Protagonist - Clarice Starling Nemesis - Buffalo Bill (with Dr. Chilton as a secondary Nemesis) Attractor - Hannibal Lecter (for helping Clarice open up about the loss of her father) Mentor - Hannibal Lecter (for teaching her how to think like a serial killer) Trickster - Jack Crawford (for "tricking" her by withholding info on why he's sending her on the errand) The other characters are, as Lecter would say, "incidental."

(Trying again to get better formatting ...) Protagonist – Clarice Starling Nemesis – Buffalo Bill (with Dr. Chilton as a secondary Nemesis) Attractor – Hannibal Lecter (for helping Clarice open up about the loss of her father) Mentor – Hannibal Lecter (for teaching her how to think like a serial killer) Trickster – Jack Crawford (for “tricking” her by withholding info on why he’s sending her on the errand) The other characters are, as Lecter would say, “incidental.”

Silence of the Lambs is a great movie because it has well-rounded characters with goals and drives of their own. The thing is, if we only have a protagonist with a goal and those other characters were simply there to help the P, then the story would be unrealistic; because in real life, people use each other (Quid pro quo), some exploit others (like Chilton and Buffalo Bill)… anyone who participates in any act has an interest, a gain from it –any gain, even if it were simply satisfaction... So, even though this movie explores Clarice’s POV, all other characters are participating willfully and are not “incidental”. Clarice (the protagonist) is ambitious; she loves a challenge and advancement. Her goal in life is to become an FBI agent and make her deceased father proud. She wants to save an innocent girl, Catherine (attractor), from a serial killer. She’s tricked by Crawford (trickster) into questioning the notorious cannibal and brilliant psychiatrist, Dr. Hannibal Lector (mentor) who partners her in the Buffalo Bill (Nemesis) case while helping her reorient and thus find out that what she really needs is to get the killer –stop him for good. So, no more lambs would be killed. They would stop screaming. This is Clarice’s metamorphosis: She had a goal; she knew what she wanted, and then she saw what she needed to do. She couldn’t save her father, she couldn’t save even that one lamb; but now she can not only save a lamb but stop the others from screaming by stopping the killer. Even if other killers surface, and the lambs start crying again, she has found the courage to stop the killers and the lambs cry. Now, as I said above, each character is participating in this story for their own self interests. These are the other stories of SOTL: 1. Overall Story (P: Clarice – GOAL: Save Catherine and stop Buffalo Bill N: Buffalo Bill (?) – A: Catharine – M: Dr. Lector – T: Crawford) 2. Clarice’s inner story (P: Clarice – GAOL: Silence of the Lambs N: Her nightmares – A: Crawford – M: Dr. Lector – T: Screaming of the lambs (why she wants to find BB and why she cannot do it)) 3. Dr. Lector (P: Dr. Lector – GOAL: a view – N: Chilton – A: Clarice/ memories – T: Crawford and Chilton) 4. Chilton: (P: Chilton – GOAL: Fame, trophies – N: Clarice and Crawford – A: Clarice/ his beloved gold pen – T: Dr. Lecter) 5. Buffalo Bill/J.G. (P: BB – GOAL: Transformation/human suit – N: Catherine – A: pet and Moths (?) – T: Clarice) 6. Catherine (P: Catherine – GOAL: Survival – N: BB) 7. Crawford (P: Crawford – GOAL: Collar “He’s mine” – N: Chilton – A: Clarice – T: Chilton) I believe this is why this story works this well even with all those long scenes between various characters (BB vs. Catherine, Dr. Lectors’ escape…) don’t make you feel out of the story. It has established a relationship between us the reader/viewer and each character from the beginning (even Buffalo Bill). This is what makes us root for some characters and boo others, and even feel satisfied with such an unnerving line as “having an old friend for dinner”. Great Job Ted putting all these in only 123 pages!

