Is Roger Ebert Wrong? Or is it me?

Roger Ebert is one of the original, and longest lasting, American film critics. I find that I rarely agree with critics and to a degree that could be a generational gap. I was born in 1999 while Roger was born in 1942. I’m also a snot about old films or movies that take themselves too seriously.

Before even looking into his specific review of “The Silence of the Lambs” I can already tell we have some taste differences. Some of his movie of the year picks include “Juno”, “The Social Network”, and “Crash”. Don’t get me wrong, I appreciate all of those films, they were released the same years as “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows”, “I am Legend” and “Narnia: The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe” which I find to be top competitors for movie of the year.

Ebert describes Clarice as the center ring while Hannibal is the sideshow. Maybe it’s my morbid fascination with serial killers due to my dad being a homicide detective in D.C. my entire life, but I think the most interesting part of the film is Hannibal. Clarice has little interest to me because she’s just another person. Just another FBI agent while Hannibal is part of a very select group.

Ebert believes Clarice and Hannibal to be two sides of the same coin. People ostracized by society for being a killer of being a female FBI agent. What? What kind of comparison is that? How is being a woman the same level as being a literal serial killer that ate people? It’s hard to be a woman in a man’s world as I’ve experienced on film sets myself but I don’t think I’m ostracized to the degree of a cannibal.

Ebert gives Hannibal way more credit and empathy than I think the character should realistically be capable of. He gives Clarice credit for persuading Hannibal into helping her but I read it as Hannibal getting off on her innocence. He knew the whole time who Buffalo Bill was but made her work for it. He gives Hannibal the ability to feel empathy as Clarice explains losing her parents. Again I just don’t think it’s realistic to create this relationship between them. Hannibal as a serial killer should not feel this empathy for her and would not help her for any reason other than personal gratification somehow.

His love for the film is clear, and I appreciate his in-depth analysis of the subtle ways filmmakers make you feel fear via the soundtrack and motifs. Overall though I got very different impressions from the characters. In my opinion their relationship was predatory. Hannibal was using Clarice for specific reasons and made her divulge personal stories in order to help her. She was being used by Hannibal just as much as she was using him. Maybe this is a reflection of era or even regional differences. Ebert was born in Illinois and I was born in Maryland. On the East Coast we tend not to trust one another. I’m also a woman and I keep an eye out for predatory habits.

Ebert will always be an iconic critic, but I have to say he’s wrong on this one.