Unpopular Opinions: Dark Knight

by Devin

“Long as you keep them way off balance, how can they spot you got no talents?”

Yes, this is indeed a quote from the musical Chicago. However, it works splendidly for the movie The Dark Knight. As I watched, I could not help but think that the constant growl from Christian Bale or the twenty car crashes per frame were the only things that had kept the world at large from realizing what an unmitigated piece of crap this film was. Well, that and the fact that there are currently worms making a meal of Heath Ledger.

That’s right – I hold the unpopular opinion that The Dark Knight not only wasn’t one of the greatest comic book movies of all time, but that it sucked. Now, before I go on, let me say that I will be reviewing this movie, not as a Batman movie, but as a movie on its own. Don’t write me off as a comic fan complaining about how they dared to change the sacred text.

I suppose the late Mr. Ledger would be the best place to start, as his role is the most-praised, the biggest cause of the hype and, naturally, the most over-rated. Compared to other Jokers, Heath Ledger’s Joker was not impressive at all. A good Joker should pose a challenge to a writer, extreme sadism with a genuinely funny (albeit extremely dark) sense of humor. In contrast, this Joker was a series of gruesome acts, followed by an occasional smile. He would have gotten along well with the guy from Saw.

As a character, Ledger’s Joker is awkward and one-dimensional. Worse, the basis of the character can’t seem to follow its own logic. The make-up designer has said that that they gave Joker gritty, messy make-up to show that he doesn’t care about his appearance. Would he really be wearing that whole get-up if he didn’t care about his appearance? The Dark Knight constantly wants to have its cake and eat it too. It wants to be uber-realistic and gritty and essentially above more comic-booky ideas like a villain with acid-spraying flowers or a sleek, phallic Batmobile, but it is in the end a comic book movie, and every attempt to get away from the comic book nature only makes everything else seem more unrealistic and silly.

This problem first occurred to me with Batman Begins, but came back with a roaring vengeance with Joker’s pencil scene. I could not help but wonder: why is this guy wearing a clown suit and make-up? Aside from the fact that he was Joker in a Batman movie, I could not really see any reason. He did not act like a clown; he acted like a normal crazy guy. The “pencil trick” and bomb joke only seemed like desperate token lines by the writers to justify his being the Joker. The scene played out as uncomfortably as if I were watching The Breakfast Club and Emilio Estivez was, for some unexplained reason, wearing Greek hoplite armor the entire time. While a more stylized, kookier character might have been unrealistic, he would have been more believable than this relatively lifelike character dressed up the way he was.

I could not help but think that Christopher Nolan decided what he wanted the Joker to act like, and then tried to shoehorn that idea into the role. That’s why the behavior does not fit the look. And that’s why the attempt at explaining the make-up (war paint?) seems half-hearted at best.

Why would the Joker then go out of make-up to disguise himself as a police officer? If disguise takes precedent over war-paint, why didn’t he do that as the nurse? Is he a master of disguise or a showman? Do the screenwriters even know their character? And, why oh why did the police not take off his make-up when they had him in custody? They clearly had him remove his clothes to inspect them (the line about them all being hand made, no labels). The obvious choice would be to wash off the make up, put him in a jumpsuit, and essentially neuter him. But they don’t. Why?

A. The Gotham police have the combined intellect of a busty blonde in a slasher flick.
B. The movie wants to keep Joker as an other-worldly figure despite already setting him up as a more grounded psychopath. And, really, who wants to see Batman interrogate a guy in a jumpsuit…even though, that would follow the rules set forth by the movie and the overall premise of this more-realistic, gritty Batman. Essentially, lazy writing.

Both of these reasons really. In fact, A is caused by B. A also comes up when the police leave Joker in an unlocked cell with one guard (yeah, leave a sole guard in the same room with someone who is known for playing mind games…great idea) and don’t even bother to clean up the shattered glass (erm…doesn’t this guy have a penchant for cutting?). And really now, could any police officer think that the Joker’s requested phone call was innocent?

