Friday, October 16, 2009

Manhunter analysis - part 29: Lecktor's call to Dr. Bloom's office

CATEGORY: MOVIES     [Hidden plot related]

Lecktor calls Bloom's office.

Let us go back and look at Graham's meeting with Lecktor. At one point during their conversation, Will mentions that Dr. Bloom showed him an article that he (Lecktor) wrote for a psychiatry journal. At a later point, Graham says that Bloom is working on the Tooth Fairy case. After Graham has left, Lecktor has a phone brought to his cell and uses some trickery to get through to the AT&T operator. He then has the operator dial the University of Chicago Department of Psychiatry - Lecktor has that phone number memorized, and he gives it to the operator. When a woman answers the phone, he asks for Dr. Sydney Bloom - he knows Bloom's first name. He is informed that Dr. Bloom is not in, and, after asking for, and obtaining, the name of his secretary, is put through to her desk. Another woman answers, and tells him that the secretary (Martha) is not in nights.

Some of this scenario is fine insofar as one could guess that Lecktor already has knowledge of Dr. Bloom - this can be theorized from Graham's free use of Bloom's name while talking to Lecktor, and Lecktor not responding by saying, "Who?" Presumably, Lecktor has either read one or more journal articles by Bloom, or knows of him by reading about him. Thus, it doesn't seem surprising that he knew Bloom's first name. And, it's not surprising that he knows from his reading, where it is that Bloom works as well. But when we note that he has Bloom's phone number memorized, we must conclude that either Lecktor happened to see Bloom's phone number printed in a journal, which is not normal practice for magazine publishers, or that he has interacted with Bloom in the past, at least by phone, and for this reason has the number memorized.

We note that while Lectkor is speaking on the phone with the woman standing in for Martha, he sounds like he is somewhat familiar with the interior of Bloom's office, for example, he knows there is a call caddy on the secretary's desk. On the surface, the Manhunter audience is to infer that Lecktor knows that there are typically call caddies on secretary's desks, but when considering his certain knowledge that there is one on Martha's desk, together with the fact that he has memorized Bloom's phone number, it becomes evident that Lecktor has specific knowledge of Bloom and his office.

It is, in fact, the case that Lecktor has called Bloom from his cell in the past. This is why he showed no hesitation when using his technological trickery to get the phone call through to the AT&T operator - he knew exactly what he was doing, because he had done it before. Whenever Lecktor calls Bloom's office, he identifies himself as "Bob Greer, of Blaine and Edwards Publishing Company." This is actually the 'code name' he uses to converse with Bloom over the phone - obviously, he doesn't want other people in Bloom's office to know that Hannibal Lecktor is calling. Whenever Bloom hears this name, he knows it is Lecktor calling him.

However, a couple of questions arise with respect to the above: first, if Lecktor is familiar with Bloom's office, why does he have to ask for the name of the secretary (Martha King) when someone first answers the phone? Certainly, if he is so familiar with the office, he should know her name. And secondly, why does he call the office at night, when he should know that Dr. Bloom and Martha are not in?

With respect to the first question, his asking for her name ("What's his secretary's name again?") is designed to make the person on the other end believe that Lecktor ('Bob Greer') has called before, but that he is not a frequent caller. At the same time, Lecktor asking for the name 'sets up' the Manhunter audience so that once the phone conversation is further along, the entirety of it seems coherent to us; that is, we believe that this is all part of Lecktor's fooling the people on the other end (we are to think: "Once he has the secretary's name, he can pretend that he knows her when his call is passed through to Bloom's office...").

With respect to the second question above, that is, why Lecktor would call at night, when he would know that Bloom and Martha would not be in, the answer to this is that he did know this - his intention is to call while they are not there, and to get Graham's home address from whoever is standing in. He knows that if he asked Bloom for the address directly, Bloom would get suspicious as to why he wants it. And, if he asked Martha for the address, she might mention to Bloom while Lecktor is on the phone, that he is asking for Graham's address, which would also make Bloom suspicious.

In the next post, we will see what the implication is, of the fact that Lecktor and Bloom regularly interact with each other.


Tuesday, October 13, 2009

Manhunter analysis - part 28: More on speech in the movie


In part 3 of the analysis we discussed things in the movie having to do with speech, and then later in part 19 we connected this to the biblical city of Babylon, and that part of the book of Genesis which describes how God intentionally confounded the language of its inhabitants, so that they would have trouble understanding each other's speech. As was mentioned, Saint Augustine tells us that this is how the diversity of languages was introduced into the world.

