For the movie Silence of the Lambs, Anthony Hopkins based his portraial as a cross between Truman Capote, Katharine Hepburn and HAL. He is the devil, but a very charming, witty, seductive, all clever and wise, sexual and lethal. He is manipulative, mysterious and highly intelligent. He has so much depth you are in awe if him. Lecter is loosely based on the real-life serial killer Alfredo Ballí Treviño (aka Dr. Salazar), a Mexican doctor who gruesomely dismembered his lover in the 1960s. Novelist Thomas Harris took his own experience from meeting Treviño and incorporated some of the doctor's physical and psychological traits into the mold of the infamous cannibalistic serial killer that would become Hannibal Lecter. Harris understood that even the most despicable people aren't all bad and humans are incomprehensibly complicated by nature. Russian serial killer Andrei Chikatilo, Albert Fish, Pietro Pacciani 'The Monster of Florence' (Thomas Harris was seen taking notes at his trial). Plus William Coyne a local murderer who had escaped from prison in 1934 and gone on a rampage that included acts of murder and cannibalism.
He plays psychological games on his victims by assering his intellectual dominance. ''You were doing fine. You were courteous, and receptive to courtesy. You had established trust with the embarrassing truth about Miggs.'' His calculating nature makes every sentence a potential trap, luring you into his webb. He manipulates you by instructing your mind constantly, like guided meditation: ''sit, tell me, you send that through now, fly back to school now, dont move, you're in shock now, in a moment you'll be light headed.''
Assering constant control over everything. Asking intimate questions that cut to the root of their character, verbally pocking around in areas that are off limits: ''Did you nurse Catherine yourself?" - "What is your worst memory of childhood?" - So their guiding motivations become predictable so he is in control. Psychologically devouring you.
He studies peoples speech patterns, scent and apperance, emphasising with peoples emotions while being able to read them. Understanding their thought process, weaknesses and strengths so he can take advantage of them for his own ends. This doesnt only apply to people, and can come up with plots and plans with access to only ninimal resorces, and being able to see into the future. All of these intellectual traits make him a prodigy and a genius with an intellect and hyper- sensitivity rarely found in people. It's his thirst for knowledge that drives him towards the forbiden. He has a cultured and elegant air about him, polite and moving gracefully but he can also be unnaturaly still, in total control of each movement.
The Silence of the Lambs shows people manipulating others for bad (Buffalo Bill tricking Catherine into the van) and for good (Clarice making a fake offer to Hannibal Lecter in order to save Catherine). There's a big gray area when it comes to manipulation. Despite needing to manipulate Lecter, Clarice does not like feeling manipulated herself. No one does. But she does see that it's necessary for Jack Crawford to keep things from her in order for them to succeed.
CHILTON: Crawford's very clever, isn't he? Using you. […] A pretty young woman to turn him on. Jack Crawford is doing the best he can to manipulate Lecter into talking, even if he has to use Clarice to do it. We'll see later on that he has manipulated her too, in a way.
CLARICE: If Lecter feels that you're his enemy, then, um, well maybe we'll have more luck if I go in by myself. Clarice can play the manipulation game too. She puts up with Dr. Chilton just long enough to get access to Lecter, then she sends him away.
LECTER: Closer, please. Closer. Here, Lecter manipulates Clarice into moving closer to his cell, which she isn't supposed to do. But the director also manipulates us, by using close-ups of the actors almost exclusively. These camera angles make us feel a lot closer than we'd ever want to be.
LECTER: You think you can dissect me with this blunt little tool? Clarice is doing a good job at convincing Lecter to talk to her, but she blows it when she hands him the FBI questionnaire. Lecter requires skill and subtlety. The FBI questionnaire is too blatant a move.
CRAWFORD: The orderly heard Lecter whispering to him all afternoon and Miggs crying. They found him at bed check. He'd swallowed his own tongue. Lecter is so good at manipulating people, he convinces Miggs to kill himself, without even touching the man. That's so crazy, we want to know what he said to him. Or maybe we don't… [Dr. Chilton takes away Lecter's drawings, turns off the lights, and puts a televangelist show on the TV.]
Dr. Chilton uses psychiatry as punishment. In this way, he and Lecter are kindred spirits. If they weren't on different sides of the bars, and if they played nice with others, they might make a diabolical team. The filmmakers are geniuses at manipulating us to the extent that we're almost happy at the end to see Chilton being Lecter's next victim.
CRAWFORD: If I had sent you in there with an actual agenda, Lecter would have known it instantly. He would have toyed with you, and then turned to stone. This quote references the first one in this section, and what we said about Crawford manipulating Starling too. He keeps her in the dark, and says it's for her own good. Is he right to do this, or is he not giving her enough credit?
LECTER: Quid pro quo. I tell you things, you tell me things. […] Quid pro quo. Yes or no? Here we have Lecter's ultimate manipulation. Clarice is told not to let Lecter inside her head, but now she must, or else he won't help her. It's a power play. Lecter removes any power Clarice might have, and he finds out things that he could use against her. But by this point, he likes her, and it's a good thing too. Or else he could use these facts to destroy her.
