Talk:Buffalo Bill (The Silence of the Lambs)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

Information best presented in article "Jame Gumb". Gumb never billed anywhere as "Buffalo Bill", a nickname. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.68.253 (talk) 23:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Goodbye Horses" Scene[edit]

Was the "Goodbye Horses" scene present in the book? Did it have the scene but without the song? Or was a song mentioned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.6.135.1 (talk) 06:07, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Character History[edit]

I have done a slight cleanup of character history. For example I deleted where it said Gumb served in the navy as this was something I found no mention of in the book or movie and I added information from the book in its place.--Myron Mumbles (talk) 04:40, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Antagonist[edit]

For literary purposes, he is actually the protagonist, as he is propelling the plot. Starling is attempting to stop his machinations, making *her* the antagonist. Just an observation. 76.10.132.56 (talk) 22:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Character Notes and Controversy" discusses whether killer Gumb/Buffalo Bill is bisexual and/or transsexual. By concluding with this statement:

In the director's commentary for the 1991 film, director Jonathan Demme draws attention to various Polaroids taken of Buffalo Bill in the company of strippers; these are visible in Gumb's basement in the film.

...I assume the implication is: if someone is male-to-female transgendered, they're unlikely to be interested in women?

A common myth, but not supported by any facts. Transsexuals of either gender might be straight, gay, bi or any other variation you can think of. It's about the gender with which you identify, not the gender to which you're attracted.drone5 (talk) 03:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see some actual scientific basis for your assertion. Oh, I am not disagreeing, just wanting to see where you got your information.

Hypercallipygian (talk) 01:49, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why is any of this even remotely controversial in the first place? If the Gumb character had otherwise been neither bisexual nor homosexual and not transgender (or not really transgender, as seems to be REALLY important for some reason) but was simply stitching together a female skin suit because he liked looking at the female form there would have been EXACTLY zero controversy from the heterosexual community. Sometimes "persecution" is more imagined than real and more self-imposed than externally experienced. 96.241.60.132 (talk) 01:43, 23 January 2014 (UTC)mjd 2014-01-22-20:43EST.[reply]

To address the point on who's the protagonist; Protagonists react to Antagonist's plots, schemes and other machinations. Given the Antagonist had kidnapped Woman with intent to remove their skin, it was the Protagonist in this case that thwarted his plan, which was Starling.

To Address the Controversy, if he was nether Bisexual or Transgender then it wouldn't have needed to be stated in either case if he is or is not. But as it was brought up, it's akin to any literary reference that alludes to stereotypes about LGBT people. As per Wikipedia's policy on assuming good faith, I'll have it you've never experienced stigma concerning your heterosexuality, and should never need to but try to understand that media depictions don't affect everyone equally, and not every heterosexual would be as level-headed as you are when they're maligned and made out to be dangerous serial killers that you quite often are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.134.144 (talk) 23:25, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gumb's home movies[edit]

All Gumb did was collect images of his mother, look after his dog and kidnap girls. It's a major character point, not something optional. MartinSFSA (talk) 05:14, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be given only passing mention in the book, and no mention at all in the film. How important can it be? Please provide a source, like a book review, showing that critics have found this detail to be essential or at least important to an understanding of the character. Otherwise, it is only your opinion that it is important. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 13:22, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I don't believe I'm going to be able to do that. MartinSFSA (talk) 15:36, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis[edit]

I strongly recommend the "analysis" part to be removed. It contains nothing but the personal headspins of a few insignificant persons that can barely be called researchers. The depth and weighth of their "analysis" is comparable to something my grandmother could/would provide. Apart from that, they are also poorly written and add not a single piece of useful information to the background of the character. Unless a proper analysis is provided, one made by the director or writer for example, remove this section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.86.62.245 (talk) 22:59, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I second this, mostly because as a writer, I know that character analysis like this doesn't make any sense. He's not a real person, his psychology doesn't run this deep. The book was meant to be a thriller, so the author made his actions and behavior thrilling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.205.251.39 (talk) 14:00, 10 June 2017 (UTC) I third this, and would note agenda-derived bias in the citings. 92.30.147.166 (talk) 17:51, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Buffalo Bill (character). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:55, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moths[edit]

