I read the book, the book definitely makes it more clear “bill” is not trans. The FBI ends up getting the name of the suspect from a list of patients John’s Hopkins turned down for surgery because of the psychological testing.
Thank you! It even points out Clarice stating that transsexuals are passive, peaceful people not prone to violence. Lecter even says Buffalo Bill "Isn't a real transsexual, but *thinks* that he is."
To be fair, doesn't even Lecter himself agree that Buffalo Bill ain't a real transgender, and merely uses it as an excuse for his heinous crimes? If I recall correctly, in the film's universe, the idea of transgenderism isn't exactly all that new, with the idea itself being treated as normal, and the reason why Bill himself got denied was due to his criminal history. The way I see it, they even made sure to point out that, again, Bill isn't a real transgender, nor is he a good representation of one, and that the reason why he's fucked up was because of some past childhood trauma. To top it off, the only reason why Bill thought he was transgender was that he wanted to "evolve" into something beautiful to escape his ugly past, which, again, leads to everyone else in the movie agreeing that he isn't a real transgender, and, again, he only uses it as an excuse and outlet for his trauma. As a cherry on top, the Hannibal films (Red Dragon and SOTL) focus heavily on the idea of mental health, and why it's important to make sure you don't create serial killers like Hannibal, the Red Dragon, and Buffalo Bill. You could also look at it as a warning sign to not mistreat those struggling with gender misidentity, else you might get people who, in desperation, become serial killers after years of abuse, confusion, rage, and pain.
You're correct that there's a scene where Hannibal Lecter reads Buffalo Bill as 'not really a tr*ns*xual.' But that doesn't make much material difference in the end. The character still ties general gender-nonconformity to psychotic, criminal behavior and sexual deviancy. Heck, Ted Levine is on-record saying his two resources for getting into character were listening to FBI tapes of psychotic criminals, and interviews he conducted with random trans women and drag queens. There's plausible deniability with what Lecter said, and that's it. People still make the connection between Buffalo Bill and transgender folks, or at least the connection between transgender folks and mental instability. I know this because you yourself are making the argument that a potential lesson is not to mess with trans people because we might just snap and become a serial killer. And anecdotally, I see fellow trans creators here on RUclips being called Buffalo Bill, among other unpleasant things, in their own comment section to this day.
ye but the whole concept that a third party can decide whether or not you are a real genuine trans person *is* transphobic. it would be a different story if buffalo bill themself took a moment to voice from their own perspective that they’re not really transexual, but all those other people are basically invalidating the identity which is not ok regardless of criminal background. trans people can be criminals, serial killers, good people or bad people. the point is that trans people exist and we need to stay away from invalidating trans identity, especially just so we can pat ourselves on the back for avoiding calling a serial killer trans. its just a major cop out like ya this serial killer is totally trans in every way except name and thats how we avoid getting cancelled
I think it’s valid for anyone to be offended by this film. Films can’t be completely devoid of complexity and controversy that might hurt somebody, especially if it’s an early 90s crime thriller. But being offended by the movie doesn’t mean the movie did anything wrong. And for those people who say non trans people will look at them and say “oh, you’re like Buffalo bill?” Again that’s not the film’s fault. The film is filled with complexity and nuance. TERFs and ignorant people can mistranslate anything to fit their narrative. Please don’t let hateful people ruin an iconic masterpiece, people. Don’t let the hateful interpretation become the primary interpretation.
People are too easily offended about every little thing, perhaps they should stop being so bloody self absorbed and then they may not be so damn unhappy and easily offended in the first place.
@@Gorehoundula Triggered isn't the same as offended for a start, and I'm neither I stated an opinion which is neither triggered or offended. So perhaps learn the difference before making a comment.
I think the film is a critically looking at the patriarchal structure of society at the time. Lector is an allegory for the forces that use their power and wisdom to control and manipulate. The film captures the ignorance and misunderstanding of trans that was happening in this time period. I dont think the writer was suggesting that buffalo bills gender was the root of his evil actions. I think it was part of his identity that he struggled with through his experience of abuse and trauma. I think the film is trying to use it to say something about the hypermasculinity that causes people to hide their authentic self. In the same way jodie fosters character has to conform to the damagingly macho front of the police force buffalo bill has to hide aspects of himself that society would see as unacceptable. The film suggests that society has a partial role to play in peoples corruption. It is a period piece but its aware of the shadow of the world it is critiquing. There will be values in the time we are living in that people will look back and find to be wrong too. Another way to look at it, is lector is not an archetype of a heterosexual man of aristocratic descent but a traumatised man who chose to use his intelligence for evil. Its just a pity that there were barely any other films that explored transgenderism and buffalo bill lazily became a representative. I think the ending has an uneasy tension as jodie has assimilated a lot of the macho brutal qualities to become accepted as a woman cop. Its suggesting we will accept as long as you conform to our values and ways of being.
@@mrteaparty6090 throughout the film it’s shown that Clarice is looked down upon by her fellow agents, she is asked to step out of a meeting by Jack to appease the local police and is harassed by both Chilton (an important figure in his workplace) and Miggs (the inmate who Lecter talks into killing himself) demonstrating how both the people who are supposed to assist her in her investigation and the criminals she meets in the field view her as lesser because of her gender. Chilton makes many advances towards her, and is hostile after she refuses, and Miggs is just awful to say the least… There are several articles which go more into depth (and are likely more eloquent than my brief summary), but that’s the gist of it. Hope this helps. It’s definitely a fascinating subject to look into if you’re interested.
I forgot to mention, she is shown to have overcome this at the end by her coworkers learning to respect her. And earlier in the film, when she confronts Jack Crawford because he caved in front of the local cops and he apologizes for doing so, although it should be noted that Crawford himself does view Starling as being an incredibly bright and capable agent. Rather he just gave in to social pressure, and admits he was wrong to do so.
Yeah he wasn't actually transgender the reason he wants to be a woman is bcs he wants to hold on to memories of his deceased mother that he only had few moments with he has an identity crisis the movie makes that very clear he used to be a neonazi but now he has decided to become a woman bcs he wants to become his mom
I read the book and watched the film, it's not about transsexuals. Even Lecter points out that Buffalo Bill isn't a real transsexual, but that he *thinks* he is, and Clarice also states that transsexuals are passive, peaceful people. In the book, he was also not gay and beat up/killed gay men. Buffalo Bill wasn't a real transsexual nor was he meant to represent any transsexuals.
Really good nuanced take. Even if something does try to distance itself from something harmful, the fact that it still relies on archetypal codes of trans representation still means it fits within the paradigm. Even Jonathan Demme felt ashamed that the Silence of the Lambs ended up propagating these negative attitudes in the minds of the myopic mass audience. This is very different, but it's sort of like in Twin Peaks, the FBI is portrayed as an almost mystical group of those who seek out and combat the forces of evil and mysteries, which is not what the FBI is like at all in real life. I doubt that David Lynch or Mark Frost sincerely believe the FBI is actually like this, but the fact that they present them in that manner does uphold it's stature of moral authority. I also like your use of the two sources. While I like stuff that has been done by both Renegade Cut and Rob Ager, the former can toe a certain ideological line to the detriment of a well-thought out or subversive argument, and the latter at times puts too much value in intent and background detail, and he should stick to more close analysis rather than bringing in the sociopolitical analysis (for he clearly isn't very good at it when he chooses to engage, at least in this one).
Thanks for watching. Yes, I get what you're saying about Twin Peaks and I see the parallel here. That's interesting. I also agree with your opinions on Rob Ager and Renegade Cut, both of which I would cite as influences on my work. I haven't caught up with them in a while (I have not consumed much political/film content in general lately) but I was compelled to sample them here because their comments on Buffalo Bill both left a personal impression on me.
What's wrong with the FBI being portrayed in that manner? Most of time FBI are either portrayed as over confident and incompetent look at any cop movie. And, it portrays one FBI agent that way, the portrayal of singularity is not equitable to a portrayal of everyone associated with the group of that singularity.
@@lampad4549 It's not that it's inherently bad, in the sense that it is a detriment to the series' narrative. It's just that I've seen people (some who claim to be progressive) jump through mental hoops to convince themselves there is nothing conservative in Lynch's work when there is some. This shouldn't be seen as a negative right away, and it speaks to an immaturity to want your favorite artists to perfectly reflect your worldview. Again, I don't think David Lynch or Mark Frost sincerely believe the FBI is how Twin Peaks presents them, but there is a certain identification considering Lynch himself plays one of them, and in a generally positive and humorous light. (I also don't see why comparing other cop show presentations of the FBI is entirely relevant to the issue I brought up) Also, yes Cooper is the character who has the most moral idealization (although admiddetly the Return at the end twists these conceits), but the FBI on the whole in Twin Peaks is associated with a certain moral authority and a crusade against mysterious evils (whatever the individual quirks the characters themselves may have). None of them are presented as corrupt. It's not like the show is without some corruption, (Deer Meadow), but in the town of Twin Peaks itself, all the policemen are morally sturdy (again, with quirks), and in the Return, there is only one corrupt law enforcement officer in the town. Legal authority is on the whole a positive institution in Twin Peaks, with some bad apples. Not that it is a bad thing in of itself, it just should be acknowledged if you want to look at the show from a social perspective.
