Scene 6.

The Greatest Single Benefit to 

Hiring 

A Leader to Rule over You 

and 

Govern The Village 

in your stead —

Is that you never have to listen to a bloody word they ever say to you —

SCENE 6

(Mulder's holding cell. THE GUARD opens the cell door for SCULLY and SKINNER. This is a different cell. A darker cell. There's a small window at the very top of it. MULDER is standing in front of that window stretching upward and facing the light. He has his back to the door.)

(THE GUARD closes the door. He remains outside.)

SCULLY: Mulder.

(MULDER turns around slowly. He moves away from the light and a little closer to SCULLY and SKINNER. He has a strange look on his face.)

SCULLY: Mulder!

(MULDER sniffs the air around him. He fixes his stare only at SCULLY and says ...)

MULDER: I smelled you coming, Clarice.

(SCULLY and SKINNER look a little stunned. SCULLY throws an uncertain glance to SKINNER. MULDER releases a chuckle and a smile. SCULLY takes a deep breath at being once again exposed to MULDER'S exquisite sense of humour.)

SCULLY: Oh, my ...

(SCULLY doesn't seem too amused. She also hasn't moved closer to MULDER. She remains where she is since she came into the cell, quite a length away from MULDER with SKINNER between them.)

SCULLY: Damn it, Mulder. It's not funny to see you putting on that act.

MULDER: No, that is funny.

(MULDER fixes SCULLY with a look and begins to walk toward her.)

MULDER: What's not funny is what they do to you in here if you don't put on that act.

(MULDER finally sounds like his old self.)

(MULDER reaches for SCULLY, cups the back of her head with both hands, and draws her to him. MULDER kisses SCULLY leisurely taking his time, his thumbs gently caressing her cheek. SCULLY reaches up and touches MULDER. This is the reunion they both need. MULDER wraps his arms around SCULLY, drawing her nearer to him without breaking the kiss. They embrace each other in their passion. For one moment now and after, they simply hold each other.)

(SKINNER standing close to them, averts his eyes allowing them what little privacy he can.

(MULDER and SCULLY pull away from each other. MULDER humorously turns to SKINNER.)

MULDER: Come here, you big, bald, beautiful man.

SKINNER: The only thing you're going to be kissing, Mulder, is your sweet ass good-bye, with the trouble your in.

MULDER: Uh-huh, I kind of gathered that right around the 50th brainwashing session.

(MULDER inches a little closer to SCULLY, he's holding her hand and lifts it to his lips.)

SCULLY: 

Mulder, why are they 

doing this to you?

MULDER: 

They think that They're preparing me for My Trial. 

For My Testimony.

SKINNER: 

Your Testimony's not going to matter. 

Not with the case They're building.

MULDER: Not building. Rigging.

SKINNER: 

Yeah, I don't think you understand the seriousness of the charges. 

This isn't some routine wrist-slapping. 

You're on Trial for Your Life.

MULDER: 

My Trial's a forgone conclusion. 

What They really want is 

for me to admit My Guilt 

and Help Them Out. 

What's really on Trial here 

is The Truth.

SCULLY: 

Mulder, They're saying you killed a man.

MULDER: Have they produced a body?

(Neither SCULLY nor SKINNER answer. SCULLY looks over at SKINNER.)

MULDER: 

You can't produce a body 

because you can't kill 

a man who won't die.

SKINNER: Well, body or not, they've got 30 witnesses from that government facility ready to testify against you.

SCULLY: Mulder, we'll get you the best lawyer.

(MULDER lets out a smile and a laugh.)

MULDER: 

To you defend a man 

who believes in aliens 

against the FBI and the military? 

It's never going to happen. Skinner can defend me.

SKINNER: 

I can't represent you….!

MULDER: 

You know all the facts, 

the details, the whole government conspiracy.

 More than that, 

I Trust You.

(SKINNER is stunned silent by the weight of MULDER'S complete faith in him ... of MULDER'S willingness to put his life in SKINNER'S hands.)

SCULLY: Mulder ...

MULDER: They can't try me without exposing themselves. I know what I'm doing.

