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



## Blockader7 (May 20, 2003)

Here is one man's review of X-Men 2; X-Men United. Personally I think he's reading way way way waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much into the movie, and have nothing but incredibly poor attitudes towards him for doing so.

The article:

Amid action, 'X2' offers quiet message of struggle
One need only look slightly below the surface to discover the horde of homosexual references in the foundation of the film.
By Scott Essman, Special to The Los Angeles Times 


In his review of "X2: X-Men United," Los Angeles Times film critic Kenneth Turan engrosses the reader with canny descriptions of the effects and thrills in the new comic-book action-adventure film. At the end of the review, however, he notes that " 'X2' might not be the place you'd think to look for any kind of message."

Yet one need only look slightly below the surface to discover the horde of homosexual references that director Bryan Singer and company have laid into the foundation of the film.

In its most general sense, "X2" is about a league of mutants (born distinctly different from "humans") led by professor Charles Xavier (Patrick Stewart) and Magneto (Ian McKellen), two apparently childless, single, middle-aged males. That all mutants are excluded from mainstream society, warranting a special underground society (Xavier's school and Magneto's more radical band of neo-terrorists), is a profoundly homosexual undercurrent in the film.

In the world of "X2," we see reactionary politicians, namely William Stryker (Brian Cox), who wishes to wipe out all mutants (coincidental parallels to recent Pennsylvania politicians?). In Stryker's case, his wrath is most directly driven by the discovery that his son was a mutant -- a classic metaphor for a straight father rejecting his gay son.

Moreover, heterosexual love is as confusing as it is forbidden for "X2's" lead characters. Thirtysomething Jean Grey (Famke Jannsen) is conflicted over feelings that she has for both Cyclops (James Marsden) and Wolverine (Hugh Jackman), unable to consummate her love for either. Forced to deal with his own demons, Wolverine fantasizes about Grey and Rogue (Anna Paquin) but cannot make a choice; there are too many uncertainties in his past that lead him on his tortured path. He plays right into the hands of cunning Mystique (Rebecca Romijn-Stamos), a shape-shifter whose profound beauty and ability to change sexual personas comes off as a tease to Wolverine, leaving him unable to choose. After a female character commits suicide, in part due to her own sexual identity conflicts, Cyclops and Wolverine are forced to console one another, though they cannot make direct eye contact.

Still, the most profound impact of "X2's" subtext is found in its young, indecisive characters. Rogue is unable to physically touch her "boyfriend" Iceman (Shawn Ashmore), a strong symbol of the taboo nature of homosexual feelings that the characters have sublimated. In their early 20s or younger, Rogue and Iceman confess that they are "working it out" when it comes to their relationship. A third young character, Pyro (Aaron Stanford), represents the possible love triangle.

When the group, expelled from Xavier's compound, arrives at Iceman's house, his parents are unaware he is a mutant. They reject him, his brother turning him in with Judas-like severity, and Iceman is forced to abandon the family, ostensibly forever. How many American teens can relate to this scene on a profoundly emotional level?

"X2's" numerous subtleties and dialogue references are many and will require multiple viewings to reveal. This author's favorites: a map showing the existence of mutants in virtually every corner of the Earth, and a phallic symbol in the shape of a soda bottle, handed from one character to another who blows on it to make the soda cold. Only a smart and distinguished production like "X2" could include that scene and still play in thousands of multiplexes.

The film represents a brilliant attempt to infuse a mainstream entertainment with homosexual themes and issues, playing to mass audiences without hitting them over the head with overtly gay material. Whereas many prominent gay characters are presented as cause for comic relief on popular TV sitcoms, Singer and his collaborators have carefully crafted a film that on the surface is an action spectacular, but is much more than that, speaking quietly to general audiences. As "X2's" mutants internally struggle over whether to separate or integrate into humanity, a strong parallel is drawn to our gay community's battles to do the same in our "straight" society.


* * *
Freelance writer Scott Essman most recently produced a DVD about the career of makeup artist Jack Pierce. He lives in Glendora and can be reached at scottessman@yahoo.com. 

From this site here:

http://metromix.chicagotribune.com/movies/mmx-030513-moviesx2,0,4475803.story?coll=mmx-movies_heds


I just don't understand why people like him can't leave things alone without reading too much sexual innuendos in it or turn it into some sort of triple x-rated crap.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (May 20, 2003)

True, that is reading too far...BUT...it does hit on one of the "symbols" of the X-Men. The problem is, it isn't just ONE and it isn't that heavy on one. The X-Men, and mutants in general, can be applied to ANY outsider group(including teenagers...surprise surprise) with that much detail. It was the main idea for the X-Men really...the acceptance of outsiders and how hard it is for "normal" people to do. So, yes, there is SOME fact in that but its definatly too deep and ignoring many other important themes for the "hot topic" of the day.


----------



## jdavis (May 20, 2003)

You could draw several parallels to the civil rights movement too but that's not the point. This is just somebody trying to make a rallying cry out of something that isn't. The globe that shows mutants live all over the world is a symbol of homosexuality? Professor X and Magneto don't have children is a symbol for homosexuality?(Maybe somebody should of done a little more research into the comic book the movies are based on). The underground society is a profoundly homosexual undercurrent? (Like they are the only people who ever hid from persecution) Oh and the Wolverine, Cyclops and Jean Grey love triangle is a homosexual undertone of the movie? (Once again somebody should of done a little research into the comic before he turned the movie into a political statement). My favorite is the Dr Pepper ad placement bit, I'm sure Dr Pepper loves that their product is a phallic symbol in the movie. What a dumbass. He's not reading too much into this he's twisting it to fit his own personal agenda.


----------



## Umbran (May 20, 2003)

Wow, the guy's treading on thin ice.  

There's no evidence at all that Jean cannot consummate her love for Cyclops.  Failing to consummate love in the middle of a war zone does not count as an inability to do so   Similarly, it's pretty clear to me that Rogue is not at all a romanic possibility for Wolverine.  Not all loving relationships are sexual.  His for Rogue is paternal.


----------



## Blockader7 (May 20, 2003)

The X-Men have always been about exposing racism and hatred as how ugly it is.

But this writer seems to be saying that it's only about homosexuals because there's all kinds of homosexual innuendos in it.

And I just can't agree with that. It's way off base.

What would he say with a group of guys who were playing poker together? Some men get beers for another, is that a homosexual innuendo? Are the cigars a homosexual innuendo? What about the game itself? Are each and every single one of those card symbols homosexual innuendos?

Baloney.


----------



## Mallus (May 20, 2003)

Blockader7 said:
			
		

> *I just don't understand why people like him can't leave things alone without reading too much sexual innuendos in it or turn it into some sort of triple x-rated crap. *




Err, because the guy is {presumably} a freelance writer and he makes a living writing articles?? Or he's just a guy with a particular interpretation of the film --however off-base it might be...

And the essay is hardly x-rated, you're overstating things as much as he is...

Iceman's "coming out" to his parents is clearly meant to reference a homosexual teen coming out to their parents, right down to the mother saying "Can you try not being a mutant?"