As mentioned earlier, there is a metaphorical 'diversity of language' between Will Graham and Jack Crawford, in that there are differences in the ways they pronounce certain persons' names, for example, that of Lloyd Bowman: Graham pronounces it with the 'ow' sounding like a long 'o', whereas Crawford pronounces the 'ow' more like that in 'cow'.

We now turn to Augustine's City of God, chapter 7 of Book 19, which discusses the effect of diversity of language on interaction between individuals:

After the state or city comes the world, the third circle of human society - the first being the house, and the second being the city. And the world, as it is larger, so it is fuller of dangers, as the greater sea is the more dangerous. And here, in the first place, man is separated from man by the difference of languages. For if two men, each ignorant of the other's language, meet, and are not compelled to pass, but, on the contrary, to remain in company, dumb animals, though of different species, would more easily hold intercourse than they, human beings though they may be. For their common nature is no help to friendliness when they are prevented by diversity of language from conveying their sentiments to one another; so that a man would more readily hold intercourse with his dog than with a foreigner. ...

City of God (Dods)


Sunday, October 11, 2009

Manhunter analysis - part 27: References to randomness and games of chance


In this post we look at references to randomness and games of chance in Manhunter.

Above left: The opening scene in the movie shows Crawford offering some photographs of the murdered families to Graham, by laying them face-down on a log the two men are sitting on. Crawford says, "If you can't look anymore, I understand." A close-up of Crawford's hand suggests that he is placing the photos as if handling playing cards, and this idea is further suggested when Graham says, "Don't try to run a game down on me, Jack." Above right: Later, in the scene in the Jacobis' back yard, Graham sees that the Tooth Fairy (Francis Dollarhyde) has carved a character into a tree. This character turns out to be Chinese, and, as Crawford tells Graham, it is a lucky symbol in gambling, and it also appears on a Mahjong piece.

In another scene, a reference to the game of billiards (pool) is made when investigator Jimmy Price tells Graham and Crawford about the thumb print found on the eye of the oldest Leeds child: "It [the print] stood out from an eight ball hemorrhage caused by the [killer's] gunshot wound."[a] The eight ball is one of the balls used in the game of pool. In a later scene, a reference to the lottery is made, in Graham's statement to Crawford about the women the Tooth Fairy has killed: "All these women have a bloom on them - he didn't win them in a lottery."

A subtle reference to randomness is made during Graham's talk with Lecktor in Baltimore, when Lecktor says to Will, "This [the Tooth Fairy] is a very shy boy, Will. What were the yards like?" The way that Lecktor pronounces "yards" sounds similar to "yahds", which makes it sound like he's asking, "what were the odds like?"

To wrap up on this topic for now, we note that 'Leeds', the surname of one of the Tooth Fairy's victim families, is a reference to the lead in certain card games, which is a term used for the first card played in a given hand.

a. An eight ball hemorrhage is a hyphema in which the front chamber of the affected eye is completely filled with blood.


Saturday, October 10, 2009

Manhunter analysis - part 26: More on Lecktor's manipulation of Will Graham

CATEGORY: MOVIES    [Hidden plot related]

Back in part 21 of the analysis, we began going over Graham's phone conversation with Lecktor, and we left off at the point where Lecktor says to Will, "We don't invent our natures, they're issued to us along with our lungs and pancreas and everything else. Why fight it?" We now return to the conversation:

When Lecktor says, "Why fight it?", Will in turn asks, "Fight what?" Lecktor responds, "Did you really feel so depressed after you shot Mr. Garrett Jacob Hobbs to death? I didn't know you then, but I think you probably did. But it wasn't the act that got you down, was it? Didn't you really feel so bad, because killing him felt so good? And why shouldn't it feel good?" Lecktor is making these statements to tap into the killer instinct within Will, and to re-enforce it by making its existence seem acceptable to Will.

Lecktor continues, "It [killing] must feel good to God. He does it all the time. God's terrific! He dropped a church roof on thirty-four of his worshipers last Wednesday night in Texas, while they were groveling through a hymn to His Majesty. Don't you think that felt good?" Lecktor is here enticing Will by suggesting that there is an act he can perform (killing), which will make him feel good. Will asks, "Why does it feel good, Dr. Lecktor?" Lecktor responds, "It feels good because God has power. And if one does what God does enough times, one will become as God is." This is the critical part of the conversation. At this point, Will moves the receiver away from his ear, and looks like he's thinking over something of great importance. He now sees that he can become as God is - he can become the Light (which as we said earlier, represents God, or God through Jesus). Will is getting close to believing that he can have the power of God.

