This is a great video! Obviously, we disagree. _And that's GREAT!_ I will make one point here. Deleted scenes do not count in the story. They were deleted. It's not in the text of the film, therefore it is irrelevant. If someone wants to count that in their head-canon as part of the story, that's their right, but that doesn't make it part of the text of the film, which is what we analyze. But aside from that fundamental disagreement about who Jack Sparrow actually is, I think there's a lot of room for debate about this character, and you do a wonderful job explaining your side of it! Honestly, this is part of what makes Jack Sparrow such a great character! There's room for argument! He's a bit all over the place, and it mostly makes sense! Anyway, really enjoyed the video, and hope we get the chance to (as friends) debate many more things in future! -alan
Thanks Alan! I was a little worried how this video would come across, so I'm glad you enjoyed it ☺️ Jack Sparrow is indeed all over the place and there are definitely holes to pick in my interpretation, the deleted scene being one. Personally, I sometimes think deleted scenes can be relevant if there is still subtext in the film to support what they reveal, or if they were cut for timing reasons and were still included in an extended edition or something. There is subtext in the 2nd film that Jack Sparrow and Cutler Beckett share history... although that is still very tenuous and gives us no reason to interpret that Jack Sparrow liberated "cargo" from Beckett. So I think, yeah, you're correct there. I more or less just thought it would be a cool tidbit to mention. I do love your work, and all of cinema therapy, so it's awesome you watched this video and enjoyed it. That's genuinely made my day!
I like your guys’ channel but this response reads as a little immature to be honest, hah. Very much a “How cute, you’re wrong, and here’s why!” sounding response. I think it would have helped to specify that YOU do not consider deleted scenes or extended cuts. Instead it looks as though you’re making the argument that the official release is the only valid one, and that this content creator is wrong to consider the scenes canonical. Deleted scenes are often removed for time, not because they were intended to not be interpreted as canon. That’s why we sell director’s cuts of films, to get the whole story. It was written, directed, and acted out by the same people. There’s nothing that makes it less valid. It really seems as though you’re condescendingly asserting that only your opinion on what’s canon is accurate.
@@lexinicole4317 I can't say that's how I read the comment, I took it as a kind and fair response. Having made a 17 minute video with the slightly clickbait "WRONG" in the title, it's only fair for Alan or Jono or any of cinema therapy to argue their own opinion. Largely, I agree in this specific example, we can't take the deleted scene as canon, even if I do find it something fun to wonder about
@@mylittlethoughttree That’s great I guess. I wasn’t commenting to defend you. I disliked how they spoke to a smaller content creator and think they have a duty to be more respectful. You can disagree, I don’t really care, the point was that they should think more carefully about how they speak to creators who dissent. After all, their opinion that they post in a TH-cam video is no more or less valid. You can disagree with someone without insulting why they came to their conclusion. While I don’t believe that was the intention, Alan’s wording here was poor. He is a grown man, he can reflect on his own words and find ways to express opinions that don’t read as speaking down to others. When it comes to art I believe there is a creative responsibility to offer respect to one another, and saying “you’re wrong because it wasn’t officially released” is not respectful, it’s dismissive. There is a difference in saying “you’re wrong but that’s cool” and saying “I disagree but that’s cool.” A clickbait title/=/this lengthy comment Alan left on your video. He had the time and space to articulate more clearly. You used a title that grabs attention. Different intentions, different outcomes. Besides, I disagree. Film is a strictly limited medium. If we only take what appears in an official film release as canon, then any book source adapted to film would become non-canon, which doesn’t make a whole lot of sense, now does it? I could also go into the writing concept of “death of the author” being an integral part of art consumption, but I’ve already written plenty.
@@lexinicole4317 "That’s great I guess. I wasn’t commenting to defend you." "You can disagree, I don’t really care." For someone claiming another person is insulting, talking down, and using poor wording you sure do make a prime example of it. And Alan's response was perfectly fine and articulate. He simply brought up the point that deleted scenes may not count. That's not insulting, it's simply a statement. They were having a conversation on valid points. It's not his fault you take such grand offense to people disagreeing with you to the point that they need to treat you ever so softly, while you speak so brashly.
Good line actually. "Live for the moment". Jack doesn't do "sides". He does "honesty". Unless he's a dishonest man that's honest about how dishonest he is. It's the honest ones to look out for. Ever wondered what he means by that? He's basically saying "If something looks too good to be true, it's a lie." They could be lying with intent. Or they could be lying to themselves with their own assumptions when they don't know it. Which is VERY easy to do. Jack exploits this. He lets you assume. He plays you for a fool. It's not "him" people get mad at. It's "themselves" when they look for someone to blame. A clever thing Jack did is let Davy Jones talk about the souls. Jack went "I'm totally fine with what you said about Will. See you in a few days." What Jack didn't say is that he'd get those souls. Jone's said it. When a situation is on the spot like that, when stakes are that high, you can't afford to hesitate and stall. Make a call. Deal with the consequences. Do it now. That's always been Jack's way. And when people that struggle more see that, they are either inspired because they want to have that ability, or they're afraid because they're reminded of their own inability. Cinema therapy is falling victim to its own ego when they assume about Jack. Clearly tense when talking about him. That's not the sign of "being right". That's indicating ones own insecurities. Jack is much more relaxed and in control of the situation. Unless you take his rum.
Jacks arc is one of healing. Because he starts traumatized by the mutany and doesn't trust anyone with anything. By the end of his arc he has shown trust in Will and Elizabeth. It's not about trusting everyone to heal its knowing that you CAN still trust the RIGHT people.
Yeah, he has a fairly flat arc, but this is a good point. There is some real growth there. Even if it's fairly limited, it's there, and it's meaningful.
Ahh I was going to say something similar, but glad I read the comments first. I will say It is not just Will and Elizabeth, but many of the crew led by Gibbons he starts to slowly trust in. I think that Will's father, one of the few loyal hands, is also part of the reason Jack has an affection and trust in Will, and acts as his tutor in piracy, something Elizabeth, ironically, has no need for, since she is so well versed in piracy.. I think, between the two, he trusted Elizabeth a lot less at first and slowly ended up just making her the pirate king, since she not only was one of the best pirates, but he knew he could trust her by then. Even Barbarossa eventually respects Elizabeth as a pirate and leader and has enough affection for her to marry her to Will, which is somewhat an imitation of the the Chinese pirate queen's story. Come to think of it, Jack even learns to forgive and trust in Barbarossa at a time when all pirates are threatened. Surely that he forgives his mutineer and ends up being allies with him is a character arc. Also forgiving Elizabeth with her own betrayal leading to his death.
I think you're bang on the money there! But I think this goes way further back than the mutiny. I think his behaviour is learned for self-preservation. He used to do the morally right thing (freeing the slaves, revealing info for fairness sake etc) but has always been punished for it. So he he adopts this air of "I do what I need to do for myself and no one else" and to a part I think he wishes he could be that, but in reality he is always betrayed by his own good nature. He cannot help being a good man, despite insisting on and pretending to be the contrary.
Jono here. I wanted to add my two cents after what Alan said. I loved your video and never took it as an insult. I just saw it as karma, honestly. The reactors got reacted, lol. The world, and the internet especially, needs models of healthy, respectful debate. You modeled that wonderfully. Had you insulted us personally I would have taken issue. The fact that you disagreed and were furthering the discussion didn't bother me at all. I never thought we were the "end all, be all" authority on anything. We geek out, we help people. Beyond that, we're up for critique, same as anyone and anything. I will say, re: Jack, that you raise solid points. I stand by my position BUT I must acknowledge what I feel is an inconsistency in characterization that supports both of our arguments. In the first film, Jack is very much the "pirate AND a good man" that you and so many others see. He's self-serving and lives by the pirates code, but he goes out of his way to save Elizabeth and help Will. He's touched when his crew comes back for him at the very end, as he didn't expect them to. When they say the code is more "guidelines than actual rules" he seems to consider that there's more to life than just serving himself. Will saved him. His crew's there for him. It gives him pause. It's actually pretty awesome. However, in the second film I believe he takes a major step backwards for no reason other than to deliver an arc where he does something selfless at the end of the third movie and it's a BIG DEAL. That's on the writers (or the producers or studio, who knows) He sells Will out with zero plan to get him back. He makes a half-hearted effort when he sees a window to ask Davy Jones, but then abandons it to save his own skin. He consistently screws people over and burns bridges in the second and third film. In those films, again just my opinion, but he displays all the traits of ASPD and, as I said in our episode, grows out of it by the end of the 3rd film and is more traditionally heroic in films 4 and 5, where he's more of an honorable scoundrel. The deleted scene about the 100 slaves would have been a game changer. Neither Alan and I were aware of it when we filmed our episode because it's not in the films, which we did rewatch in preparation. I like Jack's arc better if it had been included, because it suggests that he has a deeply-buried good heart, and the one time he did the right thing in a big way he paid for it so dearly that he became selfish out of self-preservation. That's AMAZING. Should not have been cut. Would have made his actions at the end of the third film even more powerful. And would have led to a different episode from us. But it was cut, and what we're left with in the text of the actual films is a very likable jerk who, in my opinion, displays all the traits I laid out in our episode. Again, however, there's plenty of evidence for "heroic Jack" in the first film that I feel was completely tossed in the second film so he could have the arc they wanted. So I think your position has merit, but I believe so does mine, and that comes down to what I feel is inconsistent writing in the films. I also feel like your read on it is as valid as mine overall. I just happen to disagree. I hope this doesn't read as defensive. I'm just trying to continue the conversation because it's fun and I sincerely enjoyed what you did here. Plus, debating geek stuff endlessly is kind of my jam, haha! No hard feelings, and great work!
Hey, thanks man! I didn't imagine either of you would take it as an insult, although I did put the very clickbaity words "WRONG" in the title, so I wouldn't have blamed either of you if you did! Glad the video itself illustrated my position properly, though. It's less I'm saying you're "wrong" than that I have a different interpretation of the character and your and Alan's video was a useful jumping off point to think about Jack Sparrow more. I wholeheartedly agree about inconsistent writing. His arc does seem to change which makes it super hard to analyze and, yes, I think makes both our interpretations valid ones. I still believe Jack never intended to leave Will with Davy Jones but I also know there isn't conclusive evidence to prove that. I think holes could be picked in either interpretation of that scene. I can't comment on 4 and 5 because I'm still, shamefully, yet to see them but there's certainly more merit in using them for analysis than me plucking a random deleted scene. That said, it is such a good moment that would've added so much to his character and I mainly just wanted to mention it to see what people thought. 3 had its flaws as a film, I'd have loved it far more with that scene included. Someone in the comments told me it's all canon in the novels that were later written but I'm never set on if that kind of thing counts. I've certainly never read the books anyway, nor knew they existed until a youtube comment told me. Didn't take this comment at all as defensive. On the contrary, it made me smile like an idiot! It's definitely nice to have respectful debate and it's definitely something the internet needs to see more of. Also when it's between two therapists, I feel we have a level of duty to our profession in how we present ourselves online. I don't regularly have time to keep up with much on youtube but I've always enjoyed the videos you, Alan, and the rest of the Cinema Therapy make. It's one of my favourite channels and I promise not to make videos everytime I happen to disagree 😂
@@mylittlethoughttree and @CinemaTherapyShow , how uncommon is it for counselors and therapists to disagree about a patient, especially at the beginning? Do they talk to each other about patients? I know you both caveated in your analyses that a few movies are not enough to make a clear conclusion about a person. I see your videos as 'case notes' after a first, maybe a second, session. As for the deleted scene, would it be a valid take to see it as Jack wasn't willing to share that story with CinemaTherapy but did share it with ThoughtTree, especially considering the context of these being the early sessions of a person's therapy? Jack might share it when focusing on his conflict with Becket in a later session as he builds rapport with you. I feel like it is a safe assumption that most, if not all, patients don't share everything on day one.
The Black Pearl was brought back after Captain Jack refused to take nearly two hundred slaves to the Bahamas, the pearl was also named Wicked Wench, Jack renamed it after the charred look the ship took from resurfacing. Although the scene was deleted, and barely referenced, although referenced nonetheless, if it weren't for Jack freeing the slaves, Beckett wouldn't have burned the pirate "P" onto his wrist and sunken his ship, mentioned in dead man's chest when Beckett says "we both left a mark on each other." As he looks at the very thing he marked Jack with. The trilogy was built on this, the fifth movie was mostly just a cash grab, so I'm not surprised they gave him a slightly different past... Unless the east India trading company hired pirates to transport slaves. Fun fact, Jack Sparrow is inspired by a real pirate, John Ward
@@cat-jm3vu yeah but in Jono’s defence A) as someone who has an antisocial personality disorder/is within that diagnostic spectrum I do see plenty of my own traits within Jack’s character. B) The cut scenes from the first few films were retconned by the latest films in the PotC franchise when they go more in depth on Jack & Salazar’s backstory showing that Jack became the captain because of Salazar. The only canon pieces of information left is that Beckett offered Jack a deal, Jack declined, Beckett branded him a pirate & sank the Black Pearl only for Davy Jones to bring it back. The extra information from the deleted scenes is not canon & therefore can’t be used as canon information to diagnose Jack Sparrow on since it is not a confirmed part of his backstory.
One major aspect of Sparrow is also trauma. The trauma of trying to good in society but told to treat people like cargo, the trauma of betrayal by a friend and crew, the trauma of being deserted on an island alone.
I don’t consider the “people aren’t cargo” thing an actual part of Sparrow’s character since it’s from a deleted scene not a scene that was actually in the film
Yes… the way he deals with it is similar to how I deal with it. I do care about the people around me, I am just too mad about things to show it in the ways they expect me to.
I'm glad you made this video, I also wasn't completely on board with Cinema Therapy interpretation of Jack (still love to watch their channel and immensely respect their work). I like how you said that Jack is a good man trying to appear as "bad man" but I would take it even further tho: Jack is a good man who is also trying to convince HIMSELF he isn't good. It's kind of like a defense mechanism for him? Anytime before he did the good thing he was severely punished for it so now he might have decided to live on his own terms. It's especially evident in the scene at the end of 2nd film. Where Cinema Therapy interpreted it as Jack being manipulated by Elisabeth for coming back and helping, I always saw it as Jack trying to convince himself that "he was betrayed too many times, he doesn't care about anyone now, he won't help, no way, he will just save himself". Yet he did come back in the end cause it was just against his inner code plus I think Black Pearl was just too important to him to just abandon it, it represented his idea of "freedom" so to speak.
I think we don't even need to go as far as the 2nd film for that. Our FIRST introduction to Jack as a character, is him diving in to save a complete stranger from certain death. Sure we see him petty thieving from the dockmaster, and "lying" to the guards about what he's doing in town, but those are just flavoring for his personality. The first significant action he takes, in the entire franchise, is to dive into deep water, at risk of his own safety (which is proven true when he is summarily arrested after having so much attention brought to him). I think the counter-point for Jack isn't that he's a bad man, it's that he can sometimes be a GREEDY man, but he is also someone who doesn't want to die. He has a healthy fear for his life, and that often puts him at odds to the role of a hero. When he fights Will in the first film, and beats him, he BEGS him to move so he doesn't have to kill him. He has no beef with the kid, he's just in his way. He took every opportunity to bypass Will in the forge scene, non-violently, and only when forced by Will, did he take up a blade. Jack's flaw in the second film, is that he's constantly being confronted with the threat of Certain Death, or losing his friends. And for the bulk of the film, he keeps convincing himself that it's better to let them die, than him. So he ends up causing conflict based on that desire (not dying), up until the end of the film. Where he does actually stop and think about if he's willing to let them die, in his place. And he decides, finally, that the answer is no. So he isn't really manipulated by Elizabeth, or at least not ONLY manipulated. I'm quite certain he'd been thinking the exact same things in his head the whole time. He just had it held up to his face like a mirror, and it finally hit home for him.
I don't actually remember the POTC movies all that well, since I haven't seen any of them in over a decade, but quite ironically, the description of Jack Sparrow's actions and character here seem to parallel those of Jonathan Decker's favourite onscreen character quite a lot: Captain Malcolm Reynolds of Firefly. The space cowboy/smuggler/pirate with a heart of gold hidden under a gruff and sarcastic exterior, and what seem at first glance to be rather flexible morals. Actually, he's a big damn hero with a dangerous reputation he needs to uphold, and uphold it he does, in amazing and hilarious ways. I'm pretty sure that Captain Jack and Captain Mal would really enjoy having a drink or six together... and then try to screw each other over for the loot just for a laugh, as long as nobody on their crews got hurt.
I think maybe that misinterpretation was down to them attempting to contextualise how weirdly horny that scene was and be like "well it makes sense if we were to frame it as a manipulation rather than as a genuine conversation, because otherwise, Elizabeth is just openly cheating on Will for no reason."
He says it clearly in the first film when he and Elizabeth are marooned - “a ship isn’t just a mast, rudder and sails, that’s what a ship NEEDS, but what a ship is - what the pearl is, is freedom”
Cinema Theraphy can have good videos but their issue seems to be that they make too many videos and don’t really analyse them completely. This can be most seen in the Disney ones where it seems they analyze clips more than the film entirely.
@@sarasamaletdin4574 Usually they've watched the movie together first, and they use clips for the video. OR it's a Disney movie that they've watched 100 times with their kids and have no need to rewatch in order to analyze it. 👌 Also of note, most people are too inept at psychology and diagnostics of psychiatric disorders to be able to hear these sorts of analyses objectively. Or their own biases interfere with their ability to understand such concepts, due to ego and those exact psychological mechanisms being discussed. Lol
Y’know what, I think this is spot on. Jack’s motivation throughout the films is absolutely pursuit of the freedom to live by his own code, and to do it as chaotically as possible
My favorite moment around Jack is when Kraken eats him. He respects Elizabeth's decision to sacrifice him, then when he's alone he tries to escape with all Sparrow shenanigans and ultimately accepts his faith and jumps the Kraken with grace. Part of his character is that he is genuinely awkward and spontaneous which goes hand in hand with him finding it hard to just be a good man openly.