Of course, if the police were competent, the Joker would have a harder time escaping. Either you would need to make him a bit more of a SUPER villain (hidden capsules of laughing gas perhaps) or, god forbid, put effort into your script and not just have events occur out of convenience to the writer.

Now, let’s look at the character itself. One moment I remember laughing was when Rachel Dawes yelled to Joker amidst his umpteenth scar speech, “Okay, stop!” That was because I was half-expecting her to follow that with “For the love of God, we’ve seen this scene five times already! This character is one-dimensional and boring!”

There, I said it. Joker was not a good villain. The emperor has no clothes. He was an averagely written psychopath who struck one note repetitively for the first half of the movie, and then in the second half turned into a pop-psychologist who has taken a course on ethics in night school.

As for Ledger’s acting, it was okay. I thought it was excessive instead of over-the-top (which would have been better). The lip-licking would have been a nice touch if done a few times every other scene instead of every line (I could not help but shake the image of 30 Rock’s Jack Donaghy telling Ledger, “That’s great! Do it nonstop! If it’s great with that line, it’ll make every line better!”). He was a decent psychopath in some scenes, especially considering the horrible dialogue and speeches he was given, but his performance just kind of seemed to be him shouting “LOOK! I’M ACTING!” at multiple points and I wonder if he’d be nominated for a Razzie were he still with us. To be honest, about halfway through the movie, I began to think that maybe Joker licked his lips so much to catch the bits of scenery that fell out during all the chewing.

There was one nice Joker moment in the movie: when he blew up the hospital. For a few seconds, he pretended to not know how to activate the explosives (while in drag, mind you, cause, well, drag’s always funnier), fiddled incompetently, then seemed surprised when he got the most excessive explosion I’ve seen in a while. On one hand, he blew up a hospital. On the other hand, the scene was hilarious. That dichotomy is not only hard to write, but brilliant, creepy, and captivating at the same time. I wish the rest of the film had been like that.

But enough about the Joker. Let’s look at Batman. As Bruce Wayne, Christian Bale seems to know what he’s doing. He’s arrogant, yet charismatic. That’d be great if this were Bruce Wayne: The Movie. Unfortunately, his Batman makes Toby Maguire’s awkward Spider-Man look like the best casting match known to man.

To start with the obvious: Someone please send Batman a note and let him know that he’s not Jack Bauer. And let Christian Bale know that imitating that voice might work for a line or two at best, but whenever he is giving a speech (oh the speeches…) or is in an extended dialogue, he ends up giving the best unintentional comedic performance since Faye Dunaway arched her eyebrows and became Mommie Dearest.

I also couldn’t buy this Batman not killing the Joker. This was yet another problem brought on by the combination of lazy writing and a more realistic, less stylized setting. This Batman breaks bones, levels city blocks, probably puts hundreds of lives in danger with his car chases and truck flipping…yet, he won’t kill the Joker on two separate occasions. Why? Because he doesn’t want to prove the Joker right? I can hardly believe that this character would allow hundreds of more lives to be endangered just so the Joker would not get those 5 seconds of satisfaction between the beginning and end of his death. The comic book Batman would…but we’re leaving the comics out of this, right? Just like Joker’s attire, the only reason this did not come off as asinine was because the public has in their consciousness that Batman does not kill.

Oh, and I’m just not going into the pointless Hong Kong excursion. For everyone’s sake, let’s pretend that never happened and move on to Harvey Dent, shall we?

I wanted to like Harvey/Two-Face. Honestly, I did. Aaron Eckhart did a great job in the first half and I could almost see myself championing him as the under-appreciated actor amidst the “ZOMG! Posthumous Oscar!” clamor. Unfortunately, his descent to Two-Face was rushed. Sure, he’d had a traumatic experience…but does that make everyone automatically give up all of the ideals they strived so hard for and try to kill their former allies?

