This was, as far as testosterone-fueled, obscenely violent, comic book
adaptations go, one of my very favorites. But the people who made it
great were the supporting cast. Gary Oldham, Aaron Eckhart, and
geewillikers, Michael Caine. I'd watch Michael Caine read the phone
book.

I had to go to see it because so many of my students

it and Heath Ledger. I do not like Christopher Nolan films, so this
may have something to do with being underwhelmed by a bloated,
confusing, meandering, meagerly plotted gut-buster. But I came away
from it thinking the entire phenomenon wouldn't have occurred had
Ledger lived.

Are women going to see it?

That may be true, but there's something jejune about too much
profundity. It's like too much cheesecake. I was ready for the film to
end when the girl got blown up. By that point, the profundity-factor
had been established (and the film *was* profound). Of course, it's
not Ledger's fault the film went on and on...and on...

It was good and Heath Ledger very much deserves the Oscar. But
watching The Dark Knight, I kept getting reminded of the Saw series
and all those other recent movies that get their thrills of criminal
psychopathic geniuses manipulating the cops as they torture and murder
with impunity. As a genre, or subgenre or what have you, it's
something I'm burnt out on, charismatic psycho killers as fodder for
our cinematic fantasies. Though clearly The Dark Knight has a moral
sense of purpose that Saw and its offspring don't have. It just plays
too much on cinematic riffs that I'm getting fed up with. Blame
Hannibal Lecter.

I have, to my dismay, watched it all the way through, and I agree.  The late
John Harkness used to get on me when I confessed amazement that someone,
somewhere at some crazy staff meeting had the brilliant idea, "Hey, lets
make a movie of Silence of the Lambs" and everybody at the table passed the
crack pipe, and nodded, "Yeah, sounds good.  Lets do it."  I do not and will
never understand how such a movie gets made ..

In article
e2a3dc5c-bad0-44cf-a6c6-06caed8fb... at (no spam) d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,

mute... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
I never watched The Silence of the Lambs all the way through. This
will only be, like, the twentieth time on this newsgroup that I repeat
what a reviewer said about that film all the way back in 1990: it was
evil. Some cinematic enterprises are evil. I believe that one was, and
that it set the example for "sicko-lite." The Dark Knight was sicko-
lite.

It did lack the sense of humor The Dark Knight Returns had ("Rubber
bullets. Honest.").

Silence of the Lamb had it's humor at the end, with that sick joke

Silence of the Lamb had it's humor at the end, with that sick joke
coda that doesn't fit the tone of the rest of the film.  It's that
ending more than anything else in SotL that kickstarts the whole
charismatic serial killer genre, which develops as the Lecter
franchise moves on and increasingly he becomes a "sympathetic" serial
killer because he only kills and eats people who deserve to be killed
and eaten, Nazi war criminals, child molestors, etc.

...and the Joker's evil too insisted upon.

On Mon, 8 Sep 2008 14:56:47 -0700 (PDT), mutefan at (no spam) yahoo.com wrote:

I never watched The Silence of the Lambs all the way through. This
will only be, like, the twentieth time on this newsgroup that I
repeat what a reviewer said about that film all the way back in
1990: it was evil. Some cinematic enterprises are evil. I believe
that one was, and that it set the example for "sicko-lite."

I have, to my dismay, watched it all the way through, and I agree.
The late John Harkness used to get on me when I confessed amazement
that someone, somewhere at some crazy staff meeting had the brilliant
idea, "Hey, lets make a movie of Silence of the Lambs" and everybody
at the table passed the crack pipe, and nodded, "Yeah, sounds good.
Lets do it." I do not and will never understand how such a movie
gets made ..

On Sep 9, 5:56 am, mute... at (no spam) yahoo.com wrote:
I don't
think Heath Ledger deserves a nomination for Best Actor, not just
yet. I think it's probably extraordinarily easy to play psychopaths.
If anyone deserves recognition for the film, it's Aaron Eckhart
and/or Gary Oldman.

