Big RED & Shiny: An Art Journal

Ann Coulter: 'I know he got a bad rap because there are no monuments to Joe McCarthy. Liberals had to destroy McCarthy because he exposed the entire liberal establishment as having sheltered Soviet spies.'

Ann Coulter: 'My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building.'

X-MEN 3
by MATTHEW NASH

&

July 10, 2006

The final conflict of X-Men III: The Last Stand posits one of the more interesting philosophical arguments that I have seen in an action film. On one side are a faceless horde of U.S. soldiers acting on orders from politicians fighting to preserve a time that once was, but has since been eclipsed by the present. On the other side of the battle are a motivated and angry group of mutants, fighting for their very survival and for the idea that we cannot return to a glorified past, and must create our own future. In the middle are our heroes, reduced to seven by the end of the film, who hope to reconcile the two groups and save both humanity and the mutants.

It is hard not to cheer for the militant faction, led by Magneto, as they fight to keep mutants from being eradicated. Never once in the film does our group of heroes make a cogent argument for reconciliation; the closest they get is by pointing out that it is what Charles Xavier had worked for, yet his dream that humankind and mutantkind can live peacefully together seems outweighed by the conflict at hand. In fact, it is the starkly black-and-white nature of the conflict that makes it hard to side with the Storm, Wolverine and their group as they stand in the grey area between those to be eradicated and their destroyers.

The following statements are simple and obvious, but very relavent to this film: X-Men, the comic and the film series, have always been about xenophobia; and, science-fiction has always served as an analogy for contemporary problems. In this case, the faceless out-of-touch reactionary government mirrors our own, while the mutants fighting for survival could generally be called 'outsiders', although time and place might name them homosexuals, minorities, women, the anti-war movement, teetotalers, copperheads, prohibitionists, secessionists, Puritans, Boxers, Protestants, Communists or revolutionaries. The list goes on.

At the heart of most action films is the idea that good must defeat evil, that right must trump might, and truth and justice always defeat evil and lies. X-Men III, however, never really defines good and evil, right or wrong. It is clear to all that the decision by the government to 'cure' mutants is wrong, but the opposing choice - open war - is also framed as wrong. There are no clear answers, and the closest the film gives us comes when Hank McCoy (The Beast) leaves his job as Secretary of Mutant Affairs for the President to fight alongside the X-Men in their war against...

Against what?

Ultimately, it seems that their war is one against war. They are against the eradication of mutants and of humans. They stand for peace, for the middle, for live-and-let-live politics. The first X-Men film began with young Eric Lensherr (Magneto) separated from his mother at the gates of Auschwitz. That film followed the struggle between Magneto and his old friend Charles Xavier over the role of mutants against humankind. Their war was hidden, as were mutants in general, and the debate fell between a rational, peaceful philosophy and that of war. In the second film, X2 (subtitled in the promotional materal "X-Men United"), the story turned to the conflict between human and mutant, and the exploitation of mutants for military means. This third installment brings all-out war, yet returns to the theme of the first: co-existance.

It is possible that there were some in the audience who were truly cheering for the X-Men at the end of this film as they tried to find a way to re-unite humans and mutants; I was not one of them. I was cheering for Magneto and his Brotherhood as they fought against extermination. I was cheering for his speech hinting at his Auschwitz past as he declared that our rights are not taken with our permission; I was cheering as his side neared their goal of destroying the facility where 'the cure' was held. This series of films has embedded in itself, from the very beginning, the notion that xenophobia breeds places like Auschwitz and Belsen, Ohrdruff and Mauthausen, and many more. It has fought the ideological war between co-existance and rebellion, and for two films the X-Men series has made a strong case for peace; that silence, hiding and denial were the best choice in the face of hate. This third film brings all sides and arguments into the light, and we are left to ponder whether the eradication of the foreign is right or wrong, and whether to defend one's very life is an evil act. The film's ultimate conclusion, of a civil middle-ground of co-existance, is both insulting to the characters and a slap in the face of history: there are precious few moments since WWII that show the acceptance of an outsider group without an aggressive, sometimes violent and always hostile engagement with those who wish to 'return to a better time.'

One of the scarier facets of X-Men III is how often the hate-speech of the political characters mirrors our current 'discourse.' While the movie made it obvious that the idea of 'curing' mutants was fundamentally wrong, we have heard much talk recently from pundits who oppose gay marriage, abortion rights and other contested topics with a type of vigor that approaches the maniacal version depicted in the film. When Ann Coulter speaks for a section of the population, one is forced to ponder how much fiction is in this science-fiction, and how valuable the middle ground the heroes seek will be.

Is X-Men III a good film: sure. It is fun to watch and worth thinking about. It has too many characters and sub-stories, but for those of us who read the "Mutant Wars" series as kids, and eagerly sought the "Death of the Phoenix" books at yard sales, this film ensures that we are content. Yet, below the surface, it's utter negation of the philosophical claims of it's main characters leaves it open to multiple political readings. Is it a call to arms? Why not?

----

Go back to the
BIG RED SUMMER MOVIE EXTRAVAGANZA III
introduction for more movie reviews.

----

Matthew Nash is the publisher of Big RED & Shiny.

Search the ARCHIVES for more pieces by MATTHEW NASH

EMAIL THIS ARTICLE

LINK TO THIS PIECE

DOWNLOAD AS PDF

SUPPORTERS