I think someone in Gotham City had control of the trade-marked Anakin-Skywalker-Evil-Switch: “Sure to turn any good character evil with just one lame excuse!” Even when I forced myself to make that leap, I could not get over the fact that he hated Gordon more than Joker and spared Joker. If Dent’s change had been more gradual, maybe it would have made sense. If he’d killed Joker, maybe I could have forced myself to believe he so abruptly became evil. But again, in this fight between the Clown Prince of Crime and the Caped Crusader, the only true winner is plot convenience. Logic and coherence were the greatest casualties.

As for Rachel Dawes, I found her an enigma. Was Maggie Gyllenhaal trying to provide depth to a 2-dimensional character or was she flattening a more developed character? It was definitely one of the two, because in the end Rachel was about a 2.5 dimensional character.

But, aside from characters, what did I think? The dialogue was an encyclopedia of bad action movie clichés. A few of my favorites: “You’re the symbol of hope I could never be.” “You can’t give in!!!!!!” (yes, all those exclamation points were necessary) “People are dying. What would you have me do?” And of course:

Joker: I like you. There’s some fight in you.
Batman: Then you’re gonna love me.

I guess with an unfunny Joker, Batman has to be the one making the jokes.

Also, you gotta love all of the speeches explaining the character’s motivations and the point of the movie. Usually, just one of those speeches is a flashing light that someone spent about a week on this screenplay and was not willing to put in the time for subtlety. However, Dark Knight had the boldness to put at least five such speeches – from Joker, Batman, Harvey, and even Gordon.

"But, Devin," you might say, "you’re being unfair. This is a summer blockbuster. Lighten up."

I suppose you could have a point. I mean, this movie is almost the perfect homogenous summer blockbuster. At times, I forgot that I was watching Batman and not, for example, 2003’s SWAT. The difference is, this film took itself unbelievably seriously, as have fans and critics. The last scene (the confrontation between Two-Face, Gordon, and Batman) reeks of the film’s love for itself.
Despite being “realistic,” this movie falls back on tons of bad comic-book clichés. The policemen robbed of their uniforms (that all fit the Joker’s men?) and tied up in their skivvies? The comedic court scenes? The nonstop use of pseudo-scientific technology that does not exactly make sense? The criminals all meeting together and referring to themselves as criminals and reflecting on how much better the “criminals” were in the good ol’ days?

Stuff like this stood out in the realistic Gotham like the animated weasel gang stood out among the live-action setting in Who Framed Roger Rabbit? The criminals were cartoon characters, a lingering aspect from Batman’s comic book origins that just didn’t fit. Even Batman himself came off as a bit silly amidst all the realism. I remember another moment of unintentional comedy early in the film as Gordon and Dent argued as Batman just awkwardly stood there in the background. In this supposedly realistic setting, I could not get over the hilarity of the fact that IT’S A FREAKIN' GUY IN A RUBBER BAT-SUIT!

And what do we get in return for this realism? Chicago as Gotham, with its average skyline that Nolan insists on reminding us of with a long, sweeping establishing shot every five minutes. A Batman that can’t decide if he is Jack Bauer, James Bond, Bruce Willis, Rambo, or someone action star in between. No Batcave, but instead the White Room of Exposition! I know I said I was not going to bring in the comics, but I was DYING for something to look at (a dinosaur, a car, a giant penny, ANYTHING!). So what do we get? A non-stop cavalcade of the boring and mundane.

But not everyone was bored. Or found it stupid. Am I special? No. I can understand how amidst the hype and the dead celebrity and the constant explosions and the general roller-coaster ride of the plot, people could walk out and not think of the various problems. I must admit I went in not expecting the best. But dear god, even I was shocked by how bad it was.