IDK, I just...it's a movie. It explicitly states Bill is not a trans person. You say that this narrative reasoning isn't good enough as it reinforces denial of identity and medical gatekeeping. Ok. I can totally see that point. But at the end of the day...it's a movie? It's not meant to be a treatise on gender and identity. At the end of the day it's about a sick, mentally disturbed serial killer. It's not meant to be representative of trans people, gay people, or even serial killers. It's a fictional story. It's not about "trans people as murderers." It's about Buffalo Bill, murderer. You say it yourself: The film doesn't encourage disgust at transgenderism, but depravity. Buffalo Bill is depraved. His fictional psychosis is just that - fictional. He's a villain, not somebody to relate to. Ok, so what's the issues? Maybe I'm being too obtuse. I'm not LGBTQ. I fully acknowledge my experience with a film is not going to be everyone else's. I can empathize enough to see how this film, or others with similar subject matter, can make trans individuals feel not so great or invalidated or offended. But at the end of the day, I'm a firm believer in looking at what is film is saying itself - not always linking it back to some real-world theory and then praising it or condemning it based on interpretation through theory. I realize theory is like, a MASSIVE part of analyzing film and art in general. But I for one dislike the practice as a whole and would rather discuss film through the lens of the personal experience and interpretation.
I totally understand where you are coming from, but there's a problem with the "it's just a movie" argument. The thing is, transphobia doesn't have to stem from transphobes saying "well trans people suck and are terrible yadda yadda". Transphobia can also stem from media representations of gender non-conforming people (as mentioned in the video I believe). I watched a video by Lindsay Ellis, I think, who said something along the lines of "what people walk out of the theaters remembering is not Hannibal's saying that BB is 'not a true transsexual', it's the imagery surrounding BB". Having watched it myself, while keeping the potential transphobic view quite in the forefront of my brain, I definitely remember that line. But, I was also specifically watching and listening for it. A little other thing is that (I think) that line comes early on in the movie, before the worse imagery appears. I would wager that the average moviegoer would likely forget the Hannibal line very quickly, but what would stay is the imagery surrounding BB. That's where the (likely non-purposeful) transphobia can enter. The movie contains tropes surrounding trans women and GNC folks, which simply continues already dangerous views. For what it's worth, I don't think I have seen a single person who sees the film as transphobic say that the film therefore sucks, or something like that. For me personally? I think that the film tried to not be transphobic, but kinda failed because of the way it was made. So many connections between BB and views of trans women were made, and frankly, the one line? Not really enough. (Also saying that "his real psychology is something far more terrible" implies the original statement was terrible [ie being a transsexual]) But, even though I consider the film transphobic, but not purposely, I still consider it a very good film.
I forget where I read this so I might be wrong, but I read that Jonathan Demme felt so bad for rationalizing transphobia in this movie that he used the same techniques he uses here, like the intense symmetrical face close-ups, on his next film Philadelphia. Instead of using these to dehumanize the character and creep the audience out, in Philadelphia, the more Tom Hanks gets sick, the camera gets closer and tries to humanize his character.
Hey ! Maybe I'm late to this but I wanted to tell you that I've just noticed with this video how much you have improved in term of narration and speech/intonation. It makes me really happy because your audio was ( in my opinion !) holding you back previously. I hope you will keep going in this direction and as always, great video !
I think I'm just better at vocal delivery now, but unfortunately audio will continue to fluctuate a bit, depending on where I record. Unfortunately, I'm unable to always record in the same place.
@@styleissubstance Hey all it takes is one vid on the trending tab to really expand, and you've put out nothing but quality vids that are fit for that. But knowing RUclips they'll probably just keep trending the newest "Everything wrong with [Marvel Movie] in 2 minutes" 😂
The movie is deeper than gender ideology. Its a study for a high case profile and they are trying to get to the root to find the killer. I think this movie shows up close and personal topics that make anyone uncomfortable. It shows that anyone could have a darker side and we wouldnt know. I dont think many films had mentioned transgender surgery either (this is the only one I've seen at least), so it's interesting to see it for this movie being older. They are mentioning it to learn more about the killer and I dont remember it seeming malicious in anyway. It shows the predatory behavior around the female protagonist and how her and many other women have to be on guard. You can see and sense the sexual undertones for everything. I think your analysis is good but shows bias on gender ideology. Your basing it on a newer cultural perspective that doesn't associate with all aspects of art. Just random, but I find it strange how in some moments you mentioned cis woman to just woman. It just seemed silly to back and forth on the term. I do know what its definition is for your culture though.
Very interesting video. I'm actually working on the relationships between the music and the characters in this movie (for my master degree) and I've discovered things that could reinforce your point of view. For exemple, Lecter is often associated with classical music as the conventional music for serial killer in Hollywood (since Fritz, around the 1930'). But Buffalo Bill doesn't have this music, he is in fact associated with pop music or disco which were during a big part of the 70s and 80s associated with LGTBQIA+ community (and Afro-americans). So even though this is not said explicitly in the movie that he is gay or transgender, the music plus the pictures of him in the club in his basement (thanks btw because I didn't noticed it before) reinforce the idea of him/her being part of this community somehow. We also have the use of the music "American Women" (that you depict as a moment of freedom for the female character singing it in her car) but that can be in the other hand linked to Buffalo Bill in the idea of him killing her in order to be in her skin : in the skin of an American girl so he/her could express his/her real gender identity. I know that during the 90's (and also in the story of cinema) others music had been associated with serials killer (like "hip to be square" in American psycho), but these musics are not randomly chosen. In the case of "American Psycho" (for exemple), it is in fact related to the main character Patrick Bateman (having the contradiction between the lyrics "hip to be square" and him not fitting in this society). Well idk if this is readable, I tried my best (I'm French so this is not my native language) but I'll be pleased to talk with you about that for my research if you're up to.
Great video, there's a few things I'd like to point out though, some additional perspectives. In the special features on the DVD, the film makers interpretes the cave and the well as symbolic of Bill's connection with insects, as it seems he has dug out the basement by himself as some sort of termite. When the movie was released, there was actually a lot of controversy over the fact that Gumb was interpreted as gay, with the gay movement protesting the film fearing it would lead to homophobic violence or widespread misconceptions. In a kind of wholesome plot twist, director Jonathan Demme actually took this criticism to heart, acknowledging that why no ill intention was involved, the lack of other media presentation makes the movie run the risk of creating negative connotations. Sure enough, his next feature film was Philadelphia (1993).
Had I made this video a few minutes longer, I would have included Demme's retrospective thoughts on the matter. He clearly recognized merit to the criticism. At the time, trans identities were often (unfairly) classified as gay, so I'd assume Demme would recognize merit in arguments of transphobia.
Interesting thing is that the book that this film was adapted from, Buffalo Bill wasn't gay at all and actually hated gays. He beat them up and killed them. The head in the jar in the storage unit was the head of a dutch (I think he was dutch or something) sailor who was the lover of Benjamin Raspail. Buffalo Bill had killed that sailor and the book touches on his violence towards gays, too. I didn't really like that they made him gay in the movie.
Ok my take on this film is exactly what lecter said. " billy is not a real transexual although he tries to be... you see billy was not born a criminal but was made one through years of systematic abuse. Billy hates his own identity..." & theirs scenes that are in the film & deleted that further expound on him wanting to obliterate who he is bc of his childhood trauma. Dr. Lecter we learn is like the most brilliant person anyone has ever scene so if HE says buffalo bill is not transgender than that's canon. Also lecter eats people bc he sees them as below him like we eat animals he sees people that way & chooses certain people to eat bc of their manners or being bad people. In hannibal he does not feed on mason verger but he does what he does to him bc Mason is a pedophile who's family's wealth bought him a very minor sentence where he doesnt go to prison but is ordered therapy. I'm guessing hannibal sees mason as so low he wouldnt bother eating him that's why he feeds his face to the dogs. In sotl I feel like lecter admires clarice & wants to help her bc she is a good person who rose above her rough childhood of losing both parents living w/ relatives & when they got upset she tried to free the lambs sent her to an orphanage & from there she made it all the way to the fbi. In the deleted scene with the doctor & from what lecter said theirs a psychological test & he was rejected bc of " severe childhood disturbances " but isnt that good that its saying that transgender people are not " insane " or " delusional or damaged " ? I felt the movie made it clear that this serial killer is not transgender & therefore it's not a commentary that trans people are crazy serial killers. I don't know if bill is gay . I think as lecter said he is a very damaged person from a horrific childhood. Basically if bill was raised in a loving home he would not be a serial killer. He also is shown to be insane bc its ridiculous he thinks he can wear a womans suit & nobody would notice ? I mean the scalp w/ hair is ridiculous as stated in the video bc he could grow his hair out but I guess since he is balding get a wig ( as he has male pattern baldness ) I cant imagine anyone w/ a spec of intelligence would think bill is a representation of a transgender female. So that person who equated the transgender female to buffalo bill is ignorant. Another thing i learned was that many gay people do not like being lumped in w/ trans ( LGBTQ) so it's sad that they are hated by another minority group. The same as black people another minority group that suffered & suffers bigotry to this day are bigoted themselves about gay black men & women. I have a good friend I worked w/ a black gay man who was so angry at other black people for their extreme prejudices. So theirs bigotry among groups that experience bigotry themselves which imo is sad bc you would think they would have more empathy towards another group. I also wonder would bill have ok if he was given the surgery ? By being rejected that's when he became a serial killer to acquire all parts of women to make the suit. Or was he just too disturbed that nothing would help? Finally I have seen a few documentaries where people did have the surgery & took the hormones & were still very depressed & or felt they made a mistake & wanted " their gender back " in the end I just hope that the people who do not understand transgender people treat them w/ dignity & respect & don't harm them or discriminate against them.
