Talk:The Silence of the Lambs (film)/Archive 1

Category "Films directed by Jonathan Demme" really needed?
This article has too many categories. Shouldn't we stop at 3 or so? Why is the category "Films directed by Jonathan Demme" needed if we can click the name of the director in the main text and get a nice list of all his films there as well? Sounds like doing the same things twice to me. Peter S. 11:17, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I can see your point -- but it seems odd to deliberatly leave his most famous film out of the Films directed by Jonathan Demme category. I think a better solution would be to split the article, with one focusing on the book and one focusing on the movie. (That's how Beloved is treated.) -- Scarequotes 01:38, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

No, you got me wrong there: I was suggesting that generally, we don't need categories like "Films directed by X" or "Films starring Y". We should remove them all to remove clutter. No info is lost, because the article pages of X or Y already contain that very same information as part of their filmography. Peter S. 19:08, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Is the reference to Kansas City in Kansas? or Missouri?
I believe it is in Missouri. A movie review gives the state as Missouri.

In the screenplay, we see this line of dialog: CAMPBELL (contd.): Blue square for Belvedere, Ohio, where the Bimmel girl was abducted. Blue triangle where her body was found - down here in Missouri. Same marks for the other four girls, in different colors. This new one, today... washed up here. (He marks with a Flair pen) Elk River, in West Virginia, about six miles below U.S. 79. Real boonies.

There are only two instances of the word "Kansas" in the entire screenplay. One is about how the Kansas City police named Buffalo Bill, and the other is Clarice saying "We're not in Kansas any more". So the only reference to either of these states in which a murder took place (and so you would expect the police force to investigate) was Kansas City, Missouri. So I'll go ahead and disambiguate the link to Missouri.--GraemeMcRaetalk 05:44, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Novel references removed
I removed all references to things from the novel that were not in the movie and changed some accordingly. Moved the previous plot to the novel article —☆ CieloEstrellado 22:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Contradiction
This article contradicts Hannibal Lecter. This article claims that Gene Hackman was the original choice to portray Lecter, while John Lithgow was the second choice. The Hannibal Lecter article states that Robert Duvall was the first choice and Robert DeNiro was the second. Dr. Hannibal Lecter 05:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know, I think Gene Hackman was the first, Duvall was the second, DeNiro third, Lithgow and then Hopkins. This order could be wrong though. No one wanted to do it because they thought the character was too disturbing, Hopkins was only too excited to do the part, even though he was like WTF?. I don't even know if DeNiro and Duvall were considered. I think I'll have to watch the documentary on my SoTL DVD again. --Majinvegeta 07:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, good idea. My DVD doesn't have any features other than movie trailers for itself and other movies. Dr. Hannibal Lecter 17:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

the five most prestigious Academy Awards (in opening paragraph)
should best adaptation count as the fifth? i thought there were the top 4 - actor, actress, picture, director. The undertow 08:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The fifth in the top five for a film at the Oscars is always either Best Original Screenplay or Best Adapted Screenplay, which ever a film is applicable for. Therefore, yes it counts as the fifth. Dr. Hannibal Lecter 15:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Article Inconsistency
I noticed the following two inconsistent statements in this article. In the Introduction Section, it states: Hopkins' performance as Lecter remains the shortest lead acting, Oscar-winning performance ever, as Hopkins is on screen for less than 35 minutes throughout the course of the film. However, in the Section entitled PRODUCTION, it states: Despite the acclaim garnered for the role, Anthony Hopkins is only in the film for a little over Bold16 ' minutes. Does any one know which is the accurate statistic? I have more often seen/heard the latter figure. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JosephASpadaro (talk • contribs) 10:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC).
 * Yes, the latter, 16 minutes, is right. 35 is from vandalism that I already have had to revert TWICE!  Someone might want to do something about that, such as watching the page.  :-) Dr. Hannibal Lecter 00:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Comparison to the Source
I changed "Differences in the film version" to Comparison to the Source because I feel that it better depicts the topic of the section. --Sfox1125 15:39, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm changing it back, because its then difficult to understand if the differences listed are in the book or the movie! Es-won 02:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Original Research
I removed some OR, I don't ever remeber hearing about Clarice understanding that "simplicity" was the name of a fabric company. Does anyone else? --Majinvegeta 03:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Plot's length, and give aways. Missing Refs/Source Links
The article is much better written than the novel's version on Wiki. Good sequence in the paragraphs. The Plot is very extensive and gives too much away. Have you considered writing a summary of the plot? As a reader, I feel that too much is provided, that I'd avoid watching the film as a result.

"Production Notes" do not have any references/sources to back up what is being written (with the exception of one Michelle Phiffer [2]). "Awards and Controversy" no refs/source links, "Differences of the book" (nicely done, but requires some reference to book pages as evidence of what is written), "Influences" and "Manhunter" also provide no refs. For verifiability, you should provide source links.

Cast - I think the cast would be better placed right after the Plot, so it is more like an encyclopedia, movie database. Get summary of story, cast, awards, etc. This is the order which people tend to review film information. Good luck, and I hope these suggestions help improve the article. Breathe200 17:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Silence!.JPG
Image:Silence!.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 02:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Award information
I thinks it's pretty obvious that they weren't the most oscar nominated films ever. I got rid of that information Kiwiboy121 02:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I highly doubt the accuracy about the information regarding the film Hush..Hush, Sweet Charlotte and The Exorcist.


 * The statement was that they were the most Oscar-nominated horror films. I reverted your deletion. Ward3001 03:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Silence!.JPG
Image:Silence!.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

As a part in the series
I'm not familiar with this topic and I find the order of films very confusing since the release chronology and the story chronology don't correspond to the same films. Eventually I found the sequel/prequel piece in the sidebar, but it took a long time. Perhaps a mention in the opening paragraph or a common template for all four films? --Ephilei (talk) 01:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Question
There is a song somewhere that is, entirely, a gigantic reference to this movie. Oddly enough, I can't remember its name or who did the song. Here are some of the lyrics:


 * It puts the lotion in the basket,
 * It puts the lotion in the basket,
 * Oh put the lotion in the fucking basket,
 * Bitch, put the lotion in the basket!