I want to weigh in on characters in SOTL, but not today as I've just been swamped with work. I'll post something tomorrow and look forward to reading other comments as well. But I can tell already we have some interesting takes at work re the story and its characters. More tomorrow

2. CRAWFORD a. Conscious Desire: catch Buffalo Bill. Crawford takes action: needs Clarice's skills. 1. CLARICE a. Conscious Desire: catch Buffalo Bill. Clarice takes action: need Dr. Lecter's advice. 3. DR. LECTER a. Conscious Desire: escape from prison. Dr. Lecter takes action: starts to explore the person who connects him with the outside. This is our main plot, so far. But this is also where the thematic desunity comes out, when Lecter approaches Clarice in such a way that the audience realizes the stakes will rise to a whole new depth. This is when Lecter becomes interested in Clarice's personality, when Clarice is painfully confronted with her past and when Crawford starts to realize the surprising strength of his pupil. 1. CLARICE b. Unconscious Desire: Deal with her past. 3. DR. LECTER b. Unconscious Desire: Deconstruct Clarice. 2. CRAWFORD Unconscious Desire: Share his success with Clarice (some sexual tension ?). Much more subtlety, this real quests come to the surface although they're always disguised within the actions of the main plot. 4. BUFFALO BILL a. Conscious Desire: kill Catherine. b. Unconscious Desire: re-birth. 5. CHILTON a. Conscious Desire: keep Lecter from escaping. b. Unconscious Desire: Get protagonism. 6. CATHERINE a. Conscious Desire: survive.

This is why Clarice's metamorphosis relies not only on how Buffalo Bill's catch develops but also in what current actions help her avenge her father's death and forgive herself for not being able to save him. Or about Lecter, when he escapes, he doesn't forget to call Clarice and keep up with his mind-games. Or because he keeps a photo of Clarice with him, which reminds him of her and we know his memory is his sight. These layers give an enormous psychological depth to the story, allow complex and humanized characters who can still surprise us and probably surprised the writer. And it is incredible how the interweaving between Clarice, Lecter and Crawford (and one could say Chilton) helps them defining each other's deeper wishes and goals. There are some pieces of description who masterfully help us get to this or similar conclusions. Take, for instance, right in the opening, when Crawford superimposes Clarice's and Lecter's photos - symbolical but relevant. Using other characters to define some characters is a technique I've been noticing in various scripts. In here it happens again when the last victim is found and the description evinces the contrast between the military corps and our alone, doubtful, tormented, woman protagonist. I remember reading something similar on Juno, right on the first pages, when she enters the store to take the third test, and while we are starting to acknowledge her as particularly laid-back and youngster and alternative girl, Diablo Cody subtly slaps our attention to a group of skaters which would help us think, uau, look at them, yes, BUT look at her.

Ted Tally on SOTL book, "It’s so knowing about people and human nature and character, and the dialogue is so good. It was “the thriller” raised to literature." Beautiful observation. Extra nice someone so insightful did adaptation. Late to discussion, brief observations to share. I think Ardelia and Catherine are entirely dependent variables, not causal, nothing they said or did would have changed Clarice's path. Ardelia is frame of reference for Clarice's professional success, Catherine gives form to Clarice's personal demons and will to survive (and there's even lambish Precious). For primary mentor, I think Crawford, relating to Clarice's work life, her mental and professional savvy. For primary attractor, Lecter, related to Clarice's whole life, her deepest self. Though, of course, he's officially nemesis, he would never be rude to Clarice (I thought that was beautiful, pg 88). They have a relationship, are aligned. Chilton to Buffalo Bill, I think is the primary nemesis chord winding through story. For trickster, Crawford, Lecter, Chilton, Buffalo Bill, all wore that hat for a bit. Way OT, meme of the day, begun by writer Gail Simone this morning, made me chuckle: http://twitter.com/#!/search/realtime/%23rejectedCuriousGeorgebooks

Quick additional note, casting someone with delicate (like a bird) features for Clarice worked particularly well. Brilliant casting all around (what stunning work they all did, Demme, Harris, and Tally must have been thrilled).

David, this is quite close to my take as well.

Anna, this is an excellent take and mirrors my own [which I'll post below]. The interesting thing you have done is one of the main benefits of working with characters as archetypes, and that is to look at the story universe through each primary character's viewpoint as the Protagonist. I will also explore that in comments below. Excellent insights, Anna!

Diogo, another excellent set of comments and analysis. You folks are stealing my thunder! And good for you. Your comment about SOTL having "enormous psychological depth" is so true. In some ways, it's a perfect movie to explore the idea of story as a journey of the psyche. More in my comments below.

Two quick things: * I envision Catherine to be a projection of Clarice's youthful self -- The Victim -- that 10 year-old part of who she is who lost her father when he was murdered. Catherine is being victimized, too, by a murderer. They are about the same age. They are both from the South. Easy to see that projection. And as such, I perceive Catherine as being Clarice's Attractor. As Lecter suggests, "You think that by saving poor Catherine Martin, you can silence the lambs." Clarice is emotionally pulled toward Catherine to save the girl... and in so doing save a part of her Self. * Crawford is a really interesting character, or at least how his character evolved. In the book and early drafts of the script, there is a strong whiff of Attractor to him, what with his wife in a coma, Clarice obviously seeing him as a substitute father figure, and some lurking sexual tension between them. But most of that got stripped out of the movie, basically all that's left is their meaningful handshake at the end with a long look at each other, and some words left unsaid. So it's tempting to see Crawford as a Mentor. After all, he taught Clarice at UVA in a class. He is her superior. She has said her goal is to work with him. And he sets her on the Buffalo Bill case... But looking at this last part more closely -- and from a character = function perspective, that really is what Crawford's role is: the conduit for Clarice into the case -- I think of Crawford [finally] as a Trickster. He tricks Clarice with his lie about why he is sending her to see Lecter. He uses Clarice to lure Lecter into becoming a source of information re the BB case. He creates a fake offer for Clarice to present to Lecter in exchange for his cooperation ("Anthrax Island"). And most importantly, Crawford creates test after test for Clarice -- meeting Lecter in the first place, having her do the autopsy report on the West Virginia victim, while there pulling the local sheriff aside so as not to involve a woman in their discussions and leaving Clarice surrounded by all those state troopers. That is all to help prepare Clarice for the Final Struggle against BB. Of course, it's ironic in the extreme that Lecter tricks Crawford by sending him to the wrong house in Illinois. And if one were to really grant Lecter genius status, you would have to think Lecter did that on purpose in large part to allow Clarice the opportunity to solve the case and confront BB directly -- because he knows that is precisely what Clarice needs in terms of her personal catharsis.