There are MANY “transgender” people who are not really transgender. Just look at all the De-transition videos on RUclips now. They are popping up more and more. These are people who had other issues by their own admission and thought transitioning would solve those issues and did not. Remember that this film is 30 years old. Transgender people and the subject itself was nowhere on people’s minds in those days. Im old enough to remember. I was a kid when this movie came out and I’m transgender myself. I tend to agree with Mr.Ager on many of his points about Bill. And no Buffalo Bill was not mis gendered.
I have some disagreements with this comment, but I actually plan to talk about detransitioning in relationship with another film and I may touch on this film briefly.
@@styleissubstance That is not true, or more specifically not the origin meaning of it. Transgender always meant from one gender to the other, as there are only two sexes.
Whatever. If trans folks want to be accepted as regular members of society, then they have to accept being portrayed as anyone, even serial killers - just like anyone else. Are you special, or are you just one of 'us'? Can't have it both ways.
As a transsexual person, I appreciate this nuanced look into the character of Buffalo Bill. As you said in the video, people often misconstrue the context of what the film is trying to say about his not being a true transsexual, etc., so it’s great to see somebody expand upon this subject as you have. Thank you. 🙂
I think they make that distinction via Dr. Lector’s outright statement (he had a similar patient), so that they could separate being trans from being a serial killer. I did appreciate that the movie repeated that outright, because I do not believe people are too “short-sighted” to remember. Actually, for the time it came out, it was quite the opposite- it was impactful for me and others! I was very glad that they put that in there *because of* the lack of discussion around trans people at the time… and a lack of discussion usually means a lack of knowledge. It was great that they did not leave any possible interpretation of a parallel between being trans and being a serial killer.
At about 8:30 you say that by simply denying the gendered status of serial killer Jame Gumb, that this contributes to transphobic tropes. This isn't true when you consider the context of the film. Hannibal Lecter is a former physician, a practicing psychiatrist who treated patients, and a surgeon before that as well. Despite being a serial killer he knows his stuff, hence the FBI consulting his expertise. And eventually during the course of the investigation, the identity of Buffalo Bill is discovered after finding the name of man who requested a sex-change operation but that request was rejected by a panel of doctors, so the clarification on Gumb's mental state, that he doesn't suffer from gender dysphoria, isn't based on Lecter's medical opinion alone. This is not a transphobic or problematic decision simply because you say it is, with all due respect. In real life, it's vital that doctors don't rely on a patient's self-made diagnosis, because such a diagnosis is prone to error. Medical treatments based on a misdiagnosis can easily be harmful and dangerous, and depending on the case, the law might even find the doctor guilty of medical malpractice. It's malpractice when doctors simply relies on the self-diagnosis of a patient. No good doctor would diagnose in that manner.
I agree. When you’re the doctor, you should be the one doing the diagnosis, not affirming the patient’s diagnosis. And while some people nowadays think that anyone who identifies as trans should never be denied any treatment, I think that a psychiatric evaluation is required. A psychotic person cannot consent. A psychotic person cannot consent to sex nor to a sex change.
holyyyy shit this analysis is fantastic!! your interpretation is so poetic and revolutionary, i love to see it! so so so awesome to see another person reading film from the trans perspective
Explain to me as if I was 5 years old: How on earth can any human being desire to be the other sex without (!) having internalized heavy prejudices towards both sexes and seeing one as much more superior as the other? Just how? Transgenders have very twisted views on sexes and their ‚roles‘, envying (so rejecting to the extent of hate) the sex they are not and rejecting (to the extent of hate) the sex they are. This is all very unconscious and can even be ingrained in their DNA which is just genetical information due to transgenerational unsolved traumas. Every and any identity is just that. Information.
@@styleissubstance Oh, so actually are making efforts to appear to adjust your body to your mental image of you. I was not aware of that as I did not come across your channel until now. Well, to me it is a major incomprehension that one has to take hormones to adjust the bodily functions (including the mind). Hormones are, of course, als well as emotions an effect of your thoughts/ideas which produce those and other procedures in the body. To me the only thing making sense is to adjust ideas or rather to lose all ideas of identity if you go all in, to be in balance naturally. All else are tricks and a strategy to avoid one's own ideas. Same with any other externally delivered substance. They may seem like the solution but they are of course not. If anything those can help bridge the time gap until you're ready to face yourself. Our suppression mechanisms are very strong though. Yet, it is the only solution long term.
How would you compare the implicit/unintentional transphobia of Lambs to the overt transphobia of Dressed To Kill? Aside from the commonalities in terms of cultural impact (ultimately it seems any depiction of a killer or predator who is gender-non-conforming in any way seems to feed into negative stereotypes), DTK goes out of its way to make it clear that the killer is a transgender woman, but at the same time seems much more interested in exploring the concept of transgenderism beyond that killer - i.e. the interview scene, Nancy Allen very eagerly and explicitly describing the process of bottom surgery, etc. It almost seems like De Palma was just fascinated by the idea of transgender women in general, but being the way he is, his primary point of entry to explore this concept was "Psycho". As opposed to Lambs simply dismissing the possibility that the killer is trans and refusing to engage with transgender people or experience any further while rather obtusely assuming this throwaway line will stand out in the audience's memory as much as the Goodbye Horses or lotion scenes. In retrospect, while neither movie did anything positive for transgender representation, the overall reception seems telling. Lambs remains a well-loved film, praised by a critical establishment seemingly satisfied by Lector's line dismissing Jame as transgender, while the "masses" have latched onto "Goodbye Horses" in memetic and generally very toxic fashion. Meanwhile DTK has a mixed reception by critics and is largely a sort of scapegoat for transphobia in film, yet wider audiences largely seem to have forgotten it, as if it's just too strange and uncomfortable for them to engage with on any level.
I'm not sure why I didn't see this comment until now. Hmm... off the cuff thoughts: Dressed to Kill is an interesting case study for me because Brian DePalma is adopting tropes (problematic or otherwise) into an aesthetic framework and as a dialog with other films, rather than making actual meaningful social commentary on transgenderism. This doesn't make the film not transphobic, however. I was under the thought it was violently transphobic until I saw Body Double and realized what he's doing with trope and aesthetic. I am not really a fan of the film but I really don't think we are supposed to take any of it seriously. Though, one *could* posit that confronting the associations is better than outright rejecting them altogether while passively contributing nevertheless.
@@styleissubstance I like that you mention Body Double, that's gotta be my favorite De Palma and definitely sort of a Rosetta Stone when it comes to his style in general
@@styleissubstance Well I did a test comment a few minutes ago, but what I meant was a long ass comment a few days ago. I just could have swore I actually posted it, instead of hitting cancel.
Turns out I can view it in my email. Try copying and reposting this and we can resolve this thread: Death Alchemist Well said to be honest. When I first heard the argument that the film was transphobic, I didn't think much of it. I found Bill disgusting for their appropriation of female bodies, not for them supposedly being trans (the statements by Lecter firmly dissociated them in my mind). Not to mention that the serial killer influences, like Ed Gein who did try to make a female skinsuit. However, the Rolling situation really got me to see this in a new light, given her own cross-dressing serial killer. I think what made it worse with her is that her transphobia is inextricably tied to the text, given how she has acted and stereotypes trans ppl. Unlike the director of this movie who acknowledged the lack of representation for lgbt ppl in media. You showed the cut line of Bill wanting to be reborn as a woman to go back to his mother which is a very Freudian thing. Freud's ideas do make for some good stories, but are not accurate and can do more harm than good (the same could be applied to psycho). Getting back to the main point, I think positioning Bill as a depraved man who is similar to certain real life serial killer was an unsuccessful way of distancing BIll from being seen as trans. Probably would have been better to not mention it all. Seeing BIll as trans kind of reinforces the TERF was of thinking imo, a man trying to be a woman against the "true woman". We really need better representations of trans ppl. I do kind of see the movie ending positively in a way. Ironically, Lecter was the only person who gave Clarice respect and he even goes after one of piggish male characters. Also, the handshake could be seen as that one FBI agent meekly accepting defeat. I heard you did a video on Salo so I am going to watch that afterward when I get the time.
