#most accurate portrayal of a psychopath

[mudwerks]

TIL Javier Bardem's portrayal of Anton Chigurh in 'No Country for Old Men' was determined by a group of independent psychologists in the 'Journal of Forensic Sciences' to be the most accurate portrayal of a psychopath.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_Chigurh

[wia-tia]

What's behind the smile?

A Hikaru Kamiki expression analysis.

This character has fascinated me for quite a while and today I want to try to understand the expressions that he makes in the manga and theorise a bit (the pictures below are subjectively classified and could be incomplete). I want to mention that I separate Kamiki and the Kamiki that Aqua portrays in the movie.

I found that Kamiki smiles 60% of the time and 40% of his expression are non-smiling, which I personally find quite suprising. I thought he smiled more.

Quite interestingly, in Aqua's portrayal of Kamiki, he barely smiles and is quite expressive in other emotions. He only smiles 14% of the time which is interesting to analyse. I would like to start with that since it is more straightforward.

In chapter 139, Aqua as Kamiki smiles 4 times while spending time with Ai. The other 4 smiles could be classified as not that genuine considering their context. In the 5th picture he smiles yet looks nervous while telling Airi that she is more beautiful than Ai. In the 6th picture he smiles while he says he can’t get an allowance. In the 7th picture he smiles while telling Ai not to make fun of him. In the last picture he says he is totally fine, yet Ai says that’s a lie. These pictures (mostly 5,6,8) seem to allude to a connection between smiling and lying. Because it’s around 50/50 (genuine/not genuine), I can’t conclude that correlation with certainty, but it is interesting that the movie alludes to this. It could also allude to whenever he faces a situation, he wants to get out off, he resorts to smiling to maybe try to soften the situation or maybe to unconsciously self sooth.

Aqua as Kamiki smiling:

Aqua shows through the movie that Kamiki is someone that could have been quite expressive with his emotion, before Ai broke up with him at least. A quick scan through the panels and it seems to me that shock, neutrality, disagreement and a few panels of despair are the most prominent presented emotions. Is this to show that Aqua does not know his father or is this more closely to the feelings of the real Kamiki?

To further expand the first option: I’ve read interpretations that the relationship between Ai and Hikaru share similarities with both of Aqua’s relationships with Akane and Kana, where Hikaru shares the position of Kana in her relationship with Aqua and the position of Aqua in his relationship with Akane. This could reflect Ai and Hikaru’s actual relationship or is a sign that Aqua has influence on the script. Thus that the relationship between Ai and Hikaru is not that accurate to what actually happened. However Aqua says that the movie is not fiction, so it most likely is closer to how their relationship was actually like, in contrast to what Kamiki says.

I personally think the intention of the movie arc is the second option. I think it represents that Kamiki felt a wide range of emotions during his youth. This portrayal of him could serve a similar function as the portrayal of Ai in the movie arc. To humanise him and show us how he felt during those times. Ai is not an invincible idol and Hikaru is not an evil psychopath. They’re both more human than that and feel a multitude of emotions.

Aqua as Kamiki not smiling:

The first time we see Kamiki smile, is when he talks about his daughter Ruby to Ai’s grave in chapter 72. Was he happy to see her?

In chapter 109, 74% of Kamiki’s expressions are smiles. His other expressions are appropriate to look more engaged in the conversation with Yura. He does look quite serious when Ruby’s name is dropped. He could smile to be polite or to get other people’s love or approval. I don’t have much else to say because we still don’t have a precise motive why he involved himself with Yura. It could range from him wanting her dead so he feels his life’s weight, to her having a star in her eyes, to her surpassing Ai or even wanting Ruby to have the role of Ai in the movie. But at the same time he humanizes Ai in chapter 153, so it would be weird that his motive is the idolisation of Ai. We’ll see what future chapters give.

In chapter 138, he smiles while Kaburagi insinuates that by calling him boy A (an anonymous name for child criminals), he will be criminalised. Does he want that? Is that the reason he smiles?

In chapter 147 he smiles to Ruby 76% of the time and all the time to Nino while talking about the movie.

-> he smiles while asking Ruby her wish and assuming her answer. And then again when reflecting on her true answer (while having white stars). Is he smiling to be polite, is he happy to talk to her and to hear her wish or is it something else?

-> he’s serious when Ruby talks about not forgiving him and her true wish and also while meeting Akane. Could this mean that he is genuinly considering what Ruby says?

-> he smiles while talking to Nino about how the movie will affect him. He tells her that he will rot. Is he happy that he will for the sake of Ai? At this moment, he still thinks the movie is an extension of Ai’s wish, so I assume that is the reason for his expression of happiness. As Ai, as seen in chapter 153 and 154, seems to be a very important figure in his life.

In chapters 152-154, he smiles around Aqua, while talking about the movie and Ai’s death, until he expresses shock due to Aqua saying that the movie is not fiction and showing Ai’s video. Could he smile because he still thinks he was fulfilling Ai’s wish? The shock would then be genuine as it was not expected by him. Most of his expressions are concealed though, I’ve read somewhere that it could be that he has white stars in his eyes during some of these moments, but nothing is confirmed yet.

During the flashbacks only 2 of the 22 panels have genuine smiles and they’re with Ai yet the rest of them aren’t genuine or have a more shocked or desperate expressions portrayed which is more in line with the Kamiki the movie arc depicted. The non-genuine smiles are probably there once again to soften the blow of what is to come or to self sooth, like Ai’s breakup.

In the conversation with Aqua in chapters 159-160, he actually has a majority of non-smiling expressions (53% non-smiling). This is the first time his adult self, more closely resembled the movie’s portrayal of him. He smiles watching the B-Komachi concert. He also has a smile when Aqua calls him a liar yet looked weirdly sad or pained at the same time. When Aqua accuses him of putting Ruby in danger, his expressions are mostly shocked or serious.

During the flashbacks (which have no black background), he only smiles, which can be seen as manipulative but can also be genuine or be a call back to him smiling to soften serious or painful situations, such as Ryosuke’s death or his breakup with Ai. It's hard to tell with how little context we have.

