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
[–] 2 points 1 day ago (8 children)

But why is that something that couldn't have been possible for that particular character? People are complex, and gender equally so, and we're all on a kind of spectrum of various attributes.

Also, "heterosexual man" is something that we don't really know about Buffalo Bill. Just because Levine had that image in his head doesn't mean it was supposed to be definitive.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (7 children)

    But why is that something that couldn’t have been possible for that particular character?

    I don't understand what this is supposed to mean. In the process of creating the character they already had a brutal fucked up murderer, but that wasn't fucked up enough so to make him extra fucked up they added trans attributes. If you don't see how that's a problem I dunno what to tell you.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 day ago (6 children)

    That, for example, a person could nominally be of some commonly-labelled gender, but have trans attributes as you say. What's wrong with that?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    a fictional character is not a real person. a real person can have certain traits because that's just how they are. a fictional character's traits are chosen by a writer for a reason. if a writer intentionally makes a character gender-queer in order to emphasize that they're scary and mentally unstable, that's bigotry

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

    a fictional character is not a real person.

    Yes, but they can and do routinely REPRESENT a real person, or at least a highly-likely person.

    if a writer intentionally makes a character gender-queer in order to emphasize that they’re scary and mentally unstable, that’s bigotry

    Not only do we have zero evidence for that here, but that's not how Hollywood works, anyway. In reality, the pass-off from book-writer to studio to screenwriter to producers to director to actors is a multi-step process in which characters are commonly distorted from their original versions in to something completely different.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 1 day ago* (3 children)

    That would be a discussion for a thread that's not specifically about a character specifically designed to represent fucked-up-ness by having trans attributes added to them.

    I'm starting to doubt your participation is in good faith here.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 day ago (2 children)

    specifically about a character specifically designed to represent fucked-up-ness by having trans attributes added to them.

    That's just your personal take, though. "First we create a fucked character, then we attach some trans attributes." You imagine it happening in that specific order, but I'd argue just as much that "BB" is a pastiche of dark characters that Thomas Harris found interesting in his research. BB could have been formed out of any combination of traits and known people, really, but it sounds like you're saying as a personally trans person (correct?) that you object to the fact that one of those traits seems to trans-ish? The reality is that any combination whatsoever is liable to upset someone who shares a commonality. And that's just the reality of life, like it or not.

    I've watched the film like 2-3x over the years and never got the sense that they tried to lean too hard in to the trans angles (assuming they're really there in the first place) or tried to paint an overall picture about trans people in general. I guess it's understandable in our F'd-up society that you would be sensitive to that, so I guess I can understand your reaction. And credit to Levine's statement, which I do appreciate. I don't fully agree, but I like the idea of sticking up for trans rights.

    I’m starting to doubt your participation is in good faith here.

    Sorry you feel that way, Sarah. I feel that all people should be accepted for being who they are, as long as they participate in civilisation benignly. Something along those lines, anyway. With respect to nature and sustainability, of course.

    The bullshit of Western Religion and power structures has done a number on all of us of course, including when it comes to the topic of "gender." So-called "conservatives" and power-structures always hate the idea of gender being a spectrum, for some pretty obvious reasons.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    That’s just your personal take, though. “First we create a fucked character, then we attach some trans attributes.”

    1. No, that's not what I said. I said they added the trans attributes as a way to indicate to the audience the character is fucked up.

    2. No, that's not just my personal take, it's how the character's creator said he did it.

    3. Your condescending faux-superior attitude isn't conducive to good faith discussion.

    Bye.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment