The accusations of homophobia/transphobia
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — The Silence of the Lambs
The-Last-Prydonian — 10 years ago(March 24, 2016 03:50 AM)
I remember watching the documentary that was one of the special features of the double DVD release. In it was the recounting of the critical backlash the movie had from the LGBT community in regards to the supposed implication that Buffalo Bill was bisexual and transexual. I personally found the outcry and the accusations of homophobia ignorant and misinformed considering that the character was inspired by several serial killers, none of which where gay although did exhibit traits of the character. But even if the character had happened to be gay, so what? There's good and bad in all walks of life. True, there's no doubt homosexuality, bisexuality and transexuality has been been treated negatively in the past. However no one should automatically jump to conclusions and believe there's any ill intent to be made. Perhaps there was some political point scoring trying to be made here and if so it did certainly work because it was the controversy over this that led Jonathan Demme to direct
Philadelphia
. The first mainstream, major motion picture to deal not only with homosexuality but the preconceptions with it in regards to HIV and aids. -
Marmadukebagelhole — 10 years ago(March 24, 2016 05:37 AM)
Regardless of the legitimacy of Buffalo Bill's characterisation, based on historical cases, when a section of society happens to find itself represented mainly in the context of criminal behaviours, it is not egregious for that section of society to express its displeasure at the deviant-killer type being given undue prominence in popular culture, this being an example.
Even if the movie did not intend to be representative of homosexuality or transgenderism, it is entirely valid for people to use it to highlight the issue, short of untruth.
The psychiatrist in this movie is a cannibalistic psychopath. But mental health professionals were not mainly portrayed as such beforehand, or were at least portrayed to be law-abiding, as most people of any section of society are, so, naturally, there was no outcry from that profession over Lecter's character.
Glasgow's FOREMOST authority
Italics
= irony. Infer the opposite please. -
The-Last-Prydonian — 10 years ago(March 24, 2016 11:27 AM)
Regardless of the legitimacy of Buffalo Bill's characterisation, based on historical cases, when a section of society happens to find itself represented mainly in the context of criminal behaviours, it is not egregious for that section of society to express its displeasure at the deviant-killer type being given undue prominence in popular culture, this being an example.
Even if the movie did not intend to be representative of homosexuality or transgenderism, it is entirely valid for people to use it to highlight the issue, short of untruth.
And yet if there was nothing stated to say that the character is gay in the movie then is is egregious. Maybe if those of the LGBT community did there research first before attacking the movie the movie they'd have realized that no reason to stereotype or denigrate them was intended. If they didn't like the fact that Hollywood wasn't doing enough to represent homosexuality/bisexuality/transexuality that is fine but there hostility towards the film was aggressive to the point that they made unfounded accusations. I heard the shouts of stop Hollywood homophobia that were levelled at the film-makers which was tantamount to libellous. Offence doesn't just work one way and sometimes people across the board in any creed, colour or sexuality forget this.
The psychiatrist in this movie is a cannibalistic psychopath. But mental health professionals were not mainly portrayed as such beforehand, or were at least portrayed to be law-abiding, as most people of any section of society are, so, naturally, there was no outcry from that profession over Lecter's character.
Perhaps because the mental health profession is not indicative of a group of society due to their sex, creed or colour. Bigotry or any kind of social stigma as a rule doesn't tend to apply to people overall in their profession other than the odd rarity. Those who work in Porn industry or those in the legal profession being examples. Otherwise making any kind of comparison between psychiatry which isn't largely frowned upon and a persons sexual persuasion is unfair. -
Marmadukebagelhole — 10 years ago(March 31, 2016 01:43 AM)
They protests of the LGBT community, particularly at that time, in relation to Silence Of The Lambs as a mainstream movie were entirely legitimate. Even without conscious intent to stereotype gay or transgender people, the exploitation of a certain type of minority figure for mainstream entertainment purposes is likely to do nothing for perceptions of LGBT folks except make it worse. In the grand scheme of things, not being part of the solution made The Silence of The Lambs part of the problem. In retrospect there can be few people who think that the reaction to Silence of The Lambs was not a relatively positive outcome.
You also have to remember that the movie Silence Of The Lambs, while based on one of Harris's novels, came about as a sort of an attempt at mainstream maturity for the slasher/thriller genre. That genre already had a very poor track record for exploiting lurid depictions of alternative sexualities and almost always played the insane sexual deviant card. Even if Silence Of The Lambs was relatively more tasteful, it did not go out of its way to really differentiate between Bill's sexualtiy and his psychosis/ so in a way it's no better than some of the trashy horror that preceded it.
