Why was Clarice Starling punished so much for what happened at the begining of the book/movie? True, part of it was Paul Krendler personally trying to get her, but couldn’t most people see that it was an accident? That woman shot Starling first, and to me Starling had no choice but to shoot back.
I believe it was to save the Department’s reputation. They felt it best to cover their own ass by putting all the blaim on her.
That was the reason in the book, probably the same in the movie.
blame, not blaim. Heh, that was weird 
Yes. Starling’s career had stalled and she’d had a couple of other disciplinary problems in the past due to her hard charging attitude. As a result, she made the perfect scapegoat to keep the bureau out of an unpleasant PR situation.
The others have told you the official reasons.
The REAL reason is that Thomas Harris had accepted a big advance, didn’t want to give it back, and HAD to produce another Hannibal Lecter book. And he had to find some way to make HANNIBAL look like a good guy. He elected to do that by making everyone in the federal government a slimy, evil nogoodnik whose every waking hour is devoted to damaging poor Clarice Starling’s career.
Harris desperately wanted people to think, “Well sure, Hannibal kills and eats people, but Krendler makes rude remarks, so he’s really WORSE!”
Actually, Krendler broke the law in the way he went about destroying Starling’s career, a fact which was made quite clear in the book.
That’s an interesting take on the whole thing. I personally enjoyed the rather balanced treatment Lecter received in Hannibal, as opposed to the black-and-white “well, he’s EVIL!!!” tack so many other authors take with their villains. And it all played rather well toward Starling’s wavering changes in attitude that led up to the ending, at least in the book. I don’t know for sure how much of what transpired in Lecter’s hideout while Starling recuperated was “evil” manipulation and how much was somewhat honest therapy that helped her become aware of inner truths, so I don’t want to say flat-out that Starling came around in her thinking because she saw the virtue of Lecter’s lifestyle; it seems to me he manipulated her in completely self-serving ways, and whatever benefits to her of her newfound “freedom” were secondary and calculated for the combined effect.But certainly tastes vary, and there may be plenty of folks who found the portrayal disingenuous and “convenient”. Care to speak more to that, astorian?
Or have I just been whooshed big time?
Spoilers.
Heatmiser:
Regarding the novel and your comment; I too wonered how much of that was legitimate. Daddy’s skeleton was unusual therapy.
I think Lecter turned Starling, just as some serial killers turn their wives/lovers.
Why did Harris protray the FBI this way? They were good guys in Red Dragon and Silence of the Lambs. Did someone offend him?
Was it the Penrod syndrome, where the antagonist becomes the protagonist through the creative process?