#…. anyway for some reason I left off in dark era on my most recent rewatch and just saw that scene again

[doctorweebmd]

actually the parallels between oda and Akutagawa are insane

[sanoiro]

Sinnerman: A not so Mini meta post anymore...

Due to my time restrictions but my desire to write this I decided that a quick meta post was in order before the weekend and certainly before 3x02. Yet be warned that this might turn a bit longer that I expect to myself...  We have several clues on who Sinnerman might be and the good thing is that we can think outside the box with Lucifer the show. This is not Supernatural and so we have a mythos to rely on which comes from 150(!) comic-book/graphic novels! 

So let’s begin with the clues from the interviews: 

What makes the Sinnerman a different kind of antagonist than ones we’ve seen before?

Modrovich: He’s a badass. But what you also find is that he does have a hidden history with some characters in our show that come out and Lucifer has to face off against.

Henderson: We look at him like a bizarre reflection of Lucifer. We learn in an upcoming episode that he also gives out favors, but his are a little bit more nefarious. When this guy gives out favors, you’re really dreading the payment that you’ll have to give. So it’s sort of the Devil facing a dark reflection of himself.

What can you say about the Sinnerman’s intentions in kidnapping Lucifer?

Henderson: The Sinnerman’s the kind of person who knows that putting angel wings on the Devil will only drive him deeper in the other direction. So Lucifer, whether he likes it or not, is being manipulated.

Modrovich: And that Sinnerman has a motivation in taking Lucifer into the desert that’s other than the wings. He has this specific motivation that we will reveal to you throughout the entire season. He has a personal reason.

“Our friend Lieutenant Pierce suggests to Lucifer that he knows about the Sinnerman and they start to collaborate together in this tangled web that we weave in Season 3,” Ellis reveals to TV Guide.

HENDERSON: Yeah, and at the end of the first episode, we get this first clue as to who this person might be, and realizing it might be a darker force than he’s encountered previously.

To Summarise the above Sinnerman: 

1) Has hidden history with some characters in our show - Meaning more than one. Pierce for sure but also Lucifer apparently. 

2) We look at him like a bizarre (dark) reflection of Lucifer - Is that even possible to be darker than Lucifer himself I will say yes because I have a few theories on that but you will have to scroll further down for them.  3) He gives out nefarious favours with high stake payments - This alone gives us a hint on what or who we are looking for.  4) Sinnerman knew how to give Lucifer his wings and that it would cause Lucifer to act in a certain way - Meaning not only he has the knowledge of how to handle and manipulate divinity but also knows Lucifer... Really knows Lucifer...

5) Sinnerman gave Lucifer his wings for a certain reason which Henderson might have revealed above. He has a personal reason to do that... - This info again limits the suspects quite a lot but never ever forget that this is not a show based on the angels we know but its foundations are in a mythos woven by Sandman and Lucifer the comics...  6) Finally, Marcus Pierce will have to admit that he knows about Sinnerman which will lead to a weird partnership with different agendas between Lucifer and Marcus. 

7) It is given by Henderson as a darker force Lucifer has ever faced before...

What we know from the show and most importantly 3x01: 

(At this point of the post I realised it was never meant to be a small one *sigh*)

He was just a routine gig.I was gonna swap him for you, but when I went to pull you out of the van, you you had friggin' wings, man!

What we know from the kidnapper is that he just had to get him out of the van not that he actually kidnapped him! So that means that we may have a three-act play. 

Lucifer when he is contemplating how he was kidnapped he says “...-how were they able to render me unconscious? Either they used some kind of celestial weapon, or the detective was nearby.” He never thinks that there might have been a celestial being but we saw the weapon they used so we should at this point leave out Chloe’s presence near the hospital out of the picture and focus on that the kidnapper might have indeed used something of celestial origin... As we know from the piece celestial toys were left on earth along with a Summerian (Assyrian really...) manual...  The second is how did he get his wings? Well, here we have again Lucifer’s reasoning to play with although I don’t agree with that much it gives me again hint: “Did my Father give you some kind of totem? A talisman? - What?”

