CATEGORY: MOVIES
From Meditations, 2.17 (Long's translation):
"Of human life the time is a point, and the substance is in a flux, and the perception dull, and the composition of the whole body subject to putrefaction, and the soul a whirl, and fortune hard to divine, and fame a thing devoid of judgment. And, to say all in a word, everything which belongs to the body is a stream, and what belongs to the soul is a dream and vapor, and life is a warfare and a stranger's sojourn, and after fame is oblivion. What then is that which is able to conduct a man? One thing, and only one, philosophy. But this consists in keeping the daemon within a man free from violence and unharmed, superior to pains and pleasures, doing nothing without a purpose, nor yet falsely and with hypocrisy, not feeling the need of another man's doing or not doing anything; and besides, accepting all that happens, and all that is allotted, as coming from thence, wherever it is, from whence he himself came; and, finally, waiting for death with a cheerful mind, as being nothing else than a dissolution of the elements of which every living being is compounded. But if there is no harm to the elements themselves in each continually changing into another, why should a man have any apprehension about the change and dissolution of all the elements? For it is according to nature, and nothing is evil which is according to nature."
Marcus Aurelius's Meditations (Long)
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Silence of the Lambs analysis - part 51: Aristotle on the senses; rel. to Augustine
CATEGORY: MOVIES
In part 39 of the analysis, we quoted Augustine on the bodily senses, and on his claim of the primacy of the sense of sight over the other senses. Also, we have observed that Thomas Aquinas derived much of his thinking from the Greek philosopher, Aristotle, and in part 49, we looked at a portion of Aristotle's Metaphysics. By way of 'connecting' Aristotle with Augustine, we notice that the former has something to say about the senses in Book 1 of the Metaphysics (McMahon Translation):
"All men by nature are actuated with the desire of knowledge, and an indication of this is the love of the senses; for even, irrespective of their utility, are they loved for their own sakes; and preeminently above the rest, the sense of sight. For not only for practical purposes, but also when not intent on doing anything, we choose the power of vision in preference, so to say, to all the rest of the senses..." [a]
a. Aristotle. The Metaphysics. Trans. John H. McMahon. New York: Prometheus Books, 1991. p. 11.
In part 39 of the analysis, we quoted Augustine on the bodily senses, and on his claim of the primacy of the sense of sight over the other senses. Also, we have observed that Thomas Aquinas derived much of his thinking from the Greek philosopher, Aristotle, and in part 49, we looked at a portion of Aristotle's Metaphysics. By way of 'connecting' Aristotle with Augustine, we notice that the former has something to say about the senses in Book 1 of the Metaphysics (McMahon Translation):
"All men by nature are actuated with the desire of knowledge, and an indication of this is the love of the senses; for even, irrespective of their utility, are they loved for their own sakes; and preeminently above the rest, the sense of sight. For not only for practical purposes, but also when not intent on doing anything, we choose the power of vision in preference, so to say, to all the rest of the senses..." [a]
a. Aristotle. The Metaphysics. Trans. John H. McMahon. New York: Prometheus Books, 1991. p. 11.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Silence of the Lambs analysis - part 50: Lecter covets Starling via his sense of smell
CATEGORY: MOVIES
"First principles, Clarice. Simplicity. Of each particular thing, ask, what is it in itself? What is its nature?"
In this post, we'll look at how part of Lecter's statement to Starling in Memphis (the part in boldface in the caption above), can be interpreted within the context of certain verses from 1 Corinthians 12 in the bible. We first list these verses:
1. Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware.
9. [To one person is given] faith by the Spirit, and to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit,
10. and to another the effecting of miracles, and to another prophecy, and to another the distinguishing of spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, and to another the interpretation of tongues.
14.[T]he body is not one member, but many...
21. And the eye cannot say to the hand, "I have no need of you"; or again the head to the feet, "I have no need of you."
22. On the contrary, it is much truer that the members of the body which seem to be weaker are necessary,
23. and those members of the body which we deem less honorable, on these we bestow more abundant honor, and our less presentable members become much more presentable...
27. Now you are Christ's body, and individually members of it.
28. And God has appointed in the church, first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, various kinds of tongues.
Now consider the part of Lecter's statement to Clarice that reads, "Of each particular thing, ask, what is it in itself? What is its nature?"
Taking the sense organs mentioned in the above verses, and considering their various functions to be part of their respective natures, we answer that it is in the eye's nature to see, the ear's to hear, the nose's to smell... On the other hand, with regard to spiritual gifts, we could list these functions as follows: the eye (seeing) is for prophecy, the ear (hearing) is for the interpretation of tongues, the mouth is used for speaking in tongues, and touch, for healing.
But then, what gift does the sense of smell correspond to? The nose would seem to be the sense organ that "we deem less honorable" than the others - this is why Hannibal Lecter bestows "more abundant honor" upon it: in The Silence of the Lambs, Lecter initially uses his sense of smell in his coveting of Clarice Starling. For recall his statement to her during their first meeting: "Sometimes you wear L'Aire du Temps..." - if we pay careful attention to the way he says this, it sounds like he's also saying, "Sometimes you wear a leather t(h)ong..." The sexual aspect of that which he is smelling here indicates that he has, at this moment, begun to covet Clarice. Recall that Lecter later tells Clarice that it is in our nature to covet - "we covet what we see every day." Lecter covets what he 'smells', effectively every day - he relies on his memories of sense impressions of Starling, since he has such infrequent contact with her.
During her first meeting with Lecter, Starling averts her eyes (above left) while Hannibal (above right) describes what the scent coming from her, smells like to him.
This completes the 'abstract' analysis phase 2, which consists of parts 34-50.
"First principles, Clarice. Simplicity. Of each particular thing, ask, what is it in itself? What is its nature?"
In this post, we'll look at how part of Lecter's statement to Starling in Memphis (the part in boldface in the caption above), can be interpreted within the context of certain verses from 1 Corinthians 12 in the bible. We first list these verses:
1. Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware.
9. [To one person is given] faith by the Spirit, and to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit,
10. and to another the effecting of miracles, and to another prophecy, and to another the distinguishing of spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, and to another the interpretation of tongues.
14.[T]he body is not one member, but many...
21. And the eye cannot say to the hand, "I have no need of you"; or again the head to the feet, "I have no need of you."
22. On the contrary, it is much truer that the members of the body which seem to be weaker are necessary,
23. and those members of the body which we deem less honorable, on these we bestow more abundant honor, and our less presentable members become much more presentable...
27. Now you are Christ's body, and individually members of it.
28. And God has appointed in the church, first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, various kinds of tongues.
Now consider the part of Lecter's statement to Clarice that reads, "Of each particular thing, ask, what is it in itself? What is its nature?"
Taking the sense organs mentioned in the above verses, and considering their various functions to be part of their respective natures, we answer that it is in the eye's nature to see, the ear's to hear, the nose's to smell... On the other hand, with regard to spiritual gifts, we could list these functions as follows: the eye (seeing) is for prophecy, the ear (hearing) is for the interpretation of tongues, the mouth is used for speaking in tongues, and touch, for healing.
But then, what gift does the sense of smell correspond to? The nose would seem to be the sense organ that "we deem less honorable" than the others - this is why Hannibal Lecter bestows "more abundant honor" upon it: in The Silence of the Lambs, Lecter initially uses his sense of smell in his coveting of Clarice Starling. For recall his statement to her during their first meeting: "Sometimes you wear L'Aire du Temps..." - if we pay careful attention to the way he says this, it sounds like he's also saying, "Sometimes you wear a leather t(h)ong..." The sexual aspect of that which he is smelling here indicates that he has, at this moment, begun to covet Clarice. Recall that Lecter later tells Clarice that it is in our nature to covet - "we covet what we see every day." Lecter covets what he 'smells', effectively every day - he relies on his memories of sense impressions of Starling, since he has such infrequent contact with her.
During her first meeting with Lecter, Starling averts her eyes (above left) while Hannibal (above right) describes what the scent coming from her, smells like to him.
This completes the 'abstract' analysis phase 2, which consists of parts 34-50.
Silence of the Lambs analysis - part 49: Aristotle: the law of the excluded middle
CATEGORY: MOVIES
"Aristotle with a bust of Homer" by Rembrandt. [Image from the Wikipedia 'Aristotle' page, public domain, via Wikimedia Commons.]
Back in part 22 of the analysis, it was mentioned that Saint Thomas Aquinas derived much of his philosophy from the Greek philosopher, Aristotle. Below is quoted a small portion of Aristotle's Metaphysics (Ross translation) which is of importance to us:
"And it will not be possible to be and not to be the same thing...[it is impossible] that it should be at the same time true to say the same thing is a man and is not a man." [a]
The idea contained in the above is, in logic, sometimes called the law of the excluded middle.
The applicability to The Silence of the Lambs is that the law implies that Clarice cannot both be and not be a woman. As stated earlier in the analysis, she is to defeat the incomplete woman within herself by defeating Jame Gumb.