I was convinced that Batman could not be done realistically. Batman is a stupid concept, built on absurdities. “An overgrown kid in a playsuit crying for mommy and daddy” says the Joker in one episode of the cartoon. A father who is both a surgeon and a billionaire owner of a multinational corporation? And why are they walking home from a movie playing at the worst neighborhood in town? Why is Batman waging a one man war on crime? That can’t be the most practical method. But, because the whole world is so stylized, because all the absurdities fit together so well, there’s no reason to question it. It’s not our world. Those aren’t our rules. Batman Begins tried to fit that world to our rules, only to make every part that couldn’t come off as ludicrous.

However, after seeing Dark Knight, I have to reassess my position. I realize that I would not be fair to judge the possibility of a realistic Batman on the sloppy Batman Begins or its sloppier successor. That would be like saying Batman cannot be a superhero because of the failure of Batman and Robin. Perhaps a more competent writer and director could do it…but judging from this movie’s grosses, that ain’t happening any time soon. Read more!

Aside from the Spandex and Leather, Are the X-Men Gay? Part Three

by Devin

Today we present the third and final installment of Devin's three-part series. Have you read parts one and two?

In the first issue of Grant Morrison’s New X-Men run, he has Professor X bring up that the current generation of mutants emerging is different from any that has come before them. While the upcoming generation of gay youths may not have to worry about stranger mutations, they are different from those that have come before them. In the past few years, coming out in high school is almost becoming common in more liberal states, whereas only a little bit before that, a school of a thousand could very well only have a couple of “out” students. While they naturally will face challenges, just like Professor X mentions, they will be of a very different nature than those that have come before them, where the main struggle was in reconciling who you were with who you had to be to socially survive high school.

Morrison also introduces a group known as U-Men, humans who wish to be mutants. In order to make such a hope possible, they kill mutants and then harvest their organs, transplanting the special body parts into themselves. This includes grafting on wings or replacing their eyes for those that shoot lasers. Therefore, while their DNA may still be human, they appear to be mutants. In essence, the U-Men are the X-Universe’s equivalent of metrosexuals. However, in order to be a U-Man, one must kill or terribly maim a real mutant. Could Morrison be remarking that metrosexuality is not the right way to get gays into the mainstream? It merely picks and chooses the aspects of gay culture (or organs) that it wants, but then leaves the rest behind. This leaves gays in a state where they can dress a straight man or be funny on Will and Grace, but still cannot get married in most states or the general respect of a straight couple.

The Queer Eye parallel goes even further. The idea of a mutant subculture permeating the mainstream culture of humankind is one of the main themes of Morrison’s run. In his 41 issues, mutants no longer hide as much as they used to (just like gays nowadays, there are many more “out of the closet”). There are more mutants than ever and, like any minority group, a subculture has begun to form. One such example of this subculture is the existence of a mutant designer, Jumbo Carnation. This character has to his credit such clothing as “tentacle gloves.” A title devoted to the “mutant section” of New York City (almost every major city has a gay neighborhood), District X, ran for a while during this period.

Even the Xavier Institute is now openly a school that exists for mutants to learn in a safe environment. Interestingly, around this same time, controversy was building over the opening of Harvey Milk High School, a school in New York City for LGBT youth who did not feel safe attending their current schools. The Harvey Milk High School received protestors and angry speeches from politicians and people in the press. Similarly, in the issues which first show the school no longer hiding the fact that it’s a mutant school, protestors swarm outside of Xavier’s Institute.

The X-Force reboot that happened around the same time (starting with issue #116) also has much to say about the Queer Eye and Will and Grace phenomena. In this version of the title, gone were the testosterone and angst-filled products of the early ‘90s, such as Cannonball and Sunspot. Instead, Peter Milligan delivered to us a superhero team that was more like the Backstreet Boys or Spice Girls than the Avengers or JLA. They are given intentionally corny names that only marketing majors could think of, like, U-Go Girl (the team’s teleporter) and Mr. Sensitive. One member, Anarchist, complains about the possible joining of the mutant Spike, since he says that there cannot be two black members on the team.

