It was 20 years ago today that "The Silence of the Lambs" made its debut on the big screen.
In the long history of the Oscars, slightly more than three dozen films have been nominated for all of the so–called "Big Five" awards — Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor, Best Actress and either Best Adapted Screenplay or Best Original Screenplay.
"The Silence of the Lambs" was the first in a decade to be nominated in all five categories. Only four films have been so honored since.
Even fewer — only three, in fact — have swept all five awards.
The last to do so was "The Silence of the Lambs."
It takes a remarkable film to achieve that, and I had every intention of going to the theatre to see it. Of course, I had no idea on this day 20 years ago that it would be nominated for the "Big Five" because that didn't happen until a year later.
But I had heard a lot about it, and I had read a lot about it — and I was eager to see it.
Unfortunately, I got sidetracked.
About a month after it hit the big screen, I learned that an old friend of mine in Arkansas was in the hospital. He had been diagnosed with an especially aggressive form of cancer that wound up taking his life within a few months.
I was preoccupied with that, as well as my studies in graduate school in Texas, and I never got around to seeing the film while it was in the theaters.
More than a year later, after it had been nominated for the "Big Five" and had become the first film to sweep all five awards since "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest," it was featured in one of those free previews that the premium channels did in those days to try to attract subscribers.
(I guess they still do that, although not as frequently.)
I recorded the film, watched it and brought the tape with me on a trip to Arkansas to visit my friends. As luck would have it, my friends hadn't seen the movie, either, so I popped the tape in the VCR.
At left, you can see a picture of two of my friends, totally absorbed in the story.And that was understandable. The film was a nearly perfect blend of crime and horror. It had a clear aura of realism, with the serial killer nicknamed "Buffalo Bill" because he took sections of skin from his victims and the FBI's at times frantic efforts to pry useful information from another serial killer they had in custody.
It isn't really necessary to go over the plot, is it? Anthony Hopkins and Jodie Foster were ideal choices for their roles, and they certainly deserved their Oscars.
But, remarkably, Hopkins wasn't the first choice to play Hannibal Lecter. Gene Hackman was supposed to play the part, but he backed out. Other Hollywood heavyweights like Jack Nicholson, Dustin Hoffman, Robert Duvall, Robert De Niro and Sean Connery were offered the role before it went to Hopkins.
Foster, too, was a substitute choice. One of the most popular actresses of that time, Michelle Pfeiffer, was the first choice, but she turned it down. She told Barbara Walters she was nervous about the subject matter. Reportedly, there were about 300 other actresses who had applied for the part, including Melanie Griffith, Geena Davis and Meg Ryan, but it went to Foster.
In hindsight, it is hard to imagine anyone else playing either role. The American Film Institute named Hopkins the #1 film villain of all time and Foster the #6 film hero.
I can't picture Hackman or Pfeiffer doing any better.