At this point, the writers through Lucifer give us another good hint and it is closely connected to the next quote but seriously think about it... In Lucifer’s reasoning, an object can hold mystical powers enough to give him back his wings. In not so many words, magic is getting into the Lucifer (Tv Show) mythology finally... Divine power is one thing but infused and transportable as magic can be a complicated notion to conceive and handle yet... 

And I don't know your dad. Unless, is your, is your dad the Sinnerman?

I was rewatching that scene but I wonder if the guy had made the connection with Lucifer’s insistence that some kind of dark magic for the lack of better word was in the mix. Funny... because why would a man who knew Sinnerman assume so easily that a feathered Lucifer could be the son of Sinnerman if Sinnerman did not hold a certain unearthly charisma himself? Of course that’s just speculation. 

Finally, in 3x01 even Lucifer acknowledges that: 

At first, I thought it was a an emissary on Earth working on Dad's behalf, but then, the more I think about it, the more I think maybe this isn't our Father who art in Heaven at all. But something much, much darker.

The above is actually a pretty good connection link to the comics... But anyway  Lucifer says this is something much, much darker and Amenadiel’s expression was giving away something the first time I watched the episode but I cannot be sure. Still, Amenadiel’s not so obvious reaction had me thinking that as the firstborn in the show he preceded Lucifer and knew quite a few things from an era before the light aka Lucifer was born... Although we do know that Mum had the same power aka to illuminate the universe... 

A clue from Twitter yesterday from Ildy had me thinking again of the usual suspects but you have to be aware of something. I can only speculate on comic characters or characters that may be based on the comics. Certain elements from the show appear on and off in the tv series like the “space vagina” That was actually taken from the first issues of Lucifer and is shown near the end as well. 

So Ildy says that something might have indeed escaped Hell... Hmmm... What we can also speculate is that as Marcus is hunting down Sinnerman, this season’s bad guy only recently found his way to L.A. but the second season would have been enough for him to grow out of favours and establish a mob persona strong enough to get to L.A. and target Lucifer when Mum was gone... We might even suspect that Mum was but a diversion for Lucifer, Sinnerman created for him to make sure he was safe before he started plotting.... Of course, we cannot speculate everything. I’m sure that the writers have come up with some crazy and absurd details I cannot speculate about but that’s the thing, I can get to the comics and try to see who the usual suspects might be...  Right now I have two comic book, inspired perhaps than transferred from the comic book universe to the show, characters that might be Sinnerman. And then a third speculation...  The first but not the best candidate for Sinnerman’s real identity is Dumas. I’ll just copy paste his info here: 

Duma is a fallen angel from the DC Vertigo series The Sandman. Before The Sandman

Duma's name means "silence", and he is based on the angel Duma from Jewish mythology. In those tales, he is the angel of silence and death's stillness. According to these same stories, he is the guardian of Egypt and the prince of vindication. Based on this, one could speculate that he was the angel who killed the firstborn Egyptians in Moses' time. Some sources also name him a "Prince of Hell".

The Zohar, a book of Jewish mysticism, describes his position in Hell as such that he had "tens of thousands of angels of destruction" under him, and that he was "chief of demons in Gehinnon with 12,000 myriads of attendants, all charged with the punishment of the souls of sinners."

Dumah is also the name given to the guardian of the 14th gate, through which the goddess Ishtar passed on her journey to the underworld in Babylonian mythology. Dumah may or may not be related to Duma.

In The Sandman

In Season of Mists, we find that Lucifer has closed down Hell in frustration, and given the key to Dream. Eventually, after much squabbling between various gods, Duma and Remiel are assigned to assume control of Hell, and Duma accepts this.