@@styleissubstance Thanks for this because I did not remember what I exactly wrote. Well said to be honest. When I first heard the argument that the film was transphobic, I didn't think much of it. I found Bill disgusting for their appropriation of female bodies, not for them supposedly being trans (the statements by Lecter firmly dissociated them in my mind). Not to mention that the serial killer influences, like Ed Gein who did try to make a female skinsuit. However, the Rolling situation really got me to see this in a new light, given her own cross-dressing serial killer. I think what made it worse with her is that her transphobia is inextricably tied to the text, given how she has acted and stereotypes trans ppl. Unlike the director of this movie who acknowledged the lack of representation for lgbt ppl in media. You showed the cut line of Bill wanting to be reborn as a woman to go back to his mother which is a very Freudian thing. Freud's ideas do make for some good stories, but are not accurate and can do more harm than good (the same could be applied to psycho). Getting back to the main point, I think positioning Bill as a depraved man who is similar to certain real life serial killer was an unsuccessful way of distancing BIll from being seen as trans. Probably would have been better to not mention it all. Seeing BIll as trans kind of reinforces the TERF was of thinking imo, a man trying to be a woman against the "true woman". We really need better representations of trans ppl. I do kind of see the movie ending positively in a way. Ironically, Lecter was the only person who gave Clarice respect and he even goes after one of piggish male characters. Also, the handshake could be seen as that one FBI agent meekly accepting defeat. I heard you did a video on Salo so I am going to watch that afterward when I get the time.
@@maxcosta806 this analysis is based on the presumption that it's harmful to trans people. I disagree, because identity should not matter in works of fiction. A movie about slavery is not harmful to black people, a movie about a cheating husband is not harmful to men.
@@haps2019 Late reply, but I would argue that this is an exception to most cases in that it's not saying that ALL men are bad, so much as Starling has found herself in a professional environment where toxic masculinity is rampant - the FBI. She's dealing with a bunch of macho men and detectives in her line of work, and those happen to be a vast majority of the kinds of men we see her interact with.
No he didn't lol. Given the feminization of the pictures he's drawing attention to, the logical conclusion would be they are potentially trans women in this hypothetical. The word "transsexual" is fairly erroneous now too. Also your comment is transphobic in implications. You describe trans men as "women who feel like men."
Style is Substance Just how exactly is Lasagna Gut’s comment transphobic? Why would a trans person want to transition to/present as a specific gender identity in particular that’s different than the identity that they were born with originally, if they didn’t feel like they better associated with it / it described them more accurately in the first place?
Sorry but you accusing the audience of being too short sighted to be able to understand that Gumb isn't trans, is downright patronising and condescending and you are underestimating the sophistication of the audience, and you are just projecting your own personal bias and insecurities and has little to do with reality. T he people most vilainised and negatively portrayed as serial killers are white males, even though the reality is that 17% of serial killers are women and that 20% of serial killers are POC. So your woe is me about the "negative" portrayal of trans as serial killers really doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Also speaking as a woman many of us feel that trans are appropriating our identities and in the process demeaning what it is to be a woman and womanhood . Rob Iger wasn't implying trans identifying men aren't women, he said no such thing, you hear what you want to hear. But if he were implying that he wouldn't be wrong, trans identifying males are exactly that, they are not women the same way as I am, and not just because of biology/anatomy but in every way conceivable they are not the same as me or any other woman. The film highlights the sexism that women still face on a daily basis (very accurately I must say) but that was completely ignored. Just because you don't like the character of Buffalo Bill it doesn't mean that he couldn't have been trans, you don't get to pick and choose who is acceptable to be trans and who isn't. As a point of reference in the UK 59% of trans identifying male prisoners, were convicted of violent/sexual offences against women, so to say they are no threat is inaccurate, because that is a far higher percentage than the general population and even the male prison population and this statistic cannot be ignored. I started this video hoping to get see/hear an interesting and objective analysis from another perspective, but it always seems these things come out with the usual projection and personal bias rather then anything of real substance, and as per usual ended up with the lazy psychobabble about vaginal imagery, birthing etc with no real or genuine insight or understanding of what was being said other than it sounded good. With gender ideology there is so much mental gymnastics that no matter what anyone does, say's or thinks they will always be transphobic, unless they totally conform to the ideology in every aspect and never question anything. Also if you had read JK Rowling's book you would know he isn't a cross dresser or trans he just wears a woman's coat and wig as a disguise, and believe it or not disguises have been used in thousands of books and films and have nothing to do with trans, you really need to stop seeing everything as being trans, the world believe it or not doesn't revolve around it.
@@sammic7492 I like this film and Buffalo Bill just fine. If you actually pay attention, I do talk about the good representation of sexism. If you actually paid attention, I'm merely exploring both sides of an argument regarding the characterization of Buffalo Bill. I refuse to take anyone who talks about the villainization of white men seriously. I refuse to take anyone who says trans women appropriate womanhood seriously, especially if they're trying to lecture about what is and isn't transphobic. So no, just no.
@@styleissubstancecheck again, buddy. Nearly every mass shooter you see in the news has a gender identity disorder. Unfortunately you don’t even care about where your “facts” came from about your “true self”.
Im sooo glad someone finally talks about it, as a trans person myself, I thought the movie would at leasttt have some good rep, oh boy was I wrong. I mean, what was the reason for making a believed trans person a sick murderer... I tried to look up more about the characters backstory too, to at least look for a reason why, maybe some redeeming qualities, and the amount of transphobia and homophobia I found was so upsetting.
I can understand you're view but it is stated by Hannibal Lecter, a psychiatrist who knows how people think, especially psychopaths like Buffalo Bill, that he is not trans. He is a deranged person who wants to become beautiful so he tries to become a woman. He isn't doing this because he feels he would rather be a female but because he wants to be sexy and beautiful.
![[DOKKAN BATTLE] Worldwide Campaign Announcement Video Part 2!](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/JpT5Voak6WA/mqdefault.jpg)
I read the book, the book definitely makes it more clear “bill” is not trans. The FBI ends up getting the name of the suspect from a list of patients John’s Hopkins turned down for surgery because of the psychological testing.
Thank you! It even points out Clarice stating that transsexuals are passive, peaceful people not prone to violence. Lecter even says Buffalo Bill "Isn't a real transsexual, but *thinks* that he is."
@@leviacronym6770 I find difficulty reconciling that statement post-Audrey Hales muder spree.
To be fair, doesn't even Lecter himself agree that Buffalo Bill ain't a real transgender, and merely uses it as an excuse for his heinous crimes?
If I recall correctly, in the film's universe, the idea of transgenderism isn't exactly all that new, with the idea itself being treated as normal, and the reason why Bill himself got denied was due to his criminal history.
The way I see it, they even made sure to point out that, again, Bill isn't a real transgender, nor is he a good representation of one, and that the reason why he's fucked up was because of some past childhood trauma. To top it off, the only reason why Bill thought he was transgender was that he wanted to "evolve" into something beautiful to escape his ugly past, which, again, leads to everyone else in the movie agreeing that he isn't a real transgender, and, again, he only uses it as an excuse and outlet for his trauma.
As a cherry on top, the Hannibal films (Red Dragon and SOTL) focus heavily on the idea of mental health, and why it's important to make sure you don't create serial killers like Hannibal, the Red Dragon, and Buffalo Bill. You could also look at it as a warning sign to not mistreat those struggling with gender misidentity, else you might get people who, in desperation, become serial killers after years of abuse, confusion, rage, and pain.
You're correct that there's a scene where Hannibal Lecter reads Buffalo Bill as 'not really a tr*ns*xual.' But that doesn't make much material difference in the end. The character still ties general gender-nonconformity to psychotic, criminal behavior and sexual deviancy. Heck, Ted Levine is on-record saying his two resources for getting into character were listening to FBI tapes of psychotic criminals, and interviews he conducted with random trans women and drag queens.
There's plausible deniability with what Lecter said, and that's it. People still make the connection between Buffalo Bill and transgender folks, or at least the connection between transgender folks and mental instability. I know this because you yourself are making the argument that a potential lesson is not to mess with trans people because we might just snap and become a serial killer. And anecdotally, I see fellow trans creators here on RUclips being called Buffalo Bill, among other unpleasant things, in their own comment section to this day.
ye but the whole concept that a third party can decide whether or not you are a real genuine trans person *is* transphobic. it would be a different story if buffalo bill themself took a moment to voice from their own perspective that they’re not really transexual, but all those other people are basically invalidating the identity which is not ok regardless of criminal background. trans people can be criminals, serial killers, good people or bad people. the point is that trans people exist and we need to stay away from invalidating trans identity, especially just so we can pat ourselves on the back for avoiding calling a serial killer trans. its just a major cop out like ya this serial killer is totally trans in every way except name and thats how we avoid getting cancelled
I think it’s valid for anyone to be offended by this film. Films can’t be completely devoid of complexity and controversy that might hurt somebody, especially if it’s an early 90s crime thriller.
