On this site will be posted analyses of popular media productions. These analyses will have to do with determining the underlying meanings of various movies, songs, and certain novels. Methods used to analyze a given production will include exploration of the creators' use of symbolism, allegory, metaphor, etc., and deciphering any arcane or obscure references that it may contain.
Lecter's manner in 'reviving' himself in the Memphis ambulance, suggests an attempt at something resembling a resurrection.
In part 32 of the analysis, it was established that Lecter (representing a personification of Satan/the evil hermaphroditic Jews) has as his goal, to 'convert' Starling from a holy agent to a 'real woman', i.e., an ordinary human being, in the event that she defeats Gumb. It's more accurate to say that the purpose of the psychoanalysis Lecter has been doing on Starling, is to create such a 'situation' within Clarice's psyche: she is to believe that killing Gumb will make her a complete woman. However, as stated earlier, Lecter is ultimately hoping that Starling will meet her death at Gumb's hands.
The fact is that Lecter originally had as his goal, that Gumb would finish the skin suit, and that he and Gumb would then share in an 'evil kingdom' that the formation of the suit would represent. But even though Starling defeats Gumb, Lecter still has the advantage, for upon defeating Gumb, Starling has become an 'ordinary' human being, so Lecter will no longer have to contend with her as a holy agent once he escapes from prison.
This completes the 'abstract' analysis phase 1, which consists of parts 20-33.
[If you are only interested in viewing the explanation of the film's hidden plot, continue on to part 34 of the analysis. Otherwise, use the buttons below to navigate the analysis.]
Gumb's suit of skin (shown hanging on a mannequin in his basement, late in the movie), needs skin patches for the left thigh and upper-left chest area, before it will be complete. He plans to get the chest area from Catherine Martin. (Later in the movie, when Clarice Starling shows up at his door, he looks Starling over and comes to believe that he can kill her and then get the left thigh piece from her).
Looking again at Lecter's Memphis prisoner number, 'B5160-8', it has already been observed that '516' is a reference to Deuteronomy in the bible, specifically, that part which talks about the Passover. The zero doesn't really mean anything, it is just there to make the numerical clue not too obvious. To find out what the meaning of the '8' in the prisoner number is, Saint Augustine's Confessions, Book 13 chapter 29, in which Augustine speaks to God about the creation of the world, needs to be looked at again: "And I looked attentively to find whether it was seven or eight times that you saw your works were good, when they were pleasing to you, but I found that there was no 'time' in your seeing which would help me to understand in what sense you had looked so many times at what you had made..."
The mention of the number seven in the above passage, has to do with the fact that if Gumb kills Catherine Martin, and adds a piece of her skin to his 'suit', he will have completed seven days of 'creation' (recall that Martin is Gumb's intended seventh victim). Lecter (personification of Satan/evil hermaphroditic Jews) and Gumb (Satan's pupil/evil Freemasons) together had earlier worked out a plan, whereby the suit would need just seven pieces to be complete. Gumb's act of making the suit is being 'overseen' by Lecter (implying that Lecter and Gumb have met at least once, having been placed in contact with each other by Benjamin Raspail, one of Lecter's past patients). However, if one watches the 'chase' scene in the basement carefully, he or she will notice the view of the skin suit hanging on a mannequin in Gumb's basement, in such a stage of completion which shows that Gumb will need not just Martin's skin, but one more victim, that is, eight total to complete the suit (as shown in the above screencap). This is a reference to the mention of the number eight by Augustine in the above passage, and it is the reason for the '8' in Lecter's Memphis prisoner number. Lecter comes to discover that Gumb needs an eighth piece (as will be explained later), and part of what Hannibal is doing by sending Clarice to Gumb via the clues he has been giving her, is setting things up so that Gumb will think he can get the eighth piece from Starling.