Smiling:

Non-smiling:

I want to conclude that he noticeably smiles when he thinks he’s fulfilling Ai’s and his kids’ wishes. Maybe, he knows that Ai would have wanted the kids to be happy and that that is her wish, so he sacrifices himself for that. He thought the movie was Ai's wish so he sponsered that. Revenge is Aqua’s wish so it makes him happy that Aqua is fulfilling his wish and plays the role of someone who need to be revenged on. The same goes for Ruby for being an idol as her wish and feeling happiness for her as she is fulfilling it (same as her not forgiving him, so he acts as someone who cannot be forgiven). I think he cares about the twins in some way, because that is what most of his actions seem to allude to and every interaction, we see of him has something to do with the twins. I think his paternal feelings are true (he blurted that out so randomly, makes me think he really wants to express his affection more openly). Wishes also seem to be really important to his character (and is in the title of this last arc), which makes me wonder how that would manifest in future chapters. He also smiles if it would help temper a troublesome situation, which could be a habit that he picked up from his youth, making it harder to pinpoint the meaning of his smiles. I still feel quite unsure about him and hope that the further the manga goes the more things clear up, but I really like his connection with wishes and hope that that will be further explored in the manga. Of course other interpretation of him are possible since so much is left unclear and maybe the panel compilations can help you theorise.

[twistedtummies2]

Top 15 Portrayals of Peter Pan

A while back, in 2021 - in celebration of the 110th anniversary of “Peter Pan” - I posted a list of my favorite portrayals of the villain of the story, Captain Hook. Earlier this year, I updated that same list. I said then that, even as a kid, I always liked Hook more than his nemesis, the titular Peter. While this is true, I do think it’s important to state that, as much as I may love the dastardly pirate Pan battles constantly…this does not mean Peter is a bad character. I think that Peter Pan gets a bad rap a lot nowadays, mostly because, if you read the original book…Peter is kind of a little psychopath. He’s sort of a little tyrant, threatening to kill or banish anybody who doesn’t do what he wants, and refusing to listen to reason when people try to help him or keep him under control. And that’s the entire point: Barrie’s story originally didn’t HAVE Hook. The original idea behind what would become “Peter and Wendy” was that Pan was a representation of both everything good AND everything bad about childhood: he is not necessarily EVIL, but he is stuck perpetually in a state of infantile, underdeveloped youth. He’s brash, cocky, and has a LOT of power that I don’t think even he is fully aware of. There’s a lot of mystery surrounding Peter, which actually makes him more fascinating to adults than I think many might realize. Peter’s arc in the story is one of coming to grips with emotions he’s never experienced before, and taking up a kind of responsibility he’s always tried to deny in the past. He’s much more dynamic and more interesting than many people give him credit. I’ve been in a Peter Pan mood lately, so I decided…what the heck? I might as well give a bit of a spotlight to some of my favorite portrayals of the Boy Who Never Grows Up that have come around over the years. (On that note, there has long been a tradition, particularly in stage shows, of women playing Peter, so there will be some ladies included here. Don’t you dare whine about it, they’re absolutely awesome.) Some of these versions stick to the ambiguity of Barrie’s original, while others make Pan either more heroic or more villainous depending on interpretation. There’s a lot of ways you can go with the idea of an eternal child, both idealistic and cynical. So, think Happy Thoughts, everyone, and don’t forget the pixie dust! Here are My Top 15 Favorite Portrayals of Peter Pan!

15. Sandy Duncan, from the Styne-Charlap Musical. (The most famous stage musical version of the story; Duncan first played Peter in a 1979 Revival of the show on Broadway.)

14. Greg Tannahill, from Peter Pan Goes Wrong.

13. Petermon, from Digimon: Ghost Game. (Yeah. Peter Pan as a Digimon. That weirdness speaks for itself.)

12. Mia Farrow, from the 1976 TV Musical.

11. The Version from “Peter and the Starcatchers.” (I’m referring specifically to the books; there is a stage version based on the first book, but I haven’t seen it for various reasons. I love the original books, though. This is probably one of the “nicest” versions of Peter on the list, for lack of a better description.)

10. Robin Williams, from Hook. (Come now, you all knew he had to be here somewhere.)

9. The Version from “Alias, Hook.” (Without going into detail, this really shows how scary a Barrie-accurate Peter can be without much real change.)

8. Charlie Rowe, from SyFy’s Neverland.

7. Betty Bronson, from the 1924 Film.

6. Robbie Kay, from Once Upon a Time. (By far the most evil version of Peter Pan ever made, at least that I've discovered.)

5. Mary Martin, from the Styne-Charlap Musical. (She originated the part on Broadway, starting in 1954.)

4. Cathy Rigby, ALSO from the Styne-Charlap Musical. (She’s been playing the role off and on since the 1970s - no joke, look it up - with her most recent stint being in 2015. She was in her sixties then! Talk about Never Growing Up!)

3. Jason Marsden, from Peter Pan and the Pirates.

2. Jeremy Sumpter, from the 2003 Film.

1. The Disney Version. (Originally played by Bobby Driscoll; this one wins out mostly just because this is the first version I think of when I think of Peter as a character, and because I think the various spin-offs and such have really helped to make him a more likable protagonist over time, while still keeping him true to his established persona.)

[friendofthecrows]

If it weren't for the complete and utter lack of positive ASPD representation, I would really want to write a violent criminal with ASPD/psychopathic traits, but do it accurately. Because yeah, there is a statistically increased chance of violent offending among pwASPD (but don't get me started on the sample bias of diagnosis - most people with ASPD are only diagnosed after (because of) a criminal conviction) but every time I see a violent psychopath character they just get it so, so incredibly wrong. Like as a pwASPD with high CU traits who has violent impulses that I successfully manage (as in I have not non-consensually physically injured anyone in SIX years), MAN it would be cathartic to see a character Actively Struggling with it (and losing. badly) like a fair number of pwASPD do...

But as it stands the most positive rep we get House M.D. and the enforcers from "Psycho-Pass." Everything else seems to be mostly negative and/or violent rep. Ah, and even though it started with a negative portrayal, Damien from "The Bright Sessions" was pretty well-written.

[fizzyrodeo]

Alastor will get the sad misunderstood bad boy story, who just needs someone to love and understand him. Calling it he had a bad dad (it be more interest if Al had loving parents and good life but was just always bad. Nature vs Nurture) He would be punisher type person, he only killed bad people. They pull a Severus Snape with him, make him a jerk but in the last second pull this he was doing it for love this whole time so that makes it okay. got to make the shipper fan girls happy.

