If you’re struggling, consider therapy with our sponsor BetterHelp. Click betterhelp.com/cinematherapy for a 10% discount on your first month of therapy with licensed professional specific to your needs.
umm, if your sponsor has to come with a disclaimer that they're complying with federal law, maybe don't work with that sponsor? i mean you've already gotten a multitude of comments from people who were harmed by betterhelp instead of helped, especially marginalized people. but that line just seems like a big waving red flag to me, idk 🤷♀
If you want to teach the value of morality to somebody who has no empathy, make them play the interactive game/simulation "Evolution of Trust". It takes about 30 minutes. There is objective mathematical reason morality exists and it's engraved in our basic instincts.
hi, i like your channel in general, so here's an important advice to you and to other subscribers: AVOID BETTERHELP. they are Bad. here is the FTC report about it : www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2023/03/ftc-says-online-counseling-service-betterhelp-pushed-people-handing-over-health-information-broke
Fun fact: in the book, Tom Riddle says “I can make bad things happen to people who annoy me” which is a lot worse than “I can make bad things happen to people who are mean to me”
Annoyed me so much that the movie changed that. They made it seem more like he was being bullied and picked on. But in reality he was the one bullying and terrorising the other children. Two kids who went into a cave with him were changed for the rest of their lives and never spoke about what happened in there, and he hung another child’s rabbit on the ceiling by its ears.
@@davidfairweather3301 I agree. It annoyed me too. I understand the movies need to cut some things or maybe change some things a little to reduce screen time, but it wouldn’t have added any screen time at all if he had quoted the books in that scene, so I don’t understand what they were thinking when they changed it. In the movies, you get the impression that the other kids were mean to Tom and he had a rough upbringing in the orphanage, so maybe that’s why he went bad. But really Tom is just evil. No redeeming qualities whatsoever.
"There is no good and evil, there is only power, and those too weak to seek it..." This line is one of those that define Voldemort, both as a character and as a villain.
Oh I knew Silco's power line seemed familiar. He has the same idea of power as Voldemort. "You see, power, real power, doesn't come to those who were born strongest, or fastest, or smartest. No, it comes to those who will do _anything_ to achieve it. Time to let the monster out."
Too bad Harry Potter is poorly written and he gets defeated because of a technicality of rules. Such good writing right? When evil just defeats itself.
@@chill-lady-brook I mean, sometimes it does. Whenever someone evil thinks they've won, that they're good, they can make mistakes that lead to their downfall (just as good can become too complacent, and thus make mistakes that leads to their downfall) ^It may not always happen, but it's common enough that it's hardly "bad writing" on principle imo. Just depends upon the usage and execution, as does all tools/aspects of writing
The thing that most annoyed me about Movie vs Book Voldy was that in the movie, he died in this weird Infinity War kinda way, turning to dust and crumbling. But in the book, he died just like any other human. He fell down and was just a lifeless body. Despite everything he killed for and preached, his death was no different than the ones he caused. It showed just how mortal he really was.
I also prefer the book ending. All the grandiose narcissism is basically laid to waste in a body rather than a separation of his physical self. He wasn't that special after all.
Yeah I 100% agree with you and find it weird. Like Voldemort literally spent all his life trying to be different, powerful But i the books, he ended up dying like any other person, like any other pureblood, half-blood, or muggle.
Yeah his book death was perfect karma for him because not only did he just drop dead on the floor just like any other human being, he died when he was only in his 70s. In the books a lot of wizards tend to live longer than average muggle because of using magic. But for all his horcruxes and sacrifices Voldemort only ended up living the same amount of time as the average muggle.
I partially agree and I agree with the argument specifically. However, I also like the idea that the reason movie Voldemort crumbles like that is because beyond the horcruxes and the magic, there’s nothing human left to him. He gave up his humanity and his very soul in the pursuit of power, therefore without that power, only dust remains
Little bit of lore for you two; Voldemorts soul is so mutilated by his horcruxes, he actually immune to the dementors. They are not attracted to him because he has no soul or happy feelings for them to feed off of. There’s a good chance him casting a Patronus would actually kill him…again. He’d suffer the same fate as the original dark wizard who created the first Horcrux. It did not end well for him when he tried. Sorry if I ruined you dreams of a 1v1 with Voldy and the Dementors 😅
Not the point of your post, but dementors definitely don't eat happy memories, they eat negative ones, that's why they amplify negative memories and are defeated by a spell powered with happy memories. If JK said they eat happy ones in some interview years later or in some supplemental writing, she forgot what she wrote in book 3 and made some stupid shit up. Which is on brand.
@@demonzabrak I thought they ate the happy ones and left people feeling horrible because of the lack of happiness in them hence why people see their worst memories in the process and then you defeat them by highlighting the happiness within you
@@Harmonious028 If I'm not mistaken, it's Dumbledore's own theory in the books and while it's never ultimately revealed that's the case, it's Dumbledore who is wrong maybe twice in the entire series.
@@Harmonious028No, this isn’t canon at all. The main source is an old interaction with a fan on an online blog: Fan: “How much does the fact that Voldemort was conceived under a Love Potion have to do with his nonability to understand love, is it more symbolic?” J.K. Rowling: “It was a symbolic way of showing that he came from a loveless union - but of course, everything would have changed if Merope had survived and raised him herself and loved him. The enchantment under which Tom Riddle fathered Voldemort is important because it shows coercion, and there can’t be many more prejudicial ways to enter the world than as the result of such a union.” People are taking this way too literally imo. The potion didn’t somehow make Voldemort incapable of love, rather the circumstances of Voldemort’s childhood (growing up without any experience with real love) led Voldemort to consider love unimportant. Choices are a really big theme in HP (Harry and the Sorting Hat, Voldemort choosing Harry over Neville, Sirius’ speech to Harry) and it’s discussed dozens of times that choices define who someone is. Harry in the books even gives Voldemort a chance at remorse, which Voldemort rejects. It would go against this entire theme to pin the blame for Voldemort’s inability to love or empathise on some side effect of a potion rather than his personal choices. It also ruins the parallels between Voldemort and Harry, because their similar upbringings yet different choices become obsolete if one is just magically hardwired to never choose love or empathy. This potion theory has horrible implications for children born from sexual assault. It also brings Voldemort closer to a pure evil villain, which cheapens his character and the overall story quite a bit. As far as I can tell, this is the closest JK has ever come to confirming the potion theory (which is to say, she didn’t confirm it at all), so unless she’s said something recently the theory is (thankfully imo) nonsense.
@@Hawner It was also a pretty cool girl-band, when I was a child. Every once in a while, I still hum their most famous song, "C'est La Vie", though I'm now old enough to recognize the thinly-veiled dirtiness in it. (1/28/2023)
Now I'm just hoping Cinema Therapy does a video covering Umbridge; even if she was a minor antagonist she just came off as so much more villainous sometimes because it was the kind of evil I'm sure most people had to deal with at some point in their childhood, if not in adulthood.
@@Verdha603 On the DVD for "Deathly Hallows: Part 2", there is a featurette called "The Women Of Harry Potter", which profiles the prominent female characters of the series. In this, one commentator describes Umbridge as, quote, "-- self-righteousness that covers self-interest...as sadistic as Bellatrix, but it's all justified, because, 'I work for the Ministry.'" Another person says, "On the surface, she's all fluffiness, and pinkness, and niceness. But on the inside, she's pure evil." (11/28/2023)
Speaking of psychopaths, I thought it was interesting how Movie Slughorn is clearly creeped out by teenage Voldemort and gives him information about Horcruxes seemingly out of terror, whereas Book Slughorn seems quite pleased and unperturbed to explain it.
That could also be memory manipulation. When we focus on our memory and what ifs they change the truth. He could have been impress but dwelling on it changed to being creeped out
@@LeahWalentosky That makes a ton of sense to me. we know slughorn tried desperately to avoid recalling this memory at all due to his immense guilt, to the point he was doing damn near everything to dodge dumbledoor even after Voldemort was back. Editing it when he can no longer avoid handing it over, and in a way to give himself more credit for realizing the severity of the situation at the time, seems incredibly in character for him.
In the books, Horace Slughorn was almost certainly creeped out, at one point refusing to talk about it any further (though the harm was already done) when then-teen-Tom mentioned making SEVEN Horcruxes... but at first yes, he was fine when Riddle was treating it like a hypothetical. The flashbacks should've been handled better, they should've been the focal point of the movie; all of "Half-Blood Prince" was a look into what made Voldemort before the final book and final battle against him.
@@tfly999 To be fair, it's almost the equivalent of a student asking you "How do they make atomic bombs?"and you give a brief answer to reward their interest in advanced chemistry, but then they say "And where would I find those materials?" and you know they're no longer being theoretical...
TBH, this part was a bit frustrating to me. Many therapists don't have enough training on differentiating ASPD from other common disorders or circumstances (such as Autism Spectrum Disorder, less severe personality disorders, or social manifestations of severe trauma). It's sometimes gotten completely wrong and a person who could benefit from talk-based therapy is left without help. There's a difference between referring to get someone out of your office and referring to help someone. Clients can and do notice the first. And that's a massively damaging experience (see: looking-glass self theory). Doing a knee-jerk referral, if it looks like lack of empathy, is not uncommon with some therapists. To me, this is missed opportunity to support someone who desperately needs it (mostly outside of ASPD, but also sometimes in early intervention for conduct disorders). Making an effort to go through the diagnostic checks (FULLY) and finding someone with specialty and success in this area, while making a logical and strategic plea to the client that they should remain in therapy because it can actually help them... It's all necessary. On first reaction, the blanket "I'd refer" seemed to skip over much of that.
3:42 - In the book, Tom actually says he makes bad things happen to people who _annoy_ him, not people who are mean to him. It may not seem like a major change at face value, and it wasn't until I saw MovieFlame's analysis when I realised it was even changed in the first place. But this one little line completely changes the kind of kid Tom Riddle was, and not really for the better. Saying that they're mean to him implies that Tom was bullied as a child and makes him seem sympathetic. Saying he does it to people who annoy him implies that Tom _was_ the bully.
It wasn’t even implied. The words “bad evil child” written on a sheet of paper, glued to a hammer, and beaten into your skull. And this breakdown misses the entire scariest part of him. His self lotion over his heritage. As soon as he found out he had magic, and as soon as he found out his father was non magic, he buried that past. Framed himself as being pure and perfect and pristine, while persecuting anyone who was not, and it was all from a place of deep self loathing.
That could still be manipulation on Tom's part in the movie. It sounds better to imply it was self-defence. It doesn't mean he wasn't a bully and hurt those who annoyed him. He just said it in a way that would make him look better in front of this strange professor.
Saying they "annoyed" him also contributes to the fear and instability because then you don't know what's going to set him off or how he'll react so it forces others, if they can't avoid him, to walk on eggshells around him all the time. Either way making it completely about himself
@@sonjaimmonen6610Yeah in the movie I took it as him being smart to not imply that he actually hurts innocent kids. I think the movie made it pretty clear that Tom was an evil child
For someone so obsessed with immortality, Voldemort lived a pretty average lifespan, only 71 years old. Turns out that him meddling with fate is what caused most of his downfall. Had he just lived a normal life, it is highly probable that with him being as magically gifted as he is, he probably would have lived 120-130 years.
Half Blood Prince is a flawed film adaptation because they made Tom Riddle way too creepy. CoS did it right where he's incredibly charismatic and handsome- this is why Dumbledore was fooled with regard to Tom; he assumed Tom wanted a second chance after their orphanage meeting and didn't question that until it was too late.
I'd say all of the movie adaptations after Chamber are like that. They ham it in too much, lose all fairytailish feel the first two movies had and display just plain weird acting/directing choices, like Dumbledore losing his shit on Harry for having his name in Goblet of Fire. Hate them.
@@akselandor8975i actually think 3rd movie is the better one amongst them, it definitely went downhill afterwards tho. the 4th movie was the worst!! they cut so many scenes and create so many unnecessary ones i hate it
@@wawaristi The 3rd movie has one major flaw that's very telling, werewolves are supposed to look like actual wolves in the HP universe. They even talk about it in class in the same movie! The only differences are slightly shorter muzzles, more human looking eyes, and tufted tales. (Plus the desire to kill humans of course). They weren't supposed to look like some bizarre alien CGI monster. They probably thought their CGI creature was more scary, but it makes no sense at all. Also a blood thirsty wolf is plenty scary.
@@kx2174 that was because the concept of a werewolf is a humanoid wolf. Plus the whole animegas thing would be confusing. I mean, what if your animrgas form was a wolf? Then what's the difference? A werewolf and an actual wolf are two different things. Lupin looked like a giant long starved dog. There's ledgends somewhere about a creature like that, but it's not called a werewolf.
12:52 actually, it makes _total sense_ why Tom is monologuing here. In the books, he's very clearly stalling for time, for Ginny to fully die and him to fully live.
What I love about this channel is that you guys take the time to point out that nobody is intrinsically evil. And just because someone has a diagnosis doesn't mean they are going to be evil, good or less of a person. I think that's really important to mention. So thank you.
@@Elven. Sounds like sound advice. I was at ~2 minutes in though, so I didn't know what the diagnosis would be. Edit: Edit was a spelling mistake. Also the thing about the intrinsically evil still stands. Probably not good to be around them, but that doesn't mean they are intrinsically evil.
@@dcworld4349 So the advice is very sound. I honestly think it is best to stay away from these people. But I can't condemn a whole group of people who got a diagnosis to intrinsically evil even if most of, if not all, the people diagnosed with it are bad to be around. There may be a person who has learned to live their life in a way which isn't harmful to others (Not that I'm saying it's likely, but it is a non-zero chance.), or someone who got the wrong diagnosis (Probably still someone who could/would do harm, but like earlier, non-zero chance they also won't. Though if they did get the wrong diagnosis, it probably was for a reason.), or something else. But I can't in good conscience say that anyone is intrinsically evil. Because even just calling someone evil denies that person the help and growth they need. It also dehumanises people. And while people with a diagnosis (Not specifically psychopathy or narcissism or anything else, just a diagnosis. Because my original comment was made without the knowledge of what the diagnosis would be.) have problems, they aren't any less human due to it. If we make the precedent of saying these people are intrinsically evil, we open the pathways to saying that ANYONE who is different from the norm is evil and not a human. It has been done before, and I really don't want it happening again. So, in summary: Are narcissists and people with antisocial personality disorder good to be around? No. Probably not. In most cases I, as a very much not expert, would advise caution. But are they intrinsically evil? No. Probably not. Because I don't think anyone really is. And I don't think we should call most actual people evil. We can call fictional characters evil, because they are fictional. Often they are made to be evil. Like they said, these characters can help recognise bad things. But the characters in fiction aren't human. Not really. At least not at the same level. So when do we use the term evil to describe someone? We take away part of their humanity. For people who do empathise it is the calling card to stop empathising. And while you probably shouldn't empathise too much with the person who is currently ruining your life, or stealing from you, that I agree with. If we stop empathising with entire groups of people based on their diagnosis we are practising very dangerous actions. Because dehumanise one group of people with a diagnosis and it makes it easier to dehumanise another, and another, and another. And suddenly decades of progress with understanding and humanising people who are different (Because honestly some diagnoses simply boil down to: This person is different. They can't do task X as well as what is expected.) is all down the drain. I don't want to be treated like I'm broken (Or at least, I wouldn't if I had a diagnosis. Not that I have one, future Palpatine-esque government/Umbridge-like future employer.). If we are not careful to treat everyone with some basic human empathy and see them as human beings. We will lose EVERYTHING. Something I'm very wary and concerned about. I hope this is clear. Please ask if I wasn't and you have questions.
From experience, I've known one person who was just evil. Always. As a child, as a teen, as an adult. He's in prison now. If there was a way to save him, I can't imagine what it was. I believe some people are just wired to violence, lack empathy and enjoy cruelty. Just like some animals (including dolphins) enjoy killing other animals in cruel playful ways.
Considering that you think it's probably not good to be around them just because of their diagnosis, people are going to believe that you think they're "prone to being evil" which isn't that different from thinking they're "intrinsically evil". @@BasicallyBaconSandvichIV
Actually, if Tom were more sneaky and don't teared his soul for 8 pieces (7 hocruxes and his own body has a part of his soul), but 2-3 instead, he would easily take power and do whatever he want. And became immortal dictator of magic society
He fears death, not because he is afraid of dying, but because it makes him same as everyone else. He never had anything when he grew up he wanted to feel like he is better than others
@@nurglecultist2521 No, the main problem is that he chose to put fragments of his soul into famous objects. He could have literally picked anything, but instead he chose to put into objects that were either connected to him (his mother's ring, his diary, Nagini) or that were famous (Slytherin's Locket, Hufflepup's Cup, Ravenclaw's Diadem).
Alan Rickman's acting the moment Snape saw Charity Babbage floating there was excellent. You could see him a little bit frozen, trying to mask his concern as indifference or being mildly surprised
Can you do a video on Draco pleeeeeease? Maybe like generational trauma and how parents/guardians can influence your beliefs/actions? He’s such an interesting character and I would love to hear your take on him!
I don’t think the book version of Draco is all that interesting. He’s simply a brat who tries to imitate his dad. The movies added some abuse to make Draco more sympathetic, charming and redeemable. Lucius would be more interesting, as he’s a very bad person, but a loving father and husband at the same time.
to be fair to Dumbledore, in this case, as he wasn't headmaster at the time Tom came to Hogwarts, it wasn't his decision to him to admit Tom. He's still a problematic dude, though.