But being offended by the movie doesn’t mean the movie did anything wrong. And for those people who say non trans people will look at them and say “oh, you’re like Buffalo bill?” Again that’s not the film’s fault. The film is filled with complexity and nuance. TERFs and ignorant people can mistranslate anything to fit their narrative. Please don’t let hateful people ruin an iconic masterpiece, people. Don’t let the hateful interpretation become the primary interpretation.
I have been called Buffalo Bill by people before but I see that more as a failing of culture's engagement with gender than I do this film.
People are too easily offended about every little thing, perhaps they should stop being so bloody self absorbed and then they may not be so damn unhappy and easily offended in the first place.
@@sammic7492 I think your comment is the only triggered one I noticed so far.
@@Gorehoundula Triggered isn't the same as offended for a start, and I'm neither I stated an opinion which is neither triggered or offended. So perhaps learn the difference before making a comment.
@@sammic7492 Uh huh.
I think the film is a critically looking at the patriarchal structure of society at the time. Lector is an allegory for the forces that use their power and wisdom to control and manipulate. The film captures the ignorance and misunderstanding of trans that was happening in this time period. I dont think the writer was suggesting that buffalo bills gender was the root of his evil actions. I think it was part of his identity that he struggled with through his experience of abuse and trauma. I think the film is trying to use it to say something about the hypermasculinity that causes people to hide their authentic self. In the same way jodie fosters character has to conform to the damagingly macho front of the police force buffalo bill has to hide aspects of himself that society would see as unacceptable. The film suggests that society has a partial role to play in peoples corruption. It is a period piece but its aware of the shadow of the world it is critiquing. There will be values in the time we are living in that people will look back and find to be wrong too. Another way to look at it, is lector is not an archetype of a heterosexual man of aristocratic descent but a traumatised man who chose to use his intelligence for evil. Its just a pity that there were barely any other films that explored transgenderism and buffalo bill lazily became a representative. I think the ending has an uneasy tension as jodie has assimilated a lot of the macho brutal qualities to become accepted as a woman cop. Its suggesting we will accept as long as you conform to our values and ways of being.
I have a Question: How did Clarice overcome challenges of her gender in a predominantly male world to prevail as the story's heroine?
@@mrteaparty6090 throughout the film it’s shown that Clarice is looked down upon by her fellow agents, she is asked to step out of a meeting by Jack to appease the local police and is harassed by both Chilton (an important figure in his workplace) and Miggs (the inmate who Lecter talks into killing himself) demonstrating how both the people who are supposed to assist her in her investigation and the criminals she meets in the field view her as lesser because of her gender. Chilton makes many advances towards her, and is hostile after she refuses, and Miggs is just awful to say the least… There are several articles which go more into depth (and are likely more eloquent than my brief summary), but that’s the gist of it. Hope this helps. It’s definitely a fascinating subject to look into if you’re interested.
I forgot to mention, she is shown to have overcome this at the end by her coworkers learning to respect her. And earlier in the film, when she confronts Jack Crawford because he caved in front of the local cops and he apologizes for doing so, although it should be noted that Crawford himself does view Starling as being an incredibly bright and capable agent. Rather he just gave in to social pressure, and admits he was wrong to do so.
Yeah he wasn't actually transgender the reason he wants to be a woman is bcs he wants to hold on to memories of his deceased mother that he only had few moments with he has an identity crisis the movie makes that very clear he used to be a neonazi but now he has decided to become a woman bcs he wants to become his mom
I read the book and watched the film, it's not about transsexuals. Even Lecter points out that Buffalo Bill isn't a real transsexual, but that he *thinks* he is, and Clarice also states that transsexuals are passive, peaceful people. In the book, he was also not gay and beat up/killed gay men. Buffalo Bill wasn't a real transsexual nor was he meant to represent any transsexuals.
Really good nuanced take. Even if something does try to distance itself from something harmful, the fact that it still relies on archetypal codes of trans representation still means it fits within the paradigm. Even Jonathan Demme felt ashamed that the Silence of the Lambs ended up propagating these negative attitudes in the minds of the myopic mass audience.
This is very different, but it's sort of like in Twin Peaks, the FBI is portrayed as an almost mystical group of those who seek out and combat the forces of evil and mysteries, which is not what the FBI is like at all in real life. I doubt that David Lynch or Mark Frost sincerely believe the FBI is actually like this, but the fact that they present them in that manner does uphold it's stature of moral authority.
I also like your use of the two sources. While I like stuff that has been done by both Renegade Cut and Rob Ager, the former can toe a certain ideological line to the detriment of a well-thought out or subversive argument, and the latter at times puts too much value in intent and background detail, and he should stick to more close analysis rather than bringing in the sociopolitical analysis (for he clearly isn't very good at it when he chooses to engage, at least in this one).
Thanks for watching. Yes, I get what you're saying about Twin Peaks and I see the parallel here. That's interesting.
I also agree with your opinions on Rob Ager and Renegade Cut, both of which I would cite as influences on my work. I haven't caught up with them in a while (I have not consumed much political/film content in general lately) but I was compelled to sample them here because their comments on Buffalo Bill both left a personal impression on me.
What's wrong with the FBI being portrayed in that manner? Most of time FBI are either portrayed as over confident and incompetent look at any cop movie.
And, it portrays one FBI agent that way, the portrayal of singularity is not equitable to a portrayal of everyone associated with the group of that singularity.
@@styleissubstance Renegade cut has gone of the deep end.
@@lampad4549 It's not that it's inherently bad, in the sense that it is a detriment to the series' narrative. It's just that I've seen people (some who claim to be progressive) jump through mental hoops to convince themselves there is nothing conservative in Lynch's work when there is some. This shouldn't be seen as a negative right away, and it speaks to an immaturity to want your favorite artists to perfectly reflect your worldview. Again, I don't think David Lynch or Mark Frost sincerely believe the FBI is how Twin Peaks presents them, but there is a certain identification considering Lynch himself plays one of them, and in a generally positive and humorous light. (I also don't see why comparing other cop show presentations of the FBI is entirely relevant to the issue I brought up)
Also, yes Cooper is the character who has the most moral idealization (although admiddetly the Return at the end twists these conceits), but the FBI on the whole in Twin Peaks is associated with a certain moral authority and a crusade against mysterious evils (whatever the individual quirks the characters themselves may have). None of them are presented as corrupt. It's not like the show is without some corruption, (Deer Meadow), but in the town of Twin Peaks itself, all the policemen are morally sturdy (again, with quirks), and in the Return, there is only one corrupt law enforcement officer in the town. Legal authority is on the whole a positive institution in Twin Peaks, with some bad apples. Not that it is a bad thing in of itself, it just should be acknowledged if you want to look at the show from a social perspective.
Don’t worry, real life FBI will kick down your door if you are transphobic
Really interesting and thought-provoking video. Glad I stumbled across this one. Well done
This comment section is The Clamor of the Sheep
Will the lambs ever stop screaming?
IDK, I just...it's a movie. It explicitly states Bill is not a trans person. You say that this narrative reasoning isn't good enough as it reinforces denial of identity and medical gatekeeping.
Ok. I can totally see that point. But at the end of the day...it's a movie? It's not meant to be a treatise on gender and identity. At the end of the day it's about a sick, mentally disturbed serial killer. It's not meant to be representative of trans people, gay people, or even serial killers. It's a fictional story. It's not about "trans people as murderers." It's about Buffalo Bill, murderer.
You say it yourself: The film doesn't encourage disgust at transgenderism, but depravity. Buffalo Bill is depraved. His fictional psychosis is just that - fictional. He's a villain, not somebody to relate to.
Ok, so what's the issues?
Maybe I'm being too obtuse. I'm not LGBTQ. I fully acknowledge my experience with a film is not going to be everyone else's. I can empathize enough to see how this film, or others with similar subject matter, can make trans individuals feel not so great or invalidated or offended.
But at the end of the day, I'm a firm believer in looking at what is film is saying itself - not always linking it back to some real-world theory and then praising it or condemning it based on interpretation through theory.
I realize theory is like, a MASSIVE part of analyzing film and art in general. But I for one dislike the practice as a whole and would rather discuss film through the lens of the personal experience and interpretation.
When did I condemn the film exactly?