Bill's usage of moths isn't covered in the article, and a reference to it at the end is disjointed and confusing. It's been a while since I've seen the movie, so I can't fill the details in accurately for now. 92.30.147.166 (talk) 17:53, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bill’s Gender[edit]

Forgive me if this has been already discussed, but is Buffalo Bill’s gender male? I know the movie says he’s not actually trans because he just wants to be a woman to escape his self-hatred, but I don’t know if that’s necessarily true? I don’t know. I’d rather him not be a trans female because of how poorly that reflects on the trans community, but better accuracy than to preserve my opinion. Thoughts? Dabblequeen (talk) 02:53, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The excuse the movie uses for why Jame is "not actually trans" is incredibly specious, and based on what we're shown, Jame absolutely would be trans in real life, but within the fiction of the film, he is explicitly stated to not be trans. So for the main text of the article to discuss interpreting Jame as trans would be an inappropriate synthesis. But it would be absolutely valid to bring it up in reference to, for example, this opinion piece, which discusses the cultural impact of the character and in doing so does interpret Jame as a trans woman. --69.41.200.240 (talk) 08:24, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jame most likely would be considered to be transgender in the real world, but, sadly, the book and movie continue to insist that she is not, so masculine words are used in reference to her. --65.128.25.195 (talk) 23:34, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alfredo Ballí Treviño?[edit]

The page on Hannibal Lecter says he served as a partial inspiration for Buffalo Bill (Balli Trevino killed his own boyfriend and decapitated him just like with Benjamin Raspail in the movie) and that Thomas Harris met him while in Mexico. I don't understand why his name was removed. I feel he should be mentioned somewhere on the page.

Deletion of "unsourced" material[edit]

I had an analysis reverted become it was unsourced.

"Sourced analysis" especially in the arts, is no more than an opinion of another individual, usually an academic or self-styled expert. What makes it more accurate and credible than the "unsourced" analysis?

Sourced material can be reasonably construed as elitist because only certain people can publish AND be cited (often due to notoriety rather than acumen) or an exercise on who can published, be cited, and wants to go through the hassle.

Additionally, the amount of unsourced content on Wikipedia is enormous not just in volume but in relation to "sourced" material. What makes my analysis any different?

My suggestion is to focus on the quality of the analysis itself rather that who said it.

Along these lines, it ought to focus on whether the analysis is accurate, insightful and credible.

I think the deletion of the analysis diminishes the entry on Buffalo Bill.

If my analysis is incorrect, untenable, or fanciful, tell me why. Deal with the analysis itself, not whether it was sourced.

