I will start things off as this is a superlative script and deserves deep analysis. Let me begin by noting one set of seemingly hugely important scenes in the script that did not make it into the final cut: The intended third flashback of Clarice as an 11 year-old girl seeing the spring slaughter of the lambs on her uncle's Montana farm. Why go against that age-old adage, "Show it, don't say it?" Why rely solely on Clarice's dialogue in her scene with Lecter? The screenwriter Ted Tally explains here: "I could see that if we were going to have flashbacks, they should culminate, there should be some climactic thing, and we should see the child Clarice encountering the slaughter of the lambs and trying to save one of them. Jonathan was willing to shoot them, it was going to be the last thing we shot as we had to wait for the lambing season in spring, and it was going to cost a million dollars to set up the whole thing. Then Jonathan shot the scene where Clarice tells Lecter about the killing of the lambs. He sent the dailies to me and said to watch them and give him a call. So i watched these performances, and they were extraordinarily powerful, and Jonathan, said, “How can I cut away from these performances to a flashback? It’s all there : she’s [Jodi as Clarice] telling us the entire story in her face, in her words, we don’t need to see it as well.” He said it’s just primary rule of filmmaking that if you can show it instead of telling it, you show it, but don’t show it and tell it. He was right, but it was scary to me.” Fascinating. And so much to learn from this script. Anybody else with a reaction to it?

I'll join the discussion shortly. Still haven't read the script, but I should get to it tonight. Interesting about the flashbacks. Reading that, I wonder if it could have worked without any flashbacks at all. Considering the amazing acting, it probably would have.

It's a fair question, Teddy, but I think the first two flashbacks are critical: * [P. 14]: It establishes Clarice at 10 years of age and her father coming home from work -- IN HIS MARSHAL'S UNIFORM!!! -- so we know he worked in law enforcement. And it's obvious from the way they embrace, they have a close and loving relationship. * [P. 33-34]: As Present Day Clarice visits the funeral home where the body of Buffalo Bill's latest victim is located, she is drawn to the open casket at a memorial service. Then flashes back to her as a 10 year old girl again, drawing closer and closer to a casket to reveal her FATHER'S CORPSE!!! -- lying there. I think those are essential in order to provide some heft and reality to the importance of the father's death. And his death is HUGELY important to the story and in particular why Clarice is the way she is. Interesting that in the movie for the first FB, they looped in some dialogue not in the script: Clarice: Did you catch any bad guys today, Daddy? Father: No, Clarice, not today. A grace note to be sure, but reinforces the possible imprint on young Clarice's mind about Bad Guys and wanting to go into law enforcement herself to chase them down (symbolically to try to make up for what happened to her father, shot and killed by two burglars).

You're absolutely right. Those reveals would have been impossible without actually showing them.

One should always be careful when using flashbacks for it may be an easy way out. I think it works out pretty well here, though, and I think Scott put it out well. Having Clarice talking about it would be too on the nose. This is a great script, very difficult to talk about in "general comments", but I tried to isolate some "general notes". - Ted bluntly decoupated the film with his caps locked headings, always leading our thought (our mind -> our eye) to where was the essential information and I felt he deliberately focused and worked on that so simple hitchokian principle, shot/reverse shot/shot. You can see it, specially on the second half of the script, a brilliantly waved suspense. - Following from the previous point, Ted did a lot more editing here than only getting us very close to the shots. Did you notice he wrote several sound bridges ? - As you had previously analyzed here, the first 10-15 pages create the atmosphere with particular mastery. The amazing choice of words to bring out the dim, muddy, dark visuals and the chilling noises. It goes on like that, but here it is really intense (it is supposed to, establishment of the tone). - Found some rule breaker sentences as "We catch a glimpse of Hell itself.". While we know this is a non-recommended literary way, I feel he almost always used those right. On the one hand, we can't get the concrete visuals out of it but we can sure picture some creepy deep eyes. On the other hand, which I find the most important, it kind of works the same way for the actor, meaning he knows what he has to do without being strained hence being able to depart from there - it might actually be a metaphor of great insight for him.