Professor James Oleson in the Journal of Criminal Justice and Popular Culture (during 2005-2006). Oleson did a thorough review of various academic literatures and noted (in his 2005 paper) the following in relation to (i) the appeal of serial killers, and (ii) the appeal of Lecter more specifically: “Apter (1992) suggests that serial killers transfix people because dangerous things – like serial killers – tend to create a state of invigorating psychological arousal. To neutralize the feelings of anxiety that accompany dangerous threats – like serial killers – we use protective frames such as narrative explanations or criminological theories. In explaining the serial killer’s behavior, we allow ourselves to succumb to the exciting magnetism of evil (Kloer, 2002) and can thereby ‘experience the excitement of arousal without being overwhelmed by anxiety’ (Ramsland, 2005)…Why do we love Lecter? Perhaps because he is the ‘perfect gothic hero’ (Dunant, 1999) or because he is the perfect gothic antihero (Dery, 1999). Perhaps it is because the heroic and the villainous co-exist within him. Because he is Obi Wan Kenobi and Darth Vader rolled into one (Hawker, 2001), because he is Darth Vader and Superman rolled into one (Cagle, 2002), or because he is Sherlock Holmes and Professor Moriarty rolled into one (Sexton, 2001)”.
fied two key precursors that have a high association with serial homicide – a pathological fantasy life and childhood trauma. Oleson argues that Lecter fits “this basic etiological model” because “he enjoys a rich and detailed fantasy life” and “he suffered serious childhood trauma”. Oleson also recounted the FBI’s research into ‘organized’ and ‘disorganized’ serial killers, and argued that there was evidence across all Harris’ books that Lecter displayed all 14 profile characteristics of an organized serial killer: (i) average to above-average intelligence, (ii) socially competent, (iii) skilled work preferred, (iv) sexually competent, (v) high birth order status, (vi) father’s work stable, (vii) inconsistent childhood discipline, (viii) controlled mood during crime, (ix) use of alcohol with crime, (x) precipitating situational stress, (xi) living with partner, (xii) mobility with car in good condition, (xiii) follows crime in news media, and (xiv) may change jobs or leave town.
Oleson also notes there are some models of serial killing that Lecter does not fit at all. For instance, the ‘addiction model’ of killing argues that some serial killers have a compulsion to kill and that they become addicted to killing (as put forward in the 1988 book Serial Killers by Dr. Joel Norris, and the 1996 book The Psychopathology of Serial Murder by Dr. Stephen Giannangelo). Another psychological model associated with serial killers is the concept of ‘sociopathy’ and ‘psychopathy’ (now termed ‘antisocial personality disorder’). Throughout Harris’ novels there are various references to Lecter being a sociopath and in the films he is described as being a psychopath (most notably by the psychiatrist Dr. Frederick Chilton, Director of the Baltimore State Hospital for the Criminally Insane, where Lecter was sent after being caught by his former profiling partner at the FBI (Will Graham). Oleson uses Dr. Robert Hare’s commonly used Psychopathy Checklist (first published in a 1980 issue of the journal Personality and Individual Differences) and convincingly shows that there is little evidence that Lecter is a psychopath.
Another model that Lecter does not fit is the “homicidal triad” of warning-sign behaviours (i.e., bed-wetting, animal cruelty, and fire starting) outlined in the many books of the FBI’s Dr. John Douglas and Mark Olshaker. This FBI research asserts that these three warning behaviours (particularly when they co-occur in adolescence) signal an elevated risk of subsequent serial homicide. However, Oleson shows that Lecter does not fit this profile at all. In his second (2006) paper, Oleson also assesses to what extent Lecter is insane. According to the M’Naughten test for insanity:
“It must be clearly proved that, at the time of committing the act, the party accused was laboring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing, or that [if] he did know it, that he did not know he was doing what was wrong (Finkel, 1988)”. Oleson argues that Lecter “flunks the M’Naughten test on all counts”. In fact he goes on to say that: “[Lecter] does not suffer from a defect of reason – if anything, as a genius with an infinitely rare IQ score, he may suffer from a superhuman perfection of the reason... Similarly, Lecter knows perfectly well the nature and quality of the crimes he commits, and he knows that they are denounced as wrong by society…The character of Hannibal Lecter would be deemed sane under more recently developed tests for insanity, as well. Lecter, in perfect command of his will, does not commit his crimes because he is compelled. Accordingly, he would not be insane under any formulation of the irresistible impulse test (Finkel, 1988). Nor would he be found insane under the American Law Institute test. ‘A person is not responsible for criminal conduct if at the time of such conduct as a result of mental disease or defect he lacks substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law’ (Finkel, 1988). Lecter possesses both near-infallible cognitive ability and an iron will. He in no way fits the categories of insanity articulated under prevailing rules”.
Oleson's papers also examine the idea that Lecter may be a non-human monster, a vampire, a superhuman, and/or the Devil. He also speculates that his crimes may be the product of his superhuman intellect (as Lecter’s IQ is so high that it cannot be assessed by any instruments that are currently used). As Oleson concludes in the second of his three papers:
It has been suggested that the character of Hannibal Lecter is so memorable because he emerges from paradox…It could simply be the case, however, that Lecter is such a successful villain because we love monster stories…because we need monsters…and because the Lecter novels skillfully combine the police procedural with particularly resonant elements of the supernatural horror story”. I (for one) love the paradox of Lecter’s personality and character. Both (super)man and monster. I admire some of his character traits but (of course) despise others. He is a highly flawed criminal genius and polymath. A serial killer and a cannibal. Victim and villain. In his third paper on Lecter, Oleson asserts something that I agree (and will leave you) with:
“By asking why Hannibal Lecter commits his crimes, criminologists may be able to use the Lecter novels and movies as a catalyst for the study of the etiology of serial homicide. The character of Hannibal Lecter is, after all, based on real life serial killers, and provides readers and viewers with an intimate (if hyperbolic) case study of an organized serial killer. Characters drawn from novels can serve as valuable heuristic devices…teaching us a great deal about the nature of crime and evil”.