Starling is an 'agent' of God, sent to Earth to destroy Gumb. Lecter, representing absolute evil, recognizes Starling as this holy agent (i.e., as an angel of death). But, she does not know that Lecter can tell this because, she does not know herself that she is this angel. When God sent Starling, he had to keep her ignorant of her true identity; otherwise, she would not 'mix' well with humanity. God has sent her such that she operates under the pretext of being a person who catches criminals (as implied, with her not knowing that this is only a pretext). This will provide her 'human reason' to kill Gumb. But as stated, Lecter has recognized Clarice as this agent from God, so he knows she must be destroyed, thereby preserving Gumb's life.
But, Lecter also has an ace up his sleeve, which will provide him with an 'out' should his plan to have Starling killed fails: Recall that the goal of Clarice's psychoanalysis, under Dr. Lecter, is for her to become a grown, sophisticated woman - a real woman; this is to be taken as real in the truest sense. If Starling defeats Gumb, who represents the inauthentic woman within her, she will have been completely 'converted' into an ordinary human being, and she will no longer be an angel of death. In analyzing Starling, Lecter is to get her to believe that she must confront Gumb to become a complete woman. However, Lecter ultimately desires that she lose this confrontation.
No matter how the confrontation turns out, however, Lecter 'wins': He sends Starling to Gumb with the hope that Gumb will kill her, as already stated; but if things turn out the other way around, Starling will no longer be a holy agent (due to the above-mentioned conversion of her into a real, i.e. fully human, woman), so Lecter, as evil personified, will be free (once he escapes from prison in Memphis) to roam and wreak havoc, and continue his work, without being impeded by her.
[If you are only interested in viewing the explanation of the film's hidden plot, continue on to part 33 of the analysis. Otherwise, use the buttons below to navigate the analysis.]
Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche, 19th-century German philosopher, in 1869. [Image from the Wikipedia 'Friedrich Nietzsche' page, public domain, via Wikimedia Commons.]
Continuing with the reality check regarding the alphanumeric clues in the movie, there are no applicable alphanumeric combinations corresponding to 'B1329' or 'B5160' in, 1) Nietzsche's On the Genealogy of Morals, Beyond Good and Evil, Ecce Homo, Twilight of the Idols, The Gay Science, The Birth of Tragedy, The Anti-Christ, Thus Spoke Zarathustra, and Human, All-Too-Human; 2) Martin Heidegger's Being and Time; 3) Boethius's The Consolation of Philosophy; 4) Aristotle's De Anima and Metaphysics;5) Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit and Philosophy of History; 6) Ovid's The Metamorphoses; 7) Sartre's Being and Nothingness; and, 8) Bergson's Time and Free Will.
There are also no matching combinations in Saint Augustine's The City of God or The Trinity, but of course these two works, as well as any of the works listed above, may contain material applicable to our movie, even if nothing in their section or chapter numbering matches up with the alphanumeric clues in the movie.
As was observed in part 19 of this analysis, Lecter's mingling with the on-screen crowd at the very end of the movie, is reminiscent of how each person in the audience mingles with the others as he or she leaves the theater. This is an indication that there is some correspondence between Lecter, and the viewing public, i.e., the general public. In fact, Lecter represents some kind of 'collective' component of our psyches, no doubt something to do with our dark side as a society, since Lecter is evil: what could be thought of as our collective shadow. Since Lecter represents evil hermaphroditic Jews, the indication is that evil hermaphroditic Jews, as a group, are the world's collective shadow.
Saint Thomas Aquinas - An altarpiece in Ascoli Piceno, Italy,
by Carlo Crivelli (15th century). [Image from the Wikipedia 'Thomas Aquinas' page, public domain, via Wikimedia Commons.]
In part 21 of the analysis, it was stated that one of the underlying themes of The Silence of the Lambs is that Jame Gumb, in attempting to make himself into a woman by assembling pieces of women's skin to make a 'suit' of skin that he can wear, represents Lecter's/Satan's (evil hermaphroditic Jews') pupil (evil Freemasons) attempting to 'usurp' God's power of creation. One thing we want to do, is to explore into whether what Gumb is doing, can be considered to be an act of creation.
