Comics Cultural Collateral Damage: The Tragedy of 'The Eastrail 177 Trilogy'

INTRODUCTION

                Filmmaking has always had to contend with capitalism. Not only did film become a rich contextualized way to tell stories, but it was also beset by the whims and fancies of corporate executives that steer the film industry toward any direction that results in profitability. This devotion to the dollar (or other forms of currency) has historically guided film culture to the creation of various genres. These genres are the result of the reactionary nature of the business of film.  When something “works” (is profitable) we see it repeated, renovated, and regurgitated; turned over and churned out until the rich nuance becomes bland. Spent. Empty. This has happened with musicals, westerns, film noir, crime dramas, and now, the superhero film.[1] We are currently witnessing the over tilling of the superhero aesthetic, much in the same way it has been done in the past. Yet, because history rhymes, rather than recited, it always develops a little differently than before.  What has allowed the superhero genre to have a (strangle) hold on film culture is the way in which the spectacle of the superhero film fuels the profit motive of the industry; to the point that every major studio tries to option the next IP that may even have a hint of a superhero flavor. This, coupled with the rise of social media, and its incorporation into subcultural fandoms, has lead the superhero genre to become its own monoculture; thereby voiding out any depiction or analysis of the medium that does not fit with its myopathy.   

THE SUPERHERO ADDICTION

 Origin

           

            In the beginning, before the bombast and the heavy CGI laden visuals that mask simplistic writing and wooden dialogue, film culture has been a predominant space for whiteness and the celebration of white stories. This is important because the origin of this addiction is in the rise of geek culture which has also presented itself mostly as ethnically white. There are more white characters in comics and geek culture, and characters that present as white, than there are characters of color. Even today, many characters of color are obscured in secondary roles in stories. If they are prominent, they primarily exist in the independent comic scene. The irony of this is that a lot of comic stories appropriate the culture and struggle of people of color and then give it to white people. The clearest example of this being the Civil Rights struggles of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcom X were appropriated and given to two white leaders of super hero teams: Professor Xavier and Magneto who, in the beginning, lead all white teams against each other.

            The appropriation of diverse racial culture into the predominantly white geek space is correlated with the seeming alienation of non-traditional masculine men.  In film culture until the late 1970’s the image of masculinity was the white masculinity of John Wayne, Elvis Presley and Humphrey Bogart. This alienated a lot of other white men from feeling represented. This feeling may have given some white male filmmakers a false since of kinship with people of color and other marginalized groups during this time, resulting in not only the aforementioned appropriation, but the rise of the “playing the white ethnic card” practice. Typically, “the white ethnic card” is played when a white individual uses their ethnic heritage to minimize the struggle of people of color as a part of the “natural” process of assimilation. This is using symbolic ethnicity[2] to deflect accusations of racism and racial bias; while at the same time, co-opting the struggle as something that is “American”.     

Starting in the late 70’s, you started to see a shift in the type of (white) masculinity. It is this shift (particularly in the work of Lucas and Spielberg) that paved the way for a generation of white male geek masculinity to flourish on screen. Through the 1990’s this geek masculinity (a version of the equally terrible beta male sexism) was percolating just beneath the surface. Waiting in the fringes for the technology to improve just enough for the doors to the studios to open. Once it did, the reservoir of toxic sexist behavior that was left unregulated[3] was released.  This geek masculinity still sexualizes and objectifies women, still promoted violence as masculinity, and promoted anger as a chiefly valid emotion. Yet, the difference is that this is done with an air of intellectual superiority to both women and traditionally sexist men. It is this type of sexism that is at the core of the geek culture that has consumed all the mainstream film culture, leading to a modern superhero addiction.

Impact of social media

            Social media has allowed for individuals to break geographic boundaries to build cyber social networks. In Sociology, a social network are the social links that people create through relationships that intertwine with others.  There are direct connections (individuals that you have a personal connection with) and indirect connections (the individuals you are linked through an association with another person).  The more people you meet and make connections with, the broader your social network.  A cyber social network through social media is wide and vast. We can create connections with more people than we have personally met in our entire lives.

Social media followers are a perfect example. A person may have a million followers on a certain social media platform which is quite difficult to do in person. While the overall vastness of both this concept and practice of social media can overwhelm some people, Social media has a way of making these groups smaller through the creation of specific subgroups to join or things to follow. Thereby curating (and siloing) your social media experience through the tracking of a person’s online presence by corporate consumption of meta data[4]. Individuals can be in their own private echo chamber of thoughts opinions and ideas that shall be supported and never challenged.

