X-Men: Yes They Totally Mean It Like That
I have observed, anecdotally, a really strong identification with the X-Men within the queer communities as a metaphor for the queer communities. Listening to the always-worthwhile ComicBookQueers is basically a crash course in X-History, with occasional episodes devoted exclusively to Mutants.
I grew up a DC kid with the X-Men not even on my radar until later and as someone consuming that content for the first time as an adult it has seemed obvious to me that while Marvel's mutant minority can be viewed as a metaphor for many different targets of discrimination the queer communities make the best comparison for a variety of reasons: mutants' powers/identities tend to form when they are teenagers or young adults; some mutants try to hide in plain sight while others can't or simply won't; there are a variety of competing philosophies within the mutant community; the forms of activism they will or won't support lead to shifting and uneasy allegiances; and finally the ones who can't or won't hide turn their difference from the rest of humanity into a point of pride, a foundation for compassion or some other personal psychological tent pole.
Of course, people have always said that was reading too much into a children's story, something everyone reading this has probably heard a hundred million times too many as it is. How nice, then, to see our view explicitly validated by one of the people involved in some of the most high-profile iterations of the X-Men property. From Zack Stentz's Facebook page:
I helped write the movie, and can tell you the gay rights/ post-holocaust Jewish identity / civil rights allegory stuff was all put in there on purpose. Joss Whedon designed the whole "Cure" storyline in the comic books specifically as a gay allegory, and Bryan Singer wove his own feelings of outsiderdom as a gay man into the movie series. The whole "Have you ever tried NOT being a mutant" coming out scene in X2 isn't even particularly subtle, while it is effective.
The story of a potential "cure" for the X gene - really a treatment that would temporarily inhibit a mutant's powers - comes from Whedon's run on Astonishing X-Men, which remains - for my money - the strongest book with "X-Men" in its title from any time in the last several years. (Obligatory bitchy comment: too bad Warren Ellis sucked all the good out of it after that.) It was an affecting story but also an unmistakable metaphor for the lockstep psychosis of the "ex-gay" movement and its unforgivably hollow and cynical flimflammery. I absolutely saw why it was chosen for inclusion in the movie franchise. That storyline did what the X-Men at their very best are meant to do: represent the humanity and struggle of the Other. In the era of endless iterations of mindless machismo on the silver screen, a ceaseless parade of bullets and braggadocio but little in the way of detectable story, it's so very nice to see a franchise focus on the people who happen to have the powers in order to give viewers something personal with which to connect.
I'll admit to not having seen X-Men: First Class yet, but I plan to do so in the next couple of weeks. Does it live up to the hype? I've heard wildly varying opinions but the media seems to love it.
[X-Men: First Class Screenwriter Confirms LGBT Subtext As Totally Intentional - The Mary Sue]
[A special hat-tip to Vorpal Bunny!]
Klarion
Posted to Movies on 10 June 2011
· Comments (3)
Other stuff like this: Mutants, X-Men, X-Men: First Class, Zack Stentz
I saw it this past week. Like any movie made from a comics source, there's going to be parts you like and parts you loathe. But it's a good ride, the special effects are first-rate, and there's never been a more solid linking (even though nothing's said explicitly) with comics mutants and real-life gays. And the big debate, inside both communities, is whether to assimilate into the existing society and co-exist, or to remain separate as proud outsiders, co-existing if possible but ready to fight back - lethally if necessary - if needed.
I mean, look at the characters: Charles Xavier and Erik Lensherr are mutants who can "pass" in normal society, while Raven Darkholme, who could pass if she chose, resents having to to fit into mundane society, and Azazel couldn't pass if he wanted to.
Charles believes that homo sapiens and homo superior can co-exist peaceably; Erik believes that superior will uproot and replace sapiens as the neanderthals did the cro-magnons. (And for some delicious irony, listen to part of Charles' doctoral thesis early on in the movie.)
The big debate - other than assimilation vs. separatism - is over Kevin Bacon's casting as villain-in-chief Sebastian Shaw. I thought he was good. I also thought there were other actors who could have done much better. But overall, the casting was just fine, including January Jones' portrayal of Emma Frost. That's one lady who can play a tough woman with ice water in her veins, one secure within herself yet flexible when the situation demands. Oh, yeah, and the guy who plays Henry McCoy is the nerd cutie pinup of the year. ;-)
Also, watch for two cameos, one easy to spot, one harder (and neither one is Stan Lee): Hugh Jackman, and Rebecca Romijn. I won't tell you where they are or what they do.
As for which mutants they use, here's the rundown: familiar faces are Professor X, Magneto, Banshee, the Beast, Emma Frost, Havok, Mystique, and Sebastian Shaw. New faces: Angel, who sprouts dragonfly wings, flies, and spits acid; Azazel, who looks like Hellboy without the horns but with a tail, and who can teleport (with a red smoke-and-flame effect); Darwin, whose body instantly adapts to survive any attack/environment; and Riptide, who generates whirlwinds from his hands.
My recommendation: go see it for yourself, but go to a half-price or reduced rate showing for the first time. If you love it, you can spend full price to see it again. If not, well, you haven't wasted all that much in time or money.
Oh, yeah, one final rumor: I've read that this is supposed to be the first of another X-Men trilogy...
Thanks for the quote from Zack Stentz's Facebook page, much appreciated. Funny, when I see what I believe to be allusions to gays in a film, I often stop myself, afraid that my homosexuality is leading my feelings. So it's nice to see that in this case, I was spot-on.
And January Jones is proving a formidable villain, indeed. She was terrific earlier this year as a vicious villain in the Liam Neeson film, Unknown. Life after Betty Draper!
As I was watching the movie, I had this whole write-up in my head about how the film so deftly handles the mutant/gay parallels, in the way it makes a case for each of the various levels of assimilation people may choose to live out, as Noonstar points out. But when it came to putting my thoughts on paper, I had all this vicious hate for the corny dialogue (grumble...my legs...) and the way the characters were used move the plot. To avoid spoilers, I found the Hellfire Club too inconsistent to enjoy- the way a certain character is locked up when it's beneficial to remove them from the plot, the way Riptide is just there to make a handful of tornadoes, and gets no dialogue (and I didn't catch his name til the credits, was it even mentioned?). So there's no writeup from me, because I'm feeling a little bipolar about it. The practical aspects to the movie were a bore (training montage, whaa?) but the actual story and its grander allegory deserve commendation.