I don't buy the rest of it; the overarching theme has always been the fight against bigotry and prejudice in general, saying that's it specifically targets homosexual discrimination does the X-Men a big disservice. It's far more ambitious...

But the trick to these kind of critical essays is overstatement, hyberbole. I don't think they're meant to 'exaplain' their subjects completely. They sell {oversell} one particular interpretation. And if they score one or two salient points, well, that's about par for the course. Happens all the time in literary criticism; the Marxist reading of book X, the Freudian reading of book Y...

Besides, people interpret works based on their own beliefs/experiences/agendas/ideologies all the time. Who doesn't? Maybe you agree, or disagree, or just maybe you come to view a work in a totally new light after encountering someone else point of view...


----------



## Aaron L (May 20, 2003)

The bottle of pop was a homosexual sexual reference?  Gimme a break.  Wolverine torn between Jean and Rogue?  He isn't a pedophile.


----------



## krunchyfrogg (May 20, 2003)

While this writer is obvously off his rocker, it can't be ignored after Ian McKellen associates his being gay and being a mutant outcast as a parallel in the X 1.5 special edition interviews.

He also works it into Gandalf somehow, I can't remember how, on the LotR special edition DVD.

We get it, Ian.


----------



## Silver Moon (May 20, 2003)

jdavis said:
			
		

> *He's not reading too much into this he's twisting it to fit his own personal agenda. *



I'd agree with that statement.   X-2 made an easy target given its message about prejudice and acceptance of those who are different, although he just as easily could have picked any number of other films to twist into his "it's really about...." logic.  We've all seen people do this with books, tv, ect., whether it's X-2, teletubbies, or whatever else comes along. 

(But if you really want to find innuendos in the film, how did the guy miss Nightcrawler sticking the dagger into the President's desk?)


----------



## Assenpfeffer (May 20, 2003)

As Mallus points out, there's a very clear gay subtext in the movie in the scene where Bobby "comes out" to his family.  Other than that, I think this writer is exaggerating things quite a bit.

On the other hand, the strength of any piece of art comes from the fact that you can have multiple interpretations of its meaning.  People find the message they're looking for - that's what's happening here, and it's nothing unusual.  People hear what the film says to them.

Look at LotR, for example;  how many "major themes" have been pointed out in it?  Many of these are not even mutually compatible.  Hell, the Fascist Party over in Italy regards the book as a splendid illustration of their beliefs in totalitarianism and racial hegemony - and I'm _quite_ sure that Tolkien never intended any such implication.

So yeah, I think this guy is off-base, but that doesn't mean his opinion - or his interpretation - of the film is any less legitimate than yours or mine.


----------



## Henry (May 20, 2003)

Assenpfeffer said:
			
		

> *
> So yeah, I think this guy is off-base, but that doesn't mean his opinion - or his interpretation - of the film is any less legitimate than yours or mine. *




Agreed about Bobby's "coming out," but I think several of his other "references" are not references at all. Someone has already brought up Jean and Scott's sleeping arrangements, and the fact is, like Wolverine told Cyclops at the movie's end, there WAS no "choice," really - she had already chosen Scott.

I also want to recall the actual scene between Logan and Mystique - When she shifted to Rogue's face, Logan acted as if in horror, not in titillation. The movie is clear that he loves Rogue dearly - the ragamuffin grew on him - but clearly paternally, not sexually.

Pyro Johnny as a love triangle interest? I did not see any evidence as such. However, the case COULD be made as to him going over to Magneto's side as being an expression of latent homosexuality, if you REALLY wanted to follow that train of thought.

"After a female character commits suicide, in part due to her own sexual identity conflicts..." I cannot even begin to see where this comes from, since as I mentioned, Jean is the LEAST indecisive character in the whole movie.


----------



## Umbran (May 20, 2003)

krunchyfrogg said:
			
		

> *While this writer is obvously off his rocker, it can't be ignored after Ian McKellen associates his being gay and being a mutant outcast as a parallel in the X 1.5 special edition interviews.
> *




Didn't see the commentary, but the interpretations aqnd motivations behind one fine actor's performance don't mean _the entire film_ is about the same thing.  Mr. McKellan didn't write the script, and didn't interpret the other actor's roles for them.


----------



## John Crichton (May 20, 2003)

Wow, I had no idea their were so many homosexual overtones in X2.    I just saw the one.  But hey, if this guy wants to see undercurrents of homosexuality all over the movie, so be it as that is his right.  He makes some decent points based soley on X2 alone which isn't a movie that is meant to be seen on it's own, it needs its preface, X1 as a reference.  I think the author of that article wouldn't see so much "homo-mutantism" if he had proper reference points, as others have said.

Edit:  They should turn this guy loose on other recent films and see things that aren't there.  I'd love to see his opinion on Jedi and their lightsabers...


----------



## drnuncheon (May 20, 2003)

Once again, we see that in interpreting anything, you see whatever you look for hard enough.

I'm baffled by statements like "unable to consummate her love for either" - aren't Cyclops and Jean _married_? Or is that just the comic?

I'm even more baffled by his contention that the several heterosexual relationships in the film are somehow homosexual references.

I'm surprised he didn't work Stryker's son into it - "his crippled physical body represents the restraints of the outside world, while his mental image - which, you'll notice, is a girl - is free to express itself, but only to another mutant homosexual".

Yeah, there are parallels between mutants and homosexuals, but there are parallels between mutants and _any_ minority.  It's not about being gay (specifically), it's about being an outsider, whether that's due to sexuality, race, beliefs, or anything else.

J


----------



## Dinkeldog (May 20, 2003)

> _Originally posted by drnuncheon _Yeah, there are parallels between mutants and homosexuals, but there are parallels between mutants and _any_ minority.  It's not about being gay (specifically), it's about being an outsider, whether that's due to sexuality, race, beliefs, or anything else. [/B]




I would agree that the parallels show between mutants and any other persecuted minority.  It is, however, specifically about being gay.  It's also specifically about being a different color.  It's specifically about a lot of other things.  It sounds like people want to minimize the relationship between mutants and homosexuality.  Just because the relationship is as strong between say, mutants and African-Americans doesn't make it any weaker between mutants and homosexuals.  There's no mutual exclusivity or zero-sum relationship here.


----------



## Assenpfeffer (May 20, 2003)

drnuncheon said:
			
		

> *Yeah, there are parallels between mutants and homosexuals, but there are parallels between mutants and any minority.  It's not about being gay (specifically), it's about being an outsider, whether that's due to sexuality, race, beliefs, or anything else.*




Which is exactly the point I was making.  If you consider yourself an "outsider" (whatever that means these days,) the movie's message will speak loudest to whatever kind of outsider you are or identify with.  This guy's gay, so he took it as a parable about the difficulty of society coming to terms with gay folks.


----------



## dravot (May 20, 2003)

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.


----------



## Petrosian (May 20, 2003)

Well, back when i read Xmen it was about 'gay" or at least that seemed to be the message. if you had any doubts what particular "group of outsiders" the mutants were being colered by, the legacy virus pretty much nailed it down.

prejudice... yes, in general... but homophobia was the paint brush used to give it the impact and familiarity and sense of currency.