I totally understand where you are coming from, but there's a problem with the "it's just a movie" argument. The thing is, transphobia doesn't have to stem from transphobes saying "well trans people suck and are terrible yadda yadda". Transphobia can also stem from media representations of gender non-conforming people (as mentioned in the video I believe). I watched a video by Lindsay Ellis, I think, who said something along the lines of "what people walk out of the theaters remembering is not Hannibal's saying that BB is 'not a true transsexual', it's the imagery surrounding BB". Having watched it myself, while keeping the potential transphobic view quite in the forefront of my brain, I definitely remember that line. But, I was also specifically watching and listening for it. A little other thing is that (I think) that line comes early on in the movie, before the worse imagery appears. I would wager that the average moviegoer would likely forget the Hannibal line very quickly, but what would stay is the imagery surrounding BB. That's where the (likely non-purposeful) transphobia can enter. The movie contains tropes surrounding trans women and GNC folks, which simply continues already dangerous views.
For what it's worth, I don't think I have seen a single person who sees the film as transphobic say that the film therefore sucks, or something like that. For me personally? I think that the film tried to not be transphobic, but kinda failed because of the way it was made. So many connections between BB and views of trans women were made, and frankly, the one line? Not really enough. (Also saying that "his real psychology is something far more terrible" implies the original statement was terrible [ie being a transsexual]) But, even though I consider the film transphobic, but not purposely, I still consider it a very good film.
you cant let stupid people watch important movies.
Thank you, Billy! I agree.
I forget where I read this so I might be wrong, but I read that Jonathan Demme felt so bad for rationalizing transphobia in this movie that he used the same techniques he uses here, like the intense symmetrical face close-ups, on his next film Philadelphia. Instead of using these to dehumanize the character and creep the audience out, in Philadelphia, the more Tom Hanks gets sick, the camera gets closer and tries to humanize his character.
That's correct except the conversation was on homophobia then not transphobia.
@@styleissubstance That makes sense, I don't know if Demme or Thomas Harris would have even thought of transphobia at the time.
Hey ! Maybe I'm late to this but I wanted to tell you that I've just noticed with this video how much you have improved in term of narration and speech/intonation. It makes me really happy because your audio was ( in my opinion !) holding you back previously. I hope you will keep going in this direction and as always, great video !
I think I'm just better at vocal delivery now, but unfortunately audio will continue to fluctuate a bit, depending on where I record. Unfortunately, I'm unable to always record in the same place.
@Caitlyn Carvalho It's inspired by media sensationalism of Ed Gein including fabricated stories that he was transsexual.
@Caitlyn Carvalho It's implied by the presence of the swastikas on the quilt. This is on the screen when I call them a neo-nazi.
@caitlyncarvalho7637 it's implied but never outright stated. Given how he targets white women for his "outfit" he may favor whites others?
How does this video have so few views? I swear your channel is criminally underrated and is gonna blow up any day now
Lol you think so?
@@styleissubstance Hey all it takes is one vid on the trending tab to really expand, and you've put out nothing but quality vids that are fit for that. But knowing RUclips they'll probably just keep trending the newest "Everything wrong with [Marvel Movie] in 2 minutes" 😂
Because it's kind of a bad take on the issue. The arguments contradict themselves.
The movie is deeper than gender ideology. Its a study for a high case profile and they are trying to get to the root to find the killer.
I think this movie shows up close and personal topics that make anyone uncomfortable. It shows that anyone could have a darker side and we wouldnt know. I dont think many films had mentioned transgender surgery either (this is the only one I've seen at least), so it's interesting to see it for this movie being older. They are mentioning it to learn more about the killer and I dont remember it seeming malicious in anyway.
It shows the predatory behavior around the female protagonist and how her and many other women have to be on guard. You can see and sense the sexual undertones for everything.
I think your analysis is good but shows bias on gender ideology. Your basing it on a newer cultural perspective that doesn't associate with all aspects of art.
Just random, but I find it strange how in some moments you mentioned cis woman to just woman. It just seemed silly to back and forth on the term. I do know what its definition is for your culture though.
Very interesting video. I'm actually working on the relationships between the music and the characters in this movie (for my master degree) and I've discovered things that could reinforce your point of view. For exemple, Lecter is often associated with classical music as the conventional music for serial killer in Hollywood (since Fritz, around the 1930'). But Buffalo Bill doesn't have this music, he is in fact associated with pop music or disco which were during a big part of the 70s and 80s associated with LGTBQIA+ community (and Afro-americans). So even though this is not said explicitly in the movie that he is gay or transgender, the music plus the pictures of him in the club in his basement (thanks btw because I didn't noticed it before) reinforce the idea of him/her being part of this community somehow. We also have the use of the music "American Women" (that you depict as a moment of freedom for the female character singing it in her car) but that can be in the other hand linked to Buffalo Bill in the idea of him killing her in order to be in her skin : in the skin of an American girl so he/her could express his/her real gender identity.
I know that during the 90's (and also in the story of cinema) others music had been associated with serials killer (like "hip to be square" in American psycho), but these musics are not randomly chosen. In the case of "American Psycho" (for exemple), it is in fact related to the main character Patrick Bateman (having the contradiction between the lyrics "hip to be square" and him not fitting in this society).
Well idk if this is readable, I tried my best (I'm French so this is not my native language) but I'll be pleased to talk with you about that for my research if you're up to.
Great video, there's a few things I'd like to point out though, some additional perspectives. In the special features on the DVD, the film makers interpretes the cave and the well as symbolic of Bill's connection with insects, as it seems he has dug out the basement by himself as some sort of termite.
When the movie was released, there was actually a lot of controversy over the fact that Gumb was interpreted as gay, with the gay movement protesting the film fearing it would lead to homophobic violence or widespread misconceptions. In a kind of wholesome plot twist, director Jonathan Demme actually took this criticism to heart, acknowledging that why no ill intention was involved, the lack of other media presentation makes the movie run the risk of creating negative connotations. Sure enough, his next feature film was Philadelphia (1993).
Had I made this video a few minutes longer, I would have included Demme's retrospective thoughts on the matter. He clearly recognized merit to the criticism. At the time, trans identities were often (unfairly) classified as gay, so I'd assume Demme would recognize merit in arguments of transphobia.
Interesting thing is that the book that this film was adapted from, Buffalo Bill wasn't gay at all and actually hated gays. He beat them up and killed them. The head in the jar in the storage unit was the head of a dutch (I think he was dutch or something) sailor who was the lover of Benjamin Raspail. Buffalo Bill had killed that sailor and the book touches on his violence towards gays, too. I didn't really like that they made him gay in the movie.
Thank you so much for this! It’s a great look into questions I know I had of this film.
Her weight does matter. She is a size 14!!
No, it’s not. Bye.
Did you watch the video
Ok my take on this film is exactly what lecter said. " billy is not a real transexual although he tries to be... you see billy was not born a criminal but was made one through years of systematic abuse. Billy hates his own identity..." & theirs scenes that are in the film & deleted that further expound on him wanting to obliterate who he is bc of his childhood trauma. Dr. Lecter we learn is like the most brilliant person anyone has ever scene so if HE says buffalo bill is not transgender than that's canon. Also lecter eats people bc he sees them as below him like we eat animals he sees people that way & chooses certain people to eat bc of their manners or being bad people. In hannibal he does not feed on mason verger but he does what he does to him bc Mason is a pedophile who's family's wealth bought him a very minor sentence where he doesnt go to prison but is ordered therapy. I'm guessing hannibal sees mason as so low he wouldnt bother eating him that's why he feeds his face to the dogs. In sotl I feel like lecter admires clarice & wants to help her bc she is a good person who rose above her rough childhood of losing both parents living w/ relatives & when they got upset she tried to free the lambs sent her to an orphanage & from there she made it all the way to the fbi. In the deleted scene with the doctor & from what lecter said theirs a psychological test & he was rejected bc of " severe childhood disturbances " but isnt that good that its saying that transgender people are not " insane " or " delusional or damaged " ? I felt the movie made it clear that this serial killer is not transgender & therefore it's not a commentary that trans people are crazy serial killers. I don't know if bill is gay . I think as lecter said he is a very damaged person from a horrific childhood. Basically if bill was raised in a loving home he would not be a serial killer. He also is shown to be insane bc its ridiculous he thinks he can wear a womans suit & nobody would notice ? I mean the scalp w/ hair is ridiculous as stated in the video bc he could grow his hair out but I guess since he is balding get a wig ( as he has male pattern baldness ) I cant imagine anyone w/ a spec of intelligence would think bill is a representation of a transgender female. So that person who equated the transgender female to buffalo bill is ignorant.
Another thing i learned was that many gay people do not like being lumped in w/ trans ( LGBTQ) so it's sad that they are hated by another minority group. The same as black people another minority group that suffered & suffers bigotry to this day are bigoted themselves about gay black men & women. I have a good friend I worked w/ a black gay man who was so angry at other black people for their extreme prejudices. So theirs bigotry among groups that experience bigotry themselves which imo is sad bc you would think they would have more empathy towards another group.
I also wonder would bill have ok if he was given the surgery ? By being rejected that's when he became a serial killer to acquire all parts of women to make the suit. Or was he just too disturbed that nothing would help?