In the next scene, Will 'tests' this idea when he makes another visit to the Leeds house, as detailed below.

Above left: When Will enters the Leeds' bedroom and positions his body such that he is facing the bed, he sees Mr. and Mrs. Leeds. Above right: Will next commences to 'float' toward the bed; this manner of movement, as visible from his own perspective, suggests that he believes he can be like Jesus, who performed miracles, such as walking over water.

While 'floating' toward the bed, Will speaks aloud, as if addressing Mrs. Leeds: "I see you there. And I see me desired by you. Accepted - and loved - in the silver mirrors of your eyes."

What's happening in this scene in the Leeds' bedroom is that Will believes he is beginning to acquire the power of God, i.e., power that Jesus himself would have. At the same time, Lecktor has manipulated Will's psyche such that Will will come to associate the power of God with the power to kill.


Wednesday, October 7, 2009

Manhunter analysis - part 25: Augustine on the Platonists; rel. to John the Baptist


In part 24 we observed that the bible says, about John the Baptist, that he "came as a witness to testify to the light." There is a passage in St. Augustine's City of God which draws a relationship between this light and the Platonic concept of the soul: Augustine says that the rational or intellectual soul which exists within man is 'illuminated' by the 'true light' - by this he means that this soul, which was created by God, derives blessedness from Him. This passage, from Book 10 chapter 2, introduces into our analysis certain elements of Platonism:[a]

[The Platonists] perceived, and in various forms abundantly expressed in their writings, that these spirits [angels] have the same source of happiness as ourselves,—a certain intelligible light, which is their God, and is different from themselves, and illumines them that they may be penetrated with light, and enjoy perfect happiness in the participation of God. Plotinus, commenting on Plato, repeatedly and strongly asserts that not even the soul which they believe to be the soul of the world, derives its blessedness from any other source than we do, viz., from that Light which is distinct from it and created it, and by whose intelligible illumination it enjoys light in things intelligible.

He also compares those spiritual things to the vast and conspicuous heavenly bodies, as if God were the sun, and the soul the moon; for they suppose that the moon derives its light from the sun. That great Platonist, therefore, says that the rational soul, or rather the intellectual soul,—in which class he comprehends the souls of the blessed immortals who inhabit heaven,—has no nature superior to it save God, the Creator of the world and the soul itself, and that these heavenly spirits derive their blessed life, and the light of truth from their blessed life, and the light of truth, from the same source as ourselves, agreeing with the gospel where we read,

"There was a man sent from God whose name was John; the same came for a witness to bear witness of that Light, that through Him all might believe. He was not that Light, but that he might bear witness of the Light. That was the true Light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world;" [John 1:6-9] a distinction which sufficiently proves that the rational or intellectual soul such as John had cannot be its own light, but needs to receive illumination from another, the true Light. This John himself avows when he delivers his witness: "We have all received of His fullness." [John 1:16] (Bible citations in original).

a. Platonism is the philosophy of Plato and other philosophical systems considered closely derived from it.

City of God (Dods)


Tuesday, October 6, 2009

Manhunter analysis - part 24: John the Baptist

CATEGORY: MOVIES    [Hidden plot related]

John the Baptist by Andrea del Sarto, 1528. [Image from the Wikipedia 'John the Baptist' page, public domain, via Wikimedia Commons.]

Recall that one of the biblical verses in Lecktor's book code is Luke 1:7; this verse falls under the section of Luke titled, "The Birth of John the Baptist Foretold." It is worthwhile to look over this section of Luke (in the below, some portions have been omitted for brevity, and verse 7 has been placed in italics; "barren" means sterile).

In the days of King Herod of Judea, there was a priest named Zechariah, who belonged to the priestly order of Abijah. His wife was a descendant of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth. Both of them were righteous before God, living blamelessly according to the commandments and regulations of the Lord. But they had no children, because Elizabeth was barren, and both were getting on in years...[One day] there appeared to [Zechariah ] an angel of the Lord...the angel said to him, 'do not be afraid, Zechariah, for your prayer has been heard. Your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you will name him John. You will have joy and gladness, and many will rejoice at his birth...He will turn many of the people of Israel to the Lord their God.'