Does anybody know the name of the song? It would be great to have it to add to a "References in popular culture" section of this article; I wish I could have been more helpful!

-209.102.188.220 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The song with the lyrics "It puts the lotion on its skin" was done by Greenskeepers.147.239.118.158 (talk) 19:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The Greenskeepers really ought to be mentioned in the Lambs article. (Avitor) 10:16, 8 March 2008 (CDT)

Best Picture
I remember there being a line in the opening about SOTL being the only horror movie to ever win best picture? Where did it go? Last time I checked, no horror has won Best Picture since. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 05:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I've readded it until someone can prove it wrong. It says it is a horror/thriller in the opening line, so it's the only horror to win best picture. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 05:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It is unique and I'm a fan of the movie, but I don't agree. Most critics don't classify the movie as a horror movie. They class it as a thriller. Most of the movie is about the drama and the thrill, not the gore and bloodshed.Niteshift36 (talk) 08:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * A horror movie is not about gore and bloodshed. That's a certain kind of horror, but it's not all. This is more of a psychological horror. And I have never heard of it being classified as a thriller. It's always been horror to me. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 19:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * From Thriller (genre): "Thrillers are characterized by fast pacing, frequent action, and resourceful heroes who must thwart the plans of more-powerful and better-equipped villains". No-brainer; it's a thriller. Ward3001 (talk) 19:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * From Horror (film): "Horror films are films of the horror genre that are designed to elicit fright, fear, terror, or horror from viewers.". There are certainly bits of both genre in this movie; I'm not saying I'm jsut classifying it as a horror film, so don't say it's jsut a thriller. Either way, it says in the opening line: "The Silence of the Lambs is a 1991 Academy Award-winning horror/thriller film". Even if it is not a full on classic horror movie, it is still considered one, so hence, it is the only horror to win best picture. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 20:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I never said it wasn't both horror and thriller. You implied that it is not a thriller ("I have never heard of it being classified as a thriller"). I can accept the designation of horror, but I think it is much more thriller than horror. The older classic horror films had monsters and supernatural phenomena. Some of the newer horror films are more realistic, but usually involve lots of blood and gore (Chainsaw, Saw, Scream, etc.). The difference with SOTL is that the blood and gore are mostly implied rather than presented directly (with some brief exceptions, such as Lecter biting someone's tongue out). But it's mostly suspense, mystery, and psychological mind games. I'd say about 10% horror and 90% thriller. Ward3001 (talk) 22:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

IMDB classifies it as a thriller too. Just for giggles, I looked how Netflix classed it: Thrillers/Psychological Thrillers/Crime Thrillers/Crime Dramas/Suspense. I'm not surprised a horror magazine calls it a horror movie. Whatever. Do what you want with it. But the idea of "I'm adding it until someone can prove it wrong" is backwards. It should be proven right for inclusion. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Most of the sites I see now classify it as a horror/thriller or drama. It's kind of sad when the definition of a horror movie nowadays is apparently "It has lots of gore in it". I wouldn't say this has straight-on horror qualities, but it certainly has psycholigical and contemporary horror in it.Something that is called part of the horror genre doesn't need to be filled with the same kinds of things people expect from a horror movie. As long as it comes down to the bottom line - does it elicit fright, fear, terror, or horror - then I think that means it's a horror movie. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 23:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Without regard to the specific classification of SOTL, I think it's overly simplistic to call a film "horror" just because it scares the audience. There's an older film, Wait Until Dark, that scared the hell out of me (it's the only movie in which I've screamed out loud uncontrollably, as did most of the audience). But it's definitely not a horror movie, and I think most people (critics and lay viewers) would agree with me. IMDb calls it "Thriller/Drama/Crime". It's a realistic story about something that could really happen, with absolutely no blood, no dead bodies (that I remember), nothing "monsterish", and nothing supernatural. It's just a very "edge-of-your-seat" suspenseful thriller. Ward3001 (talk) 00:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, once again, not all horror involves things that aren't realistic. Movies like Psycho and whatnot are realistic and they can still scare the living daylights out of people. Rotten Tomatoes has a strange definition of this movie. It says it is a drama on it's page, but it is included on it's "Top 50 Horror Movies", and in that list they call it a thriller. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 00:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * And once again, I never said that all horror movies are unrealistic, but they usually involve something that's quite bizarre in a scary sense, such as Psycho's Norman Bates' assuming the identity of his dead mother. Wait Until Dark wasn't bizarre, just very scary. Ward3001 (talk) 00:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Removal of sourced material by User:Ward3001
User:Ward3001 just reverted my change (for the third time) which included three different sources. The reason he gave is: rv unsourced. Please state some reasons why this makes sense. --87.189.74.47 (talk)
 * Did you actually put the source in the article? Putting it as the edit summary isn't enough. There probably won't be a problem if you add a source. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 08:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did. See the diff linked above. --87.189.74.47 (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 09:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Dali women skull.jpg
The image Image:Dali women skull.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --19:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