It is the challenging of these ideas, especially in fan culture, that receives the most visceral of reactions.  These reactions are the result of an unchanged reference group. Sociologically, Reference Groups are the collection of individuals in our life that we use to evaluate our own behavior.  These people change throughout our lives. Members of our group can be different based upon our age, or what social task we must perform. Our reference groups change as we acquire new and different skills and tasks throughout our life and as we age. We also reject members from our groups if they fail to maintain the standard by which they were included in the group in the first place. For example, your boss might be in your reference group because you believe that he is honest; but then you catch them in a lie. Consequently, you remove him from your reference group and find someone else to fill that position. Thus, the fluid nature of our reference groups keeps us from forming a too strong of an attachment to these members (outside of direct family members).  However, in the case of fictional characters in media, they often can cling to a person’s reference group due to the continuity of character writing and development.  If a character is written consistently for generations, then a person can have that character in their reference group for potentially their entire life. This puts a lot of personal investment in a fictional character to the point where any criticism or break in (perceived) continuity for the character, will be taken as a personal attack on the individual fan themselves.  This is why the writers for the Hydra Agent Arc of Captain America got death threats as did Director Rian Johnson for his depiction of Luke Skywalker in The Last Jedi. While this has continued to happen repeated for as long as fan culture has existed, social media tends to compound the problem exponentially. As indicated when the comic fan culture took aim at Martin Scorsese.

In an op-ed for the New York Times published Nov 4^th, 2019, modern movie master Martin Scorsese explained why in an interview he stated that Marvel Movies Aren’t Cinema, and that he did not care for them.  The crux of his argument is that Marvel films (he does not speak to the broader Superhero Genre) do not have any “revelation, mystery or genuine emotional danger. Nothing is at Risk.” He goes on to believe that all the sequels and connected universe building is just giving the audience more of the same. While this might be bad enough, Scorsese fears that because of the success of these films, it may cause studios to drift away from independent cinema because it is not as profitable. He is worried that to focus on ONLY Superhero films will lead to the death of cinema itself.  The article, as of this writing has over 1900 comments, many of them overly aggressive and criticizing Scorsese for his opinion, going so far to make ageist comments and unprovoked criticism at Scorsese’s body of work.  When the internet equalizes all opinions, it lowers the level of discourse in spaces like social media to the lowest common denominator.  

        Why Marty was Right

For Superhero film historians the (post) modern superhero film culture we are currently living through began in 1998 with New Line Cinema’s release of Blade. Before this, film had dipped its toe in the superhero waters with only culturally well-known characters like Batman and Superman, but never drifted cinematically outside of this very narrow box.  Yet, regardless of Blade’s success, it did not spark the fire that was needed to get “the superhero genre” off the ground until the release of X-Men in 2000 by the now defunct 20^th Century Fox.

The proverbial pebble that starts a landslide, X-Men (and its film franchise) led to the Sam Raimi helmed Spiderman Trilogy, Ang Lee’s Hulk and Guillermo Del Toro’s Hellboy duology. Still, the trepidation and lack of guidance from producers and filmmakers kept the genre a float, but did not maximize its full capitalistic potential until it broke the “billion dollar gross” ceiling with  Nolan’s The Dark Knight Trilogy and the entire Marvel Cinematic Universe . This is when super heroes went from a sample on a tasting menu of unique films,           to the cinematic experience of k rations 

This analogy is pointing to the homogenization of content and products through the process routinized bureaucratic capitalism maintained by a colonial style globalization that leaves us with volumes of goods with little value.

As I mentioned in a previous essay:

 In 2004, [George] Ritzer came up with a term Grobalization- to define all of the macro level rationalized dehumanizing practices of the process of globalization. Ritzer and [Roland] Robertson (separately) came to the conclusion that Grobalization- produced “Nothing”. Nothing was defined as anything that was devoid of unique and distinct content, homogenized to appeal the broadest audience possible. “Nothing” is the chief product of mass production; the foremost architect of mass production are corporations. The profit motive that drives corporations leads to the inevitable production of nothing because Nothing is safe, it does not take a social or political stance. Additionally, because of its lack of focus, more advertising dollars are put in to the selling of ‘Nothing’ because advertisers have to “Manufacture desire” for that thing in the minds of consumers (hence the pitch towards a synergy of content). Therefore, instead of “something’ people want various forms of ‘Nothing’ A product that gives the illusion of both quality and content, (the illusion that it is in fact ‘something’ when it is not) while making it easier for producers to create something for the broadest and simplistic tastes.