I could have sworn that Alastor was canonically a psychopath but even if he was I don't trust Viv or her writing team to keep him as an accurate portrayal of such.

Different topic, I'm pretty sure one of the comics shows him having a soft side. While I'm unsure if that comic is still canon or not, I dislike it for the fact that Alastor is supposed to be some kind of Big Bad but before the series even came out Viv was already trying to get us to emp/sympathize with him.

I am not fond of Alastor but the best thing Viv can do for him is KEEP HIM CONSISTENT and not try to turn him into an even bigger pinnacle of the fanbase than he already is. Because I can assure you the most annoying thing that would come from it are the fans who would go "the plot was always leading to him being a secret good guy!!1!!1" and then the fans who would blacklist you for criticizing him because somehow it would mean you're acephobic.

[horror-thriller-brackets]

Propaganda:

Finn: A very accurate portrayal of mental health and PTSD in a thriller series? What a miracle! Finn’s trauma is not played for scares, just relatability and realistically. Due to an incident as a child, she has an extreme interest in true crime, and may be getting stalked by not just one, but TWO people.

Wendy: Girl was in the most horrific situation and came out the other side. She is so close to the horror that she can touch it, she can see Jack’s descent into madness when she rifles through his papers, she’s part of one of the most iconic chase sequences and most quoted horror movie moments. Additionally, she’s the rare final girl who *did* get to have sex and be a little less “pure”

[mikesq10]

My Top 50 Favorite Movies

41

No Country for Old Men (2007)

The winner of 4 Oscars, No Country is one of the most polarizing movies I have ever seen and the best Coen brother movie, in my opinion. The most notable performance is from Javier Bardem who plays a psychopath by the name of Anton Chigurh (like sugar). His character resembles death and his name is purposely hard to say and spell because it makes the man more mysterious. The movie's plot revolves around Chigurh and ones obsession of such figure becomes more like an urban legend. It's incredibly haunting and scary as a claimed accurate portrayal of a serial killer. Brilliant.

[miquellah]

A group of psychiatrists studied 400 manga and identified 126 psychopathic characters. They chose Yoshikage Kira in “JoJo’s Bizarre Adventure Part 4: Diamond Is Unbreakable” as the most clinically accurate portrayal of a psychopath.

[anjumbai]

Anton Chigurh: Image of Uncanniness

Movie: No Country for Old Men IMDB: 8.2 Director: Coen Brothers

Adapted from: No Country for Old Men by Cormac McCarthy

Cormac McCarthy had been in my read list for quite a long time now, but I could never get myself to buy one of his books. But this title has always enticed me, and I wanted to know what am I getting into when I buy his books. So, I watched this move.

The plot, while done well , I just have to say that everything got outshined by Javier Bardems performance as Anton Chigurh. He is the perfect antagonist one could ask for. He wants his job done, and he'll eliminate any chances that wanna do otherwise.

Through the first five minutes of the movie, our antagonist, Anton Chigurh, kills 2 people with no empathy. The setting of the character already felt way too uncanny. The weird haircut, the lack of motive, the cold and deadly eyes, weird outfit in a Southern American setting. Even the weapons he uses appear so different, so unsettling. Throughout his journey you can see him killing almost everybody that appears infront of him. But it wasn't the merciless killing or the way he killed people that excited the viewers, it's when he didn't kill somebody or waited to kill somebody. Anxiety held over you when he encountered a person. Does Anton kill him or leaves it to chance? The anticipation of what's to come, the lack of music or a soundtrack in the movie just gripped onto your nerves and demanded that you fear this man, you wish that you do not meet a man like him because it will be the most uncomfortable experience you can possibly have. What was more amazing about this portrayal is that Javier Bardem as Anton Chigurh is the most clinically accurate portrayal of a psychopath we got in a movie. In the movie, you could feel that he was a force of nature. He almost tried to appear as death himself, but he could not be death. We see that in the final few minutes of the scene where Javier Bardem gets T-boned and survives by an inch. He is not a force of nature, he is also being played by chance. But only through leaving all humanity behind could he rise to a level where you can feel that he was very close to being a force of nature. The movie is often considered as anti-climatic and wasted potential, but I didn't wanna talk about that. The movie is absolute fire, and I think anybody who plans to read the book should watch the movie. It's like how if you start reading American Psycho, you can't get Christian Bale out of your head as Patrick Bateman. An absolutely killer actor for an absolutely killer role. His body language, his deadly eyes and the way his smile could mean a million things and one of it being possible death upon somebody- Anton Chigurh goes down as one of my favourite antagonists in a movie. Right next to Joker from The Dark Knight and Johan from Monster. Just forces of nature.

[midpenmedia]

It’s FACT FRIDAY!

Did you know . . .

That in 2018, an article in Business Insider, a group of Psychiatrists studied more then 400 movies. They found the character Anton Chigurh from ‘No Country for Old Men’ was the most clinically accurate portrayal of a psychopath

[violent--whispers]

❥νισℓєηт--ωнιѕρєяѕ || Iɴᴅᴇᴘᴇɴᴅᴇɴᴛ ❦ Cᴀɴᴏɴ-Based ❦ Sᴇʟᴇᴄᴛɪᴠᴇ || This blog is dedicated to a canon-accurate exploration of the character Khada Jhin from League of Legends. OC & multiverse friendly.

Asks always open. { TAGS } [ 18 + ;; ɢᴇɴᴇʀᴀʟ ᴀᴅᴜʟᴛ ᴛʜᴇᴍᴇs. ] [ Aᴄᴛɪᴠɪᴛʏ Lᴇᴠᴇʟ: Vᴀʀɪᴇᴅ ] [ @sazayaki = Mᴀɪɴ Aᴄᴄ. ]

❥Worthy of my presence: @rairb ❦ @tealbeats ❦

Rᴜʟᴇs & Iɴғᴏʀᴍᴀᴛɪᴏɴ Bᴇʟᴏᴡ

RULES||

Response times will vary from day to day. Lack of response is rarely an indicator of me not wanting to interact anymore, so I ask that you just be patient. If I wish to drop a thread I'll let you know, and I expect those who interact with me to do the same.