Recall that part of Lecter's clue to Starling ("First principles...Simplicity") is a reference to Thomas Aquina's Summa Theologica. Part of the Summa is devoted to creation: the "Treatise on Creation" (Questions 44-49). As was mentioned in part 22 of this analysis, Question 45 is titled "The Mode Of Emanation Of Things From The First Principle."
A good place to start an investigation into whether Gumb is creating, is at Question 45, First Article: "Whether To Create Is To Make Something From Nothing?" In a series of three objections put forth by an imaginary opponent, and replies by Aquinas to each of these objections, Aquinas confirms that to create is to make something from nothing. For example, Objection 1 is,
"It would seem that to create is not to make anything from nothing. For Augustine says (Contra Adv. Leg. et Proph. i): To make concerns what did not exist at all; but to create is to make something by bringing forth something from what was already." (emphasis in original).
Aquinas 'general' answer to all three objections is,
"[W]e must consider not only the emanation of a particular being from a particular agent, but also the emanation of all being from the universal cause, which is God; and this emanation we designate by the name of creation. Now what proceeds by particular emanation, is not presupposed to that emanation; as when a man is generated, he was not before, but man is made from not-man, and white from not-white. Hence if the emanation of the whole universal being from the first principle be considered, it is impossible that any being should be presupposed before this emanation. For nothing is the same as no being. Therefore as the generation of a man is from the not-being which is not-man, so creation, which is the emanation of all being, is from the not-being which is nothing." (emphasis in original).
Aquinas's specific reply to Objection 1 is,
"Augustine uses the word creation in an equivocal sense, according as to be created signifies improvement in things; as when we say that a bishop is created. We do not, however, speak of creation in that way here, but as it is described above."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aquinas would, in accordance with the above, not view what Gumb is doing as creating, since Gumb is using pre-existing material (various pieces of women's skins) to build his 'suit'.
Earlier described was how part of Lecter's clue to Clarice in Memphis, "First principles...Simplicity", is a reference to medieval philosopher and theologian Saint Thomas Aquinas's Summa Theologica. It seems appropriate to look in some detail into the concept of God's simplicity, specifically, at some of the the material contained in the Summa Part 1, Question 3: "Of The Simplicity Of God." Question 3 has eight articles; article number seven is of particular interest. The quoted material below is from this seventh article, which is titled, "Whether God Is Altogether Simple":
"[T]he absolute simplicity of God may be shown in many ways. First, from the previous articles of this question. For there is neither composition of quantitative parts in God, since He is not a body; nor composition of matter and form; nor does His nature differ from His [person-substance]; nor His essence from His existence; neither is there in Him composition of genus and difference, nor of subject and accident. Therefore, it is clear that God is nowise composite, but is altogether simple.
"Secondly, because every composite is posterior to its component parts, and is dependent on them; but God is the first being, as shown [earlier]. Thirdly, because every composite has a cause...But God is [uncaused since] He is the first efficient cause. Fourthly, because in every composite there must be potentiality and actuality; but this does not apply to God; for either one of the parts actuates another, or at least all the parts are potential to the whole. ...
"[S]ince God is absolute form, or rather absolute being, He can be in no way composite. ...
"Whatever is from God imitates Him, as caused things imitate the first cause. But it is of the essence of a thing to be in some sort composite; because at least its existence differs from its essence...
"With us composite things are better than simple things, because the perfections of created goodness cannot be found in one simple thing, but in many things. But the perfection of divine goodness is found in one simple thing."
One idea to be derived from this is that there is a contrast between God, who is not a composite, and Gumb's assembled 'suit' of skin, which is to be a composite (of quantitative parts). Another contrast to consider is the one between God, and Gumb himself; for since Gumb is a human being, not only is he a composite of quantitative parts, but his existence differs from his essence. Gumb is unlike God, a fact which would weaken the argument that he can create.