Okay, my own take on the characters: P: Clarice N: Buffalo Bill A: Catherine Martin M: Hannibal Lecter T: Jack Crawford, Dr. Alex Chilton I've already gone into Catherine and Crawford above. Chilton as enemy and ally, albeit not much of an ally, but he does provide access to Lecter. And him taping Clarice and Lecter, very tricksteresque. Showing up in Nashville to stop Clarice's last conversation with Lecter, also feels like a Trickster in action. And the latter in its own way creates a big test for Clarice: Now she no longer has access to Lecter. She will have to solve the BB case on her own. Lecter as Mentor: His character is ranked as one of the top movie villains of all time on many lists including AFI, but that's what makes him such a brilliant Mentor figure. He knows things, about Buffalo Bill, so right there as a conduit for vital information, he provides a Mentor function. But it is primarily in relation to Clarice's psychological journey that he most functions as a Mentor, steering her into her Self, forcing her to confront her shadow. In their last meeting, he says two critical pieces of wisdom: (1) The solution to the case is in the case files. That proves hugely important when Clarice and Ardelia recall the line, spurring them to dig into the case files one last time, which leads them to the vital realization: BB knew his first victim ("he covets what he sees"). That sends Clarice to Ohio and her eventual intersection with BB. (2) That Clarice believes if she can save Catherine, she can silence the lambs. This is, however, only partially true. There is another dynamic, I believe, Lecter does not tell her, but knows she has to accomplish to achieve Unity: She needs to kill BB and shed his blood. More in another comment to come. As I mentioned above, one value of working with archetypes is you can do an exercise where you switch Protagonists. So how about if we look at SOTL's story universe through Lecter's eyes as the Protagonist? P: Lecter N: Chilton A: Clarice M: Buffalo Bill T: Crawford Chilton torments Lecter and it is Lecter's goal to escape that torment. Eventually he has his own Final Struggle with Chilton (we can assume) when he "has an old friend for dinner." Clarice as Attractor? He has numerous sides with a sexually provocative tinge to them. He ponders what it would be like to know her outside of prison. In his last phone call, he says he won't come after her, "the world being more interesting with you." To seal the deal, we need look no further than the next book "Hannibal" where Lecter and Clarice become lovers. Buffalo Bill as Mentor? It is the clues BB leaves behind and the facts Lecter discerns about the case that provides Lecter the 'wisdom' he needs in order to facilitate his eventual escape. Trickster: Crawford. For reasons mentioned previously, pretty apparent. But wait? What if we looked at the story through Buffalo Bill's perspective as the Protagonist? Running out of room in this comment. Pick up on that next.

Buffalo Bill as Protagonist: P: BB N: Clarice A: Female version of Buffalo Bill M: Moths ('transformation') T: Catherine Do you remember that creepy scene where BB dances in front of the video camera, eventually sticking his penis between his thighs, then holding out his arms, proudly exhibiting his naked body as a 'female'? That is what he is emotionally drawn toward, becoming that. And so that vision is his Attractor. Remember that tiny little scene where he pulls a moth out of its cocoon. What does he say? "So powerful, so beautiful." As Lecter deduces, the moth signifies transformation. That is the 'wisdom' BB needs in order to become a woman, albeit by wearing a skin-suit. Trickster? Catherine is his ally in that she would become part of that skin-suit. But then she lures Precious down into the pit, threatening the dog with bodily harm, thus becoming an enemy. Very Trickster like. This exercise of switching Protagonists is one of the most powerful tools a writer has when working with archetypes because it helps the writer dig into each character and experience the story universe through their eyes.