Please just use common human decency when interacting. Also, godmodding & powerplaying will not be tolerated.

Writing for a ship is something I'm willing to try with very trusted mutuals ONLY. Plotting will be required beforehand, as I've a very specific way of writing Jhin in romantic scenarios that not everyone will be comfortable with - he's a criminal psychopath, after all.

Along with the above, NSFW dynamics are something I'm willing to plot for after we've built trust. That said, be aware: I'm not always going to be interested in such things - it's purely dependent on the dynamics of our muse's interactions.

Previous rules in mind, please remember that the beliefs and/or behaviors I write in Jhin do not necessarily correlate with my own.

Formatting (or lack thereof) isn't super important to me as long as things are readable & clean.

I tend to get detailed with my interactions & in most cases will end up going multi-para; I expect my energy to be matched at least somewhat, but I don't mind one-liner interactions here & there.

Honesty is important; if there's something wrong, please do not hesitate to let me know. I'm always willing to chat if anything I've written doesn't sit right with you, or if you feel we should part ways as RP partners.

GENERAL INFORMATION||

|| Ice/Saza ❦ 32 ❦ Canada ❦ She/Her || ❥I'm somewhat new to the Tumblr RP scene but have some years of general experience in the hobby under my belt. I came here primarily for League of Legends-related content but am certainly willing to interact with those outside that universe, be it an OC or otherwise. As a lil disclaimer: I'm Autistic & League in general as well as Jhin are my special interests, so be aware that my passions naturally run into a territory that some may consider overbearing. My goal is simply to be a place that produces highly accurate portrayals of The Virtuoso. Honestly, my love for Jhin extends outside of just enjoying his lore, in fact, he's a sole part of my daily life and plays a role in my beliefs regarding the afterlife. He's very important to me so I take writing him very seriously, though I'm certainly not against making fun of him or indulging in some memery, heh. Anyway, the point is while I do cherish Jhin an abnormal amount to what most might be used to, I'm quite a realistic & open-minded person, meaning I'm not going to cause a scene if others I interact with have different views about him or anything like that. In my eyes, there's enough room spanning over many universes to fit everyone's version of their faves without needing to make it so other versions should be erased. I know a lot of folks here love their characters deeply, so I figured I should mention all that here. I love Jhin so much and can't wait to show my version of him to those who are interested! Thanks for reading my unhinged rambling~

[thehorrortree]

In Heath Ledger’s Oscar-winning performance in his portrayal of Batman’s most notorious villain in The Dark Knight, he said, “As you know, madness is like gravity. All it takes is a little push.” The film, the actor, and real life orchestrated a cacophony that sends a chill up my spine to this very day. When I used to run the ScHoFan Critique Group in the Greater Los Angeles Writers Society, I remember a time when I introduced a story with a suicide narrative. It was then that I learned how using the wrong language could trigger a negative response. I never wrote that story, becoming aware that reinforcing certain stereotypes of people with mental illnesses was dangerous and could cause real-life discrimination, or worse, harm. There have actually been novels, which I will not name out of sensitivity to the subject, that led to a copycat effect that increased by more than 300% after one of those novels was published. That is a stunning number. In this article, I’d like to discuss whether horror writers should start exploring how to develop characters with severe mental illnesses with fairer and more accurate representation, how writing certain stories actually increases copycat responses, and what stories are out there in the horror genres that chose to tread different paths of presenting mental illness. Does the DC film Joker: Put On A Happy Face portray the character as a psychopath or a mentally ill person? The film creates empathy for the character, and portrays him as a person that has a difficult time dealing with an array of physical abuse. When the supervillain first appeared in the debut issue of the comic book Batman on April 25, 1940, the joker was introduced as a psychopathic prankster with a warped sense of humor. Forensic psychiatrist Vasilis K. Ponzios, M.D., says, “There is still a misunderstanding to the portrayal of insanity in the Batman films and movies and what it means to be legally insane.” He goes on to say, “For instance, the Joker has been hospitalized at the Elizabeth Arkham Asylum for the Criminally Insane, even though in real life he probably wouldn’t qualify … Just because a behavior is aberrant … it does not mean the behavior is a result of mental illness.” The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders does not list insanity as a disorder. According to one article I read, hallucinations, delusions, and incoherent speech, which are traits of a severe mental disorder, are not usually the characteristics of a master criminal. Dr. Hannibal Lecter is the main character we all hate to love in a series of suspense novels by Thomas Harris. A brilliant and sophisticated forensic psychiatrist in the day, and a cannibalistic serial killer by night. To my knowledge, the portrayal of that character was not diagnosed with a mental illness. However, iconic horror characters in the Halloween and Friday the 13thfranchises play with the idea that psychopathic serial killers are mentally ill. Eventually, both characters are committed to mental institutions. In real life, these characters would be in a penitentiary, and/or on death row.

[queersturbate]

when people tell me that Light is "obviously" a "psychopathic" killer i remember the study they did on these types of serial killers in media (mostly movies e.g american psycho, henry: portrait of a serial killer) and it was determined that Anton Chigurh from No country from old men is the most accurate portrayal of a psychopathic serial killer. If you watch that movie, you can see how Light is no where near anything like Chigurh. Chigurh is quiet, calm, and thinks rationally (as rationally as you can for a serial killer). Light is about the opposite. He always has to be talking, he talks before someone can accuse him to reassure them he is not what they are about to accuse him of, he is calm only in front of people and will panic and blow up when he's alone, and he thinks quite irrationally about situations at times.

Light is not a "psychopathic" or "sociopathic" serial killer. He does not have those traits, and if you look up the study and compare Light to those most accurate on the list, you will see he's different from them. It's because he's not a psychopathic serial killer, he's a narcissistic one. He shows almost all signs of having narcissistic personality disorder. And this includes WITHOUT memories of the death note.

[egg-emperor]

Eggman might be a rather realistic sociopathic and/or psychopathic villain. He can blend in well when he wants to and strikes coldly and indiscriminately simply due to not giving a damn. He can easily act like he'll help you then stab you in the back. His charisma got him buddy buddy with the president in Sonic X. Hell, his hypocritical characterization in Sonic X (Despite so fans reaching in order to criticize it.) is pretty on-point.