After The Sandman

Following the end of The Sandman series, Remiel and Duma lose ownership of Hell in the Lucifer spin-off series. Duma eventually allies with Lucifer and Elaine Belloc to save creation, and persuades Hell's new ruler Christopher Rudd to bring his army to Heaven's aid at the Battle of Armageddon.

The second and the one I’m rooting more than Duma is The Silk Man...

Appearing for the first time in Lucifer: Nirvana, The Silk Man is an immortal sorcerer, described by Lucifer as

"..a fossil remnant from an earlier, cruder creation. His body is a weaving that has to be renewed constantly. His spirit too, come to that. A messy form of immortality, but it seems to do the job." In earlier days he was the leader of the Arao Jinn. He appears as a mercenary, hired by the angel Perdissa to kill Lucifer. He seems to need to consume living things to stay alive, weaving them into himself. He is severely damaged by Perdissa and eventually killed by Lucifer.

The Silk Man seems to be closely connected to my third speculation and as such it might be a merge of the two... In the comics, God admits that he was created by an external force and we do know that darker things lying around the cosmos and outside The Creation... Darker, twisted and defeated by Dad... Still, where would all these defeated “things” go? In Hell I suppose... 

Following a mythology of Zeus and how he enprisoned the Titans under the Earth, we can say that this is a popular mythos to follow with one crucial flow. What precedes you have the knowledge of how to overpower you in time... Amenadiel might have been around at that point and might had to help Him to get rid some of them Sinnerman included.....  Now The Silk Man was killed by Perdissa... But I suspect that Lucifer’s light bringing power which freed Mum might come back for that task... If you need more info about that just read Lucifer: Nirvana. Lucifer Issue 75 also has a good interaction of our hero with The Sillk Man as well though....

Anyway to finish this post... I do not believe that Sinnerman is a mere human but at the same time I cannot believe he is a celestial being at least not in the sense we have known them to be in the tv series so far. So perhaps an external force whch we know they exist from the comics? Perhaps... Let’s not forget that the Sinnerman as a casting role is new so I doubt we will see for example Malcolm back or anything of that nature in our screens soon but to the ones who want to learn more about the external forces I’ll just leave you with Carey’s two answers on that matter on Twitter...

The Dream of a Thousand Cats is a darkish one... The allegory in that story where cats once ruled over people only for the past to change goes beyond your usual comic book standards (even for Sandman in my opinion) and the fourth wall sometimes shutters but it is what it is.... 

As the episodes come rolling I’ll probably change my conviction over who Sinnerman is but until then this post will have to do... I apologise for its length :P 

[thisguywatchesfilm-blog]

So I just saw... Every feature film by Stanley Kubrick

So every person who is at least moderately interested in film has probably heard of this man. Considered by many as the best filmmaker of all time, he only ever made 13 feature films in his career which spanned nearly 50 years. I have now finished watching every single one of them, and I`m ready to share my feelings about... most of them. I have all ready talked a little about his first 2 features, called “Fear and Desire” and “Killer`s Kiss”. Neither of them were particularly impressive, although Killer`s Kiss had some pretty sweet cinematography, shot by none other then Kubrick himself. It`s the remaining 11 films I will talk about in this post. Is Stanley Kubrick worthy of all the praise he has received, or may he be one of the most overrated directors the medium has ever seen? (short answer: definitely deserves it)

The Killing (1956)

The third feature by Kubrick is a film-noir crime drama about a group of criminals planing, and executing, a robbery. A very short film with a runtime of 1 hour and 24 minutes, and also tampered by the production code of that era. This does however not stop Kubrick from making a pretty great crime drama. Apparently the movie may have been even better had it not been for the production code, but I have no information about what potential changes he would have made, so I can`t really say for sure. Would have been more violent however. Definitely more violent. Short but sweet. 8/10

Paths of Glory (1957)

One of the best anti-war films ever made, hands down. Paths of Glory is also pretty short, but what Kubrick accomplishes in that short time is pretty fucking outstanding. All aspects of this movie is stellas, especially the cinematography and the simple yet extremely well-written story. The film is about french soldiers during world war 1, being court... eh... marshalled? Is that how you write it? Anyways. The drama is riveting, and the commentary about the attitude towards war and rank in those times are razor sharp. Spectacular movie, which I am going to give a 9/10.