I think that as one of his earliest decisions as a captain, Jack told the crew the location of the treasure in response to a petition for fairness tells us a lot about who he WAS (along with the 'cargo' which is info we don't get until later). And he was horribly punished for that decision. It makes me think of Powder from Arcane - I don't see a lot of people talk about the pacifist tendencies she showed as a child. She seemed to be a 'soft' kid in a harsh world that recognized people as valuable based on how hard and fierce they could be. As a 'soft' kid myself who was relentlessly told to 'toughen up' and then had to unlearn a lot later in life, I see these characters as what happens to a sensitive, compassionate, fair-minded but naive person in an environment that is simply too harsh for that mindset to survive. They either die (like Helen from Jane Eyre), craft a persona of being callous (Jack), or they break from any morality entirely (Powder/Jinx). Just my 2 cents :)
Eh, what pacifistic tendencies in Powder are you talking about? People seem to think she's some sweet, innocent, soft girl, but honestly, the only thing that makes her maybe look like that is the way she physically looks, being small and thin with big eyes, and maybe her insecurities. Her behaviour doesn't refelct a high level of compassion or pacifistic tendencies at all. Being insecure doesn't equal soft or compassionate. She is building frigging nail bombs, which is an extremely brutal weapon, much more violent than anything Vi, Milo and Claggor are doing, and she WANTS them them to work. Her facial expressions show that she's HOPING for them to work and she would take joy in it if they did (she literally laughs when she tells Vi she filled some of them with nails in one scene) with absolutely zero regard for her victims, even as a child. If anything it looks like she's trying to overcompensate her relative physical weakness by being more ruthless and brutal than the other kids, it just doesn't work yet. That's more like the opposite of pacifism.
@@nimadarillian8573 she meant before the transition. but on that note, what happens to powder is clear mania and various forms of psychosis. this mental instability is to the point that she gives separate identities to her good and bad ethics ("powder", "jinx"), "chooses" the latter identity and is regularly tormented by loud voices in her head that likely represent inner demons and unhinged thoughts. she thus wrestles on a daily with sanity and insanity. so although she wasn't anything of a major samaritan as a kid, she still fought for what she thought was right, and you can see her moral compass in constant engagement in her present state.
@@sodotta I also meant before the transition, I'm talking about Powder in the first 3 episodes, not Jinx. And even then she doesn't show any signs of being very compassionate towards others, at least definitely not towards people she isn't personally close to. And she shows no qualms about using violence against others (Yes, still talking about her maybe 11 year-old child-version in episode 1-3), so definitely not pacifistic. To me it really doesn't look like her actions are in any way motivated by a sense of morality as a kid, but simply by her desire to prove her worth to the other kids (Vi, Milo, Claggor) because she feels inferior and struggles with her self-wirth. And the only reason why she doesn't engage in the fist fights they have with other teenagers is because she's younger, smaller and weaker than the others and therefore scared, not because she has a problem with them using violence. She even says so herself in one scene in episode 1.
I love Cinema Therapy too, but something felt off about the framing and I think it was the omission of Jack's genuinely heroic moments. Yeah he's a pirate so he appears as an anti-hero, but he instantly saves Elizabeth, he refuses to shoot her on the island, refuses to shoot will and even says "Please move." He instantly recruits and cares about Gibbs. He cares about his crew. Most of the 'villainous' things he does are just survival in the pirate world that every pirate around him also does. and his one shot, saved for Barbossa, isnt the handicap people think it is. He could easily have let Barbossa kill Will and then shoot him. Jack's Persuasion is so high that it Sounds selfish but the whole first movie establishes "this was your plan from the beginning" and his talk of leverage never involved sacrificing Will. He's more of a chaotic mentor than an anti-hero.
Yeah exactly, I I mean Jack also ALWAYS goes for negotations rather than violence, given the type of the world he lives in, it shows how he has a softer nature than what you would expect with someone with his life experience. He shows a lot of sympathy toward Will's dad also when they are talking in the second movie and with many more, he feels sorry for Kraken in a way even. His "more selfish" nature in second movie can be explained by how he is trying to play a desprate chess to get himself out of the deal with Jones and how much under stress he is, and not ASPD.
I was always wondering why I didn't remember the "people ain't cargo" line that I saw everywhere. I'm glad you mentioned it - it's integral, and it hurt that Cinema Therapy didn't mention it.
I would love a character analysis on Jack. And you'd only have to watch the first 3 movies because they completely lose sight of his character after that.
@@mylittlethoughttree this comment isnt entirely accurate. 4 actually portrays Jack just as well as the first three movies. Its the movie itself that shifts tone and some might like that more than others. The 4th movie has barely anything to do with the first three and has to be seen more like a seperate little adventure of Jack. Viewing it from that lense the movie is very enjoyable. People just expected something more connected and maybe more impactful but the movie was still decent.
@@mylittlethoughttree 5 however did in actuality completely lose track of his character. They somehow misunderstood him in that one which makes it the worst one to people who care most about Jack and understand him well like yourself. The story itself however and the side characters make it more commected to the other movies and make it feel a bit more impactful on the narrative which is why those people who care more about the connection and side characters as opposed to Jack himself and who maybe thoroughly misunderstand the character in the first place and thought he was always like this might still enjoy or prefer to the 4th. Its kind of how some people love star wars 8 while the camp who hated that movie often prefers 9. I hate both 8 and 9 personally and didnt like 7 from the start when everyone still praised it. 4 and 5 of pirates arent as bad and 4 honestly isnt really bad at all just more disconnected and more of a little adventure. If the name was Tales of Captain Jack Sparrow: The fountain of Youth People would probably compare it less to the trilogy and maybe rate it less harshly
@@mat3783 There was some lore dropped in 4 that might retroactively change Jack's character even more than 2 and 3 did with Beckett. But Jack himself in 4, if we discount the lore dropped? Yeah, it's still pretty much him. 5 is completely off. Just btw, what would you think comparing Jack to Greg House M. D. ?
Thank you! I also enjoy Cinema Therapy, but that particular episode about Jack seemed to ignore so many signs that Jack does care and is much deeper than the persona he shows the world.
There's a scene in the third Pirates (which is not mentioned by Cinema Therapy) which perfectly shows that Jack is clearly not self-centered: when the pirates are electing a king of pirates, instead of voting for himself like the others, he votes for Elizabeth, even if she got him killed.
I don't think that counts. He votes for Elizabeth because that's the only way that there was going to be a winner. Because Elizabeth will direct the pirates to come out to fight the British Navy, which is what Jack promised to Beckett in exchange for his freedom. Was Jack intending for the pirates to be destroyed? Did he have a plan, or (in hindsight, justified) confidence in his ability to make the situation work out in the pirates' favour? Or was he okay with either outcome, knowing that whatever happened he'd come out on top? You could make any of those arguments. But, regardless of his ultimate motives for doing so, it's hard to label voting for Elizabeth as a purely selfless act, when he knew it would have exactly the effect he had promised to Beckett.
A better scene that describes what you're saying is when Davy Jones stabs Will. Jack have always wanted to sail the seas forever and the way he can do that is by becoming the captain of the Flying Dutchman. By getting Will to stab the heart, he not only saves a friend (yes he really cares about Will & Elizabeth from his reaction when Jones stabs Will) but also sacrifices his life-goal to be immortal and sail the seas.
Well, while that is smart choice it was not exactly a selfless one tbh. A better example is when he gave up his chance of being the captain of the dutchman and gave it to will so elizabeth could still see him every ten years.
Jack is also incredibly smart, and a master manipulator, but the fact that he doesn't use it to be evil and instead uses it to help people when they need it, he's definitely a good guy, he's just so smart at knowing how to create a character and how to use it. He uses other's knowledge of his created character as a tool to anticipate how people will act. It's incredibly smart.
I completely agree! Jack is complex, layered, and unpredictable. I see him as an agent of change and chaos for others (particularly Will and Elizabeth). Instead of having his own character arch, he challenges those around him, similar to the role of Death in Puss in Boots: The Last Wish (except Jack is more of a central character with a lot more screen time).
I’ve always seen Jack as a deeply self-interested character. Life taught him a devastating lesson and he came to the conclusion that good deeds ultimately get you burned and stranded. But even then it still didn’t take away from his core - a man who refused to ferry slaves. He has a moral compass, but throughout the first movie the majority of his good deeds happen to coincide with his primary goal. He helps Will and Elizabeth because it’s the right thing to do…… AND helps him exact vengeance and get the Pearl back. I don’t think he would have gone as far for either of them as he did if helping them didn’t in some way benefit him in the end. He would have still helped, but to a much lesser degree. He certainly wouldn’t have risked his own life for them if doing so wouldn’t have gotten him closer to the Pearl.
basically he's not necessarily a good man but, still one that can empathise with others and sees no reason to be cruel or not to be helpful if it isn't too much of an inconvinience.
So basically you're describing a fictional archetype character acting as though they're going through the day-to-day morally comprising challenges of real life. The vast majority of us have at our core a more or less fully formed code of ethics and morality we try to follow, but oftentimes reality just doesn't want to play along and forces us to keep making hard choices on what takes priority, doing the right thing or the 'smart' thing. Jack tries his best to have it both ways whenever he can. It's only those very few make-it-or-break-it moments where he reveals who he truly is.
After watching both, I agree with you hero in disguise. His persona makes it easy to dismiss him as a threat and almost a shield. If you live in a pit of vipers, better to be thought of as one of the vipers than be prey to them. He wants to live his pursuit of life and not do any real harm to anyone, but realizes he has to use the tools available to defend himself and his own. So yes he's a hero, reluctant at times and may hate that he is a good man hahaha
Your views on the character of Jack sound way closer to what I took away from those films than what Cinema Therapy had to say about it. I watched their video a few days ago and kept pausing to shout at my screen most of the same things you are saying in this video. Thanks for that!
I liked this because I felt Captain Jack was the wrong choice for a discussion about ASPD. I have an inclination that when it comes to the character studies sometimes the talking point comes before the character choice. Either way from 14:19 - perfection. Jack is written as a bridge character between the flat mania of the ride's caricatures (they aren't characters by any stretch of the imagination) and a 3D comic character. He had to represent some of the mania of the ride and still be something new. In that Depp, Verbinski and the team had a hell of a narrow tightrope to walk. Even a 'good' man in that world ends up bending a bit as a survival mechanism. What I liked is inadvertently your video brought it back to the historical reality that the films carefully skirt. Even out of the Disneyworld version, a successful 'good' pirate would be like this. I think there is something to be said that stated goodness (self-righteousness basically) is not as good in reality as the actions people actually do. Morality in a hard world is a little less binary than that and it would be a good lesson to impart for people's mental health. Especially those who carry the trauma of life situations where lesser of two evils or death is all they had open to them.
Uh oh - the two media-therapist TH-cam channels I watch are going head to head! Fight! Fight! Fight! Wait that’s not right… Discuss! Discuss! Discuss! Politely discuss!
It's been ages since I watched any of them as well and I don't even know if i watched the third one but i agree there's definitely a guardedness about Jack's actions that indicate a deeper motive. He reminds me a lot of the scarlet pimpernel character in a lot of ways, if people are too busy assuming you're an idiot, they'll let you get away with anything.
The thing people forget is that Jack isn't the hero ... he's the mentor, he's the sidekick and he's there to remind us that a life without a sense of humor and some fun isn't really much of a life. And I adore Jack Sparrow to the point I've written fan fiction about the character. He's a good guy, but he has his own code ... and it annoys other people because it works. "You're the worst pirate I've ever heard of." "But you have heard of me." I think the term is scalawag ... or maybe rogue, and they don't fit in the holes the other pegs do Thus diagnosing them with current terms ... doesn't completely work.
Thank you for this video. I love Cinema Therapy, I think Jono and Alan are great, but I do feel like they miss the mark sometimes, this being one of those times (I'm not a therapist and I don't have Jono's experience, of course, so my opinion isn't exactly relevant here, but it does feel to me like they sometimes tend to lean a bit towards sweeping statements and buzzwords... I still love and greatly respect them and their work though! It's just something I've noticed). I agree with you about Jack, and I'm so glad you mentioned the "cargo" scene as well. I know it can't be considered completely cannon since it wasn't in the actual film, but I still think it's an important point to raise here. Man, I really need to rewatch those movies. I love the trilogy (yes, trilogy, as far as I'm concerned haha), especially movies 1 and 2 (Bill Nighy as Davy Jones is just too good...).
Agreed. The idea that Jack, all the pirates, and even Will (Will does betray Jack, ambushes him, and then leaves him to be murdered by the pirates.) all have Anti-Social Personality Disorder is...insane in itself. And Jack is no villain or even an anti-hero. He just doesn't look or act like a Hollywood movie hero. A good example is Jack's final plan. He wants to make the crew mortal to kill Barbosa. If he allowed Barbosa to kill Will...his plan is still on track. He doesn't need to save Will to 'win'. But he does. That's a good guy...not an anti-hero. I think Cinema Therapy, for whatever reason, worked backwards here. They decided Jack had APD and looked for reasons to support it.
Alright now that I watched: first of all I think you're just as good as Jonathan Decker. Don't sell yourself short. Second, that rubbed me the wrong way when they said he was an antihero that didn't care about anyone else. It felt kind of cheap. Jack is more nuanced than that. That's why he's one of the most iconic characters of the early 2000s. I don't think the series would have made it past Black Pearl if he was strictly a self-serving ass hat. As far as Jack's character Arc in the series.... I think I would interpret his arc as that of physical goals representing his personal development and desire for self improvement perhaps. I think he does desire on a subconscious level to be a "better man" and grow as a person and that takes the form of this physical goals. Obtaining the black pearl, finding the fountain of youth. I feel like they are all metaphors for just personal growth. Jack wants to better himself without being 100% aware of it. I can't remember 2 or 3 well enough to make a call on how this evolves, but that was my general takeaway. I can't emphasize enough how much I appreciate your ability to see the good in characters that people are sometimes dismissive of in morality. It is a gift not everyone has and you should treasure it *pun intended* lol
My diagnosis for Jack would be abandonment issues. He chooses a pirates life as a way to create a family for himself with the crew, but he also constantly pushes people away or keep them at an arms length with his morality. His anti-social behavior could be learned and stem from the way his family or early pirate crew treated him and others. It's not because he doesn't care but because that is the reality of the world he grew up in and the only way soften the blow of this happening to him again is to do it to others. But when push comes to shove he always chooses to help the ones he cares about. The said I think they deleted the scene you mention because it made Sparrow too much of an obvious good guy. They probably wanted to keep the ambiguity of his character open to interpretation to make the final negotiation of Will's life more exciting.
I agree, Jacks one of those characters that has a different story for who-evers asking, but its through his action you can see who he truly is. He always says he's willing to sell anyone out, makes more plans to sell people out, and plays all sides, but in the end he always does what's right. He's Chaotic good leaning on chaotic neutral. What gets weird is how it's proven in the first film to Elizabeth and Will that Jacks a good man- but then they seem to backslide every film and distrust him again, likely because it makes a more interesting story.
Great video. While Jack Sparrow fits the simple Google definitions of Antisocial Personality Disorder, some key elements need to be added to that diagnosis when using more clinical purposes. Jack has empathy and morals, and he doesn't use cruelty to get what he wants. He refuses to conform to society's rules and does nothing to maintain close friendships, as this would make him emotionally vulnerable and impede his hedonistic lifestyle.
If you look at the last movie alone they were certainly more right, although the last film did butcher his character quite a bit. However if you focus on the trilogy and the fourth film then you are correct.
IMPORTANT COMMENT: one big oversight I feel bad at not emphasising is that yes, Jack has good intentions at heart and is still, in my mind, a hero...HOWEVER that doesn't dismiss the fact he manipulates, betrays, and lies his way through the films. Sure, he didn't intend to leave Will on the flying dutchman, sure he does definitely care BUT tricking Will onto that ship is still not ok. I think framing my argument in response to Cinema Therapy meant I dropped the ball on this point. It's as I've always said in my videos, good and bad both exist, both need to be acknowledged Use the code TREE for 40% off World Anvil with the link worldanvil.com/?c=mltt Or else try it out for free!! here's the original Cinema Therapy video: th-cam.com/video/iUN6d7ur5Dg/w-d-xo.html
@@SelphieTheNutter My Little Thought Tree did exactly that in the video. He just said that he has disagreements but does also say that Jono points out behaviors that are/can be construed as ASPD and even believes that Jono is a better therapist than him. I personally wouldn’t say better, just different.
@@lindaschreifels9889 what does any of what you just said have to do with my comment? My comment has nothing to do with begrudging My Little Thought Tree. So standing up for him is pointless. My comment is about the link He posted for the full video. I went and watched it and wasn't impressed by how unprofessional they are. Sitting there pissing themselves with laughter then turning round and saying how Jack is selfish, arrogant and has no consideration for anyone but himself. If Jack was a real person (and I'm pretty sure this world has people that share Jack's Personality). They have just insured that People like Jack will never trust mental health "professionals" A psychologist is ment to stay open minded and objective the entire time when diagnosing mental health issues. Because if you get it wrong and prescribed the wrong treatment it will make there issues worse.
to be honest, without being rudely abrupt, this is how I feel (emphasis on "feel") about your videos, starting with the "Breakfast Club" series. I love what you do, and how, and apparently why, you do it. But you are so often wrong, wrong, wrong about the movies you analyze!!! lol. Much love, oh and you are 100% right on this one, which is somehow even more frustrating for me!!! 😉🥰
@@SelphieTheNutter but... for a fictional character, no harm in playing fast and loose with diagnosis. I was originally an English major, and changed in part because I was continually psychoanalyzing characters and narrators. More, recently, I've seen series like Stranger Things have characters who sortof, kindof have symptoms of mental illness, but defy any specific "real" diagnosis. The old "psychopath" diagnosis even grew out of criminal science, not clinical psychology, which is why we get "anti-social personality disorder" from Cinema Therapy here. In the end, it hardly matter because it's FICTION!