In short, these mutants have been intensely focus-grouped for the sole purpose of being presentable and lovable for the mass of humans not yet ready for the whole of mutant culture. They are young, sexy, and flawless. One character says in the first issue of the run, “I might be a mutant, but I kind of like the members of my team to look at least half human.” This way of thought mirrors many depictions of gays when they appear in mainstream culture. Margaret Cho has even referred to the Queer Eye group as having a “superhero grace.” For the mainstream is not yet ready for such a wide spectrum of gays as it has for heterosexuals. When they appear, they have to be perfect. As Cho notes, “Have you ever seen a gay man on TV be ‘bad’ at something? Not likely. We've not that luxury to fuck up.”

Therefore, in both real life and in the world of X-Force, the current path of assimilation is a double-edged sword. On one hand, this focus-grouped team of minorities is getting them into the mainstream. On the other hand, they are not being given honest exposure. Instead, they are just tools to sell products. One character, Zeitgeist, comments on this in the first issue in his inner monologue during a battle:

Money. Fame. Sex. Cars. Houses. Champagne. Talk shows. Cafés. Limousines. Immortality. Luck. Just the peanuts they throw at us. They’d hate us if we couldn’t do this. They’d fear us.
They adore us now. They know why we’re here, what the point of us is. But I’m still a mutant you idiots. I’m still fourteen years old…I’m a freak. And I hate you all.

Quite frankly (or Frank Quitely), the X-Universe is embarrassing to read nowadays. Whedon followed Morrison’s brilliant run with the least subtle, least controversial, least insightful story that tied gay rights with mutants and then gave the reader eighteen issues that essentially screamed, “I WANT TO BE WRITING THE AVENGERS!” Now, Warren Ellis (a writer I typically like) has succeeded him, premiering with an issue where nobody acts in character, the X-Men are chummily working side by side with the police, and, to add insult to injury, the art is just muddled and confusing. And, of course, one cannot forget the 198 (or however many we’re down to). Last time I checked, there had been no mass exodus to the closet (though that would give me a great excuse for my dating woes). In fact, I’m starting to fear that there are just no heterosexuals left in the world anymore, just like Trask feared would be the fate of humans in New X-Men #114.

I end this post on a low-note. For the moment, I fear that the X-Men have been downsized from a forum for cutting-edge commentary to once again being brainless, spandex clad crime fighters whose main concerns are stopping the earth from being shot by a giant bullet and whatnot. But, as my post has shown, none of these dry spells last forever. Give the gay rights movement (or some other social movement) time to progress or change a bit more, to get more problems, and maybe, hopefully, the X-Men will again be back on track. Till then, I’ll look away elsewhere for my thrills, awaiting the day I can again see Cyclops firing an optic blast at Magneto, and know that there’s a little more going on than there first appears to be. Read more!

Aside from the Spandex and Leather, Are the X-Men Gay? Part Two

by Devin

Today we continue Devin's three-part essay. Read part one here.

But by this time, the Civil Rights Acts and Brown vs. Topeka were over a decade old. The commentary would be a little too late if this was to be an allegory for African Americans. Racism had moved from the law books to the much murkier area of socio-economic statuses and people not trusting a black guy because “he doesn’t smile enough.” On the homosexual front, however, anti-gay laws were plentiful. Not only were there laws barring gay marriage or adoption--as there still are today--but many states still had anti-sodomy laws and did not have laws banning discrimination on sexual orientation or gender identity. Sexual orientation was also not a factor in a hate crime and many states did not recognize same-sex couples in cases of domestic abuse. The gay rights movement had only begun a few years ago with the Stonewall Riot and it was still a risky topic to touch. Two decades would have to pass before every pre-pubescent girl knew the complete score to Rent and any housewife could tune in weekly to Will and Grace without a second thought. The fledgling gay-rights movement was an issue worth notice, but the only way that comics could even consider touching it was by wearing a mask (or a ruby-quartz visor…okay, I’ll stop). Hence, “gay” was changed to “mutant.”