(The three are silent for a moment. The cell door opens. DOGGETT and REYES enter.)

MULDER: Whooo, now it's a party.

(DOGGETT stops in the cell and looks at MULDER. The two men look at each other.)

DOGGETT: 

Agent Mulder.

SCULLY: 

What's the matter?

REYES: 

We've been working off what little we have but A Military just got back to us.

DOGGETT: You ready for this? I know this is impossible, but they're saying they got Knowle Rohrer's body.

(They all know this is a lie. They're in for a tough battle ahead.)

[Fade to black]

Do Not TOUCH The Glass, Do Not APPROACH The Glass

Dr. Chilton :

Senator Martin, 

Dr. Hannibal Lecter.

Sr. Martin :

Dr. Lecter.

I brought an affidavit

guaranteeing Your New Rights.

You'll want to read it before I sign.

Lecter :

……I won't waste your time or Catherine's time

bargaining for petty privileges.

Clarice Starling

and that awful Jack Crawford

have wasted far too much time already.

I only pray they haven't 

doomed the poor girl.

Let Me Help You Now,

and I Will Trust You 

when it is all over.

Sr. Martin :

You have My Word. Paul?

Lecter :

Buffalo Bill's real Name is 

Louis Friend.

I met him just once.

He was referred to me in 

April or May 1980

by My Patient Benjamin Raspail.

They were lovers, you see.

But Raspail had become very frightened.

Apparently, Louis had murdered A Transient

and done things with The Skin.

Paul :

We need his address

and a physical description.

Lecter :

Tell me, Senator,

Did You Nurse Catherine Yourself?

Sr. Martin :

What?

Lecter :

Did you breast-feed her?

Paul :

Wait a minute.

Sr. Martin :

Yes, I did.

Lecter :

Toughened your nipples, 

didn't it?

Paul :

You son of a bitch!

Lecter :

Amputate A Man's leg,

and he can still feel it tickling.

Tell me, Mom, 

when your little girl

is on The Slab, 

where will it tickle you?

Sr. Martin :

Take This Thing back to Baltimore.

Lecter :

Five-foot-ten, strongly built,

about 180 pounds.

Hair blond, eyes pale blue.

He'd be about 35 now.

He said he lived in Philadelphia

but may have lied.

That's all I can remember, Mom.

But if I think of any more,

I will let you know.

Oh, and, Senator, 

just one more thing.

LOVE Your Suit.

I graduated from UVA, Doctor.

It is not a Charm School.

Good. Then you should 

be able to remember 

The Rules.

Do Not TOUCH The Glass.

Do Not APPROACH The Glass.

You pass him nothing 

but soft paper.

No pencils or pens.

No staples or paper clips 

in his paper.

Use the sliding food carrier.

NO Exceptions.

If he attempts to pass you anything, DO NOT ACCEPT IT.

Do you Understand Me?

Evil

evil (adj.)

Old English yfel (Kentish evel) "bad, vicious, ill, wicked," from Proto-Germanic *ubilaz (source also of Old Saxon ubil, Old Frisian and Middle Dutch evel, Dutch euvel, Old High German ubil, German übel, Gothic ubils), from PIE *upelo-, from root *wap- "bad, evil" (source also of Hittite huwapp- "evil").

In Old English and other older Germanic languages other than Scandinavian, "this word is the most comprehensive adjectival expression of disapproval, dislike or disparagement" [OED]. 

Evil was the word the Anglo-Saxons used where we would use bad, cruel, unskillful, defective (adj.), or harm (n.), crime, misfortune, disease (n.). In Middle English, Bad took the wider range of senses and Evil began to focus on moral Badness. 

Both words have good as their opposite. 

Evil-favored (1520s) meant "ugly." 

Evilchild is attested as an English surname from 13c.

The adverb is Old English yfele, originally of words or speech. Also as a noun in Old English, "what is bad; sin, wickedness; anything that causes injury, morally or physically." Especially of a malady or disease from c. 1200. 

The meaning "extreme moral wickedness" was one of the senses of the Old English noun, but it did not become established as the main sense of the modern word until 18c.

As a noun, Middle English also had evilty. 

