This Man Is Reading Way Too Much Into X2. "It's all about homosexuality."

[Nightstorm]

Dont know if this was brought up yet or not as I didnt read ALL of the posts, but Bryan Singer IS gay and was the best choice for doing these movies. Why do you think Ian took the job? the xmen have always been a metaphor for gays.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

Religious minorities, ethnic minorities, the economically disenfranchised, even the gender majority could lay claims to paralels in the plot. It's certainly possible that Claremont, with the stories, and Silver, in his spearheading of the films, wished for the X-Men to be a mataphor for homosexuality but I do not think that Stan Lee had only that in mind nor do I think Silver wished the lessons to be that narrow.

Totally leaving aside the article which started this thread, I'd say that there are more paralels that can be drawn between mutant identity and homosexuality than any other "outsider" status. The big difference is the seperation from your own family and the need to form extended families based on your shared outsider status.

Now I won't claim that that similarity was intended by any of the orriginal or even secondary writers, but because you have mutant children of "normal" parents discovering they are mutants in their adolesence the themes of isolation, not having anyone to explain what is happening, hiding your identity even from your family, etc are going to be strong themes. And those are not generic "minority" or "outsider" themes, but themes that bear the most resemblence to glbt expereince.

The funny thing is, Stan Lee could write an official statement that mutants or the xmen have nothing to do with homosexuality, and it wouldn't change the paralels. The social dynamics of mutation make it a stronger analogy for homosexuality without any intent.

I'd also say that the intent was probably more towards a nazi/jew plight analogy, what with the Mutant Registration Act and Tales of Futures Past concentration camps. But Jews and most other minorities are not (generally speaking) thrown out of their own homes by their majority parents and hope for an older wiser minority figure to come along and tell them they have a future... or fall in with a more predatory figure just to belong somewhere.

Its kinda funny to think that these stories could easily have been written with no idea that there was a group out there they so well described. Enough to make me rethink that "Death of the author" stuff my college writing prof babbled about....

 

[Zhure]

Having recently purchased the graphic novel reprint of X-Men #1-10, I was thinking along similar lines the other day, but arrived at a slightly different conclusion about the origin and "meaning" of the X-Men.

Stan Lee and Jack Kirby's work did a dramatic change even in the first few issues, as each character underwent a metamorphasis into their more contemporary roles. Beast was initially a Yancy-street gang/Dead-End kid full of 1940's street slang and lingo, but by issue #10 he was erudite and using "two-bit words," as noted by Bobby Drake.

Likewise, Scott Summers was originally called "Slim" Summers, Jean Grey marvelled at her form-fitting costume "as if designed by Christian Dior." The entire dialogue elements of the early issues felt like WW2 comics. Part of this was due to Lee's formulaic reliance on team dynamics and part was his attempt to quickly thumbnail characters by their speech patterns. In the introduction to the graphic novel he even specifically mentions how X-Men was supposed to be a riff off of the Fantastic Four. The Beast was like the rough-spoken Ben Grimm and "Slim" Summers was a facet of Reed Richards. Professor Xavier was probably another aspect of Richards's genius. "If they liked the Human Torch," Stan said in reference to Iceman, "then why not a cold version"

My impression was that the X-men were representative of outsiders trying to fit into the general population, combating stereotyping and prejudice, but in specific, they were analogues for teen angst and the painful process of maturity.

Just on the major student character from the movies, I came up with these comparisons:

Cyclops: The optic beams are the unbridled power of the onset of adolescence. His visor represents the ubiquitous glasses of the nerd-caste. He must wear them constantly because of his physcial "ailment," just as a myopic child has to wear glasses constantly. Even sleep is difficult for Cyclops because his handicap dominates his life.

Iceman: Bobby Drake's role is a small one in the first film, much expanded by the sequel. By the second movie Bobby's encounter with his parents and the revelation of his differences is clearly a homosexual metaphor as has been mentioned by other posters. In the comics, many mutants have to go through this painful process, proclaiming their inherent differences to their parents and trying to adapt to a life of being an outsider.

Rogue: She can't touch or be touched, a classical reference to John Campbell's Virgin-Whore construct. Rogue's desire to be part of humanity, to contact others represents the fear of contact all adolescents go through. Her romantic relationship with Iceman, as underscored by Peter's caricature shows what happens when the pair try to kiss and seal their desires. She is about frustration and desire coupled together.

