Philosophical Underpinnings of X-Men 3

[Pizzaboy1138]

P.S. What is a "philosophical fopa"?

I think he/she meant "faux pas".

 

[Drago]

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!

I'm very glad to see somebody looking at the meanings of things in these films instead of just eating up the things that are spelled out (while I loved X1 and X2, Singer never incorporated heavier issues like these in his films, and I was very glad to see them here)- glad to see people read between the lines. Having said that, I do disagree with some of your points. I'll agree that there are some philosophical under-pinnings in the film, but the way that I interpreted everything was much more on a socio-political level than everything else.

The underlying theme of the film is really based not necessarily on "power" (Jean and the Cure), but on the dichotomy of its usage. In regards to Jean, should she have been controlled by Xavier the whole time? Or should she have been left to have all of her powers, be extremely dangerous to others, but be free? That's the philosophical approach to it, because no matter what you choose to do freedom would be inhibited for one or the other (we see Xavier as the one extreme and Magneto as the other- but in the end, are either one of those extremes really the right one? It's a lose-lose situation. The Cure is the social aspect of this- a scientific achievement is created that could either help or hurt those who are different. Again, the dichotomy exists between never using it (Magneto), or having it forced (the government)- two extremes again. Being a socio-political issue, just like politics there will be no right or wrong, but both sides will still have their advocates. That same dichotomy is shown to try and show that the Cure could be beneficial (that's what Rogue is for- she has much more to gain by taking it, but like you said, that's for the other thread), while we see the government proving that it could be very dangerous when handled the wrong way and weaponizing it- it's how that power is used. Why do I say that the focus is so much more on the socio-political aspect? Because everyone has their views challenged by Jean and the Cure. Here's my opinions of the 3 things you brought up:

-Rogue Taking the Cure- I'm one of the people believing its the right decision. Like we both said, its for another thread, but thats where I stand on it, because she made the decision for herself and not for Bobby (if they had the actual love triangle I would have taken the other end of the argument, because then she would do it for Bobby). For those looking for someone not taking it who maybe had reason, look at Beast not taking it- you can't argue against that, he made the right choice.

-Magneto Being Cured- Loved it. Mystique lost her pride, identity, and now feels alienated. Magneto was conflicted about leaving her (it challenged his inferior view of humans- either he sacrificed his social views or he sacrificed his relationship with Mystique, there was no win to his choices), and now all of a sudden he's in the same position she is (definitely challenges his values on humans being inferior since he's now one of them). I would have preferred to see some type of reunion between the two at the end showing that all they have now is eachother, instead of that stupid chess scene they shot weeks before release (although, that scene was ambiguous enough where you could say now he's just content to have any of his gift left, and that he may have pride in that and not risk losing it ever again).

Now, as for the X-Men in that scene, there were a few important things. First, when they saw those darts on the ground, except for Beast, that was the first time they saw the cure weaponized- there was a quick "are we defending the right people?" moment there. Thematically, though, the X-Men being forced to Cure Magneto was important because it again wasn't black or white, but in the gray- it challenged the views that the weaponized Cure ws completely bad, again stressing that socio-political controversy. Magneto was going to kill a boy and killed a lot of civilians and soldiers- you can't say that you can't give him the Cure because it's "immoral"- his actions justify it.

-Leech. I don't know why he was there, but we know that Worthington, Rao, and the X-Men all meant well. They wouldn't have condoned anything like him being a prisoner. It's more than plausible that he could have volunteered (I've done that when I've needed extra cash to pay for school), but we'll never really know since it isn't addressed on film in either direction. Like I said, though, the social context showed tons of mutants welcoming the cure, so its more than plausible that he was trying to help people in that situation. Either way, its pointless for any of us to argue, because like I said, neither side was explained in the film, we're just left to our assumption because we know the intentions of Worthington and the X-Men.

Throwing this out there. What's my favorite line of the film?:
"I worry how democracy survives when 1 man can move cities with his mind." (-Prez), "As do I." (-Beast). The president is referring to mutancy being a threat at times, Beast is referring to powerful political figures.