Related: Evilly. Evil eye (Latin oculus malus) was Old English eage yfel. The jocular notion of An Evil Twin as an excuse for regrettable deeds is by 1986, American English, from an old motif in mythology.

evil (n.)

"anything that causes injury, anything that harms or is likely to harm; a malady or disease; conduct contrary to standards of morals or righteousness," Old English yfel (see evil (adj.)).

Entries related to evil

bad, evildoer, ill

LECTER :

Oh, Clarice, 

Your Problem is that 

you need to get 

more Fun out of Life.

Clarice :

You were Telling me The Truth 

back in Baltimore, sir.

Please continue now.

I've read the case files. 

LECTER :

Have you?

Everything You Need to find him 

is right there in those pages.

Clarice :

Then Tell Me How.

LECTER :

First Principles, Clarice.

Simplicity.

Read Marcus Aurelius :

"Of each Particular Thing, ask, 

'What is it in Itself?'

‘What is its Nature?’

What Does He Do, 

This “Man” you seek?

Clarice :

He Kills Women.

LECTER :

NO, That is Incidental.

What is The First 

and Principal 

Thing He Does?

What NEEDS

Does He Serve 

by Killing?

Clarice :

Anger.

Um. . . Social Acceptance 

and, um, Sexual Frustration, sir.

LECTER :

No. He COVETS.

That is His Nature.

And how do We 

Begin to Covet,

 Clarice?

Do We seek out 

Things to Covet?

Make an Effort to Answer Now.

Clarice :

No. We just.... No. 

LECTER :

We begin by coveting 

What We See Every Day.

Don't you feel eyes moving over Your Body, Clarice?

And don't YOUR eyes seek out 

The Things You Want?

Clarice :

All right, yes. 

Now please tell me how.

LECTER :

NO.

It is Your Turn 

to Tell Me, Clarice.

You don't have 

any more vacations to sell.

Why did you leave that ranch?

Clarice :

Doctor, we don't have any more time for any of this now.

LECTER :

But we don't RECKON time The Same Way, 

do we, Clarice?

This is all the time you'll ever have.

Clarice :

Later. Now, please, Listen to Me.

We've only got five -

LECTER :

NO! I Will Listen NOW.

  EVIL AND GOD

 DR JOAD'S ARTICLE ON `GOD AND EVIL' LAST WEEK' SUGgests the interesting conclusion that since neither `mechanism' nor `emergent evolution' will hold water, we must choose in the long run between some Monotheistic Philosophy, like the Christian, and some such Dualism as that of the Zoroastrians. 