What about DID or whatever it's called where you pretty much have multiple personalities, and one of them is just an absolute ass? How does that get dealt with under that philosophy? They kill someone, you get arrested, and then say "they did it". Like, how does that work, just in general? Because if you send the guy to jail you're technically sending MULTIPLE PEOPLE to jail... Most of which are innocent. So how does that get sorted out?
@colt1903 hi OSDD 1-B system here, with 3 "problematic alters". Someone with sociopathic tendencies, someone that has homicidal urges, and a narcissist. We tend to operate by the rule of the host is responsible for the actions of the system. Not sure if other systems do though.
One example of Tom being charming is him wooing Hepsibah Smith for a long time, basically doing a long con, bringing her flowers and being all charming before killing her, pinning the blame on her house elf and making off with Salazar Slytherin's locket (okay, so technically it was his birthright that Merope was swindled off for a ridiculously low reward) and Helga Hufflepuff's cup. And there's also the time where he killed his own *father* and *grandparents* and shifted the blame onto his *uncle*. But you have to read the books for those scenes. 😉
I know this is a little off topic, but how do we not have a villain therapy about Prince Zuko & Uncle Iroh on Pride V.S. Humility? Does anybody else want to see that? I know it might be a long, hard project for John and Alan but to see the payoff I think would be worth it. “Happy birthday, my son.” Changes so much about Iroh and you see he was in a similar place to his brother until his son changed his perspective on everything.
Jono, I've gained many respect points for you today for the same reason I gained respect points for my primary care doctor a couple years ago. When I started experiencing some weird health issues and went to my primary about it, that appointment ended with him saying "I don't see an obvious reason for your symptoms, so I'm setting you up with this specialist I trust." The fact that he said that, instead of saying "I don't see a reason, so your symptoms are stress/weight/pretend," let me know that he BELIEVED me - he treated my issue as real and as deserving of real treatment, even if that treatment had to come from a different doctor and even if he had to say the sentence "I don't know" out loud. Putting the health, needs, and well-being of the client/patient above your own professional pride = all the respect.
I had a therapist completely give up on me, telling me to, and I quote: "get out. Leave. Now." I never heard another word from them again. It didn't help that before all of this went down, they straight up told me, "You're fucked up." It's made me begin to lose faith in not only therapy, but also myself. And I'm still left suffering without answers. I don't like myself, I can't find a reason to. So every day I am forced to live with and take care of a person I don't even like, just because I have no real choice. I would let myself just wither and die but there is only one person I care about, and they are the only thread keeping me here. And I can't even tell them, because I don't want them to have that weight of responsibility. I don't want them to feel obligated to stick around out of sheer guilt.
@@kingblanketfort that's awful, I'm sorry you were mistreated in that way. It's no wonder you're not keen on trusting therapy. What they said to you was cruel, and more than that, it was just wrong. Like, factually incorrect. All I know about you is that you are a person who took the difficult step of asking for help, and just from that one fact, I feel confident saying that you are not "f'd up" - you are courageous and deserving of the help you asked for. (Also I love your username because blanket forts are a valid coping skill for all ages, but that's beside the point)
I, too, had major respect for my doctor when he told me, 'at this point I don't know -- let's find you someone who does.' That is WAY BETTER than letting their pride take over and just guessing, or pushing unnecessary pills on you, or acting like you're not really that bad off or you're pretending etc. Also sorry that people haven't had that experience and good doctors/health workers. They are out there, and so are the bad ones. Keep trying.
Yes! My doctor sent me to a ENT specialist when I was having balance issues, and after some time that doctor sent me for an MRI which found that I have MS. Medical professionals working as a team is how it should always work.
I think the "bury your dead with dignity" thing in the 'stay of annihilation' speech in Deathly Hallows pt II may also reveal a touch of emotional sadism on Voldemort's part. He wants to give the people he's fighting chance to feel their grief and he wants to see them doing it. I think it is also to make his opponents more likely to believe that he will hold up his end of any bargin they strike with him by making him appear to have decency and some honor code.
22:36 It's not that he didn't want to waste an avada kedravra. The reason Voldemort makes Nagini kill Snape is that he couldn't risk using his wand, the Elder wand, against who he believed to be its true owner.
Dumbledore once told Harry, "Lord Voldemort has never had a friend. Nor do I believe has he ever wanted one." Also, I would love to see villain therapy on Palpatine and Umbridge.
Jonathan doesn't say Tom Riddle isn't a person, not at all, just that he would defer him to another therapist that would be better at treating him and at handling the struggles of having such a difficult patient.
@@miriamrosemary9110Yea, no I get that. I was referring to the "losing his humanity both figuratively and literally" kinda stuff. Voldemort shouldn't be considered human anymore. Jonathan even said to get rid of him lol
@@miriamrosemary9110Thanks. Like, I know we don't wanna look at anyone as "too far gone," especially from a therapist's point of view; but if there was ever a person who was too far gone, it's Voldemort lol. We love to hate him XD
I will say, a show about a therapist who's dealing with the world's worst villains would actually be kind of great. Since I could imagine it being some spoof of DC or marvel where they're always throwing these villains in prisons. Who are they throwing them to? A specialist super hero who's like a sane dead pool and tries to help them find a way to be beneficial to society. Mostly just by surviving their onslaught and possibly breaking down their world views physically if they have to. (I love the trope where the more powerful you get the harder it is deal with emotional problems. How are you supposed to address the fact you need to forgive your father for dying when its so insignificant next to the ability destroy planets?)
Another note from the books is that he has a tendency to take trophies from his victims, and give them a certain significance. He displays this first in the scene of where Dumbledore first, but basically his horcruxes are another product of this behavior. It’s not just that he chooses the items because they are a link to what he values, magical history and his own links to that, but the fact that he creates this Hotcruxes with specific deaths that have meaning to him, and are placed in spots that have a personal meaning to him. I’m not too familiar with psychology and specifically the field of serial killers, but, he does have a tendency to create trophies to mark kills that mean something to him. Also in the books, you see more of Riddles ability to manipulate people into getting what he wanted, of how he makes it seem like he cares or understands what the person he is manipulating is talking about, but only until he gets what he wants. I think another reason Slughorn doesn’t tell anyone what he talked with Riddle about is because Slughorn is a true Slythrryn at heart, he is ambitious but prefers to be the one who influences all the students he championed, often often expecting a favor in return. He prides himself on his Ability to check for talent, but Riddle was his biggest failure.he got a brief glimpse underneath the mask. Part of what holds him back from saying anything is his fear, but also his own shame at not seeing the signs when he could have. That’s my take on it.
Voldemort putting a curse on the position of Defense against the Dark Arts so no one lasts more that a year on it simply because Dumbledore wouldn't hire him is the most hilariously savage thing he ever did.
Which kinda makes no sense in the grand scheme of things. If he can curse a teaching position, why only that one?(I know it's specifically the one he applied for, but other positions can teach powerful magic too.) Why not curse other abstract concepts like Ministry of Magic positions? There's so many potential game-breaking things he can do and he only does this once because he was slighted. If he can curse his name in the final book so that it removes all protective enchantments and summons people right to your location why not make it deadly? He'd be rid of Dumbledore and Harry easily, since they're two of the few people brave enough to say his name. Not even his own followers are brave enough to say it. Another abstract ability that could have powerful uses and only gets used for capturing resistance members.
@@kyuubinaruto17 He did not cause at the time he cursed the position he was still young and it may not even have been a conscious type of curse to start with. Making it deadly defies his pride. He is not interested in "easy". He was interested in a) winning them for his team and b) getting rid of them in a way that would bring glory to him and very clearly display to everyone else, that he is worth of worship. He's very capable of ruling by cruelty alone, but he does not, because he understands how much easier it is to control people on a large scale by establishing that he is "just" and so powerful that he does not require to hide behind cheap tricks when facing the opponents he deems worthy. Which is why he keeps insisting that Harry is brought to him, not killed by Deatheaters. While Dumbledore's sickly condition + Voldemort's persistent, childhood related fear of him, leads to that task being left to handle by his "tools". Yet, even there, he insists on making it an impressive stage, to show everyone how noone will be save anywhere. plus, do you really want your enemy summoned to you at any time they say your name, when you aren't certain you'll be able to kill them and if enough ppl will be watching? XD You might be on the toilet (assuming he still does that LOL)
Honestly, once that was confirmed instead of being some sort of self-fulfilling superstition, I hated it. If he could do that, why not curse the Minister of Magic's position? Voldemort isn't as smart as he thinks he is, but he's not stupid. If you want to sew fear and anarchy, destabilizing the government is a good place to start.
I always took this as more strategic from him than (just) out of spite. He was making sure that no one in the future would be properly trained to defend themselves against him.
My friend’s boyfriend is a diagnosed sociopath. They found out because he kept pushing for her to get treatment for her own mental health and attended her therapy appointments. It’s fascinating listening to his logic about himself and their relationship. He firmly believes that the only way she will chose to be with him is if she is safe mentally and at home, so he goes out of his way to make a pretty healthy environment for them. He doesn’t believe morals are needed, just that he wants her in his life and that maintaining an environment she thrives in is the best way to ensure she stays. He’s kinda creepy and I know that there are risks, but all in all, he gets treatment for himself, encourages her to get treatment, and they seem pretty good together. I wonder how many people have undiagnosed anti-social personality disorder and live “normal” lives like he does
That’s because you need her for something that you don’t see… I would never stay because you never know when he’ll use it against you. And mostly, he doesn’t feel love so…
@@elyalvarz I think it depends on the motivations behind it. Wanting the best for them because it's what they deserve is different than you want them to rely on you for it.
@@s70driver2005 very true! Seems like a very fragile situation, and I wonder if he'd be able to let her go if she ever decided she's no longer happy with him.
The sound design from the Pensieve scene in 8:21 on is perfect. Just as Tom pauses after saying "as I understand it", we hear a fading scream (like the murder required to make a Horcrux). Then, when he says "Horcrux", we hear the high-pitched whistling, chirping motif that's used again and again in both Deathly Hallows movies. When Tom asks Slughorn about splitting the soul multiple times, the shot cleverly doesn't show Tom's face (since he's referring to the future unraveling of his humanity), instead showing the Slytherin serpent crest and subtly zooming in on the ring he's wearing (later revealed as the Resurrection Stone). The whistling, ticking sound returns, indicating that Tom already made it into a Horcrux and has in fact split his soul more than once. (The first time he did was murdering Myrtle Warren in his 5th year to turn his diary into a Horcrux). Tom really wanted information on what would happen if he split his soul into 7 pieces - that's what he "didn't fully understand" about Horcruxes. Slughorn's reaction confirmed to him that it was at least theoretically possible and so terrifying even a Potions master would be horrified by it. Fantastic performances by both Broadbent and Dillane - sad that Frank didn't land a better horror role than the lead in "Astral."
i interned at a male county jail during grad school for social work. most of the men i met were honestly so kind and just had made so many mistakes or had serious mental health concerns. but i will never forgot the two individuals i met that i could physically feel how off they were. in some way looking back both definitely had ASPD but both fit into both these categories like you mention of Voldemort embodying both sociopathic and psychopathic traits with both falling differently on which one more. they never attempted to frighten me, but my interaction with them i just won't ever forgot just how much a knot my stomach felt it was in, how cold i felt but also slightly clamy, and overall how much my body wanted me to escape the interactions. ill never forget them and how much i truly believe our body knows these personality disorders first before our brains register it.
My heart warmed when I heard Jonathan say “That is not my area of expertise". There is so much self-awareness and wisdom in knowing what you don't know, in knowing your limits. Keep up the good work Cinema Therapy. We love you 😊
One of the biggest failings of the HP film adaptations was in Half-Blood Prince, where Kloves cut out almost all of Tom Riddle's backstory. That was so important to not only understand Tom, but also to explain how he chose the Horcruxes. And, most importantly of all, it establishes the similarities between Tom and Harry and why that insight that Harry learns from Dumbledore’s private lessons was pivotal in his success in defeating Tom the following year.
@@ChristineTheHippie In addition to his mother using a love potion on his father (a muggle, Tom Riddle Sr.) to conceive him. She stopped using the love potion after birth, his father left her and she committed suicide which is why Tom Jr. is at the orphanage (the muggle Riddles being some of Tom's first victims after school.)
I hate it. I hate verything about that movie. That and five have the biggest failings. Five fails to showcase Harry's internal mental struggle, and completely omitted his breakdown in Dumbledore's office. Six just...fcks up everything. The Half Blood storyline, Voldemort's backstory, the felix felicis thing....ugh.
You should do an episode on Dumbledore. I don't know how to categorise him, he is a dividing character. We were introduced to him as wise loving mentor but how he planned Harry's sacrifice and ignored Dursley's behaviors mostly cracked the image of him. I was never that fond of him to be feel betrayed but still I struggle to understand how he is viewed by people.
He was such a powerful wizard and had influenced the education of most wizards alive in the UK by then. He was entirely well-respected almost to the point of being a caricature. It turns out he was human, wrestling with his own insecurities and flaws, and trying to right some of the wrongs he knew by the end he'd played into. Such a complex character. ❤
Not to mention how he and Grindelwald had an actual plan to subjugate muggles "for their own good" and he actually genuinely believed this at one point
I think Dumbledore thought that leaving Tom by himself to figure things out on his own would be more dangerous and that by bringing him to Hogwarts that he could keep an eye on him and teach him to be a better person. But you know, it obviously backfired.
Also Fantastic Beasts indicated there are problems that an happen when untrained witches and wizards are left to their own devices so the practice of enrolling every magically gifted child into a wizarding school is probably as much for the benefit of the kids as it is for wider society.
I mean, idk, if he was left in the mental facility then at worst he might have burned it down or exploded or gone on a mini-killing spree, which sucks, absolutely, but isn't quite as damaging as becoming Wizard Hitler and doing a holocaust.
Umbridge would be an amazing episode. She like Frollo is so utterly convinced of her own righteousness and is so real of a character you’d might actually meet.
No,he wanted him there to keep an eye on him and teach him rules and control. If he left him it would have been worse,he would have continued hurting kids
I like that response from Jonathan of passing that kind of patient to someone else, it speaks to me how a well and caring therapist he is, is not about “I have to help him”, is the “if I can’t, I’ll leave him with someone I think can help him” and I respect that a lot ✨
Ironically that might also put Voldemort on a better path on it's own - he approaches things on a purely logical level, and Jono would be a person who'd see his bullshit and just go "I'm not letting you in at all, you have been a shit so you can go away from me." and that would be a concrete result of his negative actions - the fact that new people who haven't already met him do not want to have anything to do with him. He cannot get any new pawns as all his secrets are out.
One of the most interesting parts of Voldemort to me is his relationship with the concept of blood purity. I don't think he actually cares about blood purity itself, and i don't think he would have a personal dislike of muggleborns for being muggleborns. I think he just latched onto this idea in his youth because he was already associating his power with his magical bloodline (as this is what kept him in control at his orphanidge) so the logial next conclusion for him is to dislike people who he perceives have less power than him, because he associates them of his own fear of losing his power. I think someone like Lucius would have probably become a blood purist no matter what. But i feel like if there was another power/control based philosophy for Tom to latch on to he might have become indifferent towards groups like the death eaters. But thats just what i think.
That smile when young Tom saw the fire covering his wardrobe was genuinely unsettling. It was a creepy smile that wasn't a fascination with seeing magic. He was enjoying watching something burn.
3:40, the line was actually changed in the movies for some reason. In the book tom states: "I can make bad things happen to people who annoy me." The line changes the context because he was never the bullied in the books he was constantly using his powers to bully others. Especially when the head caretaker hinted, he used his powers to hang one of the other kids' bunnies.
God I hate HBP soooooooo much. Not going deep enough into Tom's backstory, fumbling with the Snape reveal....god it just pisses me off as an adaptation lol. It DID give us book harry though for like one scene with the spider funeral though so there is that at least.
@@TheRibottoStudioswaiiiit how was the reveal on the books?? With Snape being hbp like it felt a bit lackluster in the movies watching it over but was there more plot?
I love Jonathan's input of course, but I wish Allan's comments about filming would have more room in the episodes. Good job guys. This is my fav channel 👏🏼🙏🏻
I just can't believe the best scene in the entire 7 books isn't in this movie! The scene where Voldemort comes to Hogwarts to ask Dumbledore for a position as a teacher. There's where we finally see what that little creepy boy has become, and we finally see Voldemort being what he is in front of someone he cannot trick nor scare!
One thing that always creeped me out is in the scene with Slughorn, Voldemort is asking about the horcruxes and making multiples. In the shot, you can see he's holding the Gaunt family ring-which means by this conversation he's already killed Myrtle (For the diary) and the Riddles (For the ring). He knows exactly how the horcruxes are made, but he's posing a question solely to figure out how far he can go with their creation.
In the books he hasn't jet killed at this point - The actor is sadly too young for this scene and it confused some people. In the books Tom was already 16 when Myrtle died but it makes sense to use the same child actor for both scenes simply because anything else would have been confusing. For the movie this scenes visuals with him twirling the ring was a genius way to foreshadow the core of what happened in the books and true to the rule "show don't tell".