In the movie, the drake family scene and the stryker characterization were absolutely dead spot on targets using homophobic scenes.

Now, frankly, the coke bottle, xavier and magneto being single men, and the ignoring of cyclops reference to the bedroom shaking (and implication that he knows what goes on in her bedroom) are way out there and to me anyone drawing them into the gay subtext is nuts. Also, troubles such as love triangles and teenagers not being able to have sex as easily as they like have nothing per se to do with homosexuality... just sexuality in general.

So, yeah, he is way overboard... but i would not let this drive away from the clear use of homophobia by the wirters of the XMEN as a tool to give mutant-phobia a very real sense to it.


----------



## drnuncheon (May 20, 2003)

Dinkeldog said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I would agree that the parallels show between mutants and any other persecuted minority.  It is, however, specifically about being gay.  It's also specifically about being a different color.  It's specifically about a lot of other things.  It sounds like people want to minimize the relationship between mutants and homosexuality.  *




Only because saying "X-Men is about being gay" instead of "X-Men is about being an outsider" is missing the forest for the trees.  It may be (partially) true, but it's also misleading.  

It's like saying "D&D is a game about wizards."  Sure, there are wizards.  They're a big part of the game.  The game wouldn't be the same without them.  But is 'a game about wizards' an accurate description of D&D?  Not hardly.

J


----------



## jdavis (May 20, 2003)

Petrosian said:
			
		

> *Well, back when i read Xmen it was about 'gay" or at least that seemed to be the message. if you had any doubts what particular "group of outsiders" the mutants were being colered by, the legacy virus pretty much nailed it down.
> 
> prejudice... yes, in general... but homophobia was the paint brush used to give it the impact and familiarity and sense of currency.
> 
> ...




yes the legacy virus storyline was heavily based on the aids hysteria at the time, but I wouldn't say the X men represented homosexuality. The X men represent being outsiders, they touch on lots of outsider stories and problems, that storyline was definatly taken from the aids scare, but all that means is that they were keeping the comic relevant with events in the modern world. 

I have no problem that homophobia is worked into the X Men, but with a little work I could make a statement that the first movie was a statement about World War 2 concentration camps because of the movie having the Mutant Registration act in it. X men comics (and through them the movies based on them) take their influence from a variety of different sources, it's one reason they have remaned hip and fresh and cutting edge, there is always a real life story about people being different and misunderstood out there. Professor X being a super hero in a wheel chair was a huge statement about the handicapped for instance but the X Men stories are not about the plight of the handicapped. Magneto was a Jew in the concentration camps in Nazi Germany, that is a huge statement but the X Men are not about anti-sematism. You have to look at the big overall picture here.

My problem with the statement on the movie is that it is factually incorrect. The movies are directly based on the comic book, many of the character interactions are based on the comic book. If you don't research the x men property as a whole then you can't make these blanket statements. The Wolverine, Cyclops, Jean Grey love triangle came from the comics. The reason it was in the movie was that it is in the comics. Maybe Scott and Jean have different bed rooms because they are just dating, or maybe it's because they live in a school full of children, did the movie ever state that they couldn't consumate their relationship? They could of been all over each other like deranged rabbits in scenes that were not shown in the movie. In the comics Scott and Jean had a child (who was older than them, and much bigger than them, and really didn't resemble them at all, but that's X Men continuity for you). The point is that just because they didn't show graphic lovemaking in the movie doesn't mean that they were not a "hot item" or that Jean was uncomfortable with her sexuality or that Cyclops and Wolverine wanted to get it on with each other. The love triangle in the movie is based on the love triangle in the comic and the comic love triangle had no homosexual overtones at all. 

Professor X and Magneto are childless? Well actually they both have children and they both have had girlfriends and quite possibly wives (I don't think either ever had a boyfriend though). Just because they were not shown in the movie doesn't mean that they don't have children, it just means children were not mentioned in the movie. And besides that how does not having children make you homosexual, that's sort of a stretch to start with.

The underground society persicuted due to what group they were born into, gee did I mention the Nazi concentration camp angle already. You didn't have to read the comic to make that connection, you just had to watch the first movie. The same goes for the Stryker character, a military man who wants to commit genocide on a whole group of people, that sort of sounds familiar. How about the radical band of neo-terroist, you mean sort of like the Black Panthers of the Civil Rights movement? This isn't a homosexual overtone of the movie, it's his personal interpretation of what he saw, he's confusing opinion with fact.

The Iceman, Rogue, Pyro love triangle? what love triangle, just because three people appear on the screen together it doesn't make it a love triangle, and even if it was how is this a homosexual overtone?

The Dr Pepper bottle is the best though, talk about reading something into a scene (which was obviously only in the movie because Dr Pepper paid for the add placement.) So was the homosexual overtone that somebody forgot to put the Dr Pepper in the fridge or that Ice Man has the super power to freeze things. Once again he is confusing his own interpetation with the directors intent. Could it of been a homosexual overtone, well sure but he states it like it was a fact and compliments them for putting it in there, maybe it was all staged to keep the Dr Pepper bottle on camera long enough for us to get a close up and read the label. Did he contact anybody to confirm his view? Besides a young boy and a grizzled old guy and phallic symbol, well that brings up a NAMBLA interpretation doesn't it, and I really don't think that anybody intended that.

His most profound statement was Rogue's inability to touch people, and I won't even coment on how silly his point was there but suffice it to say that once again maybe he should of done some research into the character, or even watched the first movie. Likewise on the globe showing Mutants live all over the world, that is such a goof ball leap that it defies logic. Many different groups of people live all over the world, heck many different species of dogs live all over the world, there is no stretch of logic here that works. There is no way you can even percieve a homosexual overtone to this unless you have convinced yourself that the whole movie is a homosexual overtone, so there is no way to use it as a point to prove your interpretation.

If the guy had written a article on how scenes in the movie could be percieved it would be different but he didn't he wrote a article on what the movie is, did he talk to Bryan Singer, did he confirm any of this? Just because he infered a homosexual reference doesn't mean that it was factually one, and many of his finer points fall completely apart with the slightest bit of research. He is a professional writer he should have done the research and checked his facts before he published the article.


----------



## CrusaderX (May 21, 2003)

jdavis is right.  I've read X-Men comics since the early 1980's, and the theme of mutants has *always* been a *general* metaphor for any kind of outsider.  It was never a specific metaphor for any one group.  That was the whole point (as pointed out) - that no matter what made _you_ an outsider, this comic could apply to you.

It's not a homosexual metaphor.  It never was.  It's an *outsider* metaphor.


----------



## stevelabny (May 22, 2003)

i've seen other threads on this, and whats worse are the ones where the homophobic kids say that there is NO connection between the x-men and bigotry against homosexuals. 

i'd LOVE to see this reviewer read some of the legacy virus stories. or maybe meet northstar. (especially in the early years of alpha flight before marvel had the guts to say he was gay... when they dropped hints he was gay, and maybe had aids... and then revealed he wasnt gay with aids, but sick from being away from his true magical homeworld....thats right, he wasnt gay, he was a faerie.) 

that would be some fun reviews to read.