Spartacus (1960)

So this movie has been disowned by Kubrick himself some time after it`s release. Basically Kirk Douglas was kind of salty after being turned down for Ben-Hur (1959), so he wanted to star in his own history epic, and landed on Spartacus. He asked more prominent directors at the time, like David Lean who turned it down, and eventually landed on a kind off reluctant Kubrick. Stanley joined the project after they had shot like 40% of the movie, and he got very limited creative control. Kirk Douglas said he under no circumstances could change the script, which Kubrick had some issues with. He also disliked the cinematography of the takes that had all ready been filmes, so he basically shot the entire movie by himself (Spartacus went on to win best cinematography that year, however Kubrick didn`t get the award as he was not the official DP of the film). The actors also despised each other, which probably didn`t help the project. Considering all of this, you might look at Spartacus and think that it turned out pretty great. Personally I thought it was pretty great before i learned all of this, but I get a greater appreciation of Kubrick learning what he had to deal with, and yet he felt obligated to stick with the project to the end. Anyways... great film! Wonderful historical epic, with some truly memorable scenes. 8/10

Lolita (1962)

This is one ballsy ass movie. Making a film about a middle aged man being in love with a 14 year old girl (the actor was also 14 at the time) while the production code was still in full effect, is no small accomplishment. When that film turns out to be a pretty fascinating character study and drama, it results in a pretty great movie. Just a well made movie across the board. I guess you could shave like 10-20 minutes off of it, but at the same time, it`s so well written that it didn`t really feel like a 2 hour 30 minutes film. Just a great movie, which is even more interesting considering the circumstances around its conception. 8/10

Dr. Strangelove or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964)

The dark satire to rule them all. This was originally meant to be a drama, but one day while working on the script, Kubrick woke up one morning and realised it had to be a dark comedy. The whole nuclear war and the end of the world could only be looked at as a twisted or morbid joke, which I find utterly fascinating. Anyways, this is a dark comedy/satire about one mad general in the US army attempting to start WW3, and the story is divided in three parts. One part is the cray-cray general Jack D. Ripper (Read it fast in case you don`t get it) and the officer trying to reason with him (played by Peter Sellers), The plane carrying the WMD`s on it`s way to start WW3, and the president and his generals in the WAR-room trying to get things under control (where Peter Sellers plays both the president, and the title character Dr. Strangelove). It`s pretty simple in that way, yet what Kubrick manages to accomplish is nothing short off genius. This is in my opinion one of the best satires I have ever seen. It is just so well-written that it fully explores the potential chance of nuclear war. It`s just a phenomenal movie, which makes you laugh, while you at the same time get really sad because of how depressingly realistic it all is. I have no plans of going into a rant about that now, but just know that this is one phenomenal movie. 9/10

2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)

So... You know this is great. There is no point in me really talking about this movie, because it`s pretty common knowledge that this is one of the best movies ever made. One of the best looking movies of all time and some of the best visual effects of all time. It`s just... It`s 2001. It`s a genuine masterpiece (in my opinion at least). 10/10

A Clockwork Orange (1971)

So I recently saw this with my roommates, and to my disappointment they where not big fans of it. Personally I`m kind off conflicted about it. Not about wether it`s good or not, but about if it`s a masterpiece or not. I reaaally love it while being kind off frustrated about it at the same time. I think the themes of the movie are utterly fascinating and well explored, while at the same time being very on the nose and not really being subtle at all. There are several themes in the film that aren`t as on the nose however... But at the same time... AGH! It`s a fantastic movie, and I`m salty about my roommates not being as fond of it. Anyways, I will give it a 9/10 for now, but that may change in the future.