The bad part about young voldy in the movie, is how obviously evil he is. In the books everyone loved him at that age, he was seen as very charming and smart. A golden boy teachers thought would become minister of magic in no time Only later when the killing got more obvious everyone realized what he really was
That was also because he learned not to reveal his true self after the slipped up in the first meeting with Dumbledore. He got excited when confirmed to be special and let things slip.
I'm glad you mentioned Lucius in his scene. You look at what Voldemort does. He takes a man we've only ever seen as a cold, collected pillar, and he turns him into a cringing, unshaven, fool who can only cut and run when his master faces defeat.
@@samalight7249 If I remember correctly, Tom Felton said he had no idea Ralph was going to do that, when they shot the scene. There's still a hint of threat, which is demonstrated by how the wand is held against his back like a gun. (11/28/2023)
I always saw this as one of the actions Voldemort took that turned Narcissa against him. It started when he gave her son the mission to kill Dumbledore, a mission that would have gotten Draco seriously hurt or worse had Dumbledore and Snape not stepped in to keep an eye on him, and of course, culminated in that awesome moment where she lied to Voldemort and told him Harry was dead.
I think Voldemort was motivated solely by the hatred he had for his mother for abandoning him... He saw her as weak because she died... instead of being there for him. So he spent his entire life trying to be different from her, to prove to himself that he was not weak like her, that he wouldn’t just die. He doesn’t want to identify with her, because that would mean accepting her humanity. Accepting to let the hatred go.Facing whatever is beneath. Forgiving her. Accepting the pain of being abandoned, alone and unloved. I think that’s what he wants to avoid facing within himself... And he’ll burn the world to the ground if he must. Much like Hitler would do so, only to avoid facing his own inferiority complex... Much like a narcissist would create a little fantasy world out of their life, where everyone must play a part in their fiction and adore them and NEVER trigger them, because they essentially never want to face their own trauma... That’s my take on it.
To be honest, I don't know if Voldemort gives his mother enough importance to actually care so much about being different to her, or at least not on a consciously aware level. In the 6th book he tries to reconnect to his family roots because he thought they must've been very powerful people. The first thing he does is completely discard his mother because she must be a filthy muggle, too weak to even survive, and goes directly at idolising a fantastic ideal of his father who he thinks is a powerful wizard. When he discovers his roots and especially his mother's history, he is completely disgusted and hateful about it, and loses all interest in his family (even killing his uncle). While he did feel some hate towards his mother for being so weak and dying, he seemed to hate even more his father for being human and blind to his existence. Maybe Voldemort just wanted to find in his remaining relatives or family history some vestige of power he could use to his advantage
@@rociogallegossanchez3147 I think what you said actually matches the original point here that Voldemort wanted so badly to be different from his mother who was ‘weak’ who ‘left him’. That’s why he abandoned her memory completely and latched on so hard to the fact that he was a wizard and that she couldn’t be a wizard because she was weak and died.
I think Rowling even commented that Harry and Voldemort started in life very similarly and the main difference being, that Harry at early life got unconditional love from his parents and Voldemort didn't, giving early experiences as a child more meaning. Also, throughout all books it was highlighted that even in his similarities in starting life, the choices Harry makes has more meaning than the circumstances he has to endure being an orphan.
Interesting that by your own definitions, Dumbledore himself could be considered a psychopath, he is outwardly charming and charismatic but underneath he's also cold and manipulative but he is a good guy (for the most part) so him saying "it's about the choices you make" has more weight, in my opinion
Psychopathy/sociopathy also seems to come down to lack of empathy. There are people who are empathetic who know how to be logical, cold and manipulative when the situation calls for it, and they wouldn’t be considered psychopaths/sociopaths because relationships and connection still matter to them and be a source of influence for them.
i’d argue that we see a lot of empathy from dumbledore,. being calculating, and even manipulative does not make a psychopath, and personally i wouldn’t describe him as cold but that one is easier for me to see. i see him more as he knows what must be done and has made peace with it, and made peace with making it happen. most of his actions people point to to reference him being cold and lacking empathy surround us finding out about the plan for harry through snape, but he’d already had time to process, think it over, have emotional reactions, etc. we see him in those moments i believe YEARS after he has already figured it out (if not, it’s been some time at least), and who could blame him for not showing emotion in that moment due to that plus he’s actively coaching snape through the emotions and trying to help him see it’s what must be done. moments like letting himself be killed and having snape be the one to kill him to help draco, his reactions to snape’s patronus, many moments with harry, all show a great deal of empathy. especially as a leader, and a leader directly opposite voldemort, being manipulating, calculating, and refraining from publicly showing too much emotion is frankly understandable if not absolutely necessary. hell even just being a teacher, sometimes manipulation is a part of what’s necessary to get kids to do what you need them to to help them. plus it definitely depends on your definition of manipulation, because just getting someone to do what you want isn’t manipulating them, it has to be more specifically harmful things being done to get them to do what you want (gaslighting, lying, guilting, etc). is telling your 5 year old the food you made has no vegetables in it lying, and in thus (here) manipulation? yes, but also kids need to get those nutrients however they can get them safely. most people wouldn’t call that manipulation you know? this was very rambley so i hope it made any sense, but also i do actually like the idea of dumbledore being any one of these things, especially because he’s very often used as a foil to voldemort and has nearly the exact same traits, but “good”! i just personally do see a lot of empathy in him, but that could just be my own read!
Arguing that Dumbledore is psychopathic is just wild. You either didn't understand essential parts of the story itself or there's something essential about psychopathy you didn't get.
Yet he regretted placing Harry knowingly with abusive magic hating Muggles. Also raising Harry like a pig for slaughter. It was only after Voldemort s return he realised Harry might survive. He used people like pawns.
In the book, before he left Snape for dead and apparated away. Voldemort literally, said, "I regret it!" Snape was the only murder that he actually regrated.
When Harry tried using Tom's lines to get the real memory from Slughorn it was so cringe, but I think it meant to contrast how bad at manipulation he is and show the differences between him and Tom, since we've already seen how many similarities they have. His later, successful attempt worked because while it started out with magic luck and charm, Harry ended up speaking from the heart. His sincerity won out. Oh my god, that outro. 😂
@@sarahkrig6375 it’s not dumb at all, if you need information on something from someone, you need to feed into memory, Harry said what Tom said to bring back memories of the night Slughorn talked so it’d be an opportunity for discussion, it failed and that’s why another approach worked later in the film The story of Lily came from Slughorn and that was Harry’s in, this time he approached it with honesty and confidence instead of tricks from Dumbledore and that’s why it worked These things are done for a purpose, there’s nothing cringe about it
I posted a similar comment on your Jack Sparrow video, but please remember folks that there are people with anti social personality disorder who struggle every day to fit into society. I am one of those people. I have both psychopathic and sociopathic tendencies that I try very hard to keep under my control. And I echo our internet dads sentiment at the beginning. Mental disorder does not equal evil. Thank you.
And just like a lot of things on the DSM-5 the parameters are constantly changing or expanding or merging with other things, like autism research from the past decade. Stereotypes can be very harmful, especially in storytelling.
Well then I have a question that maybe you’re comfortable answering and maybe not and either way is fine but either way I’ll ask I’m always interested in hearing about how different people perceive the world differently and everybody I’ve ever talked to sees friendship a little differently than me - I’ve never been tested or diagnosed with APD or anything similar (though I have been diagnosed ADHD and suspected for Autism but never tested for it) but I have always thought it was interesting that I make connections differently than literally anyone I’ve ever known So for me, friendship is purely transactional - (using my best and just about only friend as an example) I make him happy and he makes me happy when we’re around each other so we might as well, right? In any given situation regarding him, I’m thinking about what’ll make him have the most fun because I owe him for lighting up my life Quick clarifying note: It’s mostly unconscious at this point - I don’t spend every minute we’re together thinking “what do I say to that that’ll make him happy??” but just when it comes to things like Am I going to tell him this thing that, if he knew, would make him sad, but if he found out I was hiding from him, he would feel betrayed? Am I gonna call him out on this thing he’s being stupid about? But not like day to day interactions Most people that I’ve talked to about it just say something about “he’s my friend” and then can’t reason anything beyond that and I just don’t understand that What’s your experience like?
@@samstromberg5593 not APD but diagnosed autistic. Sounds to me like, and I could be wrong hard to say from a singular comment, that you are doing the classic deconstructing a concept to the most core elements where it sounds clinical. You find happiness in his company and in turn you go out of your way to try to return the sentiment. You’ve not indicated you do it simply so you don’t lose your supply of happiness from him, but because you are trying to return the favour out of gratitude - that my friend is simply friendship in a nutshell, an investment in your SHARED happiness. It can be hard when you have a brain that demands answers about such abstract concepts, I do the same thing, but I would say from where I am sitting you’ve got a good honest friendship and just unlike most people who take that for granted, you are breaking it down so far it ends up sounding clinical and cold. Unless you are only returning happiness JUST enough to keep your friend around so they can feed your ego and do things for you or something like that, then it sounds pretty sane safe and healthy to me. And even subconsciously going out of your way to find things that make him happy is healthy, so long as you aren’t doing it to the detriment of yourself or others, it is normal to do that when you care about someone (I think you’ll find most genuine friendships involve investing energy, compromising and actively putting thought into your relationship). Doesn’t make you fake or antisocial or even make your friendship transactional - it just makes you human. Humans want to be liked by the people they care about, humans want to make the people they care about happy, no shame in that.
I love you guys pointing out that mental illness doesn't mean you're evil. It's so easy to forget when terrible things happen and the news emphasize on any mental illness they believe the perpetrator had. But in Harry Potter I felt there was always a different story told, like with Remus Lupin for example.
I thought the true difference between a sociopath and a psychopath is a psychopath is born that way and a sociopath becomes that way bc of trauma and nurture. I didn't think people could be both..
I heard someone say it this way, "there are two types of people who lack emapthy: those who don't know but are willing to learn, and those who know empathy and don't care."
That's essentially having affecting empathy but no cognitive empathy (who don't know but are willing to learn) vrs having cognitive empathy but no affective empathy (who know empathy and don't care).
"Knowing empathy but not caring" is just apathy. Apathy is not caring about anything, including empathy. "Why should I care if nobody else cares about me".
It is not just some spell to cut his neck. That spell likely is Sectum Sempra, invented by the Half-Blood Prince himself. To be defeated by his own spell... I can see this hint of surprise in Snape's eyes, clouded by both his constantly distant demeanor mixed with a fainting consciousness. Almost as if he wasnt even aware Voldemort knew his spell.
Yes but that’s assuming he would have reacted quickly enough to cast. It definitely could still be sectum sempra provided Voldemort caught him off guard. It does bring up an interesting conversation about whether snaps could have held his own if they had actually dueled in the scene!
@@IrynaMerinova a very good question and I don't know except it was touch and go with Arthur wasn't it? And maybe he was just in the way and attacked with less mortal determination? Snake on another mission got a bit muderously sidetracked, not focussing properly? I honestly don't know but I agree it's a very good question.
Voldemort would never have to fight Dementors because they have no reason to attack him. Dementors devour peace, hope and happiness. Since Voldemort was specifically written to be the only "wholly evil" character, I suspect he's also the only character whose soul offers no 'nutrition' to a Dementor.
What I have always appreciated about Harry Potter heroes, villains, etc. is that they mature with the reader. Voldemort starts all cartoony and obviously kid's story villain in the first book/movie. As the story progresses, Voldemort becomes more fleshed out (pun intended) and uanced because the reader can understand that since they are older.
Harry Potter is a very rare book series that starts as middle grade and ends as YA. It crosses genres as it goes. It does so organically and it makes sense, but it's a unicorn.
@@meganrogers3571 I feel like part of this is because of its serial natural. It literally written during a seven year 'school' period that would in correlation to us. . .be middle-school through highschool. Most children/YA series don't regularly take into account the passage of time. . .they just do broad time skips and say 'its been years' or 'a couple weeks passed' without really getting the how and why people change during that time frame. HP still has its flaws, don't get me wrong, But there are aspects to it structure that are great to this day.
It's really fascinating to hear you talk about how empathy is tied to morality as an Autistic person because so many people think we lack empathy and yet we're considered "too" moral.
Not autistic but HSP (Highly Sensitive Person) I would say from experience it can backfire on you a little bit cause you can be overly open or honest in trying to live in integrity and that can often come across as disingenuous or manipulative even if you don’t mean it to be. Not everyone wears their hearts in their sleeve and extreme empathy can be confusing and even frightening for people at times who are more reserved. Whilst I’d guess people don’t necessarily lack morals they’re not so strained by trying to live by them to the point it becomes paradoxical and society itself is a heartache. Hope that makes sense. 😊
@@tell-me-a-story- I am also autistic. The 'too moral' comes often from what other people perceive as our 'over adherence' to rules. For (a small) example, I can't jaywalk or steal from a store (like little things), I return other people's shopping carts and get pissed at them for not returning it them themselves (for me, barring disability or wrangling 8 children, etc.). This has caused others to think I'm weird. - This is probably tied to common gender expectations (girls must always follow the rules), though I'm sure it's not exclusive to women.
Also when they were talking about how our brain subconsciously picks up on something that's off about a person's behaviour. My brain doesn't seem to do that, people never unsettle me for no apparent reason (and I'm far less likely to find people unsettling overall), but plenty of people found me unsettling as a child (usually other children) before I learnt to be deliberately non-threatening (and get mistaken for shy/awkward/childish instead).
Thankfully it's more and more understood that autistic people do not necessarily lack empathy, specially not the girls, who get more socialised that way, whereas normalized alexithymia in men is a very real thing. There's empathy, but reasoning tends to go other pathways. And it forms more via other channels. Aka rather than via observation, via talking and explaining. Empathy has cognitive/logic and emotional/intuitive components. And different people find their own "access" to empathy on that spectrum.
I know you guys don’t typically cover horror movies since it’s difficult for them to be monetized, but I think there is a ton of material that fits your show perfectly in Silence of the Lambs. Clarice Starling would make an excellent subject for Psychology of a Hero. Buffalo Bill for Villain Therapy. And Hannibal Lecter I think would make a great case study in true psychopathy like you guys touched on in this episode, which is what made me think of Silence to begin with while watching this episode. Also Alan would have a ton to chew on from a filmmaker’s perspective as well.
Man, I'd love to see your guys' take on Linda from Netflix's Lucifer. I know you guys typically don't do TV shows, but I thought that the character dynamic between Lucifer and Linda was just absolutely brilliant and I'd love to see a therapist's perspective on the stuff that goes on in the show!
Except it doesn't make sense in the movies regardless. If the Elder Wand could slit his throat without issue then why wouldn't the killing curse work? In the books Voldemort had Nagini in a protective enchantment since she was one of his few remaining horcruxes, and had her pounce on Snape before biting him. He was brought down by the weight.
The cruelty of it all being that Snape did not command the Elder Wand. Malfoy had disarmed Dumbledore before Snape killed him. And Harry defeated Malfory, which is why the Elder Wand belonged to Harry by then.
I like to think that Dumbledore let him into the school to try and 'fix' him. Secondary: to keep his close and under watch. But mostly the former. Dumbledore is still human, and possibly hanging onto a bit of pride and thought he could help this boy. Hence by the time of Harry's journey he's waaaay more hands off - cuz he learned his lesson about his ability to choose for ppl. Harry to to grow and choose and discovery his heroism on his own.
Dumbledore was not Hogwarts headmaster when Tom started school. It was Dippet who was the headmaster. Dumbledore was just the Transfiguration professor so it was not his call to deny or accept Tom at the school.
I'm a little iffy on the timeline: when was Fantastic beasts happening? Coz he's also learnt what sort of student comes out of Durmstrang (his boyfriend played by Johnny Depp who I forget name of)
I don't think he actually thought this way cause when Harry asked him if he knew back then that he met the darkest wizard of all time, Dumbledore said no. Dumbledore is very intelligent but you cannot spot a psychopath based on one encounter and most importantly you never know what a child is gonna be like when they grow up. He's not a clairvoyant after all
@Olivetree80 the environment was the problem because he never received enough love because of that If Tom was adopted by a loving family he would have been similar to draco(there would still be some good)
I think the other reason Dumbledore brought Tom in was to keep an eye on him. He recognized the character traits in Tom. He wanted to help him be better, but he also wanted to keep an eye on someone who was going to figure out greater heights to their power anyway.
Well due to stuff Tom said to Dumbledore, thats probably why voldemort could never fool him. But if Tom was never admitted to hogwarts, how would he have turned out? Basically Riddle knew he could do stuff, but didn't fully understand how or why? I mean wizards go to school to learn how to control their abilities. What happens to an untrained wizard?
I also think it was because he recognized that Tom was just a child and deserved a chance. But Dumbledor was arrogant in thinking that he could fix him when he had zero qualifications and training to do so.
@carolbaker2773 well most people grow up, maybe Dumbledore figured Tom was in a phase or something. Plus by Wizarding law, he had to be taught how to control his powers. But the whole "I can talk to snakes" thing defiantly cought Dumbledore's attention. That's why Dumbledore knew Hagrid didn't open the chamber of secrets. But Dumbledore couldn't prove it at the time.