Jean Grey: Jean is mature and a powerful female figure, but her driving force is the desire she feels pulling her from Scott to Logan; the intellectual versus the hormonal. Ultimately she chooses Scott, because her love for him is based on logic and reason, but her love of Logan isn't lessened, just not acted upon. The unrequited-in-kind love between Logan and Jean is paralleled by the unrequited-in-kind love between Logan and Rogue.

Logan: Wolverine is the epitome of rage, the only greater personification would be the Hulk, but Wolverine is close. How odd Wolverine made his first appearance with the Hulk. Logan's love for Rogue is part of his growth, returning to humanity by extending help to her in the first movie. He was the first to accept her as a mutant; she the first to accept him as a fellow human being. Together they are bonded in this, but the age differences lead to a paternal relationship rather than a more contemporary romantic one. There are undercurrents of romance, as Rogue is coming of age, but nothing overt.

Logan's rage is a metaphor for the hormonal rage of adolescence, the desire to rend and destroy.

Storm: Ororo is the calm and passive female lead, exotic, strong, intelligent - a teacher. When she does become angry, the heavens are at her beck. In many ways, she's the ideal of growth and foreshadows how the other characters hope to be once they fully mature. She is a student and not a teacher, in the movies.

Nightcrawler: Kurt is the outcast, the pariah, an intelligent mind trapped in a bestial form. Loving, caring, gentle, but by all appearances he is a terrifyingly fanged and fork-tailed beast. Almost invisible in the shadows, he dwells outside regular society. A member of the circus, trained as an acrobat, Kurt is the fearful manifestation that we all feel, deep down, as ourselves being side-show freaks.

/ramblings

 

[Mark]

But Jews and most other minorities are not (generally speaking) thrown out of their own homes by their majority parents and hope for an older wiser minority figure to come along and tell them they have a future... or fall in with a more predatory figure just to belong somewhere.

You're allowing some things to be metaphoric when it fits the homosexuality parallel but taking some things literally to show they do not fit others. Jews had to move from place to place throughout their history until their homeland was established in the middle of the last century and that's the metaphoric parallel to being thrown out of their homes. I do not know the perspective you are bringing to this discussion but Stan Lee's perspective is decidedly Jewish.

That notwithstanding, as I previously stated, no matter what was written or used as a perspective for the movie, I believe it is meant to be inclusive of both and much, much more. I think it does the source material and the creator of that material a disservice to try and coopt the material and to claim it serves merely one interpretation especially when that interpretation is clearly not the one established in its origin.

Does anyone not remember the opening scene of the first movie? Concentration camps existed to herd and eliminate all sorts of what the Nazi's claimed were society's unwanted. Certainly you are not claiming that they were established to remove homosexuals alone and that any other affected group was an unfortunate side effect?

 

[Villano]

Just on the major student character from the movies, I came up with these comparisons:

Cyclops: The optic beams are the unbridled power of the onset of adolescence. His visor represents the ubiquitous glasses of the nerd-caste. He must wear them constantly because of his physcial "ailment," just as a myopic child has to wear glasses constantly. Even sleep is difficult for Cyclops because his handicap dominates his life.

Well, personally, I don't see the "nerd-caste" thing. If I had to make an analogy, I'd go with a physical handicap that relies on a prosthetic of some kind. Someone who needs a piece of equipment in order to even function in the world by themselves. People with missing limbs or even a deaf person with their hearing aid.

Rogue: She can't touch or be touched, a classical reference to John Campbell's Virgin-Whore construct. Rogue's desire to be part of humanity, to contact others represents the fear of contact all adolescents go through. Her romantic relationship with Iceman, as underscored by Peter's caricature shows what happens when the pair try to kiss and seal their desires. She is about frustration and desire coupled together.

You could also draw a parallel to an AIDS victim with her. She longs for intimate contact even though doing so puts her partner at risk.

Storm: Ororo is the calm and passive female lead, exotic, strong, intelligent - a teacher. When she does become angry, the heavens are at her beck. In many ways, she's the ideal of growth and foreshadows how the other characters hope to be once they fully mature. She is a student and not a teacher, in the movies.

I think you mean she's a teacher in the movies, not a student.

Storm is actually interesting. I'm trying to think of what group she could represent, and, aside from her race, there really isn't one. She's beautiful and has full control of her powers. There doesn't seem to be any downside to being Storm. In a way, she's Superman. She's the ideal.