Finally I have seen a few documentaries where people did have the surgery & took the hormones & were still very depressed & or felt they made a mistake & wanted " their gender back " in the end I just hope that the people who do not understand transgender people treat them w/ dignity & respect & don't harm them or discriminate against them.
There are MANY “transgender” people who are not really transgender. Just look at all the De-transition videos on RUclips now. They are popping up more and more. These are people who had other issues by their own admission and thought transitioning would solve those issues and did not. Remember that this film is 30 years old. Transgender people and the subject itself was nowhere on people’s minds in those days. Im old enough to remember. I was a kid when this movie came out and I’m transgender myself. I tend to agree with Mr.Ager on many of his points about Bill. And no Buffalo Bill was not mis gendered.
I have some disagreements with this comment, but I actually plan to talk about detransitioning in relationship with another film and I may touch on this film briefly.
Trans only means you identify as the opposite sex
Nope. There are no opposites to sex. It's identifying as a gender different to what was assigned to them at birth.
@@styleissubstance That is not true, or more specifically not the origin meaning of it. Transgender always meant from one gender to the other, as there are only two sexes.
Ever heard of intersex people?
Whatever. If trans folks want to be accepted as regular members of society, then they have to accept being portrayed as anyone, even serial killers - just like anyone else. Are you special, or are you just one of 'us'? Can't have it both ways.
No. I am special and better than you.
@@styleissubstance super, thanks for being honest - next time someone cries about transphobia, I'll remember to not care.
@@styleissubstance wow you really are stupid
What a stupid take. You point out that they make it clear that they're not trans at all then go into claiming its transphobic.
It's called examining arguments.
@styleissubstance you contradict yourself.
@@coffeebro287 no I don't.
Perhaps I missed a point but I am confused. I find a flaw in your logic, but on which side do you take. Was Jame Gumb trans?
I believe the book handles it better... Not perfect (still kind of problematic) but it does more to reasure that trans people are regular people.
No. Its not transphobic. Anyone who thinks so probably doesn't even understand basic math.
Just watch the video to have a more well rounded discussion.
As a transsexual person, I appreciate this nuanced look into the character of Buffalo Bill. As you said in the video, people often misconstrue the context of what the film is trying to say about his not being a true transsexual, etc., so it’s great to see somebody expand upon this subject as you have.
Thank you. 🙂
Thanks for watching. I have several other videos on trans representation in film if you are interested.
@@styleissubstance I will definitely check them out, then! 🙂
Literally binging all your vids today. These are great!
Thanks for watching. And if you ever come across something you disagree with, feel free to voice it. I like discussion.
According to Eddie Izard, a man can wear women’s clothes without being trans. It’s not transphobic to say he’s not really trans, right?
A man can wear women's clothes but that's not the extent of Jame Gumb's identity.
I think they make that distinction via Dr. Lector’s outright statement (he had a similar patient), so that they could separate being trans from being a serial killer. I did appreciate that the movie repeated that outright, because I do not believe people are too “short-sighted” to remember. Actually, for the time it came out, it was quite the opposite- it was impactful for me and others! I was very glad that they put that in there *because of* the lack of discussion around trans people at the time… and a lack of discussion usually means a lack of knowledge. It was great that they did not leave any possible interpretation of a parallel between being trans and being a serial killer.
According to Eddie Izzard all you need to be a woman. is to wear a pair of high heels, I wish he'd make up his bloody mind.
Od course not. End of story. Thank you and see you on next video.
I don't find it very transphobic but certainly the discussion is worth having.
At about 8:30 you say that by simply denying the gendered status of serial killer Jame Gumb, that this contributes to transphobic tropes. This isn't true when you consider the context of the film. Hannibal Lecter is a former physician, a practicing psychiatrist who treated patients, and a surgeon before that as well. Despite being a serial killer he knows his stuff, hence the FBI consulting his expertise. And eventually during the course of the investigation, the identity of Buffalo Bill is discovered after finding the name of man who requested a sex-change operation but that request was rejected by a panel of doctors, so the clarification on Gumb's mental state, that he doesn't suffer from gender dysphoria, isn't based on Lecter's medical opinion alone. This is not a transphobic or problematic decision simply because you say it is, with all due respect.
In real life, it's vital that doctors don't rely on a patient's self-made diagnosis, because such a diagnosis is prone to error. Medical treatments based on a misdiagnosis can easily be harmful and dangerous, and depending on the case, the law might even find the doctor guilty of medical malpractice. It's malpractice when doctors simply relies on the self-diagnosis of a patient. No good doctor would diagnose in that manner.
I agree. When you’re the doctor, you should be the one doing the diagnosis, not affirming the patient’s diagnosis. And while some people nowadays think that anyone who identifies as trans should never be denied any treatment, I think that a psychiatric evaluation is required. A psychotic person cannot consent. A psychotic person cannot consent to sex nor to a sex change.
This is a great analysis. I came here to rinse my brain off from Rob Ager’s video so thank you
If I made this video after his most recent coverage of the topic, I'd have harsher things to say.
@@styleissubstanceRob Ager is one of my hero's.
holyyyy shit this analysis is fantastic!! your interpretation is so poetic and revolutionary, i love to see it! so so so awesome to see another person reading film from the trans perspective
Explain to me as if I was 5 years old: How on earth can any human being desire to be the other sex without (!) having internalized heavy prejudices towards both sexes and seeing one as much more superior as the other? Just how?
Transgenders have very twisted views on sexes and their ‚roles‘, envying (so rejecting to the extent of hate) the sex they are not and rejecting (to the extent of hate) the sex they are. This is all very unconscious and can even be ingrained in their DNA which is just genetical information due to transgenerational unsolved traumas. Every and any identity is just that. Information.
@@jennjusen7102 oh no I definitely view women as superior
@@styleissubstance Lucky you! So you don't have to transition. 🤣
@@jennjusen7102 Hormones objectively make my mental health better.
@@styleissubstance Oh, so actually are making efforts to appear to adjust your body to your mental image of you. I was not aware of that as I did not come across your channel until now. Well, to me it is a major incomprehension that one has to take hormones to adjust the bodily functions (including the mind). Hormones are, of course, als well as emotions an effect of your thoughts/ideas which produce those and other procedures in the body. To me the only thing making sense is to adjust ideas or rather to lose all ideas of identity if you go all in, to be in balance naturally. All else are tricks and a strategy to avoid one's own ideas. Same with any other externally delivered substance. They may seem like the solution but they are of course not. If anything those can help bridge the time gap until you're ready to face yourself. Our suppression mechanisms are very strong though. Yet, it is the only solution long term.
@@jennjusen7102 idk that doesn't match like any experience of any trans woman I've met ever lol
Great video.
Yes. And that's why we love it.
How would you compare the implicit/unintentional transphobia of Lambs to the overt transphobia of Dressed To Kill? Aside from the commonalities in terms of cultural impact (ultimately it seems any depiction of a killer or predator who is gender-non-conforming in any way seems to feed into negative stereotypes), DTK goes out of its way to make it clear that the killer is a transgender woman, but at the same time seems much more interested in exploring the concept of transgenderism beyond that killer - i.e. the interview scene, Nancy Allen very eagerly and explicitly describing the process of bottom surgery, etc. It almost seems like De Palma was just fascinated by the idea of transgender women in general, but being the way he is, his primary point of entry to explore this concept was "Psycho". As opposed to Lambs simply dismissing the possibility that the killer is trans and refusing to engage with transgender people or experience any further while rather obtusely assuming this throwaway line will stand out in the audience's memory as much as the Goodbye Horses or lotion scenes.
In retrospect, while neither movie did anything positive for transgender representation, the overall reception seems telling. Lambs remains a well-loved film, praised by a critical establishment seemingly satisfied by Lector's line dismissing Jame as transgender, while the "masses" have latched onto "Goodbye Horses" in memetic and generally very toxic fashion. Meanwhile DTK has a mixed reception by critics and is largely a sort of scapegoat for transphobia in film, yet wider audiences largely seem to have forgotten it, as if it's just too strange and uncomfortable for them to engage with on any level.
I'm not sure why I didn't see this comment until now. Hmm... off the cuff thoughts: Dressed to Kill is an interesting case study for me because Brian DePalma is adopting tropes (problematic or otherwise) into an aesthetic framework and as a dialog with other films, rather than making actual meaningful social commentary on transgenderism. This doesn't make the film not transphobic, however. I was under the thought it was violently transphobic until I saw Body Double and realized what he's doing with trope and aesthetic. I am not really a fan of the film but I really don't think we are supposed to take any of it seriously. Though, one *could* posit that confronting the associations is better than outright rejecting them altogether while passively contributing nevertheless.
@@styleissubstance I like that you mention Body Double, that's gotta be my favorite De Palma and definitely sort of a Rosetta Stone when it comes to his style in general
14:57 - 15:01 Pun intended? 😂
Weird question, but did I leave a long comment here previously?