I think Jack is a very good example of Chaotic Good. He has a sense of morality that normally leans towards Good however his morality and what he considers good is not dictated by society. He is willing to do good and put himself in harm's way but only for people he likes or respects. Edit: Also I don't think having ASPD makes you a bad person I the first play.
nothing like using D&D lingo for character alignment!! haha --- I gave him the exact same alignment of being chaotic good. Cheers! I saw something suggesting that he is chaotic neutral, but to fit that mold he would have to show conclusively no care for the consequences and fates of others which... over the course of four movies...I just dont think there is any meritorious argument for.
Honestly, I thought the notification for this video was from Cinema Therapy maybe retracting what they had said, because the first thing I saw was the familiar thumbnail with an X over a part of it. I watched the original video when it was uploaded. Then I saw the name of your channel on top of it. No lie, it was as if my brain synapses were shorting out because I could not comprehend what I was seeing for about 6 seconds! I had to blink, look away from my phone, Etch-a-Sketch shake my head, inhale, and look at the notification again. Now it makes total sense. I love both your channel and Cinema Therapy for different reasons, and you covering a topic they had gone over with not a single ounce of animosity or ridicule makes me so happy.
I think one of the most telling aspects of Jack's character is in At World's End, when Barbosa laments that world isn't as big as it once was, and Jack responds with "The world's still the same, there's just less in it." coupled with his classic line, "Now bring me that horizon" and his penchant for discovering lost treasures via his compass. He's a pioneer, a trailblazer, an explorer. He is always seeking new experiences. I think he's more of a reluctant hero, rather than anti hero, because he has that moral compass which frustrates him because it gets in the way of his desire to explore. He can't ignore it because he is a moral individual, but that doesn't stop him from that little prickling thought in the back of his head that he'd really rather be off sailing to explore new horizons. And while the "people aren't cargo" line may have been cut and some may believe that it shouldn't be considered, it still is on point for Jack's character, as he routinely employs pirates of different ethnicities and disabilities, as well as female pirates. he doesn't distinguish anyone by any metric other than merit and loyalty, so it would fit perfectly in his character for him to free slaves, and without another explanation for his branding, that may as well be canon.
I watched it recently with the knowlage of this deleted cargo scene and I might be wrong, but I noticed in the end of "Dead man's chest" after Jack dies and rest of the crew arrives on the Tia Dalma's island there are people mourning for Jack. I think these might be the people he saved. It makes it souch a touching scene that i've never noticed before. I agree with the points made in this video, Jack really is good at heart. And he is incredibly smart. In the end of the first movie he arranges things the way that everybody gets what they wanted. It might be hard to unravel his plan especially on the first couple watches, but the more you watch it, the clearer his intentions gets. When i watched it first time i didn't understand why Will and Elizabeth stood up for him at the end risking their life (+ Norrington not chasing him!). It is not easy to see his good intentions behind all the lies, tricking people and pretending he does't care. But he did, in fact, saved both Elizabeth and Will, freed the pirates from the curse and helped Norrington save his crew and capture some of the pirates (the more could've been saved if Norrington listened to Jack and went back to the ship, instead of waiting by the cave enterance). And he got Black Pearl back. Win win win for everybody. And don't even get me started on unraveling his plan in next two movies, it is hella complicated but follows the same principles.
I thought of this so much when I watched cinema therapy's video, there were some details that just didn’t match his character. While also not explaining why he's exactly like this, his backstory. How he rather be alone then to have some type of connection to people.
I always thought Jack's story in the first movie was more about vengeance... Barbosa stole his love, which is freedom and that's what the Black Pearl represented, at least to Jack. It's why they took the time to tell the story of why Jack saves that gun with the one shot, why he refused to use it during his sword fight with Will, "this shot's is not meant for you", and why the scene where he finally shoots Barbosa was so impressed. I could probably explain this better but hopefully you guys understand what I'm trying to say. Jack didn't just want the Pearl or to plunder and weasel his "filthy black guts out." He wanted revenge for what was taken from him... he wanted to settle the score. At least from my perspective.
Jack Sparrow is defined as a good man that is punished when he does something (and also seeks freedom). When he freed slaves, his ship was burned down and he became a wanted man. When he saved Elizabeth, he got captured and imprisoned, ready to be killed. When he came back to the Pearl in the 2nd movie, he gets handcuffed to the ship and left to die. Etc. He seems to be disillusioned with helping people but with too strong a predisposition to help others.
Oh my God I'm so jazzed I thought the exact same thing when I watched that video!! Ahhhh! *screams in excitement* can't wait to see your thoughts on it
Another example of Jack actually caring and showing it in a roundabout way is his marriage proposal to Elizabeth in potc2. Yes, he tricked Will onto the Dutchman, BUT he made a promise to him to look after Elizabeth and keep her safe. In that time period, not counting his reputation as a pirate, the best and most honorable thing he could do to protect her would be to marry her. It ensures her safety and that others like Beckett couldn't try to force her into a similar situation. However, as with the example of saving Will, he plays it in such a way that he seems to be just flirting with her and teasing her. There's also the reference in potc3 where it's inferred that Jack set free the slaves on a slaving ship he was working on for Beckett, thus earning his title of 'pirate'. Also, tbh, Cinema Therapy lost my respect long ago. I've found many of their recent videos to be way off the mark in any analysis they make of the characters.
I liked a lot of their older videos, except for the old DID one. And I didn't like their video of Lilo and Stitch. Mbti is not real psychology, as in it is not based in science. Though there is one prof who puts people in eeg after they asses their mbti and extraverted intuition seems to be crosscontextual thinking where a lot of areas light up at tge same time. I have seen a lot! of ENFP characters like Lilo being diagnosed as autistic. I'm an ENFP myself and know a lot if people who are ENFP. And I actually know no ENFP who is autistic. But we tend to have SPD. Sensory processing disorder. Which is not autism! Around 20% of the human population have a form of sensory processing differences though. And it is just annoying at this point. As soon as a character is exccentric or not good with others, worse if both! the character is autistic. Other diagnosis, even if they are much more common or make much more sense are not looked at anymore. Or maybe someone is just exccentric. Sorry for the rant. I was just really disappointed that they jumped on the bandwagon to diagnose the quirky one with autism. I think they are off quiet a few times.
I really enjoy cinema therapy but I had the same reaction, I was like wait isn’t the first thing he does is save Elizabeth’s life which gains him nothing and lands him in prison! I actually went and watch the film again to check!
I absolutely agree with you. I felt like they didn't look deep enough into Jack's character. I've rewatched the trilogy a hundred times and while Jack is selfish, he also really does care about his friends and constantly makes decisions that help them, he acts much more uncaring than he really is. You are 100% right, it is all an act. :)
Man, I’ve been a fan of both these channels for about a year now, and I’d love to see more videos like this. Any chance at a collaboration in the future?
I doubt I'm even close to being big enough for them to taken an interest. It'd be cool although I can't see it happening nor do I know how it'd work, our styles are both very different
@@Biklingchan85 yeah, it's a really system for it as well. I only said it because I just know, with how there's always someone out there who misunderstands, someone would read this and start thinking I used DnD personalities in my work 😂
I would consider Sparrow to be more true neutral but leaning into chaotic good (as his decisions seem neutral or chaotic but in the long run are generally good)
Not the first person to say Jack's character arc is that of healing from trauma, but I don't think I'll be the last. It's very clearly intentional even without the deleted scene that Jack is a good man, but tries to bury it because when he tries to do the right thing, the wrong people betray him and he has to pay for it. One of the earliest scene's he's in has Norrington saying, "One good deed is not enough to redeem a man of a lifetime of wickedness," and without hesitation Jack responds, "Though it seems enough to condemn him." His mindset is that kindness only gets you hurt, and the kindest thing he can do is try to teach others that without causing the suffering he has had to endure, as can be seen with how he treats Will and Elizabeth. Eventually, he learns that living like that is a miserable life, even if kindness can get you hurt.
Jack is definitely a flat character in the first film. That's not a bad thing though. Goku from DBZ is also a flat character. He doesn't really need to grow, it's how the characters and environment interact with him that makes his lack of a real character arc still be enjoyable. Will and Elizabeth are the characters who aren't sure of who they are and what they want. Jack knows what he wants and has already lived an interesting, difficult life up to this point that we only get the faintest inklings of from other characters. He's already developed. He definitely can learn from specific situations or characters, and infamously will make shit up on the fly, but he's always looking towards a personal goal and doesn't actively seek to harm anyone in the pursuit of that goal. I think the blacksmith fight between him and Will really demonstrates this when he tries to subtly plead with Will to just let him go, he doesn't want to kill the young man, his ire is reserved for one person: the man who betrayed him.
Please do the full analysis, there's a reason why Jack is such an iconic character, I personally think it's because his endless optimism, a lot of traumatic events happen to him and to the ones he cares for and yet he always smiles at the end of each movie
There are many amazing Jack moments like his (maybe) improvised escape from Beckett's ship by blasting a cannon into the main mast, boosting him back into his ship, denying Beckett from pursuing, and insulting him by placing that figurine in the cannon in one shot. But my most memorable moment is Jack shooting Barbossa in the first movie. Throughout the film, you never see Jack lose his sense of playfulness at the direst of situations. Even when he was marooned on the island and Elizabeth burned all the rum, his lines and behavior was still funny and laughable. That went away when he shot Barbossa. There was a chilling stone-cold expression on Jack's face when he did that. Imagine the sense of hatred Jack had for Barbossa for 10 long years to take that playfulness away.
One thing I’d like to point out is you mentioned he chooses not to care about other people. Not in reference to Jack but with people with ASPD they don’t necessarily “choose”. It’s that through their childhood trauma they learned not to care in self preservation, to protect themselves. It’s not always a choice. Some people also just don’t have empathy, and none of those things are bad. Empathy doesn’t make someone a good person, and there’s a few different parts of empathy too. I’m not a therapist in any way. I just have a lot of experience with people in the Cluster B community. I’ve seen many people with NPD, HPD, BPD and ASPD that are amazing people.
I'd say Jacks arc is really one of accepting friendship and help. At the start he's just been betrayed, his ship now under the command of Barbossa. At the end, though he ends up physically in a very similar place I believe he has learnt how to still build a web of allies amidst the backstabbing chaos of the pirate world. In the first film I think he lands in that place somewhat more cynical, masked by bravado and wit, whereas in the last film he lands there with hope and anticipation of the adventure to come. In essence, though outwardly very similar, inwardly his growth has been healing.
Captain Jack has a lot of bravado - but he does care. Sometimes. He just cares carefully, and secretly, so as to not betray his weaknesses and place restrictions on himself and his actions. I'd love you to do a character breakdown of Will and Elizabeth, too. I can break down Will's character at length (and have done so, happily) as too often people take Will to be a boring, 2D romantic protagonist. He's far deeper, more selfless, and more utterly helpless than that. He's pure, good, honest, predictable, reckless, and self-sacrificing - but that doesn't mean he's bland. He's tugged about by fate, and the desire to help those he loves. I love his character. In fact, Jack, Elizabeth, and Will are all brilliant foils for each other. It's part of the charm of the trio, and part of what films 4 and 5 lost. It seems like they thought Jack was the most well-liked character of 1-3 (which might not be completely inaccurate), and that everyone just wanted to see him have more adventures. I think this was a mistake. The interactions between the three of them are part of what make each so likable; with their interactions we can see more clearly each character's strengths and weaknesses. Jack is charismatic, thinks well on his feet, but perhaps keeps too many secrets and hides his emotions too readily (even from himself), and his willingness to brag can go both ways - sometimes it buys him time, sometimes it buys the enemy time (as in the case of Will's stabbing). He appears impulsive, and can be, but not with Will's recklessness; he always has a plan up his sleeve somewhere, while Will just charges in without much of a head for strategy to speak of. Elizabeth too is headstrong and a little naive, like Will, but probably develops the most over the three movies out of the main trio - she goes from being a corset-wearing trophy daughter to being a fearless and commanding pirate king, putting her sharp mind to good use yet sometimes sharing similar flaws to Jack (the overconfidence, the secrecy). She makes her own plans, and gets stuck in. She settles into the pirate lifestyle she'd always been interested in from afar. Will, on the other hand, remains somewhat out of place in this pirate lifestyle he's been dragged into. But what an arc from the first film! He goes from wanting to kill the first pirate he sees, to standing between Jack and the barrels of soldiers' guns within the first movie alone. He learns that pirates can be good men. And though the target of his desire to rescue changes depending on the film (Elizabeth, then his father), the motivation is still the same; he wants to help, selflessly. "Every step I make for my father is a step away from Elizabeth", he laments to Jack over it being, in his mind, a necessity that he becomes the Dutchman's captain to free Bootstrap. Bootstrap who abandoned him as a child for a life at sea, no less. But he'll do it. He'll sacrifice his happiness with his hard-won fiancee to free this man, to live a life of piracy he's never wanted to live, because he's dutiful and selfless. I love these films (well, 1-3), and these characters.
Great video! For me this raises an interesting point about people in general... If you're willing to dig deep enough into anyone's past, you might find reasons for their actions. Maybe not good or forgivable reasons, but reasons none the less. I see Cinema Therapy's take on Jack Sparrow as the healthy way to deal with someone like this in real life. Lets face it: how many of us take to time to completely understand someone who may have cheated, betrayed and lied to us as badly as Jack has done to his friends? How could we possibly know where to draw the line with someone like him? Due to the magic of cinematic storytelling, we the audience get to see all the hidden moments of Jack, the expressions on his face no-one else sees, the hesitations, the backstory, etc. We don't often get to see that with the bully at school, or the overbearing step-mother, or the cranky, unfair boss. Your video is great for a total understanding of a fictional character and perhaps a reminder to err on the side of cautious empathy when dealing with someone difficult, but I'm likely at best gonna reference Cinema Therapy if I encounter a Jack-like person irl. And maybe I'm entirely missing the point, and we're not supposed to compare these fictional stories of high adventure with our everyday problematic relationships... but then again, why not? Cinema can occasionally be entertaining AND useful :)
I really love how you present your differing opinion respectfully. Thank you for your perspective on Captain Jack Sparrow, who I can never get enough of.
So I suspect the mistake that Cinema Therapy made was they came to a conclusion and then looked for evidence to support their conclusion, rather than considering all of the evidence and using it to formulate a conclusion. I notice in their video they only present examples that actually support their conclusion, leaving out all of the bits that disagree and/or writing them off in such a way that they can be ignored. Honestly, it's just not proper science and, the way I see it, one of the biggest problems with many members in the science community these days.
Yes!!! Thank you for making this video. I think Jack can be so easily misunderstood. But he genuinely does care for those close to him, and he does all the flipp flopping back and forth, as a means of self preservation, but also at the same time trying to do what’s best for the ones he cares about in the end. He knows he can’t protect them from everything, so he lets them experience challenges and fear, while he is behind the scenes, working things out, and enjoying his freedom along the way.
My read on Jack was that he was a good man forced into piracy by an unjust system. Being forced to break the law to survive he's making the best of it. The constant trickery and theft being survival tactics of one cast out by society. Ultimately, he has the arc of a static character ie: he doesn't react to the world, it reacts to him. Those he brings into his circle learn that justice requires standing against unjust systems, as they are a violent cudgel that swings at anything in its path
I think... Jack Sparrow was intended as an anti-hero and a sociopath, but the fandom surprised the writers and they had to make him more likeable in the sequels.
I would Love to see a collab with you and cinema therapy! Really love both channels and a good civil debate/ hearing multiple views. I agree with you on this one!