I loved this script. I realised as I sat down to read it that I haven't actually watched the film since the first time I saw it about thirteen years ago, and as I was in my early teens I can't remember too much about it (I know, it's a classic, I'm watching it again tonight). So I was going into this screenplay pretty fresh. This is an amazing script. You can just tell with some screenplays that you're holding something special. I never was confused as to what was going on, and I had the strongest visuals in my head the entire time, knowing exactly where we were - like I said, I can barely remember the film, so it was mostly the imagery on the page. It's tight, there wasn't a page I didn't feel belonged there. The first thing that struck me was how quickly we know where we are going. Halfway through the first page we are introduced to the clippings of Buffalo Bill, we know he's chasing bigger girls, we know he's a serial killer, we're pretty sure she's going to go after him. Two pages later Clarice is told about Lector - less than three pages and I already know exactly what this film is about. It's so tight, and immediately I have oriented myself in this world. Lector is a brilliant, brilliant character. I was just dying to get to each new scene with him. He's terrifying, but fascinating. I felt how Clarice must have, a mixed sense of excitement and fear every time she talked to him. He throws you completely off-balance every time he opens his mouth. Something to touch on more in the character discussion, but Lector and Clarice are not only the ying and yang to each other, but I feel that together they make one person. Clarice has no darkness in her. Nothing that she does or says is anything other than selfless. Lector is completely dark, totally selfish - it's like the extremes of one person split off into two souls. I felt really dirty reading this as well. It's a depressing world to be in, and the choice of words Tally uses are wonderful at conjuring up the images. Most of all the scenes with Catherine in the hole really made me uncomfortable. For a film where the villain skins people to wear them as a coat, we never actually see him harm anyone. He's terrifying her for sure, but he's not physically harming her. Bill and Catherine play as a nice reflection of Lector and Clarice's relationship - in both of them emotional power is the key, both Bill and Lector play with the girls. Like Fincher's Seven, dread is more the name of the game than violence. Both characters keep their 'victims' off-guard, and so are we - if he was just killing her or beating her then we can remove ourselves from that as none of us know what it feels like to be tortured by a serial killer (hopefully). But we know the feeling of being helpless, powerless, terrified. I love the moment Clarice turns up at Bill's house, just as the officers are also raiding what they think is the right place. It's a great piece of misdirection, and emphasis how alone Clarice is right now. Buried has the same idea at the end to great effect. Finally, from just top of my head thoughts, Lector's escape is wonderful. It happens, it's shocking and he's gone. Then for the last third of the screenplay it's all about Bill, and we get so wrapped up in him that it isn't until Clarice goes to get the phone that we remember that Lector is still a major player here. But it's satisfying that he got away, and especially since he is going to exact some justice. Need to think some more, but that's my initial reactions.

Diego, I'm glad someone pointed out Tally's word choices in scene description. It reinforces a point I make with my students all the time: Every word counts. Highlight every verb, then in rewrite, replace with stronger, more active verbs. Use vivid descriptors. I get the feeling from reading the script that Tally really immersed himself in the story universe and in each scene. You really feel through his scene description that we are right there, his words bringing the moment to life so vividly. I know many professional script readers hate scene description -- too much work to read -- but I love it, especially when handled well like Tally does. Re your last point: That sort of literary or novelistic approach where the writer takes some artistic license in describing a moment or even going 'inside' a character to evoke through scene description what they're feeling is acceptable when used sparingly. Don't listen to what supposed gurus tell you, I read far too many current scripts where this type of thing gets used frequently in a script. Who are you to believe: Some book about screenwriting or the actual pages by actual screenwriters of actual screenplays that have been made into actual movies? When you really feel like you want to drive home a point and a novelistic line is the perfect line, use it. Just not a lot.

Nich, that's great you hadn't seen the movie in all those years before reading the script again. One comment you made is a particularly observant one: comparing the Lecter / Starling relationship with Bill / Catherine. I've always seen Catherine as an Attractor figure. Lecter says, "You think by saving poor Catherine Martin, you can silence the lambs." Plus Catherine is a young, single woman from the South like Starling. Plus Catherine is being victimized by a criminal, just like Starling was when here father was murdered. On the surface, there is a parallel between Lecter and Bill, specifically both are murderers. But it doesn't take much digging to see how different their narrative functions are in relation to Clarice. Tomorrow we'll get into some interesting aspects of the script because it does some unusual things from a structural standpoint.

I had moved to Hollywood just a few months before The Silence of the Lambs came out. My mom came to visit and we decided to go to the movies. “How about this one, mom? Anthony Hopkins is in it. You like him, right?” “Sure, let's go!” Needless to say it wasn't the Anthony Hopkins she had hoped for but we both loved this film. The moment when everything turns to black in Buffalo Bill's basement, before he turns on the night vision goggles is still one of my favorite movie-going experiences of all time. The entire audience gasped and it felt like we sat in complete darkness for an eternity. Of course, it was only a few seconds. Twenty years later and it still gives me goosebumps just thinking about it. I've seen this film many times since but this is the first time I've read the script. I love Ted Tally's writing style. It's controlled, methodical, always efficient. There are no unnecessary descriptions or actor directions. He sets the mood in each scene and we always know exactly what's going on. It's very impressive and a pleasure to read.

My thoughts, as I read it, was that showing the actual scene might have come off a little maudlin. By not showing the childhood scene - it is completely focused on what the scene is really about: the effect it had on Clarice and the fact that Lecter is able to read it.