Finally Clarice's journey of the psyche. On one level, SOTL is a story of metamorphosis: Buffalo Bill's search for it, Lecter's understanding that Clarice needs it, and Clarice herself as she goes from Disunity to Unity: * Disunity: So many elements here. (1) She is an orphan. (2) She is a victim (by her father's murder). (3) She was victimized again when she experienced the spring slaughter of the lambs on the Montana ranch. (4) As Lecter notes in his searing assessment of her persona [P. 11-12] -- "A well-scrubbed hustling rube with a little taste" -- Clarice is a West Virginia girl attempting to become something else (5) And that something else is an FBI agent working in Behavioral Sciences, going after serial killers. What is that obsession about? (6) Because she is haunted by her shadow -- the murder of her father ("Why did those two men kill him?"), that confrontation with the suddenness and chaos of evil, and her desire to catch the "bad guys." (7) Finally while she seems like she is totally professional and has a bright future ahead of her, she is scarred and damaged and living a lie: As long as she resists confronting that which she fears most -- immersing herself in the memory of the lambs' slaughter -- she will never move beyond her state of psychic Disunity. Deconstruction: (1) On one level, it is the Buffalo Bill case itself which 'assaults' her Old World way of being: getting semen flung on her face, scratching her inner thigh when she enters Lecter's storage unit, made all wobbly when she conducts the autopsy on the West Virginia victim's body. More symbolically, by becoming more and more immersed in the details of the case, Clarice is forced to move from FBI agent in training [theory) to FBI field agent (practice). The New World of the investigation is a real one and confronts her with real challenges. (2) But mostly her Deconstruction derives from her increasingly intimate relationship with Lecter. And the whole quid pro quo business serves as a Transition where Clarice not only defies Crawford's injunction -- "Don't let Lecter inside your head" -- but does so in a blatant way, willing to share personal truths about herself in exchange for information about Buffalo Bill. Reconstruction: She survives her initial quid pro quo exchange that takes her perilously close to confessing what happened on the Montana ranch. She also survives the autopsy of the body. In both cases, she is rewarded with vital information about the Buffalo Bill case: The autopsy reveals the moth cocoon, Lecter reveals details about Bill's identity. Clarice builds on that to the point where -- on her own!!! -- she flies to Tennessee to see Lecter, completely going against Chilton and the authorities. That is a sign of substantial proactivity where she has become emboldened by her increasing connection to the power of her Self. Then the critical moment: She confesses what happened in Montana. That takes an act of courage Clarice had never managed to summon to this point in her life. That act sets the stage for her to take on Buffalo Bill. What Lecter reveals is that Clarice believes she can silence the lambs by saving Catherine Martin. But what he doesn't say is a more dangerous and powerful truth: She has to kill Buffalo Bill. Why? We can not understand this unless we understand what is going on with young Clarice when she picked up a lamb and tried to escape years ago. What does the lamb represent? Her father. He was an innocent, like a lamb, when he was 'slaughtered' by those two 'evil' men. By picking up that lamb, Clarice is -- subconsciously -- trying to save her father. "But it [he] was too heavy. So heavy." Why heavy? Because Clarice has been weighed down her entire life since her father's death by guilt. A child often does this when a loved one dies, assume that they were responsible. While this seems illogical, in terms of one's psychological protection, it is entirely logical. Rather than live with the incomprehensible possibility that at any moment, something horrid can just happen without cause -- like opening a door to a store, surprise two thieves, and they shoot you to death -- a child would rather assume some measure of responsibility and guilt. That they can understand, that they can control. So Clarice has had an enormous guilt tied to her father's death. In part she wants to become an FBI agent to follow in her father's legacy as a sheriff. In part she wants to in order to catch "bad guys." But in part she wants -- subconsciously -- in order to redeem herself for her father's death. Lecter sees that. He knows she needs to slaughter Buffalo Bill [a buffalo is an animal, just like a lamb], shedding his blood as an expiation of her sins [there is a whole Old Testament dynamic running through SOTL including the scene where Lecter beats and kills the two guards, dressed in white, covered in blood like a High Priest involved in blood sacrifice]. It's not enough for Clarice to save Catherine, she has to kill Buffalo Bill in order to gain 'redemption' tied to the guilt she feels about her father's death. Which she does, leading to her Unity, signified in the Denouement, a celebration of her achieving agent status. That is my neo-Jungian interpretation of Clarice's psychological journey in SOTL. On one level, the story is about her confronting and exorcising her inner demons, a classic example of metamorphosis. Sorry for any typos or grammatical errors, I just did a brain dump through my fingers onto keyboard. Happy to discuss further.