Also, I agree wholeheartedly on the scene where Nagini is biting Snape. I've always found that scene deeply disturbing and it's hard for me to watch. Probably the most horrifying thing I've ever seen in a movie (cause I don't watch horror- but, like, that scene was horror)
I love your channel and your heroes and villains therapy videos, and I would love to watch a Villain Therapy of Coriolanus Snow, as I do believe its a compelling character, how a young man went through a war, the loss of his parents, his wealth, and was about to loose the last thing he hung onto, HIS STATUS, made him a cold old man ready to kill whoever threatened his position, and his home.
what I don't quite like in his backstory exploration both in the movies and books is that he basically spent his Hogwarts years with WW2 going on in the muggle world (he studied there from 1938 to 1945). so each summer, while being a child, he went back to the orphanage and war London and bombings which occured very actively during 1940-1941. I believe that probably played a part in this quest for immortality of his, because as a child facing something like that you will feel powerless, wizard or not, and people like these usually despise this type of feeling. it's a pity it was never explored in the books, because it would've added more depth to this, instead of "oh I want to be immortal because I want the ultimate power and no weaknesses in me".
Reading this kind of inspired another thought. What if his childhood and adolescents being spend during ww2 inspired him to start a Wizarding war of the same scale. Because the parallels are certainly there.
Good example of treatable and socialized sociopath is Amos Barton from Expanse TV show and books. He really want to good without truly understanding what good is, such a cool character.
I'd love to see their take on the parallel between Harry and Draco with the line "he's just a boy", where Harry took the role of a martyr so save the world vs Draco who was a victim of chasing his father's acceptance and how that led to Draco ending up on over his head in a war he never chose to fight in
Well, they already replied it's on their list, but is there enough for a full episode in the movies? Draco rarely gets much screentime compared to how much they interact in the books.
I’m so sad they didn’t include Voldemort’s full story in the movies, especially HBP. I wish I could see his father’s family murder, Hebzibah Smith, job interview at Hogwarts, happiness after Azkaban breakout, an attempt to avenge Bellatrix’s death, the real way he died, etc. It all would’ve added depth to his character, but unfortunately, he’s shown as a very evil clown in most films. Voldemort was decently portrayed only as Tom Riddle and partly in GOF/OOTP.
The scene of Dumbledore meeting Tom at the Orphanage is even creepier in the books because of how quickly he switches between being charming and perfect and his true vindictive self to get what he wants. Stephen Fry did a great job getting this across this young version in the audiobook of Half Blood Prince but it's sad we don't get more in teh movies. Also in the books it goes into more detail about how he was already hurting his fellow orphans long before he knew he was a wizard. This included, not just theft, but the killing of a fellow orphan's pet rabbit and the implied torture two other orphans in the cave that appears at the end of the movie. In the book he shows very little remorse for his actions but pretends to when he realises that he could get into trouble for it.
@@Toonwalla2010 I don't blame the kid actor, or the teen actor in HBP, I think they did what the script and director told them. But they really should have cut out most of the filler romance plot to make room for the Riddle scenes. I could feel the scenes rushing and them needing to use short hand to get the main points across as quickly as possible but Johnathan is right it makes Dumbledore look like an idiot. In the book Harry does think to himself that this was Dumbledore's weakness of wanting to see the best in everyone. Yet in the book, during his first meeting with Dumbledore. Riddle does not act the way he's here where you sort of get the feeling that he's the spawn of Satan. Dumbledore reasoning that this was a child with a troublesome past, but seeing it was a child who had no guidance, didn't know what he was or how he could do the things that he did. And as Dumbledore also points out Riddle got so excited about being told that he was special that he forgot himself and let more things slip than he would have liked to. So while he was able to charm all the other teachers, Dumbledore always kept an eye on him from that moment. With Riddle himself admitting that he never was able to fool Dumbledore. Not that he went out of his way to make his life a living hell the way Snape did against Harry. In the subtext Dumbledore does say something to the effect of he had hoped once Riddle got to Hogwarts and started to learn who he was, gaining some friends. That his past behavior stemmed more the way a child raised in a somewhat cold environment would. Since lets be honest if a young child could get revenge on people who are mean to them, they would do so and they wouldn't be thinking with consequences or proportionality in mind. Dumbledore wasn't the head master at the time so all he could do was give his opinion. But the strangest thing to me is actually how Riddle got away with framing Hagrid after Mertyl died. Riddle might have been able to prepare to counter truth serums, altering memories for pensive exploration and such. But Hagrid wouldn't have, and they have plenty of method of finding out the truth, so I've never really understood how anyone who has a "it's my words against yours" would not be resolved by proving it with magic.
@@wifipigeon01 I really hope they commit to at least two seasons for the show. Obviously they are going to need more to tell the full story. But so that we don't end up in a House of the Dragon situation where they waited to see the reaction before deciding to move on. By committing to two season, they can do season 1, normal break, start right back up with season 2 since at that point they will know if it's worth it for them to do all the books. It's so annoying with the current model of TV where season 1 and season 2 has such gigantic breaks (I know there has been a strike but this was happening before the strikes). We used to get 23 episodes a year like clock work, the episode count is now as low as 6-8 on some shows. And I understand that more episodes means filler and you can't make it look as great for budgetary reason. But 12-13 episodes each 57-59 minutes should be something they can pull off. And here it's kind of important to actually do one book per year since no matter if they have to cheat and cast 12-14 year olds for the parts in season 1. Considering finding young child actors that are great is no easy feat. You can't stop them from growing, and at that age you never know what you are going to get. They are going to have to shoot things more chronologically, because you don't want a situation where they have filmed scenes at the end of the school year early, film for another 3 months and suddenly one or several go through a huge growth spurt filming a scene at the beginning of the school year.
I see it also that way that Dumbledore thought he could give Tom a second chance and help him to find the right way. The books make that a lot clearer than the movies. But I also think that he saw it also as a chance to better control Tom. Because an untrained and unwatched Tom could be even worse as we see in the Fantastic Beasts Movies with Credance, who nearly destroys an entire city.
I really like the thought of no one beige born inherently evil. Tom Marvolo Riddle had so much potential as a complex character born during both wizard and muggle wars, essentially to be an Anti-Hero. Because Lord Voldemort isn't deserving of redemption but Tom Riddle was. During the London Blitz being born in an Orphanage and labelled as devil child due to accidental magic definitely did something to his psyche.
That's an error. Tom riddle was not a child during the london blitz. In fact, he was born right after and grew up obsessed with Grindlewald the moment he learned about him. Tom's lack of empathy is due to the love potion his mother fed his father in the beginning of their relationship.
Tom riddle was never really deserving of redemption. His backstory of being an orphan is sad, but even at 11 years old he showed that he was manipulative and sadistic. He terrorised the children at the orphanage
He wasn’t labeled as a devil child because of accidental magic. He was a complete terror and even the staff at the orphanage were wary of him. He used his magic to terrorize the other kids at the orphanage… I mean he even killed a pet rabbit of one of them.
Please do a Villian Therapy episode on President Snow. I like to see how you guys would analyze him from his teen years in the Ballad of the Songbird to the main trilogy series.
The thing on Dumbledore allowing Tom in, isn't just that Dumbledore believes that a better environment can make better people, and in his own way that therapy can help people with sociopathic or psychopathic tendencies, but he has demonstrably seen it. In the books, when Harry basically asks if he didn't take any of that as a red flag, he made it clear that a lot of it was the sort of stuff he had seen before, and generally tried to ensure students like had direction to support them. Probably the biggest failing of Dumbledore, at that point of time, was possibly failing to carefully consider the effect Tom could have on Slughorn, particularly given he would have the motivation to do so-Heads of Houses, Their Head Boys and Girls, and the Prefects are the ones with the most regular impact for direction and guidance , but everything about Slughorn basically ensured that entire structure at school was exactly the sort of thing that would fold to Tom rather than catch him and guide him. He can't have had an influence on how Tom was Housed, but he might've picked different teachers and elder students to try and pick up the slack.
Where in the book does it suggest that? Because I read these books every few years and cannot recall ANYTHINg that suggests that Dumbledore ever suggests he 'sees this all the time'
Dumbledore wasn't the headmaster at the time and has no influence on wether Tom is accepted/the teachers teaching him. Even in the films he introduces himself as a professor.
I think, just in general, the Hogwarts Houses are a large part of the problem. You're shoving people together, but you're shoving them with people who they likely click with already so they never learn to see the other side because they're trapped in a bubble. And a bubble they can use and manipulate to their advantage.
The bit about how a diagnosis doesnt define who you are its your choices is something that really hits hard for me. I was born with an extreme case of rapid cycling bipolar, was diagnosed properly at the age of 10. with working meds and years of therapy and hard work i have reached a place where depression is no longer in charge and i have family i trust with me all the time. What i hate is when i mention being bipolar most people freak out and think serial killer because of movies and TV shows. The fact that the only other 2 ive met who also have it used it as an exceuse to hurt others doesnt help. I try to help others when i can because if i hadnt been helped by strangers i wouldnt be here today. Helping others helps me too. My diagnosis doesnt define me, it just helps me know what i need when its time to get new medications.
The old name for bipolar is manic depression, right? Maybe sticking to the old name helps to keep other peoples mind away from the TV tropes because the word bipolar seem so cold and alien compared to word depression that everybody understands, even if yours happens to be manic and hyper at the times.
Have you watched Spinning Out? May be is not your kind of show but I believe it is a very good depiction of Bipolar Disorder. Both the protagonist and her mom are bipolar and it is really interesting to see how that impacts their lives
My cousin has bipolar as well, and his was aggravated by years of mental abuse by his dad. He definitely has his issues, but honestly when he comes to my state to visit, I love just taking him out to lunch for a chat because he’s one of my favorite people to just chill and talk with.
My brother had bpd that manifested itself when he was almost 20. It was crazy for me to observe because it wasn’t the Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde type nonsense that I’d vaguely believed bipolar was. In mania or hypomania, the things that excited him before just excite him more intensely. In depression, things that excited him before excite him far less. It’s like a dial that controls his personality is being cranked too far in either direction. And there are stages between the manic and depressive phases where he acts the way he did before he started having symptoms. Mental disorders are definitely very different in real life from how they’re normally depicted onscreen
Oh man, I would love to see an analysis of Lynda's sessions with Lucifer, how realistic, what you would do, how it changes from when she thinks he's delusional compared to when she knows he's the actual devil
This. And just a whole video on Lucifer himself. Narcissism for sure, but what else? Does the devil himself get villain therapy, or psychology of a hero? Is he bad, or just misunderstood?
Love to see that too. Her reaction was perfect, I mean she literally saw the devil. I wouldn’t think it’s realistic is she just saw him, get shocked and then she accept it and talked to him immediately.
SuperCarlinBrothers actually once made a theory on what they think Voldemort's patronus would be if he were capable of casting one, and they landed on bear. That being said though, the only one among Voldemort's ranks that we know to be capable of casting a patronus at all is Snape, and he's technically playing both sides. Death Eaters and Voldemort himself can't cast patronuses, since a patronus is a culmination of light, happiness, love, and good. Things that - for the most part - don't really exist among Voldemort's ranks.
"He was cast in the after movies and was more scary in that." Brilliant😂 I would love to see a Psychology of a Hero video on Lockwood from Lockwood & Co. What is his diagnosis? ADHD? Depression?Grief? PTSD? Narcissism? RSD? So curious!
Feels like we need a second season of L&C for that since they were JUST about to really dig into Lockwood's backstory. Doesn't feel like we got to see enough to judge.
@@LittleHobbit13 Okay, fair...then what about a Couple's Therapy episode on Lucy/Lockwood to discuss how Lucy sticks to her standards with him and him struggling/trying to meet her where she's at? We need to see more dynamics like this among young couples. Tying it back to my original comment: It'd be a heck of a lot healthier than anything young girls get with "After" movies.
@@forestelf86 That I would totally be down for! They did have a really interesting dynamic. And yes, I agree, I'd love to see more "couples therapy" episodes for younger characters that aren't just kinda toxic YA romances. ^^;
If you’re struggling, consider therapy with our sponsor BetterHelp. Click betterhelp.com/cinematherapy for a 10% discount on your first month of therapy with licensed professional specific to your needs.
umm, if your sponsor has to come with a disclaimer that they're complying with federal law, maybe don't work with that sponsor? i mean you've already gotten a multitude of comments from people who were harmed by betterhelp instead of helped, especially marginalized people. but that line just seems like a big waving red flag to me, idk 🤷♀
Yes! Please do Emperor Palpatine.
Another villain that would be good to do therapy on is Azula from Avatar the Last Airbender
If you want to teach the value of morality to somebody who has no empathy, make them play the interactive game/simulation "Evolution of Trust". It takes about 30 minutes.
There is objective mathematical reason morality exists and it's engraved in our basic instincts.
hi, i like your channel in general, so here's an important advice to you and to other subscribers: AVOID BETTERHELP.
they are Bad.
here is the FTC report about it : www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2023/03/ftc-says-online-counseling-service-betterhelp-pushed-people-handing-over-health-information-broke
Fun fact: in the book, Tom Riddle says “I can make bad things happen to people who annoy me” which is a lot worse than “I can make bad things happen to people who are mean to me”
Yeah, i had Fun with that fun fact :D
But seriosly, that IS worse.
yea that is definitely a lot worse
Didn't he also at one time mention he found the crying babies at the orphanage "annoying"
Annoyed me so much that the movie changed that. They made it seem more like he was being bullied and picked on. But in reality he was the one bullying and terrorising the other children. Two kids who went into a cave with him were changed for the rest of their lives and never spoke about what happened in there, and he hung another child’s rabbit on the ceiling by its ears.
@@davidfairweather3301 I agree. It annoyed me too. I understand the movies need to cut some things or maybe change some things a little to reduce screen time, but it wouldn’t have added any screen time at all if he had quoted the books in that scene, so I don’t understand what they were thinking when they changed it. In the movies, you get the impression that the other kids were mean to Tom and he had a rough upbringing in the orphanage, so maybe that’s why he went bad. But really Tom is just evil. No redeeming qualities whatsoever.
"There is no good and evil, there is only power, and those too weak to seek it..." This line is one of those that define Voldemort, both as a character and as a villain.
Oh I knew Silco's power line seemed familiar. He has the same idea of power as Voldemort.
"You see, power, real power, doesn't come to those who were born strongest, or fastest, or smartest. No, it comes to those who will do _anything_ to achieve it. Time to let the monster out."
@@TheRibottoStudiosthat’s very true
Too bad Harry Potter is poorly written and he gets defeated because of a technicality of rules. Such good writing right? When evil just defeats itself.
@@chill-lady-brook You'll find whatever you're looking for.
@@chill-lady-brook I mean, sometimes it does. Whenever someone evil thinks they've won, that they're good, they can make mistakes that lead to their downfall (just as good can become too complacent, and thus make mistakes that leads to their downfall)
^It may not always happen, but it's common enough that it's hardly "bad writing" on principle imo. Just depends upon the usage and execution, as does all tools/aspects of writing
The thing that most annoyed me about Movie vs Book Voldy was that in the movie, he died in this weird Infinity War kinda way, turning to dust and crumbling. But in the book, he died just like any other human. He fell down and was just a lifeless body. Despite everything he killed for and preached, his death was no different than the ones he caused. It showed just how mortal he really was.
I also prefer the book ending. All the grandiose narcissism is basically laid to waste in a body rather than a separation of his physical self. He wasn't that special after all.
Yeah I 100% agree with you and find it weird. Like Voldemort literally spent all his life trying to be different, powerful But i the books, he ended up dying like any other person, like any other pureblood, half-blood, or muggle.
Yeah his book death was perfect karma for him because not only did he just drop dead on the floor just like any other human being, he died when he was only in his 70s. In the books a lot of wizards tend to live longer than average muggle because of using magic. But for all his horcruxes and sacrifices Voldemort only ended up living the same amount of time as the average muggle.
I partially agree and I agree with the argument specifically. However, I also like the idea that the reason movie Voldemort crumbles like that is because beyond the horcruxes and the magic, there’s nothing human left to him. He gave up his humanity and his very soul in the pursuit of power, therefore without that power, only dust remains
Lazy directing.
Little bit of lore for you two; Voldemorts soul is so mutilated by his horcruxes, he actually immune to the dementors. They are not attracted to him because he has no soul or happy feelings for them to feed off of. There’s a good chance him casting a Patronus would actually kill him…again. He’d suffer the same fate as the original dark wizard who created the first Horcrux. It did not end well for him when he tried. Sorry if I ruined you dreams of a 1v1 with Voldy and the Dementors 😅
Nah just made me happy imagining voldy self imploding like credence
Voldy and the Dementors is one heck of a band name
I seem to recall Rowling saying that Snape was the only one of the Death Eaters who could cast a Patronus. Can’t remember for sure, though…
Not the point of your post, but dementors definitely don't eat happy memories, they eat negative ones, that's why they amplify negative memories and are defeated by a spell powered with happy memories. If JK said they eat happy ones in some interview years later or in some supplemental writing, she forgot what she wrote in book 3 and made some stupid shit up. Which is on brand.
@@demonzabrak I thought they ate the happy ones and left people feeling horrible because of the lack of happiness in them hence why people see their worst memories in the process and then you defeat them by highlighting the happiness within you
I like the theory, that Voldemort can't feel emotions like love or empathy, because he was conceived while his father was under a lovepotion.
Yes!
No way really??
It would make his hug with Draco much more heartbreaking.