I received notifications for comments but nothing showed up.
@@styleissubstance Well I did a test comment a few minutes ago, but what I meant was a long ass comment a few days ago. I just could have swore I actually posted it, instead of hitting cancel.
I was able to see the first few sentences in the notification bar yesterday. I wanted to read the whole thing but it was gone.
Turns out I can view it in my email. Try copying and reposting this and we can resolve this thread:
Death Alchemist
Well said to be honest. When I first heard the argument that the film was transphobic, I didn't think much of it. I found Bill disgusting for their appropriation of female bodies, not for them supposedly being trans (the statements by Lecter firmly dissociated them in my mind). Not to mention that the serial killer influences, like Ed Gein who did try to make a female skinsuit. However, the Rolling situation really got me to see this in a new light, given her own cross-dressing serial killer. I think what made it worse with her is that her transphobia is inextricably tied to the text, given how she has acted and stereotypes trans ppl. Unlike the director of this movie who acknowledged the lack of representation for lgbt ppl in media. You showed the cut line of Bill wanting to be reborn as a woman to go back to his mother which is a very Freudian thing. Freud's ideas do make for some good stories, but are not accurate and can do more harm than good (the same could be applied to psycho). Getting back to the main point, I think positioning Bill as a depraved man who is similar to certain real life serial killer was an unsuccessful way of distancing BIll from being seen as trans. Probably would have been better to not mention it all. Seeing BIll as trans kind of reinforces the TERF was of thinking imo, a man trying to be a woman against the "true woman". We really need better representations of trans ppl. I do kind of see the movie ending positively in a way. Ironically, Lecter was the only person who gave Clarice respect and he even goes after one of piggish male characters. Also, the handshake could be seen as that one FBI agent meekly accepting defeat. I heard you did a video on Salo so I am going to watch that afterward when I get the time.
@@styleissubstance Thanks for this because I did not remember what I exactly wrote.
Well said to be honest. When I first heard the argument that the film was transphobic, I didn't think much of it. I found Bill disgusting for their appropriation of female bodies, not for them supposedly being trans (the statements by Lecter firmly dissociated them in my mind). Not to mention that the serial killer influences, like Ed Gein who did try to make a female skinsuit. However, the Rolling situation really got me to see this in a new light, given her own cross-dressing serial killer. I think what made it worse with her is that her transphobia is inextricably tied to the text, given how she has acted and stereotypes trans ppl. Unlike the director of this movie who acknowledged the lack of representation for lgbt ppl in media. You showed the cut line of Bill wanting to be reborn as a woman to go back to his mother which is a very Freudian thing. Freud's ideas do make for some good stories, but are not accurate and can do more harm than good (the same could be applied to psycho). Getting back to the main point, I think positioning Bill as a depraved man who is similar to certain real life serial killer was an unsuccessful way of distancing BIll from being seen as trans. Probably would have been better to not mention it all. Seeing BIll as trans kind of reinforces the TERF was of thinking imo, a man trying to be a woman against the "true woman". We really need better representations of trans ppl.
I do kind of see the movie ending positively in a way. Ironically, Lecter was the only person who gave Clarice respect and he even goes after one of piggish male characters. Also, the handshake could be seen as that one FBI agent meekly accepting defeat. I heard you did a video on Salo so I am going to watch that afterward when I get the time.
Yeah it's a movie. It's not about you
wdym
@@styleissubstance I mean it's a movie. Are you going to defend women from problematic associations because of the movie Monster?
Why watch a video essay if your not willing to analyse a movie's narrative and subtext? Lol
@@maxcosta806 this analysis is based on the presumption that it's harmful to trans people. I disagree, because identity should not matter in works of fiction. A movie about slavery is not harmful to black people, a movie about a cheating husband is not harmful to men.
It's not based on any presumption. It explores how gender is treated in the film and the limitations of what it says about it.
First of all, TSOTL is misandric.
If men are the most insecure people ever maybe.
@@styleissubstance I don't know what you mean. All the men in this movie are negative stereotypes.
@@haps2019 Late reply, but I would argue that this is an exception to most cases in that it's not saying that ALL men are bad, so much as Starling has found herself in a professional environment where toxic masculinity is rampant - the FBI.
She's dealing with a bunch of macho men and detectives in her line of work, and those happen to be a vast majority of the kinds of men we see her interact with.
10:26 He meant women who feel like men aka trans men that haven’t gone through transition yet. And he still recognizes them as men
No he didn't lol. Given the feminization of the pictures he's drawing attention to, the logical conclusion would be they are potentially trans women in this hypothetical. The word "transsexual" is fairly erroneous now too. Also your comment is transphobic in implications. You describe trans men as "women who feel like men."
Style is Substance
Just how exactly is Lasagna Gut’s comment transphobic? Why would a trans person want to transition to/present as a specific gender identity in particular that’s different than the identity that they were born with originally, if they didn’t feel like they better associated with it / it described them more accurately in the first place?
cool video
It is transpride movie. Buffalo Bill is a stunning trans figure representative of the WHOLE transcommunity! Yasss you go gurlLll!
Sorry but you accusing the audience of being too short sighted to be able to understand that Gumb isn't trans, is downright patronising and condescending and you are underestimating the sophistication of the audience, and you are just projecting your own personal bias and insecurities and has little to do with reality. T he people most vilainised and negatively portrayed as serial killers are white males, even though the reality is that 17% of serial killers are women and that 20% of serial killers are POC. So your woe is me about the "negative" portrayal of trans as serial killers really doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Also speaking as a woman many of us feel that trans are appropriating our identities and in the process demeaning what it is to be a woman and womanhood . Rob Iger wasn't implying trans identifying men aren't women, he said no such thing, you hear what you want to hear. But if he were implying that he wouldn't be wrong, trans identifying males are exactly that, they are not women the same way as I am, and not just because of biology/anatomy but in every way conceivable they are not the same as me or any other woman.
The film highlights the sexism that women still face on a daily basis (very accurately I must say) but that was completely ignored.
Just because you don't like the character of Buffalo Bill it doesn't mean that he couldn't have been trans, you don't get to pick and choose who is acceptable to be trans and who isn't. As a point of reference in the UK 59% of trans identifying male prisoners, were convicted of violent/sexual offences against women, so to say they are no threat is inaccurate, because that is a far higher percentage than the general population and even the male prison population and this statistic cannot be ignored.
I started this video hoping to get see/hear an interesting and objective analysis from another perspective, but it always seems these things come out with the usual projection and personal bias rather then anything of real substance, and as per usual ended up with the lazy psychobabble about vaginal imagery, birthing etc with no real or genuine insight or understanding of what was being said other than it sounded good.
With gender ideology there is so much mental gymnastics that no matter what anyone does, say's or thinks they will always be transphobic, unless they totally conform to the ideology in every aspect and never question anything. Also if you had read JK Rowling's book you would know he isn't a cross dresser or trans he just wears a woman's coat and wig as a disguise, and believe it or not disguises have been used in thousands of books and films and have nothing to do with trans, you really need to stop seeing everything as being trans, the world believe it or not doesn't revolve around it.
No
@@styleissubstance No to what? At least try and b e articulate.
@@sammic7492 No.
@@styleissubstance NO WHAT?
@@sammic7492 I like this film and Buffalo Bill just fine. If you actually pay attention, I do talk about the good representation of sexism. If you actually paid attention, I'm merely exploring both sides of an argument regarding the characterization of Buffalo Bill. I refuse to take anyone who talks about the villainization of white men seriously. I refuse to take anyone who says trans women appropriate womanhood seriously, especially if they're trying to lecture about what is and isn't transphobic. So no, just no.
This didn’t age well ( Nashville shooting)
Oh yeah cuz one out of the 128 mass shootings in the US this year so far was carried out by someone who identified as transgender. Give me a break.
@@styleissubstancecheck again, buddy. Nearly every mass shooter you see in the news has a gender identity disorder. Unfortunately you don’t even care about where your “facts” came from about your “true self”.
5:42 Eww wtf 😵💫😵💫💀💀💀
Im sooo glad someone finally talks about it, as a trans person myself, I thought the movie would at leasttt have some good rep, oh boy was I wrong. I mean, what was the reason for making a believed trans person a sick murderer... I tried to look up more about the characters backstory too, to at least look for a reason why, maybe some redeeming qualities, and the amount of transphobia and homophobia I found was so upsetting.
Thanks for watching! ❤️
I can understand you're view but it is stated by Hannibal Lecter, a psychiatrist who knows how people think, especially psychopaths like Buffalo Bill, that he is not trans. He is a deranged person who wants to become beautiful so he tries to become a woman. He isn't doing this because he feels he would rather be a female but because he wants to be sexy and beautiful.
so basically you’re real life Buffalo bill?
a crazy man pretending to be something else?
not surprised why you’re angry at this movie lol
Come on not cool. Don’t compare somebody with gender dysphoria to a psychopath murdering and skinning people
😂😂