I agree with Dr Joad in rejecting mechanism and emergent evolution. Mechanism, like all materialist systems, breaks down at the problem of knowledge. If thought is the undesigned and irrelevant product of cerebral motions, what reason have we to trust it? As for emergent evolution, if anyone insists on using the word God to mean `whatever the universe happens to be going to do next', of course we cannot prevent him. But nobody would in fact so use it unless he had a secret belief that what is coming next will be an improvement. Such a belief, besides being unwarranted, presents peculiar difficulties to an emergent evolutionist. If things can improve, this means that there must be some absolute standard of good above and outside the cosmic process to which that process can approximate. There is no sense in talking of `becoming better' if better means simply `what we are becoming' - it is like congratulating yourself on reaching your destination and defining destination as `the place you have reached'. Mellontolatry, or the worship of the future, is a fuddled religion.We are left then to choose between monotheism and dualism - between a single, good, almighty source of being, and two equal, uncreated, antagonistic Powers, one good and the other bad. Dr Joad suggests that the latter view stands to gain from the `new urgency' of the fact of evil. But what new urgency? Evil may seem more urgent to us than it did to the Victorian philosophers - favoured members of the happiest class in the happiest country in the world at the world's happiest period. But it is no more urgent for us than for the great majority of monotheists all down the ages. The classic expositions of the doctrine that the world's miseries are compatible with its creation and guidance by a wholly good Being come from Boethius waiting in prison to be beaten to death and from St Augustine meditating on the sack of Rome. The present state of the world is normal; it was the last century that was the abnormality.This drives us to ask why so many generations rejected Dualism. Not, assuredly, because they were unfamiliar with suffering; and not because its obvious prima facie plausibility escaped them. It is more likely that they 'saw its two fatal difficulties, the one metaphysical, and the other moral.The metaphysical difficulty is this. The two Powers, the good and the evil, do not explain each other. Neither Ormuzd nor Ahriman can claim to be the Ultimate. More ultimate than either of them is the inexplicable fact of their being there together. Neither of them chose this tete-a-tete. Each of them, therefore, is conditioned - finds himself willy-nilly in a situation; and either that situation itself, or some unknown force which produced that situation, is the real Ultimate. Dualism has not yet reached the ground of being. You cannot accept two conditioned and mutually independent beings as the selfgrounded, self-comprehending Absolute. On the level of picture-thinking this difficulty is symbolised by our inability to think of Ormuzd and Ahriman without smuggling in the idea of a common space in which they can be together and thus confessing that we are not yet dealing with the source of the universe but only with two members contained in it. Dualism is a truncated metaphysic.The moral difficulty is that Dualism gives evil a positive, substantive, self-consistent nature, like that of good. If this were true, if Ahriman existed in his own right no less than Ormuzd, what could we mean by calling Ormuzd good except that we happened to prefer him. In what sense can the one party be said to be right and the other wrong? If evil has the same kind of reality as good, the same autonomy and completeness, our allegiance to good becomes the arbitrarily chosen loyalty of a partisan. A sound theory of value demands something different. It demands that good should be original and evil a mere perversion; that good should be the tree and evil the ivy; that good should be able to see all round evil (as when sane men understand lunacy) while evil cannot retaliate in kind; that good should be able to exist on its own while evil requires the good on which it is parasitic in order to continue its parasitic existence.The consequences of neglecting this are serious. It means believing that bad men like badness as such, in the same way in which good men like goodness. At first this denial of any common nature between us and our enemies seems gratifying. We call them fiends and feel that we need not forgive them. But, in reality, along with the power to forgive, we have lost the power to condemn. If a taste for cruelty and a taste for kindness were equally ultimate and basic, by what common standard could the one reprove the other? In reality, cruelty does not come from desiring evil as such, but from perverted sexuality, inordinate resentment, or lawless ambition and avarice. That is precisely why it can be judged and condemned from the standpoint of innocent sexuality, righteous anger, and ordinate acquisitiveness. The master can correct a boy's sums because they are blunders in arithmetic - in the same arithmetic which he does and does better. If they were not even attempts at arithmetic - if they were not in the arithmetical world at all - they could not be arithmetical mistakes.Good and evil, then, are not on all fours. Badness is not even bad in the same way in which goodness is good. Ormuzd and Ahriman cannot be equals. In the long run, Ormuzd must be original and Ahriman derivative. The first hazy idea of devil must, if we begin to think, be analysed into the more precise ideas of `fallen' and `rebel' angel. But only in the long run. Christianity can go much further with the Dualist than Dr Joad's article seems to suggest. There was never any question of tracing all evil to man; in fact, the New Testament has a good deal more to say about dark superhuman powers than about the fall of Adam. As far as this world is concerned, a Christian can share most of the Zoroastrian outlook; we all live between the `fell, incensed points'2 of Michael and Satan. The difference between the Christian and the Dualist is that the Christian thinks one stage further and sees that if Michael is really in the right and Satan really in the wrong this must mean that they stand in two different relations to somebody or something far further back, to the ultimate ground of reality itself. All this, of course, has been watered down in modern times by the theologians who are afraid of `mythology', but those who are prepared to reinstate Ormuzd and Ahriman are presumably not squeamish on that score.Dualism can be a manly creed. In the Norse form ('The giants will beat the gods in the end, but I am on the side of the gods') it is nobler by many degrees than most philosophies of the moment. But it is only a half-way house. Thinking along these lines you can avoid Monotheism, and remain a Dualist, only by refusing to follow your thoughts home. To revive Dualism would be a real step backwards and a bad omen (though not the worst possible) for civilization.


He’s EATING Them, Not DATING Them

Memphis Policeman :

Is it True What They're Saying?