I think you truly believe that Clarice undergoes a transformation, and I truly believe she does not. I agree with almost everything else you've expressed in your analysis, but I have to look at the evidence presented in this story and to me there is nothing that tells me that Clarice would never have solved the case without confronting her past. I don't see how you can come to that conclusion. I guess we could argue this back and forth 'til the cows come home, but here are my final thoughts on this. Clarice solves the case, graduates from the academy and honor her father's memory not because she confronts her fears. She does it despite everything that's thrown at her (including semen.) She has a clear goal in the beginning of the film and she achieves that goal by the end. Her goal doesn't change throughout the story. Her want doesn't change. And even if she realizes what she needs, it still doesn't affect the outcome of the story. You're making a leap there that I don't understand. Clarice is a classic steadfast character. Her resolve was formed at a young age when her father died and her determination stays with her throughout the story. That's why she succeeds in solving the case. Throughout the story, Clarice is portrayed as an underdog, she's a woman in a man's world, everybody's taller, she's treated like a sex object not only by Chilton but also by Crawford who uses her as bait, the entomology guy who hits on her, there's even an otherwise throwaway scene with Clarice walking at the airport where a man turns around to check her out, on page 109 in the script (not in the movie) Buffalo Bill says “Yes it can use my phone...” – yet another example of Clarice being treated like an object. And of course she has to face not only Lecter and Buffalo Bill but also confront her darkest fears and memories from her childhood. These are all elements to test Clarice's resolve. And she passes with flying colors. She's able overcome all these obstacles and still achieve what she set out to do from the beginning because of her determination. What she learns from Lecter is that her childhood trauma is still with her and isn't going away anytime soon. Clarice still has a long way to go before her psychological transformation is complete. A metamorphosis implies a change in worldview. Clarice's worldview has not changed. It’s not enough for Clarice to save Catherine, she has to kill Buffalo Bill in order to gain ‘redemption’ tied to the guilt she feels about her father’s death. Which she does, leading to her Unity, signified in the Denouement, a celebration of her achieving agent status. But the film doesn't end with a smiling Clarice receiving her diploma. You're leaving out the last scene with Lecter's phone call which is the key to the whole thing. Like I said in an earlier comment, Clarice can project the strong, successful woman image to her surroundings, but deep inside she is still that little girl hearing the lambs scream. And she has not transformed. She is the same as she was in the beginning. “Well Clarice, have the lambs stopped screaming...?” Well, have they? I think not.

Good points, Teddy. A few questions: * Why does the story have Lecter involved in digging into her psyche at all? If all she needs is her "resolve" and some sort of doggedness (to mix animal metaphors), which I'm assuming you would suggest reflect a kind of consistency on Clarice's part, what's the point of Lecter anyhow? All she needs is the clues, right? * Here is a quote from Tally: "And then, for reasons I’m not even sure of, I felt very moved, and still do, by Clarice Starling. By her courage and vulnerability–and I probably respond more to courage in a main character than any other quality. She’s in a male world, and she’s a student, and she’s orphaned… I was just deeply moved by her. And Thomas Harris had so artfully worked in mythic underpinnings–it just had this feeling that there’s the orphaned young woman making her way in the world, and there’s the good stepfather in Crawford and the evil stepfather who’s Lecter who are taking on her education. That’s a huge part of the story, in fact it’s the emotional heart of the whole story; her search for a missing father and her attempt to replaced that void which is never going to go away. The whole thing of saving the lamb and being able to save Catherine Martin is all tied up with her inability to save her own father when she was a child." All of that suggests a character with deep things going on emotionally and psychologically. Again what's the point of any of that if it doesn't somehow affect the character? Is all of that simply about obstacles for her to overcome? I've always looked it like this: Clarice wants to save Catherine Martin, but she needs to kill Buffalo Bill. And in order to do that, she has to confront the demons of her past. The simple fact she is willing to do that, doesn't that suggest some degree of metamorphosis? She was unwilling to confront them, then she is. But as I say, that's the beauty of stories: multiple ways to analyze them. Re the denouement: Like almost all denouements, which offer a brief bit of business to let the viewer know, "Oh, things turned out all right," yes, I believe the celebratory tone of the first few pages of that scene do suggest that Clarice has resolved the whole screaming of the lambs thing. To me Lecter's call isn't about that so much as opening the door for what transpires afterward: Building on his initial efforts to get into her head (which he accomplishes in SOTL) in order to woo her. He becomes in "Hannibal", in effect, a substitute father figure and father-lover. And that may suggest more than anything that Clarice has gone through and continues to go through a metamorphosis because dating a psychotic serial killer is just wee bit different than trying to catch them as an FBI agent. That speaks to the power he wields over her which started through his Mentoring her through her inner journey to silence the lambs. Isn't this type of speculation fun!!!