We have been discussing the latter part of Lecter's spoken clue to Starling, to help the FBI apprehend Buffalo Bill:
"Read Marcus Aurelius. Of each particular thing, ask: What is it, in itself, what is its nature...?"
In part 26 it was observed that the two questions embedded in this statement, point to the specific part of Aurelius's Meditations that says,
"This thing, what is it in itself, in its own constitution? What is its substance and material? And what its causal nature [or form]? ..." (material inside square brackets in original).
It was also observed that here, Aurelius is distinguishing the material from the causal: to each thing there is both inert content (substance, material) and an activating causal principle with a discernible reference. In Book 10, chapter 38 (i.e. 10.38) of the Meditations, Aurelius elaborates on the importance of the causal principle:
"Remember that this which pulls the strings is the thing which is hidden within: this is the power of persuasion, this is life, this, if one may so say, is man. In contemplating thyself never include the vessel which surrounds thee and these instruments which are attached about it. For they are like to an axe, differing only in this, that they grow to the body. For indeed there is no more use in these parts without the cause which moves and checks them than in the weaver's shuttle, and the writer's pen, and the driver's whip."
In the above, Marcus gives a new application to one of his most frequently-used images: that of the marionette. According to the American Heritage Dictionary, 'marionette' is defined as, "A jointed puppet manipulated from above by strings or wires attached to its limbs. [French marionette, from Old French, musical instrument, diminutive of mariole, the Virgin Mary (influenced by the name Marion), from diminutive of Marie, Mary, from Late Latin Maria]." Recalling that Clarice represents the Virgin Mary, the idea is that she is being, or is to be, manipulated like a marionette, within some metaphorical context.
Bust of Marcus Aurelius at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York. [Image from the Wikipedia 'Marcus Aurelius' page, public domain, via Wikimedia Commons.]
Earlier in the analysis, an investigation was begun into the meaning of some clues that Lecter gives Starling, while the two of them are conversing in Memphis, Tennessee. It was observed that not only are these clues meant for Starling (ostensibly, to help the FBI apprehend Buffalo Bill), but for the Silence of the Lambs audience as well, to help interpret the movie itself. The part of the conversation quoted below which is in bold, is the material of interest for right now:
Lecter (to Starling): Well I’ve read the case files, have you...? Everything you need to find him is right there in those pages. Starling: Then tell me how. Lecter: First principles, Clarice. Simplicity. Read Marcus Aurelius. Of each particular thing, ask: What is it, in itself, what is its nature...? What does he do, this man you seek? ...
Found in the writings of 2nd century philosopher and Roman emperor, Marcus Aurelius, is what it is that is being referred to by the part of Lecter's statement that is in bold above. It is in Book 8.11 of Aurelius's major philosophical work, Meditations, and it states as follows (Long's translation):
"This thing, what is it in itself, in its own constitution? What is its substance and material? And what its causal nature [or form]? And what is it doing in the world? And how long does it subsist?" (material inside square brackets in original).
Here, Aurelius is using two of the methods of analysis that he developed: an 'ask yourself this question' method, and an analysis into material, cause, and reference. He is distinguishing the material from the causal: to each thing there is both inert content (substance, material) and an activating causal principle with a discernible reference.
We know from part 21 of this analysis that the act whereby Gumb is making a whole suit of skin from various pieces obtained from his victims' bodies, represents Lecter's/Satan's (evil hermaphroditic Jews') pupil (evil Freemasons) attempting to 'usurp' God’s power of creation. So given Lecter's reference to Aurelius, it's logical to believe that there must be some relationship between Gumb’s (attempted) act of creation, and the nature of each member of some 'collection' of individual things, i.e., each physical piece that Gumb is using to assemble the suit of skin.
As an aside, a thorough check of Meditations shows that neither 'B5160' nor 'B1329' are references to it (there is a Book 5.16 in Meditations, but its contents do not have applicability to our movie).