TL;DR: The guy is a monster. Also, if he wanted to, he could blend in with society and that makes him more dangerous.

If anything, he's not the typical cartoony villain because he's more realistic than that. Hell, in Sonic Adventure 1 Sonic interprets everything he says as cheeky jokes. Tails on the other hand is scared of Eggman and interprets everything as menacing threats (The truth is probably in-between. But, Sonic treats everything as a game, so.... He doesn't seem to take Eggman seriously as the threat that he actually is. Maybe it's his ego, age, and/or the fact that he's being manipulated by Eggman.).

Shadow seems to be the only one who sees Eggman as the actual threat that he is and understandably wants to end the man when he finally gets the chance. Shadow has lost loved-ones before. Shadow has the scars and PTSD. It's not just a game to Shadow because he sees the actual grim reality of letting Eggman live while Sonic wants to play like a child.

I really think he is, along with being the perfect example of a narcissist. It's interesting to read into his actions and analyze him deeper while acknowledging and understanding this and his personality, behavior, and actions for what they're really shown to be. I feel that those who try to put a whole other spin on it are missing how cleverly well put together and accurate he is. He's genuinely self-centered and it reflects in all his actions. Everything he does is for the purpose of furthering his own goals and he'll do great evil to accomplish it and that's a part of what makes him so interesting. I don't need every bad guy's actions to have a nicer deeper meaning, a more sinister one is way more interesting to me after seeing so much of the former.

And it's true too, Eggman's narcissistic behaviors and apathy aren't fake and that's how he can do what he does. He isn't hiding a secret nicer and more caring side because he's so bold, confident, and unashamed to be evil and cruel and that's why he's never felt a single ounce of remorse for his actions. The only thing that ever really gets hidden is his evilness when he's lying and manipulating people or forming a truce, which always ends in backstabbing and going back to evil without hesitation after he gets what he wants. He can have the charisma and great acting skills to make people believe a huge untrustworthy liar like him regardless of his reputation and that makes him even more dangerous.

It shouldn't downplay his actions in the way people try by saying "but he's not so bad, look at this time he wasn't evil/he did a nice thing." Instead, it actually emphasizes his evil because he's capable of doing good and could choose to be for genuine reasons if he wanted to- but he does it only when it's necessary for the sake of his own selfish gain, goals, and the safety of himself and the world he wants to rule. It's always about himself and what he can get out of it. He is a selfish sly, manipulative, cunning, and backstabbing monster at heart, and how he can be cold, cruel, and merciless one time and can blend in and do seemingly good things while faking goodness the next to get what he wants is great. It shows he'll do whatever it takes.

Eh, I like most of X Eggman but that hypocritical moment in particular in season 3 wasn't really in character in the way it was handled and it's a part that bothers me most about his otherwise almost perfect and deeply beloved portrayal of him to me. It looked like it was implied to be a genuine belief of his, instead of him playing up a sly act as usual, as if he just suddenly had a huge change of character with no development leading up to it whatsoever and it blatantly contradicted his prior actions in the show. He can indeed be a hypocrite but the show didn't handle it the right way when it gave people the completely wrong idea of his character.

But when it's done right it's another of the many most interesting and entertaining traits that can have a lot of impact when it's handled well and proves how sly, calculated, and heartless he can be. Especially when he takes advantage of kind-hearted, soft, vulnerable people and then laughs in their face and mocks them for it when he gets what he wants, or doesn't care and is completely apathetic towards the pain that he's caused and shrugs it off.

I don't think you can really put the blame on Sonic for Eggman still being alive, though. Even if he does tend to mock him more than he blatantly vocally acknowledges how serious of a threat he is, though there are moments of the latter where Sonic realizes there's no time for jokes and gets serious. He clearly doesn't go easy on him in consideration of his safety, there are many times where he's been careless towards what happens to Eggman in a defeat despite the dangers, even if it could possibly result in his death.

So there are multiple factors, Sonic does love the thrill of adventure and the challenges Eggman brings, sometimes treating it like a game, just like Eggman can too. But depending on the situation, he can certainly get serious. And it's not really a matter of him letting Eggman go, it's that he always manages to get away/escape unscathed and is amazingly durable too, it seems nothing can kill this man lol (except for a karate chop apparently and the one time he couldn't evacuate/survive an explosion but those weren't canon :P)

I don't think Shadow is the only one that recognizes Eggman as a threat, he just has a different style of dealing with threats and just isn't the type to make jokes or make a game out of it in the way Sonic does. Shadow is also more often willing to kill when he feels it's most necessary than Sonic with his antihero status, but Sonic still isn't really carelessly letting Eggman get away, it's not like he doesn't leave him in danger at the end of many of his defeats despite all the great destruction, explosions, and falls that he caught in as a result.

Both still want to take him down when he's causing trouble and will do whatever it takes but neither can bring the man down for good because he's that good at surviving and getting away.

[black-coffee-and-sugar]

Azie killed it!!!

me praising a supergirl episode? i know, shocking. but 6x12 just came for me where i live! i knew it was going to be great but it surpassed my expectations. sister are really doing it for themselves! so many things to point out that were phenomenal but here’s what comes to mind rn:

- the camera work while kelly’s all distressed at the hospital, lil joey struggling to breathe, orlando looking so helpless > i was already stressed within 5 mins

- rankin literally saying “i’ll do everything i can to help these people” while rolling away to her private hospital room with access to trial medication when the residents of the heights probably don’t even have insurance or money to pay the bills. also rankin literally sucking the life out of this disadvantaged community, building wealth and pushing her political agenda on the backs of black people is the most realistic portrayal of true villainy that this show has ever given us

- kelly’s phone call to james in the stairwell, talking about how exhausting it is was so personal to me. i work in these types of communities all the time and it’s a hard fight. i get emotionally tired too. it does feel like screaming into the void, like one step forward and ten steps back. and i felt this for kelly.

- alex’s solution is to send respirators and nothing else? just makes me realize that while the super friends were protecting mxy and trying to capture nxyly, they were pretty much neglecting the heights. people who were literally dying and it’s horrifying to think of where their priorities lie. especially considering the fact that they could have handled the nxyly issue without alex so she can support her gf

- writer 1: how do we make the audience hate rankin some more?

  writer 2: have her kill a guy for a sandwich on white bread. it’ll make her look like even more of an asshole

but seriously, what kind of psychopathic shit was that?