----------



## jdavis (May 22, 2003)

stevelabny said:
			
		

> *i've seen other threads on this, and whats worse are the ones where the homophobic kids say that there is NO connection between the x-men and bigotry against homosexuals.
> 
> i'd LOVE to see this reviewer read some of the legacy virus stories. or maybe meet northstar. (especially in the early years of alpha flight before marvel had the guts to say he was gay... when they dropped hints he was gay, and maybe had aids... and then revealed he wasnt gay with aids, but sick from being away from his true magical homeworld....thats right, he wasnt gay, he was a faerie.)
> 
> that would be some fun reviews to read. *




Oh there's no denying the scene at Bobby's house just smacked at homosexual bigotry, and the Legacy virus storyline was a direct copy of the aids scare. I'm not in anyway saying that they don't do commentary on Homosexual bigotry but it's a diservice to all the other oppressed groups the X-Men get storylines from to say they only represent homosexuals. I can't remember the name of the island but they did the country that uses mutants as slaves story a couple of times, and they always go back and play off of World War 2 concentration camps. They have a very wide range of appeal because they cover a very wide range of topics and groups.


----------



## Agamon (May 23, 2003)

I agree.  He sure is stretching on most of his assumptions.  To say mutants represent one minority group over any other is silly.  If anything, it better represents racial tentions than sexual, IMO.


----------



## Shalimar (May 23, 2003)

> In its most general sense, "X2" is about a league of mutants (born distinctly different from "humans") led by professor Charles Xavier (Patrick Stewart) and Magneto (Ian McKellen), two apparently childless, single, middle-aged males.




Doesn't really matter that Magneto does have kids here does it?  Quick Silver and Scarlet Witch.


----------



## jdavis (May 23, 2003)

Shalimar said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Doesn't really matter that Magneto does have kids here does it?  Quick Silver and Scarlet Witch. *




I think Professor X has one too. It's all a matter of this guys lack of actual research into his topic before he wrote such a slanted (and factually wrong) article. People get fired for that type of shoddy journalism.


----------



## Celtavian (May 23, 2003)

*Re*

This writer is a madman. He obviously hasn't read the comics and doesn't have a clue. The writer probably has something personal against Ian McKellan and can't disassociate his dislike of Ian's homosexuality with the film. The guy needs to get a clue.


----------



## Blockader7 (May 23, 2003)

jkdavis, that island is named Genosha. 

Xavier's son is called Legion. He suffers from what was once called multiple personality disorder and is somewhat insane. Each of those personalities has a distinct power to it.


----------



## jdavis (May 23, 2003)

Blockader7 said:
			
		

> *jkdavis, that island is named Genosha.
> 
> Xavier's son is called Legion. He suffers from what was once called multiple personality disorder and is somewhat insane. Each of those personalities has a distinct power to it. *




Thanks, it's been a while since I was collecting x men


----------



## Mark (May 23, 2003)

jdavis said:
			
		

> *He's not reading too much into this he's twisting it to fit his own personal agenda. *




Yup.  Pretty obvious the man has some unresolved issues he needs to address before he'll be able to take something, anything, at face value and objectively.


----------



## Hand of Vecna (May 25, 2003)

Chris Clairmont himself has said that the X-Men are supposed to be metaphor for homosexuality, that when you're reading about the X-Men, you're reading about gay people.

Clairmont is sometimes considered to be a nut...


----------



## jdavis (May 25, 2003)

Chris Clairmont is not the only writer the X men titles have ever had, his stories might of been but were the stories of every x men writer ever? Besides didn't they fire him?


----------



## stevelabny (May 25, 2003)

ok, first CHRIS CLAREMONT is THE x-men writer.
stan lee wrote the early issues
len wein wrote giant size x-men #1 which re-introduced the team after years of repeats in the regular monthly titles
len wein plotted 94 and 95 with claremont writing
and then then claremont was fully in control from 96 in 1976 until the mid-90s. 17 years he wrote this book.
he IS the writer who turned this book into THE best-selling comic. to say any different is to be.... WRONG.

yes, his style is overly wordy.
yes, he tended to leave certain plots lying around too long.
and yes, like many other comic writers oh his time  he has long since "lost his touch" but he had 17 year run.  came back for a few months, left again. and is last i checked, STILL the writer of the latest x-spinoff X-TREME X-MEN. ( i doubt he picked the title)

to say that he doesn't have a good grasp on the main concept, themes and plots of the x-men and their history is WRONG. he IS their history.

the x-men's troubles are symbolic of any and all prejudice in the world. for ANY minority. this includes homosexuals. for those who "still" didnt get it, the legacy virus storyline was one of the most thinly disguised aids stories ever printed.  

we lost some good mutants (and humans)  to the legacy virus and i'd hate to take something from their passing by not accepting what their deaths were symbolic of.  a moment of silence for Colossus, Magik, Pyro, Mastermind, Moira McTaggart and the rest (characters so good that 2 1/2 of them made it into the movie)
   

It's like my earlier post said, YES this writer has gone a little overboard for reasons we can only guess, BUT to completely deny the relation between the two just makes people sound like theyre promoting their OWN agenda. 

(and also remember not to cross contaminate movie and comic canon... xavier and magneto have kids in the comic, but we have NO idea whether they have kids in the movie) 

and if you want to blame the reviewers gay-obsessed commentary on his extrapolations on someone involved with the film, i doubt it would be soley focused on ian mckellan, but more so on THE DIRECTOR bryan singer.

defending both sides of this arguement,
steve


----------



## Celtavian (May 25, 2003)

*Re*

No Way!!! Colossus is dead? I can't believe they killed the steel giant. No frickin way.


----------



## stevelabny (May 25, 2003)

actually..."they" didnt.
he did it to himself.

he basically injected himself with the cure for the legacy virus to insure that nobody else would die (like his sister and brother already had) killing himself in the process.

the noble sacrifice.

steve


----------



## Villano (May 25, 2003)

stevelabny said:
			
		

> *ok, first CHRIS CLAREMONT is THE x-men writer.
> stan lee wrote the early issues
> len wein wrote giant size x-men #1 which re-introduced the team after years of repeats in the regular monthly titles
> len wein plotted 94 and 95 with claremont writing
> ...





I agree with the assertion that Claremont was *the* X-Men writer (I stopped collecting a few issues after he was fired and the new team effectively flushed 17 yrs of continuity down the toilet), but I don't think he lost his touch at all during his run since the writing quality dropped so severely after his departure (IMO, at leat).  

But I could have sworn the Legcy Virus didn't pop up until after his run.  Does it date back before '93?  And, if it did, I don't think he created it.  If I'm not mistaken, wasn't it linked to Stryfe?  That was a Rob Liefeld/X-Force character.

I'm not saying that it isn't an AIDS analogy, just wondering how closely it's linked with Claremont.  

And while I knew about Colossus and Magik dying, I had no idea about Pyro, Mastermind, and Moira McTaggart.  Speaking of which, wasn't McTaggart human?  How did the disease affect her?  

