Character mistake: Dissecting the chrysalis, Dr. Roden says that "Somebody grew this guy. Fed him honey and nightshade." Nightshade is indeed one of the typical plants eaten by the Death's head moth, but since "he" is only a pupa, would have not eaten honey, which is something only the adult specimen eats. (00:48:50)
Sammo
19th Mar 2020
The Silence of the Lambs (1991)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: I don't see this so much as a mistake, but rather a shortcut so there would be no need to explain the entire metamorphosis process. Feeding "it" would refer to the larva stage, necessary to reach (grow to) the pupa stage. "It" may have transformed, but "it" is still the same "it." The men working there are experts and would know what he means, not interrupt and say, "Pupae don't eat, dumb @$$." Likewise, having to specifically say that someone fed the larva "honey and Nightshade" so that it would become that pupa doesn't seem to be necessary given the nature of the film. [And the larva - not just "adults" - might eat honey.].
Sorry, I don't really understand the point of the first part (like, 90%) of the correction; at no point I was disputing the concept of 'feeding a pupa', but just what it could have eaten to be raised to that stage. The only relevant part of your correction is that last phrase; "And the larva might eat honey." Which is not how it works from what I understand. If you want to correct this entry, please dispute that aspect; I never bred bugs (...on purpose!) and surely not of that kind, but the larvae of that species are strictly herbivores, and the honey plays into their diet only later in life - to the best of my knowledge they can't even process it at that stage. Assuming it can (which I have no particular reason to believe), it would be an exception and not what an entomologist would say to describe a well raised specimen. For what it is worth, also, Harris' novel never mentions honey, but specifically leaves, although it's a different plant.
Sorry if I misconstrued what you were trying to say. By writing that the pupa would not eat something only the adults eat, you left the impression that the pupa eats other things (just not the honey). I think I understand now. Your answer is specific to the honey and my response addressed how much information the experts needed to present about metamorphosis and food/no food to the audience. I hope this helps you understand at least some of that 90%.
6th Apr 2017
The Silence of the Lambs (1991)
Continuity mistake: Lecter asks for a lamb chop dinner, rare, and when they arrive, they are rare. When we see them later, they look well done. (01:15:50)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: They don't look different in any of the shots. It's the same lambchops, same temperature. They are cooked as is, so they have a dark outside but inside they are probably rare. They do look darker in the last scene but that's probably because they have gone cold and dried out.
Suggested correction: How would a mistake like that come to be? Someone cooked them in between shots? Too much time elapsed and the substance oxidized? The potato and everything else on the plate look the same, and so do the chops, shape-wise. They might be of a slightly darker color in the very last shot with Boyle on the floor, but the plate has also been sprayed with blood, so that could account for this - mostly perceived - change.
A mistake like this would come to be if they're using real food and not props and had to do a cut, change camera position, do a reshoot, etc and had to set the scene again and redo the cooking of the food, or remake the props for some reason, but now the food looks different. What we see as a continuous scene in a movie or TV show is not always done in one take, which is why the site is filled with countless continuity mistakes.
27th Aug 2001
The Silence of the Lambs (1991)
Corrected entry: When Dr. Lecter was introduced to the police in Tenn., their names were Sgts. Boyle and Petrie. When he's escaped from his cell, he said, " Ready when you are Sgt. Pembry". That name is repeated later when Sgt. Tate says "It's Jim Pembry, now talk to him". Someone should zoom in on his name tag, to see what his name really is.
Correction: Sgt. Patrick (not "Petrie") and Sgt. Pembry are two entirely different persons. Pembry is much younger than Patrick. Further evidence can be found in the end credits, which lists the actors in order of appearance: Sgt. Boyle is listed way before than Sgt. Pembry.
The original poster had it right when he said "Someone should zoom in on his name tag." With the remastered edition it is possible, and the name tag in the airport says "Pembry." The original post is correct, as definitely Boyle does not call him "Pembry" but something else that most people understand as "Petrie" or as close captions say "Patrick." It's a mistake.
24th Mar 2016
The Silence of the Lambs (1991)
Plot hole: When Clarice visits Lecter in his new makeshift cell, she brings his drawings, which were left behind in Baltimore. She tells him how she saw the lambs being killed and heard them screaming, taking one lamb with her when she ran away. As the guards approached his cell after she leaves, the camera pans across the cell, taking in the drawings Clarice had brought, and the top one is a very detailed drawing of Clarice holding a spring lamb. She only told just told Lecter about the lamb, not enough time for him to have done that drawing.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: First; I do agree and support the mistake. But playing devil's advocate for a moment; she told him back in Baltimore about the ranch and how they had sheep and horses, so in theory he could have already started drawing back then and figure that a memory about the place was linked to those animals, adding the exact detail afterwards. Should also be noted that the guards approach the cell 'after she leaves', yes, but it's an 'after' that happens after she already flew back all the way from Memphis, so a few hours later.