DVD releases
I came into this article expecting info on the DVD releases but found none. There are at least 4 different versions: regular, special edition, definitive edition and ultimate edition. All are 2-disc except regular which is a single disc. --Mika1h (talk) 21:06, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * At one time there was info on the DVD releases. I think it was removed because of inadequate sources. If you have reliable sources, add some information. Ward3001 (talk) 22:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Homophobia Allegations
I removed this section because it had no source and therefore does not comply with Wikipedia source guidelines. Nightshift36 reversed my change and now I am reversing it again to remove it. Nightshift, if you wish to keep this section in, it must be sourced. The default editing procedure at Wikipedia is that if material is not properly sourced it should be removed, not to leave in unsourced material in the hopes that someone can find a source. C08040804 (talk) 18:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, the default is to go ahead and challenge the material with a fact/date tag, which I did. I'm not saying it should or should not be included. But we should give the original editor the opportunity to defend it. Just leave it for a little while and see if they can support it. Will that really be such a big deal? BTW, It is NITEshift, not NIGHTshift. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I provided a NPOV source for part of the paragraph, so I believe it should remain in place for at least a little while. Also, this is a strange category event, where much of the protest is froma "community", so the references are in blogs etc., which aren't normally considered good sources. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, I added a total of 4 NPOV sources, which should be enough to not blank the entire paragraph. It is clear that the controversy did exist. If you'd like to discuss specific parts, let's do so before removing. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Niteshift36. Great job on the sources. C08040804 (talk) 19:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Unbeknownst?
Anybody else like this olde-fashionede word? I prefer "unknown" as it is shorter, less pretentious, more modern, and means the same. --76.117.164.50 (talk) 13:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree. Eric Partridge describes "unbeknownst" as "dialectal and colloquial" and "unusual but not rare" (in "Usage and Abusage"). Accordingly, I'd prefer to keep to the more modern and formal language expected in encyclopedic writing. Rodhull  andemu  13:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's the message I left on the IP user's talk page: "It's not necessarily about being a more superiour word, it's just that there was nothing wrong with the word being there, and it was not, as you suggested, old fashioned. The meanings are not strictly identical either. Unbeknownst implies that it is unknown to a particular person or persons, where as unknown is simply implying there is no knowledge. In terms of what the sentence itself is saying, there wouldn't be a huge amount of misunderstanding for anyone reading it, but strictly speaking, 'unbeknownst' is the correct word. I didn't mean to imply that your edit was in bad faith at all, and I did understand where you were coming from, but even so, the original term is technically better." While I have no huge problems with either word, I prefer unbeknownst, largely for the reasons above. Cheers. Sky83 (talk) 14:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I prefer "unknown", as it is shorter, more modern, and within the context we are talking about means the same. As RHE says, we should use modern, formal English in a modern encyclopedia. --76.117.164.50 (talk) 14:06, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Some of the things you are saying imply to me that this may be a regional thing in terms of how popular and in use the word is. Like I said, strictly speaking, the correct word is unbeknownst in this context, but more to the point, I don't think we can really make a convincing argument about the length of the word when we're only talking four letters here. Additionally, I don't feel that modern is a massively useful term here, since the use of the word in question is still widespread. And depending on your definition of formal, considering that on meaning, unbeknownst is appropriate here, that would suggest that it is also the most formal term, and not the word that has a similar (albeit very similar) meaning. I really don't think this is a huge issue and I'm not interested in making it into one tbh. I mainly didn't really see a reason to change it in the first place, although I understand and appreciate why you wanted to :). Sky83 (talk) 14:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I found this amusing. As an English teacher myself, I always advise my students to write “he didn’t know yet” rather than “hitherto unbeknownst to him”; constipated and pretentious prose interferes with the primary function of language, which is communication. I don't think this is mainly a regional thing, as I come from the UK and now live and work in the US. I think it is a matter of taste and style. Encyclopedias should eschew pretentiousness and aim for a prose style which is clear and transparent. --76.117.164.50 (talk) 15:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Lol, yes, that was quite interesting but I'm not sure it is all that relevant to this :). This is not about 'pretentiousness' either, partly since we are talking about a single word and not a phrase (and therefore, we are not clogging the article with "constipated and pretentious prose"), it's a simple matter of which word suits the sentence better, and given the slightly different meaning (which is really what this comes down to) 'unbeknownst' is the more appropriate term. If the terms did mean exactly the same, it would be a matter of taste and style, but that's not exactly what we're talking about here. I understand your personal preference, but I just don't find a whole lot of reasoning to go with 'unknown', since we would ultimately be eschewing a more precise term (and if we have to be pedantic about it, the term was here before and was accepted and unchallenged). Frankly though, this is so ridiculously insignificant in terms of what it means to the article, I'm not sure why it's even got to the point where I'm saying this! Sky83 (talk) 15:53, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. Consider it now to be thoroughly challenged. And, as another editor has backed me up, I think the onus is now on you to justify its retention. In the context of this article the tiny shade of meaning is not significant enough to outweigh the infelicity of the term, in my opinion. --76.117.164.50 (talk) 16:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think this is now going way too far. I have already justified it, I don't think I need to go any further on that, but while we're circling that area of things, I'm not sure disregarding a meaning in favour of preference is a particularly good way to go. It's great that you have a different opinion, life would be boring if we all agreed (!), but the fact that we can be accurate here should probably be the base level at which we consider this. Personal preference and likes and dislikes aside, and looking at a discussion in an objective sense, factual accuracy alone would be enough for me to call it. I really don't want this going any further into a debate, and I certainly don't want to anger you with my opinions, but I find no real reason to change the phrasing here. This is getting so silly now, we're talking about four letters of difference, surely we can end this sensibly? Sky83 (talk) 17:23, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way, if you have a huge enough issue with the word that you don't see a compromise here, we could always rephrase to something like "Neither Starling or Lecter are aware, but Dr. Chilton tapes the conversation and reveals Starling's deal as a sham" or something like that. Sky83 (talk) 17:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) That would work, except of course it would be "is" and not "are". Good suggestion. See also my post at Wikipedia talk:Words to avoid. --76.117.164.50 (talk) 19:14, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * While I think listing a perfectly okay word at 'words to avoid' is slightly arbitrary, go ahead and change this article if you want to. I have no objections to changing the disputed wording at all. Sky83 (talk) 19:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Cultural Influence Sources
I removed most of the fact templates because most of these paragraphs are already sourced- the named shows themselves are the sources See WP:PRIMARY. I left the fact template in place for the Addams Family Values claim because that seems open to interpretation, but the others merely what is clearly shown in the named programs. Those programs themselves are the source.JeffStickney (talk) 22:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The fact is, however, that almost all are open to interpretation because there must be a source in the linked article relating the film/episode/show to TSOTL, and that generally is not done. Otherwise it's original research to make the connection. Ward3001 (talk) 23:02, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly. I wish more people understood this concept.  It's original research unless you find a third party citation noting the similarity. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 18:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And it my earnest wish that more people would try to understand the concept of preserving information in this encyclopedia. It is always better to locate reliable sources, or at least install Fact templates before removing unharmful information.  If, as I see, Fact templates have been removed recently without appropriate reason, then as Roseanne Roseannadanna would say, "Never mind!"  
 * &mdash;  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.   19:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to remove the majority of the items. The musical and the film appear to be worth noting, but the other examples are rather passing mentions.  The in popular culture template says to remove trivial references, and the passing mentions qualify as such.  Such a section is not for this purpose.  An article like this would contribute so much more than pointing out reiterated lines from the film. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 19:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Not to mention I've single-handedly kept the Joe Dirt reference from being added several times, due to lack of a citation. No reason why it shouldn't just be deleted again. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 20:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Parodies
- The silence of the hams (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0111190/) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.190.201.136 (talk) 20:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

the south park episode "toilet paper" is also a parody —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.160.97 (talk) 23:42, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 122.108.192.6, 16 July 2010
editsemiprotected

I have listed two references made by TV show South Park in regards to the film Silence of The Lambs. I have linked the references to actual pages for the discussed episode which itself lists the satire. If the reference to the film actually exists and proof is also given then why has the updates been deleted twice? And, whilst you're at it, add a reference made by Eminem in his song Cold Wind Blows on his album Recovery. I would have made the edit myself so people know where the film has been referenced but someone who is obviously incompetent keeps deleted the updated and actual facts, rather then clicking the link to discover the reference is real.