I don't think you should agonise over the hostility towards the film or its makers exposure to libel. The film and everyone involved with it did pretty well, you must agree. Clean sweeping the oscars. Big Box office sucess. Sequels, spoofs rip-offs etc.
Jonothan Demme and Tom Hanks (who wasn't even in the film) did fantastically well out of the reaction it provoked within the LGBT community. Would Philadelphia have been made and been that succesful in the mainstream without the response to Silence Of The Lambs? I doubt it. Not at that time. So it was perhaps even the best thing that happened to Demme's career.
In retrospect, 25 years on I find it difficult to listent to anyone still offended on the film-maker's behalf. All involved have commented on their surprise and disappointment but are intelligent enought to recognise the context in which those arguments are valid, and it also helped some of them realise what responsiblities and powers they had to make a difference. Not many people ever get that opportunity.
Glasgow's FOREMOST authority
Italics
= irony. Infer the opposite please. -
The-Last-Prydonian — 9 years ago(May 17, 2016 11:52 PM)
They protests of the LGBT community, particularly at that time, in relation to Silence Of The Lambs as a mainstream movie were entirely legitimate. Even without conscious intent to stereotype gay or transgender people, the exploitation of a certain type of minority figure for mainstream entertainment purposes is likely to do nothing for perceptions of LGBT folks except make it worse. In the grand scheme of things, not being part of the solution made The Silence of The Lambs part of the problem. In retrospect there can be few people who think that the reaction to Silence of The Lambs was not a relatively positive outcome.
The protests of the LBBT were not in the least bit legitimate. First let's remember for a start that this was a film adapted from a best selling novel so all this film was doing was cinematically retelling the story. Author Thomas Harris based the character on several killers, cherry picking certain aspects of each killer and combining them to mould the character. These were:
Jerry Brudos, who dressed up in his victims' clothing and kept their shoes.
Edward Gein, who fashioned trophies and keepsakes from the bones and skin of corpses he dug up at cemeteries. He also made a female skin suit and skin masks.
Ted Bundy, who pretended to be injured (using an arm-brace or crutches) as a ploy to ask his victims for help. When they helped him, he incapacitated and killed them, dumping their bodies far away.
Gary M. Heidnik, who kidnapped and tortured six women and held them prisoner assex slaves.
Edmund Kemper, who, like Gumb, killed his grandparents as a teenager "just to see what it felt like."
Gary Ridgway, the Green River Killer (still unidentified at the time of the novel's writing), who, like Gumb, dumped women's bodies in rivers and inserted foreign objects into their corpses.
Furthermore it's not as if serial killers in movies up until them hadn't portrayed as being heterosexual either.
The Boston Strangler
,
Manhunter
,
Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer
,
A Nightmare on Elm Street
,
Childs Play
,
Badlands
were all perfect examples of this. If anything the LGBT who complained over this movie just made themselves look like a bunch of hyper sensitive, moaning cry babies. Fact is there's good and bad in every walk of life and filmmakers or any one else for that matter shouldn't have to walk on egg shells and worry when creating a movie how they might potentially offend someone.
You also have to remember that the movie Silence Of The Lambs, while based on one of Harris's novels, came about as a sort of an attempt at mainstream maturity for the slasher/thriller genre. That genre already had a very poor track record for exploiting lurid depictions of alternative sexualities and almost always played the insane sexual deviant card. Even if Silence Of The Lambs was relatively more tasteful, it did not go out of its way to really differentiate between Bill's sexualtiy and his psychosis/ so in a way it's no better than some of the trashy horror that preceded it.
Quite the contrary as I already pointed out. There had been many about serial killers which did not depict alternative sexualities. And sexual deviancy didn't have to automatically equate with homosexuality. A perfect example being the Boston Strangler. And let's face it, this was a movie about a serial killer and let's face it, they're hardly a tasteful subject are they. Also the character of Clarice Starling does state when she's consulting with Hannibal Lectre in the film that she doesn't believe him to gay and states that homosexuals tend not to be violent. I don't know how you could have missed that but it did seem to suggest that Buffalo Bill was not gay.
I don't think you should agonise over the hostility towards the film or its makers exposure to libel. The film and everyone involved with it did pretty well, you must agree. Clean sweeping the oscars. Big Box office sucess. Sequels, spoofs rip-offs etc.