Starling reloads her gun while Jame Gumb lies bleeding on the floor, after being shot by her.
a. Ross, W.D. Aristotle's Metaphysics. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1924 (reprinted 1953 with corrections). Book 4, part 4.
"Aristotle with a bust of Homer" by Rembrandt. [Image from the Wikipedia 'Aristotle' page, public domain, via Wikimedia Commons.]
Back in part 22 of the analysis, it was mentioned that Saint Thomas Aquinas derived much of his philosophy from the Greek philosopher, Aristotle. Below is quoted a small portion of Aristotle's Metaphysics (Ross translation) which is of importance to us:
"And it will not be possible to be and not to be the same thing...[it is impossible] that it should be at the same time true to say the same thing is a man and is not a man." [a]
The idea contained in the above is, in logic, sometimes called the law of the excluded middle.
The applicability to The Silence of the Lambs is that the law implies that Clarice cannot both be and not be a woman. As stated earlier in the analysis, she is to defeat the incomplete woman within herself by defeating Jame Gumb.
Starling reloads her gun while Jame Gumb lies bleeding on the floor, after being shot by her.
a. Ross, W.D. Aristotle's Metaphysics. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1924 (reprinted 1953 with corrections). Book 4, part 4.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Silence of the Lambs analysis - part 48: More from Aurelius; rel. to 1 Cor. 12
CATEGORY: MOVIES
A bust of Marcus Aurelius as a young boy (Capitoline Museum). [Image from the Wikipedia 'Marcus Aurelius' page, public domain, via Wikimedia Commons.]
Below is quoted a passage from Book 3.11 of the Meditations (Long's translation):
"For nothing is so productive of elevation of mind as to be able to examine methodically and truly every object which is presented to thee in life, and always to look at things so as to see at the same time what kind of universe this is, and what kind of use everything performs in it, and what value everything has with reference to the whole, and what with reference to man, who is a citizen of the highest city, of which all other cities are like families; what each thing is, and of what it is composed, and how long it is the nature of this thing to endure which now makes an impression on me, and what virtue I have need of with respect to it, such as gentleness, manliness, truth, fidelity, simplicity, contentment, and the rest." (emphasis not in original).
The above passage speaks of of things, their functions, and their relationship to a whole. This reminds us of the material quoted earlier in this analysis from 1 Corinthians 12, in which the subject of the relationship of the parts of the human body, to the body as a whole, is brought up:
"For even as the body is one and yet has many members, and all the members of the body, though they are many, are one body...If the foot says, "Because I am not a hand, I am not a part of the body," it is not for this reason any the less a part of the body. And if the ear says, "Because I am not an eye, I am not a part of the body," it is not for this reason any the less a part of the body. If the whole body were an eye, where would the hearing be? If the whole were hearing, where would the sense of smell be?...God has placed the members, each one of them, in the body, just as He desired. If they were all one member, where would the body be? But now there are many members, but one body. ..." (see part 37 for the full quotation of 1 Cor. 12:12-27).
Marcus Aurelius's Meditations (Long)
Below is quoted a passage from Book 3.11 of the Meditations (Long's translation):
"For nothing is so productive of elevation of mind as to be able to examine methodically and truly every object which is presented to thee in life, and always to look at things so as to see at the same time what kind of universe this is, and what kind of use everything performs in it, and what value everything has with reference to the whole, and what with reference to man, who is a citizen of the highest city, of which all other cities are like families; what each thing is, and of what it is composed, and how long it is the nature of this thing to endure which now makes an impression on me, and what virtue I have need of with respect to it, such as gentleness, manliness, truth, fidelity, simplicity, contentment, and the rest." (emphasis not in original).
The above passage speaks of of things, their functions, and their relationship to a whole. This reminds us of the material quoted earlier in this analysis from 1 Corinthians 12, in which the subject of the relationship of the parts of the human body, to the body as a whole, is brought up:
"For even as the body is one and yet has many members, and all the members of the body, though they are many, are one body...If the foot says, "Because I am not a hand, I am not a part of the body," it is not for this reason any the less a part of the body. And if the ear says, "Because I am not an eye, I am not a part of the body," it is not for this reason any the less a part of the body. If the whole body were an eye, where would the hearing be? If the whole were hearing, where would the sense of smell be?...God has placed the members, each one of them, in the body, just as He desired. If they were all one member, where would the body be? But now there are many members, but one body. ..." (see part 37 for the full quotation of 1 Cor. 12:12-27).
Marcus Aurelius's Meditations (Long)
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Silence of the Lambs analysis - part 47: Mannequins, marionettes, and body parts
CATEGORY: MOVIES
Shown at left is a marionette, which is a name for a puppet operated from above by strings.[a]
In this part of the analysis are listed the various posts (up to this point) in which body parts, mannequins, and marionettes have been discussed, and a brief summary of the applicable material appearing in those posts is given.
In part 12 of the analysis, it was described how the positioning of mannequins in the Jame Gumb 'dance' scene, suggests that Gumb believes he is getting closer to becoming a woman (note that in the screencap at left, taken from the dance scene, one of Gumb's mannequins is 'looking' at him, suggesting that Gumb believes he is getting closer to the point at which he can be 'seen' as a woman).
In part 18, a correspondence was drawn between the partially assembled mannequins in Jame Gumb's house (e.g., that as shown at below left), and the disassembled mannequins 'in' Clarice Starling's unconscious (physically speaking, inside Lecter's 'Your Self' storage unit, as shown at below right). The correspondence is that both Gumb and Starling are trying to become 'complete' women.
In part 20, it was noted that the wording of Book 13, chapter 28, in St. Augustine's Confession, is reminiscent of the fact that Gumb is making a (whole) suit of skin, from patches of skin from various parts of his female victims' bodies.
Marionettes (puppets operated from above by strings) began to be discussed in part 27 of the analysis, in which it was pointed out that Marcus Aurelius (Lecter: "Read Marcus Aurelius."), in his Confessions, distinguishes between substance (material) and cause.
In part 37 was examined the biblical book of 1 Corinthians, and one observation that was made was that in chapter 12 of this book, a correspondence is drawn between the Church and the parts of Jesus' body. The members of the (Catholic) Church with their various functions each comprise a necessary part of the body of Christ.
In part 39, philosopher and theologian Saint Augustine was quoted on the relationship between the senses, and the various sense organs.
In part 42, it was discussed how a portion of Aquinas's Compendium of Theology is suggestive of 'things and that which moves them', and therefore, of the idea of marionettes.
In part 43, an interpretation was given of the hidden 'interaction' via strings between Gumb and Catherine Martin. See the two screencaps (and their captions) below.
The two screencaps above are taken from two different points in the movie timeline. As explained in part 43, what's being indicated is that Gumb's manipulation of Catherine Martin via strings is 'hidden' from plain view. The fact that Catherine is being manipulated, and the 'strings' that are being used to exert this manipulation, are effectively 'invisible' - they are not readily apparent to us. In terms of the marionette metaphor, since Gumb represents Satan's pupil, the manipulating entity is Satan, and the 'entity' being manipulated is some (subset of) 'common man', as represented by Martin.
a. Image from the Wikipedia 'Marionette' page; Marionnette, by SoHome Jacaranda Lilau, Tamelifa Puppeters, Pierre S Frana Line, licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons.
Marcus Aurelius's Meditations (Long)
The Confessions of Saint Augustine (Outler)
Shown at left is a marionette, which is a name for a puppet operated from above by strings.[a]
In this part of the analysis are listed the various posts (up to this point) in which body parts, mannequins, and marionettes have been discussed, and a brief summary of the applicable material appearing in those posts is given.
In part 12 of the analysis, it was described how the positioning of mannequins in the Jame Gumb 'dance' scene, suggests that Gumb believes he is getting closer to becoming a woman (note that in the screencap at left, taken from the dance scene, one of Gumb's mannequins is 'looking' at him, suggesting that Gumb believes he is getting closer to the point at which he can be 'seen' as a woman).
In part 18, a correspondence was drawn between the partially assembled mannequins in Jame Gumb's house (e.g., that as shown at below left), and the disassembled mannequins 'in' Clarice Starling's unconscious (physically speaking, inside Lecter's 'Your Self' storage unit, as shown at below right). The correspondence is that both Gumb and Starling are trying to become 'complete' women.
In part 20, it was noted that the wording of Book 13, chapter 28, in St. Augustine's Confession, is reminiscent of the fact that Gumb is making a (whole) suit of skin, from patches of skin from various parts of his female victims' bodies.
Marionettes (puppets operated from above by strings) began to be discussed in part 27 of the analysis, in which it was pointed out that Marcus Aurelius (Lecter: "Read Marcus Aurelius."), in his Confessions, distinguishes between substance (material) and cause.