@@Harmonious028 If I'm not mistaken, it's Dumbledore's own theory in the books and while it's never ultimately revealed that's the case, it's Dumbledore who is wrong maybe twice in the entire series.
@@Harmonious028No, this isn’t canon at all. The main source is an old interaction with a fan on an online blog:
Fan: “How much does the fact that Voldemort was conceived under a Love Potion have to do with his nonability to understand love, is it more symbolic?”
J.K. Rowling: “It was a symbolic way of showing that he came from a loveless union - but of course, everything would have changed if Merope had survived and raised him herself and loved him.
The enchantment under which Tom Riddle fathered Voldemort is important because it shows coercion, and there can’t be many more prejudicial ways to enter the world than as the result of such a union.”
People are taking this way too literally imo. The potion didn’t somehow make Voldemort incapable of love, rather the circumstances of Voldemort’s childhood (growing up without any experience with real love) led Voldemort to consider love unimportant.
Choices are a really big theme in HP (Harry and the Sorting Hat, Voldemort choosing Harry over Neville, Sirius’ speech to Harry) and it’s discussed dozens of times that choices define who someone is. Harry in the books even gives Voldemort a chance at remorse, which Voldemort rejects. It would go against this entire theme to pin the blame for Voldemort’s inability to love or empathise on some side effect of a potion rather than his personal choices. It also ruins the parallels between Voldemort and Harry, because their similar upbringings yet different choices become obsolete if one is just magically hardwired to never choose love or empathy.
This potion theory has horrible implications for children born from sexual assault. It also brings Voldemort closer to a pure evil villain, which cheapens his character and the overall story quite a bit.
As far as I can tell, this is the closest JK has ever come to confirming the potion theory (which is to say, she didn’t confirm it at all), so unless she’s said something recently the theory is (thankfully imo) nonsense.
"Even Umbridge has a Patronus cause she takes pleasure in beinga B-Witch... A Witch." I laughed so hard 😂
Same lol
That was a very good save. XD
@@Hawner It was also a pretty cool girl-band, when I was a child. Every once in a while, I still hum their most famous song, "C'est La Vie", though I'm now old enough to recognize the thinly-veiled dirtiness in it. (1/28/2023)
Now I'm just hoping Cinema Therapy does a video covering Umbridge; even if she was a minor antagonist she just came off as so much more villainous sometimes because it was the kind of evil I'm sure most people had to deal with at some point in their childhood, if not in adulthood.
@@Verdha603 On the DVD for "Deathly Hallows: Part 2", there is a featurette called "The Women Of Harry Potter", which profiles the prominent female characters of the series. In this, one commentator describes Umbridge as, quote, "-- self-righteousness that covers self-interest...as sadistic as Bellatrix, but it's all justified, because, 'I work for the Ministry.'" Another person says, "On the surface, she's all fluffiness, and pinkness, and niceness. But on the inside, she's pure evil." (11/28/2023)
Speaking of psychopaths, I thought it was interesting how Movie Slughorn is clearly creeped out by teenage Voldemort and gives him information about Horcruxes seemingly out of terror, whereas Book Slughorn seems quite pleased and unperturbed to explain it.
That could also be memory manipulation. When we focus on our memory and what ifs they change the truth. He could have been impress but dwelling on it changed to being creeped out
@@LeahWalentosky That makes a ton of sense to me. we know slughorn tried desperately to avoid recalling this memory at all due to his immense guilt, to the point he was doing damn near everything to dodge dumbledoor even after Voldemort was back. Editing it when he can no longer avoid handing it over, and in a way to give himself more credit for realizing the severity of the situation at the time, seems incredibly in character for him.
In the books, Horace Slughorn was almost certainly creeped out, at one point refusing to talk about it any further (though the harm was already done) when then-teen-Tom mentioned making SEVEN Horcruxes... but at first yes, he was fine when Riddle was treating it like a hypothetical.
The flashbacks should've been handled better, they should've been the focal point of the movie; all of "Half-Blood Prince" was a look into what made Voldemort before the final book and final battle against him.
@@tfly999 To be fair, it's almost the equivalent of a student asking you "How do they make atomic bombs?"and you give a brief answer to reward their interest in advanced chemistry, but then they say "And where would I find those materials?" and you know they're no longer being theoretical...
@@smitefulaxe1344You totally got it!
I really respect the therapist saying "I'd refer", that shows an integrity to the field and a humbleness that is so rare nowadays.
Completely agree.
TBH, this part was a bit frustrating to me. Many therapists don't have enough training on differentiating ASPD from other common disorders or circumstances (such as Autism Spectrum Disorder, less severe personality disorders, or social manifestations of severe trauma). It's sometimes gotten completely wrong and a person who could benefit from talk-based therapy is left without help. There's a difference between referring to get someone out of your office and referring to help someone. Clients can and do notice the first. And that's a massively damaging experience (see: looking-glass self theory). Doing a knee-jerk referral, if it looks like lack of empathy, is not uncommon with some therapists. To me, this is missed opportunity to support someone who desperately needs it (mostly outside of ASPD, but also sometimes in early intervention for conduct disorders).
Making an effort to go through the diagnostic checks (FULLY) and finding someone with specialty and success in this area, while making a logical and strategic plea to the client that they should remain in therapy because it can actually help them... It's all necessary. On first reaction, the blanket "I'd refer" seemed to skip over much of that.
@@paulcrenshaw812well as Jonathan had said already multiple times, Voldemort is obviously not a regular client coming into the office
3:42 - In the book, Tom actually says he makes bad things happen to people who _annoy_ him, not people who are mean to him.
It may not seem like a major change at face value, and it wasn't until I saw MovieFlame's analysis when I realised it was even changed in the first place. But this one little line completely changes the kind of kid Tom Riddle was, and not really for the better.
Saying that they're mean to him implies that Tom was bullied as a child and makes him seem sympathetic. Saying he does it to people who annoy him implies that Tom _was_ the bully.
I'm happy you said this because I also made a similar comment. XD
It wasn’t even implied. The words “bad evil child” written on a sheet of paper, glued to a hammer, and beaten into your skull. And this breakdown misses the entire scariest part of him. His self lotion over his heritage. As soon as he found out he had magic, and as soon as he found out his father was non magic, he buried that past. Framed himself as being pure and perfect and pristine, while persecuting anyone who was not, and it was all from a place of deep self loathing.
That could still be manipulation on Tom's part in the movie. It sounds better to imply it was self-defence. It doesn't mean he wasn't a bully and hurt those who annoyed him. He just said it in a way that would make him look better in front of this strange professor.
Saying they "annoyed" him also contributes to the fear and instability because then you don't know what's going to set him off or how he'll react so it forces others, if they can't avoid him, to walk on eggshells around him all the time. Either way making it completely about himself
@@sonjaimmonen6610Yeah in the movie I took it as him being smart to not imply that he actually hurts innocent kids. I think the movie made it pretty clear that Tom was an evil child
For someone so obsessed with immortality, Voldemort lived a pretty average lifespan, only 71 years old. Turns out that him meddling with fate is what caused most of his downfall. Had he just lived a normal life, it is highly probable that with him being as magically gifted as he is, he probably would have lived 120-130 years.
That’s true
Those who fight against fate/destiny, often are the architects of their own downfall.
That might of been the biggest burn of all. "Bit average, Tom" 😅
But he didn’t want to live to 120 where he didn’t have the control. He wanted total control and immortality.
"One often meets his destiny on the road he takes to avoid it"
Half Blood Prince is a flawed film adaptation because they made Tom Riddle way too creepy. CoS did it right where he's incredibly charismatic and handsome- this is why Dumbledore was fooled with regard to Tom; he assumed Tom wanted a second chance after their orphanage meeting and didn't question that until it was too late.
I'd say all of the movie adaptations after Chamber are like that. They ham it in too much, lose all fairytailish feel the first two movies had and display just plain weird acting/directing choices, like Dumbledore losing his shit on Harry for having his name in Goblet of Fire. Hate them.
@@akselandor8975i actually think 3rd movie is the better one amongst them, it definitely went downhill afterwards tho. the 4th movie was the worst!! they cut so many scenes and create so many unnecessary ones i hate it
@@wawaristi
Gotcha. But I hate third one vehemetly.
@@wawaristi The 3rd movie has one major flaw that's very telling, werewolves are supposed to look like actual wolves in the HP universe. They even talk about it in class in the same movie! The only differences are slightly shorter muzzles, more human looking eyes, and tufted tales. (Plus the desire to kill humans of course). They weren't supposed to look like some bizarre alien CGI monster.
They probably thought their CGI creature was more scary, but it makes no sense at all. Also a blood thirsty wolf is plenty scary.
@@kx2174 that was because the concept of a werewolf is a humanoid wolf. Plus the whole animegas thing would be confusing. I mean, what if your animrgas form was a wolf? Then what's the difference? A werewolf and an actual wolf are two different things. Lupin looked like a giant long starved dog. There's ledgends somewhere about a creature like that, but it's not called a werewolf.
12:52 actually, it makes _total sense_ why Tom is monologuing here.
In the books, he's very clearly stalling for time, for Ginny to fully die and him to fully live.
What I love about this channel is that you guys take the time to point out that nobody is intrinsically evil. And just because someone has a diagnosis doesn't mean they are going to be evil, good or less of a person. I think that's really important to mention. So thank you.
avoid narcissists always, avoid them
@@Elven. Sounds like sound advice. I was at ~2 minutes in though, so I didn't know what the diagnosis would be.
Edit: Edit was a spelling mistake.
Also the thing about the intrinsically evil still stands. Probably not good to be around them, but that doesn't mean they are intrinsically evil.
@@dcworld4349 So the advice is very sound. I honestly think it is best to stay away from these people. But I can't condemn a whole group of people who got a diagnosis to intrinsically evil even if most of, if not all, the people diagnosed with it are bad to be around. There may be a person who has learned to live their life in a way which isn't harmful to others (Not that I'm saying it's likely, but it is a non-zero chance.), or someone who got the wrong diagnosis (Probably still someone who could/would do harm, but like earlier, non-zero chance they also won't. Though if they did get the wrong diagnosis, it probably was for a reason.), or something else.
But I can't in good conscience say that anyone is intrinsically evil. Because even just calling someone evil denies that person the help and growth they need. It also dehumanises people. And while people with a diagnosis (Not specifically psychopathy or narcissism or anything else, just a diagnosis. Because my original comment was made without the knowledge of what the diagnosis would be.) have problems, they aren't any less human due to it. If we make the precedent of saying these people are intrinsically evil, we open the pathways to saying that ANYONE who is different from the norm is evil and not a human. It has been done before, and I really don't want it happening again.
So, in summary:
Are narcissists and people with antisocial personality disorder good to be around? No. Probably not. In most cases I, as a very much not expert, would advise caution.
But are they intrinsically evil? No. Probably not. Because I don't think anyone really is. And I don't think we should call most actual people evil. We can call fictional characters evil, because they are fictional. Often they are made to be evil. Like they said, these characters can help recognise bad things. But the characters in fiction aren't human. Not really. At least not at the same level.
So when do we use the term evil to describe someone? We take away part of their humanity. For people who do empathise it is the calling card to stop empathising. And while you probably shouldn't empathise too much with the person who is currently ruining your life, or stealing from you, that I agree with. If we stop empathising with entire groups of people based on their diagnosis we are practising very dangerous actions. Because dehumanise one group of people with a diagnosis and it makes it easier to dehumanise another, and another, and another. And suddenly decades of progress with understanding and humanising people who are different (Because honestly some diagnoses simply boil down to: This person is different. They can't do task X as well as what is expected.) is all down the drain. I don't want to be treated like I'm broken (Or at least, I wouldn't if I had a diagnosis. Not that I have one, future Palpatine-esque government/Umbridge-like future employer.).
If we are not careful to treat everyone with some basic human empathy and see them as human beings. We will lose EVERYTHING.
Something I'm very wary and concerned about.
I hope this is clear. Please ask if I wasn't and you have questions.
From experience, I've known one person who was just evil. Always. As a child, as a teen, as an adult.
He's in prison now. If there was a way to save him, I can't imagine what it was. I believe some people are just wired to violence, lack empathy and enjoy cruelty. Just like some animals (including dolphins) enjoy killing other animals in cruel playful ways.
Considering that you think it's probably not good to be around them just because of their diagnosis, people are going to believe that you think they're "prone to being evil" which isn't that different from thinking they're "intrinsically evil". @@BasicallyBaconSandvichIV
Voldemort: *fears death, seeks to become immortal*
Also Voldemort: *dies at 72* -- while Dumbledore makes it to 115-150 easily
Actually, if Tom were more sneaky and don't teared his soul for 8 pieces (7 hocruxes and his own body has a part of his soul), but 2-3 instead, he would easily take power and do whatever he want. And became immortal dictator of magic society
He fears death, not because he is afraid of dying, but because it makes him same as everyone else. He never had anything when he grew up he wanted to feel like he is better than others
@@nurglecultist2521 No, the main problem is that he chose to put fragments of his soul into famous objects. He could have literally picked anything, but instead he chose to put into objects that were either connected to him (his mother's ring, his diary, Nagini) or that were famous (Slytherin's Locket, Hufflepup's Cup, Ravenclaw's Diadem).
Or a Nokia
@@lisboahso fucking true. He could've just split his soul into a bunch socks then bury them in some random location
Alan Rickman's acting the moment Snape saw Charity Babbage floating there was excellent. You could see him a little bit frozen, trying to mask his concern as indifference or being mildly surprised
Can you do a video on Draco pleeeeeease? Maybe like generational trauma and how parents/guardians can influence your beliefs/actions? He’s such an interesting character and I would love to hear your take on him!
Yesss!! That would be awesome!!
I don’t think the book version of Draco is all that interesting. He’s simply a brat who tries to imitate his dad. The movies added some abuse to make Draco more sympathetic, charming and redeemable. Lucius would be more interesting, as he’s a very bad person, but a loving father and husband at the same time.
@@bramijdema759 what about both :0 the Malfoy family?
@@kikishiba That would be interesting
What ? He is a boring character...
I love that the fandom recognizes that the problem is usually Dumbledore 😂
I would love a Dumbledore analysis
I love Dumbledore, cried so hard when he died, but for FUCK'S sake.
@@LizLuvsCupcakes For real. Love me some Dumbledore but good lord man get it together.
He's a good man...
Just not very good at much else. 😂
to be fair to Dumbledore, in this case, as he wasn't headmaster at the time Tom came to Hogwarts, it wasn't his decision to him to admit Tom.
He's still a problematic dude, though.
As someone who has struggled with my mental health for forty years plus, I hold by the saying "mental illness is a reason, not an excuse".
Amen!
I'd like to see a Palatine episode
Similar gist, but I've always gone by "trauma/mental health issues/etc are NOT your fault. But they are your responsibility."
What about DID or whatever it's called where you pretty much have multiple personalities, and one of them is just an absolute ass? How does that get dealt with under that philosophy? They kill someone, you get arrested, and then say "they did it".
Like, how does that work, just in general? Because if you send the guy to jail you're technically sending MULTIPLE PEOPLE to jail... Most of which are innocent. So how does that get sorted out?
@colt1903 hi OSDD 1-B system here, with 3 "problematic alters". Someone with sociopathic tendencies, someone that has homicidal urges, and a narcissist. We tend to operate by the rule of the host is responsible for the actions of the system. Not sure if other systems do though.
One example of Tom being charming is him wooing Hepsibah Smith for a long time, basically doing a long con, bringing her flowers and being all charming before killing her, pinning the blame on her house elf and making off with Salazar Slytherin's locket (okay, so technically it was his birthright that Merope was swindled off for a ridiculously low reward) and Helga Hufflepuff's cup. And there's also the time where he killed his own *father* and *grandparents* and shifted the blame onto his *uncle*. But you have to read the books for those scenes. 😉
I know this is a little off topic, but how do we not have a villain therapy about Prince Zuko & Uncle Iroh on Pride V.S. Humility? Does anybody else want to see that? I know it might be a long, hard project for John and Alan but to see the payoff I think would be worth it. “Happy birthday, my son.” Changes so much about Iroh and you see he was in a similar place to his brother until his son changed his perspective on everything.
Yes!!!!
Absolutely!!!
lol it’s your lucky day! I just came from their new Prince Zuko episode
@@jacquelynworkman8516 wow, I guess they heard me. I’m going to watch it now!
@@ethanfrench9111 haha yeah, it’s a great video!!
Jono, I've gained many respect points for you today for the same reason I gained respect points for my primary care doctor a couple years ago. When I started experiencing some weird health issues and went to my primary about it, that appointment ended with him saying "I don't see an obvious reason for your symptoms, so I'm setting you up with this specialist I trust." The fact that he said that, instead of saying "I don't see a reason, so your symptoms are stress/weight/pretend," let me know that he BELIEVED me - he treated my issue as real and as deserving of real treatment, even if that treatment had to come from a different doctor and even if he had to say the sentence "I don't know" out loud. Putting the health, needs, and well-being of the client/patient above your own professional pride = all the respect.
I had a therapist completely give up on me, telling me to, and I quote: "get out. Leave. Now."
I never heard another word from them again.
It didn't help that before all of this went down, they straight up told me, "You're fucked up."
It's made me begin to lose faith in not only therapy, but also myself. And I'm still left suffering without answers. I don't like myself, I can't find a reason to.