I never really liked the Legacy Virus storyline.  In the comics I read in which it popped up, the rules of it seemed to nebulous.  I was never sure how someone caught it.  I also heard that Colossus' death wasn't handled very well.  That it and the Legacy Virus' cure was done in a kind of "blow off" sort of way.  Like it was a quick out to a storyline that no one wanted around anymore.

Personally, I think it could have been good if handled in a side issue sort of way.  Sort of like AIDS, actually.  Making it a naturally occurring disease that had no cure, and to which mutants were more susceptible.  That way, those that died of it would have more meaning.


----------



## Villano (May 25, 2003)

Mark said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Yup.  Pretty obvious the man has some unresolved issues he needs to address before he'll be able to take something, anything, at face value and objectively. *




Writers like this are the reason I refuse to buy Midnight Marquee magazine (for those that have never heard of it, MM focuses on older horror films).  

My problem is that most of the writers were armchair psychoanalists, and in the absolute worst way.  All characters were gay and/or hated the opposite sex and/or were abused by them.  The same was true of everyone who worked on the films.

And I'm not joking when I say that every single article had the word "phallic" in it.  Characters walk past a "phallic white picket fence".  Someone steps out from behind a "phallic pillar".  

It was ridiculous.  Every male character that had a male friend in the movie was now suddenly gay and they were lovers.

And Bram Stoker must have been a mysogynist because you have to kill a vampire by a wooden stake, and, as we all know, that's a phallic symbol.  So that means killing a vampire is rape!  Stoker must be in favor of raping women!  And when all the men band together to kill Dracula, that was like a gay gang rape!  Obviously, Stoker's mysogyny is the result of his hidden homosexuality! 

Sadly, I'm not kidding there.  

They also claimed that Dr. Pretorious from Bride Of Frankenstein was a necropheliac serial killer.


----------



## jdavis (May 26, 2003)

stevelabny said:
			
		

> *ok, first CHRIS CLAREMONT is THE x-men writer.
> stan lee wrote the early issues
> len wein wrote giant size x-men #1 which re-introduced the team after years of repeats in the regular monthly titles
> len wein plotted 94 and 95 with claremont writing
> ...




Yes from '76 to '91 he did write most of Uncanny X Men and a lot of the other X titles too (he came back in 2000). (I am pretty sure the Legacy virus stuff was mid to late '90's). But:



			
				Hand of Vecna said:
			
		

> *Chris Clairmont himself has said that the X-Men are supposed to be metaphor for homosexuality, that when you're reading about the X-Men, you're reading about gay people.
> 
> Clairmont is sometimes considered to be a nut... *




So if I believe that he said this and I believe what you said about him being THE X Men writer, then I have to believe that X men are a metaphor for Homosexuality. If I believe that the comics are then I have to believe the movie directly based on it is too, which means that the acticle that started this whole thread is actually true. You can't defend both sides of this arguement, one side is that it's only about homosexuality and the other side is no it's about all outsider groups.

So is Clairmont a nut or have we all been misunderstanding what the comics have been about?


----------



## Mark (May 26, 2003)

Wasn't it Sigmund Freud who said, "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."?


----------



## Jemal (May 26, 2003)

dravot said:
			
		

> *Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. *






			
				Mark said:
			
		

> *Wasn't it Sigmund Freud who said, "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."?*




Yes, guys, that's true.  What everyone around here is taking about is the fact that..

SOMETIMES.... it's a cigarette.

(HAH, hows that for some gay symbolism?)

-Brought to you by your friendly neighbourhood Gamerette..
NO WAIT, I meant gaymer... 
No, wait...

*L* j/k.


----------



## Jemal (May 26, 2003)

jdavis said:
			
		

> *
> You can't defend both sides of this arguement, one side is that it's only about homosexuality and the other side is no it's about all outsider groups.
> 
> So is Clairmont a nut or have we all been misunderstanding what the comics have been about? *




How about this...

Mutants IN GENERAL are about Predjudice IN GENERAL
X-men SPECIFICALLY are based on Homosexuality, but that's not ALL they're about.  It may be one of the MAIN themes/undertones, but NO movie I have ever seen or heard of has ONLY ONE theme that it is based on to the exclusion of all others, therefore the article CAN'T be true.  It probably WOULD have been true if the writer had said something along the lines of "One of the main themes of X2 is homosexuality"  but saying a movie is ONLY about something, and that's ALL it's about is an outright falsehood.


----------



## Mark (May 26, 2003)

Jemal said:
			
		

> *How about this...
> 
> Mutants IN GENERAL are about Predjudice IN GENERAL
> X-men SPECIFICALLY are based on Homosexuality, but that's not ALL they're about.  It may be one of the MAIN themes/undertones, but NO movie I have ever seen or heard of has ONLY ONE theme that it is based on to the exclusion of all others, therefore the article CAN'T be true.  It probably WOULD have been true if the writer had said something along the lines of "One of the main themes of X2 is homosexuality"  but saying a movie is ONLY about something, and that's ALL it's about is an outright falsehood. *




How about this...

Mutants IN GENERAL might be about Predjudice IN GENERAL  X-men SPECIFICALLY were created by Stan Lee and we don't know exactly what he decided they were ALL about.  Claremont who used Stan Lee's character and wrote some stories has apparently stated that his stories EVEN MORE SPECIFICALLY were about homosexuality.  The movies, based on Stan Lee's characters may or may not be about homosexuality (and may in part be about homosexuality, or even may be all about homosexuality) but Scott Essman's experience (as described by that writer for the special article to the Los Angeles Times) with the movies, the stories and the X-men is apparently about homosexuality no matter how anyone else might feel about it.

Despite what Claremont might have to say about his specific stories, Essman contends that Singer took the same tack with the movie and Lee's characters as Claremont did.  He states this as a fact and proceeds to follow it with many specific assumptions that, while not necessarily untrue, seem presumptuous without accompanying verification by Singer, Stan Lee, etal sans Claremont.  I do not deny him the right to take from the watching of the movie his own interpretation but I do, without that verification, deny that the movie was necessarily that narrow when it can just as easily be so much more, to so many more, for so many reasons.


----------



## jdavis (May 26, 2003)

Mark said:
			
		

> *
> 
> How about this...
> 
> ...




