Dressed to Kill, Silence of the Lambs, and Trans Representations

Message

#1 Post by **mfunk9786** » Wed Jul 25, 2012 3:44 am

Watched Dressed to Kill for the first time tonight... sure, it was tense and well-made, with a great performance from Nancy Allen, but what a deplorably immature and transphobic film. Perhaps it just hasn't aged well, but if I were De Palma, I'd look back on this one and cringe.

tojoed · #2 Post by **tojoed** » Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:47 am

The character you're referring to is a transvestite. There's no attitude to transexualism in the film, so I don't know why you think it's "anti" or immature.

HJackson · #3 Post by **HJackson** » Wed Jul 25, 2012 11:49 am

mfunk9786 wrote:Watched Dressed to Kill for the first time tonight... sure, it was tense and well-made, with a great performance from Nancy Allen, but what a deplorably immature and anti-transexual film. Perhaps it just hasn't aged well, but if I were De Palma, I'd look back on this one and cringe.

I don't find DRESSED TO KILL particularly bigoted, and I think claims that it is are the product of an understandable over-sensitivity from a segment of the population who are routinely disciminated against. If anything it seems to be a comment on the danger of repression, and regardless it seems odd to assume that De Palma is commenting on transexuality as a whole by depicting one unstable character - we don't call Hitchcock heterophobic because the depraved sex killer in FRENZY is straight.

Roger Ryan · #4 Post by **Roger Ryan** » Wed Jul 25, 2012 12:14 pm

The DRESSED TO KILL villain wouldn't have been portrayed that way if Hitchcock hadn't done it first in PSYCHO. I doubt there was much more on De Palma's mind than to provide a similar surprise reveal.

#5 Post by **mfunk9786** » Wed Jul 25, 2012 1:20 pm

Sorry for getting the syntax wrong, tojoed. Regardless of my objection to this film, I don't profess to be an expert in human sexuality and I just mis-spoke.

The difference between Dressed to Kill and Psycho for me lies in Hitchcock's restraint when it came to blaming someone's sexuality for their desire to kill. Bates' urges were brought on less because he had gender identity issues and more because he had issues with an overbearing mother - his bloodlust wasn't pinned, as it is in the mirrored scene of 'wrapping things up' in Dressed to Kill, on one gender trying to repress the other violently, on his conflicted sexuality whipping him up into a hetero-phobic murderer on its own. There was something particularly distasteful about that implication in Dressed to Kill, and while I wouldn't criticize anyone for having a different viewpoint since the film is so well-constructed, it just made my skin crawl. It took unique and genuinely conflicted films like Psycho and Peeping Tom and decided that what they needed was to be brought down to as uncomplicated a place as possible, and I don't find it particularly fair to the viewer.

R0lf · #6 Post by **R0lf** » Wed Jul 25, 2012 1:50 pm

I don't think it's so offensive if you place it squarely in line with De Palma's other movies. It's almost like a signature for him to take a very low brow route and run with it simultaneously playing everything straight while also having the most fun he possibly can. You could place this along with the scream subplot in Blow Out, the porn plot in Body Double, the rape victim in Casualties of War, the recurring semi exploitive shower scenes or the constant deus ex machina (lulz) of "they woke up and it was all a dream" - in that it's not so much the plot twist that's important but exactly how De Palma so deftly and confidently handles something that so obviously shouldn't work. You can also see De Palma directly addressing the possibility that the twist in Dressed to Kill might be offensive by following it with the Nancy Allen monologues and then the doubled up "they woke up and it was all a dream" end.

#7 Post by **Mr Sausage** » Wed Jul 25, 2012 3:13 pm

tojoed wrote:The character you're referring to is a transvestite. There's no attitude to transexualism in the film, so I don't know why you think it's "anti" or immature.

What are you talking about? The doctor at the end explicitly said that character wanted to become a woman but was too afraid to go fully through with the operation. That's not transvestitism.

HJackson · #8 Post by **HJackson** » Wed Jul 25, 2012 4:49 pm

Mr Sausage wrote:
tojoed wrote:The character you're referring to is a transvestite. There's no attitude to transexualism in the film, so I don't know why you think it's "anti" or immature.
What are you talking about? The doctor at the end explicitly said that character wanted to become a woman but was too afraid to go fully through with the operation. That's not transvestitism.