In part 37 was examined the biblical book of 1 Corinthians, and one observation that was made was that in chapter 12 of this book, a correspondence is drawn between the Church and the parts of Jesus' body. The members of the (Catholic) Church with their various functions each comprise a necessary part of the body of Christ.
In part 39, philosopher and theologian Saint Augustine was quoted on the relationship between the senses, and the various sense organs.
In part 42, it was discussed how a portion of Aquinas's Compendium of Theology is suggestive of 'things and that which moves them', and therefore, of the idea of marionettes.
In part 43, an interpretation was given of the hidden 'interaction' via strings between Gumb and Catherine Martin. See the two screencaps (and their captions) below.
The two screencaps above are taken from two different points in the movie timeline. As explained in part 43, what's being indicated is that Gumb's manipulation of Catherine Martin via strings is 'hidden' from plain view. The fact that Catherine is being manipulated, and the 'strings' that are being used to exert this manipulation, are effectively 'invisible' - they are not readily apparent to us. In terms of the marionette metaphor, since Gumb represents Satan's pupil, the manipulating entity is Satan, and the 'entity' being manipulated is some (subset of) 'common man', as represented by Martin.
a. Image from the Wikipedia 'Marionette' page; Marionnette, by SoHome Jacaranda Lilau, Tamelifa Puppeters, Pierre S Frana Line, licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons.
Marcus Aurelius's Meditations (Long)
The Confessions of Saint Augustine (Outler)
Silence of the Lambs analysis - part 46: The reason God wants Gumb to be killed
CATEGORY: MOVIES
Earlier in the analysis, it was stated that Gumb is attempting to usurp God's power of creation. However, it is the end result of Gumb's 'transformation' (or more properly, what this desired result represents), and its potential effects on mankind, rather than usurpation itself, that is the key issue. God wants to prevent the bringing about of some thing in particular: what he wants to prevent is the formation of the 'evil kingdom' that, in part 8, we said the suit of skin represents. In later posts, we will be more specific about what the suit represents, and what the 'evil kingdom' is.
Earlier in the analysis, it was stated that Gumb is attempting to usurp God's power of creation. However, it is the end result of Gumb's 'transformation' (or more properly, what this desired result represents), and its potential effects on mankind, rather than usurpation itself, that is the key issue. God wants to prevent the bringing about of some thing in particular: what he wants to prevent is the formation of the 'evil kingdom' that, in part 8, we said the suit of skin represents. In later posts, we will be more specific about what the suit represents, and what the 'evil kingdom' is.
Monday, May 18, 2009
Silence of the Lambs analysis - part 45: The outcome of Starling's analysis
CATEGORY: MOVIES
Lecter hands Starling the case file through the cell bars in Memphis. This signifies the ending of the dialogue portion, of the psychoanalysis he has been doing on her.
A 'delayed' effect of the psychoanalysis occurs when Starling has the revelation on seeing Frederica Bimmel's dress - Lecter had implanted the word "Simplicity" (the name of a dress manufacturer) in her mind, during their discussion in Memphis. This enables her to connect the dress in Frederica's closet with the fact that Jame Gumb is a tailor, and thus figure out what Gumb is up to with regard to his women victim's skins.
Starling has defeated Jame Gumb, who represented the inauthentic woman within her. Thus, she is now a 'complete' woman.
Lecter hands Starling the case file through the cell bars in Memphis. This signifies the ending of the dialogue portion, of the psychoanalysis he has been doing on her.
A 'delayed' effect of the psychoanalysis occurs when Starling has the revelation on seeing Frederica Bimmel's dress - Lecter had implanted the word "Simplicity" (the name of a dress manufacturer) in her mind, during their discussion in Memphis. This enables her to connect the dress in Frederica's closet with the fact that Jame Gumb is a tailor, and thus figure out what Gumb is up to with regard to his women victim's skins.
Starling has defeated Jame Gumb, who represented the inauthentic woman within her. Thus, she is now a 'complete' woman.
Saturday, May 16, 2009
Silence of the Lambs analysis - part 44: Aurelius offers us advice
CATEGORY: MOVIES
From Meditations, Book 2, chapter 1 (Hammond translation):
"Say to yourself first thing in the morning: today I shall meet people who are meddling, ungrateful, aggressive, treacherous, malicious, unsocial. All this has afflicted them through their ignorance of true good and evil. But I have seen that the nature of good is what is right, and the nature of evil what is wrong; and I have reflected that the nature of the offender himself is akin to my own – not a kinship of blood or seed, but a sharing in the same mind, the same fragment of divinity. Therefore I cannot be harmed by any of them, as none will infect me with their wrong. Nor can I be angry with my kinsman or hate him. We were born for cooperation, like feet, like hands, like eyelids, like the rows of upper and lower teeth. So to work in opposition to one another is against nature: and anger or rejection is opposition." [a]
Note that here, there is yet another reference to body parts.
a. Marcus Aurelius. Meditations. Trans. with notes Martin Hammond. London: Penguin Group, 2006. p. 10.
From Meditations, Book 2, chapter 1 (Hammond translation):
"Say to yourself first thing in the morning: today I shall meet people who are meddling, ungrateful, aggressive, treacherous, malicious, unsocial. All this has afflicted them through their ignorance of true good and evil. But I have seen that the nature of good is what is right, and the nature of evil what is wrong; and I have reflected that the nature of the offender himself is akin to my own – not a kinship of blood or seed, but a sharing in the same mind, the same fragment of divinity. Therefore I cannot be harmed by any of them, as none will infect me with their wrong. Nor can I be angry with my kinsman or hate him. We were born for cooperation, like feet, like hands, like eyelids, like the rows of upper and lower teeth. So to work in opposition to one another is against nature: and anger or rejection is opposition." [a]
Note that here, there is yet another reference to body parts.
a. Marcus Aurelius. Meditations. Trans. with notes Martin Hammond. London: Penguin Group, 2006. p. 10.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Silence of the Lambs analysis - part 43: More on marionettes; rel. to the characters
CATEGORY: MOVIES
In part 27 of the analysis, it was mentioned that Marcus Aurelius suggests the concept of marionettes (puppets operated from above by strings) in his book, Meditations. There is a scene in The Silence of the Lambs that takes place in Gumb's basement, in which a close-up shot of Catherine Martin shows her trying to tie a rope that will (Catherine hopes) pull Gumb's dog into the well she is being held captive in. If this specific shot in this scene, is 'combined' (in the mind's eye) with the earlier image seen of Gumb sitting at the top of the well, lowering a rope (on which is attached a waste bucket) to Catherine, the inference to be made is that Gumb (Lecter's/Satan's pupil, with Gumb representing evil Freemasons and Lecter representing evil hermaphroditic Jews) is 'pulling Martin's strings', within some metaphorical sense. However, since no rope is ever actually shown attached to any part of Catherine's body, the context of this 'pulling the strings' metaphor is one in which the 'strings' themselves are effectively invisible, i.e., there is a representation being made here whereby one entity is manipulating another, but this manipulation is 'hidden' from direct view. One way to interpret all of this is that the manipulating entity is Satan, since Gumb represents Satan's pupil, and the 'entity' being manipulated is some (subset of) 'common man', as represented by Martin.
A depiction and interpretation of the foregoing appear below. All quoted material is taken from the Meditations (Hammond translation):[a]
Gumb (Satan's pupil) lowers the waste bucket to Catherine.
"There is nothing to value in transpiring like plants or breathing like cattle or wild creatures; nothing in taking the stamp of sense impressions or jerking to the puppet- strings of impulse..." [Meditations 6.16]
Catherine tries to pull Gumb's dog into the well. (What we're supposed to do is 'pair' this shot with the one immediately above).
"Don't let this directing mind of yours be enslaved any longer - no more jerking to the strings of selfish impulse." [2.2]
Clarice has opened Frederica Bimmel's jewelry box. Note the small figurine of a woman - since Starling represents the Virgin Mary, and the figurine is a marionette (literally, 'little little Mary'), the figurine represents Clarice. As noted above, marionette is also a name for a puppet operated from above by strings.
Metaphorically speaking, Clarice is here looking for the 'source of motion' for the figurine - "Where are the strings?"
"Remember that what pulls the strings is that part of us hidden inside: that is the power to act, that is the principle of life, that, one could say, is the man himself. ..." [10.38]
In the box, Clarice finds these photos of Frederica Bimmel posing for the camera in her underwear. The indication is that sometimes, the Devil uses our vices to pull our strings.
a. Marcus Aurelius. Meditations. Trans. with notes Martin Hammond. London: Penguin Group, 2006. pp. 10, 49, 104.