Clarice :

Huh?

Memphis Policeman :

That he's Some Kind of Vampire.

Clarice :

They Don't Have 

a NAME

for What He Is.

The Farm

“After You Father's Murder, you were orphaned —

What Happened next?

…. I don't imagine The Answer is on those second-rate SHOES, Clarice.”

“I went to live with My Mother's cousin and her husband in Montana. 

They had A Ranch.”

“Was it a cattle ranch?”

“Sheep and horses.”

“How long did you live there?”

“Two months.”

“Why so briefly?”

“I ran away.”

“Why, Clarice?

Did The Rancher make you perform fellatio?

Did he sodomize you?”

“No. He was a very decent man.

Quid pro quo, Doctor.”

Our Kal Hates His IDENTITY, You See.

“Billy is not a REAL Transsexual — 

But he THINKS he is — 

He TRIES to be….

He's tried to be a •lot• of things, I expect.”

“You said I was very close to the way we would catch him. 

What did you mean, Doctor?”

“There are three major centers for transsexual surgery  — 

Johns Hopkins, 

The University of Minnesota, 

and Columbus Medical Center. 

I wouldn't be surprised if Billy had applied for sex reassignment 

at one or •all• of them and been REJECTED.”

“On what BASIS would they reject him? 

[ Today? None whatsoever. That’s Transphobia. ]”

“Look for severe childhood disturbances associated with violence. 

Our Billy wasn't •born• a criminal, Clarice — 

He was MADE one through YEARS of •systematic• abuse. 

Billy HATES his IDENTITY, you see, 

and he •thinks• that THAT makes him a transsexual — 

But his pathology is a thousand times more SAVAGE and more TERRIFYING.”

•It rubs lotion on its skin.•

•It does this whenever it's told.•

Will Graham : 

I thought you might enjoy The Challenge. 

Find out if you're smarter than 

The Person I'm looking for.

[ The Still Human ] 

Hannibal Lecter  : 

Oh — Then, by implication, 

you must think you're smarter than •I• am, 

since it was you who •caught• me.

Will Graham : 

No, No — 

I KNOW I'm not smarter than you.

[ The Still Human ] 

Hannibal Lecter : 

Then how did you •catch• me?

Will Graham : 

You had... disadvantages.

[ The Still Human ] 

Hannibal Lecter : 

What disadvantages?

[ He liked and admired Will Graham.]

Will Graham : 

You're INSANE.

The Underlying Emotion of Hannibal is Affection

  Romance

Ridley Scott has said he believes the underlying emotion of Hannibal is "affection". 

"In some instances, you might even wonder or certainly from one direction — is it more than affection? 

It is dark, because the story is of course essentially dark, 

but it's kind of romantic at the same time."

Scott openly admits to a "romantic thematic" running through the film.

He told CNN that: "Hannibal was quite a different target, essentially a study between two individuals. 

Funny enough, it's rather romantic and also quite humorous, but also there's some quite bad behaviour as well."

During the opera scene in Florence, Lecter attends an operatic adaptation of one of Dante's sonnets, and meets with Detective Pazzi and his wife, Allegra. 

She asks Lecter, "Do you believe a man could become so obsessed by a woman after a single encounter?" 

Lecter replies: "Yes, I believe he could ... but would she see through the bars of his plight and ache for him?" 

This scene, in the film, is one which Scott claims most people "missed" the meaning of. It was in reference to Starling —to their encounter in The Silence of the Lambs.

The New York Times, in its review of the film, said Hannibal, "toys" with the idea of "love that dare not speak its name".

Composer Hans Zimmer believed there were messages and subtext in each scene.[11] He said, "I can score this movie truly as a Freudian archetypal beauty and the beast fairy tale, as a horror movie, as the most elegant piece, on corruption in the American police force, as the loneliest woman on earth, the beauty in renaissance ..."

Zimmer ultimately believes it to be a Dark Love Story, centering on two people who should never be together — a modern day Romeo and Juliet.

During post-production, Scott, Zimmer and the editor passionately argued about the meaning of Starling's tear during a confrontation with Lecter. 

