Silence of the Lambs: Hannibal or Buffalo Bill?

Karl Hungus

So, reading the Biggest Oscar Upsets thread got me thinking about something. In 1992, The Silence of the Lambs won 5 Oscars, including a best actor award for Anthony Hopkins. But the injustice here is that Ted Levine didn't even get a nomination for his role, when I'd say he definitely deserved a best supporting Oscar. Not only that, but I've always felt that he completely outshines Hopkins, and creates what is to me the most intensely creepy and scary serial killer ever portrayed on film.

Frankly, I'm not a huge fan of the character of Hannibal, he's certainly a popular one, but to me he's a bit too camp and doesn't really feel like a real person. Levine's character unsettles me because he's someone who could be very real indeed, he's a seriously deranged person rather than some highly intelligent killer. He's a lot more believable, someone who could possibly live down the road from you. I don't really get why Hannibal is so well thought of, when we've got someone who I think truly surpasses him as a character. Even the dialogue, we all know how often Hannibal's lines are quoted in popular culture, but Buffalo Bill's dialogue was so much more creepy, and Levine's delivery truly unsettling. Hopkins was certainly a lot more camp.

What do you think?

Renn

I blame Jason Mewes.

Handsome Bob

You know I was only thinking of Buffalo Bill there the other week when I saw Shutter Island, there was a guy in it who reminded me of him, and now I see from that link Karl that it was indeed the same actor. :pac:

Anyway, Buffalo Bill over Hannibal anyday. Hannibal has had, what, three films with Hopkins in the leading role? Well, the scenes I remember most vividly from the entire franchise are Buffalo Bill's. The "lotion in the basket" scene still freaks me out, not to mention him trying on his, eh, "costume".

Nick_oliveri

LZ5by5 wrote: »

The "lotion in the basket" scene still freaks me out, not to mention him trying on his, eh, "costume".

Haha, I play Goodbye Horses for the laugh every now and then. For Levine not to get an Oscar nomination for supporting truly is cack. Hopkins for me though, love the Hannibal character.

uncleoswald

Brian Cox's Hannibal beats them both.

kenon

Jame Gumb (Buffalo bill) was brilliant, creepy as hell. Fantastic little mannerisms and quirks in the way he speaks.

Or the part where he is dancing in front of a mirror talking to himself with his manhood tucked away saying...Would you f**k me? I'd f**k me. I'd f**k me hard.

Thats fairly creepy!

But, Anthony Hopkins' sheer presence and persona as Hannibal was outstanding.

Jame Gumb had the whole creepy thing whereas Hannibal's sheer intelligence backed up by the horrors that he carried out was scary.

Hannibal for me.

Otis Driftwood

The problem with comparing the 2 roles is indeed that its 3 Vs 1 and unfortunatly,aside from SOTL,Hopkins' portrayal is very OTT.

In Red Dragon he is in pantomime villain territory so the impact of his SOTL portrayal is somewhat lessoned.

I could be wrong but isnt his performance the shortest on screen winning performance of all time?

I think that Levine didnt get a nomination because he basically does FA,has little dialogue and virtually no interaction.Dont get me wrong,its a good performance but is it Oscar worthy?

In my humble,no.

uncleoswald

nedtheshed wrote: »

I could be wrong but isnt his performance the shortest on screen winning performance of all time?

He's only on screen for about 15 minutes which is the shortest to win the leading roll category. But the shortest is 5 minutes screentime for Beatrice Straight for her Best Supporting roll in Network.

Yeah I agree he became to camp and lost the menace. Same thing happened in the books, Hannibal became a hero of sorts.

Simian!

I'm not sure about this one - I want to say Hannibal because I think his character in the books is handled better but Buffalo Bill is scary as hell.

Actually, I'm gonna pick Hannibal.

Creature

Hmm I don't agree with your point about Bill being more believable than Hannibal. They're both as out there as each other in my opinion. I think Hopkins deserved the Oscar without a doubt, his performance in SotL was fantastic and it chilled me to the bone when I first saw it. Do you not find Hannibal a lot more unsettling because he has that intelligence and the polite mannerisms that Buffalo Bill lacks? I certainly do. He is a bit unbelievable alright but a character like that was needed for that role and the film wouldn't be half as memorable if he was toned down.

Also I think the "It puts the lotion on its skin" line is quoted just as much as any of Hannibal's ones.

Ted Levine is a top quality actor though. It's a pity he never seems to get bigger roles in films.



Anyway, for me, Anton Chigurh from No Country For Old Men wins the prize for scariest psychopath. Buffalo Bill and Hannibal Lecter have nothing on him.

][cEMAN**

I don't see why you don't think hannibal's character is believable. Lets look at it - Intelligent Killer. Well, they used to say people with an education couldn't be law breakers. Then you had jack the ripper.

Intelligence imo doesn't preclude the idea of killing, but rather adds to the chance of doing it without getting caught. The ability to calculate risk, and possible outcomes. To cover ones tracks, rather than simply letting emotion take over.

Also depending on personal outlook on life, and take on morals, someone who's put a lot of thought into humanity may finally decide that the only answer is to do whatever they can to be completely free - and enjoy it while they can.

Not to mention, sociopaths just look to get where they want to, and everything in between is irrelevant.

Hannibal is one of the best examples of a non 'evil mastermind supervillian' architype.

Giselle

I think the Hannibal character is more chilling because he has the veneer of civilisation that his speech, manners and taste for the arts lend the character. I wouldn't characterise that as campness, at least in the 1st movie.

Certainly not as camp as the mirror/manhood scene in Buffalo Bill's basement.

Of the two, if Hannibal was living on my street, he'd be the one who I wouldn't think twice about. Bill, with his poodle and kaftan, would definitely be more notable.:)

Valmont

Writing off Hannibal as camp and not seeming like a real person is one of the craziest things I've heard on this forum! Buffalo Bill was great too but there was no way he could outshine Hannibal. I still listen to my copy of Bach's Goldberg Variations after first hearing them in that scene. You can't judge Hopkins in SOTL based on the sequels, it's not fair to his original performance.

Edit: I just realised I still listen to Goodbye Horses by Q Lazarus too after that scene.:D

El Futurismo

nedtheshed wrote: »

I could be wrong but isnt his performance the shortest on screen winning performance of all time?

Contrary to popular belief, Anthony Hopkins', performance in "The Silence of the Lambs" is not the shortest performance to win the Academy Award for Best Actor in a Leading Role. In actuality, 'David Niven' owns that honor, appearing in the film Separate Tables (1958) for approximately 15 minutes, 38 seconds compared to Hopkins' 24 minutes, 17 seconds of screentime.

From IMDB