Continuing with the reality check, one thing that needs to be considered is whether either of Hannibal Lecter's prisoner numbers, 'B5160' and 'B1329', could be references to some other literary work(s) in addition to the bible and Augustine's Confessions, respectively. Certain Greek classics checked so far have not turned up anything that corresponds to either alphanumeric clue (authors checked include: Homer, Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides, Aristophanes, Herodotus, and Thucydides). This is not to say that the possibility is being ruled out, that themes or some other facet(s) of these works apply to the movie; here, it is just being checked to see if the two alphanumeric clues mentioned, themselves refer to these works.
Earlier in the analysis, it was claimed that Lecter's prisoner number in Memphis, 'B5160-8', is a reference to the bible - Deuteronomy 16, i.e., book 5 chapter 16. Also claimed was that Lecter's prisoner number in Baltimore, 'B1329-0', is a reference to Book 13.29 of Saint Augustine's Confessions. And, in part 22 it was stated that Lecter's statement to Starling in Memphis, "First principles, Clarice. Simplicity.", contains two references to Saint Thomas Aquinas's Summa Theologica: Part 1 Question 45 ("The Mode Of Emanation Of Things From The First Principle"), and Part 1 Question 3 ("Of The Simplicity Of God").
Some doubt might be raised about the Saint Augustine reference at this point, by noting that the Summa's 'Part 1 Question 3' reminds one of '13', the first two numbers in Lecter's Baltimore prison number. To get the '29', either a 'Part 2 Question 9', or a 'Part 1 Question 29' would be needed. Both of these do exist: the first is on "That Which Moves The Will", and the second on "The Divine Persons." However, whether or not the movie-makers are making a reference to Aquinas with the '1329', it does not invalidate the reference to Augustine, for the simple reason that the full prisoner number in question is B1329-0: 'B' must stand for 'Book', in accordance with the biblical reference, 'B5160', referring to the book of Deuteronomy; and whereas the Confessions (and the bible) are divided into books, the Summa is not. Our reference to Augustine is not invalidated solely by virtue of the possibility that '1329' may point to something else; i.e., if it does, this would be in addition to Augustine.
Next, consider 'B5160' (neglecting the '-8' for the moment): Could it be a reference to someplace else in the bible, besides the one to Deuteronomy 16 as claimed? There is no book 51, chapter 6 or 60 - book 51 is Colossians, which only has four chapters. And, Deuteronomy has far too few chapters for there to be a chapter 160. Could 'B5160' be a reference to Augustine? There is a book 5 in Confessions, but no 5.16 or 5.160. Confessions consists of only 13 books, so there is no book 51. What about Aquinas? As already noted, his Summa is not divided into books, so using the same logic as above, even if there is a reference to Aquinas here, this alone wouldn't invalidate the biblical reference.
Of course, it's possible that 'B1329', and even 'B5160', are references to some work(s) of literature not considered so far, in addition to the Confessions and the bible respectively. This will be discussed when the reality check is continued in the next post.
In the previous post in this analysis, it was observed that one of Lecter's clues to Starling given to her in Tennessee, refers to Saint Thomas Aquinas's Summa Theologica, Part 1 Question 3: "Of The Simplicity Of God." Aquinas says that since we cannot know what God is, he can only be known by what he is not. When theology follows the doctrine of divine simplicity, various modes of simplicity are distinguished by subtraction of various kinds of composition from the meaning of terms used to describe God.[a] The Silence of the Lambs uses color mixing as a 'metaphor' for this simplicity:
Above Left: Starling wears a green sweater when facing evil in Gumb's basement. As stated earlier in the analysis, green, as worn by Starling, indicates the presence of the Holy Spirit. Above Right: A simulated example of subtractive color mixing.[c] A subtractive color model explains the mixing of paints, dyes, and inks. Since Starling is wearing the sweater, which is, of course, dyed to give it its green color, and since dyes are obtained from subtractive color mixing, this is a metaphor for the subtractive model of Aquinas, and points to God's simplicity.