Another interesting aspect of this time is a partial reversal in gender roles. Think back to the days of Stan and Jack. Scarlet Witch’s and Marvel Girl’s powers were far weaker than they would later become, relegating the two girls to the job of standing in the back and pointing at the action to use their powers. However (even though there might be, ahem, other reasons as well), the women of Claremont’s X-Men were not damsels in distress just waiting for the villains to capture them. They were powerful fighters, often saving the day. Phoenix saves the universe in “The Phoenix Saga” and Storm frees the team from Magneto in “Magneto Triumphant.” The famous “Dark Phoenix Saga” shows that women cannot only be impressive heroes, but fearsome villains. The idea of the strong woman figure has been popular among the gay community for years. Some people speculate that the change of sexual roles resonates with the queer community as a rebellion against a heteronormative society. Others just think that strong women merely appealing to the “diva side” of the average gay man.

With all of these powerful women though, one in particular stands out: Mystique. The shape-shifting villain, who first appeared in X-Men #141, gains fame as, among other things, the first bisexual character in comics. Though he could not say it at the time due to censorship reasons, Chris Claremont (Mystique’s creator) has admitted in recent interviews that he intended Mystique and another member of the Brotherhood of Evil mutants, Destiny, to be lesbian lovers. He even wanted to go as far as to make Nightcrawler (who often remarked on Mystique’s resemblance to him) their child (with Mystique having transformed into a man to impregnate Destiny).

There are multiple hints of their love throughout his run, getting more blatant much later. At one point Destiny says of Mystique, “This is Raven as I know her, the spirit-soul within my dearest friend--full of strength and courage and passion--that I have loved from the moment we met.” Another noticeable hint appears when Shadow King refers to Mystique as Destiny’s leman, an archaic term for lover that the censors did not catch. In more recent issues, their relationship has been openly spoken of, since gay characters are not quite as taboo (in fact, they almost seem mandatory in every new comic, whether they fit or not). While of course the presence of lesbians does not automatically signal that all of the X-Men are supposed to be queer, one cannot ignore that the writer at the time had an open enough mind to wish to include that concept.

This idea resurfaced in the ‘90s when Northstar (a mutant member of Alpha Flight, a title which spun off from X-Men) became the first “out” mainstream comic book superhero. But he was only a small part of the mutant movement to once again become socially relevant in the ‘90s. The time-traveling villain Trevor Fitzroy introduced the Legacy Virus into the X-Universe in 1993. From this origin, one may roll their eyes at the connection of this plot device to AIDS, but similarities do exist. Effects of the Legacy Virus include loss of weight and skin lesions. It is a long-term disease that one can live with for years, but ends up being fatal in the end. Most importantly, in the beginning, the public believes that the Legacy Virus only infects mutants. As the issues went on though, humans became capable of contracting it and dying from it as well. If one continues to keep up the allegory of mutants as queers, this directly mirrors AIDS. Originally, most people ignored AIDS, since they believed that it only affected the homosexual community. But as time passed, heterosexuals found themselves infected with the virus and discovered that AIDS is a human disease, not just a gay disease.

The allegory even carried over to the popular cartoon show featuring the characters that aired from 1992 to 1997. One issue that often arises in the gay community is that of gay pride and how far does it go. Would some people turn straight if they could? Or should they be proud of their sexual identity? This concept is reflected in the character of Rogue. While some of the mutants revel in their mutant powers, Rogue (who is unable to touch anyone due to her mutation) views hers as a curse. In a storyline in the first season, Rogue discovers a doctor who claims to have found a way to “cure” mutants of their powers. There do exist “get straight” camps, which claim to show “confused” teenagers the “right path” of sexuality. When Rogue declares her intention to get the treatment, she faces some opposition, with some of the X-Men saying that she should be proud of who she is. By the end of the dialogue, they sound like a billboard for gay pride. This story has since been rehashed by Josh Whedon when he took over the X-Men. When Beast talks about getting a treatment that will get rid of mutation, Wolverine reacts rather violently to it and by the end brings up the idea of “mutant pride”:

Wolverine: She said you were like a billboard. Like neon. Big neon sign, flashing: “I wanna get off. I wanna get out.” Is that how it goes, McCoy? You've had enough? You wanna see how the other half lives their half-lives?