In part 27 of the analysis, it was mentioned that Marcus Aurelius suggests the concept of marionettes (puppets operated from above by strings) in his book, Meditations. There is a scene in The Silence of the Lambs that takes place in Gumb's basement, in which a close-up shot of Catherine Martin shows her trying to tie a rope that will (Catherine hopes) pull Gumb's dog into the well she is being held captive in. If this specific shot in this scene, is 'combined' (in the mind's eye) with the earlier image seen of Gumb sitting at the top of the well, lowering a rope (on which is attached a waste bucket) to Catherine, the inference to be made is that Gumb (Lecter's/Satan's pupil, with Gumb representing evil Freemasons and Lecter representing evil hermaphroditic Jews) is 'pulling Martin's strings', within some metaphorical sense. However, since no rope is ever actually shown attached to any part of Catherine's body, the context of this 'pulling the strings' metaphor is one in which the 'strings' themselves are effectively invisible, i.e., there is a representation being made here whereby one entity is manipulating another, but this manipulation is 'hidden' from direct view. One way to interpret all of this is that the manipulating entity is Satan, since Gumb represents Satan's pupil, and the 'entity' being manipulated is some (subset of) 'common man', as represented by Martin.
A depiction and interpretation of the foregoing appear below. All quoted material is taken from the Meditations (Hammond translation):[a]
Gumb (Satan's pupil) lowers the waste bucket to Catherine.
"There is nothing to value in transpiring like plants or breathing like cattle or wild creatures; nothing in taking the stamp of sense impressions or jerking to the puppet- strings of impulse..." [Meditations 6.16]
Catherine tries to pull Gumb's dog into the well. (What we're supposed to do is 'pair' this shot with the one immediately above).
"Don't let this directing mind of yours be enslaved any longer - no more jerking to the strings of selfish impulse." [2.2]
Clarice has opened Frederica Bimmel's jewelry box. Note the small figurine of a woman - since Starling represents the Virgin Mary, and the figurine is a marionette (literally, 'little little Mary'), the figurine represents Clarice. As noted above, marionette is also a name for a puppet operated from above by strings.
Metaphorically speaking, Clarice is here looking for the 'source of motion' for the figurine - "Where are the strings?"
"Remember that what pulls the strings is that part of us hidden inside: that is the power to act, that is the principle of life, that, one could say, is the man himself. ..." [10.38]
In the box, Clarice finds these photos of Frederica Bimmel posing for the camera in her underwear. The indication is that sometimes, the Devil uses our vices to pull our strings.
a. Marcus Aurelius. Meditations. Trans. with notes Martin Hammond. London: Penguin Group, 2006. pp. 10, 49, 104.
Monday, May 11, 2009
Silence of the Lambs analysis - part 42: More from Aquinas; rel. to Aurelius
CATEGORY: MOVIES
There is some material of interest on the concept of God's simplicity, in Aquinas's Compendium of Theology. Below is quoted Part 1 of the Compendium, numbers 16 and 17 (from the Regan translation):[a]
16. God Cannot Be a Material Substance
"And it is further clear that God himself cannot be a material substance. For we find a composition in every material substance, since every material substance is something having parts. Therefore, what is altogether simple cannot be a material substance.
"Second, material substances cause motion only by being moved, as is evident in all such things to those who study them. Therefore, the first cause of motion, if it is altogether immovable, cannot be a material substance."
17. God Cannot Be the Form of a Material Substance
"Nor can God be the form of, or a power in, a material substance. For, inasmuch as every material substance can be moved, things in a material substance are necessarily moved, at least by accident, when a material substance is moved. But the first cause of motion cannot be moved intrinsically or accidentally, since it is necessarily altogether immovable, as I have shown [I, 4]. Therefore, it cannot be the form or power in a material substance." (material inside square brackets in original).
Note that the above suggests 'things and that which moves them', and is thus suggestive of the idea of marionettes (puppets operated from above by strings), an idea made use of by Aurelius in his Meditations, as previously mentioned.
a. Thomas Aquinas. Compendium of Theology. Trans. with introduction Richard J. Regan. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. pp. 25-26.
There is some material of interest on the concept of God's simplicity, in Aquinas's Compendium of Theology. Below is quoted Part 1 of the Compendium, numbers 16 and 17 (from the Regan translation):[a]
16. God Cannot Be a Material Substance
"And it is further clear that God himself cannot be a material substance. For we find a composition in every material substance, since every material substance is something having parts. Therefore, what is altogether simple cannot be a material substance.
"Second, material substances cause motion only by being moved, as is evident in all such things to those who study them. Therefore, the first cause of motion, if it is altogether immovable, cannot be a material substance."
17. God Cannot Be the Form of a Material Substance
"Nor can God be the form of, or a power in, a material substance. For, inasmuch as every material substance can be moved, things in a material substance are necessarily moved, at least by accident, when a material substance is moved. But the first cause of motion cannot be moved intrinsically or accidentally, since it is necessarily altogether immovable, as I have shown [I, 4]. Therefore, it cannot be the form or power in a material substance." (material inside square brackets in original).
Note that the above suggests 'things and that which moves them', and is thus suggestive of the idea of marionettes (puppets operated from above by strings), an idea made use of by Aurelius in his Meditations, as previously mentioned.
a. Thomas Aquinas. Compendium of Theology. Trans. with introduction Richard J. Regan. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. pp. 25-26.
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Silence of the Lambs analysis - part 41: The events in Memphis (cont'd)
CATEGORY: MOVIES
Above left: As indicated in part 34 of the analysis, no bread was served with Lecter's second meal in Memphis. Lecter drank the cup of liquid provided with the meal. Above right: Lecter attempts to perform a 'self-resurrection' in the Memphis ambulance.
Recall the earlier discussion of how the events in Memphis, Tennessee represent, in part, the Passover. These events are followed by Hannibal Lecter's attempt at resurrection (Lecter stages his own 'death', and then he attempts to resurrect himself in the ambulance). Since Memphis is the scene of the last conversation between Starling and Lecter (besides their brief phone conversation at the end of the movie), the story of the childhood lamb, that Starling has been sharing with Hannibal, comes to its conclusion: Lecter tells her that it must be her belief, that if she saves Catherine Martin, she will never again have to hear the screaming of the Spring lambs. Since Passover is celebrated during Spring, it can be seen that there is a correspondence between the lambs being slaughtered at the ranch where Clarice was living at some point during her childhood, and the lambs that are killed during Passover. Since Clarice represents the Virgin Mary, the lamb she is holding in Lecter's drawing represents Jesus, the Lamb of God. (Of course, it is also supposed to be a depiction of her childhood lamb that she had tried to save.) Lecter's statement is to be taken as a suggestion to Clarice's unconscious mind that by virtue of her goal of saving Catherine, she is to believe that she wants to, and can, save or 'rescue' Jesus.
Christian tradition, based on New Testament and later writings, links the Last Supper, the last meal Jesus ate before his death, with Passover. According to the apostle Paul, as Jesus prepared himself and his disciples for his death during the Last Supper, he gave the Passover meal a new meaning. 1 Corinthians 5:7 states:
"Get rid of the old yeast that you may be a new batch without yeast—as you really are. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed"
This refers to the Passover requirement to have no yeast in the house and to Christ's identification as the Paschal lamb.
The Christian annual religious feast of Easter has become associated with Jesus’ crucifixion, and the loaf of bread and cup of wine served at the Last Supper has come to symbolize his body soon to be sacrificed and his blood soon to be shed (1 Corinthians 11:23–26). One interpretation of the Gospel of John is that Jesus, as the Passover lamb, was crucified at roughly the same time as the Passover lambs were being slain in the temple, on the afternoon of Nisan 14 (this interpretation is often held to be inconsistent with the chronology according to the Synoptic Gospels). Easter itself commemorates the resurrection of Jesus, and not his crucifixion.[a]
As the Israelites partook of the Passover sacrifice by eating it, most Christians commemorate the Lord's unselfish death by taking part in the Lord's Supper, which ordinance Jesus instituted (1Corinthians 11:15-34), in which the elements of bread and wine are reverently consumed. Most Protestants see the elements as symbolic of Jesus' body and blood, while Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christians hold that the elements are changed into Jesus' literal body and blood, which they then eat and drink.[b]
In the biblical books of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, the bread and wine served with the Passover meal represent Jesus' body and blood, respectively.
Recall from part 34 of the analysis that the second meal served to Lecter, ostensibly represented both a Passover meal and a Lord's Supper; however, no bread was served to Lecter, unlike the normal Passover meal, and unlike a normal Lord's Supper as well. Since no bread was served to Lecter, he could not have partaken of Jesus' body. However, since he drank the liquid (representing wine) provided with the meal, he symbolically partook of Jesus' blood prior to his attempt at resurrection.
a. Wikipedia, 'Easter'. Web, n.d. URL = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter.
b. Wikipedia, 'Passover'. Web, n.d. URL = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passover.
[If you are only interested in viewing the explanation of the film's hidden plot, continue on to part 61 of the analysis. Otherwise, use the buttons below to navigate the analysis.]
Above left: As indicated in part 34 of the analysis, no bread was served with Lecter's second meal in Memphis. Lecter drank the cup of liquid provided with the meal. Above right: Lecter attempts to perform a 'self-resurrection' in the Memphis ambulance.