Me forever defending gore verbinski’s amazing trilogy! 🎥 ☠️☠️☠️ (Part 1) For anybody who is always praising the first movie to be the best. I have been studying 1-3 and I constantly re-watch them. Pirates of the Caribbean does not go downhill in writing after the first movie. That is your business to believe that opinion everyone else goes with. Dead man’s chest gave the characters more depth! Elizabeth and William barely have anything to work with in the first movie. William’s relationship with his father that was hinted in the first movie of his father‘s existence. Paid off wonderfully. William’s character had way more in depth now and you have something to truly care about him for. You get both perspectives when you understand their Reunion! Bootstrap didn’t want Will to become a pirate like him, he wanted him to have a free life from the pirate life. William had a hard time accepting he was half Pirate but when he accepted his life and his father… He has a new journey to stab the heart of Davy Jones to set his father free. And you’re implying William is better in the first movie just because he wanted to save the girl he loved? William in the second movie now has Elizabeth as a lover. And now a new journey to rescue his father someone else he cares about. And this became a difficult situation when bootstrap told Elizabeth at world‘s end. William has to make a decision. Either don’t kill Davy Jones so he can be with you. Or he does kill Davy Jones and set me free, but he won’t be able to be on land for 10 years. If I were him I wouldn’t pick me! 😕 The emotional weight on William’s character gets better and better. Elizabeth in the first movie was just a damsel in distress girl. She wasn’t useless in the first movie but you get the point. In the second movie, Elizabeth learned to wield a sword and she used it in the battle. She pulled a gun to Beckett‘s head.. went on her own journey to save will. She has grown a lot since the first movie who was just an innocent girl! Elizabeth got better as a character in 2 and 3! As for Jack sparrow. He does not become a joke at all in all 3 movies. Jack sparrow is at his best in the second movie and in the third movie. There was a moment in dead men’s chest… Where Jack didn’t know what he truly wanted so the compass couldn’t locate what he desired. So when Elizabeth went on her journey and then found Jack.. Jack used her for his advantage! He took advantage of Elizabeth’s feelings by telling her if you want to save Will you have to want to find the chest of Davy Jones! In order to get will back.. That’s why Jack gave her the compass. Jack knew if he couldn’t figure what he wanted out he was going to get it out of Elizabeth. Since Elizabeth now wants to find the chest of Davy Jones to save will. This gives Jack the huge opportunity to find the chest to stab the heart in it. But instead he wants to control DavyJones before killing him. Jack sparrow is not stupid! When will was trying to stab the heart towards the end of the second movie. Jack knows just because Davy Jones is dead, does not mean the Kraken will be stopped as well. And you’re telling me Jack is dumb after part 1?? As for Beckett. He was a well executed villain who uses dialogue and negotiation to control people. The Reason why Beckett didn’t fire his cannons at worlds end. Was because it would be totally out of his character to use weapons. Beckett uses certain words to get through people and how to control them behind the scenes. Beckett at the end of the movie had nothing left to negotiate with. Davy Jones was dead, Jack sparrow is alive and well. Will Turner is now the new captain of the Flying Dutchman. Beckett had literally nothing to use against on people. He was caught in shocked and he decided to die.. Anyways I could defend the Gore Verbinski’s Trilogy all night. His trilogy is an underrated trilogy. It had great character writing and amazing detail of its depth. Also Will vs Davy Jones!!! 😈😈😈 when Will challenging Davy Jones. Davy Jones asks him how do you know about the key? Will replies and says, that's NOT part of the game is it? 😏 You can STILL walk away!! 😏 As for pirates 4/5 they are not even Canon they are filler movies. The story ended at worlds end! ☠️ (Part 2) Dead man’s chest has a very simple plot.. Jack sparrow is the master at controlling peoples hearts to get what he wants and out of a situation. He screwed over Will so Jack can save himself… But it worked in his favor for his reunion to meet his father.. William even told Jack you screwed me over but because of you I was reunited with my father after such a long time.. Elizabeth was caught in Jack’s illusion of trusting him to get Will back that had nothing to do with him which was a lie. Will being on Davy Jones ship had everything to do with Jack lol. Jack left on good terms with Elizabeth and William in the first movie. Elizabeth had every right to believe Jack…. It was Jack who took advantage of her feelings to find the chest by telling her if you want to find will you need to find the chest of Davy Jones! But it was an illusion so Jack can get closer to find the chest of Davy Jones to control him. But to also go back and save will after Jack got what he wanted. If people don’t understand these movies that’s their problem. But I understand every movie! That’s why I rank 2>3>1 ☠️☠️☠️ (Part 3) I’m sorry to break it to you but the curse of the Black Pearl is my least favorite in the trilogy. I rewatch the trilogy every few months. And to me I just don’t find it as deep or as interesting compared to dead man’s chest or at worlds end. Curse of the Black Pearl is still a well written amazing film. It’s just I’d rather choose having William struggle on trying to save his father from Davy Jones along side using very clever strategy and dialogue during the dice liar game on Davy Jones to get key from him.. VS William in the first movie who just wants to save Elizabeth…. I love darker storytelling and when steaks are becoming higher! Dead man’s chest gave me everything.. Elizabeth was a useful damsel in stress female lead in the first movie. But I would rather choose her character development in the second movie compared to her in the first movie. Elizabeth pulled a gun on Beckett’s face. She went on her own journey to save William. Who also taught her how to defend herself with swords. And that paid off well at the end of the movie! Her development is miles better in (Dead mens chest) compared to herself in the first movie who just takes the fall for William to protect him from Barbosa. Jack sparrow’s dialog and clever intelligence grew (MORE) in (dead men’s chest) and (at worlds end) and you cannot convince me otherwise. If people think he became a joke after the first movie that sounds like a (YOU PROBLEM) Jack sparrow is pretty intelligent in the second movie on being a master at manipulation and taking advantage of people around him to get himself out of a situation in order to save his life and possibly everyone else’s. He just knows how to play the game like that….. You can’t trust Jack sparrow on making the right decisions because he’s supposed to be ahead of the game on everyone’s perspective on him. If Jack was easy to follow with answers he wouldn’t be Jack sparrow lol. Not to mention what’s with this opinion on people saying Jack sparrow was someone you should not mess with?? Jack sparrow literally wants you to mess with him so he can use that to his advantage to pull you in under his string, for you to doubt him in order to rise up above everyone else. You were caught in his illusion the entire time so he can be superior at the end of the situation and screw you over. If Jack sparrow was someone to NOT mess with, just like Davy Jones.. Then you wouldn’t be caught in Jack sparrow’s illusion on being the worst pirate in the world.. No seriously if Jack had the same fear approach as Davy Jones…. Then all you would have to do were to look at Jack sparrow for a few seconds and be so scared of him, Everyone would just run away.. literally what’s the fun in that for Jack Sparrow?! If he was someone to not mess like people claim. Then (WHY) do people keep on assisting 100% on messing with Jack Sparrow?? Please answer that man lol. That literally makes no sense… 😂
I could always relate to Jack on many levels. I’m a loner and have a deep mistrust for society so my drive to be as free as I can is strong. I think you’ve nailed it. I was upset by the “antisocial personality “ take as I don’t think it’s true at all, that kind of take can only come from someone who doesn’t know trauma. Jack is scared and doesn’t trust anyone but all he’s trying to do is to survive. His ways are somewhat unusual but he does care although he probably wishes he didn’t.
I don't think Jonathan and Alan were wrong about the ASPD "diagnosis". The thing about antisocial personality disorder is that it's a newer term that combines two very similar mental disorders: psychopathy and sociopathy. But that's exactly where you need to differentiate. A psychopath is born that way while sociopathy is a learned behavior. And in my book Jack falls into the latter category since psychopaths enjoy to see others suffer and will therefore deliberately harm people/animals to get that satisfaction. But like they said in the cinema therapy video, everything in life is a spectrum. I'm a sociopath myself and can confirm lots of the points they made, but just like Jack there are a few people in my life that I actually care about. So I could definitely see Captain Jack Sparrow as a mildly sociopathic guy
I totally agree with your opinion, I was a counselor and one thing I learned is that people will always do what is right by them and you can't expect anything else if you do you will always be disappointed.
I agree. Jack generally keeps his cards close to his chest, he's forever, and even if he doesn't know how he's gonna fix something, he intends to and masks it with whimsy and self interest. One clue to who he really is is when he's telling Will how piraty he is, will gets mad and says "i am not obsessed with treasure", Jack then says "not all treasure is silver and gold". I think also Jack has a good heart who doesn't follow laws and rules. And it's often associated with being bad or selfish, when that's not inherently the case. I think he recognizes that rules (especially unfair rules) shouldn't be beheld to a god tier level. That's just my opinion, summarized the best i can on 3 hours of sleep lol
I wasn't expecting this but this is a great video and you have a lot of good points! It's kinda nice to see civil disagreements about something like this and I totally understand both you and Cinema Therapy! Jack is clearly a very complex character and there is a lot stuff that involves his character.
Agree with this. In regard to Jack's arc, I think its all childhood, pleasure, playing and adventure. I think in the next two movies, he begins to grow up and trust others again.
Yeah, this one left me cold, too! Seemed a bit of a reach. But then, they tried to paint Loki as a 'narcissist', so.... (I mean, the TV show did too, but that was just lazy writing at that point.)
I mean, Loki is a bit of a narcissist, just maybe not in the clinical sense. But he definitely has a number of narcissistic qualities. And I thought the show actually portrayed him as way less narcissistic, honestly.
In my opinion Jack is a good man tangled up in an extremely cruel, unpredictable, unforgiving environment where the less that amiable traits are the ones necessary to survive and if possible, thrive. So, he perfects that art of pretending to have most of those traits and try and live his life with his own perceived purpose and with his own values. And yes, I don't think he has an ark in the series. He is like Toph of the pirate world. Doesn't need a well defined ark to work (I do think Toph had a minor ark though).
I always picture Jack as a pirate living in the shadow of his father. His father was this great pirate who now is the keeper of their sacred code. He was the best. Jack doesn't feel like he lives up to the great Captain Teague. So, everything he has done has been a conflict between his need to live up to and outdo the legend that came before him, with his inner sense of right and wrong. He's desperately trying to do the right thing while also stay in a position to achieve his ultimate goal. I agree that the mutiny taught him to keep his plans close to his chest and to behave in a more unpredictable manner.
I would definitely watch an in-depth analasys of his character, I'm already sad this video is as short as it is (though I thoroughly enjoyed it!) cuz there's so much more to be said about Jack :)
I feel like Jack is in constant battle with himself, his good nature battling his need for survival. And his trauma plays a huge role in that. His good nature led him to being a hunted man, and then to be abandoned. To hold on to his good nature in the face of this terrible world and dangerous role he lives in is, I think, a huge part of his characterisations and choices.
Not to mention: People seem to forget, or not acknowledge, that Jack was severely physically abused by his Grandmama as a child-this trauma was said to be her way of loving him; it’s one of the reasons why he ran away from home at 12 y/o. It makes sense that he would push real love and affection away.
I also got the feeling watching cinema therapy that they weren't completely right about Jack and their video got me thinking a lot about his character. Jack comes off as pretty contradictory at times, I don't think he's necessarily an outright hero, there are a lot of greys there, but he is most of the time a good guy posing as bad and selfish. The same man that liberated a hundred slaves would condemn anyone to servitude on the Dutchman, but he did gamble with Will's live even if he hoped to save him in the end... I also don't think Jack would've sacrificed his desire to become immortal for Will in the first movie, but that may be in part because he didn't have as much of an attachment to Will then nor did he fear death as a tangible threat before he was confronted with Jones coming back for him. It's not necessarily because of his growth as a character cause as you said, there isn't much of an arc there. If anything his arch is about regression. In the first movie Jack is pretty much always one step ahead of everyone else. But as soon as the second one starts he's lost that control, he's scared and running away and not acting like himself. His arc then becomes about going back to how he used to be and so we end the movie with him back were he started.
As a clinician as well, I almost always agree with CT but the antisocial diagnosis of Jack didn't sit quiiiiiiite right with me, and I was interested to see that your take on it aligned more with how I see Jack, as well! Thanks for this great video!
Jack has no arc, neither a journey his live is an adventure, his dream is to be captain of the best pirate crew the way is the journey and we are here to join his adventure.
Love both channels, so glad you made this video. I was thinking a lot of these things during their video, while I did enjoy their video I agree with yours. I definitely agree about what the Pearl represents. One thing I did enjoy about their video was that the diagnosis... While I think they're wrong about why Jack does what he does and they've bought his intentional unpredictability he uses to prevent being screwed over... I think it's nice to have an actually fun and good character with that personality disorder associated? Because there are a lot of disorders people only see as serial killer or cruel or whatever. But while he might have the disorder and usually has self serving behaviours, he is regularly altruistic. He never had to save Elizabeth. It definitely made him a target and did technically get him caught in the long run there. I like a non villain being interpreted as having antisocial personality disorder.
based video. Good points made, not insulting Cinema Therapy, instead respectfully disagreeing and providing your alternative perspective. A breath of fresh air in an internet of anger and thoughtless takes.
more to the point of the whole freedom thing... Jack literally says exactly that in COTBP. "It's not just a rudder and a hull and a keel and sails, that's what a ship needs. But what a ship is... what the Black Pearl really is... is freedom."
That is genuinely one of my favorite Jack Sparrow lines. It so perfectly sums up his motivations. That particular moment in the scene is where you see Jack at arguably his most open in regards to his goals. “Wherever we want to go… we’ll go! That’s what a ship is, y’know.” He makes his endgame so very clear throughout the franchise, but that particular moment is one I always find sort of melancholy and more moving than the rest.
I can't wait to watch this! I hadn't watched the cinema therapy video in part because the title and I don't agree with the diagnosis, but now I have to watch it so I can enjoy your response to the fullest.
I've always thought it dead obvious that Jack was pretending, or even wanting to be without empathy or compassion, in order to get by. Thus, I didn't agree with the antisocial verdict.
So glad this was recommended to me. this was all i was thinking while watching cinema therapy as someone who has watched the trilogy movies multiple times since i was a kid. the only thing i disagree is with the fact he has no arc. i think his arc in the trilogy contrasts will's. while will learns that sometimes you have to break the law to do good, jack learns he needs to give away freedom to do good, hence why he starts just using will to regain the black pearl and ends giving away immortality to save his life. not that his arc is important because he's a side character written to support will and elizabeth's arcs but it's still there.
I don't think they had an actual idea for Jack's character arc, since the story revolves around everyone else more than him (in the trilogy), and that's exactly why the 4th and 5th movies didn't worked, because he is not a main character that needs to learn a lesson, he has no arc, never had, so the story can't follow him, it has to follow everyone around him
My initial reaction (especially as someone who studied social Psychology as a Sociology major so I met a lot of future therapists in my student days while not being one myself): "Uhhhhhhhhhhhh Psych Major Beef! FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT!" 😁😁
I guess that if Eren Yeager did not born on Paradis, he most likely choose to live as a pirate as a way of defying Marley. You know, gathering a crew made up of people who hates Marley and on a spree of plundering the trading vessels, the Marleyan ones in particular, not only because he wanted to live the life of absolute freedom but also because he can ad he also hated Marley for what they did to him and his people. Also, does Jack Sparrow have what it takes to begin the Rumbling?
I know this comment is really late to the discussion but I have to get this thought out. I think there is a very important piece of evidence missing to this side. Basically said that Jack was trading Will for his soul and settling his debt to Jones but he wasn’t. It was already established earlier when Jack made a deal with Will to have Will get the key. They also learn from Tia Dalma where the key is, with Jones. The whole point of that moment was so that Jack could get Will on the ship. The deal he made with Jones then was more so Jones would keep Will and let Jack leave without suspecting what Jack actually had planned. Jack may have also been trying to buy time by getting the Kraken off of the hunt. Or at least that’s how I saw all of that. Jack may have been planning to sacrifice a hundred men as a back up if he couldn’t get the compass working but that wasn’t the original plan. Another piece to this is that Jack knew all along what stabbing the heart would do. Early in Dead Man’s Chest Tia Dalma states, “Jack Sparrow does not know what he wants. Or does he but is loathe to claim it as his own.” Eluding to how Dutchman must have a Captain. This information however is officially stated until At Worlds End when Jack isn’t present because of being in the locker. Except in the locker Jack was contemplating stabbing the heart and becoming Captain of the Dutchman. This means Jack always knew the consequences of stabbing the heart but Will did not by the end Dead Man’s Chest. So when Jack says, “If you kill Jones, who is to call his beasty off of the hunt.” He had to have known that the next captain of the Dutchman could do that and that Will likely would. Problem is Will has no idea the consequences of stabbing the heart but Jack does. Jack is not great saying things explicitly and they didn’t have much time. That and/or he was trying to save Will from the impossible choice. But I think Jack was trying to prevent Will from stabbing the heart more to save Will from that fate than anything else. We already know what lengths Jones is willing to go to when someone else has the heart in the third movie. Likely, they could have bargained to both settle Jack’s debt and free Will’s father. Of course had explained all of this there would be no epic sword duel or third movie. But yeah this sort of how I see all of this. I could be wrong. Movies are up for interpretation. But I just felt like this was evidence that was left out and could have been used. That’s all.
You can have aspd and have defense mechanisms, insecurities, and even care about specific people (for the benefit they give to yourself-relationships are explicitly transactional in their minds). There does tend to be little to no remorse for past bad actions if said action benefited them in the end. They can grow to understand that that bad action doesn't get them what they want-admiration, entertainment, someone to rely on in case they need help, etc. They even can have strong attachments to certain beliefs. I think there's a spectrum in aspd as well. It's ok to have aspd. It's what you do while having it that really matters.
I’m so happy to find a video by someone who understands Captain Jack the way I do :) I truly believe there is way more good in him than most people give him credit for. And he keeps proving me right over and over again.
I would love a character study on Jack Sparrow. Alot of the characters in the movies were complex and interesting. Seeing them develop and change was fun.
This is a great video! Obviously, we disagree. _And that's GREAT!_ I will make one point here. Deleted scenes do not count in the story. They were deleted. It's not in the text of the film, therefore it is irrelevant. If someone wants to count that in their head-canon as part of the story, that's their right, but that doesn't make it part of the text of the film, which is what we analyze.
But aside from that fundamental disagreement about who Jack Sparrow actually is, I think there's a lot of room for debate about this character, and you do a wonderful job explaining your side of it! Honestly, this is part of what makes Jack Sparrow such a great character! There's room for argument! He's a bit all over the place, and it mostly makes sense!
Anyway, really enjoyed the video, and hope we get the chance to (as friends) debate many more things in future! -alan
Thanks Alan! I was a little worried how this video would come across, so I'm glad you enjoyed it ☺️ Jack Sparrow is indeed all over the place and there are definitely holes to pick in my interpretation, the deleted scene being one. Personally, I sometimes think deleted scenes can be relevant if there is still subtext in the film to support what they reveal, or if they were cut for timing reasons and were still included in an extended edition or something. There is subtext in the 2nd film that Jack Sparrow and Cutler Beckett share history... although that is still very tenuous and gives us no reason to interpret that Jack Sparrow liberated "cargo" from Beckett. So I think, yeah, you're correct there. I more or less just thought it would be a cool tidbit to mention.
I do love your work, and all of cinema therapy, so it's awesome you watched this video and enjoyed it. That's genuinely made my day!
I like your guys’ channel but this response reads as a little immature to be honest, hah. Very much a “How cute, you’re wrong, and here’s why!” sounding response. I think it would have helped to specify that YOU do not consider deleted scenes or extended cuts. Instead it looks as though you’re making the argument that the official release is the only valid one, and that this content creator is wrong to consider the scenes canonical. Deleted scenes are often removed for time, not because they were intended to not be interpreted as canon. That’s why we sell director’s cuts of films, to get the whole story. It was written, directed, and acted out by the same people. There’s nothing that makes it less valid. It really seems as though you’re condescendingly asserting that only your opinion on what’s canon is accurate.
