Thursday, February 11, 2010

Silence of the Lambs analysis - part 69: Addressing supposed errors in the movie


Let us examine some supposed 'goofs' made by the movie-makers, and show that they are, in reality, intentional aspects of the movie. The following two items are listed as "factual errors" in the movie on the Internet Movie Database website.[a]

1) "Although [the creation by Jame Gumb of] a human skin garment is implied, most of the sewing examples [in the film] are blatantly wrong to anyone experienced in tailoring. For example, [one scene] shows [Gumb] sewing on one end, single thickness. He's not sewing anything to anything else, and he's using a piece that is typically cut off and discarded during garment construction."

Gumb at work.

We, the readers of this analysis, know that there is an explanation for what is said above about Gumb's work: we know that each of Gumb's (evil Freemasons') victims represents a day of creation, insofar as the suit he is assembling represents the 'spreading' of Lecter's (evil hermaphroditic Jews') 'word' (scripture); but, we have seen from St. Thomas Aquinas's Summa Theologica that only God can create. Gumb's bungling attempt at creation is doomed to fail. (Note to those viewing only the parts of this analysis that explain the movie's hidden plot: It is not necessary to have read the posts in which the writings of Thomas Aquinas are discussed, to understand the hidden plot).

2) "The biologist identifies the moth found behind [one of Jame Gumb's] murder victim's soft palate as Acherontia styx, the Deaths Head moth. The Deaths Head moth used in the [movie's theatrical release] poster is actually Acherontia atropos. (A third Deaths Head moth is called Acherontia lachesis.) While A. styx is native to Asia, as identified by the biologist, A. atropos is native to the Middle East and Mediterranean."

The above is explained by the fact that insect biologists are lying to Starling, when they examine the moth cocoon that she brings them (the one found in the mouth of the murder victim who was shown being autopsied - the same victim mentioned above): the moth's species actually is Acherontia atropos, but the biologists want Starling to believe it is Acherontia styx, so they tell her it is. The biologists are working with Jame Gumb, as stated previously in the analysis, and they are assisting Gumb by deceiving Starling on the species of the moth. More information on the moths and the details of this deception, will be covered later in the film's hidden plot thread.

The species of moth (whose cocoon is shown at left) that is examined by the two Smithsonian biologists is Acherontia atropos (click screencap to enlarge). One difference between the skull-like marking of A. styx, and that of A. atropos, is that it is anteriorly narrower in A. styx.[b]

The theatrical release poster for The Silence of the Lambs.[c] The skull-like marking in the image of Acherontia atropos is bright white here, due to the fact that the image was edited by one or more of the film's artists, so that the marking is composed of strategically-placed tiny drawings of bodies of naked white women.[d]

a. "The Silence of the Lambs (1991) Goofs." The Internet Movie Database. Internet Movie Database Ltd. Web, n.d. URL =
b. Rothschild, Walter and Karl Jordan. A Revision of the Lepidopterous Family Sphingidae. London and Aylesbury: Hazell, Watson, and Viney Ld., 1903. Google Books, p. 154. URL =
c. Image from the Wikipedia 'The Silence of the Lambs (film)' page; "The Silence of the Lambs poster", licensed under fair use via Wikipedia. The poster art copyright is believed to belong to the distributor of the item promoted, Orion Pictures, the publisher of the item promoted or the graphic artist.
d. Wikipedia, 'Silence of the Lambs (film)'. Web, n.d. URL =

[If you are only interested in viewing the explanation of the film's hidden plot, continue on to part 70 of the analysis. Otherwise, use the buttons below to navigate the analysis.]


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.


All images on this blog are used solely for non-commercial purposes of analysis, review, and critique.

All Wikipedia content on this blog, and any edits made to it, are released under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share-Alike License 3.0.

Marcus Aurelius's Meditations - 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 Augustine's Confessions and City 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.