Recall the earlier discussion of how the events in Memphis, Tennessee represent, in part, the Passover. These events are followed by Hannibal Lecter's attempt at resurrection (Lecter stages his own 'death', and then he attempts to resurrect himself in the ambulance). Since Memphis is the scene of the last conversation between Starling and Lecter (besides their brief phone conversation at the end of the movie), the story of the childhood lamb, that Starling has been sharing with Hannibal, comes to its conclusion: Lecter tells her that it must be her belief, that if she saves Catherine Martin, she will never again have to hear the screaming of the Spring lambs. Since Passover is celebrated during Spring, it can be seen that there is a correspondence between the lambs being slaughtered at the ranch where Clarice was living at some point during her childhood, and the lambs that are killed during Passover. Since Clarice represents the Virgin Mary, the lamb she is holding in Lecter's drawing represents Jesus, the Lamb of God. (Of course, it is also supposed to be a depiction of her childhood lamb that she had tried to save.) Lecter's statement is to be taken as a suggestion to Clarice's unconscious mind that by virtue of her goal of saving Catherine, she is to believe that she wants to, and can, save or 'rescue' Jesus.
Christian tradition, based on New Testament and later writings, links the Last Supper, the last meal Jesus ate before his death, with Passover. According to the apostle Paul, as Jesus prepared himself and his disciples for his death during the Last Supper, he gave the Passover meal a new meaning. 1 Corinthians 5:7 states:
"Get rid of the old yeast that you may be a new batch without yeast—as you really are. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed"
This refers to the Passover requirement to have no yeast in the house and to Christ's identification as the Paschal lamb.
The Christian annual religious feast of Easter has become associated with Jesus’ crucifixion, and the loaf of bread and cup of wine served at the Last Supper has come to symbolize his body soon to be sacrificed and his blood soon to be shed (1 Corinthians 11:23–26). One interpretation of the Gospel of John is that Jesus, as the Passover lamb, was crucified at roughly the same time as the Passover lambs were being slain in the temple, on the afternoon of Nisan 14 (this interpretation is often held to be inconsistent with the chronology according to the Synoptic Gospels). Easter itself commemorates the resurrection of Jesus, and not his crucifixion.[a]
As the Israelites partook of the Passover sacrifice by eating it, most Christians commemorate the Lord's unselfish death by taking part in the Lord's Supper, which ordinance Jesus instituted (1Corinthians 11:15-34), in which the elements of bread and wine are reverently consumed. Most Protestants see the elements as symbolic of Jesus' body and blood, while Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christians hold that the elements are changed into Jesus' literal body and blood, which they then eat and drink.[b]
In the biblical books of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, the bread and wine served with the Passover meal represent Jesus' body and blood, respectively.
Recall from part 34 of the analysis that the second meal served to Lecter, ostensibly represented both a Passover meal and a Lord's Supper; however, no bread was served to Lecter, unlike the normal Passover meal, and unlike a normal Lord's Supper as well. Since no bread was served to Lecter, he could not have partaken of Jesus' body. However, since he drank the liquid (representing wine) provided with the meal, he symbolically partook of Jesus' blood prior to his attempt at resurrection.
a. Wikipedia, 'Easter'. Web, n.d. URL = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter.
b. Wikipedia, 'Passover'. Web, n.d. URL = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passover.
[If you are only interested in viewing the explanation of the film's hidden plot, continue on to part 61 of the analysis. Otherwise, use the buttons below to navigate the analysis.]
Saturday, May 9, 2009
Silence of the Lambs analysis - part 40: More from Thomas Aquinas
CATEGORY: MOVIES
In this post we further discuss Thomas Aquinas on creation, and on the simplicity of God.
With regard to (God as) First Principle, we looked at Part 1, Question 45 of the Summa: "The Mode Of Emanation Of Things From The First Principle" (i.e., creation). Specifically, in part 36 of the analysis, we looked at Aquinas's claim that to create is to make something from nothing. This came up within the context of researching whether or not Gumb (representing evil Freemasons) is performing an act of creation, and it was determined that if we go by Aquinas, Gumb is not creating. Confirmation for this conclusion is contained in Aquinas's Compendium of Theology , Part 1, number 69 (Regan translation): "In Creating Things, God Does Not Presuppose Matter":
"[G]od, in creating things, does not need pre-existing matter out of which to make things. For no efficient cause antecedently needs for its activity what its own activity produces."[a]
Gumb is using pre-existing pieces of skin to make his 'suit' of skin.
Then next in number 70, Aquinas says "Creating Belongs Only To God":
"It is also clear that it belongs only to God to be the creator. For creating belongs to the cause that does not presuppose another, more universal cause, as I have said. But this belongs only to God. Therefore, only he is the creator."[b]
We have also discussed Aquinas's principle of God's simplicity, in the Summa Part 1 Question 3, "Of The Simplicity Of God". We quoted at length from the seventh article of this question. We can obtain somewhat of a summary of Aquinas's concept of God's simplicity by, again, looking at the Compendium of Theology. From Part 1 number 9 (Regan):
"There needs to be something prior to anything composite, since components are by nature prior to the composite. Therefore, the first of all beings cannot be composite. We also see in the order of existing things that simple things are superior to composite things. For example, the elements are by nature prior to mixed material substances, and fire, which is the subtlest element, is prior to other elements. And heavenly bodies, which are constituted in greater simplicity because they are free of every contrariety, are prior to all the elements. Therefore, we conclude that the first of all beings is altogether simple."[c]
a. Thomas Aquinas. Compendium of Theology. Trans. with introduction Richard J. Regan. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. p. 54.
b. Ibid., p. 54.
c. Ibid., p. 22.
In this post we further discuss Thomas Aquinas on creation, and on the simplicity of God.
With regard to (God as) First Principle, we looked at Part 1, Question 45 of the Summa: "The Mode Of Emanation Of Things From The First Principle" (i.e., creation). Specifically, in part 36 of the analysis, we looked at Aquinas's claim that to create is to make something from nothing. This came up within the context of researching whether or not Gumb (representing evil Freemasons) is performing an act of creation, and it was determined that if we go by Aquinas, Gumb is not creating. Confirmation for this conclusion is contained in Aquinas's Compendium of Theology , Part 1, number 69 (Regan translation): "In Creating Things, God Does Not Presuppose Matter":
"[G]od, in creating things, does not need pre-existing matter out of which to make things. For no efficient cause antecedently needs for its activity what its own activity produces."[a]
Gumb is using pre-existing pieces of skin to make his 'suit' of skin.
Then next in number 70, Aquinas says "Creating Belongs Only To God":
"It is also clear that it belongs only to God to be the creator. For creating belongs to the cause that does not presuppose another, more universal cause, as I have said. But this belongs only to God. Therefore, only he is the creator."[b]
We have also discussed Aquinas's principle of God's simplicity, in the Summa Part 1 Question 3, "Of The Simplicity Of God". We quoted at length from the seventh article of this question. We can obtain somewhat of a summary of Aquinas's concept of God's simplicity by, again, looking at the Compendium of Theology. From Part 1 number 9 (Regan):
"There needs to be something prior to anything composite, since components are by nature prior to the composite. Therefore, the first of all beings cannot be composite. We also see in the order of existing things that simple things are superior to composite things. For example, the elements are by nature prior to mixed material substances, and fire, which is the subtlest element, is prior to other elements. And heavenly bodies, which are constituted in greater simplicity because they are free of every contrariety, are prior to all the elements. Therefore, we conclude that the first of all beings is altogether simple."[c]
a. Thomas Aquinas. Compendium of Theology. Trans. with introduction Richard J. Regan. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. p. 54.
b. Ibid., p. 54.
c. Ibid., p. 22.
Silence of the Lambs analysis - part 39: Augustine on the senses; rel. to Lecter
CATEGORY: MOVIES
St. Augustine by Peter Paul Rubens. [Image from the Wikipedia 'Augustine of Hippo' page, public domain, via Wikimedia Commons.]
In part 38 of the analysis, a few examples of how bodily senses (sight, smell, etc.) are used in the movie were pointed out. As it turns out, St. Augustine has something to say about the five senses. Below, I quote portions of three different chapters from Book 10 of his Confessions (Outler translation):
[10.7] "But there is, besides the power by which I animate my body, another by which I endow my flesh with sense - a power the lord has provided for me, commanding that the eye is not to hear and the ear is not to see, but that I am to see by the eye and hear by the ear; and giving to each of the other senses its own proper place and function, through the diversity of which I, the single mind, act."
[10.8] "[L]ight and all colors and forms of bodies [enter the memory] through the eyes; sounds of all kinds by the ears; all smells by the passages of the nostrils; all flavors by the gate of the mouth; by the sensation of the whole body, there is brought in what is hard or soft, hot or cold, smooth or rough, heavy or light, whether external or internal to the body. The vast cave of memory, with its numerous and mysterious recesses, receives all these things and stores them up, to be recalled and brought forth when required. Each experience enters by its own door, and is stored up in the memory. ..."