Which was the point I was basically trying to make when I said that he was not the only writer, there have been tons of x titles and mutants have been a big part of every Marvel comic. I never meant to attack Chris Claremont's history with the x men or any marvel title he wrote, my point was that you cannot make that kind of oversimplified judgement, even if he did write half the comics out there he did not write them all:

Adventures of Cyclops & Phoenix #1 - 4  
Age of Apocalypse One-Shots  
Agent X #1 - 12  
Alpha Flight (1st series) #1 - 100 Annuals, Specials 
Amazing X-Men #1 - 4  
Askani'Son #1 - 4  
Astonishing X-Men (1st series) #1 - 4 
Astonishing X-Men (2nd series) #1 - 3 
Avengers West Coast  
Blink #1 - 4  
Cable (1st series) #1 - 2  
Cable (2nd series) #1 - 107  
Chamber #1 - 4 
Classic X-Men #1 - 110  
Cyclops #1 - 4 
Deadpool (3rd series) #1 - 69 
Excalibur #1 - 125 Annuals, Specials    
Exiles #1 - Latest 
Factor X #1 - 4 
Firestar #1-4  
Further Adventures of Cyclops & Phoenix #1 - 4  
Gambit & Bishop #Alpha, 1 - 6  
Gambit (1st series) #1 - 4  
Gambit (3rd series) #1 - 25, Annuals, Specials 
Gambit and the X-Ternals #1 - 4 
Generation Next #1 - 4  
Generation X #1 - 75, Annuals, Specials 
Iceman (1st series) #1 - 4 
Iceman (2nd series) #1 - 4 
Imperial Guard #1 - 3  
Kitty Pryde and Wolverine #1 - 6 
Magik #1 - 4 
Marvel Team-Up  
Maverick #1 - 12  
Mekanix #1 - 6  
Morlocks #1 - 4  
Mutant X #1 - 32, Annuals  
Muties #1 - 6  
Mystique #1 - Latest  
New Mutants (1st series) #1- 100  
New Mutants (2nd series) #1 - Latest, Annuals, Specials   
New X-Men #1 - Latest; Annuals, Specials    
Nightcrawler (2nd series) #1 - 4  
One-Shots   
Origin #1 - 6 
Power Pack (1st series) 
Quicksilver #1 - 13   
Rogue (2nd series) #1 - 4  
Sabretooth - Mary Shelley Overdrive 
Soldier X #1 - 12 
Starjammers #1 - 4 
The Brotherhood #1 - 9 
Ultimate War #1 - 4  
Ultimate X-Men #1 - Latest, Special 
Uncanny X-Men #1 - Latest, Annuals, Specials
Weapon X (1st series) #1 - 4 
Weapon X (2nd series) #1 - Latest  
Weapon X One-Shots )
Wolverine (2nd series) #1 - 189, Annuals, Specials  
X.S.E. #1 - 4  
X-51  
X-Calibre #1 - 4 
X-Factor (1st series) #1 - 149, Annuals, Specials  
X-Factor (2nd series) #1 - 4 
X-Force #1 - 129, Annuals  
X-Man #1 - 75, Annuals, Specials 
X-Men : Phoenix #1 - 3 
X-Men 2099 #1 - 35, Specials, One-Shots  
X-Men Chronicles #1 - 2  
X-Men Forever #1 - 6  
X-Men One-Shots   
X-Men Spotlight On ... Starjammers #1 - 2  
X-Men Unlimited #1 - Latest  
X-Statix #1 - Latest 
X-Terminators #1 - 4  
X-Treme X-Men #1- Latest 
X-Treme X-Men Savage Land #1 - 4  
X-Treme X-Men X-Posé #1 - 2 
X-Universe (1st series) #1 - 2


----------



## Ferret (May 26, 2003)

I think he is in denile. He he he he he. I'm mean.


----------



## fba827 (May 27, 2003)

I don't believe you'll be able to know what it is really supposed to be about unless you ask the people who created it.

Anything else is just interpretation and you can speak post after post after post and not really have an answer because, plain and simple, we do not know. 

Having said that, I think all that matters (be it in this or most art) is what does it mean to you?

Maybe it is about homosexuality?

Maybe it is about minority groups in general?

Maybe it is about those awkward feelings you have a youngester just wanting to fit in but never feeling normal (i.e. perceived minority group rather than an actual one and in this comic series the insecurities are manifested into a real tangible ability) 

....

just my two cents.


----------



## tarchon (May 27, 2003)

He goes a little too far I think, but there are some pretty clear references to anti-homosexualism (I dislike the term "homophobia" - eh).   Plus, look who the two top marquee actors are - Stewart and McKellan, both strong proponents of... well... gayness.   One gay guy I know (a non-comic reader) was just about floored by what he thought were gay references in it.  I think maybe he was predisposed to interpret ambiguous things in that particular light, but it's hard to deny that there are a lot of situations and phrases that have a particular significance in gay subculture.


----------



## jdavis (May 27, 2003)

fba827 said:
			
		

> *I don't believe you'll be able to know what it is really supposed to be about unless you ask the people who created it.
> 
> Anything else is just interpretation and you can speak post after post after post and not really have an answer because, plain and simple, we do not know.
> 
> ...




As I have said you would think the guy would of done a little research on the subject or even asked somebody involved, it's not hard to type x men into goggle (heck I had to just to keep up with this thread). A interpretation is fine but he stated it as what it was not what he interpretated, that's a big difference particularly when you are publishing a article instead of just running off on a messageboard.


----------



## Dinkeldog (May 27, 2003)

jdavis said:
			
		

> *
> 
> As I have said you would think the guy would of done a little research on the subject or even asked somebody involved, it's not hard to type x men into goggle (heck I had to just to keep up with this thread). A interpretation is fine but he stated it as what it was not what he interpretated, that's a big difference particularly when you are publishing a article instead of just running off on a messageboard. *




Uh, no.  When one writes an essay, one should state an unequivocal thesis statement, and then argue to back up that thesis.  There is no requirement--in fact it's not a good idea--to come up with a wishy-washy, "Well it could be this, kind of sort of," statement; why bother to write anything.  You don't like his argument, fine.   Thinly veiled homophobic attitudes don't provide one bonus points for shouting down someone's thesis statement, though.


----------



## Wayside (May 27, 2003)

jdavis said:
			
		

> *So is Clairmont a nut or have we all been misunderstanding what the comics have been about? *




No.  You haven't been misunderstanding what the comics/movies are about.  There's a classic essay titled The Intentional Fallacy some here ought to read.  Wherever the inspiration for the story came from, it's not about homosexuality.  Not even its authors can say otherwise.  Dune wasn't about Muslims, either.


----------



## Jemal (May 27, 2003)

"A story has many interpretations.. The writers interpretation, the experts interpretation, and the various readers interpretations.  Nobody's interpretation is wrong because an interpretation is merely an opinion.  Even the writer can't say for sure what the story is about."

-Orson Scott Card, paraphrased slightly to save space.


----------



## jdavis (May 27, 2003)

Dinkeldog said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Uh, no.  When one writes an essay, one should state an unequivocal thesis statement, and then argue to back up that thesis.  There is no requirement--in fact it's not a good idea--to come up with a wishy-washy, "Well it could be this, kind of sort of," statement; why bother to write anything.  You don't like his argument, fine.   Thinly veiled homophobic attitudes don't provide one bonus points for shouting down someone's thesis statement, though. *




(Wondering if I should be offended or not right now?)  I have nothing against anything homosexual or not, I am no way insinuating anything is wrong with a view or a interpretation, I have several very good gay friends that I have known for years.  

My problem was this is a statement article from the Los Angeles Times put up on the Chicago Tribune website. This isn't a thesis, this is a published article. He states certain scenes definatively mean something based on his interpretation, instead of doing some very simple research. I don't care what the point is it's a questionable stretch that shouldn't of been stated as fact. Nobody is saying that there are not homosexual references in the X Men or in the X Men movie, but the point of this article was this was only about homosexuality. 