122.108.192.6 (talk) 13:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Where is this happening? Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 17:39, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Sequels winning Best Picture
I've been trying to add a line in reference to The Silence of the Lambs being the second of only three sequels to win Best Picture after The Godfather Part II and before The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King. My edit has been removed several times on the grounds that its "unencylopedic trivia". I understand the sites policies in regards to trivia but I'm finding it a bit rich that this perfectly verifiable piece of information is being removed while in the same passage alone there are numerous other incidents of trivia such as it being the 3rd film to win all of the "big 5" Oscars or citing how many nominations it got for a horror film. I don't feel that the information I'm adding has any less right to be there than the others but removing all the instances of trivia from the page makes for a less interesting page in general. Anotoriousbug (talk) 10:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Horror
The majority opinion does seem to be that this film is a horror film. If you disagree then that's fair enough but let's resolve the dispute here on the talk page instead of having one person constantly reverting everyone else's edits, thank you. --Stenun (talk) 10:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Silence of the Lambs is not a horror movie, it's a thriller, you have to learn the difference between thriller and horror. SOTL is definitely very scary thriller film, but not a horror film at all. Tom Lennox (talk) 12:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Even if I do "have to learn the difference between thriller and horror", I submit that you have to learn that your opinion is not automatically right - it is simply your opinion. From what I have seen of the edit history, the majority of editors of the article consider that Silence Of The Lambs is a horror film - yours being one of the few dissenting voices.  This does not make you right or give you a valid reason for constantly reverting other people's edits.  I suggest we have a discussion on this talk page, hearing views from all sides, and allow the consensus to rule.  I will happily go along with the majority verdict, even if that verdict decides that Silence Of The Lambs is a comedy.  Do you agree?  --Stenun (talk) 13:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You are right about it being his opinion, and he's been blocked for pushing his opinion in a hostile manner. Feel free to revert his edits on sight. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 13:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This page once was just a "1991 thriller film" why not let it just this wau? if it is horror we put it in the category section, we don't have to put horror in every film that has horror elements.
 * Horror fiction. Please note that the definition of "horror" has changed since the 1960s.  A text no longer requires supernatural elements to be classed as "horror".  --Stenun (talk) 15:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

BTW: The Silence of the Lambs is not a horror movie. Tom Lennox (talk) 13:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I see you are back to your old tricks, reverting against consensus. Are you just trying to get blocked? Crotchety Old Man (talk) 14:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

It is a horror movie. Anyone who says otherwise, doesn't understand the definition of the genre. Virtually every book on horror cinema includes silence of the lambs. Horror does not require supernatural elements. 173.48.16.187 (talk) 23:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Horror film
I really can't find sources mentioning this as a horror film as much as a crime thriller. If you disagree, please say why. 201.95.48.162 (talk) 13:25, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This has been discussed at length, twice, on this talk page. The matter is settled.  It's obvious your intention is disruption. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  13:44, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

From seeking sources myself, New York Magazine describes the film as a thriller source, the book "The triumph of the thriller: how cops, crooks, and cannibals captured popular fiction" refers to the film as a thriller, Explorations of value compares the film to Psycho and refers to it as a thriller. Described as a "police thriller" in the book [Thriller]. Allmovie cites the film as " a "Thriller, Psychological Thriller," and" Police Detective Film". This book refers to reviews associating it with the horror genre source. I'd slide with either both horror or thriller (with an edge to horror), but I haven't found many saying crime thriller. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, on looking more I do find other sources calling it a crime thriller "1 for example. However, this definition of the crime thriller states "A type of crime film that offers a suspenseful account of a successful or failed crime or crimes. Unlike police procedurals, crime thrillers focus on a criminal/criminals rather than a policeman. Crime thrillers usually emphasize action over psychological aspects - murders, robberies, chases, shootouts and double-crosses are central ingredients. Reservoir Dogs, The Asphalt Jungle, The Getaway and The Killing are prime examples."source. This source, argues that is is on the psychological aspects of the characters, but also notes that there is definitely less focus on the police detective. In this film, the story follows Clarice story more than Buffalo Bill or Hannibal. So I'm am somewhat against it being included. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Stop sucking dick of Allmovie, a Crime film doesn't belong only to criminals, but also policemen, so a crime thriller may focus on suspense of cop too. now search for sources that list it as a horror film. 201.92.135.71 (talk) 20:14, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It's easier to find it being claimed, and I've cited several sources that aren't allmovie. If you took time to read, you'd learn something. Continious vandalism without discussing things on the talk page will lead this article to be protected. Cheers. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Silence of the lambs falls into several Genres. Here is the wiki definition of Horror Movie: "Horror films are unsettling movies that strive to elicit the emotions of fear, disgust, panic, alarm, shock and horror from viewers through the means of macabre and the supernatural, thus frequently overlapping with the fantasy and science fiction genres. Horrors also frequently overlap with the thriller genre" I might quibble with the details, but clearly Silence of the Lambs falls into this category under the present definition. 24.61.171.248 (talk) 12:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Crime film
How can it be a crime film if the main characters are not criminals? 201.68.137.86 (talk) 15:22, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You may have heard of either Hannibal Lector or Buffalo Bill. BLGM7 (talk) 15:24, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Why is this a crime film if it's not about any criminal?
Hanniball abd Buffalo Bill are secondary characters, how can this be a crime film if crime films are about criminals? 201.42.212.89 (talk) 07:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Inadequate article
[redacted, as I posted on wrong page.] AlbertBowes (talk) 16:18, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, Albert. Some articles are underdeveloped because nobody has taken an interest in them yet. If you're interested in working on it, I can help provide some references for it. You could also ask for help at the talk page for WikiProject Film, which you can visit here. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 17:56, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I lost my critique (posted on the wrong page). For beginners, I think the lede is inadequate. e.g. the plot description doesn't even suggest the intricies of it. Would appreciate any references you have and would be happy to help out. Thanks!  AlbertBowes (talk) 16:18, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Sequels?
This article does not include the follow ups and prequels to this film.69.247.254.89 (talk) 01:25, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