It's loads of fun :) Regarding the Ted Tally quote: “The whole thing of saving the lamb and being able to save Catherine Martin is all tied up with her inability to save her own father when she was a child.” I'm not disputing that. I'm not discounting all the metaphors that are in the story. I think you summed them up nicely in your analysis. I said it before, it's all there. All the clues, all the connections. And I agree that the psychological depth of this story is impressive. And, I'm moved by Clarice Starling as well. She's a great character because she is so well developed and has so much depth. She has that vulnerability that makes her human. She's not just some case-solving machine. We feel enormous empathy for her because of what happened to her as a child and the fact that she has to relive it all again in order to save Catherine. She is willing to go through that in order to solve the case at the expense of her own psychological and emotional pain. That takes enormous courage. I'm missing that one step where you say she couldn't have solved the case without confronting her past. It seems to me that she had this courage in her from the start. That drive, that determination she needed to achieve her goals. You're saying that she found that courage along the way after meeting Lecter and therefore was able to confront Buffalo Bill. I'm saying it started way earlier, after her father was killed and it has only grown stronger since. I see this as a triumph and a tragedy for Clarice because she did achieve what she set out to achieve: become an FBI agent, honor her father's memory, making it as a woman in a man's world, killing Buffalo Bill, saving Catherine Martin. The tragedy is that she thought by doing all this she could silence the lambs and in my view she didn't. And I think we both agree that that is what she needed to do. And if she didn't silence the lambs, there has been no psychological transformation. I’ve always looked it like this: Clarice wants to save Catherine Martin, but she needs to kill Buffalo Bill. And in order to do that, she has to confront the demons of her past. The simple fact she is willing to do that, doesn’t that suggest some degree of metamorphosis? Maybe it's a start of a metamorphosis. A metamorphosis that continues in the sequels, perhaps. I haven't read any of the books. I did see Hannibal but honestly, I can't remember a thing from that movie part from the brain eating scene. To me a metamorphosis signifies a major change. A change so big that a character's outlook on life has completely changed. Like you said, there are no rights or wrongs. I realize that we're interpreting this differently based on our own life experiences and worldviews.

Man, this is one of the reasons I love movies because great ones just keep revealing more and more layers of meaning. I was just on the phone with Josh James, talking about SOTL, and a new insight occurred to me. In this story, we have two characters dealing headlong with transformation: Clarice and Buffalo Bill. Clarice with Lecter's help deals directly with the her issues and those issues are within herself: The death of her father, the spring slaughter of the lambs, trying to save a lamb by running away, becoming an orphan, all of those events and the concomitant emotions, feelings, and psychological associations, all of that is internal to her. And in effect what she does with Lecter is go through a condensed, intensive version of psychoanalysis leading to the catharsis where she confesses her greatest fear: recounting the story of the slaughter of the lambs. OTOH we have Jame Gumb aka Buffalo Bill. He believes he needs to change. He keeps moths around because they symbolize transformation (as Lecter notes). The specific transformation he has in mind is to become a woman (hence his weird dance I noted earlier where he sticks his penis between his legs and fantasizes himself as a woman). However Lecter says that he doesn't need a sex change operation (remember BB has been rejected at the three major centers for sex change procedures so even THEY agree he doesn't need the gender conversion). One might think BB would get a clue and admit, "Oh, I guess that's not really my issue, rather I've got other shit going on inside which I should address." Instead he refuses to give up the delusion that if he becomes a woman, he will be a better person or have a better life or whatever his desire is. So as opposed to dealing with his INTERNAL ISSUES directly and honestly like Clarice does, BB decides to transform ON THE OUTSIDE, literally creating a skin-suit. He is so close yet so far away. He extracts a moth from its cocoon and thinks he finds inspiration / guidance from them re transformation, but in effect what he is doing with the skin-suit is PUTTING ON A COCOON! He's not changing, he's not transforming, in fact he is AVOIDING going into his inner life to do the work of transformation and instead creating an illusion of change with the skin-suit. To go one step further in terms of writing, this is why I have an issue with the way this idea of 'giving your character a flaw' is often used. That can be like creating a skin-suit for a character, a very surface level way of approaching character development. Transformation / metamorphosis should arise from WITHIN the character, the essence of what they become ALREADY THERE within the character at the start of their journey. It's better in my view not to look at it like a flaw, but rather a STATE, what I all Disunity. Metamorphosis in stories, it seems to me, is about a character becoming who they are, that is they have an authentic self to which they are not actively engaged or connected. They have all sorts of behaviors, beliefs, defense mechanisms they have developed to cope with life, just like Clarice has in dealing with the tragedy of her father's death. These enable characters to get by in their Life Up Until Fade In, but it is fundamentally an inauthentic life. The journey of Act One, Act Two and Act Three, all of that is at one level a journey to shed that cocoon of the Old Life to become the authentic self of their New Life. I'm definitely going to do something on the subject of transformation, metamorphosis, change, flaws, etc. It's hugely important and I suspect many of us operate with a sort of hazy understanding of it.