So every day I am forced to live with and take care of a person I don't even like, just because I have no real choice. I would let myself just wither and die but there is only one person I care about, and they are the only thread keeping me here.
And I can't even tell them, because I don't want them to have that weight of responsibility. I don't want them to feel obligated to stick around out of sheer guilt.
@@kingblanketfort that's awful, I'm sorry you were mistreated in that way. It's no wonder you're not keen on trusting therapy. What they said to you was cruel, and more than that, it was just wrong. Like, factually incorrect. All I know about you is that you are a person who took the difficult step of asking for help, and just from that one fact, I feel confident saying that you are not "f'd up" - you are courageous and deserving of the help you asked for. (Also I love your username because blanket forts are a valid coping skill for all ages, but that's beside the point)
I, too, had major respect for my doctor when he told me, 'at this point I don't know -- let's find you someone who does.' That is WAY BETTER than letting their pride take over and just guessing, or pushing unnecessary pills on you, or acting like you're not really that bad off or you're pretending etc.
Also sorry that people haven't had that experience and good doctors/health workers. They are out there, and so are the bad ones. Keep trying.
Yes! My doctor sent me to a ENT specialist when I was having balance issues, and after some time that doctor sent me for an MRI which found that I have MS. Medical professionals working as a team is how it should always work.
@@RhamanaChan I hope your doctors have continued being a team and finding ways to help you manage your MS! Good on them for doing right by you.
Ralph Fiennes performance as Lord Voldy is just something else, HE WAS HIM
I know what you mean
💯
In GOF and OOTP. Sadly, his character was a joke in both Deathly Hallows movies :(
His nephew also did great as young Voldy.
@@jdrvargo287 that was his nephew?!
I think the "bury your dead with dignity" thing in the 'stay of annihilation' speech in Deathly Hallows pt II may also reveal a touch of emotional sadism on Voldemort's part. He wants to give the people he's fighting chance to feel their grief and he wants to see them doing it. I think it is also to make his opponents more likely to believe that he will hold up his end of any bargin they strike with him by making him appear to have decency and some honor code.
That's a theory that I haven't heard before, but it totally makes sense!
22:36 It's not that he didn't want to waste an avada kedravra. The reason Voldemort makes Nagini kill Snape is that he couldn't risk using his wand, the Elder wand, against who he believed to be its true owner.
the wand refuses to kill it's owner...
Dumbledore once told Harry, "Lord Voldemort has never had a friend. Nor do I believe has he ever wanted one."
Also, I would love to see villain therapy on Palpatine and Umbridge.
I second the Umbridge therapy! That would be a VERY interesting video...
Umbridge, definitely! I have never wanted to personally throttle a character quite like her!
@@HowlflameShe is the pinnacle of lawful evil...which makes her so terrifying
There is a video called Harry Potter vs bullies and it includes Umbridge
I agree.
I love how Jonathan is basically like, "I treat people, and he ain't one".
Jonathan doesn't say Tom Riddle isn't a person, not at all, just that he would defer him to another therapist that would be better at treating him and at handling the struggles of having such a difficult patient.
@@miriamrosemary9110Yea, no I get that.
I was referring to the "losing his humanity both figuratively and literally" kinda stuff.
Voldemort shouldn't be considered human anymore. Jonathan even said to get rid of him lol
@@iDunnoMan9000 Good point lol. Thanks for clarifying :)
@@miriamrosemary9110Thanks. Like, I know we don't wanna look at anyone as "too far gone," especially from a therapist's point of view; but if there was ever a person who was too far gone, it's Voldemort lol.
We love to hate him XD
I will say, a show about a therapist who's dealing with the world's worst villains would actually be kind of great. Since I could imagine it being some spoof of DC or marvel where they're always throwing these villains in prisons. Who are they throwing them to? A specialist super hero who's like a sane dead pool and tries to help them find a way to be beneficial to society. Mostly just by surviving their onslaught and possibly breaking down their world views physically if they have to. (I love the trope where the more powerful you get the harder it is deal with emotional problems. How are you supposed to address the fact you need to forgive your father for dying when its so insignificant next to the ability destroy planets?)
Another note from the books is that he has a tendency to take trophies from his victims, and give them a certain significance. He displays this first in the scene of where Dumbledore first, but basically his horcruxes are another product of this behavior. It’s not just that he chooses the items because they are a link to what he values, magical history and his own links to that, but the fact that he creates this Hotcruxes with specific deaths that have meaning to him, and are placed in spots that have a personal meaning to him. I’m not too familiar with psychology and specifically the field of serial killers, but, he does have a tendency to create trophies to mark kills that mean something to him.
Also in the books, you see more of Riddles ability to manipulate people into getting what he wanted, of how he makes it seem like he cares or understands what the person he is manipulating is talking about, but only until he gets what he wants.
I think another reason Slughorn doesn’t tell anyone what he talked with Riddle about is because Slughorn is a true Slythrryn at heart, he is ambitious but prefers to be the one who influences all the students he championed, often often expecting a favor in return. He prides himself on his Ability to check for talent, but Riddle was his biggest failure.he got a brief glimpse underneath the mask. Part of what holds him back from saying anything is his fear, but also his own shame at not seeing the signs when he could have. That’s my take on it.
Voldemort putting a curse on the position of Defense against the Dark Arts so no one lasts more that a year on it simply because Dumbledore wouldn't hire him is the most hilariously savage thing he ever did.
Which kinda makes no sense in the grand scheme of things. If he can curse a teaching position, why only that one?(I know it's specifically the one he applied for, but other positions can teach powerful magic too.) Why not curse other abstract concepts like Ministry of Magic positions? There's so many potential game-breaking things he can do and he only does this once because he was slighted.
If he can curse his name in the final book so that it removes all protective enchantments and summons people right to your location why not make it deadly? He'd be rid of Dumbledore and Harry easily, since they're two of the few people brave enough to say his name. Not even his own followers are brave enough to say it. Another abstract ability that could have powerful uses and only gets used for capturing resistance members.
@@kyuubinaruto17 He did not cause at the time he cursed the position he was still young and it may not even have been a conscious type of curse to start with.
Making it deadly defies his pride. He is not interested in "easy". He was interested in a) winning them for his team and b) getting rid of them in a way that would bring glory to him and very clearly display to everyone else, that he is worth of worship. He's very capable of ruling by cruelty alone, but he does not, because he understands how much easier it is to control people on a large scale by establishing that he is "just" and so powerful that he does not require to hide behind cheap tricks when facing the opponents he deems worthy. Which is why he keeps insisting that Harry is brought to him, not killed by Deatheaters. While Dumbledore's sickly condition + Voldemort's persistent, childhood related fear of him, leads to that task being left to handle by his "tools". Yet, even there, he insists on making it an impressive stage, to show everyone how noone will be save anywhere.
plus, do you really want your enemy summoned to you at any time they say your name, when you aren't certain you'll be able to kill them and if enough ppl will be watching? XD You might be on the toilet (assuming he still does that LOL)
@@kyuubinaruto17 Its because Rowling isn't a very good author 😆
Honestly, once that was confirmed instead of being some sort of self-fulfilling superstition, I hated it. If he could do that, why not curse the Minister of Magic's position? Voldemort isn't as smart as he thinks he is, but he's not stupid. If you want to sew fear and anarchy, destabilizing the government is a good place to start.
I always took this as more strategic from him than (just) out of spite. He was making sure that no one in the future would be properly trained to defend themselves against him.
My friend’s boyfriend is a diagnosed sociopath. They found out because he kept pushing for her to get treatment for her own mental health and attended her therapy appointments. It’s fascinating listening to his logic about himself and their relationship. He firmly believes that the only way she will chose to be with him is if she is safe mentally and at home, so he goes out of his way to make a pretty healthy environment for them. He doesn’t believe morals are needed, just that he wants her in his life and that maintaining an environment she thrives in is the best way to ensure she stays. He’s kinda creepy and I know that there are risks, but all in all, he gets treatment for himself, encourages her to get treatment, and they seem pretty good together.
I wonder how many people have undiagnosed anti-social personality disorder and live “normal” lives like he does
That's just.... sorry for my word choice, but crazy
That’s because you need her for something that you don’t see… I would never stay because you never know when he’ll use it against you. And mostly, he doesn’t feel love so…
That's really interesting. What is love but wanting someone to thrive and feel safe? Huh.
@@elyalvarz I think it depends on the motivations behind it. Wanting the best for them because it's what they deserve is different than you want them to rely on you for it.
@@s70driver2005 very true! Seems like a very fragile situation, and I wonder if he'd be able to let her go if she ever decided she's no longer happy with him.
The sound design from the Pensieve scene in 8:21 on is perfect. Just as Tom pauses after saying "as I understand it", we hear a fading scream (like the murder required to make a Horcrux). Then, when he says "Horcrux", we hear the high-pitched whistling, chirping motif that's used again and again in both Deathly Hallows movies. When Tom asks Slughorn about splitting the soul multiple times, the shot cleverly doesn't show Tom's face (since he's referring to the future unraveling of his humanity), instead showing the Slytherin serpent crest and subtly zooming in on the ring he's wearing (later revealed as the Resurrection Stone). The whistling, ticking sound returns, indicating that Tom already made it into a Horcrux and has in fact split his soul more than once. (The first time he did was murdering Myrtle Warren in his 5th year to turn his diary into a Horcrux). Tom really wanted information on what would happen if he split his soul into 7 pieces - that's what he "didn't fully understand" about Horcruxes. Slughorn's reaction confirmed to him that it was at least theoretically possible and so terrifying even a Potions master would be horrified by it. Fantastic performances by both Broadbent and Dillane - sad that Frank didn't land a better horror role than the lead in "Astral."
i interned at a male county jail during grad school for social work. most of the men i met were honestly so kind and just had made so many mistakes or had serious mental health concerns. but i will never forgot the two individuals i met that i could physically feel how off they were. in some way looking back both definitely had ASPD but both fit into both these categories like you mention of Voldemort embodying both sociopathic and psychopathic traits with both falling differently on which one more. they never attempted to frighten me, but my interaction with them i just won't ever forgot just how much a knot my stomach felt it was in, how cold i felt but also slightly clamy, and overall how much my body wanted me to escape the interactions. ill never forget them and how much i truly believe our body knows these personality disorders first before our brains register it.
My heart warmed when I heard Jonathan say “That is not my area of expertise". There is so much self-awareness and wisdom in knowing what you don't know, in knowing your limits. Keep up the good work Cinema Therapy. We love you 😊
One of the biggest failings of the HP film adaptations was in Half-Blood Prince, where Kloves cut out almost all of Tom Riddle's backstory. That was so important to not only understand Tom, but also to explain how he chose the Horcruxes. And, most importantly of all, it establishes the similarities between Tom and Harry and why that insight that Harry learns from Dumbledore’s private lessons was pivotal in his success in defeating Tom the following year.
I agree with you
What’s the backstory????
@@Harmonious028Voldemort comes from a family of pure bloods that have become unstable and impoverished because of inbreeding to keep the blood "pure"
@@ChristineTheHippie In addition to his mother using a love potion on his father (a muggle, Tom Riddle Sr.) to conceive him. She stopped using the love potion after birth, his father left her and she committed suicide which is why Tom Jr. is at the orphanage (the muggle Riddles being some of Tom's first victims after school.)
I hate it. I hate verything about that movie. That and five have the biggest failings. Five fails to showcase Harry's internal mental struggle, and completely omitted his breakdown in Dumbledore's office. Six just...fcks up everything. The Half Blood storyline, Voldemort's backstory, the felix felicis thing....ugh.
Not only was the actor playing young Tom cast as the romantic lead in the "After" series of films; he's actually Ralph Fiennes's nephew.
Thank gods that this god awful series is over with, he deserves a role that can let him actually act for once LMAO
The resemblance in their faces is obvious.
Perfect casting
We havent seen Pre Voldie face adult Tom though
You should do an episode on Dumbledore. I don't know how to categorise him, he is a dividing character. We were introduced to him as wise loving mentor but how he planned Harry's sacrifice and ignored Dursley's behaviors mostly cracked the image of him. I was never that fond of him to be feel betrayed but still I struggle to understand how he is viewed by people.
Definitely would like to see a video on this
He was such a powerful wizard and had influenced the education of most wizards alive in the UK by then. He was entirely well-respected almost to the point of being a caricature. It turns out he was human, wrestling with his own insecurities and flaws, and trying to right some of the wrongs he knew by the end he'd played into. Such a complex character. ❤
Not to mention how he and Grindelwald had an actual plan to subjugate muggles "for their own good" and he actually genuinely believed this at one point
This would require book lore not movie adaptation. The movies flip the intentions of Dumbledore and Snape
I think Dumbledore thought that leaving Tom by himself to figure things out on his own would be more dangerous and that by bringing him to Hogwarts that he could keep an eye on him and teach him to be a better person. But you know, it obviously backfired.
I was thinking that too. Tom was not better off left to his own devices.
Also Fantastic Beasts indicated there are problems that an happen when untrained witches and wizards are left to their own devices so the practice of enrolling every magically gifted child into a wizarding school is probably as much for the benefit of the kids as it is for wider society.
I mean, idk, if he was left in the mental facility then at worst he might have burned it down or exploded or gone on a mini-killing spree, which sucks, absolutely, but isn't quite as damaging as becoming Wizard Hitler and doing a holocaust.
@@GoddoDoggoDumbledore feeling he could correct the mistakes he made with Grindelwald?
Alan saying "Lord Voldemort, I am" in a perfect Yoda voice had me in tears.
Umbridge would be an amazing episode. She like Frollo is so utterly convinced of her own righteousness and is so real of a character you’d might actually meet.
Voldemort: "I am evil."
Dumbledore, thinking: "I can change him."
No,he wanted him there to keep an eye on him and teach him rules and control.
If he left him it would have been worse,he would have continued hurting kids
I don't think Voldemort would need to protect himself from dementors, because they have no happiness for them to suck out of him.
That's such a clever take... and he only has a fraction of a soul left, so they might not be interested in him anyway
They'd probably try but then throw up afterwards
The dementors would feed on the memory of Neville standing up to Voldemort. We all remember that smile.😃
He does have a soul though, which means they could still perform the Kiss on him
I like that response from Jonathan of passing that kind of patient to someone else, it speaks to me how a well and caring therapist he is, is not about “I have to help him”, is the “if I can’t, I’ll leave him with someone I think can help him” and I respect that a lot ✨
Ironically that might also put Voldemort on a better path on it's own - he approaches things on a purely logical level, and Jono would be a person who'd see his bullshit and just go "I'm not letting you in at all, you have been a shit so you can go away from me." and that would be a concrete result of his negative actions - the fact that new people who haven't already met him do not want to have anything to do with him. He cannot get any new pawns as all his secrets are out.
One of the most interesting parts of Voldemort to me is his relationship with the concept of blood purity. I don't think he actually cares about blood purity itself, and i don't think he would have a personal dislike of muggleborns for being muggleborns. I think he just latched onto this idea in his youth because he was already associating his power with his magical bloodline (as this is what kept him in control at his orphanidge) so the logial next conclusion for him is to dislike people who he perceives have less power than him, because he associates them of his own fear of losing his power. I think someone like Lucius would have probably become a blood purist no matter what. But i feel like if there was another power/control based philosophy for Tom to latch on to he might have become indifferent towards groups like the death eaters. But thats just what i think.
That smile when young Tom saw the fire covering his wardrobe was genuinely unsettling. It was a creepy smile that wasn't a fascination with seeing magic. He was enjoying watching something burn.
I love how the subtitles refer to him as "You Know Who"
Our caption writer, Anna, is the best!
Wait they do? That's awesome. Now I'm going to have to turn them on.
3:40, the line was actually changed in the movies for some reason.
In the book tom states:
"I can make bad things happen to people who annoy me."
The line changes the context because he was never the bullied in the books he was constantly using his powers to bully others. Especially when the head caretaker hinted, he used his powers to hang one of the other kids' bunnies.
God I hate HBP soooooooo much. Not going deep enough into Tom's backstory, fumbling with the Snape reveal....god it just pisses me off as an adaptation lol.
It DID give us book harry though for like one scene with the spider funeral though so there is that at least.
@@TheRibottoStudioswaiiiit how was the reveal on the books?? With Snape being hbp like it felt a bit lackluster in the movies watching it over but was there more plot?
@@tigerunicornpegasesnah, it was lackluster in the book too, like okay, who cared about that...
@@Szokynyovics oh damn lmaoooo I sworeeeee it was gonna be Voldemort first time I watched it that would’ve been WAY BETTER
@@tigerunicornpegases The books are each better than the corresponding movie. If you haven't read them, you should.
I love Jonathan's input of course, but I wish Allan's comments about filming would have more room in the episodes.
Good job guys. This is my fav channel 👏🏼🙏🏻
I just can't believe the best scene in the entire 7 books isn't in this movie! The scene where Voldemort comes to Hogwarts to ask Dumbledore for a position as a teacher. There's where we finally see what that little creepy boy has become, and we finally see Voldemort being what he is in front of someone he cannot trick nor scare!