They could not agree if it was a tear of "anguish", "loneliness" or "disgust".

Scott told the New York Post that, the affair of the heart between Lecter and Starling is metaphorical.

Rolling Stone magazine said in their review, "Scott offers a sly parody of relationships—think 'When Hannibal met Sally'."

Retribution and punishment

Scott has said he believed Lecter, in his own way, was "pure", whose motivation is the search for "retribution and punishment".

"There is something very moral about Lecter in this film," said Scott in his audio commentary. 

"The behaviour of Hannibal is never insane — [I] didn't want to use that excuse. 

Is he insane?  No, I think he's as sane as you or I. 

He just likes it."

Scott did say, however, 

"In our normal terms, he's Truly Evil."

Scott also brings up the notion of absolution in reference to Lecter towards the film's end.

Verger has one overriding objective in life: to capture Lecter and subject him to a slow, painful death.

Corruption

Part of the story involves the character Rinaldo Pazzi (Giancarlo Giannini), a Florentine policeman who learns "Dr. Fell"'s True Identity and realizes that this knowledge could make him rich. 

His escalating abandonment of morality allows him to countenance and facilitate the death of a Romani pickpocket, egged on by the desire to have the best for his much younger wife.

There is a moment in the film when Pazzi becomes corrupted, despite being what Scott describes as "very thoughtfu 

VERGER

MASON VERGER :

 Cordell, to you, does that look like a wave 

‘Goodbye’, or ‘Hello’? 

So, What Do You Think? 

Does Lecter wanna fuck her, 

or kill her, or eat her, or what? 

CORDELL: 

Probably all three, 

though I wouldn't wanna predict in what order. 

[VERGER CHUCKLES] 

VERGER :

Here's What I Think — 

No matter how Barney might wanna romanticise it, 

or make it 

"Beauty and the Beast" -- 

Lecter's Object, 

as I know from personal experience, has always been 

degradation and suffering. 

Yes, but She is A Policeman —

You are a Pig.

As was Richard of Gloucester —Swine.

She’s a bold and plucky chaste and righteous  champion-protector of The Weak and defender of The Innocent —

You’re a cruel and boastful sado-masochistic  billionaire pervert and Rapist of Children —

Mason Verger doesn’t seem to understand how that makes the two of them any different as people in Lecter’s eyes...

Cordell, get this damn thing off me, 

I can't breathe in this thing. 

He comes in 

The Guise of A Mentor, 

as he did with me, and her, 

but it's distress that excites him. 

To draw him, she needs to be distressed. 

To make her attractive to him, 

let him see her distressed. 

Let The Damage He Sees suggest 

The Damage He Could Do. 

[ No, that’s not him, that’s you. ]

[SMACKING LIPS] 

[SLURPS] 

When The Fox hears The Rabbit scream, 

he comes a-running —

But not to help. 

KRENDLER: 

I don't understand. 

VERGER OVER PHONE: 

Well, there's nothing to understand, Paul. 

All you have to understand is 

What it's Worth to You. 

KRENDLER: 

No, no. 

I don't understand why she didn't turn this over. 

I mean, she's such a Straight Arrow. 

VERGER :

She didn't turn it over, 

Because she didn't receive it. 

She didn't receive it, 

Because it was never sent. 

It was never sent, 

Because Lecter didn't write it. 

He didn't write it, 

Because I did. 

KRENDLER: 

Oh! 

[LAUGHING]

VERGER :

So, what do you think? 

KRENDLER: 

I think you'd have been better off 

if you never got her out of Trouble in the first place. 

VERGER :

Oh, woulda, shoulda, coulda. 

I meant what do you think about The Money? 

KRENDLER: 

....Five. 

[LAUGHS] 

VERGER :

Oh, let's just toss it off, like, 

"Five." 

Let's Say it with 

The Respect it Deserves. 

KRENDLER: 

[ENUNCIATING] 

$500,000. 

VERGER :

That's better, but not much.

And will it work?

KRENDLER: 

It'll work.

It won't be pretty.

VERGER :

What ever is?

 

[CHUCKLES]

[DIAL TONE DRONING] 

Cocksucker