Below Left: Starling, still in pursuit of Gumb. The green 'glow' is due to the fact that Clarice is now being viewed through Gumb's night vision goggles. Below Right: Red, green, and blue lights combining by reflecting from a white wall.[c] An additive color model is used for lighting applications. Gumb is evil, indicating that additive coloring, as used for lighting in the movie, is used to represent the presence of evil in certain scenes.
Some of the above material was gone over in part 9 of this analysis, but we did not there link subtractive color mixing to the simplicity of God.
a. Wikipedia, 'Divine Simplicity'. Web, n.d. URL = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_simplicity.
b. Image from the Wikipedia 'Color mixing' page; A simulated example of subtractive color mixing, licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Commmons.
c. Image from the Wikipedia 'Additive color' page; RGB illumination by en:User:Bb3cxv, licensed under GFDL or CC-BY-SA-3.0, via Wikimedia Commons
St. Thomas Aquinas - Detail from Valle Romita Polyptych
by Gentile da Fabriano (circa 1400). [Image from the Wikipedia 'Thomas Aquinas' page, public domain, via Wikimedia Commons]
While Lecter is being held captive in Memphis, Tennessee, he makes a statement to Starling that contains a series of clues that are not only meant to (ostensibly) help the FBI apprehend Buffalo Bill, but also, to help the audience interpret the movie. Here is the statement:
"First principles, Clarice. Simplicity. Read Marcus Aurelius. Of each particular thing, ask: What is it, in itself, what is its nature...?"
"First principles" is a reference to something in the writings of the medieval philosopher and theologian, Saint Thomas Aquinas. More specifically, the idea of first principle as a concept, is put forth in Aquinas's massive work, Summa Theologica.
Now for a little background: in philosophy, a first principle is a basic, foundational proposition or assumption that cannot be deduced from any other proposition or assumption. Aristotle, author of the earliest surviving text on logic, formulated a principle (the Aristotelian tautology denoted A=A) that later achieved the historical distinction of being called the first principle as a proper name.[a]
Aquinas, who derived much of his thinking and many concepts from Aristotle, was interested in proving, among other things, the existence of God, and that nothing existed before him - that is, that God is the First Principle. He accomplishes this proof in Part I, Question 44 of the Summa Theologica. Then in Question 45, titled "The Mode of Emanation Of Things From The First Principle", Aquinas discusses the act of creation itself (with the word creation to be taken in the Christian sense). As previously observed, St. Augustine discusses creation of the world in part of his Confessions. It is Aquinas's Question 45 that is being referred to by Lecter's statement.
Another question in the Summa, Part 1, Question 3, is titled "Of The Simplicity Of God." Note that "simplicity" is another word appearing in Lecter's statement to Starling, as quoted above. The specific concept of simplicity and Aquinas's discussion of it are not to be dealt with at the moment; the main thing to realize for now, is that it seems the two clues Lecter gives here ("first principles" and "simplicity") are meant to point to Aquinas, and specifically to the Summa, to help interpret the movie.
a. Wikipedia, 'First principle'. Web, n.d. URL = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_principle.
Augustine of Hippo by Philippe de Champaigne, 17th century. [Image from the Wikipedia 'Augustine of Hippo' page, public domain, via Wikimedia Commons.]
