vice.com Why the Actor Who Played Buffalo Bill in ‘The Silence of the Lambs’ Has a Problem With the Movie Today Tony Alpsen 2–3 minutes

35 years after The Silence of the Lambs premiered in theaters, the topic of Buffalo Bill’s sexual identity remains a contentious one. The deranged serial killer, played by Ted Levine in the film, was known for skinning his female victims in order to stitch together a “woman suit” for himself. This past February, Levine weighed in on the subject, and it turns out he’s got conflicting feelings about his performance.

“There are certain aspects of the movie that don’t hold up too well,” Levine, who’d never addressed the controversy before, told The Hollywood Reporter. “We all know more, and I’m a lot wiser about transgender issues,” he continued. “There are some lines in that script and movie that are unfortunate.” 35 Years Later, ‘The Silence of the Lambs’ Star Says the Movie Got Something Important Wrong

Levine went on to say that he didn’t have those same concerns when he made the movie, but is more knowledgeable when it comes to the trans experience nowadays. “[It’s] just over time and having gotten aware and worked with trans folks, and understanding a bit more about the culture and the reality of the meaning of gender,” he explained. “It’s unfortunate that the film vilified that, and it’s f—king wrong. And you can quote me on that.”

The actor also said that he didn’t play Buffalo Bill as gay or trans and just saw him as a “f—ked-up heterosexual man.” Director Jonathan Demme shared a similar view of the character, saying that Bill only wanted to be a woman because it was his way of escaping. Producer Edward Saxon confirmed that the intent was never for Bill to be trans. “He was sick. To that extent, we missed it. From my point of view, we weren’t sensitive enough to the legacy of a lot of stereotypes and their ability to harm,” Saxon added.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 7 points 1 day ago (4 children)

Can you remind me what was transphobic about it? I think I turned it off halfway through because I got bored.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • Yeah, I don't recall trans identities in the movie at all. The film itself was a letdown, considering it was supposed to be up there with Silence. I expected a grounded serial killer flick, what I ended up with was some supernatural mumbo jumbo.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 child)

    Nic Cage plays the psycho antagonist and appears trans-coded. This is unfortubate because trans representation in media, especially horror, has historically been a bit rough (see Psycho and Silence of the Lambs). Oz Perkins, the director, has stated that he is not meant to be trans, but is supposed to be a "glam rock" guy. There are other parts of the movie that validate that, but ultimately it is up to viewers choose what they think.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 1 day ago

    Glam Rock was an overtly queerified (I mean that in a good way) presentation of a music genre which, up to that point, was pretty hypermasculine.

    I do see the Glam aesthetic as well, but culturally, glam boys were pretty and just wanted to rock and/or roll you a little, and didn't much care if you were a girl or boy.

    It's still queer-coded at minimum. In the context of the modern day, where only weirdoes like me enjoy hatewatching old TOTP videos of Gary Glitter and "Glam" is as likely to mean Motley Crue and Cinderella than the New York Dolls, it's trans-coded as fuck.

    I don't fucking buy that, in other words. I bet if we scratched the surface of Oz Perkins, we'd find he's a nickel-plated edgelord.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 1 day ago

    The character itself. Indeterminate gender, presented in a completely grotesque way, and it's a serial killer of course.

    It walked straight out of the fever dreams of Jordan Peterson, when he was in that medically induced coma.

  • source
  • parent