@@lexinicole4317 I can't say that's how I read the comment, I took it as a kind and fair response. Having made a 17 minute video with the slightly clickbait "WRONG" in the title, it's only fair for Alan or Jono or any of cinema therapy to argue their own opinion. Largely, I agree in this specific example, we can't take the deleted scene as canon, even if I do find it something fun to wonder about
@@mylittlethoughttree That’s great I guess. I wasn’t commenting to defend you. I disliked how they spoke to a smaller content creator and think they have a duty to be more respectful. You can disagree, I don’t really care, the point was that they should think more carefully about how they speak to creators who dissent. After all, their opinion that they post in a TH-cam video is no more or less valid. You can disagree with someone without insulting why they came to their conclusion. While I don’t believe that was the intention, Alan’s wording here was poor. He is a grown man, he can reflect on his own words and find ways to express opinions that don’t read as speaking down to others. When it comes to art I believe there is a creative responsibility to offer respect to one another, and saying “you’re wrong because it wasn’t officially released” is not respectful, it’s dismissive. There is a difference in saying “you’re wrong but that’s cool” and saying “I disagree but that’s cool.” A clickbait title/=/this lengthy comment Alan left on your video. He had the time and space to articulate more clearly. You used a title that grabs attention. Different intentions, different outcomes.
Besides, I disagree. Film is a strictly limited medium. If we only take what appears in an official film release as canon, then any book source adapted to film would become non-canon, which doesn’t make a whole lot of sense, now does it? I could also go into the writing concept of “death of the author” being an integral part of art consumption, but I’ve already written plenty.
@@lexinicole4317 "That’s great I guess. I wasn’t commenting to defend you."
"You can disagree, I don’t really care."
For someone claiming another person is insulting, talking down, and using poor wording you sure do make a prime example of it. And Alan's response was perfectly fine and articulate. He simply brought up the point that deleted scenes may not count. That's not insulting, it's simply a statement. They were having a conversation on valid points. It's not his fault you take such grand offense to people disagreeing with you to the point that they need to treat you ever so softly, while you speak so brashly.
I think Jack's character is perfectly summed up in this little piece of dialogue:
Elisabeth: "Which side is Jack on?"
Will: "At the moment?"
LMAO!
110%
Jack Sparrow unapologetically switches alliances at his own convenience but he has some moments when he really care for others
Good line actually. "Live for the moment". Jack doesn't do "sides". He does "honesty". Unless he's a dishonest man that's honest about how dishonest he is. It's the honest ones to look out for.
Ever wondered what he means by that? He's basically saying "If something looks too good to be true, it's a lie." They could be lying with intent. Or they could be lying to themselves with their own assumptions when they don't know it. Which is VERY easy to do. Jack exploits this. He lets you assume. He plays you for a fool. It's not "him" people get mad at. It's "themselves" when they look for someone to blame.
A clever thing Jack did is let Davy Jones talk about the souls. Jack went "I'm totally fine with what you said about Will. See you in a few days." What Jack didn't say is that he'd get those souls. Jone's said it. When a situation is on the spot like that, when stakes are that high, you can't afford to hesitate and stall. Make a call. Deal with the consequences. Do it now. That's always been Jack's way. And when people that struggle more see that, they are either inspired because they want to have that ability, or they're afraid because they're reminded of their own inability. Cinema therapy is falling victim to its own ego when they assume about Jack. Clearly tense when talking about him. That's not the sign of "being right". That's indicating ones own insecurities. Jack is much more relaxed and in control of the situation.
Unless you take his rum.
He's a mystery, which makes his character so intriguing
Jacks arc is one of healing. Because he starts traumatized by the mutany and doesn't trust anyone with anything. By the end of his arc he has shown trust in Will and Elizabeth. It's not about trusting everyone to heal its knowing that you CAN still trust the RIGHT people.
Ooh I like that!
Yeah, he has a fairly flat arc, but this is a good point. There is some real growth there. Even if it's fairly limited, it's there, and it's meaningful.
Ahh I was going to say something similar, but glad I read the comments first. I will say It is not just Will and Elizabeth, but many of the crew led by Gibbons he starts to slowly trust in.
I think that Will's father, one of the few loyal hands, is also part of the reason Jack has an affection and trust in Will, and acts as his tutor in piracy, something Elizabeth, ironically, has no need for, since she is so well versed in piracy.. I think, between the two, he trusted Elizabeth a lot less at first and slowly ended up just making her the pirate king, since she not only was one of the best pirates, but he knew he could trust her by then. Even Barbarossa eventually respects Elizabeth as a pirate and leader and has enough affection for her to marry her to Will, which is somewhat an imitation of the the Chinese pirate queen's story.
Come to think of it, Jack even learns to forgive and trust in Barbarossa at a time when all pirates are threatened. Surely that he forgives his mutineer and ends up being allies with him is a character arc. Also forgiving Elizabeth with her own betrayal leading to his death.
I think you're bang on the money there! But I think this goes way further back than the mutiny. I think his behaviour is learned for self-preservation. He used to do the morally right thing (freeing the slaves, revealing info for fairness sake etc) but has always been punished for it. So he he adopts this air of "I do what I need to do for myself and no one else" and to a part I think he wishes he could be that, but in reality he is always betrayed by his own good nature. He cannot help being a good man, despite insisting on and pretending to be the contrary.
Jono here. I wanted to add my two cents after what Alan said. I loved your video and never took it as an insult. I just saw it as karma, honestly. The reactors got reacted, lol.
The world, and the internet especially, needs models of healthy, respectful debate. You modeled that wonderfully. Had you insulted us personally I would have taken issue. The fact that you disagreed and were furthering the discussion didn't bother me at all.
I never thought we were the "end all, be all" authority on anything. We geek out, we help people. Beyond that, we're up for critique, same as anyone and anything.
I will say, re: Jack, that you raise solid points. I stand by my position BUT I must acknowledge what I feel is an inconsistency in characterization that supports both of our arguments.
In the first film, Jack is very much the "pirate AND a good man" that you and so many others see. He's self-serving and lives by the pirates code, but he goes out of his way to save Elizabeth and help Will. He's touched when his crew comes back for him at the very end, as he didn't expect them to. When they say the code is more "guidelines than actual rules" he seems to consider that there's more to life than just serving himself. Will saved him. His crew's there for him. It gives him pause. It's actually pretty awesome.
However, in the second film I believe he takes a major step backwards for no reason other than to deliver an arc where he does something selfless at the end of the third movie and it's a BIG DEAL. That's on the writers (or the producers or studio, who knows)
He sells Will out with zero plan to get him back. He makes a half-hearted effort when he sees a window to ask Davy Jones, but then abandons it to save his own skin. He consistently screws people over and burns bridges in the second and third film.
In those films, again just my opinion, but he displays all the traits of ASPD and, as I said in our episode, grows out of it by the end of the 3rd film and is more traditionally heroic in films 4 and 5, where he's more of an honorable scoundrel.
The deleted scene about the 100 slaves would have been a game changer. Neither Alan and I were aware of it when we filmed our episode because it's not in the films, which we did rewatch in preparation. I like Jack's arc better if it had been included, because it suggests that he has a deeply-buried good heart, and the one time he did the right thing in a big way he paid for it so dearly that he became selfish out of self-preservation. That's AMAZING. Should not have been cut. Would have made his actions at the end of the third film even more powerful. And would have led to a different episode from us.
But it was cut, and what we're left with in the text of the actual films is a very likable jerk who, in my opinion, displays all the traits I laid out in our episode. Again, however, there's plenty of evidence for "heroic Jack" in the first film that I feel was completely tossed in the second film so he could have the arc they wanted.
So I think your position has merit, but I believe so does mine, and that comes down to what I feel is inconsistent writing in the films. I also feel like your read on it is as valid as mine overall. I just happen to disagree.
I hope this doesn't read as defensive. I'm just trying to continue the conversation because it's fun and I sincerely enjoyed what you did here. Plus, debating geek stuff endlessly is kind of my jam, haha!
No hard feelings, and great work!
Hey, thanks man! I didn't imagine either of you would take it as an insult, although I did put the very clickbaity words "WRONG" in the title, so I wouldn't have blamed either of you if you did! Glad the video itself illustrated my position properly, though. It's less I'm saying you're "wrong" than that I have a different interpretation of the character and your and Alan's video was a useful jumping off point to think about Jack Sparrow more.
I wholeheartedly agree about inconsistent writing. His arc does seem to change which makes it super hard to analyze and, yes, I think makes both our interpretations valid ones. I still believe Jack never intended to leave Will with Davy Jones but I also know there isn't conclusive evidence to prove that. I think holes could be picked in either interpretation of that scene. I can't comment on 4 and 5 because I'm still, shamefully, yet to see them but there's certainly more merit in using them for analysis than me plucking a random deleted scene. That said, it is such a good moment that would've added so much to his character and I mainly just wanted to mention it to see what people thought. 3 had its flaws as a film, I'd have loved it far more with that scene included. Someone in the comments told me it's all canon in the novels that were later written but I'm never set on if that kind of thing counts. I've certainly never read the books anyway, nor knew they existed until a youtube comment told me.
Didn't take this comment at all as defensive. On the contrary, it made me smile like an idiot! It's definitely nice to have respectful debate and it's definitely something the internet needs to see more of. Also when it's between two therapists, I feel we have a level of duty to our profession in how we present ourselves online.
I don't regularly have time to keep up with much on youtube but I've always enjoyed the videos you, Alan, and the rest of the Cinema Therapy make. It's one of my favourite channels and I promise not to make videos everytime I happen to disagree 😂
@@mylittlethoughttree and @CinemaTherapyShow , how uncommon is it for counselors and therapists to disagree about a patient, especially at the beginning? Do they talk to each other about patients? I know you both caveated in your analyses that a few movies are not enough to make a clear conclusion about a person. I see your videos as 'case notes' after a first, maybe a second, session.
As for the deleted scene, would it be a valid take to see it as Jack wasn't willing to share that story with CinemaTherapy but did share it with ThoughtTree, especially considering the context of these being the early sessions of a person's therapy? Jack might share it when focusing on his conflict with Becket in a later session as he builds rapport with you. I feel like it is a safe assumption that most, if not all, patients don't share everything on day one.
The Black Pearl was brought back after Captain Jack refused to take nearly two hundred slaves to the Bahamas, the pearl was also named Wicked Wench, Jack renamed it after the charred look the ship took from resurfacing. Although the scene was deleted, and barely referenced, although referenced nonetheless, if it weren't for Jack freeing the slaves, Beckett wouldn't have burned the pirate "P" onto his wrist and sunken his ship, mentioned in dead man's chest when Beckett says "we both left a mark on each other." As he looks at the very thing he marked Jack with. The trilogy was built on this, the fifth movie was mostly just a cash grab, so I'm not surprised they gave him a slightly different past... Unless the east India trading company hired pirates to transport slaves.
Fun fact, Jack Sparrow is inspired by a real pirate, John Ward
@@cat-jm3vu I always thought he was based on John Rackham aka Calico Jack. 🏴☠
@@cat-jm3vu yeah but in Jono’s defence
A) as someone who has an antisocial personality disorder/is within that diagnostic spectrum I do see plenty of my own traits within Jack’s character.
B) The cut scenes from the first few films were retconned by the latest films in the PotC franchise when they go more in depth on Jack & Salazar’s backstory showing that Jack became the captain because of Salazar. The only canon pieces of information left is that Beckett offered Jack a deal, Jack declined, Beckett branded him a pirate & sank the Black Pearl only for Davy Jones to bring it back. The extra information from the deleted scenes is not canon & therefore can’t be used as canon information to diagnose Jack Sparrow on since it is not a confirmed part of his backstory.
One major aspect of Sparrow is also trauma. The trauma of trying to good in society but told to treat people like cargo, the trauma of betrayal by a friend and crew, the trauma of being deserted on an island alone.
Many villains are created through trauma.
I don’t consider the “people aren’t cargo” thing an actual part of Sparrow’s character since it’s from a deleted scene not a scene that was actually in the film
Yes… the way he deals with it is similar to how I deal with it. I do care about the people around me, I am just too mad about things to show it in the ways they expect me to.
ah, he can't be vulnerable with people. Hard to trust when institutions, crew, and friends have betrayed that vulnerability.
Agee 100% He's been through a TON and plays things close to his chest to keep from gettin hurt
I'm glad you made this video, I also wasn't completely on board with Cinema Therapy interpretation of Jack (still love to watch their channel and immensely respect their work). I like how you said that Jack is a good man trying to appear as "bad man" but I would take it even further tho: Jack is a good man who is also trying to convince HIMSELF he isn't good. It's kind of like a defense mechanism for him? Anytime before he did the good thing he was severely punished for it so now he might have decided to live on his own terms. It's especially evident in the scene at the end of 2nd film. Where Cinema Therapy interpreted it as Jack being manipulated by Elisabeth for coming back and helping, I always saw it as Jack trying to convince himself that "he was betrayed too many times, he doesn't care about anyone now, he won't help, no way, he will just save himself". Yet he did come back in the end cause it was just against his inner code plus I think Black Pearl was just too important to him to just abandon it, it represented his idea of "freedom" so to speak.
I think we don't even need to go as far as the 2nd film for that. Our FIRST introduction to Jack as a character, is him diving in to save a complete stranger from certain death. Sure we see him petty thieving from the dockmaster, and "lying" to the guards about what he's doing in town, but those are just flavoring for his personality. The first significant action he takes, in the entire franchise, is to dive into deep water, at risk of his own safety (which is proven true when he is summarily arrested after having so much attention brought to him). I think the counter-point for Jack isn't that he's a bad man, it's that he can sometimes be a GREEDY man, but he is also someone who doesn't want to die. He has a healthy fear for his life, and that often puts him at odds to the role of a hero. When he fights Will in the first film, and beats him, he BEGS him to move so he doesn't have to kill him. He has no beef with the kid, he's just in his way. He took every opportunity to bypass Will in the forge scene, non-violently, and only when forced by Will, did he take up a blade.
Jack's flaw in the second film, is that he's constantly being confronted with the threat of Certain Death, or losing his friends. And for the bulk of the film, he keeps convincing himself that it's better to let them die, than him. So he ends up causing conflict based on that desire (not dying), up until the end of the film. Where he does actually stop and think about if he's willing to let them die, in his place. And he decides, finally, that the answer is no. So he isn't really manipulated by Elizabeth, or at least not ONLY manipulated. I'm quite certain he'd been thinking the exact same things in his head the whole time. He just had it held up to his face like a mirror, and it finally hit home for him.
I don't actually remember the POTC movies all that well, since I haven't seen any of them in over a decade, but quite ironically, the description of Jack Sparrow's actions and character here seem to parallel those of Jonathan Decker's favourite onscreen character quite a lot: Captain Malcolm Reynolds of Firefly. The space cowboy/smuggler/pirate with a heart of gold hidden under a gruff and sarcastic exterior, and what seem at first glance to be rather flexible morals. Actually, he's a big damn hero with a dangerous reputation he needs to uphold, and uphold it he does, in amazing and hilarious ways. I'm pretty sure that Captain Jack and Captain Mal would really enjoy having a drink or six together... and then try to screw each other over for the loot just for a laugh, as long as nobody on their crews got hurt.
@@neuralmute yeah, there are a lot of parallels in that comparison. Never considered it, but they are both fairly typical Jaded Anti-Hero tropes.
I think maybe that misinterpretation was down to them attempting to contextualise how weirdly horny that scene was and be like "well it makes sense if we were to frame it as a manipulation rather than as a genuine conversation, because otherwise, Elizabeth is just openly cheating on Will for no reason."
I like this point a lot
He says it clearly in the first film when he and Elizabeth are marooned - “a ship isn’t just a mast, rudder and sails, that’s what a ship NEEDS, but what a ship is - what the pearl is, is freedom”
"I contracted you to deliver cargo on my behalf, you chose to liberate it."
"People aren't cargo, mate."
This is a knockout punch to cinema therapy.
This is a crossover I never thought I'd see but my goodness I'm glad it's happened
Agreed!
Cinema Theraphy can have good videos but their issue seems to be that they make too many videos and don’t really analyse them completely. This can be most seen in the Disney ones where it seems they analyze clips more than the film entirely.
That's EXACTLY what I came to comment!!! Lol
@@sarasamaletdin4574 Usually they've watched the movie together first, and they use clips for the video. OR it's a Disney movie that they've watched 100 times with their kids and have no need to rewatch in order to analyze it. 👌
Also of note, most people are too inept at psychology and diagnostics of psychiatric disorders to be able to hear these sorts of analyses objectively. Or their own biases interfere with their ability to understand such concepts, due to ego and those exact psychological mechanisms being discussed. Lol
Y’know what, I think this is spot on. Jack’s motivation throughout the films is absolutely pursuit of the freedom to live by his own code, and to do it as chaotically as possible
literally chaotic good
@@jack_of_alltrades7091 He's more of a chaotic neutral, he doesn't do good things but he isn't completely drawn to evil either.
@@jack_of_alltrades7091 Good is the problem. It's hypocritical. Jack isn't trying to be "good". He's "loyal". Big difference.
@@taramaforhaikido7272 o.o
@@taramaforhaikido7272 Fun tends to be better than Good and Jack knows it and just goes for it.
My favorite moment around Jack is when Kraken eats him. He respects Elizabeth's decision to sacrifice him, then when he's alone he tries to escape with all Sparrow shenanigans and ultimately accepts his faith and jumps the Kraken with grace.
Part of his character is that he is genuinely awkward and spontaneous which goes hand in hand with him finding it hard to just be a good man openly.
I think that as one of his earliest decisions as a captain, Jack told the crew the location of the treasure in response to a petition for fairness tells us a lot about who he WAS (along with the 'cargo' which is info we don't get until later). And he was horribly punished for that decision.
It makes me think of Powder from Arcane - I don't see a lot of people talk about the pacifist tendencies she showed as a child. She seemed to be a 'soft' kid in a harsh world that recognized people as valuable based on how hard and fierce they could be.