I think he deserves it but I don't think he merits it. He deserves it
because the whole process of finding the character apparently at (no spam) #$%ed
up his life and that eventually killed him. He doesn't merit it in
that a truly great actor should be able to take on a role like that
and not have his life at (no spam) #$%ed up. Basically, Heath played the Joker
like a man who had gone without any sleep and he did that by going
without any sleep.

Martin

Martin Phipps wrote:
On Sep 9, 5:56 am, mute... at (no spam) yahoo.com wrote:
I don't
think Heath Ledger deserves a nomination for Best Actor, not just
yet. I think it's probably extraordinarily easy to play psychopaths.
If anyone deserves recognition for the film, it's Aaron Eckhart
and/or Gary Oldman.

I think he deserves it but I don't think he merits it. He deserves it
because the whole process of finding the character apparently at (no spam) #$%ed
up his life and that eventually killed him. He doesn't merit it in
that a truly great actor should be able to take on a role like that
and not have his life at (no spam) #$%ed up. Basically, Heath played the Joker
like a man who had gone without any sleep and he did that by going
without any sleep.

Martin

He gave his life for this role and he doesn't deserve recognition?

I'm sure bad actors have done the same, or good actors have done the

I never watched The Silence of the Lambs all the way through. This
will only be, like, the twentieth time on this newsgroup that I repeat
what a reviewer said about that film all the way back in 1990: it was
evil. Some cinematic enterprises are evil. I believe that one was, and
that it set the example for "sicko-lite." The Dark Knight was sicko-
lite.

I saw it.  The first time I saw a preview with the Joker, I was
instantly intrigued.  I had no idea it was Heath Ledger playing the
part, and I certainly couldn't tell it was him from the clip.  Each
new clip showed a different Joker moment, and I was mesmerized.  The
make-up was brilliant, it was the first thing that hooked me -- as if
the wearer knew it wasn't the art of the make-up that mattered, but
the fact of it: in a world where people behave as if they don't wear
masks, I will wear my smeared and blotchy and uncaring mask right
where you can see it at all times.

After seeing the movie, I'm convinced Ledger had some intimate
knowledge of a sociopath.  If he found it in himself, his tragedy is
not surprising.  If he experienced it in some part of his life, his
tragedy is not surprising.

The rest of the movie didn't really play for me.  The character of the
Joker, however, became increasingly more interesting and frightening
as the movie progressed.  I left feeling a kind of terrible sympathy
for both the character of the Joker as played by Ledger, and the
character of the person who played him.

It *has* been done countless times, but there is a difference here of degree.
The depth of the depravity of the character(s) is noteworthy.  As if they were
trying to make him the most repulsive villain ever, so bad that no one could
create one worse.  It is the effort to make him quintessentially evil that is
evil.  Couple that with their fascination with him, their inviting the audience
to be fascinated by him, and you have something almost as appalling as the
character.

They have done one positive thing.  I can now define obscenity in four words:
Silence of the Lambs.

George Peatty wrote:
On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 05:57:41 -0500, "Alric Knebel"
al... at (no spam) cableone.net> wrote:

I do.  It's a great movie, with great performances.  And in case
you're not smart enough to figure it out yet, there was actually
almost NO on-screen violence.  The body they find in the middle of
the film occurred before the time frame covered in the film, and
Buffalo Bill's NEXT victim doesn't get killed.  The most violent
thing to happen is Lector's escape.  I can't see how this movis is
any sicker than PSYCHO or FRENZY.  The movie is certainly not worthy
of the histrionic description of "evil."

What you are apparently not smart enough to figure out is not all
violence is evil, and not all evil is violent.  The most evil part of
SOTL is not Hannibal Lector but how he is portrayed, the morbid
fascination with him. This movie asks us to look at someone
disgusting and feel something other than disgust.  I find that
unconscionable.   Mutefan, her hyperbole notwithstanding, is
essentially right.

That's been done countless times.  It's nothing new.  You're apparently too
fond of your own hyperbole to see it for what it really is, and it's not as
original as you want it to be.  The bad guy has always been fascinating..
You and Mute both enjoy having the moral vapors, and display you moralistic
effeteness at every opportunity.  I'm smart enough to know that.