- andrea has always been portrayed a shameless capitalist who only cares about grabbing eyeballs but it has never been highlighted as negatively as it was in this episode in that phone call with kelly 

- i think kelly reaching out to lena who isn’t even in national city really speaks to her desperation to have someone see her. someone hear her. someone fucking help and i’m glad she had at least diggle’s support

- that slim stack of bills is all it took for that woman to sell her soul to rankin? bruh...

- the super friends showing up to the heights, only concerned with tracking nxyly, not giving any amount of fucks about what kelly is trying to say enraged me. i know that was the point of the episode but STILL

- kara telling kelly that mxy can fix all this once they get him out of the crystal. what are you five? give me a goddamn break with this foolishness kara! so lil joey’s lungs are just supposed to hang on til whenever the fuck y’all save mxy? lena, please come and collect your wife

- kelly looking directly at kara when she mentions the word hope while dragging the super friends for their nonchalant behaviour > oof, a slap to the face

- i see nia had the one brain cell this week. she’s the only one who attempted to help kelly in whatever way she could. 

- brainy really said racism is still a problem in the 31st century and it did not surprise me. 

- seems like having tunnel vision is a danvers sisters trait. i get alex not being able to relate to kelly’s struggle but come on she’s your girlfriend. can’t you tell when she’s upset?

- i’m glad that they addressed j’onn choosing the appearance of a black man and how even though he may have been a target because of it, he still can’t relate fully to the experiences like kelly, james and diggle can. it’s optional for him. they don’t have that luxury to check out whenever it suits them

- kara talking about the anti-alien hate with the col and i would like to remind kara that she genuinely thought things were improving and that the division didn’t exist despite j’onn and brainy repeatedly telling her otherwise. because, once again, her physical appearance affords her privilege that no black person or visible alien will ever receive

- every kelly scene was so emotional i was bawling wtf. her talking about pushing her pain and anger down and trying to be positive and all smiles > 100% accurate 

- i can’t believe i’m saying this but i did not need the lena scenes. they should’ve just kept those out. on the other note, magical amazon package delivery

- guardian’s suit is so fucking badass!!! i’m glad little black girls will feel SEEN and INSPIRED in this episode. thank you azie

- kara was really out there getting her ass kicked by a human who just got powers for a few hours? stop nerfing her abilities!

- the way we got an actual scene of kelly carefully wrapping her hair, the say her name t shirt, the books on the coffee table > well done azie

- alex and kelly in the final scene was a good portrayal of an interracial relationship where one partner wants to but just will never understand the issue fully. alex just needs to be there for kelly and i’m glad that they didn’t make it a moment to educate her white gf about racial discrimination. they kept the focus where it needed to be. i’m also  glad that unlike the other soical justice topics we’ve had,  they didn’t try to make it seem like something that is so engrained into the fabric of society can be wrapped up with a neat little bow and be done with. there’s more fighting to do but at least it seems like kelly will have the support going forward

- the promo after such a powerful episode gave me whiplash. back to our regularly scheduled nonsense i guess

This episode holy shit. man it was amazing. azie is a talented writer and it’s easy to tell that she was drawing inspiration from real and personal experiences. it was very easy for me to relate to these scenes, especially the hospital ones. also makes me annoyed because they’ve been wasting all this potential and this episode is proof that the show and it’s storylines can be nuanced and still include superhero aspects. too bad this episode will likely become one of few in this show’s entire run that actually accomplishes that.

[sk1fanfiction]

the many faces of tom riddle, part 2

 -you dislike frank dillane’s portrayal of tom riddle only because you don’t think he’s attractive-

FULL DISCLAIMER THAT THIS IS JUST MY OPINION OF A CHARACTER WHO DOESN’T HAVE THE STRONGEST CANON CHARACTERIZATION, AND THUS ALL THIS IS BASED ON MY CONCEPTUALIZATION (and this time, featuring a bit of armchair child psych from a student).

Wait, don’t clutch your pearls just yet. Compose yourself.

I am about to explain why it’s not actually that bad, and Dillane’s portrayal is vastly underappreciated.

I definitely agree that his portrayal comes off as ‘creepier’. It’s not helped by the stylistic decisions in the scene -- the smeary, green filter gives the scene a sinister quality. 

Even Slughorn looks suspect here, which is somewhat appropriate, given that he is complicit in this crime. 

Again, this scene is very much intended to be slightly off.

You’ll notice (and I’ll discuss this again when I talk about Coulson’s portrayal) that Dillane is almost always shot from at least slightly below, which makes the lower third of his face look bigger (and thus more menacing). The lighting also makes his eyes glow in a really unnatural way. There’s an echo-y effect to make his voice (and not Slughorn’s) sound unnerving.

People talk about how Coulson would have looked in this scene, and if he was filmed in the same way (monotone, smeary/shadowy filter, and always from below), he’d look a bit creepy, too.

But all of this, imo, is for a pretty good reason. Slughorn isn’t the POV character. Harry is. Harry is learning about how a young Lord Voldemort wheedled the secret of Horcruxes out of an unsuspecting teacher. Unlike in COS, he expects Riddle to be evil. And, so, Harry’s new perception of Tom Riddle literally colors how we perceive him.

Take this shot, for example: he does that head-tilt thing that Coulson does, and it’s actually... kind of... cute???

Imagine Dillane filmed from slightly above, like Coulson usually is, and it looks even more innocent. (I mean, come on, he does not look like he’s killed four people, does he?) It’s not hard to imagine teachers being taken in by this kind of act.

Even that little smirk he does when the camera (aka, Harry’s gaze) pans in, is for Harry’s benefit. No one else noticed that. 

However, I still fail to find this creepy, like, at all. Yes, it’s a fake smile, but he’s portraying a different side of Tom Riddle to Coulson. Whereas, in COS, he’s in his vindictive, murderous element, where he’s free to express himself, in this scene, Tom Riddle is doing what he does best -- manipulating and managing appearances. 

This entire scene is an act. And because Harry knows it’s an act, it should look a bit stilted. 

From the Hepzibah Smith scene in the books: Voldemort smiled mechanically and Hepzibah simpered.

So, Harry is pretty adept at parsing Tom’s fake expressions.