As a 'soft' kid myself who was relentlessly told to 'toughen up' and then had to unlearn a lot later in life, I see these characters as what happens to a sensitive, compassionate, fair-minded but naive person in an environment that is simply too harsh for that mindset to survive. They either die (like Helen from Jane Eyre), craft a persona of being callous (Jack), or they break from any morality entirely (Powder/Jinx).
Just my 2 cents :)
I love the points you make here. I'm somebody who was "too sensitive" as a child and swung a bit too far the other way while "growing up."
I love this comment. I agree. I had to craft a persona of being callous and feel a lot of kinship with Captain Jack.
Eh, what pacifistic tendencies in Powder are you talking about? People seem to think she's some sweet, innocent, soft girl, but honestly, the only thing that makes her maybe look like that is the way she physically looks, being small and thin with big eyes, and maybe her insecurities. Her behaviour doesn't refelct a high level of compassion or pacifistic tendencies at all. Being insecure doesn't equal soft or compassionate. She is building frigging nail bombs, which is an extremely brutal weapon, much more violent than anything Vi, Milo and Claggor are doing, and she WANTS them them to work. Her facial expressions show that she's HOPING for them to work and she would take joy in it if they did (she literally laughs when she tells Vi she filled some of them with nails in one scene) with absolutely zero regard for her victims, even as a child. If anything it looks like she's trying to overcompensate her relative physical weakness by being more ruthless and brutal than the other kids, it just doesn't work yet. That's more like the opposite of pacifism.
@@nimadarillian8573 she meant before the transition. but on that note, what happens to powder is clear mania and various forms of psychosis. this mental instability is to the point that she gives separate identities to her good and bad ethics ("powder", "jinx"), "chooses" the latter identity and is regularly tormented by loud voices in her head that likely represent inner demons and unhinged thoughts. she thus wrestles on a daily with sanity and insanity. so although she wasn't anything of a major samaritan as a kid, she still fought for what she thought was right, and you can see her moral compass in constant engagement in her present state.
@@sodotta I also meant before the transition, I'm talking about Powder in the first 3 episodes, not Jinx. And even then she doesn't show any signs of being very compassionate towards others, at least definitely not towards people she isn't personally close to. And she shows no qualms about using violence against others (Yes, still talking about her maybe 11 year-old child-version in episode 1-3), so definitely not pacifistic.
To me it really doesn't look like her actions are in any way motivated by a sense of morality as a kid, but simply by her desire to prove her worth to the other kids (Vi, Milo, Claggor) because she feels inferior and struggles with her self-wirth. And the only reason why she doesn't engage in the fist fights they have with other teenagers is because she's younger, smaller and weaker than the others and therefore scared, not because she has a problem with them using violence. She even says so herself in one scene in episode 1.
I love Cinema Therapy too, but something felt off about the framing and I think it was the omission of Jack's genuinely heroic moments. Yeah he's a pirate so he appears as an anti-hero, but he instantly saves Elizabeth, he refuses to shoot her on the island, refuses to shoot will and even says "Please move." He instantly recruits and cares about Gibbs. He cares about his crew.
Most of the 'villainous' things he does are just survival in the pirate world that every pirate around him also does. and his one shot, saved for Barbossa, isnt the handicap people think it is. He could easily have let Barbossa kill Will and then shoot him. Jack's Persuasion is so high that it Sounds selfish but the whole first movie establishes "this was your plan from the beginning" and his talk of leverage never involved sacrificing Will. He's more of a chaotic mentor than an anti-hero.
Yeah exactly, I I mean Jack also ALWAYS goes for negotations rather than violence, given the type of the world he lives in, it shows how he has a softer nature than what you would expect with someone with his life experience. He shows a lot of sympathy toward Will's dad also when they are talking in the second movie and with many more, he feels sorry for Kraken in a way even. His "more selfish" nature in second movie can be explained by how he is trying to play a desprate chess to get himself out of the deal with Jones and how much under stress he is, and not ASPD.
I was always wondering why I didn't remember the "people ain't cargo" line that I saw everywhere. I'm glad you mentioned it - it's integral, and it hurt that Cinema Therapy didn't mention it.
I would love a character analysis on Jack. And you'd only have to watch the first 3 movies because they completely lose sight of his character after that.
A lot of people tell me it's a good thing that I never got round to watching 4 and 5. I'd still like to give them a shot someday, though
@@mylittlethoughttree this comment isnt entirely accurate. 4 actually portrays Jack just as well as the first three movies. Its the movie itself that shifts tone and some might like that more than others. The 4th movie has barely anything to do with the first three and has to be seen more like a seperate little adventure of Jack. Viewing it from that lense the movie is very enjoyable. People just expected something more connected and maybe more impactful but the movie was still decent.
@@mylittlethoughttree 5 however did in actuality completely lose track of his character. They somehow misunderstood him in that one which makes it the worst one to people who care most about Jack and understand him well like yourself.
The story itself however and the side characters make it more commected to the other movies and make it feel a bit more impactful on the narrative which is why those people who care more about the connection and side characters as opposed to Jack himself and who maybe thoroughly misunderstand the character in the first place and thought he was always like this might still enjoy or prefer to the 4th.
Its kind of how some people love star wars 8 while the camp who hated that movie often prefers 9.
I hate both 8 and 9 personally and didnt like 7 from the start when everyone still praised it.
4 and 5 of pirates arent as bad and 4 honestly isnt really bad at all just more disconnected and more of a little adventure.
If the name was Tales of Captain Jack Sparrow: The fountain of Youth
People would probably compare it less to the trilogy and maybe rate it less harshly
@@mat3783 There was some lore dropped in 4 that might retroactively change Jack's character even more than 2 and 3 did with Beckett. But Jack himself in 4, if we discount the lore dropped? Yeah, it's still pretty much him. 5 is completely off.
Just btw, what would you think comparing Jack to Greg House M. D. ?
@@radimnechut519 yo that's an amazing idea
Thank you! I also enjoy Cinema Therapy, but that particular episode about Jack seemed to ignore so many signs that Jack does care and is much deeper than the persona he shows the world.
There's a scene in the third Pirates (which is not mentioned by Cinema Therapy) which perfectly shows that Jack is clearly not self-centered: when the pirates are electing a king of pirates, instead of voting for himself like the others, he votes for Elizabeth, even if she got him killed.
I don't think that counts. He votes for Elizabeth because that's the only way that there was going to be a winner. Because Elizabeth will direct the pirates to come out to fight the British Navy, which is what Jack promised to Beckett in exchange for his freedom.
Was Jack intending for the pirates to be destroyed? Did he have a plan, or (in hindsight, justified) confidence in his ability to make the situation work out in the pirates' favour? Or was he okay with either outcome, knowing that whatever happened he'd come out on top? You could make any of those arguments.
But, regardless of his ultimate motives for doing so, it's hard to label voting for Elizabeth as a purely selfless act, when he knew it would have exactly the effect he had promised to Beckett.
That wasn't selfless. That was furthering his ends
"By voting for her, she became leader and went to war - which is what Jack wanted."
So he put his ego in second place in order to achieve his goals.
A better scene that describes what you're saying is when Davy Jones stabs Will. Jack have always wanted to sail the seas forever and the way he can do that is by becoming the captain of the Flying Dutchman. By getting Will to stab the heart, he not only saves a friend (yes he really cares about Will & Elizabeth from his reaction when Jones stabs Will) but also sacrifices his life-goal to be immortal and sail the seas.
Well, while that is smart choice it was not exactly a selfless one tbh. A better example is when he gave up his chance of being the captain of the dutchman and gave it to will so elizabeth could still see him every ten years.
Jack is also incredibly smart, and a master manipulator, but the fact that he doesn't use it to be evil and instead uses it to help people when they need it, he's definitely a good guy, he's just so smart at knowing how to create a character and how to use it. He uses other's knowledge of his created character as a tool to anticipate how people will act. It's incredibly smart.
I completely agree! Jack is complex, layered, and unpredictable. I see him as an agent of change and chaos for others (particularly Will and Elizabeth). Instead of having his own character arch, he challenges those around him, similar to the role of Death in Puss in Boots: The Last Wish (except Jack is more of a central character with a lot more screen time).
I’ve always seen Jack as a deeply self-interested character. Life taught him a devastating lesson and he came to the conclusion that good deeds ultimately get you burned and stranded. But even then it still didn’t take away from his core - a man who refused to ferry slaves. He has a moral compass, but throughout the first movie the majority of his good deeds happen to coincide with his primary goal. He helps Will and Elizabeth because it’s the right thing to do…… AND helps him exact vengeance and get the Pearl back. I don’t think he would have gone as far for either of them as he did if helping them didn’t in some way benefit him in the end. He would have still helped, but to a much lesser degree. He certainly wouldn’t have risked his own life for them if doing so wouldn’t have gotten him closer to the Pearl.
basically he's not necessarily a good man but, still one that can empathise with others and sees no reason to be cruel or not to be helpful if it isn't too much of an inconvinience.
So basically you're describing a fictional archetype character acting as though they're going through the day-to-day morally comprising challenges of real life. The vast majority of us have at our core a more or less fully formed code of ethics and morality we try to follow, but oftentimes reality just doesn't want to play along and forces us to keep making hard choices on what takes priority, doing the right thing or the 'smart' thing. Jack tries his best to have it both ways whenever he can. It's only those very few make-it-or-break-it moments where he reveals who he truly is.
After watching both, I agree with you hero in disguise. His persona makes it easy to dismiss him as a threat and almost a shield. If you live in a pit of vipers, better to be thought of as one of the vipers than be prey to them. He wants to live his pursuit of life and not do any real harm to anyone, but realizes he has to use the tools available to defend himself and his own. So yes he's a hero, reluctant at times and may hate that he is a good man hahaha
Your views on the character of Jack sound way closer to what I took away from those films than what Cinema Therapy had to say about it. I watched their video a few days ago and kept pausing to shout at my screen most of the same things you are saying in this video. Thanks for that!
I liked this because I felt Captain Jack was the wrong choice for a discussion about ASPD. I have an inclination that when it comes to the character studies sometimes the talking point comes before the character choice. Either way from 14:19 - perfection. Jack is written as a bridge character between the flat mania of the ride's caricatures (they aren't characters by any stretch of the imagination) and a 3D comic character. He had to represent some of the mania of the ride and still be something new. In that Depp, Verbinski and the team had a hell of a narrow tightrope to walk.
Even a 'good' man in that world ends up bending a bit as a survival mechanism. What I liked is inadvertently your video brought it back to the historical reality that the films carefully skirt. Even out of the Disneyworld version, a successful 'good' pirate would be like this. I think there is something to be said that stated goodness (self-righteousness basically) is not as good in reality as the actions people actually do. Morality in a hard world is a little less binary than that and it would be a good lesson to impart for people's mental health. Especially those who carry the trauma of life situations where lesser of two evils or death is all they had open to them.
o.o
Uh oh - the two media-therapist TH-cam channels I watch are going head to head!
Fight! Fight! Fight!
Wait that’s not right…
Discuss! Discuss! Discuss!
Politely discuss!
It's been ages since I watched any of them as well and I don't even know if i watched the third one but i agree there's definitely a guardedness about Jack's actions that indicate a deeper motive. He reminds me a lot of the scarlet pimpernel character in a lot of ways, if people are too busy assuming you're an idiot, they'll let you get away with anything.
The thing people forget is that Jack isn't the hero ... he's the mentor, he's the sidekick and he's there to remind us that a life without a sense of humor and some fun isn't really much of a life. And I adore Jack Sparrow to the point I've written fan fiction about the character. He's a good guy, but he has his own code ... and it annoys other people because it works. "You're the worst pirate I've ever heard of." "But you have heard of me." I think the term is scalawag ... or maybe rogue, and they don't fit in the holes the other pegs do Thus diagnosing them with current terms ... doesn't completely work.
Thank you for this video. I love Cinema Therapy, I think Jono and Alan are great, but I do feel like they miss the mark sometimes, this being one of those times (I'm not a therapist and I don't have Jono's experience, of course, so my opinion isn't exactly relevant here, but it does feel to me like they sometimes tend to lean a bit towards sweeping statements and buzzwords... I still love and greatly respect them and their work though! It's just something I've noticed). I agree with you about Jack, and I'm so glad you mentioned the "cargo" scene as well. I know it can't be considered completely cannon since it wasn't in the actual film, but I still think it's an important point to raise here.
Man, I really need to rewatch those movies. I love the trilogy (yes, trilogy, as far as I'm concerned haha), especially movies 1 and 2 (Bill Nighy as Davy Jones is just too good...).
Agreed. The idea that Jack, all the pirates, and even Will (Will does betray Jack, ambushes him, and then leaves him to be murdered by the pirates.) all have Anti-Social Personality Disorder is...insane in itself. And Jack is no villain or even an anti-hero. He just doesn't look or act like a Hollywood movie hero. A good example is Jack's final plan. He wants to make the crew mortal to kill Barbosa. If he allowed Barbosa to kill Will...his plan is still on track. He doesn't need to save Will to 'win'. But he does. That's a good guy...not an anti-hero.
I think Cinema Therapy, for whatever reason, worked backwards here. They decided Jack had APD and looked for reasons to support it.
Alright now that I watched: first of all I think you're just as good as Jonathan Decker. Don't sell yourself short. Second, that rubbed me the wrong way when they said he was an antihero that didn't care about anyone else. It felt kind of cheap. Jack is more nuanced than that. That's why he's one of the most iconic characters of the early 2000s. I don't think the series would have made it past Black Pearl if he was strictly a self-serving ass hat. As far as Jack's character Arc in the series.... I think I would interpret his arc as that of physical goals representing his personal development and desire for self improvement perhaps. I think he does desire on a subconscious level to be a "better man" and grow as a person and that takes the form of this physical goals. Obtaining the black pearl, finding the fountain of youth. I feel like they are all metaphors for just personal growth. Jack wants to better himself without being 100% aware of it. I can't remember 2 or 3 well enough to make a call on how this evolves, but that was my general takeaway. I can't emphasize enough how much I appreciate your ability to see the good in characters that people are sometimes dismissive of in morality. It is a gift not everyone has and you should treasure it *pun intended* lol
My diagnosis for Jack would be abandonment issues. He chooses a pirates life as a way to create a family for himself with the crew, but he also constantly pushes people away or keep them at an arms length with his morality. His anti-social behavior could be learned and stem from the way his family or early pirate crew treated him and others. It's not because he doesn't care but because that is the reality of the world he grew up in and the only way soften the blow of this happening to him again is to do it to others. But when push comes to shove he always chooses to help the ones he cares about.
The said I think they deleted the scene you mention because it made Sparrow too much of an obvious good guy. They probably wanted to keep the ambiguity of his character open to interpretation to make the final negotiation of Will's life more exciting.
Not so sure he had much room to choose. Jack was born into the pirate life.
Why is this obsession for victimizing everyone...
Anti social? Think you're off the mark on that one. He clearly plays people like a fiddle.
I agree, Jacks one of those characters that has a different story for who-evers asking, but its through his action you can see who he truly is. He always says he's willing to sell anyone out, makes more plans to sell people out, and plays all sides, but in the end he always does what's right. He's Chaotic good leaning on chaotic neutral.
What gets weird is how it's proven in the first film to Elizabeth and Will that Jacks a good man- but then they seem to backslide every film and distrust him again, likely because it makes a more interesting story.
Great video. While Jack Sparrow fits the simple Google definitions of Antisocial Personality Disorder, some key elements need to be added to that diagnosis when using more clinical purposes.
Jack has empathy and morals, and he doesn't use cruelty to get what he wants.
He refuses to conform to society's rules and does nothing to maintain close friendships, as this would make him emotionally vulnerable and impede his hedonistic lifestyle.
If you look at the last movie alone they were certainly more right, although the last film did butcher his character quite a bit. However if you focus on the trilogy and the fourth film then you are correct.
IMPORTANT COMMENT: one big oversight I feel bad at not emphasising is that yes, Jack has good intentions at heart and is still, in my mind, a hero...HOWEVER that doesn't dismiss the fact he manipulates, betrays, and lies his way through the films. Sure, he didn't intend to leave Will on the flying dutchman, sure he does definitely care BUT tricking Will onto that ship is still not ok. I think framing my argument in response to Cinema Therapy meant I dropped the ball on this point. It's as I've always said in my videos, good and bad both exist, both need to be acknowledged
Use the code TREE for 40% off World Anvil with the link worldanvil.com/?c=mltt
Or else try it out for free!!
here's the original Cinema Therapy video: th-cam.com/video/iUN6d7ur5Dg/w-d-xo.html
I'm officially disgusted at that Cinema Theropy Channel. Anyone that credits them with being professional or intelligent needs to see a Good Therapist
@@SelphieTheNutter My Little Thought Tree did exactly that in the video. He just said that he has disagreements but does also say that Jono points out behaviors that are/can be construed as ASPD and even believes that Jono is a better therapist than him. I personally wouldn’t say better, just different.
@@lindaschreifels9889 what does any of what you just said have to do with my comment?
My comment has nothing to do with begrudging My Little Thought Tree. So standing up for him is pointless. My comment is about the link He posted for the full video. I went and watched it and wasn't impressed by how unprofessional they are.
Sitting there pissing themselves with laughter then turning round and saying how Jack is selfish, arrogant and has no consideration for anyone but himself.
If Jack was a real person (and I'm pretty sure this world has people that share Jack's Personality). They have just insured that People like Jack will never trust mental health "professionals"
A psychologist is ment to stay open minded and objective the entire time when diagnosing mental health issues. Because if you get it wrong and prescribed the wrong treatment it will make there issues worse.
to be honest, without being rudely abrupt, this is how I feel (emphasis on "feel") about your videos, starting with the "Breakfast Club" series. I love what you do, and how, and apparently why, you do it. But you are so often wrong, wrong, wrong about the movies you analyze!!! lol. Much love, oh and you are 100% right on this one, which is somehow even more frustrating for me!!! 😉🥰
@@SelphieTheNutter but... for a fictional character, no harm in playing fast and loose with diagnosis. I was originally an English major, and changed in part because I was continually psychoanalyzing characters and narrators. More, recently, I've seen series like Stranger Things have characters who sortof, kindof have symptoms of mental illness, but defy any specific "real" diagnosis. The old "psychopath" diagnosis even grew out of criminal science, not clinical psychology, which is why we get "anti-social personality disorder" from Cinema Therapy here. In the end, it hardly matter because it's FICTION!