The character may be a repressed transsexual (althought it appears a rather strange form of transsexuality, with two disassociated personas of different genders), but they are indisputably a transvestite.

#9 Post by **Matt** » Wed Jul 25, 2012 5:14 pm

I think we can all agree that psychological and social understandings of transvestism, transgender, and transsexualism (not to mention the completely separate topic of Dissociative Identity Disorder/Multiple Personality Disorder) have come a long way since 1980. I wouldn't look to a De Palma movie for a nuanced and accurate portrayal of any one of them.

#10 Post by **mfunk9786** » Wed Jul 25, 2012 5:46 pm

I don't hold this film against De Palma by any stretch, but the film's outdated and phobic approach to its subject matter just makes it too squicky for me to ever watch again.

#11 Post by **Mr Sausage** » Wed Jul 25, 2012 6:44 pm

HJackson wrote:
Mr Sausage wrote:
tojoed wrote:The character you're referring to is a transvestite. There's no attitude to transexualism in the film, so I don't know why you think it's "anti" or immature.
What are you talking about? The doctor at the end explicitly said that character wanted to become a woman but was too afraid to go fully through with the operation. That's not transvestitism.
The character may be a repressed transsexual (althought it appears a rather strange form of transsexuality, with two disassociated personas of different genders), but they are indisputably a transvestite.

I'm not disputing that the man wears women's clothes. I'm disputing the claim that there is no transexuality in the film. There clearly is, and those aspects aren't covered by transvestism. Not that this film could be accused of having a coherent understanding of sexual and gender politics, as Matt rightly notes. It's meant to be a trashy and 'exploitative' version of Psycho and obviously decided to graft that film's gender-divided personality disorder onto what had become, in larger cities, the trans-community, no doubt because the filmmakers hoped that this new aspect would lend everything an even more lurid tinge.

matrixschmatrix · #12 Post by **matrixschmatrix** » Wed Jul 25, 2012 6:45 pm

I still love the movie, but it's certainly an unfortunate and and unlovely portrayal- it's obviously a gimmick meant to be pulpy and not taken too seriously, but it's an idea that comes up pretty often (Sleepaway Camp, I'm looking at you) and it seems like a reasonable thing to be upset by.

I mean, at least Silence of the Lambs had the class to point out explicitly that what was going on there was not transsexuality, and had nothing to do with it- De Palma just has some Springer style show on talking about it, to make it that much more exploitative.

#13 Post by **Mr Sausage** » Wed Jul 25, 2012 6:48 pm

matrixschmatrix wrote:I mean, at least Silence of the Lambs had the class to point out explicitly that what was going on there was not transsexuality, and had nothing to do with it- De Palma just has some Springer style show on talking about it, to make it that much more exploitative.

I've always wondered why that movie got the reputation for portraying the trans-community negatively when there is an important dialogue exchange in which Starling points out that transgendered people are not violent and Lector explains that Buffalo Bill isn't a true transexual, he just hates himself so much that he assumes he must be one.

#14 Post by **Matt** » Wed Jul 25, 2012 7:10 pm

The protests against Silence of the Lambs started, as they often do, before anyone had actually seen the movie. And I remember them being pretty mild in comparison to the brouhaha over Basic Instinct's murderous bisexual.

This was all at the height of identity politics in the early '90s and everything was about positive representations of sexual orientations in the media.

#15 Post by **mfunk9786** » Wed Jul 25, 2012 7:12 pm

matrixschmatrix wrote:I mean, at least Silence of the Lambs had the class to point out explicitly that what was going on there was not transsexuality, and had nothing to do with it- De Palma just has some Springer style show on talking about it, to make it that much more exploitative.

That's what did it for me, I think - the idea that there's a little conversation during which some pretty baffling pseudo-psychology is spewed regarding the villain's sexuality, showing me that De Palma had no intention of actually showing an ounce of sensitivity toward a minority group that he was exploiting for cheap thrills, and wanted us to know it.

warren oates · #16 Post by **warren oates** » Wed Jul 25, 2012 7:35 pm

Just like the minority group of mother-conflicted psychopathic sexual homociders is used for cheap thrills and then glibly dismissed by that final head-shrinker's speech in Psycho? De Palma likely would not make the same film today -- would that he'd even come close in terms of the quality -- but you make it seem like he's committed a near Birth of a Nation-level offense of insensitivity. I guess I also don't see any important difference in the way marginal sexual identities are used to mark and motivate murderers in Silence of the Lambs, which seems to be getting some kind of pass because its director is generally known to be queer-friendly (though Thomas Harris was not at all concerned with minority rights or political correctness when he dreamt up Buffalo Bill in the novel).

