Due to technical
complications, I wasn't able to see the next film on my list, David
Cronenberg's 'Videodrome', last night. However, I did manage to watch
another film instead. I'd always imagined I would enjoy 'The Silence
of the Lambs' a lot, it adhering to my personal criteria for “good
horror” (i.e. humanity as the monster, blurring genre lines etc.)
Yet, upon watching it, I felt as if my own hyping-it-up had caused me
to enjoy the actual film a lot less than I'd expected. It was a lot
more dated than I was expecting. The creepiness of Buffalo Bill
seemed pantomime. And Hannibal Lecter himself, so iconic a character,
bore no shocks to me as I already knew the character through
countless pop-culture references and parodies. But I wondered how I
would have viewed the film had I not known of its existence or
reputation before-hand. In other words, how damaging is hype to film?
Before watching most
films, I tend to avoid not just spoilers but reviews, praise and
criticism altogether. Part of the joy of watching a film is being
able to craft one's own personal response to it. Whether its well or
poorly made, the real verdict happens in the eyes of the viewer as an
individual. While this means prior knowledge of criticism shouldn't
really matter (if its about personal response), it can still heavily
impact one's personal viewing. The parts that a critic flag up become
the parts that you flag up too, whether you intend to or not. I shut
myself away from all news about the latest 'Star Wars' film until I
had seen it for this reason and, I believe, enjoyed it a lot more as
a result.
But what about films
like 'The Silence of the Lambs', where their reputation makes it
impossible to avoid this crisis? Comparing it to Hitchcock's
'Psycho', another reputable thriller about a psychopath, I found that
the hype worked quite differently. Firstly, I felt that 'Silence' is
recent enough in cinematic history to warrant a more contemporary
criticism, measuring it by more recent standards. Whereas 'Psycho',
dating from 1960, has to be reviewed in the context of its time. For
'Psycho', reputation works to rescue it from antiquity, one asks
themselves why they bother watching a film from so long ago, and the
answer lies in its reputation. At first, 'Silence' seemed too recent
to be able to look past its clunkiness. Yet, as I've stated earlier,
it seems dated. Perhaps 'Silence' is old enough to be “from another
time”, its complicated as it seems to lie on the edge of recent and
vintage. One may argue that it is entirely vintage and I would
partially agree, were it not for its reputation (which its,
ironically, acquired through its age).
However, it isn't as
straight-forward as this as sometimes the “vintage” aspect of a
film can be one of its highlights to a modern audience. I appreciated
the vintage aspects of 'Silence', yet I feel it didn't heighten the
affects of the film, whereas the vintage aspects of 'Psycho' do
heighten its affects. Ignoring
the age of the films though, I much prefer the plot of 'Psycho' to
'Silence'. The latter has far too much melodrama in its premise, the
characters are too larger-than-life to be truly terrifying. But
'Psycho' is truly still scary today as an idea, for Norman Bates
could be anyone. How many Hannibal Lecters do you know? 'Silence'
never bears its normal, socially realistic side, whereas 'Psycho'
(despite its artifice and style) still speaks to modern audiences
because of its everyday-ness.
Despite
this, I still enjoyed 'The Silence of the Lambs'. I thought Jodie
Foster's character was wonderful, and her twisted relationship to
Lecter both ingenious and intriguing. I just feel that I was let down
by its hype. I had already seen bits of Hopkins' performance, so that
when I came to see it in the film it had little shock value. Above
all I felt that it was let down by my own wanting-to-like-it. The
sound of the film ticked so many mental boxes that when I saw it, I
could only think of the ones it didn't tick. Though perhaps in years
I will come back to the film, remembering my disappointment, and
watch it again and then say that I was wrong.
No comments:
Post a Comment