I would like to comment on two aspects of your engaging analysis of The Silence of the Lambs. The first concerns Lector’s status as villain or antihero. You correctly recognized that Lector is not the main villain of the film nor are we, the audience, supposed to view him as such. Instead, we, like Clarice, are fascinated by Lector: by his intelligence, his composure, and his complete disregard for human life. Limiting his screen time to fifteen minutes prevents overexposure from demystifying the character. And Buffalo Bill is so pathetic he engenders, to a degree, sympathy. Get that guy some meds. I disagree, however, that the film clearly establishes another villain. The very notion of villainy relies on a moralism which the Nietzschean world of the film rejects. If we were to apply traditional moral judgments to the characters, Lector and Buffalo Bill would definitely be villains. Chilton is a sleazy chauvinist. But that pales in comparison to being a mass murderer who cannibalizes his victims. Simply labeling characters good or bad, villain or hero, ignores the darker meaning of the film. What if there is no objective morality? What if we can’t condemn Lector or Bills’ actions? Notice there is no God in the film. I’m not suggesting religion offers the only moral metric by which to judge actions. But the absence of God should cue us into the ethical landscape of the film. That leads to my next point. Clarice subverts many gender norms. She is clever, resourceful, brave, and motivated. But in her role as knight, Starling is also a defender of traditional morality, a position usually assigned to women. It is not surprising that Lector, who rejects all other ideologies, would also reject paternalism or misogyny.
Film Talk 7 years ago 
I would like to comment on two aspects of your engaging analysis of The Silence of the Lambs. The first concerns Lector’s status as villain or antihero. You correctly recognized that Lector is not the main villain of the film nor are we, the audience, supposed to view him as such. Instead, we, like Clarice, are fascinated by Lector: by his intelligence, his composure, and his complete disregard for human life. Limiting his screen time to fifteen minutes prevents overexposure from demystifying the character. And Buffalo Bill is so pathetic he engenders, to a degree, sympathy. Get that guy some meds. I disagree, however, that the film clearly establishes another villain. The very notion of villainy relies on a moralism which the Nietzschean world of the film rejects. If we were to apply traditional moral judgments to the characters, Lector and Buffalo Bill would definitely be villains. Chilton is a sleazy chauvinist. But that pales in comparison to being a mass murderer who cannibalizes his victims. Simply labeling characters good or bad, villain or hero, ignores the darker meaning of the film. What if there is no objective morality? What if we can’t condemn Lector or Bills’ actions? Notice there is no God in the film. I’m not suggesting religion offers the only moral metric by which to judge actions. But the absence of God should cue us into the ethical landscape of the film. That leads to my next point. Clarice subverts many gender norms. She is clever, resourceful, brave, and motivated. But in her role as knight, Starling is also a defender of traditional morality, a position usually assigned to women. It is not surprising that Lector, who rejects all other ideologies, would also reject paternalism or misogyny.