In part 20, it was suggested that Hannibal Lecter's prisoner number in Baltimore, 'B1329-0', is a reference to Saint Augustine's Confessions, 13.29 (Book 13, chapter 29). Prior to introducing chapter 29, however, it was observed that the immediately preceding chapter, 13.28, with its talk of God creating a whole from parts, is reminiscent of Gumb making a complete suit of women's skin from various pieces. Quoted below is Book 13.29 of the Confessions (Outler translation):
"And I looked attentively to find whether it was seven or eight times that you saw your works were good, when they were pleasing to you; but I found that there was no 'time' in your seeing which would help me to understand in what sense you had looked so many times at what you had made. And I said: Lord, is not this your scripture true, since you are true, and your truth sets it forth? Why, then, do you say to me that in your seeing there are no times, while this scripture tells me that what you had made each day you saw to be good; and when I counted them I found how many times? To these things, you replied to me, for you are my god, and you speak to your servant with a strong voice in his inner ear, my deafness, and crying, 'Man, what my scripture says, I say. But it speaks in terms of time, whereas time does not affect my word - my word which exists coeternally with myself. Thus the things you see through my spirit, I see; just as what you say through my spirit, I say. But while you see those things in time, I do not see them in time; and when you speak those things in time, I do not speak them in time.' "
Book 13.29 is a continuation of the discussion of creation from 13.28 (quoted in the previous post), and it contains a reference to the number of days of creation ("what you had made each day you saw to be good; and when I counted them I found how many times"). One of the underlying themes of the movie is this: Jame Gumb, in attempting to make himself a woman by assembling parts into a whole, represents Satan's pupil/evil Freemasons attempting to 'usurp' God's power of creation. In upcoming posts in the analysis, we'll try to determine whether Gumb's formation of his suit can truly be considered to be an act of creation, and we'll also verify that 'B1329' is, in fact, a reference to Augustine.
[If you are only interested in viewing the explanation of the film's hidden plot, continue on to part 32 of the analysis. Otherwise, use the buttons below to navigate the analysis.]
Hannibal Lecter tells Clarice to "look within yourself!" The prisoner number printed on his shirt is 'B1329-0' (click image to enlarge).
Recall from part 10 of the analysis that part of Lecter's prisoner number in Memphis, 'B5160-8', is a reference to book 5, Chapter 16 of the bible - that part of the book of Deuteronomy which talks about the Passover. Since this number is a clue, then it is appropriate to check into whether 'B1329-0', Lecter's prisoner number in Baltimore, is also a clue. There is a Book 13, Chapter 29 (i.e., 13.29) in the Confessions of medieval theologian and philosopher Saint Augustine. This passage talks about creation of the universe, and about how God does not exist in time, even though Man perceives all of God's actions within the context of time. Initially, this topic doesn't seem like it corresponds with the movie to any great extent, but in the immediately preceding book, 13.28, Augustine talks about creating a whole from parts (within the context of biblical creation). Following is Book 13, chapter 28 from the Confessions (Outler translation):
"And you, God, saw everything that you had made and, 'behold, it was very good.'[Gen. 1:31] We also see the whole creation and, behold, it is all very good. In each separate kind of your work, when you said, 'Let them be made,' and they were made, you saw that it was good. I have counted seven times where it is written that you saw what you had made was good. And there is the eighth time when you saw all things that you had made and, behold, they were not only good but also very good; for they were now seen as a totality. Individually they were only good; but taken as a totality they were both good and very good. Beautiful bodies express this truth; for a body which consists of several parts, each of which is beautiful, is itself far more beautiful then any of its individual parts separately, by whose well-ordered union the whole is completed even though these parts are separately beautiful." (material inside square brackets in original).
This passage is reminiscent of the fact that Gumb is making a (whole) suit of skins from various parts of his victims - he is seemingly going through a process of creation, or something resembling creation. There is, in fact, something in the movie which refers to the seven days of creation: Catherine Martin is Gumb's (intended) seventh victim. In fact, as stated in part 8 of the analysis, Gumb's skinning of each of his victims, representing a day of creation, and his formation of a 'suit' from these skins, symbolizes the formation of an 'evil kingdom'. If Gumb succeeds with Catherine in obtaining a patch of her skin, and adds it to the suit, he will have completed a step in his making of the suit; and this would be some kind of metaphor for a seventh day of creation.
We will go over Book 13.29 of Augustine's Confessions in the next part of the analysis.
[If you are only interested in viewing the explanation of the film's hidden plot, continue on to part 21 of the analysis. Otherwise, use the buttons below to navigate the analysis.]