[10.35] "For seeing is a function of the eyes; yet we also use this word for the other senses as well, when we exercise them in the search for knowledge. We do not say, "Listen how it glows," "Smell how it glistens," "Taste how it shines," or "Feel how it flashes," since all of these are said to be seen. And we do not simply say "See how it shines," which only the eyes can perceive; but we also say "See how it sounds, see how it smells, see how it tastes, see how hard it is." Thus, as we have said before, the whole round of sensory experience is called "the lust of the eyes" because the function of seeing, in which the eyes have the principle role, is applied by analogy to the other senses when they are seeking after any kind of knowledge."
Note a few things about the above: in the first passage, there is a distinction being made between parts of the physical body (the sense organs) on the one hand, and 'control' of the body (that which animates or powers it) on the other. This is reminiscent of Marcus Aurelius on material and cause.
In the second excerpt, a connection is made between the senses and memory. This brings to mind Lecter's statement, "Memory, agent Starling, is what I have instead of a view." Since Lecter is imprisoned alone in his cell, under very high security, his sensory experiences are very limited, so he is dependent upon his memories of them to 'experience' the satisfactions that they provide.
As shown at left, one of the drawings lying on a table in Lecter's cell, is the view of the Duomo from the Belvedere in Florence, Italy. The point is that Lecter drew it from memory, not from an actual recent viewing.
Finally, in the third passage quoted, the subject is the dominance of vision over all of man's other senses. This pertains to the movie in that visual stimuli such as colors and lights are very prominent therein (for example, as discussed in the posts on color mixing).
The Confessions of Saint Augustine (Outler)
In part 38 of the analysis, a few examples of how bodily senses (sight, smell, etc.) are used in the movie were pointed out. As it turns out, St. Augustine has something to say about the five senses. Below, I quote portions of three different chapters from Book 10 of his Confessions (Outler translation):
[10.7] "But there is, besides the power by which I animate my body, another by which I endow my flesh with sense - a power the lord has provided for me, commanding that the eye is not to hear and the ear is not to see, but that I am to see by the eye and hear by the ear; and giving to each of the other senses its own proper place and function, through the diversity of which I, the single mind, act."
[10.8] "[L]ight and all colors and forms of bodies [enter the memory] through the eyes; sounds of all kinds by the ears; all smells by the passages of the nostrils; all flavors by the gate of the mouth; by the sensation of the whole body, there is brought in what is hard or soft, hot or cold, smooth or rough, heavy or light, whether external or internal to the body. The vast cave of memory, with its numerous and mysterious recesses, receives all these things and stores them up, to be recalled and brought forth when required. Each experience enters by its own door, and is stored up in the memory. ..."
[10.35] "For seeing is a function of the eyes; yet we also use this word for the other senses as well, when we exercise them in the search for knowledge. We do not say, "Listen how it glows," "Smell how it glistens," "Taste how it shines," or "Feel how it flashes," since all of these are said to be seen. And we do not simply say "See how it shines," which only the eyes can perceive; but we also say "See how it sounds, see how it smells, see how it tastes, see how hard it is." Thus, as we have said before, the whole round of sensory experience is called "the lust of the eyes" because the function of seeing, in which the eyes have the principle role, is applied by analogy to the other senses when they are seeking after any kind of knowledge."
Note a few things about the above: in the first passage, there is a distinction being made between parts of the physical body (the sense organs) on the one hand, and 'control' of the body (that which animates or powers it) on the other. This is reminiscent of Marcus Aurelius on material and cause.
In the second excerpt, a connection is made between the senses and memory. This brings to mind Lecter's statement, "Memory, agent Starling, is what I have instead of a view." Since Lecter is imprisoned alone in his cell, under very high security, his sensory experiences are very limited, so he is dependent upon his memories of them to 'experience' the satisfactions that they provide.
As shown at left, one of the drawings lying on a table in Lecter's cell, is the view of the Duomo from the Belvedere in Florence, Italy. The point is that Lecter drew it from memory, not from an actual recent viewing.
Finally, in the third passage quoted, the subject is the dominance of vision over all of man's other senses. This pertains to the movie in that visual stimuli such as colors and lights are very prominent therein (for example, as discussed in the posts on color mixing).
The Confessions of Saint Augustine (Outler)
Friday, May 8, 2009
Silence of the Lambs analysis - part 38: References to the bodily senses
CATEGORY: MOVIES
In the below are listed Lecter's references to the bodily senses, during Starling's first visit to him.
SIGHT: "Closer, please. Closer."
HEARING: "[Miggs] hissed at you. What did he say?"
SMELL: "You use Evyan skin cream, and sometimes you wear L'Air du Temps, but not today."
TASTE: "I ate his liver with some fava beans, and a nice Chianti."
The sense of touch (i.e., skin sensation) is being referred to during the first meeting, when Lecter says to Clarice, "That's rather slippery of you, Officer Starling."
In the below are listed Lecter's references to the bodily senses, during Starling's first visit to him.
SIGHT: "Closer, please. Closer."
HEARING: "[Miggs] hissed at you. What did he say?"
SMELL: "You use Evyan skin cream, and sometimes you wear L'Air du Temps, but not today."
TASTE: "I ate his liver with some fava beans, and a nice Chianti."
The sense of touch (i.e., skin sensation) is being referred to during the first meeting, when Lecter says to Clarice, "That's rather slippery of you, Officer Starling."
Silence of the Lambs analysis - part 37: The bible, 1 Corinthians 12
CATEGORY: MOVIES
Above left: Gumb sews a patch of skin from one of his female victims. Above right: Gumb's suit of skin, here shown on a mannequin in his basement, needs just the upper left chest area and left thigh to be complete.
As previously stated in the analysis, Gumb, in making a whole 'suit' of women's skin from parts, represents Satan's pupil/evil Freemasons attempting to usurp God's power of creation. Also stated earlier is that the suit of skin represents an 'evil kingdom' that is being formed. In the below, we look at what the suit represents in a somewhat different light.
In the bible, 1 Corinthians 12, a relationship is drawn between the Church and its members, and the parts of Christ's body. In the below are quoted verses 12-27 from 1 Corinthians 12, in which Paul the Apostle is speaking to the people of the city of Corinth. The New American Standard bible is used.
1 Corinthians 12:12-27
12. For even as the body is one and yet has many members, and all the members of the body, though they are many, are one body, so also is Christ.
13. For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit.
14. For the body is not one member, but many.
15. If the foot says, "Because I am not a hand, I am not a part of the body," it is not for this reason any the less a part of the body.
16. And if the ear says, "Because I am not an eye, I am not a part of the body," it is not for this reason any the less a part of the body.
17. If the whole body were an eye, where would the hearing be? If the whole were hearing, where would the sense of smell be?
18. But now God has placed the members, each one of them, in the body, just as He desired.
19. If they were all one member, where would the body be?
20. But now there are many members, but one body.
21. And the eye cannot say to the hand, "I have no need of you"; or again the head to the feet, "I have no need of you."
22. On the contrary, it is much truer that the members of the body which seem to be weaker are necessary;
23. and those members of the body which we deem less honorable, on these we bestow more abundant honor, and our less presentable members become much more presentable,
24. whereas our more presentable members have no need of it. But God has so composed the body, giving more abundant honor to that member which lacked,
25. so that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another.
26. And if one member suffers, all the members suffer with it; if one member is honored, all the members rejoice with it.
27. Now you are Christ's body, and individually members of it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One theme of the above is that the members of the Church are like the parts of Jesus' body. Jame Gumb (Satan's pupil/evil Freemasons) is assembling his 'suit' of skin from various parts of his victims' bodies. It must be the case that in 'overseeing' Gumb's attempt at making a 'new body', Lecter, as Satan personified/evil hermaphroditic Jews, desires that a metaphorical 'new Church' of some sort be formed, and that this new Church has some correspondence to the formation of the 'evil kingdom' that we said the making of the skin suit represents. Later in the analysis, it will be seen how some of the above verses specifically apply to the movie.
Above left: Gumb sews a patch of skin from one of his female victims. Above right: Gumb's suit of skin, here shown on a mannequin in his basement, needs just the upper left chest area and left thigh to be complete.
As previously stated in the analysis, Gumb, in making a whole 'suit' of women's skin from parts, represents Satan's pupil/evil Freemasons attempting to usurp God's power of creation. Also stated earlier is that the suit of skin represents an 'evil kingdom' that is being formed. In the below, we look at what the suit represents in a somewhat different light.
In the bible, 1 Corinthians 12, a relationship is drawn between the Church and its members, and the parts of Christ's body. In the below are quoted verses 12-27 from 1 Corinthians 12, in which Paul the Apostle is speaking to the people of the city of Corinth. The New American Standard bible is used.