I think Jack is a very good example of Chaotic Good. He has a sense of morality that normally leans towards Good however his morality and what he considers good is not dictated by society. He is willing to do good and put himself in harm's way but only for people he likes or respects.
Edit: Also I don't think having ASPD makes you a bad person I the first play.
Could you elaborate on the last point?👀
@@lucyandecember2843 The thing I said about ASPD or that Jake only helps those he likes and respects?
@@RaeontheLeft first one
@@lucyandecember2843ASPD is just some bullshit to get people conditioned to believe that they should consider society valuable.
nothing like using D&D lingo for character alignment!! haha --- I gave him the exact same alignment of being chaotic good. Cheers! I saw something suggesting that he is chaotic neutral, but to fit that mold he would have to show conclusively no care for the consequences and fates of others which... over the course of four movies...I just dont think there is any meritorious argument for.
Honestly, I thought the notification for this video was from Cinema Therapy maybe retracting what they had said, because the first thing I saw was the familiar thumbnail with an X over a part of it. I watched the original video when it was uploaded. Then I saw the name of your channel on top of it. No lie, it was as if my brain synapses were shorting out because I could not comprehend what I was seeing for about 6 seconds! I had to blink, look away from my phone, Etch-a-Sketch shake my head, inhale, and look at the notification again. Now it makes total sense. I love both your channel and Cinema Therapy for different reasons, and you covering a topic they had gone over with not a single ounce of animosity or ridicule makes me so happy.
God, I would love to see some conversation between you and Cinema Therapy about this movie.
I think one of the most telling aspects of Jack's character is in At World's End, when Barbosa laments that world isn't as big as it once was, and Jack responds with "The world's still the same, there's just less in it." coupled with his classic line, "Now bring me that horizon" and his penchant for discovering lost treasures via his compass. He's a pioneer, a trailblazer, an explorer. He is always seeking new experiences.
I think he's more of a reluctant hero, rather than anti hero, because he has that moral compass which frustrates him because it gets in the way of his desire to explore. He can't ignore it because he is a moral individual, but that doesn't stop him from that little prickling thought in the back of his head that he'd really rather be off sailing to explore new horizons.
And while the "people aren't cargo" line may have been cut and some may believe that it shouldn't be considered, it still is on point for Jack's character, as he routinely employs pirates of different ethnicities and disabilities, as well as female pirates. he doesn't distinguish anyone by any metric other than merit and loyalty, so it would fit perfectly in his character for him to free slaves, and without another explanation for his branding, that may as well be canon.
I watched it recently with the knowlage of this deleted cargo scene and I might be wrong, but I noticed in the end of "Dead man's chest" after Jack dies and rest of the crew arrives on the Tia Dalma's island there are people mourning for Jack. I think these might be the people he saved. It makes it souch a touching scene that i've never noticed before.
I agree with the points made in this video, Jack really is good at heart. And he is incredibly smart. In the end of the first movie he arranges things the way that everybody gets what they wanted. It might be hard to unravel his plan especially on the first couple watches, but the more you watch it, the clearer his intentions gets. When i watched it first time i didn't understand why Will and Elizabeth stood up for him at the end risking their life (+ Norrington not chasing him!). It is not easy to see his good intentions behind all the lies, tricking people and pretending he does't care. But he did, in fact, saved both Elizabeth and Will, freed the pirates from the curse and helped Norrington save his crew and capture some of the pirates (the more could've been saved if Norrington listened to Jack and went back to the ship, instead of waiting by the cave enterance). And he got Black Pearl back. Win win win for everybody. And don't even get me started on unraveling his plan in next two movies, it is hella complicated but follows the same principles.
I thought of this so much when I watched cinema therapy's video, there were some details that just didn’t match his character. While also not explaining why he's exactly like this, his backstory. How he rather be alone then to have some type of connection to people.
I always thought Jack's story in the first movie was more about vengeance... Barbosa stole his love, which is freedom and that's what the Black Pearl represented, at least to Jack. It's why they took the time to tell the story of why Jack saves that gun with the one shot, why he refused to use it during his sword fight with Will, "this shot's is not meant for you", and why the scene where he finally shoots Barbosa was so impressed. I could probably explain this better but hopefully you guys understand what I'm trying to say. Jack didn't just want the Pearl or to plunder and weasel his "filthy black guts out." He wanted revenge for what was taken from him... he wanted to settle the score. At least from my perspective.
Jack Sparrow is defined as a good man that is punished when he does something (and also seeks freedom).
When he freed slaves, his ship was burned down and he became a wanted man.
When he saved Elizabeth, he got captured and imprisoned, ready to be killed.
When he came back to the Pearl in the 2nd movie, he gets handcuffed to the ship and left to die.
Etc.
He seems to be disillusioned with helping people but with too strong a predisposition to help others.
Oh my God I'm so jazzed I thought the exact same thing when I watched that video!! Ahhhh! *screams in excitement* can't wait to see your thoughts on it
Another example of Jack actually caring and showing it in a roundabout way is his marriage proposal to Elizabeth in potc2. Yes, he tricked Will onto the Dutchman, BUT he made a promise to him to look after Elizabeth and keep her safe. In that time period, not counting his reputation as a pirate, the best and most honorable thing he could do to protect her would be to marry her. It ensures her safety and that others like Beckett couldn't try to force her into a similar situation.
However, as with the example of saving Will, he plays it in such a way that he seems to be just flirting with her and teasing her.
There's also the reference in potc3 where it's inferred that Jack set free the slaves on a slaving ship he was working on for Beckett, thus earning his title of 'pirate'.
Also, tbh, Cinema Therapy lost my respect long ago. I've found many of their recent videos to be way off the mark in any analysis they make of the characters.
I liked a lot of their older videos, except for the old DID one. And I didn't like their video of Lilo and Stitch. Mbti is not real psychology, as in it is not based in science. Though there is one prof who puts people in eeg after they asses their mbti and extraverted intuition seems to be crosscontextual thinking where a lot of areas light up at tge same time. I have seen a lot! of ENFP characters like Lilo being diagnosed as autistic. I'm an ENFP myself and know a lot if people who are ENFP. And I actually know no ENFP who is autistic. But we tend to have SPD. Sensory processing disorder. Which is not autism! Around 20% of the human population have a form of sensory processing differences though. And it is just annoying at this point. As soon as a character is exccentric or not good with others, worse if both! the character is autistic. Other diagnosis, even if they are much more common or make much more sense are not looked at anymore. Or maybe someone is just exccentric.
Sorry for the rant. I was just really disappointed that they jumped on the bandwagon to diagnose the quirky one with autism. I think they are off quiet a few times.
@@danika9411indeed, it's very wrong to label diagnoses left and right
I really enjoy cinema therapy but I had the same reaction, I was like wait isn’t the first thing he does is save Elizabeth’s life which gains him nothing and lands him in prison! I actually went and watch the film again to check!
I absolutely agree with you. I felt like they didn't look deep enough into Jack's character. I've rewatched the trilogy a hundred times and while Jack is selfish, he also really does care about his friends and constantly makes decisions that help them, he acts much more uncaring than he really is. You are 100% right, it is all an act. :)
Man, I’ve been a fan of both these channels for about a year now, and I’d love to see more videos like this. Any chance at a collaboration in the future?
I doubt I'm even close to being big enough for them to taken an interest. It'd be cool although I can't see it happening nor do I know how it'd work, our styles are both very different
@@mylittlethoughttreeI think you are underestimating yourself
Would it be accurate to say that Jono and Alan argue that Jack Sparrow is Chaotic Neutral, while Thought Tree argues that he's Chaotic Good?
Yeah, that's probably fair. Obviously DnD categories are not a way to summarise and entire human being in reality but, for the sake of argument, yes
@@mylittlethoughttree Well, no, but sometimes people just like to compare themselves to D&D alignments, kind of like horoscopes. :P
@@Biklingchan85 yeah, it's a really system for it as well. I only said it because I just know, with how there's always someone out there who misunderstands, someone would read this and start thinking I used DnD personalities in my work 😂
I would consider Sparrow to be more true neutral but leaning into chaotic good (as his decisions seem neutral or chaotic but in the long run are generally good)
Seems they missed a massive amount of subtext and took Jack a bit too literally.
Not the first person to say Jack's character arc is that of healing from trauma, but I don't think I'll be the last. It's very clearly intentional even without the deleted scene that Jack is a good man, but tries to bury it because when he tries to do the right thing, the wrong people betray him and he has to pay for it.
One of the earliest scene's he's in has Norrington saying, "One good deed is not enough to redeem a man of a lifetime of wickedness," and without hesitation Jack responds, "Though it seems enough to condemn him." His mindset is that kindness only gets you hurt, and the kindest thing he can do is try to teach others that without causing the suffering he has had to endure, as can be seen with how he treats Will and Elizabeth. Eventually, he learns that living like that is a miserable life, even if kindness can get you hurt.
Jack is definitely a flat character in the first film. That's not a bad thing though. Goku from DBZ is also a flat character. He doesn't really need to grow, it's how the characters and environment interact with him that makes his lack of a real character arc still be enjoyable. Will and Elizabeth are the characters who aren't sure of who they are and what they want. Jack knows what he wants and has already lived an interesting, difficult life up to this point that we only get the faintest inklings of from other characters. He's already developed. He definitely can learn from specific situations or characters, and infamously will make shit up on the fly, but he's always looking towards a personal goal and doesn't actively seek to harm anyone in the pursuit of that goal. I think the blacksmith fight between him and Will really demonstrates this when he tries to subtly plead with Will to just let him go, he doesn't want to kill the young man, his ire is reserved for one person: the man who betrayed him.
I mean yeah... Because Goku grew in DB. DBZ was meant to be gohan's story until the end of the cell arc...
Please do the full analysis, there's a reason why Jack is such an iconic character, I personally think it's because his endless optimism, a lot of traumatic events happen to him and to the ones he cares for and yet he always smiles at the end of each movie
There are many amazing Jack moments like his (maybe) improvised escape from Beckett's ship by blasting a cannon into the main mast, boosting him back into his ship, denying Beckett from pursuing, and insulting him by placing that figurine in the cannon in one shot. But my most memorable moment is Jack shooting Barbossa in the first movie. Throughout the film, you never see Jack lose his sense of playfulness at the direst of situations. Even when he was marooned on the island and Elizabeth burned all the rum, his lines and behavior was still funny and laughable. That went away when he shot Barbossa. There was a chilling stone-cold expression on Jack's face when he did that. Imagine the sense of hatred Jack had for Barbossa for 10 long years to take that playfulness away.
One thing I’d like to point out is you mentioned he chooses not to care about other people. Not in reference to Jack but with people with ASPD they don’t necessarily “choose”. It’s that through their childhood trauma they learned not to care in self preservation, to protect themselves. It’s not always a choice. Some people also just don’t have empathy, and none of those things are bad. Empathy doesn’t make someone a good person, and there’s a few different parts of empathy too. I’m not a therapist in any way. I just have a lot of experience with people in the Cluster B community. I’ve seen many people with NPD, HPD, BPD and ASPD that are amazing people.
I'd say Jacks arc is really one of accepting friendship and help. At the start he's just been betrayed, his ship now under the command of Barbossa. At the end, though he ends up physically in a very similar place I believe he has learnt how to still build a web of allies amidst the backstabbing chaos of the pirate world. In the first film I think he lands in that place somewhat more cynical, masked by bravado and wit, whereas in the last film he lands there with hope and anticipation of the adventure to come. In essence, though outwardly very similar, inwardly his growth has been healing.
Captain Jack has a lot of bravado - but he does care. Sometimes. He just cares carefully, and secretly, so as to not betray his weaknesses and place restrictions on himself and his actions.
I'd love you to do a character breakdown of Will and Elizabeth, too. I can break down Will's character at length (and have done so, happily) as too often people take Will to be a boring, 2D romantic protagonist. He's far deeper, more selfless, and more utterly helpless than that. He's pure, good, honest, predictable, reckless, and self-sacrificing - but that doesn't mean he's bland. He's tugged about by fate, and the desire to help those he loves. I love his character.
In fact, Jack, Elizabeth, and Will are all brilliant foils for each other. It's part of the charm of the trio, and part of what films 4 and 5 lost. It seems like they thought Jack was the most well-liked character of 1-3 (which might not be completely inaccurate), and that everyone just wanted to see him have more adventures. I think this was a mistake. The interactions between the three of them are part of what make each so likable; with their interactions we can see more clearly each character's strengths and weaknesses.
Jack is charismatic, thinks well on his feet, but perhaps keeps too many secrets and hides his emotions too readily (even from himself), and his willingness to brag can go both ways - sometimes it buys him time, sometimes it buys the enemy time (as in the case of Will's stabbing). He appears impulsive, and can be, but not with Will's recklessness; he always has a plan up his sleeve somewhere, while Will just charges in without much of a head for strategy to speak of. Elizabeth too is headstrong and a little naive, like Will, but probably develops the most over the three movies out of the main trio - she goes from being a corset-wearing trophy daughter to being a fearless and commanding pirate king, putting her sharp mind to good use yet sometimes sharing similar flaws to Jack (the overconfidence, the secrecy). She makes her own plans, and gets stuck in. She settles into the pirate lifestyle she'd always been interested in from afar.
Will, on the other hand, remains somewhat out of place in this pirate lifestyle he's been dragged into. But what an arc from the first film! He goes from wanting to kill the first pirate he sees, to standing between Jack and the barrels of soldiers' guns within the first movie alone. He learns that pirates can be good men. And though the target of his desire to rescue changes depending on the film (Elizabeth, then his father), the motivation is still the same; he wants to help, selflessly. "Every step I make for my father is a step away from Elizabeth", he laments to Jack over it being, in his mind, a necessity that he becomes the Dutchman's captain to free Bootstrap. Bootstrap who abandoned him as a child for a life at sea, no less. But he'll do it. He'll sacrifice his happiness with his hard-won fiancee to free this man, to live a life of piracy he's never wanted to live, because he's dutiful and selfless.
I love these films (well, 1-3), and these characters.
Great video! For me this raises an interesting point about people in general... If you're willing to dig deep enough into anyone's past, you might find reasons for their actions. Maybe not good or forgivable reasons, but reasons none the less. I see Cinema Therapy's take on Jack Sparrow as the healthy way to deal with someone like this in real life. Lets face it: how many of us take to time to completely understand someone who may have cheated, betrayed and lied to us as badly as Jack has done to his friends? How could we possibly know where to draw the line with someone like him?
Due to the magic of cinematic storytelling, we the audience get to see all the hidden moments of Jack, the expressions on his face no-one else sees, the hesitations, the backstory, etc. We don't often get to see that with the bully at school, or the overbearing step-mother, or the cranky, unfair boss. Your video is great for a total understanding of a fictional character and perhaps a reminder to err on the side of cautious empathy when dealing with someone difficult, but I'm likely at best gonna reference Cinema Therapy if I encounter a Jack-like person irl.
And maybe I'm entirely missing the point, and we're not supposed to compare these fictional stories of high adventure with our everyday problematic relationships... but then again, why not? Cinema can occasionally be entertaining AND useful :)
I really love how you present your differing opinion respectfully. Thank you for your perspective on Captain Jack Sparrow, who I can never get enough of.
So I suspect the mistake that Cinema Therapy made was they came to a conclusion and then looked for evidence to support their conclusion, rather than considering all of the evidence and using it to formulate a conclusion. I notice in their video they only present examples that actually support their conclusion, leaving out all of the bits that disagree and/or writing them off in such a way that they can be ignored. Honestly, it's just not proper science and, the way I see it, one of the biggest problems with many members in the science community these days.
Yes!!! Thank you for making this video. I think Jack can be so easily misunderstood. But he genuinely does care for those close to him, and he does all the flipp flopping back and forth, as a means of self preservation, but also at the same time trying to do what’s best for the ones he cares about in the end. He knows he can’t protect them from everything, so he lets them experience challenges and fear, while he is behind the scenes, working things out, and enjoying his freedom along the way.
My read on Jack was that he was a good man forced into piracy by an unjust system. Being forced to break the law to survive he's making the best of it. The constant trickery and theft being survival tactics of one cast out by society. Ultimately, he has the arc of a static character ie: he doesn't react to the world, it reacts to him. Those he brings into his circle learn that justice requires standing against unjust systems, as they are a violent cudgel that swings at anything in its path
I think... Jack Sparrow was intended as an anti-hero and a sociopath, but the fandom surprised the writers and they had to make him more likeable in the sequels.
I would Love to see a collab with you and cinema therapy! Really love both channels and a good civil debate/ hearing multiple views. I agree with you on this one!
Me forever defending gore verbinski’s amazing trilogy! 🎥 ☠️☠️☠️
(Part 1) For anybody who is always praising the first movie to be the best. I have been studying 1-3 and I constantly re-watch them. Pirates of the Caribbean does not go downhill in writing after the first movie. That is your business to believe that opinion everyone else goes with.
Dead man’s chest gave the characters more depth! Elizabeth and William barely have anything to work with in the first movie. William’s relationship with his father that was hinted in the first movie of his father‘s existence. Paid off wonderfully. William’s character had way more in depth now and you have something to truly care about him for. You get both perspectives when you understand their Reunion! Bootstrap didn’t want Will to become a pirate like him, he wanted him to have a free life from the pirate life. William had a hard time accepting he was half Pirate but when he accepted his life and his father… He has a new journey to stab the heart of Davy Jones to set his father free.
