MovieChat Forums > The Silence of the Lambs (1991) Discussion > Unlike this movie suggests, psychos ain'...

Unlike this movie suggests, psychos ain't complex nor mysterious...

posted 9 years ago by al666940-3
22 replies | jump to latest

The movie Insomnia with Pacino had one nugget of 100% truth on this:
"You're about as mysterious to me as a backed up toilet is to a plumber"

Can't get more real and direct than that (they're nothing but piles of crap worthy of nothing but a flush)

That's how fascinating/mysterious/intriguing these types are to law enforcement, whom unlike what people may think, DO deal with psychos/sociopaths daily (gang bangers, muggers, wife beaters, etc). They just ain't glamorous enough to make much out of them.

But they are all just as pathetic and insignificant as even the most notorious ones (Bundy, Ridgeway, BTK, etc)

Heck, even Bob Kepler, that writer dude about Ted Bundy, or whomever wrote The Riverman (when Ted offered to help catch the Green River Killer), points out that when Ted began begging for one final stay of execution (his appeals had run out) by appealing to scientific curiosity "For you to truly understand why I liked such things and why I did such things", Kepler 's reply was more or less "unless that helps me catch others like you before they kill people, I really don't care about any of your particulars one way or the other".

I'm not knocking the movie, loved it, but characters like Lecter simply are phonies and conmen (pretending there's anything worthwhile about them), nothing more. Unfortunately idiots like Clarice (and eventually Harris himself whom clearly fell in love with his own creation and the rolling cash it produced) fall for their act.

[–] Gabe1972 9 years ago

1. This film doesn't suggest that they are.
2. This film suggests Lector is, which he clearly is.

3. And this should be completely obvious, but a film with a character that is labeled something doesn't suggest that everyone in the real world who is labeled the same thing has the same characteristics as the character in the film. If you think that it does, the world must be tragically disappointing for you.

If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure. - George W. Bush

[–] Jefbecco-1 9 years ago

I'm a police officer. Sixteen years in October of 2016. I've had lots of contacts with those folks who have various emotional and mental conditions. Some are dangerous, some are tedious, some are pathetic, some are sad, some make you angry.......well you get the picture. Lector is a fictional creations. The uber villain. That's all. I think he is a very effective creation. I like all the movies.

[–] Gabe1972 9 years ago

Exactly. It's too bad the OP believes a film representation is trying to say everyone with the same label is like lector. I think some people just shouldn't watch fictional films. They tend to confuse them with real life.

I just threw up a little in my mouth.

[–] vojkan087 9 years ago

Even trolls aren't what they used to be...

[–] Edward_de_Vere 9 years ago

SoTL's Dr. Lecter is largely responsible for the myth of the genius serial killer.

The small grain of truth behind this myth is the fact that serial killers are significantly more intelligent than the average criminal (as opposed to the average person). The mean IQ of most prison inmates is in the 80's. Serial killers stand out by having IQ's in the high average range (e.g. both Ted Bundy and John Wayne Gacy had IQ scores around 120, manyother prominent serial killers had IQ's of 100-110: competent but nowhere near "genius"), which goes with the territory because someone with an IQ of 80 wouldn't be able to carry out multiple murders for so long without getting caught.

That doesn't mean that most (or any) of them were brilliant Renaissance men who mastered all fields of science, savored the fine arts, and learned a dozen foreign languages when they weren't busy torturing and murdering. Those who think otherwise never learned to separate entertainment from reality.

[–] pistrix 8 years ago

With all due respect you are kind of arguing two different points.

1) the intelligence level of serial killers

2) what they bother to learn or not learn.

There have been indeed serial killers that have hit above 130 on the IQ test. Ted Kaczynsk sure a bomber injured many and killed 3, his IQ was 167. Rodney Alcala had a 160 IQ. Charlene Williams was also 160.

However, all that aside, yes there can be smart serial killers, there can be dumb ones. Serial killers simply succeed because they are obsessed and driven to do what they want and they plan meticulously. Their first kill is generally not perfect, but they learn from it and change to improve their ways and methods.

But sure some serial killers have been intelligent enough to never be caught, The Zodiac killer comes to mind.

What serial killers bother to learn or not learn is their own choice. It has no bearing on their level of intelligence.

((Damn the remakes, Save the originals.))

[–] drgnndblls88 8 years ago

the thing with psychopaths/sociopaths is, once you figure one out, you've figured all of them out.

also, they need us. they can't survive without the rest of the population. on the other hand we can do perfectly well without them, better in fact.

[–] rmoriarty97 8 years ago

Can't get more real and direct than that (they're nothing but piles of crap worthy of nothing but a flush)

He didn't actually mean it like that - he meant that for cops, psychopaths are an obvious and simple problem, like a blocked toilet to a plumber.

Another example could easily have been used. And they obviously aren't such a simple problem, if the FBI believes it necessitates the establishment of a large BSU dedicated to solving it.