AFI lists
I would like to see the discussion where the consensus was reached that the AFI lists are trivial, because I have certainly seen these lists being removed from a great many articles, with no corresponding discussion. All I see is the opinion of a few editors that the lists are trivial and undeserving of any mention. The AFI is certainly notable, its lists have received a great deal of attention --- we have WP articles for all of them --- and the number of films nominated is still very small, meaning that the lists are not indiscriminate, so how does one reach the conclusion that they are trivial? ---  RepublicanJacobite  TheFortyFive 12:59, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Whitespace?
The assumption of bad faith on my part is preposterous and against policy (not to mention wrong). RepublicanJacobite, you should be ashamed for yourself!

These polices are relevant:
 * WP:WHITE (summary: don't add whitespace)
 * WP:MOS - blank space ... is for the style sheet.
 * Help:Hidden text - don't use hidden text to create whitespace.

Discuss. --193.254.155.48 (talk) 14:15, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Deletion without comment will, in almost all situations, be viewed as vandalism. If you had good reason for removing that hidden text, you should have said so in your edit summary.  Or, you could have posted here after you were reverted the first time.  You chose to do neither of those things, so get off your high horse. ---  RepublicanJacobite  TheFortyFive  14:18, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Apparently, you should update your knowledge on the words "Assume", "good" and "faith". Come back after you've done that. Here is a hint: You are demonstrably wrong in this matter, so I'm not sure that I am the one who should rethink his approach. --193.254.155.48 (talk) 14:28, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You failed to respond to anything I said. If you were so certain you were correct, why did you not use an edit summary, or post here on the talk page after you were reverted the first time? ---  RepublicanJacobite  TheFortyFive  21:59, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Seriously? Ok, have it your way then. --193.254.155.48 (talk) 11:36, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You failed to respond to anything I said. If you were so certain you were correct, why did you use a edit summary that directly contradicts policy? Why did you repeat your mistake after you were reverted the first time? Why did you not post here on the talk page?
 * Acknowledge your mistakes and apologize, then we can continue with my response. (And believe me, I have one.) --193.254.155.48 (talk) 11:36, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

May a passerby ask why you both care so much about a very modest bit of whitespace? —Tamfang (talk) 15:47, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't. My frank expressions are only a reaction.
 * That said, the white space should be changed in the style sheet (if at all) for various reasons (economy, WP:ACCESS, etc.). --193.254.155.48 (talk) 16:00, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe not pure 'horror', but worth a mention vis-a-vis Academy Awards?
I've been registered for ages, but new to substantial contributions, and made this change to the SOTL article in good faith. Admittedly, I hadn't read this Talk page, and I hadn't appreciated how much the "is it horror?" debate was raging. So, my revision was perhaps rightly undone.

But what surprises me, therefore, is that there isn't reference to this substantial difference of opinion in the article. There are many sources - including those I cited in my original revision - which refer to SOTL as a 'horror film', and quote it as being the only film in this genre to win Best Picture. Indeed, there remains reference in the first line of the article itself to the horror genre, and it's in the Wikipedia category Horror Films. Conversely, there are more than a few op-ed pieces around which decry the suggestion that it's horror.

Therefore, I'm confused.

Given such an association with the horror genre - whether rightly or not - surely, there's a need to reference it in some way, pointing out the debate, and linking it to the Academy Awards? If so, I'm happy to try my hand at writing such a section. Or is this Talk page, on which there seems to be a lot of opinion and not much else, meant to be the guiding force on the matter?

As a newly proactive Wikipedian, again, I admit to being confused. What's the done thing here?!

Thanks, by the way, toUser:RepublicanJacobite, who undid my revision, but took the time to explain why, and posted me a nice message. For someone just learning the ins and outs of substantial Wikipedia contribution, it's greatly appreciated. Greg (talk) 15:11, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for posting here, rather than reverting, with the possible result of starting an edit war. As you have noted, there has been a lot of debate here on the talk page as to whether this film should be considered horror, with no firm conclusion.  There are differing opinions.  The current wording in the lede, i.e., that this is is a thriller with elements of horror and crime films, is a compromise, but I think that it adequately describes what Demme achieved with this film.  It does not neatly fit into any one genre.


 * That said, your argument is persuasive. Even if this is not "pure horror," as you put it, it is a rare occurrence for a film with this much similarity to horror to be nominated for so many Oscars, let alone to win.  So, yes, this should be mentioned.  I do not think it requires its own section, but, with sources, a sentence or two would be appropriate.  You can either go ahead and add it to the article, or post it here, so that other editors can take a look and offer their opinions.  The only other possible issue would be whether the sources you have will pass muster. ---  RepublicanJacobite  TheFortyFive  16:53, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Horror film?
Is SOTL actually a horror film? I always thought it was partially one, but more drama. It's in the Drama section at the movie stores. --VorangorTheDemon 18:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course it's a horror film. Just as much as Pscycho or Halloween, or the Texas Chainsaw Massacre. 108.85.0.173 (talk) 03:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I dont think it is a horror film. Thriller != horror, Hitchcocks films were not necessarily horrors. BatGnat 21:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * No - but Psycho is surely the forerunner of slasher flicks. Serial killers, cannibals, are part of the what is normally referred to as horror films. What disguishes a horror film from other types of thrillers ? -- Beardo 23:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * another important stuff: It won the five biggest academy awards (Actor, Actress, Director, Screenplay and Movie) i think it should be mencioned: check out One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (film) in the beginning there is a reference about the 5 big prizes. (HelenoBR)

Fava beans, Cianti & liver
In medicine, there are a class of psychiatric drugs called monoamine oxidase inhibitors. While not prescribed much anymore, some of their more common uses were for depression particularly with psychotic features and various personality disorders.