Barry Lyndon (1975)

Wow! I know I all ready wrote about how 2001 is one of the best looking films off all time, but Barry Lyndon is definitely up there keeping it company. This movie is staggeringly beautiful, as corny as that may be to say. It has to be said however, because it truly is drop-dead gorgeous. The movie as a whole is one epic story about the rise and fall off one man, and even though you may think you have seen countless films about that, you probably haven`t seen anyone quite like this. It`s the a great period-piece and rise-and-fall story, but it also have the complexity of a Kubrick movie. I dont really want say anymore about it. Just sit back, relax, and enjoy this three hour long movie. I sure did, and i can`t wait to see it again. 9/10

The Shining (1980)

It`s the fucking shining. Surprisingly, the first like two times I saw this, I didn`t liek it. It wasn`t until I started studying film sciences and watching it in class, that I suddenly started to really love it. There is so much to this film, like the ending, or just all the symbolism and themes you can take from this movie. Out of all of Kubrick`s films, this is actually the one that I feel has the most rewatchability out off all of them. And that is saying a lot. I guess a people are divided about Shelly Duvall`s performance, but so far I`m fine with it. That may change the next time I watch it or something however, as may happen about many things about this movie. Apparently the US edit of this film is longer than the European version that I have seen, as Kubrick felt that american audiences needed more explanation to understand what was going on. Do with that info what you please. Anyways, possibly one of the best horror movies of all time. 9/10

Full Metal Jacket (1987)

Now I had watched this a long time ago, and I was really looking forward to rewatch it. I`m surprised to say that this kind off disappointed me. Don`t get me wrong, it`s pretty damn good. But It`s not anywhere near the caliber (get it?) of 2001, Barry Lyndon, Clockwork or the Shining. It`s a really solid-antiwar movie, and R. Lee Ermey yelling at people is fantastic, but it`s not really more than that. The characters are explored very little, even for Kubrick-standards (he doesn`t really do all that much of character-development i think, with some obvious exceptions), and I feel this may be one of those movies that would have been better with it. I get what he`s going for here don`t get me wrong, I just feel that it maybe some character development would have helped making a bigger impact in later scenes. I`m no expert however, so that may be a stupid opinion. Anyways, it`s impactful, especially the great ending, but I`m sadly very used to seeing horrible things in movies that this just feels a little tame, which sucks. It`s still a great movie though, just not as good as I might have hoped. 8/10

Eyes Wide Shut (1999)

So this was apparently meant to be 20 minutes shorter, but as Kubrick sadly passed away during it`s post-production, nobody knew what he wanted to cut away, so they just left it like it was. Now this is probably Kubrick`s most underrated movie. This is another bold movie, and I`m so happy that he finally got the opportunity to make it before his passing. It`s a great film to end the career of one of the greatest directors of all time. Especially Cruise kills it in this film, and the mystery is just fantastic, especially the resolution and meaning. The visuals are also fantastic, and you can really see that Kubrick are saying something with this film, which wasn`t really explored at all back then. One of the biggest surprises without a doubt, I give this a 8/10 after my first watch, but it may very well end up with a higher rating after multiple views.

Wow this took surprisingly long to write, which is sad as I`m not really saying anything worth anything here. Anyways here are some very short thoughts about the filmography of Stanley Kubrick, who has turned out to possibly be my favourite director. What an absolute legend. In case you, the nonexistent reader, are interested in seeing my ranked list of his films, the link is here: https://letterboxd.com/cranberry24/list/stanley-kubrick-ranked/

Now I`m going back to the Hitchcock “binge”. With exams closing in, you probably won`t see me getting around to completing my binge however, but I may pop in some movie “reviews”/thoughts here and there. Importing to train on the writing, even if my writing is just trash. Peace!