Of course, the main complaint is that she's the 5th wheel in the films. She really doesn't serve any great story purpose, especially in the 1st film.

Anyway, I think that 40 yrs from now, someone's going to write an article about how the X-Men is all about the plight of clones in modern society.

 

[Zhure]

Yes, I meant "teacher not student."

As someone whose worn corrective lenses for the vast majority of my life, perhaps I identify too strongly with Cyclops's constant need of his own glasses. Without them, even the cool-looking Gargoyle shades, he's practically helpless. By the same token, my eyesight is so bad I can't see the one-inch digital LED numbers on my alarm clock.

(Insert advertisement praising Night & Day contacts, God bless you, CIBA Vision, for silicon-hydragel lenses.)

 

[Kahuna Burger]

That notwithstanding, as I previously stated, no matter what was written or used as a perspective for the movie, I believe it is meant to be inclusive of both and much, much more. I think it does the source material and the creator of that material a disservice to try and coopt the material and to claim it serves merely one interpretation especially when that interpretation is clearly not the one established in its origin.

I think that my post came with sufficient disclaimers that your implications/accusations don't deserve for me to spell them out again. The fact that you think I need the presence of jewish analogy spelled out to me tells me you need to reread what I said.

Kahuna Burger

 

[Mark]

I think that my post came with sufficient disclaimers that your implications/accusations don't deserve for me to spell them out again. The fact that you think I need the presence of jewish analogy spelled out to me tells me you need to reread what I said.

Kahuna Burger

Really? Consider it reread. Seems more like you are discounting the original material and source and stretching the parallels to support your own suggested conclusions, and my not agreeing with those prompted my response. The intent of the article at the beginning of the thread runs in a similar vein and if you can't see why such a response to your post is not out of left field, then I cannot help you.

And I think you need to reread what I wrote. The first paragraph, and the second, are in direct response to your post. The third paragraph that begins "Does anyone" is directed at anyone and everyone, not just you. Try not to be offended when someone makes counter points, especially when the specifics of them haven't been brought up prior to this in a thread where the discussion have become polarized. It was bound to happen sooner or later and donning the offended hat doesn't invalidate the need for the discussion nor my post.

My own perspective is as a person who has a gay brother and hundreds of friends and acquaintances who are also gay. I've lost more friends to AIDS than many people have gay friends. I have nothing whatsoever against supporting a "gay agenda" where appropriate but when I see something being mis-categorized, such as was done in the above article, I find it specious and damaging to actual advances that are being made in earnest elsewhere. The person who wrote the article would be foolish to think his conclusions wouldn't be questioned. He is either misguided and doesn't see the trouble that can cause, or he is purposefully trying to create awareness, which isn't a bad thing in and of itself, but when done deceitfully can only undermine sincere efforts being made by others.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

Really? Consider it reread. Seems more like you are discounting the original material and source and stretching the parallels to support your own suggested conclusions, and my not agreeing with those prompted my response. The intent of the article at the beginning of the thread runs in a similar vein and if you can't see why such a response to your post is not out of left field, then I cannot help you.

Since I made it clear in multiple places that my point was about how well the "mutant experience" correlates with the glbt expereince, and said (IIRC several times) that I was not speaking to the intent, nor claiming any sort of exclusivity, merely stronger correlation... guess neither of us can help each other. oh and as for "discounting the original material and source"?

I'd also say that the intent was probably more towards a nazi/jew plight analogy, what with the Mutant Registration Act and Tales of Futures Past concentration camps.

It was bound to happen sooner or later and donning the offended hat doesn't invalidate the need for the discussion nor my post.

Nor will the "You're just offended, you don't have a point" routine. I am not offended, I'm a survivor of USENET. I've wasted many the hour trying to restate the context and content of my posts to people argueing against points I'm not making or an agenda I don't have. I no longer get into those discussions. If I also dismiss a poorly stated but sincear response to what I've said, sadly thats life. (My usenet response is probably very similar to my emotional toughening up to boston panhandlers and weirdoes - in both benefits and drawbacks.)

Kahuna Burger

 

[Mark]

...I was not speaking to the intent, nor claiming any sort of exclusivity, merely stronger correlation...

After your explanation and further review of what you previously wrote, I stand corrected. My disgust at either the intentional misrepresentation in the article, or irresponsible use of his bully pulpit to advance his own agenda, clouded my ability to see your post for the idle musing that it was. Please accept my apology.