Finally, sourced material is taken from people whose analysis is flawed, incomplete, or discriminatory. I've complained about this before. 2601:6C5:300:7180:B9C3:CF75:1602:81AA (talk) 21:59, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is not how Wikipedia works, things need sources.★Trekker (talk) 22:18, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"No, this is not how Wikipedia works."
--Yes it does. Much of Wikipedia's content is unsourced.
Relative to the "published sources" requirement, such a requirement does not further the ascertainment of truth, but rather arrogates the power of dissemination of truth to the few, namely (mostly) elites who have the prerogative to publish and be cited. It arbitrarily elevates one person's opinion over another's irrespective of the quality of analysis provided.
I could cite numerous developmental psychologists, text and video from the movie, and other sources to support the contribution I made. In other words, I could demonstrate and defend the contribution's accuracy and reliability, which is the essence of what an encyclopedia is and requires.
However, the myopic and unduly rigid norms of rule application doesn't permit it.
Wikipedia is, or should be, about equality as to process (both editorial process and contributions) and quality and credibility as to content. Biolitblue (talk) 17:44, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you want Wikipedia to be something else than it is you can bring that up somehwere else. This has no relevance to this article.★Trekker (talk) 23:56, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've brought it up to the Wikipedia Team prior to your posting this comment.
As for you assertion that my comments lacks relevance, you're relying on circular reasoning. I'm not going to respond anymore because it is a time sink and a lack of intellectually honest discourse. I understand, you're just following orders. 2601:6C5:300:7180:D5A:AA40:CA89:F002 (talk) 01:54, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So clearly you already know that there is no point wasting mine or any other editors time with your own personal point of view, please use your time more constructively.★Trekker (talk) 02:06, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I clearly already know that it makes no sense creating a false dichotomy between endorsing "personal points of view" by someone who is published and cited (reserved for elites and therefore contrary to the spirit of equality and access to edit that Wikipedia purports to champion) and one who is not.
The essence of an encyclopedia should be the incorporation of the highest quality content, not the winner of a popularity contest. Now stop trying to have the last word and wasting time in an effort to frustrate and dissuade me and others from making future edits and contributions. Biolitblue (talk) 03:53, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How you see things don't matter, the website could not function the way you want it to do, what you personally find "quality" someone else could easily regard as trash, having easy to follow standards like "can be referenced to a source with an editor" is how pretty much all encyclopedias work. Feel free to edit a fan Wikia if you want to do things differently.★Trekker (talk) 04:47, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Portrayal of transsexuality" needs expansion[edit]

There is more room for nuanced discussion here. I have shared some links below, if anyone would like to expand it.

2021 Vanity Fair Interview with Jodie Foster and Anthony Hopkins discussing Silence of the Lamb's portrayal of transsexuality- https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2021/02/dr-lecter-my-name-is-clarice-starling

Assuming Identities: Gender, Sexuality, and Performativity in The Silence of the Lambs- https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1803&context=faculty_publications

Understanding Silence of the Lambs’ complicated cultural legacy- Vox https://www.vox.com/culture/22281548/silence-of-the-lambs-cultural-impact-legacy-feminist-transphobia

The Transvestite, the Transsexual and the Trans Woman The Transmisogynist Representation of Transgender Killers in Psycho, The Silence of the Lambs and The Mantis- https://studenttheses.uu.nl/bitstream/handle/20.500.12932/36045/Effie%20Ophelders%20-%20BA%20Honours%20Thesis%20-%20Final%20Version.pdf?sequence=1

Silence of the Lambs spin-off Clarice addresses film’s harmful anti-trans legacy- PinkNews- https://www.thepinknews.com/2021/05/14/clarice-trans-buffalo-bill-silence-of-the-lambs/

Teaching critical media effects through classic horror films- https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/17404622.2023.2263516?casa_token=x1Ct2oHDoWoAAAAA:nhBABbRsWIZ56ON4BUGDpyHdnEWKXoU-QRZXvZHpCpkgH4POvyEiqy5j8ZR1Qa1hzRyBPn1EZVZ1nkA Uelly (talk) 21:17, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

‘some LGBT journalists’[edit]

“The film adaptation of Silence of the Lambs was criticized by some LGBT journalists for its portrayal of Gumb.[4]” There is literally nothing of the sort at the provided source link. CSM is a parental/viewer discretion guide. No journalism is present. 2A00:23C7:890F:FC01:FDAD:86F4:6BD8:2AC6 (talk) 09:41, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 24 February 2024[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Buffalo Bill (The Silence of the Lambs). (closed by non-admin page mover) SilverLocust 💬 06:57, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Buffalo Bill (character) → Jame Gumb – Character is billed as Jame Gumb in the movie's credits and is referred to by this name throughout the novel. Never billed anywhere as "Buffalo Bill", a nickname. Ieonine (talk) 01:26, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose WP:COMMONNAME is more important than billing.★Trekker (talk) 01:34, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Buffalo_Bill_(The_Silence_of_the_Lambs)&oldid=1211380621"