Anna, your thoughts are most welcome and an apt reminder of the centrality of transformation as a theme in SOTL.

I realize my comment came off a bit harsh and that was not my intent. Apologies. I objected to “a moot point” – it seemed out of place when we were discussing the craft to include what Hollywood is expecting. I saw them as separate entities. To me writing and film is not only about Hollywood. There is a huge world of cinema out there that I was hoping to include in these discussions. And yes, you do a fantastic job promoting that overall message! The Deep Focus project was the highlight of the year at GITS in my view. That's why it surprised me when you started talking about Hollywood script meetings. I think that discussion is very much needed but not part of the script analyses. But, I could be wrong – maybe we should include commerciality as well when we pick apart these scripts. In any case, I'll be happy to hear what other commenters have to say about not only the SOTL ending but also the idea of Metamorphosis as a theme in film as well. Let's do it!

Fascinating insights, Scott, thank you so much! That SOTL can be deconstructed from different perspectives, and characters can wear different functional hats in analyzing, testament to SOTL's greatness, such a well constructed tapestry. My overall takeaway, that great scripts will have particular dynamics, expressed through characters, and those dynamics relate to us, all the ways we grow and change. Re transformation, I keep coming back to those two music moments. The disconnect between the atrocities in the foreground and the music of the spheres in our ears, the best and worst of humanity. Lecter's okay with that disconnect, he eats well. Buffalo Bill's a bit denser, thinks some sewing therapy will do the trick. External solution. We know that doesn't work, but it provides framework for him and the story, that notion of a cocoon turning into a butterfly. Such a powerful image, the cocoon, and that one image can serve to represent a story, very cool. I do see transformation in Clarice's external life, student to probie to agent, a huge leap. Internally, she does what good guys do, unlike fractured crazy folk, and faces her shadow and becomes a more resolved and stronger person. Looking forward to more on "transformation, metamorphosis, change, flaws, etc."

Hi Anna, thanks for joining the discussion! "she could have simply taken Catherine and run out of the place just as she did with the lamb." Well, it was physically impossible for her to get Catherine out of the hole and escape. If Harris/Tally/Demme really wanted to show that it wasn't enough for Clarice to save Catherine and that she HAD to kill BB, they would have made a point to make Catherine's escape possible and then shown Clarice make a choice to go after BB even though she had the opportunity to leave. That didn't happen. She told Catherine to shut up to avoid detection. "And when Dr. Lector called her, she was a stronger (change), more confident (change), less guilt-ridden (change) woman." I see the opposite. Lecter sees through her exterior projection as a success and knows her "secret" - thus showing him having control over her and in turn the screaming lambs controlling her as well.

That's how you see it; and it's fine. I'm just expressing my own opinion. We can argue forever whether it's green or blue, and it will remain green for one of us and blue for the other. Call it conviction. Call it stubbornness.WHATEVER! Let's agree to disagree, and call it a great movie. To Clarice, the greatest female protagonist!

Cheers!