#17 Post by **mfunk9786** » Wed Jul 25, 2012 7:38 pm

Have you even read any of the other posts in this discussion, explaining why this is more egregious (even if the poster ultimately didn't have as much of an issue as me) than Psycho or The Silence of the Lambs?

matrixschmatrix · #18 Post by **matrixschmatrix** » Wed Jul 25, 2012 7:42 pm

warren oates wrote:Just like the minority group of mother-conflicted psychopathic sexual homociders is used for cheap thrills and then glibly dismissed by that final head-shrinker's speech in Psycho? De Palma likely would not make the same film today -- would that he'd even come close in terms of the quality -- but you make it seem like he's committed a near Birth of a Nation-level offense of insensitivity. I guess I also don't see any important difference in the way marginal sexual identities are used to mark and motivate murderers in Silence of the Lambs, which seems to be getting some kind of pass because its director is generally known to be queer-friendly (though Thomas Harris was not at all concerned with minority rights or political correctness when he dreamt up Buffalo Bill in the novel).

No, he's getting a pass because his movie explicitly points out that the person they are discussing is not a person with a marginalized and often attacked sexual identity, he is instead a murderous sociopath who believes himself to be a member of that community. As we literally just said like two posts ago. What is in the novel is irrelevant- it's possible Demme just put in a couple of lines to make it clear what was going on, but the lines work because Buffalo Bill really obviously isn't a transperson, and I don't think the audience is ever intended to understand him as one.

Dressed to Kill, on the other hand, goes out of its way to reinforce the connection between transsexuality and murderous insanity. That's really, really a different thing. Unless you are claiming that murderous sociopaths who are motivated by sex are themselves an unfairly represented and marginalized group, I'm really not sure I know what your point is. No, it's not Birth of a Nation, but that doesn't mean it's not a shitty, problematic element (of an otherwise unimpeachable movie) which deserves comment.

#19 Post by **mfunk9786** » Wed Jul 25, 2012 7:47 pm

I'm not easily offended in the slightest (just ask my wife, who has to be present for some of my bawdier jokes or pop cultural guilty pleasures) but like I said, what makes this film particularly wrongheaded to me is the fact that it takes time out to explain the killer's motives, and the explanation is absolute hogwash that furthers any suspicions that the film may have been offensively stereotyping a group of people. If that attempt at explanation weren't there, I may be able to stomach the film's over-the-top premise. I'm not saying that I'm right and people who love the film are wrong, I just can't get down with it.

warren oates · #20 Post by **warren oates** » Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:03 pm

Mfunk, yeah, I read everything else. I just don't buy it.

matrixschmatrix wrote:...because Buffalo Bill really obviously isn't a transperson, and I don't think the audience is ever intended to understand him as one....

Good luck trying that on the vast majority of Silence of the Lambs viewers (who didn't have a feminist or queer theory film studies class, likely don't know any transpeople, etc.).

Even if you're right about exactly what the film says, what the film intends in saying this and how the mainstream audience understands the message are two entirely different things. All of that stuff about Buffalo Bill's complicated sexual identity (a would-be tranny, a false tranny) is pretty much verbatim in the novel. And it does matter that this is the source. Because it's there from Thomas Harris' imagination and his interest in psychology and research, as a fascinating complication, not as some kind of crucial enlightened LGBT friendly footnote. And even if the film intends it a little more sensitively via Demme then I'd still argue that the point comes off more glibly than you are all wishing. It's still part of a plot device glommed onto the weirdness of a killer who (mistakenly thinks he) wants to be a woman so badly that he needs a suit of real female skin to wear. Huh? Yeah, good luck telling the target audience from flyover country that Buffalo Bill isn't an authentic queer. They'll very likely never notice or reflect upon this detail.

matrixschmatrix wrote:Unless you are claiming that murderous sociopaths who are motivated by sex are themselves an unfairly represented and marginalized group, I'm really not sure I know what your point is.