Near the end of the section, we are told that Elizabeth eventually conceives.

Now let us turn to the Gospel of John, which is also mentioned in the book code. John the Baptist, who is the 'John' referred to in the passage below, was the 'forerunner' of Jesus; he is not the same John as the author of the Gospel of John. We begin at John 1:1, under "The Word Became Flesh":

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being. What has come into being in him was life, and the life was the light of all people. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it.

There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. He came as a witness to testify to the light, so that all might believe through him. He himself was not the light, but he came to testify to the light. The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world. He [Jesus] was in the world, and the world came into being through him...And the Word became flesh and lived among us, and we have seen his glory, the glory of a father's only son, full of grace and truth. (John testified to him and cried out, "This was he of whom I said, 'he who comes after me ranks ahead of me, because he was before me.' ")...

Again, John the Baptist was a forerunner of Jesus - he foretold Jesus' coming. Note the mention of "the light" - this is a reference to Jesus himself. Recall that one phrase used by Lecktor in his part of the toilet tissue note reads, "just as the source of light is burning." The use of this phrase by Lecktor is to get Will's unconscious mind 'thinking' that he (Will) can become Christ. This idea will be discussed in detail later.

The Gospel of Matthew explicitly states that "John [the Baptist] was the one who was spoken of in the prophet Isaiah" as one "crying aloud in the wilderness." John preaches baptism for the forgiveness of sin and he proclaims a future leader who "will baptize you with the Holy Spirit." Matthew records John as preaching "the kingdom of heaven is at hand" and a "coming judgment."

In the Gospel of John, John the Baptist directly denies being the Christ or Elijah or 'the prophet', instead describing himself as the "voice of one crying in the wilderness." Jesus's baptism is implied but not depicted. Unlike the other gospels, it is John himself who testifies to seeing "the Spirit come down from heaven like a dove and rest on him." John explicitly announces that Jesus is the one "who baptizes with the Holy Spirit" and John even professes a "belief that he is the Son of God." and "the Lamb of God."[a]

a. Wikipedia, 'John the Baptist'. Web, n.d. URL =


Monday, October 5, 2009

Manhunter analysis - part 23: John of Patmos, author of the book of Revelation


St. John the Evangelist on Patmos by Hieronymous Bosch, circa 1489. [Image from the Wikipedia 'John of Patmos' page, public domain, via Wikimedia Commons.]

John of Patmos is the name given to the author of the book of Revelation (or book of the Apocalypse) in the New Testament. According to the text of Revelation, the author, who gives his name as 'John,' is living on the Greek island of Patmos. Many believe John was in exile. In Revelation, he writes to the seven Christian churches in Asia to relate two apocalyptic visions he has had. John of Patmos is often referred to as John the Divine, or John the Theologian, and the message he received is considered divine Revelation by most Christians. Apocalypse is a Greek word for revelation or uncovering, and divine an old Anglican usage meaning theologian. He is also known as the Eagle of Patmos and John the Seer. Several Christian denominations regard him as a prophet and a saint.

John of Patmos is traditionally believed to be the same person as both John, the apostle of Jesus and John the Evangelist, author of the Gospel of John. Justin Martyr, writing in the early 2nd century, was the first to equate the author of Revelation with John the apostle. Some biblical scholars now contend that these were separate individuals.[a]

a. Wikipedia, 'John of Patmos'. Web, n.d. URL =


Sunday, October 4, 2009

Manhunter analysis - part 22: Man as microcosm of the universe


Above left and right: Pictures and posters of space and celestial bodies in Dollarhyde's house.

In the previous post in this analysis, the idea of there being a relationship between the classical planets and the vital bodily organs was mentioned. There was an interesting article on this topic published in the year 1913 in a magazine called The Word. The article was titled, "Is man a microcosm of the macrocosm, the universe in miniature? If so, the planets and the visible stars must be represented within him. Where are they located?" Part of the article is quoted below.

"Thinkers in different times and in various ways, said the universe is epitomized in man. As a metaphor or in fact, this is likely to be true. It does not mean that the universe has fingers and toes and wears eyebrows and hair on a head, nor that the universe is built according to the present dimensions of man's physical body, but it means that the operations of the universe may be characterized and featured in man by his organs and parts. The organs in man's body are not made to fill space, but to perform certain functions in the general economy and welfare of the organism as a whole. The same may be said of bodies in the firmament.

