bosef982
Superhero
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2003
- Messages
- 6,211
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 31
I've seen the film three times now, I've analyzed it and I've come to some very disturbing conclusions considering what is typically the X-Men's strongest suit: themes and metaphors on discrimination.
There are essentially three things in X3 that go understated, or unnoticed, that speaks volumes about certain trends in the film's philosophy.
The first and foremost of these is the treatment of Leech. Here is a young boy, who presumably has parents, who is being detained for however long (Rao says that this is fully within guidelines) to have his blood replicated so as to create the cure. Beast even visits this facility, sees the boy, and apparently has no hesitancies about this boy being kept in a posh prison. Neither do the X-Men apparently, who come to the aid of the humans who are holding the boy and siphoning his powers for a cure. This sends a mixed message -- and an immoral one -- where apparently Xavier and his band are perfectly content with mutants being used for patent experimentation, a trend Xavier himself condemened in action in both X-Men 1 and X2 but now seems perfectly okay with...
Rogue and her decision to get cured. This has been discussed many times so I won't go into it here in detail. But the message is clear -- don't deal, change. Part of Rogue's dynamic nature as a character is that she overcomes her mutant power and finds ways to use it for a higher purpose, not reliniquish it. People say "This is more realistic..." and I don't think its a matter of realism, it's a matter of character development. Which is more poignant? Rogue has the ability to choose to change her genes and doesn't, embracing her mutancy once and for all against the backdrop of it being cured, or Rogue has the ability to choose to change her genes and does, showing her need to...what? Love Bobby? Is that all? As Logan said, that's a rather stupid reason -- foolheartdly -- reason to do it. We scoff at people who get tattoos of lovers on their arms b/c we say what happens when you break up...yet give a ride to a person who changes their fundamental being to accomdate a boy. This too, sends bad messages in terms of feminism (a women changing herself completely for a boy) and overall discrimiantion (give in to the majority and succumb to what's most comfortable, not most rational or natural).
Lastly, perhaps the most inconcievable, yet hidden philosophical fopa is Beast and the X-Men using the cure against Magneto. We have two incidents prior to this where the X-Men are talking about the cure being used against mutants as a weapon. You have Storm, Xavier, and Logan bring up the overall implications of this being forced upon mutants during the first act of the film, and their general hope that the gov't would never do such a thing -- Beast echoes the sentiment. Thus, when it is used as a weapon, Beast feels the need to resign his cabinet position (no small thing) and leave for the school. Later, the writers write a scene with Magneto screaming and rallying the troops, and within this speech of evilness, they have Magneto say they will use this poison against any mutant who stands in their way. Now we, as an audience, are most likely to see that this is Magneto being hypocritical, and just utterly dasterdly -- simply by implication of how the line was written, delivered, and directed.
However, The X-Men go to Alcatraz and use the cure against Magneto?!! How does this make any sense other than to resolve a plot thread?! Beast, somehow, goes from hating the idea of forcing the cure upon mutants, to actually being one of the people who force the cure upon a mutant. In fact, the X-Men come to the aid of an entire group of people who are using the cure as weapon against mutants, defending these people, while earlier having held beliefs contrary to the use of the cure as a weapon.
It's not just that these things send a wrong message, structurally and character-wise, they JUST DON'T MAKE SENSE!
There are essentially three things in X3 that go understated, or unnoticed, that speaks volumes about certain trends in the film's philosophy.
The first and foremost of these is the treatment of Leech. Here is a young boy, who presumably has parents, who is being detained for however long (Rao says that this is fully within guidelines) to have his blood replicated so as to create the cure. Beast even visits this facility, sees the boy, and apparently has no hesitancies about this boy being kept in a posh prison. Neither do the X-Men apparently, who come to the aid of the humans who are holding the boy and siphoning his powers for a cure. This sends a mixed message -- and an immoral one -- where apparently Xavier and his band are perfectly content with mutants being used for patent experimentation, a trend Xavier himself condemened in action in both X-Men 1 and X2 but now seems perfectly okay with...
Rogue and her decision to get cured. This has been discussed many times so I won't go into it here in detail. But the message is clear -- don't deal, change. Part of Rogue's dynamic nature as a character is that she overcomes her mutant power and finds ways to use it for a higher purpose, not reliniquish it. People say "This is more realistic..." and I don't think its a matter of realism, it's a matter of character development. Which is more poignant? Rogue has the ability to choose to change her genes and doesn't, embracing her mutancy once and for all against the backdrop of it being cured, or Rogue has the ability to choose to change her genes and does, showing her need to...what? Love Bobby? Is that all? As Logan said, that's a rather stupid reason -- foolheartdly -- reason to do it. We scoff at people who get tattoos of lovers on their arms b/c we say what happens when you break up...yet give a ride to a person who changes their fundamental being to accomdate a boy. This too, sends bad messages in terms of feminism (a women changing herself completely for a boy) and overall discrimiantion (give in to the majority and succumb to what's most comfortable, not most rational or natural).
Lastly, perhaps the most inconcievable, yet hidden philosophical fopa is Beast and the X-Men using the cure against Magneto. We have two incidents prior to this where the X-Men are talking about the cure being used against mutants as a weapon. You have Storm, Xavier, and Logan bring up the overall implications of this being forced upon mutants during the first act of the film, and their general hope that the gov't would never do such a thing -- Beast echoes the sentiment. Thus, when it is used as a weapon, Beast feels the need to resign his cabinet position (no small thing) and leave for the school. Later, the writers write a scene with Magneto screaming and rallying the troops, and within this speech of evilness, they have Magneto say they will use this poison against any mutant who stands in their way. Now we, as an audience, are most likely to see that this is Magneto being hypocritical, and just utterly dasterdly -- simply by implication of how the line was written, delivered, and directed.
However, The X-Men go to Alcatraz and use the cure against Magneto?!! How does this make any sense other than to resolve a plot thread?! Beast, somehow, goes from hating the idea of forcing the cure upon mutants, to actually being one of the people who force the cure upon a mutant. In fact, the X-Men come to the aid of an entire group of people who are using the cure as weapon against mutants, defending these people, while earlier having held beliefs contrary to the use of the cure as a weapon.
It's not just that these things send a wrong message, structurally and character-wise, they JUST DON'T MAKE SENSE!
.