1 Corinthians 12:12-27
12. For even as the body is one and yet has many members, and all the members of the body, though they are many, are one body, so also is Christ.
13. For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit.
14. For the body is not one member, but many.
15. If the foot says, "Because I am not a hand, I am not a part of the body," it is not for this reason any the less a part of the body.
16. And if the ear says, "Because I am not an eye, I am not a part of the body," it is not for this reason any the less a part of the body.
17. If the whole body were an eye, where would the hearing be? If the whole were hearing, where would the sense of smell be?
18. But now God has placed the members, each one of them, in the body, just as He desired.
19. If they were all one member, where would the body be?
20. But now there are many members, but one body.
21. And the eye cannot say to the hand, "I have no need of you"; or again the head to the feet, "I have no need of you."
22. On the contrary, it is much truer that the members of the body which seem to be weaker are necessary;
23. and those members of the body which we deem less honorable, on these we bestow more abundant honor, and our less presentable members become much more presentable,
24. whereas our more presentable members have no need of it. But God has so composed the body, giving more abundant honor to that member which lacked,
25. so that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another.
26. And if one member suffers, all the members suffer with it; if one member is honored, all the members rejoice with it.
27. Now you are Christ's body, and individually members of it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One theme of the above is that the members of the Church are like the parts of Jesus' body. Jame Gumb (Satan's pupil/evil Freemasons) is assembling his 'suit' of skin from various parts of his victims' bodies. It must be the case that in 'overseeing' Gumb's attempt at making a 'new body', Lecter, as Satan personified/evil hermaphroditic Jews, desires that a metaphorical 'new Church' of some sort be formed, and that this new Church has some correspondence to the formation of the 'evil kingdom' that we said the making of the skin suit represents. Later in the analysis, it will be seen how some of the above verses specifically apply to the movie.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Silence of the Lambs analysis - part 36: Aquinas on creation; application to Gumb
CATEGORIES: MOVIES
In part 29 of the analysis, we explored the issue of whether Jame Gumb, in his attempt to 'become a woman' by making a 'suit' (out of women's skins) that he can wear, is performing an act of creation (in the Christian sense).
In addressing whether Gumb is creating, Saint Thomas Aquinas's Summa Theologica was looked at, in specific, at Question 45, First Article: "Whether To Create Is To Make Something From Nothing?" Part 29 dealt with the first objection in this article, with Aquinas's answer to this objection indicating that he does, in fact, believe that to create is to make something from nothing. (Of course, this is Aquinas's position to begin with, and the objections to it are to be taken as being made (by an 'imaginary' opponent) as an argument against this premise; but to apply Aquinas's philosophy to the movie, we need to look at the objections and their replies in detail.) Objection 2 of the First Article is,
"[T]he nobility of action and of motion is considered from their terms. Action is therefore nobler from good to good, and from being to being, than from nothing to something. But creation appears to be the most noble action, and first among all actions. Therefore it is not from nothing to something, but rather from being to being."
Aquinas replies,
"Changes receive species and dignity, not from the term wherefrom, but from the term whereto. Therefore a change is more perfect and excellent when the term whereto of the change is more noble and excellent, although the term wherefrom, corresponding to the term whereto, may be more imperfect: thus generation is simply nobler and more excellent than alteration, because the substantial form is nobler than the accidental form; and yet the privation of the substantial form, which is the term wherefrom in generation, is more imperfect than the contrary, which is the term wherefrom in alteration. Similarly creation is more perfect and excellent than generation and alteration, because the term whereto is the whole substance of the thing; whereas what is understood as the term wherefrom is simply not-being." (emphasis in original)
Finally, a third objection is made and then addressed, then the Summa moves on to the Second Article (of Question 45).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It seems Gumb is altering rather than generating or creating. He is going from being to being; the 'creation' of the suit is obviously not an instance of going from nothing to something. The 'wherefrom' is imperfect: his victims were gluttons in life (recall that Starling tells Lecter that all of Gumb's female victims were large girls), but the 'whereto' (the suit) is even more imperfect, not only because it is being sewn together, which introduces imperfections, but because wearing it would make Gumb's overall physique more 'out of order' or 'distorted'. We conclude that the above passages further verify what was observed at the end of part 29 of the analysis: going by Aquinas, Gumb is not creating.
Catherine Martin is physically large, as are all of Gumb's female victims.
Question 45 of the Summa Theologica on Logos Virtual Library
In part 29 of the analysis, we explored the issue of whether Jame Gumb, in his attempt to 'become a woman' by making a 'suit' (out of women's skins) that he can wear, is performing an act of creation (in the Christian sense).
In addressing whether Gumb is creating, Saint Thomas Aquinas's Summa Theologica was looked at, in specific, at Question 45, First Article: "Whether To Create Is To Make Something From Nothing?" Part 29 dealt with the first objection in this article, with Aquinas's answer to this objection indicating that he does, in fact, believe that to create is to make something from nothing. (Of course, this is Aquinas's position to begin with, and the objections to it are to be taken as being made (by an 'imaginary' opponent) as an argument against this premise; but to apply Aquinas's philosophy to the movie, we need to look at the objections and their replies in detail.) Objection 2 of the First Article is,
"[T]he nobility of action and of motion is considered from their terms. Action is therefore nobler from good to good, and from being to being, than from nothing to something. But creation appears to be the most noble action, and first among all actions. Therefore it is not from nothing to something, but rather from being to being."
Aquinas replies,
"Changes receive species and dignity, not from the term wherefrom, but from the term whereto. Therefore a change is more perfect and excellent when the term whereto of the change is more noble and excellent, although the term wherefrom, corresponding to the term whereto, may be more imperfect: thus generation is simply nobler and more excellent than alteration, because the substantial form is nobler than the accidental form; and yet the privation of the substantial form, which is the term wherefrom in generation, is more imperfect than the contrary, which is the term wherefrom in alteration. Similarly creation is more perfect and excellent than generation and alteration, because the term whereto is the whole substance of the thing; whereas what is understood as the term wherefrom is simply not-being." (emphasis in original)
Finally, a third objection is made and then addressed, then the Summa moves on to the Second Article (of Question 45).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It seems Gumb is altering rather than generating or creating. He is going from being to being; the 'creation' of the suit is obviously not an instance of going from nothing to something. The 'wherefrom' is imperfect: his victims were gluttons in life (recall that Starling tells Lecter that all of Gumb's female victims were large girls), but the 'whereto' (the suit) is even more imperfect, not only because it is being sewn together, which introduces imperfections, but because wearing it would make Gumb's overall physique more 'out of order' or 'distorted'. We conclude that the above passages further verify what was observed at the end of part 29 of the analysis: going by Aquinas, Gumb is not creating.
Catherine Martin is physically large, as are all of Gumb's female victims.
Question 45 of the Summa Theologica on Logos Virtual Library
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Silence of the Lambs analysis - part 35: Augustine on that which God said to Moses
CATEGORY: MOVIES
In part 37 of the analysis, the events that take place in Memphis, Tennessee, and how some of these events comprise a representation of the Passover, were discussed. Also mentioned in part 37 was the biblical book of Exodus, which recounts the flight of the Israelites from Egypt. In the late French philospher Etienne Gilson's book, The Christian Philospophy of St. Thomas Aquinas, there is an interesting passage in which St. Augustine (a predecessor of Aquinas) is quoted on the subject of God's existence. In this passage, mention is made of some of the events in Exodus, and based on the passage, a connection can be drawn between these events and Aquinas's concept of God's simplicity. The quoted material below is from St. Augustine's Tractates on the Gospel of John , in Gilson (all emphasis is in original):
"Nevertheless, pay good attention to the words spoken here, by Our Lord, Jesus Christ: If you do not believe that I am, you will die in your sins. What is this "I am" - I am what? There is nothing added; and because there is nothing added, his word embarrasses us. We were waiting for him to say what he was, yet he did not say it...
"For God had also said to Moses: I am Who am. Who can rightly say what is this I am? By his angel, God sent his servant Moses to deliver his people from Egypt...God was sending him trembling, reluctant but obedient. In order to find some excuse Moses said to God who, he knew, was speaking to him through the angel: if the people ask me, who then is the God that sent thee? What shall I reply? And the Lord said to him, I am Who am; then he repeated: it is He Who Is who has sent me to you. Here, again, he did not say: I am God; or I am the maker of the world; or I am the creator of all things; or again, I am the propagator of this very people who must be liberated; but he only said this: I am Who Am; then, you will say to the children of Israel, He Who Is. He did not add, He Who Is your God; He Who Is the God of your fathers; but he only said this: He Who Is sent me to you.