"The scintillating rays of light and the steady glowing orbs in the heavens are media through which universal forces act in the body of space, according to universal law and for the general welfare and economy of the whole. The internal organs, such as sex organs, kidneys, spleen, pancreas, liver, heart and lungs, are said to be correspondence of and bearing a direct relation to the seven planets. Such scientists and mystics as Boehme, Paracelsus, Von Helmont, Swedenborg, the fire philosophers and alchemists, have named the organs and planets which correspond to each other. They do not all give the same correspondences, but agree that there is a reciprocal action and relation between the organs and the planets. ..."[a]

a. "Is man a microcosm of the macrocosm, the universe in miniature? If so, the planets and the visible stars must be represented within him. Where are they located?" in The Word: a monthly magazine devoted to Philosophy, Science, Religion, Eastern Thought, Occultism, Theosophy, and the Brotherhood of Humanity. Ed. H.W. Percival. 17 (1913): 191. 4 October 2009. Google Books, URL =


Saturday, October 3, 2009

Manhunter analysis - part 21: Will's phone conversation with Lecktor

CATEGORY: MOVIES     [Hidden plot related]

Above left: Will takes one last puff of his cigarette, before his call to Hannibal Lecktor is put through. Above right: After he has been conversing with Lecktor a little while, Will assumes a relaxed posture.

In part 18 of the analysis, we left off with Reba and Dollarhyde having spent the night together. In the scene that follows, Graham speaks with Hannibal Lecktor by phone from his hotel room (this call had been previously arranged). In this post, we will make some very detailed observations about things which occur just before and during the phone conversation.

We note that just prior to his making the call to Lecktor, Will lights a cigarette. He takes a long 'draw' on it just prior to addressing the person who is to put him through to Lecktor; then he puts the cigarette out while identifying himself to this person.

After Will's call is put through, there is a period of silence during which Will looks as though he is intently waiting for Lecktor to answer; then he (Will) says, "Hello?" Lecktor intentionally delays answering because he needs to draw out that part of Will which is actively seeking help to resolve the dilemma within himself, that is, the dilemma within his own psyche, of whether or not he is a killer.

When Lecktor answers, the first thing he does is congratulate Will on the "job" he did on Lounds (a reference to Dollaryhde's earlier murder of Lounds). The purpose of Lecktor's saying this so early in the conversation, is to immediately recall to Will's unconscious that part of himself that is a killer (Lecktor is having Will believe that Dollahyde himself is connected to the killer within Will). Lecktor then tells Will that he'd be more comfortable if he relaxed with himself. At this point, Will leans back in his chair and puts his right leg up over one of its arms; he assumes a more relaxed posture and countenance. Also, his tone of voice becomes more informal.

Then Lecktor says, "We don't invent our natures, they're issued to us along with our lungs and pancreas and everything else. Why fight it?" Here Lecktor is suggesting to Will that it is his nature to kill, and that he should become comfortable with that. The fact that Will maintains his relaxed posture implies that he is, in fact, now becoming comfortable with the idea that he is (or will be, if Lecktor has his way) a killer. The mention of lungs here by Lecktor is related to the fact that Will smokes, especially insofar as Will had been smoking just prior to the call, as stated above. That the lungs and pancreas are mentioned by Lecktor during this phone conversation, has to do with the fact that the vital bodily organs have been linked, in Hermetic tradition, to the 'seven planets of the ancients' (i.e., the seven classical planets): Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, the moon, and the sun.

We will further discuss the relationship of the vital organs to the classical planets, in subsequent posts in the analysis.


Friday, October 2, 2009

Manhunter analysis - part 20: St. Augustine's 'City of God'


In part 19 of the analysis, we observed that the book City of God, which was written by medieval philosopher and theologian Saint Augustine, would be useful to us in analyzing Manhunter. A brief description of City of God appears below.

The City of God (also known as The City of God against the Pagans) is a book written by St. Augustine in the early 5th century, dealing with issues concerning God, martyrdom, Jews, and other aspects of Christian philosophy. The book presents human history as being a conflict between what Augustine calls the City of Man and the City of God (a conflict that is destined to end in victory of the latter, with the subsequent rise of a 'New Jerusalem'). The City of God is marked by people who forgo Earthly pleasure and dedicate themselves to the promotion of Christian values. The City of Man, on the other hand, consists of people who have strayed from the City of God. The two cities are not meant to represent any actual places or organizations, though Augustine clearly thought that the Christian Church was at the heart of the City of God.