Had to replay the “Nagini… eat the lawnmower…” part a couple times because it was too funny 💀
it's a bunch of words you wouldn't expect together and it was hysterical
I couldn't stop laughing until I cried 😂
One thing that always creeped me out is in the scene with Slughorn, Voldemort is asking about the horcruxes and making multiples. In the shot, you can see he's holding the Gaunt family ring-which means by this conversation he's already killed Myrtle (For the diary) and the Riddles (For the ring). He knows exactly how the horcruxes are made, but he's posing a question solely to figure out how far he can go with their creation.
In the books he hasn't jet killed at this point - The actor is sadly too young for this scene and it confused some people. In the books Tom was already 16 when Myrtle died but it makes sense to use the same child actor for both scenes simply because anything else would have been confusing. For the movie this scenes visuals with him twirling the ring was a genius way to foreshadow the core of what happened in the books and true to the rule "show don't tell".
I saw it more as he already has an idea of what the horcruxes will be. Like he knows the ring will be etc
Personally I thought they should’ve brought back the CoS actor but I guess he probably would’ve been too old at that point
@@JP-uf9sh the actor was 17 and 18 when it released. he was old enough???
The bad part about young voldy in the movie, is how obviously evil he is. In the books everyone loved him at that age, he was seen as very charming and smart. A golden boy teachers thought would become minister of magic in no time
Only later when the killing got more obvious everyone realized what he really was
That was also because he learned not to reveal his true self after the slipped up in the first meeting with Dumbledore. He got excited when confirmed to be special and let things slip.
Voldemort- sadistic
Jack Sparrow- opportunistic and avoidant of violence unless necessary
I'm glad you mentioned Lucius in his scene. You look at what Voldemort does. He takes a man we've only ever seen as a cold, collected pillar, and he turns him into a cringing, unshaven, fool who can only cut and run when his master faces defeat.
@danielallen When questioned about that scene in an interview, Jason Isaacs said it showed Lucius being, quote "emasculated". (11/28/2023)
@@daniellemusella1594 My wife and I had similar thoughts. Given the nature of wands and the (honestly) rather phallic shape of them.
the poor boy was so scared of doing that scene when he did the hug
@@samalight7249 If I remember correctly, Tom Felton said he had no idea Ralph was going to do that, when they shot the scene. There's still a hint of threat, which is demonstrated by how the wand is held against his back like a gun. (11/28/2023)
I always saw this as one of the actions Voldemort took that turned Narcissa against him. It started when he gave her son the mission to kill Dumbledore, a mission that would have gotten Draco seriously hurt or worse had Dumbledore and Snape not stepped in to keep an eye on him, and of course, culminated in that awesome moment where she lied to Voldemort and told him Harry was dead.
I think Voldemort was motivated solely by the hatred he had for his mother for abandoning him... He saw her as weak because she died... instead of being there for him. So he spent his entire life trying to be different from her, to prove to himself that he was not weak like her, that he wouldn’t just die. He doesn’t want to identify with her, because that would mean accepting her humanity. Accepting to let the hatred go.Facing whatever is beneath. Forgiving her. Accepting the pain of being abandoned, alone and unloved. I think that’s what he wants to avoid facing within himself... And he’ll burn the world to the ground if he must. Much like Hitler would do so, only to avoid facing his own inferiority complex... Much like a narcissist would create a little fantasy world out of their life, where everyone must play a part in their fiction and adore them and NEVER trigger them, because they essentially never want to face their own trauma...
That’s my take on it.
To be honest, I don't know if Voldemort gives his mother enough importance to actually care so much about being different to her, or at least not on a consciously aware level. In the 6th book he tries to reconnect to his family roots because he thought they must've been very powerful people. The first thing he does is completely discard his mother because she must be a filthy muggle, too weak to even survive, and goes directly at idolising a fantastic ideal of his father who he thinks is a powerful wizard. When he discovers his roots and especially his mother's history, he is completely disgusted and hateful about it, and loses all interest in his family (even killing his uncle). While he did feel some hate towards his mother for being so weak and dying, he seemed to hate even more his father for being human and blind to his existence. Maybe Voldemort just wanted to find in his remaining relatives or family history some vestige of power he could use to his advantage
@@rociogallegossanchez3147 I think what you said actually matches the original point here that Voldemort wanted so badly to be different from his mother who was ‘weak’ who ‘left him’. That’s why he abandoned her memory completely and latched on so hard to the fact that he was a wizard and that she couldn’t be a wizard because she was weak and died.
Oh my god, I LOVE this reading. It’s crazy I’ve never thought about this before.
Facts
I think Rowling even commented that Harry and Voldemort started in life very similarly and the main difference being, that Harry at early life got unconditional love from his parents and Voldemort didn't, giving early experiences as a child more meaning. Also, throughout all books it was highlighted that even in his similarities in starting life, the choices Harry makes has more meaning than the circumstances he has to endure being an orphan.
Interesting that by your own definitions, Dumbledore himself could be considered a psychopath, he is outwardly charming and charismatic but underneath he's also cold and manipulative but he is a good guy (for the most part) so him saying "it's about the choices you make" has more weight, in my opinion
Well, everyone has this or that traits of persomality. It's all about our choices.
Psychopathy/sociopathy also seems to come down to lack of empathy. There are people who are empathetic who know how to be logical, cold and manipulative when the situation calls for it, and they wouldn’t be considered psychopaths/sociopaths because relationships and connection still matter to them and be a source of influence for them.
i’d argue that we see a lot of empathy from dumbledore,. being calculating, and even manipulative does not make a psychopath, and personally i wouldn’t describe him as cold but that one is easier for me to see. i see him more as he knows what must be done and has made peace with it, and made peace with making it happen. most of his actions people point to to reference him being cold and lacking empathy surround us finding out about the plan for harry through snape, but he’d already had time to process, think it over, have emotional reactions, etc. we see him in those moments i believe YEARS after he has already figured it out (if not, it’s been some time at least), and who could blame him for not showing emotion in that moment due to that plus he’s actively coaching snape through the emotions and trying to help him see it’s what must be done. moments like letting himself be killed and having snape be the one to kill him to help draco, his reactions to snape’s patronus, many moments with harry, all show a great deal of empathy. especially as a leader, and a leader directly opposite voldemort, being manipulating, calculating, and refraining from publicly showing too much emotion is frankly understandable if not absolutely necessary. hell even just being a teacher, sometimes manipulation is a part of what’s necessary to get kids to do what you need them to to help them. plus it definitely depends on your definition of manipulation, because just getting someone to do what you want isn’t manipulating them, it has to be more specifically harmful things being done to get them to do what you want (gaslighting, lying, guilting, etc). is telling your 5 year old the food you made has no vegetables in it lying, and in thus (here) manipulation? yes, but also kids need to get those nutrients however they can get them safely. most people wouldn’t call that manipulation you know?
this was very rambley so i hope it made any sense, but also i do actually like the idea of dumbledore being any one of these things, especially because he’s very often used as a foil to voldemort and has nearly the exact same traits, but “good”! i just personally do see a lot of empathy in him, but that could just be my own read!
Arguing that Dumbledore is psychopathic is just wild. You either didn't understand essential parts of the story itself or there's something essential about psychopathy you didn't get.
Yet he regretted placing Harry knowingly with abusive magic hating Muggles. Also raising Harry like a pig for slaughter. It was only after Voldemort s return he realised Harry might survive. He used people like pawns.
In the book, before he left Snape for dead and apparated away. Voldemort literally, said, "I regret it!" Snape was the only murder that he actually regrated.
When Harry tried using Tom's lines to get the real memory from Slughorn it was so cringe, but I think it meant to contrast how bad at manipulation he is and show the differences between him and Tom, since we've already seen how many similarities they have. His later, successful attempt worked because while it started out with magic luck and charm, Harry ended up speaking from the heart. His sincerity won out.
Oh my god, that outro. 😂
It wasn’t cringe at all
@@ninjanibba4259definitely cringey
@@sarahkrig6375 definitely not
@@ninjanibba4259 it really was. It was an obviously dumb plan on Harry’s part that clearly wasn’t going to work
@@sarahkrig6375 it’s not dumb at all, if you need information on something from someone, you need to feed into memory, Harry said what Tom said to bring back memories of the night Slughorn talked so it’d be an opportunity for discussion, it failed and that’s why another approach worked later in the film
The story of Lily came from Slughorn and that was Harry’s in, this time he approached it with honesty and confidence instead of tricks from Dumbledore and that’s why it worked
These things are done for a purpose, there’s nothing cringe about it
I posted a similar comment on your Jack Sparrow video, but please remember folks that there are people with anti social personality disorder who struggle every day to fit into society. I am one of those people. I have both psychopathic and sociopathic tendencies that I try very hard to keep under my control. And I echo our internet dads sentiment at the beginning. Mental disorder does not equal evil. Thank you.
It's the choices of the people that make one good or evil, never the mental disorders, never the disabilities or being raised well.
And just like a lot of things on the DSM-5 the parameters are constantly changing or expanding or merging with other things, like autism research from the past decade. Stereotypes can be very harmful, especially in storytelling.
Well then I have a question that maybe you’re comfortable answering and maybe not and either way is fine but either way I’ll ask
I’m always interested in hearing about how different people perceive the world differently and everybody I’ve ever talked to sees friendship a little differently than me - I’ve never been tested or diagnosed with APD or anything similar (though I have been diagnosed ADHD and suspected for Autism but never tested for it) but I have always thought it was interesting that I make connections differently than literally anyone I’ve ever known
So for me, friendship is purely transactional - (using my best and just about only friend as an example) I make him happy and he makes me happy when we’re around each other so we might as well, right? In any given situation regarding him, I’m thinking about what’ll make him have the most fun because I owe him for lighting up my life
Quick clarifying note: It’s mostly unconscious at this point - I don’t spend every minute we’re together thinking “what do I say to that that’ll make him happy??” but just when it comes to things like
Am I going to tell him this thing that, if he knew, would make him sad, but if he found out I was hiding from him, he would feel betrayed? Am I gonna call him out on this thing he’s being stupid about? But not like day to day interactions
Most people that I’ve talked to about it just say something about “he’s my friend” and then can’t reason anything beyond that and I just don’t understand that
What’s your experience like?
@@samstromberg5593 not APD but diagnosed autistic. Sounds to me like, and I could be wrong hard to say from a singular comment, that you are doing the classic deconstructing a concept to the most core elements where it sounds clinical. You find happiness in his company and in turn you go out of your way to try to return the sentiment. You’ve not indicated you do it simply so you don’t lose your supply of happiness from him, but because you are trying to return the favour out of gratitude - that my friend is simply friendship in a nutshell, an investment in your SHARED happiness. It can be hard when you have a brain that demands answers about such abstract concepts, I do the same thing, but I would say from where I am sitting you’ve got a good honest friendship and just unlike most people who take that for granted, you are breaking it down so far it ends up sounding clinical and cold. Unless you are only returning happiness JUST enough to keep your friend around so they can feed your ego and do things for you or something like that, then it sounds pretty sane safe and healthy to me. And even subconsciously going out of your way to find things that make him happy is healthy, so long as you aren’t doing it to the detriment of yourself or others, it is normal to do that when you care about someone (I think you’ll find most genuine friendships involve investing energy, compromising and actively putting thought into your relationship). Doesn’t make you fake or antisocial or even make your friendship transactional - it just makes you human. Humans want to be liked by the people they care about, humans want to make the people they care about happy, no shame in that.
I love you guys pointing out that mental illness doesn't mean you're evil. It's so easy to forget when terrible things happen and the news emphasize on any mental illness they believe the perpetrator had. But in Harry Potter I felt there was always a different story told, like with Remus Lupin for example.
I thought the true difference between a sociopath and a psychopath is a psychopath is born that way and a sociopath becomes that way bc of trauma and nurture. I didn't think people could be both..
I heard someone say it this way, "there are two types of people who lack emapthy: those who don't know but are willing to learn, and those who know empathy and don't care."
Very interesting!!🤔
That's essentially having affecting empathy but no cognitive empathy (who don't know but are willing to learn) vrs having cognitive empathy but no affective empathy (who know empathy and don't care).
"Knowing empathy but not caring" is just apathy. Apathy is not caring about anything, including empathy. "Why should I care if nobody else cares about me".
True!
It is not just some spell to cut his neck. That spell likely is Sectum Sempra, invented by the Half-Blood Prince himself. To be defeated by his own spell... I can see this hint of surprise in Snape's eyes, clouded by both his constantly distant demeanor mixed with a fainting consciousness. Almost as if he wasnt even aware Voldemort knew his spell.
I don't think it was Sectum Sempra, we saw it in the 6th film when Harry used it. And Snape knows contr spell and can do wordless magic.
Yes but that’s assuming he would have reacted quickly enough to cast. It definitely could still be sectum sempra provided Voldemort caught him off guard. It does bring up an interesting conversation about whether snaps could have held his own if they had actually dueled in the scene!
He was killed by Nagini
@DanBeech-ht7sw so a question. Nagini killed Severus, but several times bite Arthur and he survived. How?
@@IrynaMerinova a very good question and I don't know except it was touch and go with Arthur wasn't it? And maybe he was just in the way and attacked with less mortal determination? Snake on another mission got a bit muderously sidetracked, not focussing properly?
I honestly don't know but I agree it's a very good question.
I'd like to watch a video on Villain Therapy: Umbridge edition. I love all the work that you guys do!
Thank you! Have you seen this Harry Potter episode? th-cam.com/video/cVcPVn5Cwzg/w-d-xo.html
I say to my 4 yr old often "its important to be good even if nobody sees it"
I like that you pitched Dumbledore essentially is the "I can fix him" trope. XD
(Grindelwald)
"Nagini, eat the lawnmower" absolutely killed me
I’m still trying to recover
The "some spell" with which Voldemort slashes Snape's neck is Severus's own spell, sectumsempra. I just now realized that!
Voldemort would never have to fight Dementors because they have no reason to attack him. Dementors devour peace, hope and happiness. Since Voldemort was specifically written to be the only "wholly evil" character, I suspect he's also the only character whose soul offers no 'nutrition' to a Dementor.
What I have always appreciated about Harry Potter heroes, villains, etc. is that they mature with the reader. Voldemort starts all cartoony and obviously kid's story villain in the first book/movie. As the story progresses, Voldemort becomes more fleshed out (pun intended) and uanced because the reader can understand that since they are older.
Harry Potter is a very rare book series that starts as middle grade and ends as YA. It crosses genres as it goes. It does so organically and it makes sense, but it's a unicorn.
@@meganrogers3571 I feel like part of this is because of its serial natural. It literally written during a seven year 'school' period that would in correlation to us. . .be middle-school through highschool. Most children/YA series don't regularly take into account the passage of time. . .they just do broad time skips and say 'its been years' or 'a couple weeks passed' without really getting the how and why people change during that time frame.
HP still has its flaws, don't get me wrong, But there are aspects to it structure that are great to this day.
It feels like we see them in the eyes of the main trio, themselves maturing, understanding the situation.
It's really fascinating to hear you talk about how empathy is tied to morality as an Autistic person because so many people think we lack empathy and yet we're considered "too" moral.
Is there such thing as being too moral?
Not autistic but HSP (Highly Sensitive Person)
I would say from experience it can backfire on you a little bit cause you can be overly open or honest in trying to live in integrity and that can often come across as disingenuous or manipulative even if you don’t mean it to be.
Not everyone wears their hearts in their sleeve and extreme empathy can be confusing and even frightening for people at times who are more reserved. Whilst I’d guess people don’t necessarily lack morals they’re not so strained by trying to live by them to the point it becomes paradoxical and society itself is a heartache. Hope that makes sense. 😊
@@tell-me-a-story- I am also autistic. The 'too moral' comes often from what other people perceive as our 'over adherence' to rules. For (a small) example, I can't jaywalk or steal from a store (like little things), I return other people's shopping carts and get pissed at them for not returning it them themselves (for me, barring disability or wrangling 8 children, etc.). This has caused others to think I'm weird. - This is probably tied to common gender expectations (girls must always follow the rules), though I'm sure it's not exclusive to women.
Also when they were talking about how our brain subconsciously picks up on something that's off about a person's behaviour. My brain doesn't seem to do that, people never unsettle me for no apparent reason (and I'm far less likely to find people unsettling overall), but plenty of people found me unsettling as a child (usually other children) before I learnt to be deliberately non-threatening (and get mistaken for shy/awkward/childish instead).
Thankfully it's more and more understood that autistic people do not necessarily lack empathy, specially not the girls, who get more socialised that way, whereas normalized alexithymia in men is a very real thing. There's empathy, but reasoning tends to go other pathways. And it forms more via other channels. Aka rather than via observation, via talking and explaining. Empathy has cognitive/logic and emotional/intuitive components. And different people find their own "access" to empathy on that spectrum.
I know you guys don’t typically cover horror movies since it’s difficult for them to be monetized, but I think there is a ton of material that fits your show perfectly in Silence of the Lambs. Clarice Starling would make an excellent subject for Psychology of a Hero. Buffalo Bill for Villain Therapy. And Hannibal Lecter I think would make a great case study in true psychopathy like you guys touched on in this episode, which is what made me think of Silence to begin with while watching this episode. Also Alan would have a ton to chew on from a filmmaker’s perspective as well.
Great point, but also they should do Talk To Me. I really hope they do it, its a perfect film for therapeutic discussions
Man, I'd love to see your guys' take on Linda from Netflix's Lucifer. I know you guys typically don't do TV shows, but I thought that the character dynamic between Lucifer and Linda was just absolutely brilliant and I'd love to see a therapist's perspective on the stuff that goes on in the show!