 

[GoHF]

There are essentially three things in X3 that go understated, or unnoticed, that speaks volumes about certain trends in the film's philosophy.

No. Those are three things that the movie addresses in a rather simplistic manner, and have therefore not deserved much talk.

Sure, X-men (comics anyway) is about discrimination and moral issues but... what discrimination? Discrimination in this movie was like a movie about the holocaust without Nazis, death camps or even war. There was NO discrimination outside 2 instances:
1 - The parents of angel and jean (and it was more ignorance than discrimination, since they loved their children).
2 - Mutants discriminating against humans, namely Mistique's interrogation. "Homo sapiens *ptui*".

Did you see many humans spitting on the mutants? Did you see many humans hating on the mutants? Killing the mutants? Telling the mutants to get out of their stores or they'd pop them in the head? Telling the mutants to sit on the back of the bus? telling mutants they're not welcome in their restaurant? Were there many humans telling the mutants "you're sick, you filthy mutant scum. go get cured, freak"? I sure don't remember any. Sure, humans named the thing a "cure", alluding to their belief that mutation is an abnormality. Is that it? A not-so-pc tv speech and some clinics offering the treatment? Wow, those poor mutants, so hard is the discrimination upon them... *yawn* Michael Jackson made a similar choice, and he's still alive, is loved by many and... didn't make an entire group of people feel discriminated for the rest of their lives.

Rogue's choice was handled so-so, or even decently, by the actors. However, it was far too simplistic in that we were shown only the good side, the fairytale ending... Rogue has a boyfriend that is still a mutant. A boyfriend that isn't "normal". A boyfriend that can freeze and break her face if he flips out or is having a nightmare. A boyfriend that goes out in dangerous missions that don't include her anymore. A boyfriend that (supposedly) is hated or looked down on by 99% of the world. She can't even be one of the X-Men anymore (except as, maybe, an honorary member). How would she handle that? Remember in the comics (if you've read them) how often "regular" humans broke their relationships with mutants because the X-Men-life was just too much? We don't even get to see Rogue face those feelings, it's all just happy-feeling, individual-empowerment without any actual consequence outside that fairytale ending. The rogue bobby fell in love with wasn't a regular human. She won't act the same, she won't be the same. Can he take it? Whoops, not in the movie, but let's pretend it had depth anyway.

Oh, and Beast using the cure on Magneto. Oh, the moral ripples of that, shredding the fabric of space and time... k, k, it's not nice to make fun, so I won't anymore. Now, the way I see it, if they'd lacked the cure needles but had instead a gun with which to kill magneto, they'd have done it. Wolverine killed a crapload of mutants. It wasn't a big moral dichotomy, was it? Killing the very people whose acceptance by society the X-men fight for. The cure was a chance for survival, the only chance they could think of in that situation, and they took it. Like I said, if they could have off'd Magneto they probably would have. Since that was out of the question but depowering him wasn't, they went with that route. Once depowered, no need to kill him and thus they let him be. But, basically, it all sums up to: no matter how pacifist you are, if you're 110% sure someone's gonna kill you, you kill them first if the chance presents itself. Dead people don't have moral issues.

I'm kinda tired of people portraying this movie as carrying deep issues. Maybe it has some undertones in there, and the whole thing may be built upon a supposition that those issues exist. However, the issues rarely arise and when they do, they're treated in a rather bland and straightforward manner.

EDIT: Leech was a zombie, much like Jean. He looked at the bridge with the same expression he looked at the angel with the same expression he looked at beast with the same expression he looked at kitty when he was kneeling besides his bed with almost the same expression he hugged Storm. I didn't feel for Leech because there was nothing there I could feel for, any spark of humanity, of will, of anything.

 

[GhostPoet]

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!

Um. It's a movie. Who cares?

Loved the movie. PLan to see it again, like many i've seen on various forums.

 

[bosef982]

Sigh....


Peons.

 

[bosef982]

Don't forget that part of the reason that the X-Men go to Alcatraz is to rescue Leech

He actually wanted to kill him!

 

[Radagast_Prime]

Sigh....


Peons.

lol