Beast: The truth is that I don't know what I want. And that is none of your damn business.

Wolverine: Wrong answer.

Beast: I don't know what I am. I used to have fingers. I used to have a mouth you could kiss. I would walk down the street and...maybe this is the secondary stage of my mutation, or maybe Cassandra Nova was right. Maybe I'm devolving. I am a human being.

Wolverine: Wrong. You're an X-Man. Some weak sister in the freshman dorm wants to drop his powers, I could care less. But an X-Man...one of us caves and it's over. It's an endorsement stamp for every single mutant to be lined up and neutered. And you know that. You know that!

As the nineties progressed, the X-Men began to turn from social commentary again into a string of overblown crossovers and endless spin-off titles. Northstar’s sexuality was barely addressed after he came out. All of this changed in 2001 when Grant Morrison was given control of the X-Men universe and Peter Milligan decided to make a drastic change to X-Force. By this point in time, queer culture was seeping into the mainstream. Will and Grace was one of the most popular and critically acclaimed sitcoms on television and a show that actually called itself Queer as Folk was building a strong following as an even more risqué Sex and the City. Straight men were starting to find that women perceived them as more attractive if they dressed “like a gay man.” These straight men were coined as metrosexuals and a little over a year later, Queer Eye for the Straight Guy would shove this in the public eye.

With all stated above going on, these two writers chose not to give a simple message of “everyone is the same inside.” Instead, they decided to actually comment on what was going on. Queer culture was entering the mainstream…but was it happening in the right way?

Check back Friday for the rest of Devin's look at the X-Men as allegory for the gay struggle.
Read more!

Aside from the Spandex and Leather, Are the X-Men Gay? Part One

by Devin

For decades, comic fans have interpreted the X-Men as an allegory. Professor Xavier has been seen as a Martin Luther King Jr. against Magneto’s Nat Turner (upon closer inspection, the King/Malcolm X parallel does not work as well as one would first believe). They have been seen as Jews trying to assimilate into a Christian culture. This claim is aided by the fact that both creators, Stan Lee (Stanley Lieber) and Jack Kirby (Jacob Kurtzberg) were Jewish and Magneto’s motivation partially stems from him being a survivor of the Holocaust. But, the years have progressed, the Civil Rights movement is no longer controversial (Don’t get me wrong. Racism is still a problem. However, as long as the subject is tackled heavy-handedly and in an over-simplified matter like Crash, all is well.), and being Jewish no longer carries such a stigma. Where does one go with these mutants to still make them socially relevant? Simple: writers have gone for another minority group, a minority group that still faces much public persecution: the queer community. When one truly explores the mythos of the X-Men, he will find that there is little difference between being a mutant and being gay.

The idea has really has been there since the beginning. What Stan Lee and Jack Kirby (to use their pen names) presented us with was a group of people who around the age of puberty began to discover they are different than other people. But with race (or, in most cases, religion) one knows his or her identity from the beginning. The only people in the real world that become minorities during puberty are those who realize that their sexual feelings do not align in the publicly accepted way.

So, upon realizing they are “special,” what do these teenagers do? Many choose to remain in society, blending in by not using their mutant powers, or using their mutant powers in private. In effect, they remain “in the closet.” Of course, some have an easier time staying in the closet than others. For every straight-acting gay, there’s an X-Man like Iceman or Jubilee and for every guy that’s more flaming than the Phoenix Force or girl with a haircut like Quicksilver, there’s a Beak or Toad. I even know guys who can turn the gayness on and off depending on the company they are keeping, and others who have gotten queenier since they came out, so I guess they would be Colossus and Beast, respectively.