As far as the Claremont statement, I was just pointing out that I was being told:







> to say that he doesn't have a good grasp on the main concept, themes and plots of the x-men and their history is WRONG. he IS their history.



and: 







> Chris Clairmont himself has said that the X-Men are supposed to be metaphor for homosexuality, that when you're reading about the X-Men, you're reading about gay people.



 and: 







> the x-men's troubles are symbolic of any and all prejudice in the world. for ANY minority. this includes homosexuals. for those who "still" didnt get it, the legacy virus storyline was one of the most thinly disguised aids stories ever printed.



 so what do I believe? Nobody here ever stated that Homosexuality wasn't one of the themes of the X Men just that it was not the only theme, aparently Claremont said otherwise. 

As for the rest of it, well it just isn't that important and it's getting a little too close to some personal insults flying around here. So I'm just going to step out of this one, I learned alot about the X Men here and I will just step away. no harm no foul.


----------



## Mallus (May 27, 2003)

jdavis said:
			
		

> *My problem was this is a statement article from the Los Angeles Times put up on the Chicago Tribune website. This isn't a thesis, this is a published article....snip....but the point of this article was this was only about homosexuality.*




Well, I guess that depends on how you classify the article. Where it was published doesn't effect what kind of writing it is. Would a story about telepaths be considered contemporary realism if it got published in Esquire?

I took the essay to be of the kind you often find in literary criticsm and cultural studies: a highly slanted look at a popular work using a specific set of interpretive tools. These kinds of analyses aren't really supposed to explain/define a work completely. They're supposed to point out things that at first seem counter-intuitive, but in the end {hopefully} can be justified accroding to the authors' central thesis.

I remember a class in college where the prof. did wildly Freudian readings of War of the Worlds and 1984. Were they definitive, no {and they weren't intended to be} . Were they cool, absolutely.


----------



## Henry (May 27, 2003)

Dinkeldog said:
			
		

> *When one writes an essay, one should state an unequivocal thesis statement, and then argue to back up that thesis.  There is no requirement--in fact it's not a good idea--to come up with a wishy-washy, "Well it could be this, kind of sort of," statement; why bother to write anything.  You don't like his argument, fine.   Thinly veiled homophobic attitudes don't provide one bonus points for shouting down someone's thesis statement, though. *




I agree - which is why his article didn't hold water, to me. Many of his references were quite stretched, in my opinion. While the theme of the comic book X-Men has been about tolerance and integration (thinly veiled by butt-loads of action and villain-whopping), it was never solely one theme. In the beginning, its primary theme was concern over racial intolerance, as Stan Lee has said in several interviews in the past. As time went on, the theme broadened to incorporate many different themes, as the concept of "protected groups" in socio-economic terms has broadened significantly over the past thirty years.

To me, the movie clearly and unambiguously works on the same level, emphasizing themes of group registration, of homosexuality, of peer ostracism, and of starting wars on the basis of genetics. Each theme works on more than one group, and to single out one over all others as being the "correct one" is the premise of Essman's article. Essman's article has a flaw - it opens with the statement, _"...one need only look slightly below the surface to discover the horde of homosexual references that director Bryan Singer and company have laid into the foundation of the film."_

However, after looking at his article, the numerous references he implies cannot be logically applied to the film _X2._ It appears to me that Essman wishes to co-opt the movie's messages for one specific cause, rather than to recognize its message as open for any "protected group" - be they a person of color, the handicapped, females, homosexuals, etc. In this singling out, he seems to imply that one group's cause is "more important" than another - which is what I disagree with.

I'll stop there, because to be more specific than that opens the doors in far too political a direction. But manufacturing examples of a work of art to reinforce an argument is something I always try to call out when I see it, and Essman's article is no exception.


----------



## kingpaul (May 28, 2003)

I showed this article to one of my friends who double majored in English and Anthropology.  Said friend, not being able to find a job, is now back for his 3rd bachelor's, this one in Computer Science.  Anyway, this is what he had to say:



> It's amazing that someone can be that close and yet so far off the mark.  The homosexual subtext was realized in the first one.  This exists because Bryan Singer is himself gay.  That's why he wanted to tell the story.  He's intending it as more a message against intolerance in general, but naturally takes it from his own vantage.  So yeah, in a sense, it really is about homosexuality.  But the examples this guy chose to illustrate that have to be the stupidest ones I've ever heard.  This is someone who failed English class and didn't realize why.


----------



## Dinkeldog (May 28, 2003)

I'd agree, kingpaul.  I'd've left the Jean thing out of it and concentrated on the "should we be part of mainstream society" and the "should we allow ourselves to be segregated out of mainstream society" camps, instead.  There's plenty of material there that fits homosexuality better than most other minorities (except maybe for some religious minorities on points), but the writer chose some pretty weak ones.


----------



## Mark (May 29, 2003)

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.


----------



## JacktheRabbit (May 29, 2003)

Why bother.


----------



## S'mon (May 30, 2003)

I'd say 'X-men' overall is about teenage alienation, of whatever type.  Mutation as a metaphor for homosexuality is one idea (possibly encouraged in the reviewer's mind by the casting of Ian McKellen as Magneto), but hardly the only possible one.   Wolverine has always been the classic moody adolescent, hence his popularity with the fan base.


----------



## Bricktop (May 31, 2003)

Hey Ankh-Morpork Gaurd, when you and jdavis go dancing, who leads?


----------



## WizarDru (Jun 2, 2003)

I think the fact that the comic was originally created, co-written and drawn by two Jewish gentlemen who needed to change their last names to work in the comic book business, i.e. Mr. Stanley Levy and Mr. Jacob Kurtzberg, might illuminate their mindset, somewhat.  They WERE outsiders, and the X-men were, in some small part, an expression of that.  

Never mind the fact that all teenagers feel like outsiders...the X-men's original vision merely extrapolated that to the nth-degree.  Does it apply to homosexuality?  Sure it does.  Was the movie about that, and merely a subtext for it... I don't think so.  Bobby's 'outing' was clearly an inspired parallel..."Can you try not being a mutant?"

It's merely a pity that it can apply to so many different situations in this world that we can actually argue about which disenfranchised group it serves.


----------



## Nightstorm (Jun 2, 2003)

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 (Jun 2, 2003)

Mark said:
			
		

> *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 (Jun 2, 2003)

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 (Jun 2, 2003)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> *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 (Jun 2, 2003)

Zhure said:
			
		

> *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.
		
Click to expand...




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.
		
Click to expand...



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 (Jun 2, 2003)

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 (Jun 2, 2003)

Mark said:
			
		

> *
> 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 (Jun 2, 2003)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> *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 (Jun 2, 2003)

Mark said:
			
		

> *
> 
> 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 (Jun 2, 2003)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> *...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.


----------



## S'mon (Jun 2, 2003)

I think you're both right - X-men was originally created primarily with the Jewish experience in mind, but the way Mutation functions in the comics & movies, the homosexual analogy is actually closer.  I still think it's primarily about adolescence in general, though.


----------



## WizarDru (Jun 2, 2003)

S'mon makes an important point: what the creators intended across a span of a couple dozen writers, plotters and illustrators stretched across 30 years intended is somewhat difficult to quantify, at best.