One of the cautions with these medications is that you can't eat food rich in tyramine can cause a fatal hypertensive crisis.

What are some food rich in tyramine? Among others, liver, red wine, and fava beans.

He's flaunting the fact that he's off his meds.84.152.46.207 (talk) 09:12, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Correct Masha Skorobogatov's name
MaRsha Skorobogatov, who played young Clarice, is Masha (without R). Correct spelling please. Check her entry in IMDb: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0804705/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.253.200.29 (talk) 22:37, 25 September 2013 (UTC) Done GroveGuy (talk) 01:54, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 August 2014
instead of saying he "flicked his semen" it should say "flicked his love.

98.168.152.98 (talk) 01:16, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

❌ as WP:Euphemism - Arjayay (talk) 08:26, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Why is this page protected?
If there's no compelling and current reason to restrict editing rights on the page, it should be unprotected. 24.17.19.29 (talk) 02:39, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I would assume the transvestic nature of the serial killer (based on real life Ed Geins) is offensive to transgender advocates

Starling's firearm in the Buffalo Bill shooting
The Wikipedia article states that Starling empties her pistol's magazine into Buffalo Bill when shooting him. In reality, her firearm is a revolver - thus technically not a pistol. More important, I do not believe that it is accurate to call the cylinder of a revolver a magazine. After Starling shoots Buffalo Bill, she attempts to reload her revolver using a speedloader. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speedloader) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:6000:610C:8700:DD86:B0D3:4F7F:6ED0 (talk) 05:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Filming Locations
In the locations of filming it gives Ohio as the primary location. However other sources I have consulted give many locations as Pittsburgh. This is certainly close to Ohio, and there were many locations filmed in Ohio. I'm not attacking the veracity of the statement; however the Soldiers and Sailors Museum is located in Pittsburgh. I believe the original author confused this with the Soldiers and Sailors Memorial (much smaller, more of a victory column), which is located in Ohio. Also I believe the building that stands in for Chesapeake Mental Hospital is also in Pittsburgh. My sole point, in so many words is that this article needs its facts checked and then edited accordingly.
 * I changed the location listed in the article to Pittsburgh. Prospective students of the University of Pittsburgh are told by tour guides that parts of the movie were filmed at that particular memorial hall (which is on the university's campus), and I recognized the exterior of the building in the film- it is the Soldiers' and Sailors' Memorial in Pittsburgh.

If interested, I have a picture I took of the house they used for Buffalo Bill, I live right by where they filmed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.255.123.159 (talk) 20:51, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Manhunter sequel confusion
Some argue that The Silence of the Lambs is a sequel to Manhunter, but the fact that Orion was willing to produce the film without the rights to the three characters that previously appeared in Manhunter suggests that it was never intended to be a cinematic follow up to Manhunter

What a load of unreferenced speculation! Manhunter is the adaptation of Red Dragon, and SOTL is the adaptation of SOTL, a sequel to Red Dragon. The information I've read suggests that because Manhunter wasn't exactly a hit on release, Orion didn't want to market Lambs as being a sequel - that doesn't mean that it's not though.

It should also be noted that, in Manhunter, Lecter's last name is officially spelled "Lecktor", and no mention is ever made of cannibalism.

This again is wrong, Lecter's surname is simply misspelled in the film - and he isn't a cannibal (in Manhunter).

Further distancing The Silence of the Lambs from Manhunter is the fact that Frankie Faison and Dan Butler appear in both films, but as completely different characters.

There was no Barney character in Manhunter, just like there were any number of characters from the books that didn't make the movies - how is this relevant?

This matter was settled in 2002 when Manhunter was remade as Red Dragon, in which Hopkins, Faison and Heald reprised their roles from The Silence of the Lambs, establishing itself as the official prequel as it relates to the other two Hopkins films.

Again, this is an opinion. Just because it was marketed as a prequal doesn't make it more official then Manhunter. The fact of the matter is Red Dragon 2002 is a remake.

Red Dragon was not a remake of Manhunter. It was a separate adaptation of the same book. They share source material, but that does not make Red Dragon a remake. The main point that makes SOTL not a sequel to Manhunter is that the two movies are not in the same continuity. SOTL, Hannibal (2001) and Red Dragon (2002) are all in the same continuity, while Manhunter is in a completely separate continuity. On an unrelated note, the spelling in Manhunter as "Lecktor" rather than "Lecter" was not a misspelling. The spelling was intentional, although the reasons are unclear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.124.185.200 (talk) 05:49, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I suggest the entire article under "Manhunter sequel confusion" be removed from the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.9.137.70 (talk) 13:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the previous commenter.--Mooseman153 15:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I think mention of Manhunter is relevant but it's a prequel to Lambs the same way Die Hard is a sequel to The Detective. Essentially it's two adaptations of two books in the same series but Lambs was never meant to be a sequel to Manhunter or De Laurentiis never would have sold them the rights. Manhunter was a failure. Notice he's the producer on Manhunter, gave them the rights to Lambs because he thought it would fail because Manhunter did, and then after it's success has his name on Hannibal and Red Dragon. You can watch Manhunter and Lambs and it makes sense but it wasn't planned that way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.202.118.5 (talk) 17:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hannibal was a cannibal in Manhunter. Remember Benjamin Raspail? Besides, even if it was plain, it turns out he was, since Hannibal Rising later showed he became a cannibal as a teen. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * What? Sequels are not determined by subject matter. They are determined by the owner of the movie and things like that. If I wrote a movie that took place after Gone with the Wind or something it wouldn't be the sequel to Gone with the Wind, at least it shouldn't be an official sequel. It shouldn't be listed on wikipedia as a film proceding or followed by it.  If that was a case then a lot of fan made movies would be part of film series.  What makes a movie an official sequel is the owners of the movies, it has to be cannon. As far as I know Manhunter isn't in the same series as Silence of the Lambs, just like the original Casino Royale isn't part of the James Bond series.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.103.173.3 (talk) 04:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Regardless of ownership, the Manhunter and Silence of the Lambs share common characters and a common storyline, written by the same author. Legal wrangling is about who gets paid. Lambs is most definately a sequel. The story has continuity from one to the other. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

They do not share a continuity. Sequels are determined by continuity. Manhunter is in one continuity, while SOTL, Hannibal (2001) and Red Dragon (2002) are in a completely different continuity.