While the book is framed by discussion of these themes, it is largely made up of various digressions on philosophical subjects and presentations of flaws in pagan religions upon which Augustine wished to comment.[a]

City of God (Dods)

a. Wikipedia, 'The City of God (book)'. Web, n.d. URL =


Manhunter analysis - part 19: Saint Augustine on Babylon


The movie Manhunter is based on Thomas Harris's 1981 novel, Red Dragon. Harris also wrote a novel called The Silence of the Lambs (in 1988), out of which a movie of that name was made, and this movie has already been extensively analyzed on this blog. In parts 20 and 21 of the Silence of the Lambs analysis, it was shown that the number on the prison uniform that Hannibal Lecktor[a] wore while an inmate in Baltimore, 'B1329-0', is a reference to the Confessions of medieval theologian and philosopher Saint Augustine of Hippo. We then used the Confessions to help further analyze The Silence of the Lambs.

Since concepts from Saint Augustine are used in The Silence of the Lambs, it seems worth checking into whether there are any such concepts in Manhunter; and, in fact, this turns out to be the case, though it is not the Confessions, but is instead Augustine's City of God that will help us analyze Manhunter.[b] This was discovered to be true by looking at Augustine's various works, and finding that he makes several references to the biblical book of Revelation in City of God, in particular, in Book 20 of City of God, which is titled, 'Concerning the Last Judgment, and the Declarations Regarding It in the Old and New Testaments'. Since we know that the book of Revelation has applicability to our movie, we thus have reason to believe that City of God will as well; and there is, in fact, at least one instance where this is true, as described below.

Recall that the ancient city of Babylon was mentioned in part 17 of the analysis; it turns out that Augustine's description of the founding of Babylon in Book 16, chapter 4, of City of God has applicability to Manhunter's use of speech difficulties (e.g., the stuttering of various characters mentioned earlier) and differences (Graham's and Crawford's different pronunciations of persons' names). Below is quoted the applicable portion of Book 16, chapter 4 of City of God, including parts of Augustine's quoted material from chapter 11 of Genesis:

Of the diversity of languages, and of the founding of Babylon
But though [the nations descended from Noah] are said to have been dispersed according to their languages, yet the narrator [of Genesis] recurs to that time when all had but one language, and explains how it came to pass that a diversity of languages was introduced.

"The whole earth," he says, "was of one language and one lip, and all had one speech...And [the families of Noah's descendants] said, Come, and let us build for ourselves a city, and a tower whose top shall reach the sky...And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded. And the Lord God said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language...and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do. Come, and let us go down, and confound there their language, that they may not understand one another's speech. And God scattered them thence on the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city and the tower. Therefore the name of it is called Confusion; because the Lord did there confound the language of all the earth: and the Lord scattered them thence on the face of all the earth." [Gen 11]

This city, which was called Confusion, is the same as Babylon, whose wonderful construction Gentile history also notices. For Babylon means Confusion.

a. Spelled 'Lecter' in The Silence of the Lambs
b. The Dods translation of City of God is used throughout this analysis.

City of God (Dods)


1) In certain instances it has been determined that the creators of some of the productions analyzed on this blog, and/or the creators of source material(s) used in the making of these productions, may be making negative statements about certain segments of society in their productions. These statements should be taken as expressing the opinions of no one other than the creators.

2) This blog is not associated with any of the studios, creators, authors, publishers, directors, actors, musicians, writers, editors, crew, staff, agents, or any other persons or entities involved at any stage in the making of any of the media productions or source materials that are analyzed, mentioned, or referenced herein.

3) In keeping with the policies of the filmmakers, authors, studios, writers, publishers, and musicians, that have created the productions (and their source materials) that are analyzed, mentioned, or referenced on this blog, any similarity of the characters in these films or source materials to actual persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental.


All images on this blog are used solely for non-commercial purposes of analysis, review, and critique.

All Wikipedia content on this blog, and any edits made to it, are released under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share-Alike License 3.0.

Marcus Aurelius's Meditations - from Wikisource (except where otherwise noted); portions from Wikisource used on this blog are released under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share-Alike License 3.0.

Saint Augustine's Confessions and City of God from Wikisource (except where otherwise noted); portions from Wikisource used on this blog are released under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share-Alike License 3.0.

Saint Thomas Aquinas's Summa Theologica from the 'Logos Virtual Library' website (except where otherwise noted), compiled and edited by Darren L. Slider; believed to be in public domain.