Silence of the Lambs analysis - part 3: Clarice Starling

**READ THIS** The blog is at cananalyze.blogspot.com
Jungian analysis of Clarice Starling. Miggs represents a 'deficient' Tarzan figure - he is obviously not muscular. This is an indication that that which represents the first stage of Clarice's animus is deficient or underdeveloped in some way - perhaps a 'derogatory' reference to the boys in her hometown whom she dated. As far as the second stage, Jack Crawford, I am technically using the word "romantic" in two different ways in the video (i.e., a 'romantic' man is a different usage than a 'romantic' relationship). Suffice it to say that Crawford's a man of action, so based on this alone he represents the second stage of Clarice's animus development.
Lamar represents the third stage of Starling's animus, even though he might not truly be a member of the clergy. Miggs and Lamar are examples of Thomas Harris's use of partial, or 'distorted', matches of characters to figures from religion and mythology, i.e., a given character from a Lecter novel/movie takes on the representation of such a figure (or figures) within certain 'contexts'. For the fourth stage, Lecter, see also my 'Lecter movies - depiction of trinities and triads' video, for an explanation of how Hannibal might be being depicted as representing a trio of animus figures for Starling (the second, third, AND fourth stages).

Category:

Entertainment

Tags:

• silence of the lambs analysis
• hannibal lecter analysis
• silence of the lambs
• silence of the lambs meaning
• meaning silence of the lambs
• analysis
• silence
• of
• the
• lambs
• silence lambs analysis
• analysis silence lambs
• silence lambs jung
• silence lambs jungian
• lecter jung
• lecter jungian analysis
• lecter chakras
• hannibal
• lecter
• hannibal lecter
• starling
• clarice starling
• gumb
• jame gumb
• starling jungian
• starling jung
• starling jungian analysis

[Sasonie7]

Don't get me wrong, this is really intersting, and I suppose giving more indepth answers, or better connections between these (no offense) leaps of conculsions on your blog would explain your answers better, but it all seems rather far fetched to me. Honestly, I can't imagine any Hollywood film team putting this much time and effort in a movie just so it can have a dozen or so hidden meanings buried in it. Do you have actual evidence from the creators that this was their intent? Interviews?

[MrMovieAnalyst]

@Sasonie7 Actually, all of the Lecter movies are based on novels by Thomas Harris. Harris spends several years carefully crafting each novel, packing them with allusions, allegory and symbolism. The screenwriters (Ted Tally for Lambs) have to decode the novel, then figure out what to leave out and what to keep.

Over the years various hints have been given to us, for example, the I think it was Jodie Foster who said that Lecter (or Crawford) was a father figure for Starling.

[gorcanto]

You're not constructing any kind of coherent analysis. You offer no insights that support any kind of theory or to substantiate what you see as parallels. This is a shallow interpretation that means nothing. You may as well pick words and numbers at random and say they mean something. Your connections are tenuous. These are nothing but musings.

[MrMovieAnalyst]

@gorcanto It seems that way to you for two reasons: 1) You didn't read the blog; and 2) You fail to recognize the power of intuition.

[MrMovieAnalyst]

The same thing about partial matches applies to Lecter insofar as he represents Hermes. You really have to read the analysis on the blog to get a fuller explanation of what's in the videos, but basically Lecter both rules over speech, and therefore represents Jupiter; and at the same time he IS speech, and is thus Hermes. He also represents the biblical figure Aaron, who was known for his eloquence.

It all fits together in the end, it's not the kind of thing that can be explained piecemeal.

[MrMovieAnalyst]

@Jko90 Actually it's Carl Jung's theory of animus development, not mine.

Thomas Harris uses a lot of what I'd call 'partial matches' for deities and other figures. For example, MIggs 'partially' represents Tarzan, he's the only shirtless character I can think of in the movie (besides Gumb, who represents Santan), and he's climbing on the bars like an ape. At the same time, perhaps since as you mentioned MIggs is not muscular, he may represent a 'deficient' amimus figure of some sort. Continued

[Jko90]

@MrMovieAnalyst I think it's great that you take your time to appreciate a work of art. However I think you're reading waaay to much into the movie. For instance with your "animus development" theory. You use the VERY minor characters Miggs and Lamar as representatives for two of the stages of animus development. Miggs is supposed to be Tarzan? (raw physical power, heroic) he's more like a caged monkey. Lecter is Hermes (messenger of god) he's obviously not a god, but more like death incarnate.

[MrMovieAnalyst]

@IMMUNEHUMAN Thanks:)

[IMMUNEHUMAN]

I do appreciate the analysis work.

[MrMovieAnalyst]

@Jko90 I 'came up' with my analysis by paying attention to the movie.

What part(s) of the video don't you agree with, and what is your basis for disagreement? For example, if you claim Clarice is not an introvert, what is your reason for believing she's extroverted? Or, if she's not an INFP, what is she?