Semi-protected edit request on 13 October 2015
Insert the following at the bottom of the 'Accolades' section:

In 2015, Entertainment Weekly's 25th anniversary year, it named Silence of the Lambs in its list of the 25 best movies since the magazine's beginning.

99.232.1.160 (talk) 19:34, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done -- Sam Sailor Talk! 08:17, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 February 2016
Please qualify and edit the part of the site that discusses accusations of LGBTQ transfobia against ''Silence of the Lambs." While these accusations are true, there were also several seminal LGBTQ scholar who have defended and praised the film. In fact, the film was both embraced and heavily criticized, often being divisive in the LGBTQ community. It generated a lot of debate about whether Buffalo Bill really can be construed as gay man or trans woman, or whether Buffalo Bill was actually actually the typical masculine male gaze turned inward. For supporting evidence: Michael Warner criticizes the film in his book "Fear of a Queer Planet: Queer Politics and Social Theory" and Douglas Crimp discusses both Hannibal Lecter and Buffalo Bill as two different versions of demonizing and warping queer desire in his chapter "Right On, Girlfriend" in the book Melancholia and Moralism: Essays on AIDS and Queer Politics. At the same time, seminal queer scholar D. Ruby Rich (who coined the phrase "New Queer Cinema") has written a defence of the film in her essay "Never a Victim: Jodie Foster, a New Kind of Female Hero." Closer to the topic at hand, Judith Halberstam discussed the ways in which the film actually subverted and complicated gender divisions that separated gender from sexuality and even the body, in the essay "Skinflick: Posthuman Gender in Jonathan Demme's Silence of the Lambs."

The reason I am pointing out this important qualification is because I teach this film in university, and my students keep coming to Wikipedia and getting a very incomplete story, which they (to my great disappointment) then just perpetuate and repeat in their own assignments.

Thank you.

Allagsa (talk) 08:04, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --allthefoxes (Talk) 23:42, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 August 2016
The second sentence of the article states the book was released 1998 (seven years after the film) when the book wiki page states the book was actually released in 1988.

Tycho451 (talk) 22:30, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done RudolfRed (talk) 22:57, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Horror films
what sources consider this a horror film? Darunia02 (talk) 12:00, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

THIS HAS BEEN DONE TO DEATH! Look at the archive. It's now been agreed that it's at the very least a horror-thriller, if not a full-blown horror. Feel free, therefore, to cite sources which state it's *not* a horror.

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2017
Add descriptor "psychological" in front of horror-thriller. SniperNoSniping (talk) 19:01, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * No. In a psychological thriller, a character's psychological state is always in question, as is their perception of reality.  That is not the case with this film.  There is never a question of whether what we are seeing is really happening, as is the case with a film like Black Swan. ---  The Old Jacobite   The '45  20:38, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Silence of the Lambs (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140225102455/http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/predators/bittaker_norris/10.html to http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/predators/bittaker_norris/10.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:37, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Nauseating and unneccesary gruesome information unrelated to the movie
This part: "Douglas gave Glenn a tour of the Quantico facility and also played for him an audio tape containing various recordings that serial killers Lawrence Bittaker and Roy Norris had made of themselves raping and torturing a 16-year-old girl.[20][21] According to Douglas, Glenn wept as he experienced the recordings and even changed his liberal stance on the death penalty.[22]"

I feel sick reading it and I ask myself: why is this in here? First time appearance on wikipedia so I thought i'd not instantly edit the article. This does not provide any information about the movie, instead, it contains gruesome and horrific information about the rape and torture of children (!), and sick men recording it, and sicker men showing the tapes to others, et cetera. Just put it away, anyone interested in such information can study to become a trauma psychologist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:985:4630:1:9064:5A35:5C01:B72A (talk) 21:08, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Edit Request to Remove Comma on 30 May 2018
"FBI trainee Clarice Starling, is pulled from her training" does not need a comma. AppleFirefly (talk) 01:38, 31 May 2018 (UTC)AppleFirefly

Greetings fellow grammarian! Glad you noticed the stray comma in that sentence. By the way, you should feel free to make changes to Wiki pages such as this which contain errors. Wikipedia encourages us to be bold and edit freely. I was bold and removed the unnecessary comma. The feeling of being bold is exhilarating; try it and see! Cheers. Kinkyturnip (talk) 04:15, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Genre
Changes to the genre – i.e. from horror to psychological horror – should be discussed here first. Continuously changing the genre with no explanation or discussion is vandalism. --- The Old Jacobite The '45 23:44, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Jame Gumb
It's nonsensical to say that Jame Gumb is a transsexual man, he was assigned male. He is "a man who believes he's a trans woman" Nourann (talk) 16:06, 24 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Fixed. --ChiveFungi (talk) 12:58, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 December 2018
Please change "Starling reacts just in time and fires all of her rounds at Gumb, killing him." to "Starling reacts just in time and fires all of her rounds at Gumb, killing her". As the article establishes that Gumb is a transexual woman, calling her a woman earlier in the same paragraph. 2601:40A:4101:A582:BC37:2334:DCF2:A8D (talk) 17:23, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done DannyS712 (talk) 17:33, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

If one were to read the whole paragraph one can see it's not within good context to use "her" instead of "him". Using her not only conflicts with the "his" pronouns in the previous sentences but it also confuses the reader on who was killed and who shot who. The synopsis of the book, the script of the movie, and the book per se does not address this issue either; Gumb is referred to as he, him, and his despite whether he wants to become a woman by putting on the skins of dead women he killed. While Gumb is based on Ed Gein, Gumb himself is a fictional character and is not offended by our pronoun uses. Germanator 10:00, 31 December 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Germmanator (talk • contribs)

