Maybe the thinking rubs off. He's insightful.
I agree. it is that simple. But more than that, both SHERLOCK and LAMBS can be reduced to a common set of transactions.
Give me something that I know will make a fortune, but it has to be original enough to win an Academy Award. Same same but different.
Randall_Oelerich
Veteran
There really is a lot of interesting material to be learned in terms of storytelling from SOTL. We discussed and analyzed SOTL at length in some UCLA screenwriting courses I took. But yes it has a simple cat and mouse structure-- I suppose all stories have one of a small number of plots (there are lists as we all know).
CallaghanFilms
Veteran
I do see it as a masterpiece, but not necessarily one of writing. Like the Godfather II, its greatness can be greatly attributed to direction and top-of-its-game acting.
Of course the writing is there (as with any great film)...but the clearest example of a standout bit in the script is the hook/twist at the climax (Clarice at the right house, the FBI calvary in the wrong bloody state).
My simple story shtick is not meant to be negative (quite the opposite). I just think people have been reading too much into SOTL's writing for 20 odd years.
Sometimes K.I.S.S. does tell. A Lot.
Of course the writing is there (as with any great film)...but the clearest example of a standout bit in the script is the hook/twist at the climax (Clarice at the right house, the FBI calvary in the wrong bloody state).
My simple story shtick is not meant to be negative (quite the opposite). I just think people have been reading too much into SOTL's writing for 20 odd years.
Sometimes K.I.S.S. does tell. A Lot.
Randall_Oelerich
Veteran
Indeed. The more I chase after this craft, the more I am seeing that it all comes down to 'a simple story well told'.
Ted Spencer
Veteran
I certainly agree with the "well told" part, but personally I *love* intricately plotted/complex films (as long as they're also *good*!). "Enemy Of The State" comes to mind, as does "Citizen Kane", "The Italian Job", "Casablanca", and any number of others.
(Relatively) simple stories are great too, like "It's A Wonderful Life", "The Wizard Of Oz", "When Harry Met Sally", "Big"...
(Relatively) simple stories are great too, like "It's A Wonderful Life", "The Wizard Of Oz", "When Harry Met Sally", "Big"...
Randall_Oelerich
Veteran
What I mean by a 'simple story' is a clear overarching protagonist's goal--- which seems to evade me oftentimes for the stories I like to write, but I am getting better at realizing the need for such a 'simple story'. Taken -- rescue/retrieve kidnapped daughter. Jaws -- kill giant flesh eating shark. Lord of the Rings -- deliver ring to volcano. And so on. Indeed Michael Hauge analyzed the most successful films ever and they seemed to have plots that fell into just a few categories, viz rescue / win (prize, love of another as in romcoms, etc) / revenge / etc.
Ted Spencer
Veteran
Yes, a simple clear plot is a fine thing. And despite its simplicity it's all too easy to fail at writing a good one...
Randall_Oelerich
Veteran
Simplicity its a chalenge. Its difficult. There's simplicity in technical terms, a simple plot and whatnot. But there is also the emotional simplicity, not that a film implies to have an 'uninteresting' set of emotions, but rather that the audience can easily identify and accept the emotions the film requires from them. They are simple in terms of communication. I think its a lot better when an audience can quickly engage into the film's emotional core, and only then wil they accept to be taken on the ride. As the film shows to be honest and clear about its emotional propositions. And hopefully, challenging and surprising in its outcome.
On the other hand, films that are unfocused on their emotional dna, don't usually mean much at all, as we, the audience tend to not accept its premise, or, its suspension of disbelief. And therefore, don't matter how simple or intricate or smart, its technical achievements might be, it will fall flat.
As my mate Pete would say: 'that was a waste of time!'
And to be honest, that happened to me in SOTL, although I really like and respect its premise, something about it that didn't sell it to me. I read the trilogy and it works better, but still... I like its premise more than its execution. Maybe Hannibal's 'superpowers' were never quite convincing to me, or, that someone like that could actually exist!
But hey, it worked for a lot of people... so there.
On the other hand, films that are unfocused on their emotional dna, don't usually mean much at all, as we, the audience tend to not accept its premise, or, its suspension of disbelief. And therefore, don't matter how simple or intricate or smart, its technical achievements might be, it will fall flat.
As my mate Pete would say: 'that was a waste of time!'
And to be honest, that happened to me in SOTL, although I really like and respect its premise, something about it that didn't sell it to me. I read the trilogy and it works better, but still... I like its premise more than its execution. Maybe Hannibal's 'superpowers' were never quite convincing to me, or, that someone like that could actually exist!
But hey, it worked for a lot of people... so there.
Ted Spencer
Veteran
Also the juxtaposition - an enormously sophisticated, hyper-educated psychiatrist, arguably representing the height of civilization, combined (with perfect ease) with a cannibal - arguably the deepest extreme of human depravity. You don't see inner conflict that profound in many characters.