Yeah, I was sort of claiming that, but mostly a way of drawing this argument to its logical extreme. There's a glibness in Psycho as to Norman's reasons too that you could easily say unfairly dismisses the complexity of his personality and motivation. Psycho's got the quintessential hogwash explanation for serial murder. How isn't that offensive to everyone -- victims, survivors, perps -- touched by the real thing?

Furthermore, aren't these kinds of pat verbalizations on a much wider scale part of what allows filmmakers to get away with extreme and unsettling content in the first place. Nobody really believes the tidy talking that wraps up, for instance, Bigger Than Life.

#21 Post by **mfunk9786** » Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:13 pm

It matters what a film is trying to say/not say, not how someone in flyover America interprets it.

colinr0380 · #22 Post by **colinr0380** » Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:13 pm

I think that final speech describing in lurid detail a sex change operation is meant to be both an allusion to Psycho and a way of climaxing with a horrific, leg crossing sequence that is purely verbal in nature (as well in a way, if we want to get into gender politics, as a horrible re-assertion of a 'real' woman in her descriptions of the lengths people will go to in order to become like them, or to destroy those they are jealous of, as well as being a sequence where finally the men might feel uncomfortably exploited!). In that sense I think it is quite a virtuoso scene and could also be seen to set the scene for the horrific/ironic/flippant (don't delete as applicable, as all three apply) audio ending to Blow Out!

I particularly liked R0lf's comment:

R0lf wrote:I don't think it's so offensive if you place it squarely in line with De Palma's other movies. It's almost like a signature for him to take a very low brow route and run with it simultaneously playing everything straight while also having the most fun he possibly can. You could place this along with the scream subplot in Blow Out, the porn plot in Body Double, the rape victim in Casualties of War, the recurring semi exploitive shower scenes or the constant deus ex machina (lulz) of "they woke up and it was all a dream" - in that it's not so much the plot twist that's important but exactly how De Palma so deftly and confidently handles something that so obviously shouldn't work. You can also see De Palma directly addressing the possibility that the twist in Dressed to Kill might be offensive by following it with the Nancy Allen monologues and then the doubled up "they woke up and it was all a dream" end.

I find it very interesting just how key Carrie is in setting the template for a lot of the other, very varied, works that follow. There's the opening shower sequence that does the same slow shifting through a variety of tones (and audience responses) within one scene, starting exploitative with the soft focus and slow motion before turning poignant and lyrical in showing Carrie's isolation from the rest of the classmates, standing alone, then shifting into the horror of embarrassment with the onset of the period.

I also agree with Matt's comment that you shouldn't really be looking to a De Palma film for a nuanced discussion of gender politics or multiple personalities (Raising Cain likely does not hold up to rigorous psychiatric scrutiny either), yet I like a film that throws such issues into the mix. But then I really love all of De Palma's films for their bravura style and sequences, perhaps more than for their memorable or relatable characters. Dressed To Kill is definitely no Transamerica, but then who remembers Transamerica?

For my money I really like John Lithgow's performance of a transexual character in The World According To Garp. There's a great video essay on that part here which validates this gender politics debate to some extent by suggesting that Lithgow might possibly have taken the role in Garp as a counterbalance the role of the psychotic killer murdering women in Blow Out.

warren oates · #23 Post by **warren oates** » Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:23 pm

mfunk9786 wrote:It matters what a film is trying to say/not say, not how someone in flyover America interprets it.

Okay, then, how about making a convincing case that Silence of the Lambs (the book and/or the film) actually cares about why Buffalo Bill isn't really a true tranny on any level other than the most superficial (cool plot device, interesting procedural detail, fascinating psych note). The mere fact of this detail alone doesn't strike me as nearly enough for this film to be held up as so much more enlightened than Dressed To Kill.

#24 Post by **mfunk9786** » Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:24 pm

So what do you require, exactly?

#25 Post by **Matt** » Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:32 pm

mfunk9786 wrote:It matters what a film is trying to say/not say, not how someone in flyover America interprets it.

Now who's being offensive? Also, post-modernism disagrees with you 100%.

Site Menu