But just look at the expressiveness in his face: he goes from brooding, he blinks, and his entire face changes to this charming (fake) smile. 

At the risk of sounding elitist, I’m a bit tired of seeing the word ‘psychopath’, which is not an actual medical diagnosis recognised by any psychological or psychiatric institution, being tossed about, especially with reference to Tom Riddle (and from a neuroscience perspective, it’s doubly annoying). There’s no such thing as ‘insanity’ or ‘psychopathy’ or being ‘crazy.’

-although I use it too a shorthand in conversation to distinguish ‘canon’ Tom from his ‘softer’ OOC counterparts, I really shouldn’t-

Unfortunately, I’ve seen the ‘psychopath’ comment used time-and-time again as an excuse or a full explanation of ‘why Tom Riddle went evil’ (JKR in fact, has made a weird comment in an interview, basically saying that ‘psychopaths can’t be redeemed or learn adaptive coping skills’ or whatever), which really just goes to show the lack of understanding and compassion when personality disorders, especially, are concerned.

But what I like most about the opening of this scene, actually, is that first, listless expression. And this is where we get slightly into headcanon, but Tom Riddle is the opposite of a happy, mentally healthy teenager. By Dumbledore’s own admission, he has no real friends. He has no parental figures, no real attachments. Yes, he might derive some pride or enjoyment from being good at magic and top of his class and all that, but I really don’t think even Tom finds that truly fulfilling. There is nothing that makes him happy. 

In fact, although some might perceive it as ‘creepy’, I think that listless expression is an accurate window into Tom’s psyche. 

I know people aren’t big on Freud, but I think that he does make some interesting points (also, cut the guy some slack for being relatively open-minded for the Victorian Era, and inventing psychoanalysis and while yes he did say some sexist stuff, good luck finding a field of science that isn’t male-focused and makes crazy generalizations about women, especially back in the day) about the possible origins of thanatophobia, the fear of death.

According to Freud, thanatophobia is a disguise for a deeper source of concern -- he did not believe that people were capable of conceptualizing their own death to that extent. Instead, he believed that this phobia was caused by unresolved childhood conflicts that the sufferer cannot come to terms with or express emotion towards.

Now, I know Freud almost always attributes mental distress to childhood experiences, but I think in this case, it really has some merit.

According to attachment theory, the basis of how we form attachments in adulthood is dictated by learning it from experiences with caregivers in the first two years of life. We know Tom was born in an orphanage, and that he didn’t cry much as a baby, and subsequently, probably received very little attention. Compounded with possible genetic factors and his caregivers being afraid or wary of his magical abilities, he later struggled to form attachments because of this -- I would actually go so far as to say that by the time Dumbledore meets him, Tom Riddle is severely depressed. 

And that flat affect and anhedonia, I think, comes over very well in Dillane’s portrayal. There’s kind of this resignation -- a very deep sadness and loneliness to his character.

Of course, he doesn’t derive any comfort or fulfillment from human interaction, because (to borrow the description from the Wikipedia article on ‘Reactive attachment disorder’, which Tom meets all the criteria for) he has a “grossly disturbed internal working model of relationships.” In other words, he is unresponsive to all offers of attachment because of this unacknowledged trauma.

(You could arguably class Tom as having an avoidant attachment style, but I think in his case the trauma and its effect on him are severe enough to call it disordered.)

RAD isn’t particularly well-characterized (especially neurologically) and quite new in the literature, but here are some links if anyone is interested in doing a bit of digging: Link 1 | Link 2 | Paper 1 | Paper 2

And, instead of trying to resolve this conflict in a healthy way, or at least recognize that this is why he can’t be happy and try to learn how to cope from there, he (a) represses the desire for human attachment and (b) funnels that negative emotion into being the fault of Death, the Grim Reaper (again, to borrow Freudian terms). 

And we all know how that turned out...

(And now, this should go without saying, but psychoanalyzing fictional characters has nothing to do with assigning a morality to mental disorders. Mental illness is neither a cause nor an excuse for criminal behavior -- in the same way that the cycle of violence is a phenomenon, not an excuse. Tom Riddle did not become a genocidal murderer because, in common parlance, he was a ‘psychopath’ -- he was not necessarily ‘predisposed’ to evil and could just as easily chosen to not follow the path that he did -- instead, he willingly made poor choices. This is a descriptive analysis, not a justification -- a ‘how’, not a ‘why’)

Here’s a Carl Jung quote that articulates it better:

“I am not what happened to me, I am what I choose to become.”

Yes, he’s a bit stiff (and a lot more formal than in COS during his *conversation* with Harry). But, and here comes the controversial bit, this is appropriate for a portrayal of a schoolboy in the 1940s. The upright posture is accurate -- respectful, polite -- everything Tom Riddle would have been expected to be (and even Coulson, in that scene with Dumbledore in COS, is quite stiff). Even the way he looks at Slughorn and maintains eye contact is very *respectful.*

And, Dillane (I think he’s seventeen or eighteen here) actually looks like a believable sixteen-year-old. I’m sorry, I love Coulson’s portrayal as well, but he looks around nineteen in COS; so in HBP, he probably would have looked at least twenty-two or so. (Sorry, not sorry).

This may be influenced by my own interpretation of the character (because I imagine Tom always looks young for his age, and Dillane fits that archetype, but I don’t think that’s very popular), but I think young Tom Riddle is supposed to be *cute* and a bit stiff/shy/awkward (being charming and awkward is very much possible), if you consider the way Dippet and Slughorn treat him. 

To support this, he says very few words to Hepzibah Smith (in the book, that scene’s not in the movie), and is very... bashful and coy during the whole interaction? I think yes, he’s charismatic, but he’s not loud, suave, openly flirtatious or particularly verbose. Tom Riddle should have a quiet magnetism, and to me, that came across in Dillane’s portrayal.

"I'd be glad to see anything Miss Hepzibah shows me," said Voldemort quietly, and Hepzibah gave another girlish giggle.

...

"Are you all right, dear?"

"Oh yes," said Voldemort quietly. "Yes, I'm very well. ..."

Even the ‘ugly, greedy look’ described in the books, when Slughorn starts spilling his secrets, is there. This is how he’s supposed to look! Slughorn glimpses it, but doesn’t understand its significance. Harry does. 