The screenplays I've most enjoyed reading, and been drawn into the most powerfully use some literary language. Not a lot, but they aren't afraid of being evocative as well as descriptive. When I studied poetry, I learned that rhythm was most effective when it was broken. That a sonnet or other form created a regular pattern, but the line that was memorable and quoted was often the line that broke that pattern. However, that break would not have been interesting or powerful without the context of the form. I think screenplays are similar - when you want to create emphasis, you can break the form...but only occasionally, or those breaks cease to have the desired impact.

In the first ten pages, we meet Clarice, and discover her character, job, history, boss, coworker, and meet Chilton, Lecter and the short-lived Miggs. So much, so efficiently, so beautiful. I'm up to page 18. Looked at page 18 a while (got a call), figured out, it may be a perfect page. The graceful moving between scenes, the stunning visual storytelling, and always "less is more." And the characters! After a sad steep in DC comic reboot with Amanda Waller "The Wall" no more and Starfire now a blow up sex doll, it is so refreshing and lovely to get Tally's women, succinctly described characters that feel substantial and specific (not a cookie cutter in sight). Tally brings Muhammad Ali to mind, "float like a butterfly, sting like a bee," as well as Greg Russo's "keep it fast, keep it fun" (or, in this case, keep it brooding and terrifying, and oh yeah fast). This an adaptation, I'm left curious about Tally's other work, esp what he would do with a blank canvas. His five scripts since SOTL also adaptations.

Laura, that's a great point about poetry. In fact, I think you can extend poetry into screenwriting in a whole other way: how we think about scene description. I've done several posts on that. Here is one with a number of links on the subject.

Atlanta, I'll be excerpting observations Tally made in an interview about adapting SOTL all week long as part of this series, starting with Tuesday's post on structure. A lot of good insight into the adaptation process.

Quick reactions: Flashbacks: Scott, I understand what you're saying about the flashbacks being important in showing that Clarice's father is a Marshall and also the connection in the mortuary. But it also feels like only the second is really necessary from a visual standpoint. The first flashback felt strange and disconnected when I first read it. However, as important as the second flashback is, I think without first, the second really would've pulled us out of the film. Dialogue: Even though it was cut from the film. I love Clarice's reaction to Crawford's question "do you spook easily" "not yet" There are so many ways to answer that question and this one gets across the most information...about her experiences and her character. Character: I don't like the fact that we see Crawford's wife in distress. I think it might be there to explain the fact that Crawford is kind of an ass. But I much prefer the lack of info in the film. If we don't have that info, then I'm free to project all sorts of reasons and motivations. I always assumed that this was his way of educating Starling...tough love - It's a hard and dangerous world as a FBI agent, so don't expect to be coddled. Script v Film: Now it's been a while since I've seen this film, but wasn't hostage training exercise in the beginning of the script changed from her being successful in the script to her being surprised from behind in the film. Also, it was moved somewhere in the film, but I'm not sure where. I think comparing the 2 openings, they both achieve the same thing in their respective medium. The script sets the location and characters. The film sets the tone (through visual and musical cues) and introduces the same character in a way makes her stand out from the crowd....both as an FBI trainee and also from the traditional and stereotypical gender roles.

There is a previous draft of the script, which I've read, which starts out with Clarice kicking ass in a training segment. That was changed to the current draft which was changed to the credit sequence in the movie. One major point of that shift is to highlight Clarice as an underdog. If she starts out all kick ass, doesn't that MINIMIZE the distance she has to travel (experientially and psychologically) to the end? Indeed in the film version there are all sorts of visual things Demme does to hammer home Clarice out of her element: * She's running in the woods. Is she being chased? Then it's revealed it's an FBI (Quantico) training facility / obstacle course. * She has to scale obstacles on the course. Symbolic of the complications and challenges that lie ahead of her. * In one shot, she crosses through a windowed walkway. Everyone is heading left, she head right, the only person in that direction, as if going upstream, against the tide, opposition. * When she gets into the elevator, she is surrounded by (A) a bunch of guys, (B) a bunch of guys in red shirts (and she's in sweaty gray sweats), (C) a bunch of guys in red shirts who are huge compared to her. Plus they all stare down at her. Again to spotlight her being out of her element. Re Crawford's wife: Again having read several script drafts and the book, in my view they had originally set up Crawford to be a father figure / Attractor character for Clarice. The wife's incapacitate condition functions to 'free' him up to swap emotional vibes with Clarice. However they kept pulling that out of the story until the movie it was gone entirely. In my view, that's because Crawford's role had changed to Trickster. The Attractor is Catherine Martin, that's who Clarice has the most emotional connection to -- she must save Catherine to, as Lecter put it, stop the nightmares.

Oh, fantabulous! That looks like some excellent reading for me. I see several commonalities between screenwriting/film and poetry. The way it lays on the page, the art of evoking imagery, and in movies themselves the way that images in motion can convey subtext and symbolism.