Your last sentence corrects the mistake, the top drawing is new and wasn't brought by Clarice. You can see chalk on top of the drawing indicating he had just made it. Several hours passed between her delivering her story and him receiving his dinner.
8th May 2005
The Silence of the Lambs (1991)
Corrected entry: How the heck did Hannibal get ahold of the pen during his release from the mental hospital ? It was at least 4 feet away from him; he was bound and had a face plate over his mouth. Not only did he get the pen but somehow he got the internal portion of it which would have required freedom of movement to remove. This must be a mistake because aside from telekinesis, it should have been impossible.
Correction: We see Chilton leave the pen on the bed, then head for the exit to the cell, forgetting to pick it up, which is hardly implausible, given that he's rather agitated at the time. Barney then releases Hannibal, who simply picks the pen up and conceals it once his restraints have been removed.
11th Apr 2005
The Silence of the Lambs (1991)
Corrected entry: Author Thomas Harris has never watched the film because he's afraid that it'll influence his writing.
Correction: This is not true. Harris stated that he saw it when it was released and was very pleased with the movie.
Correction: As it happens with stories "too good to be true" probably some details changed throughout the years; the idea is that he refused to watch the movie and told director Demme so citing the example of LeCarre and his experience with the adaptation of his books, sparking this 'myth', which was tough based on actual statements. But in the 1991 New York Magazine feature by Phoebe Hoban, Harris is reported to have watched the movie, indeed (even if I don't find the 'when it was released' claim of the correction), and in recent interviews his story has been that he refused to watch it but after the Oscars he just happened to stumble upon it flipping channels on TV.
12th Feb 2003
The Silence of the Lambs (1991)
Corrected entry: In the scene where Clarice has arrived at the hospital for the second time, it is raining. She runs to Barney, who is already waiting for her. She was in the rain for a total of about 3 seconds, so how is her hair so wet in the next scene, where she is sitting on the floor talking to Dr. Lecter? (00:27:03)
Correction: We don't know how long she had to drive, if she stopped somewhere before arriving at the hospital or how long it had been raining. Her hair could be already wet when she came out of her car. We don't see this because of the rain.
I disagree with the correction. It's true that the visual is not perfect due to the rain and darkness, but I believe the perception of the original post to be correct; her hair appears bouncy and vaporous when she is sprinting from the car to the mental hospital, it really appears much wetter indoors after time expired and she was given even chances to dry rather than getting soaked.
27th Aug 2003
The Silence of the Lambs (1991)
Corrected entry: When Clarice leaves the asylum after first talking to Dr. Lecter, her hair is a different color than when she went in; it is much darker and looks freshly dyed. (00:19:40)
Correction: And her nails too look different, pinker, while they were darker in the corridor. Honestly, I think it's just a matter of photography, the light of the scenes indoors and the one outside are different. Easier to imagine than Jodie Foster going to the hairdresser in the middle of the shoot or the makeup department flubbing the cosmetics used.
14th Dec 2001
The Silence of the Lambs (1991)
Corrected entry: In the scene where Clarice Starling has to turn over her gun and ammo, before visiting the caged Dr. Lecter, it is clearly visible that one of the bullets in the speedloader has been dropped: the nose is completely disformed. I wouldn't advise anyone to shoot such a bullet... (01:05:50)
Correction: Character mistake. Clarice should have checked her ammunition better, but she didn't. Everyone, no matter how good they are, has little slip-ups now and again.
8th Jul 2005
The Silence of the Lambs (1991)
Corrected entry: The "Memphis" airport, where Lector meets the Senator, is not Memphis, it is actually Lambert airport in St. Louis. The giveaway is the large neon "McDonnell Douglas" sign visible as the plane lands.
Correction: Why is this a giveaway? I have no idea of the significance of a "McDonnell Douglas" sign, and why there would not be one in Memphis as opposed to St. Louis. A typical moviegoer would never realize this as a mistake, as it seems gto rely on encyclopedic knowledge of the signage for a US Airports.
Because the sign mentioned is the McDonnell Douglas headquarters', which is by the St. Louis airport and not Memphis'? I don't think you can refute a mistake based on average moviegoer knowledge, otherwise anything that is not strikingly obvious (judged on what basis?) for a worldwide audience would not qualify.
Join the mailing list
Separate from membership, this is to get updates about mistakes in recent releases. Addresses are not passed on to any third party, and are used solely for direct communication from this site. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Check out the mistake & trivia books, on Kindle and in paperback.