"Perhaps it was difficult for Moses, even as it is difficult for us too - and even more difficult for us - to understand these words: I am Who Am; and, He Who Is, has sent me to you. Moreover, even if Moses understood them, how could they to whom God was sending him have understood them? God has then postponed what man cannot understand and added what he could understand. This he added, indeed, when he said: I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob (Exod., III, 13-15). This you can understand; but what thought can comprehend I am?"[a]
In part 37 of the analysis, the events that take place in Memphis, Tennessee, and how some of these events comprise a representation of the Passover, were discussed. Also mentioned in part 37 was the biblical book of Exodus, which recounts the flight of the Israelites from Egypt. In the late French philospher Etienne Gilson's book, The Christian Philospophy of St. Thomas Aquinas, there is an interesting passage in which St. Augustine (a predecessor of Aquinas) is quoted on the subject of God's existence. In this passage, mention is made of some of the events in Exodus, and based on the passage, a connection can be drawn between these events and Aquinas's concept of God's simplicity. The quoted material below is from St. Augustine's Tractates on the Gospel of John , in Gilson (all emphasis is in original):
"Nevertheless, pay good attention to the words spoken here, by Our Lord, Jesus Christ: If you do not believe that I am, you will die in your sins. What is this "I am" - I am what? There is nothing added; and because there is nothing added, his word embarrasses us. We were waiting for him to say what he was, yet he did not say it...
"For God had also said to Moses: I am Who am. Who can rightly say what is this I am? By his angel, God sent his servant Moses to deliver his people from Egypt...God was sending him trembling, reluctant but obedient. In order to find some excuse Moses said to God who, he knew, was speaking to him through the angel: if the people ask me, who then is the God that sent thee? What shall I reply? And the Lord said to him, I am Who am; then he repeated: it is He Who Is who has sent me to you. Here, again, he did not say: I am God; or I am the maker of the world; or I am the creator of all things; or again, I am the propagator of this very people who must be liberated; but he only said this: I am Who Am; then, you will say to the children of Israel, He Who Is. He did not add, He Who Is your God; He Who Is the God of your fathers; but he only said this: He Who Is sent me to you.
"Perhaps it was difficult for Moses, even as it is difficult for us too - and even more difficult for us - to understand these words: I am Who Am; and, He Who Is, has sent me to you. Moreover, even if Moses understood them, how could they to whom God was sending him have understood them? God has then postponed what man cannot understand and added what he could understand. This he added, indeed, when he said: I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob (Exod., III, 13-15). This you can understand; but what thought can comprehend I am?"[a]
The simplicity of God is implied by the statement in the above, "I am Who am."
a. St. Augustine, Tractates on the Gospel of John, Tractate 38.8, in Gilson, Etienne. The Christian Philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas. Notre Dame: The University of Notre Dame Press, 1956. pp 85-86.
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Silence of the Lambs analysis - part 34: Details on the events in Memphis
CATEGORY: MOVIES
Above left: Lecter's second meal served to him in Memphis. The silver tray and white napkin indicate that this is, ostensibly, a symbolical Passover meal. However, note that no bread is served with the meal. The meal served to Lecter also (ostensibly) represents a Lord's Supper, but again, no bread is served with it, which is unlike a normal Lord's Supper. Above right: Officer Boyle's blood spattered on the floor of Lecter's Memphis cell. In addition to being a city in the state of Tennessee, Memphis was also the name of a city in ancient Egypt. Note that Lecter drank the liquid provided with the meal, as indicated by the empty cup.
As discussed in part 10 of thits analysis, some of the things that we see in the scene that takes place in Memphis, Tennessee suggest the Passover. More specifically, Lecter's prisoner number there, 'B5160-8', is a reference to Deuteronomy 16 of the bible, which is a passage concerning how to conduct the Passover service. Also, the second meal served to Lecter in Memphis is served on a silver tray with white napkin, indicating the Passover meal. The purpose of this post is to go into detail on the events in Memphis and what they mean.
As described in the Old Testament of the bible, in the book of Exodus (chapters 7-12), ten plagues were visited on Egypt, by God, so that Pharaoh would release the Israelites from slavery and let them leave the country. The first nine plagues included, among other things, locusts and hail. None of these convinced Pharaoh to free the Israelites. The tenth and final plague of Egypt was the death of all Egyptian firstborn — no one escaped, from the lowest servant to Pharaoh's own firstborn son, including firstborn of livestock.
The Torah, the most sacred of Jewish writings, indicates that the Israelite households were spared from this last plague by following God's instructions to each family to sacrifice the Paschal lamb, mark their doorpost with the lamb's blood, and eat the roasted sacrifice together with matza in a celebratory feast. The Torah describes the Angel of Death as actually passing through Egypt to kill all firstborn, but passing over (hence 'Passover') houses that had the sign of lamb's blood on the doorpost. It was this plague that resulted in Pharaoh finally relenting, and sending the Israelites away at whatever terms they wished.[a]
In The Silence of the Lambs, the killing and 'crucifixion' of Officer Boyle in Memphis, by Hannibal Lecter, represents the sacrifice of the Passover's Paschal lamb. Boyle's blood is spattered on the floor of the cell when he is killed, and this means that Lecter hopes the 'angel of death' (Clarice Starling) will pass over this 'door' to the underworld, where Gumb, representing Lecter's (Satan's/evil hermaphroditic Jews') pupil (evil Freemasons), is preparing to kill Catherine Martin. Lecter hopes that Starling will confront Gumb and lose the confrontation (this is in spite of the fact that it seems like Lecter has been helping Clarice).
Since Lecter tries to save his pupil, Jame Gumb, by the spattering of Boyle's (the Paschal Lamb's) blood on his cell floor, representing a door to Gumb's underworld, then Lecter representing an evil hermaphroditic Jew implies that Satan's pupil is a firstborn son of these Jews.
a. Wikipedia, 'Passover'. Web, n.d. URL = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passover.
[If you are only interested in viewing the explanation of the film's hidden plot, continue on to part 41 of the analysis. Otherwise, use the buttons below to navigate the analysis.]
Above left: Lecter's second meal served to him in Memphis. The silver tray and white napkin indicate that this is, ostensibly, a symbolical Passover meal. However, note that no bread is served with the meal. The meal served to Lecter also (ostensibly) represents a Lord's Supper, but again, no bread is served with it, which is unlike a normal Lord's Supper. Above right: Officer Boyle's blood spattered on the floor of Lecter's Memphis cell. In addition to being a city in the state of Tennessee, Memphis was also the name of a city in ancient Egypt. Note that Lecter drank the liquid provided with the meal, as indicated by the empty cup.
As discussed in part 10 of thits analysis, some of the things that we see in the scene that takes place in Memphis, Tennessee suggest the Passover. More specifically, Lecter's prisoner number there, 'B5160-8', is a reference to Deuteronomy 16 of the bible, which is a passage concerning how to conduct the Passover service. Also, the second meal served to Lecter in Memphis is served on a silver tray with white napkin, indicating the Passover meal. The purpose of this post is to go into detail on the events in Memphis and what they mean.
As described in the Old Testament of the bible, in the book of Exodus (chapters 7-12), ten plagues were visited on Egypt, by God, so that Pharaoh would release the Israelites from slavery and let them leave the country. The first nine plagues included, among other things, locusts and hail. None of these convinced Pharaoh to free the Israelites. The tenth and final plague of Egypt was the death of all Egyptian firstborn — no one escaped, from the lowest servant to Pharaoh's own firstborn son, including firstborn of livestock.
The Torah, the most sacred of Jewish writings, indicates that the Israelite households were spared from this last plague by following God's instructions to each family to sacrifice the Paschal lamb, mark their doorpost with the lamb's blood, and eat the roasted sacrifice together with matza in a celebratory feast. The Torah describes the Angel of Death as actually passing through Egypt to kill all firstborn, but passing over (hence 'Passover') houses that had the sign of lamb's blood on the doorpost. It was this plague that resulted in Pharaoh finally relenting, and sending the Israelites away at whatever terms they wished.[a]
In The Silence of the Lambs, the killing and 'crucifixion' of Officer Boyle in Memphis, by Hannibal Lecter, represents the sacrifice of the Passover's Paschal lamb. Boyle's blood is spattered on the floor of the cell when he is killed, and this means that Lecter hopes the 'angel of death' (Clarice Starling) will pass over this 'door' to the underworld, where Gumb, representing Lecter's (Satan's/evil hermaphroditic Jews') pupil (evil Freemasons), is preparing to kill Catherine Martin. Lecter hopes that Starling will confront Gumb and lose the confrontation (this is in spite of the fact that it seems like Lecter has been helping Clarice).
Since Lecter tries to save his pupil, Jame Gumb, by the spattering of Boyle's (the Paschal Lamb's) blood on his cell floor, representing a door to Gumb's underworld, then Lecter representing an evil hermaphroditic Jew implies that Satan's pupil is a firstborn son of these Jews.
a. Wikipedia, 'Passover'. Web, n.d. URL = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passover.
[If you are only interested in viewing the explanation of the film's hidden plot, continue on to part 41 of the analysis. Otherwise, use the buttons below to navigate the analysis.]