Personally, I think Lee/Kirby created it with the teen angst concept in mind, developed it with incorporation of their own personal takes on the Jewish experience.  Subsequent creators took it in many different directions, some heavy-handed and some not.  Clearly, a reflection of the rights of different outcast groups were compared and contrasted in a variety of ways.  Very overt analogies were made, and some more subtle.  

I consider many of the writers who've handled the X-men in the last 10 years to be atrocious, although the writers who've taken their shot in the last 2 years are certainly a different story.  The Legacy virus, for example, always struck me as rather ham-handed, and it's resolution even worse.  The fact that the X-men now labor under a continuity so heavy it can barely move doesn't help.  The X-men works best, IMHO, when the comic doesn't preach.


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Jun 2, 2003)

Mark said:
			
		

> *
> 
> 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. *




See, that never happens in USENET...   Sorry if I went adversarial immediately over a misinterpretation.

I didn't even bother to read the article that got this started - the comments on it were enough to tell me that the author was trying way way too hard. Digging for freudian imagery and misrepresenting relationships doesn't amke a very good analysis. Like I said before, I think it more interesting to imagin the parrallels that would exist even with NO intent on the part of the writers... There was a ?new mutants? issue back when staring kitty pryde for some reason with a "closetted" mutant who makes mutie jokes to kitty in a desperate attempt to fit in - driving him farther from someone who might understand him. The writer of that one could have had no gay friends, no idea of how closeting effects personal dynamics for glbt folk... and the issue would still be a perfect gay parallel because the author accurately saw where that sort of outsider status can lead. Weird.

Kahuna burger


----------



## Angelsboi (Jun 6, 2003)

OK i JUST found this.  Someone DID tell the reviewer that Magneto had TWO kids right?


----------



## Mark (Jun 6, 2003)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> *See, that never happens in USENET... *




heh heh Well, that's EN World for ya.  It's all about the love, my brother... 



			
				Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> *Sorry if I went adversarial immediately over a misinterpretation.*




After how I reacted, I can hardly blame you.



			
				Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> *I didn't even bother to read the article that got this started - the comments on it were enough to tell me that the author was trying way way too hard. Digging for freudian imagery and misrepresenting relationships doesn't amke a very good analysis. Like I said before, I think it more interesting to imagin the parrallels that would exist even with NO intent on the part of the writers... There was a ?new mutants? issue back when staring kitty pryde for some reason with a "closetted" mutant who makes mutie jokes to kitty in a desperate attempt to fit in - driving him farther from someone who might understand him. The writer of that one could have had no gay friends, no idea of how closeting effects personal dynamics for glbt folk... and the issue would still be a perfect gay parallel because the author accurately saw where that sort of outsider status can lead. Weird.*




Can't argue with that.  Sometimes even a blind squirrel can find a ... Hmmm...  I wonder how that would be interpreted in parallel... 



			
				Angelsboi said:
			
		

> *OK i JUST found this.  Someone DID tell the reviewer that Magneto had TWO kids right? *




The reviewer seems to be able to ignore the parts that do not fit his theory, which is why some believe he was working from an agenda rather than simply trying to be observant.  How's Hotlanta treating you, A-boi?


----------



## Angelsboi (Jun 6, 2003)

*Thread Hijak*

Im good in Atlanta.  Its kinda rainy here, getting ready for Pride and about to start my Bufy game every other Friday.

How be you?


----------



## Mark (Jun 6, 2003)

*Re: Thread Hijak*



			
				Angelsboi said:
			
		

> *Im good in Atlanta.  Its kinda rainy here, getting ready for Pride and about to start my Bufy game every other Friday.
> 
> How be you? *




Not bad.  Raining here, too, which means no Cubs/Yankees until at least tomorrow, I think.  Too bad...

I haven't been to the Pride parade here for a few years but it's always been like Mardi Gras in Boys' Town when it comes round.  I'm sure this year will be no different.  I should try to get out there again.  Gotta support the troops, right? 

So what setting are you using for your Buffyverse?  Last time I looked, the road sign for Sunnydale was tumbling down into a big ol' pit...


----------



## JonSnow (Jun 6, 2003)

*X-Men and the concept of "Analogies"*

The interesting thing about any good narrative story is that most can usually be interpreted relative to the reader/viewer's personal experience. That's the power of narrative, its appeal as "modern mythology" as it were.

Stan Lee stated in the introduction to the Marvel Masterworks X-Men #1-10 that he originally created the X-Men because he was tired of thinking of new ways for characters to have superpowers. He felt he'd already stretched the radiation accident thin (the FF, Spidey, Daredevil, the Hulk), superscience had been overused (Ant Man, Iron Man, Captain America), alien/outsiders had been done to death (Superman, Silver Surfer, Inhumans, Namor), and even magic was getting a bit hackneyed (Dr. Strange, Thor). So he decided to just start having humans who were "born different." Problem solved, perpetual source of new characters supplied.

The evolution of humanity is a theme that has been played out repeatedly in Science Fiction since Charles Darwin wrote the Origin of Species. H.G. Wells in "The Time Machine," A.E. Van Voight in "Slan" and so on. The Time Machine had a variant human race called Morlocks, who lived underground (after which a group of mutants in Marvel's comics was named). The Slan from Slan were even characters with extraordinary powers, often telepathic, identifiably "different" but capable of concealing their differences, who were persecuted for their powers.

Now of course, the homosexual analogy can be attached to X-Men. Any genetic distinction that could be given a stigma could have this analogy attached to it. Is "Gattaca" a homosexual analogy because it represents a world where people can be discriminated against based on "inferior genetics?" Maybe it is, but that's not ALL it is.

Yes, the Legacy Virus was inspired by the AIDS virus, maybe...but it could also be interpreted as a cautionary tale on the perils of germ warfare. The plague which was intended to wipe out dangerous mutants took out some of mankind's protectors, and then started affecting humans (it mutated, appropriate in a book about mutants).

So people should feel free to draw their analogies, but to determine that your interpretation is the intent of the creators...well that's just silly. At the very least, do your research and realize that the movie is drawing on a VERY large body of literature that should be referenced. You wouldn't write an article on the parallels in a movie about King Arthur or Greek Myth without researching the source material first, and the same consideration should be given to the X-Men (or any other literary character). A little intellectual honesty is all we're asking for.

And you don't get to skate with "but the source material is only picture books." The X-Men (and related) comics probably have more text alone (accumulated over 40 years of existence) than 99.9% of the "serious literary works" out there. And if you had to describe the scenes...well we won't even go there.


----------



## Dinkeldog (Jun 7, 2003)

*Re: Re: Thread Hijak*



			
				Mark said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Not bad.  Raining here, too, which means no Cubs/Yankees until at least tomorrow, I think.  Too bad...
> 
> ...




I'll probably skip it again this year.


----------



## Angelsboi (Jun 9, 2003)

Im going to Pride this year.  I didnt make it last year (my first one in Atlanta) so im going with the hubby this year (my first actual gay pride event.  Im 23 and its about time!)

And my Buffy game is set in a fictional town called Hidden falls.  Its in an alternate universe.


----------