And I don't think the LGBT who protested over the film should have agonised over the depiction of Buffalo Bill. Whether the film and it's stars is neither here nor there as to be quite frank, the criticism and animosity directed at it were not only unjustified but tantamount to libellous. What you're saying is like someone saying it's ok someone accusing somebody of stealing their idea for a film because they happened to make a lot of money and had great success with it. It's a nonsense argent.
Jonothan Demme and Tom Hanks (who wasn't even in the film) did fantastically well out of the reaction it provoked within the LGBT community. Would Philadelphia have been made and been that succesful in the mainstream without the response to Silence Of The Lambs? I doubt it. Not at that time. So it was perhaps even the best thing that happened to Demme's career.
Still doesn't make it right what the LGBT community did. You could use your argument to say that it's ok that say, World War II happened because some soldier happened to meet his wife who -
Marmadukebagelhole — 9 years ago(May 18, 2016 01:20 AM)
The protests of the LBBT were not in the least bit legitimate.
Oh. I didn't realise that LGBT people were not discriminated or stereotyped in any way in life or in culture back then.
Glasgow's FOREMOST authority
Italics
= irony. Infer the opposite please. -
ScoMore — 4 months ago(November 29, 2025 02:54 PM)
'Regardless of the legitimacy of Buffalo Bill's characterisation, based on historical cases, when a section of society happens to find itself represented mainly in the context of criminal behaviours, it is not egregious for that section of society to express its displeasure at the deviant-killer type being given undue prominence in popular culture, this being an example.'
STFU. -
setanta- — 10 years ago(March 29, 2016 01:16 PM)
Ignorance implies a lack of knowledge, but Lecter clearly states that Buffalo Bill is not transsexual and Clarice backs this up by stating that transsexuals are not violent. Furthermore Lecter states that Buffalo Bill has probably tried to be a 'lot of things', which suggests that any homosexual behavior he may exhibit is likely a facade as well. So it would need to be 'willful' ignorance.
It's a bit like saying that film disparages Italians when the villain is revealed to only be 'pretending' to be Italian. I mean, how far is one willing to journey in order to find offense? -
paula-gein — 9 years ago(April 18, 2016 12:31 PM)
Ignorance implies a lack of knowledge, but Lecter clearly states that Buffalo Bill is not transsexual and Clarice backs this up by stating that transsexuals are not violent.
But the majority of viewers saw a man putting on makeup and tucking his bits between his thighs and it registered as 'queer'. That exchange between Lecter and Clarice was likely quickly forgotten by most viewers.
You do understand that most homophobes are not going to differentiate between a genuine trans person and someone who thinks they are trans, right? In most homophobes eyes anyone born with male genitalia and displaying feminine characteristics is morally wrong.
The book and documentary The Celluloid Closet covers the Silence of the Lambs controversy and the history of the "Transexual Killer" trope. It's a trope that's still going strong, look at the Insidious series.
I love The Silence of the Lambs but I can see why some people had a problem with it. Honestly though, I think it's aged better than Philadelphia which was supposed to be Demme's 'apology' for Lambs.
perversion of nature
Aside from it being documented in 500 different species.
an offense to God.
Which one? There have been a lot of Gods throughout human history and quite a few of them, not only don't care about homosexuality, but they engage in it themselves at some point. If you're stupid enough to believe in that kind of thing.
It rubs the butter on it's skin, y'all. -
liverpool26 — 9 years ago(April 19, 2016 07:38 AM)
How do you know what the majority of people thought? Your discriminating by saying the majority of people are idiots who can't tell the difference between a pychopath and a transgender person. 99% of serial killers in movies are straight white males but we don't cry about it.
It was made extremely clear buffalo bill wasn't gay or trans AND even if he was so what? I think the people who complained are homophobic by saying a trans person couldn't possibly be a psycho. Have you never heard of the KRAY'S, RONNIE KRAY was openly gay and a PYCHOPATH. His mental state had nothing to do with his sexuality. You need to stop being so closed minded and realise gays and transsexuals are no different from straight people, the majority of them are good decent people but just like every other group a small minority are serial killers, gangsters, rapists, etc so even if buffalo bill was gay (which he clearly wasn't) that wouldn't make this movie homophobic. -
sidgirl — 3 years ago(August 16, 2022 05:14 AM)
The irony is, almost 90% of all convicted sex offenders list cross-dressing/autogynephilia as either their primary, secondary, or tertiary paraphilia.