Above: At the end of the movie, just before the credits roll: Hannibal Lecter walks off into the on-screen crowd, as the Silence of the Lambs audience leaves the theater - it is as if Lecter is walking outside with the audience. This means that although Starling has saved her own life, and Satan's pupil, as represented by Jame Gumb, has been killed, evil, being represented by Lecter (evil hermaphroditic Jews) here, continues to be present in the world.
This completes the 'basic' analysis, which consists of parts 1-19.
Above left: Disassembled mannequins lying on shelves inside the 'Your Self' storage facility. Above right: A partially assembled mannequin in Gumb's basement (indicated by the arrow).
One of the things that Clarice sees upon entering Lecter's storage unit is a shelf on which are lying some disassembled mannequins. The presence of these mannequins 'in' Starling's unconscious (as represented by the storage unit), relates to the fact that the killer Buffalo Bill (Jame Gumb) has partially-assembled mannequins in his basement (e.g., the one shown in the above right screencap, on which is hanging Gumb's incomplete 'suit' of skin)). This suggests that there is a psychological connection between Starling and Gumb, in addition to the 'physical' connection whereby she is trying to gather information about him.
Recall that the goal of Clarice's analysis is for her to become a fully-grown, sophisticated woman, i.e. a complete woman. But, doesn't Gumb himself also want to become a woman, by putting together his suit? He is assembling it piece by piece, until he has obtained a complete suit that he can wear. In his own eyes, when he accomplishes this, he will have become a woman; but of course, in reality, he will not have become one.
This is, in fact, the psychological connection between the two characters, Clarice Starling and Jame Gumb. Clarice wants to be a complete, authentic woman. As opposed to this, Gumb cannot, can never, be an authentic woman. He is inauthentic - he is trying to become something he is not, something he cannot be. For Clarice to become an authentic woman, she must defeat that within herself which is inauthentic; she must defeat that within herself which cannot be. Gumb represents the incomplete woman within Clarice. That is why she must kill him: She must defeat the incomplete woman within herself, so that she can finish the process of becoming a woman.
Recall Lecter's statement to Clarice in Memphis: "I’ve read the case files, Clarice, have you? Everything you need to know is right there in those pages." The file, though it is physically the one for Buffalo Bill, also here represents Starling's own case file - the file of her psychoanalysis. When she stops trying to 'figure out' the overt clues (anagrams, etc), that is, when it is no longer necessary for her to do so, then her mind is 'freed up' to have the necessary revelation, which occurs when she sees the dress in Frederica Bimmel's closet: her unconscious 'recognizes' the masked clue that Lecter 'embedded' in her mind in the Memphis scene - "Simplicity", the name of a dress manufacturer.
[If you are only interested in viewing the explanation of the film's hidden plot, continue on to part 20 of the analysis. Otherwise, use the buttons below to navigate the analysis.]
Disclaimers 1) In certain instances it has been determined that the creators of some of the productions analyzed on this blog, and/or the creators of source material(s) used in the making of these productions, may be making negative statements about certain segments of society in their productions. These statements should be taken as expressing the opinions of no one other than the creators.
2) This blog is not associated with any of the studios, creators, authors, publishers, directors, actors, musicians, writers, editors, crew, staff, agents, or any other persons or entities involved at any stage in the making of any of the media productions or source materials that are analyzed, mentioned, or referenced herein.
3) In keeping with the policies of the filmmakers, authors, studios, writers, publishers, and musicians, that have created the productions (and their source materials) that are analyzed, mentioned, or referenced on this blog, any similarity of the characters in these films or source materials to actual persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental.
Saint Augustine's Confessions andCity of God from Wikisource (except where otherwise noted); portions from Wikisource used on this blog are released under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share-Alike License 3.0.
Saint Thomas Aquinas's Summa Theologica from the 'Logos Virtual Library' website (except where otherwise noted), compiled and edited by Darren L. Slider; believed to be in public domain.