Jame Gumb is no transsexual
This is explicitly stated both in the book and in the film. "Billy is not a real transsexual, but he thinks he is." He is a mentally deranged person who had applied for gender reassignment and got rejected. Describing Gumb as a "transsexual woman" is both misguiding and insulting to real people who have the condition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.76.231.73 (talk) 07:25, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Hannibal
Hannibal - the third of the Hannibal Lecter trilogy, made into the film of the same name by Ridley Scott. (should the link be Hannibal (novel) or Hannibal (film)?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koyaanis Qatsi (talk • contribs) 03:27, 25 September 2002 (UTC)

Plot

 * I've expanded a great deal on the plot summary, although I think I got carried away and virtually wrote the book! Feel free to cut it down anyone, if you think it's a bit too detailed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert Mercer (talk • contribs) 17:55, 20 November 2004 (UTC)

Influences Section
While Buffalo Bill may share some characteristics of a few serial killers, he is only based on three: Ted Bundy, Gary Heidnik, and Ed Gein. The references to Chikatilo and Kemper, while interesting are irrelevant in regards to this film. I propose that the Influences section be cleaned up, and steamlined. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.40.218.217 (talk) 00:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Music in the Movie
The song Goodbye Horses by Q Lazzarus is playing while "Buffalo Bill" is trying on his skin suit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redconfetti (talk • contribs) 06:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * there is also a really great song called "Hip Preist" by "The Fall" when clarice is looking around the house, just befoer the night vision goggles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jefferyklassen (talk • contribs) 06:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Connections to Married to the Mob
Michelle Pfeiffer was originally offered the Clarice Starling lead role by Jonathan Demme; they had worked on his previous film "Married to the Mob" together as well.

Curiously enough, another connection that Married to the Mob has to 'The Silence of the Lambs', was the 'Goodbye Horses' song by Q Lazzarus that is playing in the background during the scene when Mike (Matthew Modine) is in Angela's (Michelle Pfeiffer) apartment and can be heard fairly well when Mike is rubbing Angela's feet (starts around 56:30 & ends around 1:00:00). This song was also featured in 'The Silence of the Lambs' and became known as "The Buffalo Bill Song" from the scene when serial killer Buffalo Bill (Ted Levine) applies make-up and dances nude in front of a video camera, ending the scene with his penis tucked between his legs as to give the appearance of a female mons (starts around 1:33:30 & ends around 1:36:30). Although the song was featured on the Married to the Mob soundtrack, it was not originally included in 'The Silence of the Lambs' OST, but was included at a later release. In 1991, Q Lazzarus released an extended version of 'Goodbye Horses' to capitalize on the success of 'Silence of the Lambs'.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by MHS7 (talk • contribs) 16:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Plot
The plot section is filled with errors. Perhaps this is the plot of the book? In any case, it requires several changes. IRN-Dumas (talk) 21:01, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Parody
Perhaps it should be mentioned that this film provides fodder for the comedy film The Silence of the Hams.172.75.72.202 (talk) 23:58, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 February 2020
Please add to categories: "Films shot in Pittsburgh" KayFahr (talk) 21:39, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ L293D (☎ • ✎) 03:13, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

References to use

 * Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.



Semi-protected edit request on 5 December 2020
In the first paragraph, change "The film was the second adaptation a Harris novel, and the second to feature Lecter, preceded by Manhunter (1986)." to "The film was the second adaptation of a Harris novel, and the second to feature Lecter, preceded by Manhunter (1986)." 2601:18D:57F:460:D5E:2EF0:8021:E66C (talk) 22:12, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done RudolfRed (talk) 23:09, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 February 2022
Please change Hopkins called his agent back after reading the first 10 pages, saying, "This is the best part I've ever read," then had dinner with Demme and accepted the role. thus Hopkins called his agent back after reading the first 10 pages, saying, "This is the best part I've ever read," then had Demme for dinner and accepted the role.

Both expressions mean the same but the latter is more in keeping with the theme of the film. 2A00:23C6:549D:C301:545D:8F9D:CC23:AA38 (talk) 13:52, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: We don't write articles "in universe" style. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:13, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

The Silence of the Lambs
The Silence of the Lambs is a 1991 American psychological horror film[3][4] directed by Jonathan Demme and written by Ted Tally, adapted from Thomas Harris's 1988 novel. It stars Jodie Foster as Clarice Starling, a young FBI trainee who is hunting a serial killer, "Buffalo Bill" (Ted Levine), who skins his female victims. To catch him, she seeks the advice of the imprisoned Dr. Hannibal Lecter (Anthony Hopkins), a brilliant psychiatrist and cannibalistic serial killer. The film also features performances from Scott Glenn, Anthony Heald and Kasi Lemmons.[5] 196.206.172.49 (talk) 13:33, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Betty Friedan clarification
The Betty Friedan quote complains about the "skinning alive of women". However, the film clearly states that the removal of skin happened post-mortem, not while the victims were alive. Should this correction be added to the page? 2601:152:880:2B0:740C:756C:73E7:7A24 (talk) 15:24, 20 September 2021 (UTC)


 * That would mainly be a critique of Friedan's quote. Since she is wrong, it should be fine if the correction or critique was implemented well. Germanator 20:19, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

90s pictures of the actors or more recent pictures?
A recent change to Hopkins' and Foster's 2010s pictures were changed to 1990s. Perhaps we can find a way to post both sets of pictures on this page? Germanator 09:02, 27 May 2022 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Germmanator (talk • contribs)

I think that the editor who changed the recent pictures to ones from the ‘90s made the right call. This article isn’t about them, it’s about the film, and that section of the article is only referring to their roles in this one particular film, so it makes sense that they should be pictured as they were then, or at least much closer to how they were then than how they are now. I think it would make more sense to just use pictures of them from the film, or pictures of them from some sort of event related to the film, though. VictimOfEntropy (talk) 05:59, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

The Clarice Starling article has what I think would be a good picture to use. It’s a still from the film that shows both of their faces. VictimOfEntropy (talk) 06:06, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Goodbye Horses
Can we add something in the legacy section about this classic scene from American Cinema? 2601:204:D980:3590:15CF:F0E3:A365:BD0E (talk) 06:12, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 October 2022
Chris McGinn as the Autopsy Victim added to the Cast. Verified on IMDB. 47.205.144.134 (talk) 16:44, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: IMDb is user generated, and not a reliable source. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:56, 1 October 2022 (UTC)