This is for the editor, who knew why Voldemort didn't use the Elderwand on Snape. Cheers to you :)
That also made me smile!❤
It was a Producer's Note this time, and that producer was me! -Corinne :)
Except it doesn't make sense in the movies regardless. If the Elder Wand could slit his throat without issue then why wouldn't the killing curse work?
In the books Voldemort had Nagini in a protective enchantment since she was one of his few remaining horcruxes, and had her pounce on Snape before biting him. He was brought down by the weight.
timestamp?
The cruelty of it all being that Snape did not command the Elder Wand. Malfoy had disarmed Dumbledore before Snape killed him. And Harry defeated Malfory, which is why the Elder Wand belonged to Harry by then.
I like to think that Dumbledore let him into the school to try and 'fix' him. Secondary: to keep his close and under watch. But mostly the former. Dumbledore is still human, and possibly hanging onto a bit of pride and thought he could help this boy. Hence by the time of Harry's journey he's waaaay more hands off - cuz he learned his lesson about his ability to choose for ppl. Harry to to grow and choose and discovery his heroism on his own.
And the alternative is to let Riddle develop his powers either on his own or with someone less likely to try and curb his more sinister inclinations.
Dumbledore was not Hogwarts headmaster when Tom started school. It was Dippet who was the headmaster. Dumbledore was just the Transfiguration professor so it was not his call to deny or accept Tom at the school.
I'm a little iffy on the timeline: when was Fantastic beasts happening? Coz he's also learnt what sort of student comes out of Durmstrang (his boyfriend played by Johnny Depp who I forget name of)
@@auricstorm Grindelwald
I´d like to point out the sounddesign in the orphanage scene ... those echoing reverbs on Toms voice, almost hissing like snakes ... expertly done
Do you have a video talking about Ron's insecurities and how it led to his actions?? Love to hear that too.
"Dumbledore thinks he can help them" meaning "I can fix him"😂😂😂
Lol yup
So accurate XD
I don't think he actually thought this way cause when Harry asked him if he knew back then that he met the darkest wizard of all time, Dumbledore said no. Dumbledore is very intelligent but you cannot spot a psychopath based on one encounter and most importantly you never know what a child is gonna be like when they grow up. He's not a clairvoyant after all
He moreso thought he was saving him and that it was the environment that was the problem
@Olivetree80 the environment was the problem because he never received enough love because of that
If Tom was adopted by a loving family he would have been similar to draco(there would still be some good)
I think the other reason Dumbledore brought Tom in was to keep an eye on him. He recognized the character traits in Tom. He wanted to help him be better, but he also wanted to keep an eye on someone who was going to figure out greater heights to their power anyway.
Also, an uncontrolled, undisciplined Riddle would also be a problem. The magic is in him, no matter what.
Dumbledore did say "did I know I had just met the most dark wizard of all time? No. If I had Id..." he never answered.
Well due to stuff Tom said to Dumbledore, thats probably why voldemort could never fool him. But if Tom was never admitted to hogwarts, how would he have turned out? Basically Riddle knew he could do stuff, but didn't fully understand how or why? I mean wizards go to school to learn how to control their abilities. What happens to an untrained wizard?
I also think it was because he recognized that Tom was just a child and deserved a chance. But Dumbledor was arrogant in thinking that he could fix him when he had zero qualifications and training to do so.
@carolbaker2773 well most people grow up, maybe Dumbledore figured Tom was in a phase or something. Plus by Wizarding law, he had to be taught how to control his powers. But the whole "I can talk to snakes" thing defiantly cought Dumbledore's attention. That's why Dumbledore knew Hagrid didn't open the chamber of secrets. But Dumbledore couldn't prove it at the time.
Also, I agree wholeheartedly on the scene where Nagini is biting Snape. I've always found that scene deeply disturbing and it's hard for me to watch. Probably the most horrifying thing I've ever seen in a movie (cause I don't watch horror- but, like, that scene was horror)
I love your channel and your heroes and villains therapy videos, and I would love to watch a Villain Therapy of Coriolanus Snow, as I do believe its a compelling character, how a young man went through a war, the loss of his parents, his wealth, and was about to loose the last thing he hung onto, HIS STATUS, made him a cold old man ready to kill whoever threatened his position, and his home.
what I don't quite like in his backstory exploration both in the movies and books is that he basically spent his Hogwarts years with WW2 going on in the muggle world (he studied there from 1938 to 1945). so each summer, while being a child, he went back to the orphanage and war London and bombings which occured very actively during 1940-1941. I believe that probably played a part in this quest for immortality of his, because as a child facing something like that you will feel powerless, wizard or not, and people like these usually despise this type of feeling. it's a pity it was never explored in the books, because it would've added more depth to this, instead of "oh I want to be immortal because I want the ultimate power and no weaknesses in me".
Oo interesting point, I never realized that
Reading this kind of inspired another thought. What if his childhood and adolescents being spend during ww2 inspired him to start a Wizarding war of the same scale. Because the parallels are certainly there.
Good example of treatable and socialized sociopath is Amos Barton from Expanse TV show and books. He really want to good without truly understanding what good is, such a cool character.
I love how you said it so it's not quite clear whether you're saying, "Defeat the darkness within," or "To feed the darkness within."
If you guys are up for another Harry Potter themed video, I would love to hear your input on Draco's story.
It's definitely on our list!
I'd love to see their take on the parallel between Harry and Draco with the line "he's just a boy",
where Harry took the role of a martyr so save the world vs Draco who was a victim of chasing his father's acceptance and how that led to Draco ending up on over his head in a war he never chose to fight in
@CinemaTherapyShow yes please do Draco! It's a travesty that JKR didn't give him a full redemption arc.
YES!
Well, they already replied it's on their list, but is there enough for a full episode in the movies? Draco rarely gets much screentime compared to how much they interact in the books.
I’m so sad they didn’t include Voldemort’s full story in the movies, especially HBP. I wish I could see his father’s family murder, Hebzibah Smith, job interview at Hogwarts, happiness after Azkaban breakout, an attempt to avenge Bellatrix’s death, the real way he died, etc. It all would’ve added depth to his character, but unfortunately, he’s shown as a very evil clown in most films. Voldemort was decently portrayed only as Tom Riddle and partly in GOF/OOTP.
I mean they are planning on doing the series as close to the books as possible so... You'll probably like it 😄
The scene of Dumbledore meeting Tom at the Orphanage is even creepier in the books because of how quickly he switches between being charming and perfect and his true vindictive self to get what he wants. Stephen Fry did a great job getting this across this young version in the audiobook of Half Blood Prince but it's sad we don't get more in teh movies.
Also in the books it goes into more detail about how he was already hurting his fellow orphans long before he knew he was a wizard. This included, not just theft, but the killing of a fellow orphan's pet rabbit and the implied torture two other orphans in the cave that appears at the end of the movie. In the book he shows very little remorse for his actions but pretends to when he realises that he could get into trouble for it.
@@Toonwalla2010 I don't blame the kid actor, or the teen actor in HBP, I think they did what the script and director told them. But they really should have cut out most of the filler romance plot to make room for the Riddle scenes. I could feel the scenes rushing and them needing to use short hand to get the main points across as quickly as possible but Johnathan is right it makes Dumbledore look like an idiot. In the book Harry does think to himself that this was Dumbledore's weakness of wanting to see the best in everyone. Yet in the book, during his first meeting with Dumbledore. Riddle does not act the way he's here where you sort of get the feeling that he's the spawn of Satan. Dumbledore reasoning that this was a child with a troublesome past, but seeing it was a child who had no guidance, didn't know what he was or how he could do the things that he did. And as Dumbledore also points out Riddle got so excited about being told that he was special that he forgot himself and let more things slip than he would have liked to. So while he was able to charm all the other teachers, Dumbledore always kept an eye on him from that moment. With Riddle himself admitting that he never was able to fool Dumbledore. Not that he went out of his way to make his life a living hell the way Snape did against Harry. In the subtext Dumbledore does say something to the effect of he had hoped once Riddle got to Hogwarts and started to learn who he was, gaining some friends. That his past behavior stemmed more the way a child raised in a somewhat cold environment would. Since lets be honest if a young child could get revenge on people who are mean to them, they would do so and they wouldn't be thinking with consequences or proportionality in mind.
Dumbledore wasn't the head master at the time so all he could do was give his opinion. But the strangest thing to me is actually how Riddle got away with framing Hagrid after Mertyl died. Riddle might have been able to prepare to counter truth serums, altering memories for pensive exploration and such. But Hagrid wouldn't have, and they have plenty of method of finding out the truth, so I've never really understood how anyone who has a "it's my words against yours" would not be resolved by proving it with magic.
@@wifipigeon01 I really hope they commit to at least two seasons for the show. Obviously they are going to need more to tell the full story. But so that we don't end up in a House of the Dragon situation where they waited to see the reaction before deciding to move on. By committing to two season, they can do season 1, normal break, start right back up with season 2 since at that point they will know if it's worth it for them to do all the books. It's so annoying with the current model of TV where season 1 and season 2 has such gigantic breaks (I know there has been a strike but this was happening before the strikes). We used to get 23 episodes a year like clock work, the episode count is now as low as 6-8 on some shows. And I understand that more episodes means filler and you can't make it look as great for budgetary reason. But 12-13 episodes each 57-59 minutes should be something they can pull off. And here it's kind of important to actually do one book per year since no matter if they have to cheat and cast 12-14 year olds for the parts in season 1. Considering finding young child actors that are great is no easy feat. You can't stop them from growing, and at that age you never know what you are going to get. They are going to have to shoot things more chronologically, because you don't want a situation where they have filmed scenes at the end of the school year early, film for another 3 months and suddenly one or several go through a huge growth spurt filming a scene at the beginning of the school year.
I think a Villain Therapy Video on Coriolanus Snow based on the new Tribute of Panem Movie would be so interesting.
I see it also that way that Dumbledore thought he could give Tom a second chance and help him to find the right way. The books make that a lot clearer than the movies.
But I also think that he saw it also as a chance to better control Tom. Because an untrained and unwatched Tom could be even worse as we see in the Fantastic Beasts Movies with Credance, who nearly destroys an entire city.
I really like the thought of no one beige born inherently evil. Tom Marvolo Riddle had so much potential as a complex character born during both wizard and muggle wars, essentially to be an Anti-Hero.
Because Lord Voldemort isn't deserving of redemption but Tom Riddle was.
During the London Blitz being born in an Orphanage and labelled as devil child due to accidental magic definitely did something to his psyche.
That's an error. Tom riddle was not a child during the london blitz. In fact, he was born right after and grew up obsessed with Grindlewald the moment he learned about him.
Tom's lack of empathy is due to the love potion his mother fed his father in the beginning of their relationship.
@@Lenori55 Tom was born in 1926. You're right that Tom wasn't a child: he was a teenager.
There are plenty of people born evil, there’s lots of stories on killers that never had any chances
Tom riddle was never really deserving of redemption. His backstory of being an orphan is sad, but even at 11 years old he showed that he was manipulative and sadistic. He terrorised the children at the orphanage
He wasn’t labeled as a devil child because of accidental magic. He was a complete terror and even the staff at the orphanage were wary of him. He used his magic to terrorize the other kids at the orphanage… I mean he even killed a pet rabbit of one of them.
Please do a Villian Therapy episode on President Snow. I like to see how you guys would analyze him from his teen years in the Ballad of the Songbird to the main trilogy series.
Also, other Hunger Games character breakdowns would be fun to watch too.
ugh you are like music to my ears after i just finished 6 months of PHP/IOP. you are a good therapist it's evident in how you explain these things
The scene with Voldemort at the Malfoy's mansion had me stressed beyond belief. I actually felt pity for Lucious! F'ing Lucius Malfoy!
The thing on Dumbledore allowing Tom in, isn't just that Dumbledore believes that a better environment can make better people, and in his own way that therapy can help people with sociopathic or psychopathic tendencies, but he has demonstrably seen it. In the books, when Harry basically asks if he didn't take any of that as a red flag, he made it clear that a lot of it was the sort of stuff he had seen before, and generally tried to ensure students like had direction to support them.
Probably the biggest failing of Dumbledore, at that point of time, was possibly failing to carefully consider the effect Tom could have on Slughorn, particularly given he would have the motivation to do so-Heads of Houses, Their Head Boys and Girls, and the Prefects are the ones with the most regular impact for direction and guidance , but everything about Slughorn basically ensured that entire structure at school was exactly the sort of thing that would fold to Tom rather than catch him and guide him. He can't have had an influence on how Tom was Housed, but he might've picked different teachers and elder students to try and pick up the slack.
Where in the book does it suggest that? Because I read these books every few years and cannot recall ANYTHINg that suggests that Dumbledore ever suggests he 'sees this all the time'
Dumbledore wasn't the headmaster at the time and has no influence on wether Tom is accepted/the teachers teaching him. Even in the films he introduces himself as a professor.
I think, just in general, the Hogwarts Houses are a large part of the problem. You're shoving people together, but you're shoving them with people who they likely click with already so they never learn to see the other side because they're trapped in a bubble. And a bubble they can use and manipulate to their advantage.
Jon got me so excited with the idea of a Palpatine episode. I'd love to see that.
Yes! 🙌
*ahem* YES
Make an episode about Lynda's sessions with Lucifer, how good her advice is, and how would you treat Lucifer!
The bit about how a diagnosis doesnt define who you are its your choices is something that really hits hard for me. I was born with an extreme case of rapid cycling bipolar, was diagnosed properly at the age of 10. with working meds and years of therapy and hard work i have reached a place where depression is no longer in charge and i have family i trust with me all the time.
What i hate is when i mention being bipolar most people freak out and think serial killer because of movies and TV shows. The fact that the only other 2 ive met who also have it used it as an exceuse to hurt others doesnt help.
I try to help others when i can because if i hadnt been helped by strangers i wouldnt be here today. Helping others helps me too. My diagnosis doesnt define me, it just helps me know what i need when its time to get new medications.
The old name for bipolar is manic depression, right? Maybe sticking to the old name helps to keep other peoples mind away from the TV tropes because the word bipolar seem so cold and alien compared to word depression that everybody understands, even if yours happens to be manic and hyper at the times.
Have you watched Spinning Out? May be is not your kind of show but I believe it is a very good depiction of Bipolar Disorder. Both the protagonist and her mom are bipolar and it is really interesting to see how that impacts their lives
My cousin has bipolar as well, and his was aggravated by years of mental abuse by his dad. He definitely has his issues, but honestly when he comes to my state to visit, I love just taking him out to lunch for a chat because he’s one of my favorite people to just chill and talk with.
My brother had bpd that manifested itself when he was almost 20. It was crazy for me to observe because it wasn’t the Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde type nonsense that I’d vaguely believed bipolar was. In mania or hypomania, the things that excited him before just excite him more intensely. In depression, things that excited him before excite him far less. It’s like a dial that controls his personality is being cranked too far in either direction. And there are stages between the manic and depressive phases where he acts the way he did before he started having symptoms. Mental disorders are definitely very different in real life from how they’re normally depicted onscreen
Oh man, I would love to see an analysis of Lynda's sessions with Lucifer, how realistic, what you would do, how it changes from when she thinks he's delusional compared to when she knows he's the actual devil
Same, the shock when she saw his devil face, so well acted
Absolutely
This. And just a whole video on Lucifer himself. Narcissism for sure, but what else? Does the devil himself get villain therapy, or psychology of a hero? Is he bad, or just misunderstood?
Love to see that too. Her reaction was perfect, I mean she literally saw the devil. I wouldn’t think it’s realistic is she just saw him, get shocked and then she accept it and talked to him immediately.
@@simonargent4650 well he's not exactly evil in the show, so maybe anti-hero
"Nagini, eat the lawnmower." I about died laughing at that. If that were on a shirt (or even a bumper sticker), I'd totally buy one. Love ya'lls show!
SuperCarlinBrothers actually once made a theory on what they think Voldemort's patronus would be if he were capable of casting one, and they landed on bear. That being said though, the only one among Voldemort's ranks that we know to be capable of casting a patronus at all is Snape, and he's technically playing both sides. Death Eaters and Voldemort himself can't cast patronuses, since a patronus is a culmination of light, happiness, love, and good. Things that - for the most part - don't really exist among Voldemort's ranks.
"He was cast in the after movies and was more scary in that." Brilliant😂
I would love to see a Psychology of a Hero video on Lockwood from Lockwood & Co. What is his diagnosis?
ADHD? Depression?Grief? PTSD? Narcissism? RSD? So curious!
Feels like we need a second season of L&C for that since they were JUST about to really dig into Lockwood's backstory. Doesn't feel like we got to see enough to judge.
@@LittleHobbit13 Okay, fair...then what about a Couple's Therapy episode on Lucy/Lockwood to discuss how Lucy sticks to her standards with him and him struggling/trying to meet her where she's at? We need to see more dynamics like this among young couples.
Tying it back to my original comment: It'd be a heck of a lot healthier than anything young girls get with "After" movies.
My mom and I are so mad they canceled this show!
He's Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes)'s nephew in real life
@@forestelf86 That I would totally be down for! They did have a really interesting dynamic. And yes, I agree, I'd love to see more "couples therapy" episodes for younger characters that aren't just kinda toxic YA romances. ^^;