And you’re implying William is better in the first movie just because he wanted to save the girl he loved? William in the second movie now has Elizabeth as a lover. And now a new journey to rescue his father someone else he cares about. And this became a difficult situation when bootstrap told Elizabeth at world‘s end. William has to make a decision. Either don’t kill Davy Jones so he can be with you. Or he does kill Davy Jones and set me free, but he won’t be able to be on land for 10 years. If I were him I wouldn’t pick me! 😕 The emotional weight on William’s character gets better and better.
Elizabeth in the first movie was just a damsel in distress girl. She wasn’t useless in the first movie but you get the point. In the second movie, Elizabeth learned to wield a sword and she used it in the battle. She pulled a gun to Beckett‘s head.. went on her own journey to save will.
She has grown a lot since the first movie who was just an innocent girl! Elizabeth got better as a character in 2 and 3!
As for Jack sparrow. He does not become a joke at all in all 3 movies.
Jack sparrow is at his best in the second movie and in the third movie. There was a moment in dead men’s chest… Where Jack didn’t know what he truly wanted so the compass couldn’t locate what he desired. So when Elizabeth went on her journey and then found Jack.. Jack used her for his advantage! He took advantage of Elizabeth’s feelings by telling her if you want to save Will you have to want to find the chest of Davy Jones! In order to get will back.. That’s why Jack gave her the compass. Jack knew if he couldn’t figure what he wanted out he was going to get it out of Elizabeth. Since Elizabeth now wants to find the chest of Davy Jones to save will. This gives Jack the huge opportunity to find the chest to stab the heart in it. But instead he wants to control DavyJones before killing him. Jack sparrow is not stupid! When will was trying to stab the heart towards the end of the second movie. Jack knows just because Davy Jones is dead, does not mean the Kraken will be stopped as well. And you’re telling me Jack is dumb after part 1??
As for Beckett. He was a well executed villain who uses dialogue and negotiation to control people. The Reason why Beckett didn’t fire his cannons at worlds end. Was because it would be totally out of his character to use weapons. Beckett uses certain words to get through people and how to control them behind the scenes. Beckett at the end of the movie had nothing left to negotiate with. Davy Jones was dead, Jack sparrow is alive and well. Will Turner is now the new captain of the Flying Dutchman. Beckett had literally nothing to use against on people. He was caught in shocked and he decided to die..
Anyways I could defend the Gore Verbinski’s Trilogy all night. His trilogy is an underrated trilogy. It had great character writing and amazing detail of its depth.
Also Will vs Davy Jones!!! 😈😈😈
when Will challenging Davy Jones.
Davy Jones asks him how do you know about the key?
Will replies and says, that's NOT part of the game is it? 😏 You can STILL walk away!! 😏
As for pirates 4/5 they are not even Canon they are filler movies. The story ended at worlds end! ☠️
(Part 2) Dead man’s chest has a very simple plot.. Jack sparrow is the master at controlling peoples hearts to get what he wants and out of a situation. He screwed over Will so Jack can save himself… But it worked in his favor for his reunion to meet his father.. William even told Jack you screwed me over but because of you I was reunited with my father after such a long time.. Elizabeth was caught in Jack’s illusion of trusting him to get Will back that had nothing to do with him which was a lie. Will being on Davy Jones ship had everything to do with Jack lol. Jack left on good terms with Elizabeth and William in the first movie. Elizabeth had every right to believe Jack…. It was Jack who took advantage of her feelings to find the chest by telling her if you want to find will you need to find the chest of Davy Jones! But it was an illusion so Jack can get closer to find the chest of Davy Jones to control him. But to also go back and save will after Jack got what he wanted.
If people don’t understand these movies that’s their problem. But I understand every movie! That’s why I rank 2>3>1 ☠️☠️☠️
(Part 3) I’m sorry to break it to you but the curse of the Black Pearl is my least favorite in the trilogy. I rewatch the trilogy every few months. And to me I just don’t find it as deep or as interesting compared to dead man’s chest or at worlds end.
Curse of the Black Pearl is still a well written amazing film. It’s just I’d rather choose having William struggle on trying to save his father from Davy Jones along side using very clever strategy and dialogue during the dice liar game on Davy Jones to get key from him.. VS William in the first movie who just wants to save Elizabeth….
I love darker storytelling and when steaks are becoming higher! Dead man’s chest gave me everything.. Elizabeth was a useful damsel in stress female lead in the first movie. But I would rather choose her character development in the second movie compared to her in the first movie.
Elizabeth pulled a gun on Beckett’s face. She went on her own journey to save William. Who also taught her how to defend herself with swords. And that paid off well at the end of the movie! Her development is miles better in (Dead mens chest) compared to herself in the first movie who just takes the fall for William to protect him from Barbosa.
Jack sparrow’s dialog and clever intelligence grew (MORE) in (dead men’s chest) and (at worlds end) and you cannot convince me otherwise. If people think he became a joke after the first movie that sounds like a (YOU PROBLEM) Jack sparrow is pretty intelligent in the second movie on being a master at manipulation and taking advantage of people around him to get himself out of a situation in order to save his life and possibly everyone else’s. He just knows how to play the game like that….. You can’t trust Jack sparrow on making the right decisions because he’s supposed to be ahead of the game on everyone’s perspective on him. If Jack was easy to follow with answers he wouldn’t be Jack sparrow lol.
Not to mention what’s with this opinion on people saying Jack sparrow was someone you should not mess with?? Jack sparrow literally wants you to mess with him so he can use that to his advantage to pull you in under his string, for you to doubt him in order to rise up above everyone else. You were caught in his illusion the entire time so he can be superior at the end of the situation and screw you over. If Jack sparrow was someone to NOT mess with, just like Davy Jones.. Then you wouldn’t be caught in Jack sparrow’s illusion on being the worst pirate in the world..
No seriously if Jack had the same fear approach as Davy Jones…. Then all you would have to do were to look at Jack sparrow for a few seconds and be so scared of him, Everyone would just run away.. literally what’s the fun in that for Jack Sparrow?! If he was someone to not mess like people claim. Then (WHY) do people keep on assisting 100% on messing with Jack Sparrow?? Please answer that man lol. That literally makes no sense… 😂
fun fact? maybe. i have read somewhere that the objects in Jack's hair originally were meant to be presents by the slaves he freed
I could always relate to Jack on many levels. I’m a loner and have a deep mistrust for society so my drive to be as free as I can is strong. I think you’ve nailed it. I was upset by the “antisocial personality “ take as I don’t think it’s true at all, that kind of take can only come from someone who doesn’t know trauma. Jack is scared and doesn’t trust anyone but all he’s trying to do is to survive. His ways are somewhat unusual but he does care although he probably wishes he didn’t.
I don't think Jonathan and Alan were wrong about the ASPD "diagnosis". The thing about antisocial personality disorder is that it's a newer term that combines two very similar mental disorders: psychopathy and sociopathy. But that's exactly where you need to differentiate. A psychopath is born that way while sociopathy is a learned behavior. And in my book Jack falls into the latter category since psychopaths enjoy to see others suffer and will therefore deliberately harm people/animals to get that satisfaction. But like they said in the cinema therapy video, everything in life is a spectrum. I'm a sociopath myself and can confirm lots of the points they made, but just like Jack there are a few people in my life that I actually care about. So I could definitely see Captain Jack Sparrow as a mildly sociopathic guy
I totally agree with your opinion, I was a counselor and one thing I learned is that people will always do what is right by them and you can't expect anything else if you do you will always be disappointed.
I agree. Jack generally keeps his cards close to his chest, he's forever, and even if he doesn't know how he's gonna fix something, he intends to and masks it with whimsy and self interest. One clue to who he really is is when he's telling Will how piraty he is, will gets mad and says "i am not obsessed with treasure", Jack then says "not all treasure is silver and gold". I think also Jack has a good heart who doesn't follow laws and rules. And it's often associated with being bad or selfish, when that's not inherently the case. I think he recognizes that rules (especially unfair rules) shouldn't be beheld to a god tier level. That's just my opinion, summarized the best i can on 3 hours of sleep lol
I wasn't expecting this but this is a great video and you have a lot of good points! It's kinda nice to see civil disagreements about something like this and I totally understand both you and Cinema Therapy! Jack is clearly a very complex character and there is a lot stuff that involves his character.
Agree with this. In regard to Jack's arc, I think its all childhood, pleasure, playing and adventure. I think in the next two movies, he begins to grow up and trust others again.
i think Jack sums it up fairly well himself in Curse of the Pearl, "you can either accept your father was good man, and a pirate, or you cant"
Yeah, this one left me cold, too! Seemed a bit of a reach. But then, they tried to paint Loki as a 'narcissist', so.... (I mean, the TV show did too, but that was just lazy writing at that point.)
I mean, Loki is a bit of a narcissist, just maybe not in the clinical sense. But he definitely has a number of narcissistic qualities. And I thought the show actually portrayed him as way less narcissistic, honestly.
In my opinion Jack is a good man tangled up in an extremely cruel, unpredictable, unforgiving environment where the less that amiable traits are the ones necessary to survive and if possible, thrive. So, he perfects that art of pretending to have most of those traits and try and live his life with his own perceived purpose and with his own values.
And yes, I don't think he has an ark in the series. He is like Toph of the pirate world. Doesn't need a well defined ark to work (I do think Toph had a minor ark though).
I always picture Jack as a pirate living in the shadow of his father. His father was this great pirate who now is the keeper of their sacred code. He was the best. Jack doesn't feel like he lives up to the great Captain Teague. So, everything he has done has been a conflict between his need to live up to and outdo the legend that came before him, with his inner sense of right and wrong. He's desperately trying to do the right thing while also stay in a position to achieve his ultimate goal. I agree that the mutiny taught him to keep his plans close to his chest and to behave in a more unpredictable manner.
I would definitely watch an in-depth analasys of his character, I'm already sad this video is as short as it is (though I thoroughly enjoyed it!) cuz there's so much more to be said about Jack :)
Let us please not forget that right after Davy Jones takes will turner, Jack immediately asks for him back to get 100 souls
I had the same thoughts watching their video but it was so long since I'd watched the movie I couldn't be sure I was right.
I'm here for the caring discussion about great characters and therapy angles. Ty for this video!
Please DO an full character analysis on Jack, it would be the MOST AMAZING WATCH!
I feel like Jack is in constant battle with himself, his good nature battling his need for survival. And his trauma plays a huge role in that. His good nature led him to being a hunted man, and then to be abandoned. To hold on to his good nature in the face of this terrible world and dangerous role he lives in is, I think, a huge part of his characterisations and choices.
Not to mention:
People seem to forget, or not acknowledge, that Jack was severely physically abused by his Grandmama as a child-this trauma was said to be her way of loving him; it’s one of the reasons why he ran away from home at 12 y/o.
It makes sense that he would push real love and affection away.
I also got the feeling watching cinema therapy that they weren't completely right about Jack and their video got me thinking a lot about his character.
Jack comes off as pretty contradictory at times, I don't think he's necessarily an outright hero, there are a lot of greys there, but he is most of the time a good guy posing as bad and selfish. The same man that liberated a hundred slaves would condemn anyone to servitude on the Dutchman, but he did gamble with Will's live even if he hoped to save him in the end...
I also don't think Jack would've sacrificed his desire to become immortal for Will in the first movie, but that may be in part because he didn't have as much of an attachment to Will then nor did he fear death as a tangible threat before he was confronted with Jones coming back for him. It's not necessarily because of his growth as a character cause as you said, there isn't much of an arc there.
If anything his arch is about regression. In the first movie Jack is pretty much always one step ahead of everyone else. But as soon as the second one starts he's lost that control, he's scared and running away and not acting like himself. His arc then becomes about going back to how he used to be and so we end the movie with him back were he started.
As a clinician as well, I almost always agree with CT but the antisocial diagnosis of Jack didn't sit quiiiiiiite right with me, and I was interested to see that your take on it aligned more with how I see Jack, as well! Thanks for this great video!
Jack has no arc, neither a journey his live is an adventure, his dream is to be captain of the best pirate crew the way is the journey and we are here to join his adventure.
Love both channels, so glad you made this video. I was thinking a lot of these things during their video, while I did enjoy their video I agree with yours. I definitely agree about what the Pearl represents.
One thing I did enjoy about their video was that the diagnosis... While I think they're wrong about why Jack does what he does and they've bought his intentional unpredictability he uses to prevent being screwed over... I think it's nice to have an actually fun and good character with that personality disorder associated? Because there are a lot of disorders people only see as serial killer or cruel or whatever. But while he might have the disorder and usually has self serving behaviours, he is regularly altruistic. He never had to save Elizabeth. It definitely made him a target and did technically get him caught in the long run there. I like a non villain being interpreted as having antisocial personality disorder.
based video. Good points made, not insulting Cinema Therapy, instead respectfully disagreeing and providing your alternative perspective. A breath of fresh air in an internet of anger and thoughtless takes.
I had to stop and google what based meant but thank you!
that graphical intro was beautiful
I'm glad to know there's someone else out there who saw Captain Jack Sparrow the way I saw him. 😊
more to the point of the whole freedom thing... Jack literally says exactly that in COTBP.
"It's not just a rudder and a hull and a keel and sails, that's what a ship needs. But what a ship is... what the Black Pearl really is... is freedom."
That is genuinely one of my favorite Jack Sparrow lines. It so perfectly sums up his motivations. That particular moment in the scene is where you see Jack at arguably his most open in regards to his goals. “Wherever we want to go… we’ll go! That’s what a ship is, y’know.” He makes his endgame so very clear throughout the franchise, but that particular moment is one I always find sort of melancholy and more moving than the rest.
I can't wait to watch this! I hadn't watched the cinema therapy video in part because the title and I don't agree with the diagnosis, but now I have to watch it so I can enjoy your response to the fullest.
They're therapists, they're wrong about basically everything most of the time 😁
I've always thought it dead obvious that Jack was pretending, or even wanting to be without empathy or compassion, in order to get by. Thus, I didn't agree with the antisocial verdict.
So glad this was recommended to me. this was all i was thinking while watching cinema therapy as someone who has watched the trilogy movies multiple times since i was a kid. the only thing i disagree is with the fact he has no arc. i think his arc in the trilogy contrasts will's. while will learns that sometimes you have to break the law to do good, jack learns he needs to give away freedom to do good, hence why he starts just using will to regain the black pearl and ends giving away immortality to save his life. not that his arc is important because he's a side character written to support will and elizabeth's arcs but it's still there.
I don't think they had an actual idea for Jack's character arc, since the story revolves around everyone else more than him (in the trilogy), and that's exactly why the 4th and 5th movies didn't worked, because he is not a main character that needs to learn a lesson, he has no arc, never had, so the story can't follow him, it has to follow everyone around him
My initial reaction (especially as someone who studied social Psychology as a Sociology major so I met a lot of future therapists in my student days while not being one myself): "Uhhhhhhhhhhhh Psych Major Beef! FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT!" 😁😁
I guess that if Eren Yeager did not born on Paradis, he most likely choose to live as a pirate as a way of defying Marley. You know, gathering a crew made up of people who hates Marley and on a spree of plundering the trading vessels, the Marleyan ones in particular, not only because he wanted to live the life of absolute freedom but also because he can ad he also hated Marley for what they did to him and his people.
Also, does Jack Sparrow have what it takes to begin the Rumbling?
I know this comment is really late to the discussion but I have to get this thought out. I think there is a very important piece of evidence missing to this side. Basically said that Jack was trading Will for his soul and settling his debt to Jones but he wasn’t. It was already established earlier when Jack made a deal with Will to have Will get the key. They also learn from Tia Dalma where the key is, with Jones. The whole point of that moment was so that Jack could get Will on the ship. The deal he made with Jones then was more so Jones would keep Will and let Jack leave without suspecting what Jack actually had planned. Jack may have also been trying to buy time by getting the Kraken off of the hunt. Or at least that’s how I saw all of that. Jack may have been planning to sacrifice a hundred men as a back up if he couldn’t get the compass working but that wasn’t the original plan.
Another piece to this is that Jack knew all along what stabbing the heart would do. Early in Dead Man’s Chest Tia Dalma states, “Jack Sparrow does not know what he wants. Or does he but is loathe to claim it as his own.” Eluding to how Dutchman must have a Captain. This information however is officially stated until At Worlds End when Jack isn’t present because of being in the locker. Except in the locker Jack was contemplating stabbing the heart and becoming Captain of the Dutchman. This means Jack always knew the consequences of stabbing the heart but Will did not by the end Dead Man’s Chest. So when Jack says, “If you kill Jones, who is to call his beasty off of the hunt.” He had to have known that the next captain of the Dutchman could do that and that Will likely would. Problem is Will has no idea the consequences of stabbing the heart but Jack does. Jack is not great saying things explicitly and they didn’t have much time. That and/or he was trying to save Will from the impossible choice. But I think Jack was trying to prevent Will from stabbing the heart more to save Will from that fate than anything else. We already know what lengths Jones is willing to go to when someone else has the heart in the third movie. Likely, they could have bargained to both settle Jack’s debt and free Will’s father. Of course had explained all of this there would be no epic sword duel or third movie. But yeah this sort of how I see all of this. I could be wrong. Movies are up for interpretation. But I just felt like this was evidence that was left out and could have been used. That’s all.
You can have aspd and have defense mechanisms, insecurities, and even care about specific people (for the benefit they give to yourself-relationships are explicitly transactional in their minds). There does tend to be little to no remorse for past bad actions if said action benefited them in the end. They can grow to understand that that bad action doesn't get them what they want-admiration, entertainment, someone to rely on in case they need help, etc. They even can have strong attachments to certain beliefs. I think there's a spectrum in aspd as well. It's ok to have aspd. It's what you do while having it that really matters.
I’m so happy to find a video by someone who understands Captain Jack the way I do :) I truly believe there is way more good in him than most people give him credit for. And he keeps proving me right over and over again.
I would love a character study on Jack Sparrow. Alot of the characters in the movies were complex and interesting. Seeing them develop and change was fun.