In layman's terms, 88% of all convicted sex offenders get off on dressing up as, pretending to be, seeing themselves as women.
The majority of men found dead from autoerotic asphyxiation are dressed in women's underwear/lingerie/clothing.
Many flashers and voyeurs are caught wearing women's underwear/lingerie/clothing.
"Autogynephilia" is a sexual paraphilia (i.e. extreme fetish or kink, often which reaches the point of interfering with day-to-day life and the paraphiliac's sense of self), wherein the (male) autogynephile becomes intensely aroused by picturing himself as a woman, dressing as a woman, pretending to be a woman. They go out in public dressed as a woman and force others to pretend they are women; this is forcing strangers to participate in their sexual fantasy. Autogynephiles do not see themselves as they are when they look in a mirror; they see the sexy, beautiful woman they fantasize being. They are picturing themselves as sex objects, which is how they see women in general.
Buffalo Bill is, I believe, a psychopathic, very sick autogynephile (with some other paraphilias thrown in, too, if memory serves, like necrophilia). As shown in the movie, a clear distinction used to be made between autogynephilia and gender dysphoria. -
Cheeky — 3 years ago(August 16, 2022 05:20 AM)
I never knew that… interesting
I don't believe the opposite is true though… that someone could be a cross dresser but not a violent sex offender, even though many violent sex offender's cross dress
If we take the time to see with the heart and not with the mind, we shall see that we are surrounded completely by angels ~ Carlos Santana -
Edward_de_Vere — 10 years ago(March 30, 2016 07:34 AM)
Politically correct outrage is always absurd. We've gotten to the point where you can't have racial/religious/sexual "minority" characters who are anything but heroes or victims on screen without some idiot getting offended and protesting. It seems pretty self-evident to a rational person that if someone makes a film with a homosexual serial killer, he isn't claiming that all homosexuals are serial killers, he's simply acknowledging the fact that homosexual serial killers exist. However, with professional victims and protesters, you aren't dealing with rational people.
-
Marmadukebagelhole — 10 years ago(March 31, 2016 04:00 AM)
We've gotten to the point where you can't have racial/religious/sexual "minority" characters who are anything but heroes or victims on screen without some idiot getting offended and protesting.
Can you give a recent example of a significant outcry over a less than favourably depicted minority that wasn't merited?
Glasgow's FOREMOST authority
Italics
= irony. Infer the opposite please. -
Marmadukebagelhole — 9 years ago(May 18, 2016 01:26 AM)
I don't recall any significant outcry about any of those films, apart from Braveheart's fairytale historical inaccuracy and The Phantome Menace's testing the patience and nerve of people who had grown up with the original trilogy.
Glasgow's FOREMOST authority
Italics
= irony. Infer the opposite please. -
The-Last-Prydonian — 9 years ago(May 18, 2016 09:57 PM)
I don't recall any significant outcry about any of those films, apart from Braveheart's fairytale historical inaccuracy and The Phantome Menace's testing the patience and nerve of people who had grown up with the original trilogy.
Well there was although I find it difficult to believe you couldn't have heard about them. You'd have to have been living in a cave not to. Sections of the English media accused the film of harbouring Anglophobia. The Economist called it "xenophobic" and John Sutherland writing in The Guardian stated that "Braveheart gave full rein to a toxic Anglophobia". In The Times, MacArthur said "the political effects are truly pernicious. Its a xenophobic film." Ian Burrell of The Independent has noted, "The Braveheart phenomenon, a Hollywood-inspired rise in Scottish nationalism, has been linked to a rise in anti-English prejudice". Also this was another film which has accusations of homophobia directed at it for it's depiction Prince Edward as being a effeminate homosexual.
Similar criticism was levelled at
The Patriot
. another film that funnily enough starred Mel Gibson. Funnily enough,
Braveheart
itself face sharped criticism for the way it portrayed
Are both "Braveheart" and "The Patriot" anti-English (yes) or is it just "Braveheart" (no)?
Star Wars: Episode 1: The Phantom
was heavily for having characters that were said to be racist caricatures. The villainous members of the Trade Federation were portrayed like they were Japanese with Jar Jar Binks a Jamaican Rastafarian.
Seeing racism in Jar Jar is seeing phantom menace
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1999-06-05/news/9906050180_1_jar-jar-binks-phantom