“Slughorn looked deeply troubled now: He was gazing at Riddle as though he had never seen him plainly before, and Harry could tell that he was regretting entering into the conversation at all.”

Remember the context of this moment, as well: He’s just discovered how to create multiple Horcruxes. Excuse him for looking a bit creepy (if not now, then when?).

Here’s two direct quotes of Harry’s impression of Tom Riddle in that scene: 

“But Riddle's hunger was now apparent; his expression was greedy, he could no longer hide his longing.”

“Harry had glimpsed his face, which was full of that same wild happiness it had worn when he had first found out that he was a wizard, the sort of happiness that did not enhance his handsome features, but made them, somehow, less human. . . .”

Tom Riddle’s Horcruxes are a direct metaphor for his refusal to allow himself to heal from his trauma -- instead, he continues to inflict destruction on himself and others.

His desire to continue creating more Horcruxes sort of resounds with the fact that self-harm can also become a compulsion.

I’d also like to digress a bit to discuss the Gaunt Ring, while we’re at it. While we’ve talked about his attachment issues in general, this discussion is particularly pertinent to father figures. And while Tom’s attachment issues are extensive, I think there’s ample evidence that as a child, he craved acknowledgement and acceptance from a father figure -- the man who gave him the only thing Tom truly owned -- his name. He would have had a vaguely defined mother figure in Mrs. Cole, perhaps.

"You see that house upon the hillside, Potter? My father lived there. My mother, a witch who lived here in this village, fell in love with him. But he abandoned her when she told him what she was.... He didn’t like magic, my father ... He left her and returned to his Muggle parents before I was even born, Potter, and she died giving birth to me, leaving me to be raised in a Muggle orphanage ... but I vowed to find him ... I revenged myself upon him, that fool who gave me his name ... Tom Riddle. ..."

We know that by June of 1943 (COS flashback) Tom has already uncovered the truth of his parentage; he knows he is the Heir of Slytherin via the Gaunt line, and he describes himself to Dippet as ‘Half-blood, sir. Witch mother, Muggle father.’

In Part 1, I discussed the high probability that as a presumed ‘Mudblood’, Tom Riddle was treated rather poorly in Slytherin House. But by this scene in the fall of 1943, he is surrounded by a group of adoring hangers-on. Why?

In my opinion; the Gaunt Ring. We know that Tom stopped wearing it after school, so its sentimental value couldn’t have been that great. We know he likes to collect objects (which I believe stems from his attachment issues -- he seeks comfort in things instead of other people).

Signet rings (such as the one belonging to Tutankhamun seen above) were used to stamp legal documents and such, in order to certify someone’s identify -- like an e-certificate, if you will. Like Tutankhamun’s ring, the Gaunt Ring bears an identifying symbol -- Marvolo Gaunt tells us proudly that it bears the Peverell family crest.

By the Middle Ages, anyone of influence, including the nobility, wore a signet ring. Rings in antiquity were auspicious -- they signified power, legitimacy, and authority. And so, I believe that all the Sacred Twenty-Eight families would have worn these, too.

And so, bearing the Gaunt Ring would have established Tom Riddle, symbolically and in the eyes of the Sacred Twenty-Eight (his future supporters and followers), as the legitimate heir to the House of Gaunt. This is why, I believe, Tom coveted the ring as soon as he saw it -- not just because it was a family heirloom, and not just because he thought it was a pretty toy for his collection.

(He curses it so that no one else but him can wear the Gaunt Ring safely.)

This is why, to make the legitimization literal as well as symbolic, Tom murders his father and grandparents. It’s not just an act of vindictive, murderous rage due to his perception of being rejected by his father (although it is that, too). And so, Tom, abandoning his search for a father figure (and possibly also giving up on the possibility to allow himself to heal from his own personal trauma rather than continue to inflict it on others), ‘cleanses’ his bloodline, to make himself truly legitimate. It’s rather telling that instead of affirming his legitimacy as a Riddle, which would have put him in line for a nice inheritance, and hey -- money is money -- (thus accepting his half-blood status), he simply kills them all. He has done all the murdering he needs to become immortal (and he hasn’t had the discussion about multiple Horcruxes yet); but yet, he does it again. Frightening stuff. 

(Just look how the others look at Tom. All but the one to his left -- possibly Nott, Rosier, or Mulciber -- have their torsos turned towards him. Their attention is on him, while he knowingly regards the viewer/Harry. Tom seems a little uncomfortable with the attention.).

“And there were the half-dozen teenage boys sitting around Slughorn with Tom Riddle in the midst of them, Marvolo's gold-and-black ring gleaming on his finger.”

...

“Riddle smiled; the other boys laughed and cast him admiring looks.”

...

“Tom Riddle merely smiled as the others laughed again. Harry noticed that he was by no means the eldest of the group of boys, but that they all seemed to look to him as their leader.”

The ‘gang’ are true hangers-on; Tom doesn’t seem to pay them much attention. 

So, if not via careful flattery or charisma, the attraction must be status.

And perhaps yet more telling...

"I don't know that politics would suit me, sir," he said when the laughter had died away. "I don't have the right kind of background, for one thing." “A couple of the boys around him smirked at each other. Harry was sure they were enjoying a private joke, undoubtedly about what they knew, or suspected, regarding their gang leader's famous ancestor.”

That, in my opinion, is as good as we’re going to get as proof that Tom’s shiny new signet ring (and by extension, his new status) made a big impression on his fellow students.

So, when he returns to Hogwarts, he is ‘pureblood’. He is cleansed of his Muggle roots, and becomes the legitimate heir of the House of Gaunt, now well on his way to becoming Lord Voldemort...

Watch the scene again, with a critical eye, and imagine Slughorn’s perspective, instead of Harry’s. There’s nothing creepy about Tom Riddle... unless you know what he is...

Strip away all the effects of Harry’s gaze (and notice, here he’s still looking at Harry), and he’s quite the charmer, actually.

(I will concede that I don’t like the promotional images where they have him looking like he’s up to no good. And I do wish he blinked once in a while.)

My challenge to you: Rewatch the scene with an open mind, and let me know if you agree that Dillane’s portrayal comes off as depressive rather than ‘creepy.’ And if not, why do you dislike his portrayal?