The idea of “closeted” mutants has moved from just discussions about the comics into the entertainment itself. In New X-Men #116, Professor X gives a speech, ending in “I feel that it’s finally time to put an end to hiding…behind “secret identities” and ill-fitting clothes. Ladies and gentlemen. My name is Charles Xavier, also known as Professor X. And I am a mutant.” This speech very much resembles one of a government official or celebrity coming out of the closet.

But this underlying similarity pales in comparison to the directness and blatant nature of a scene from X2: X-Men United, directed by the openly gay Bryan Singer. Upon showing up at his home with some fellow mutants (pretty much the equivalent of his parents walking in on him and another guy), Bobby Drake (Iceman) has to “come out” to his parents as a mutant. Following a display of his powers, his mother asks him, “Are you sure this isn’t just a phase?” a commonly asked question asked by parents when their son or daughter has just come out.

Obviously, various writers have tackled the concept in different ways. But three eras address it most. The first fifty or so issues of the All-New, All-Different X-Men, which appeared in the late ‘70s and early ‘80s lay the groundwork and really start to switch the idea over to sexuality. This experiences a revival in the early ‘90s, when homosexuals are making their way into mainstream culture and AIDS is no longer something to be ignored. Finally, at the turn of the century, the age of Queer Eye for the Straight Guy and metrosexuals, X-Men begins to change its view slightly. The title no longer as much advocates the gay movement, as provides commentary on its progress so far.

Before 1975, X-Men had been in reprints for years. The title had been selling pitifully and thus much time had passed since the last new story. In that year though, the title rose like a phoenix from the ashes (or Jean Grey from a crashed spaceship). Gone was the team of all-white, kids-next-door who just happened to have superpowers. Instead, we were given a group of young, powerful adults, whose backgrounds spanned across the globe. This was a team with an African demi-goddess (Storm), a Russian peasant (Colossus), an Irish cop (Banshee), and a member of a prominent Japanese family (Sunfire). There was a Native American (Thunderbird) and a young Jewish girl (Kitty Pryde), who, respectively, hailed from a reservation and the suburbs. One of their members, Nightcrawler, was blue with three fingers on each hand and a tail.

But what message was this sending forth? Was it simply that people can always find a way to unite and work together despite how they may look or what they believe? That was probably one idea. Perhaps though a second message was meant as well: that no matter who you were, what you believed, what you looked like, where you came from, or what your financial status; you could always end up being a mutant…or gay.

During this time, mutant persecution became a more central plotline to the series. Yes, the idea of Sentinels, robots that hunt mutants, had been around since X-Men #14, but, for the most part, the X-Men spent their time in the ‘60s simply fighting evil mutant and other ne’er-do-wells. In fact, even Magneto’s platform was different at the time. He was not yet the sympathetic villain, fighting against humans only after he had witnessed the injustices done to mutants (and witnessed similar horrors in the Holocaust). Instead, he is just a power hungry fiend, as shown in this piece of gripping back and forth between him and Professor X:

Magneto: Only you and your X-Men stand between the mutants and world conquest! Why?? Why do you fight us?? For you too are a mutant!!

Professor X: But I seek to save mankind, not destroy it! We must use our powers to bring about a golden age on earth—side by side with ordinary humans!

Magneto: Never!! The humans must be our slaves! They are not worthy to share dominion of earth with us! You have made your choice—forevermore we are mortal foes!

In the age of the All-New, All-Different X-Men, there were anti-mutant riots (which started in X-Men #98 and would constantly resurface) and “Days of the Future Past” showed a future where the government openly supported the extermination of mutants. The creators even put forth Senator Robert Kelly (who first appeared in #141), a presidential candidate running on an anti-mutant platform. In fact, when Nightcrawler makes his debut, he is being chased by an angry mob just ready to kill him.

Check back Wednesday for more of Devin's look at the X-Men as allegory for the gay struggle. Read more!