Loyalty to a Psychopath: Reevaluation of Morality and Evil It is common and intentional in films and literature for the viewer or reader to find a character interesting, with relatable, and understanding. These texts construct specific characters that viewers and readers can relate to and foster. Why, though, is it common in cinema and literature for the bad guys to be the “good guys”? The villain should fight justice and wreak havoc on the protagonist's plans. However, it has become very common for the villain to be the favorite character. So common, in fact, that a list of favorite villains has been compiled (CBS, 2003). Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay The Silence of the Lambs is a film based on the novel by Thomas Harris that features the number one favorite villain on the list and is a shining example of why villainy is making this transformation. The film follows FBI agent-in-training Clarice Starling (played by Jodie Foster) as she attempts to profile Hannibal Lecter (played by Anthony Hopkins). Lecter is a former psychiatrist who kills his victims and then feeds on them, nicknamed "Hannibal the Cannibal" by some. In the profiling process, Lecter and Starling form a peculiar relationship in which he assists her in the profiling and investigation of another serial killer named Jame Gumb, nicknamed "Buffalo Bill". As Gumb's former psychiatrist, Lecter knows his past and his ways, so his advice is crucial to the final closure of this case. Lecter is the villain of the film, and there's no doubt about it. Through an altered moral code and an adapted idea of ​​"good" and "evil," viewers form a bond with this character despite the many disturbing crimes he commits. Murray Smith refers to the connection to or preference for a morally corrupt villain as a “perverse allegiance” (Smith, 227). Perverse fidelity “refers to the way in which, and the extent to which, a film elicits responses of sympathy and antipathy toward its characters, responses triggered – if not entirely determined – by the moral structure of the film” (Smith, 220) . Silence of The Lambs is structured in such a way that viewers connect with and prefer Hannibal Lecter to other characters not only in this film, but also to other villains in cinema and literature (CBS, 2013). In the article A Cannibal's Sermon: Hannibal Lecter, Sympathetic Villainy and Moral Revaluation, Aaron Taylor advances Murray Smith's definition and suggests that a perverse alliance with a villain is a matter requiring what Friedrich Nietzsche called "moral reevaluation" (Taylor , 2014). It is essentially the reworking of the traditional moral framework by someone who goes beyond the imposed limits. As seen in Hannibal Rising[1], the prequel film to Silence, Hannibal Lecter's ideas about traditional values ​​were challenged as a child[2] and continued to shape his behaviors as he grew up (Hannibal Rising, 2007). Hannibal Rising shows the preparations for Lecter's arrest and some of the motivations behind his murders and behavior. An event of this extreme caliber causes much reconsideration and alteration of the moral framework. It is clear that he holds himself to a different level of moral responsibility and honor in the way he addresses his victims and Agent Starling. The loyalty that forms with a villain of Hannibal Lecter's caliber also requires careful examination of the viewer's ethics. By reevaluating regulated ideas of good and evil, it is much easier to look at the actions of a villain and accept themon their terms. Lecter's differing opinions are not an excuse for his behavior, but an explanation that leaves viewers reconsidering their own opinions. This film's altered moral outlook begins not far into Silence, when Frederick Chilton makes a move on Clarice Starling, who immediately rejects him. This angers Chilton, and his unfounded frustration is why viewers are in favor of Starling from the start. While his comments are not illegal, they form the basis for the judgment of crimes in the film. His goal of advancement in the FBI despite discrimination is a reason for alignment, and viewers prefer the support he receives from Hannibal Lecter. When Clarice Starling speaks to Hannibal Lecter for the first time, she is introduced to his intelligence and shocking ability to dissect personalities. He refuses to cooperate with Starling once he realizes her only goal is to profile him, and in turn begins reading his every move rather than answering his questions. It notes his desire for advancement, his aspirations to be more than his Southern roots and troubled past. She is clearly shaken by his ability to analyze his words and mannerisms, along with his blatant refusal to cooperate. Another prisoner, "Multiple Miggs", as he is called, makes lewd comments to Clarice when he arrives and, in his attempt to leave, throws ejaculate in her face. Lecter notices this and runs back to the glass of his cell, frantic, immediately deciding that he will cooperate. Clearly annoyed by the act, he agrees to assist Clarice in profiling Buffalo Bill, something that will give her the chance to advance very quickly in her department. It is revealed later in the film that the prisoner who attacked Clarice commits suicide by swallowing his own tongue after Lecter is heard whispering in his cell all night. Not only is it clear that Lecter has good use of words, but his own set of altered values ​​are introduced in this scene. This man who kills and consumes victims without a second thought is terribly bothered by the idea of ​​a man degrading a woman. This introduction is the first step in eliciting a sympathetic response from viewers. Clarice has already been presented positively, receiving degrading comments that make viewers averse to those who act against her. By presenting Hannibal Lecter as the dignified character amidst the misogyny, the film lays the foundation for the respect viewers earn for him. His aversion to misogyny in this scene alone shows viewers that he would also disagree with the other instances of discrimination against Clarice, which viewers have already aligned with. Once this is established and Lecter is supportive, his actions against lawbreakers almost seem justified as the film progresses. Due to the order of the film's introductions, Lecter's evil is reevaluated enough to serve as a sort of "alternative aspect of a greater good", and his way of thinking appears to be a dark and twisted form of poetic justice (Taylor , 2014). It has a set of values, although they are not typical. However, what matters is their existence. The film serves to compare evils and the presentation of different moral groups is what leads viewers to choose the “lesser” of these evils. While Lecter helps Clarice capture Gumb, he is the lesser evil. He's doing something that is typical of "good" behavior, and it seems completely unreasonable that a true villain would ever help someone without deriving any underlying benefit. As a villain, Hannibal Lecter is destructive, murderous, and terrifying. However, as a man he is intelligent, balanced and,.