 This is what the Superhero genre, guided by massive corporations like Disney and Time Warner, has produced; content that is so monetized and standardized that it is devoid of life (with only a few exceptions)[5]. The inevitable success of ‘Nothing’ causes its reproduction. If something is reproduced enough, it moves from a subcultural component to a part of the dominant culture. Thanks to Disney, people know who Captain Marvel, The Guardians of the Galaxy, Black Panther and Thanos are. Before the Disney films, these names were only whispered in hush tones in the basements of geeks.  Now, they are becoming as recognizable as Batman and Superman. 

Most major food manufactures are chasing “the bliss point”. This is the optimization of sugar salt and fat which maximizes deliciousness and results in mass consumption. One of the reasons this Grobalization of comic book content has led to the proverbial “Nothing” is because Disney has cracked “the bliss point” of cinema.  It is the combination of sensory stimuli, emotional engagement, and social distraction that keeps the audiences rolling in to see stories that are  similar to one another .  This is cinematic junk food; and in small portions, this junk food is tasty and relatively harmless. However, when you make junk food a major staple of your media diet, it results in our film culture becoming gluttonously sick. We are addicts in need of detox.

CASE STUDY: THE EASTRAIL 177 TRILOGY

            The Eastrail 177 trilogy is the uncommon moniker for the three films in M. Night Shyamalan’s Unbreakable universe. Those three films consist of Unbreakable (2000), Split (2016) and Glass (2019). This is an interesting case study for understanding the impact and oversaturation of geek culture in film because:

1.      The Production of the Trilogy spans the time before and after Geek culture invaded film.

2.      The Trilogy was one that was not planned out ahead of time with unflinching rigidity

Film Synopsis

Unbreakable

This film follows the story of security guard David Dunn (Bruce Willis) who survives a deadly train crash (Eastrail 177) without a scratch. He is later approached by an eccentric comic art collector Elijah Price (Samuel L. Jackson) with brittle bone disease who questions his mild-mannered demeanor.  Through their conversations, and uncompromising support from his son, Joseph, David begins to realize the true power that he has always had.

Split

Casey, a social outcast high schooler is given a ride home by a few classmates when the three girls are abducted by a man who seemingly suffers from DID (Dissociative Identity Disorder). As Casey looks to find a way out, Kevin, their captor (James McAvoy) begins to prepare for the birth of a new personality. As preparations commence, Karen Fletcher, Kevin’s psychologist concludes that he was misdiagnosed, Rather than DID, he is a supervillain with 10 of his 23 personalities adopting the moniker “The Horde”; and their leader proclaimed as “The Beast”. Upon hearing this, David Dunn (Bruce Willis) sets his sights to capture him.

Glass

Set three weeks after the ending of Split, David Dunn and his now adult son Joseph track “The Horde” just after they abducted a group of female cheerleaders. As “The Unbreakable Man” confronts “The Beast”, their conflict is cut short by Dr. Elie Staple who captures and incarcerates both men in Raven Hill Memorial Institute, believing their super heroics/villainy to be nothing more than a delusion. Once there, David finds out that one of the institutes longtime residents is none other than Elijah Price (Sam Jackson). With all his pieces now on the board, the self-aggrandized “Mr. Glass” puts his true plan into motion.

Before and After the Invasion

            There are 35 pages and 124 illustrations in the average comic book.

A single-issue range in price between $1.00 and $140,000.

172,000 comics are sold in the US Every day.  Over 62, 780,000 each year.

The average comics collector owns 3, 312 comics and will spend approximately one year of their life reading them                                                          

                                                                      The Opening Text of M. Night Shyamalan’s Unbreakable 

The opening text of Unbreakable is a good indicator of the state of comic books and the comic book/superhero medium in film twenty years ago.  The audience needed to be primed with the overall profitability and popularity of comic books and superheroes to be engaged with the story.  It is almost as if in this opening Shyamalan is saying “Trust me. The story I am about to tell is legitimate.” Today, this seems quaint, and baffling that such a film would need to be legitimated considering the monoculture of the superhero films now; and especially ironic that Shyamalan had to argue with Disney (The Parent company of Touchtone Pictures) to allow this film to be about superheroes and marketed as such. This is because, the film was in production in 1999 well before “the official” glass ceiling of Superhero films was broken with X-Men July of the next year.  Since Unbreakable was released in November, 2000, it is an interesting thought experiment to ask if marketing it as a Superhero film would have made a difference? When you compare Unbreakable to X-Men, the latter certainly looks more comic book than the former. Yet, the whole premise of Unbreakable is how comic books evolved out of myths and storytelling which exaggerated the abilities of superpowered people. So, from the beginning, Unbreakable was unconventional superhero story one that seemed to be more analytical than most, an academic analysis that gets both lost and unappreciated in the near two decades since.

In the time between Unbreakable and Split the comic culture enveloped most media, taking comics from a fringe interest to mainstream acceptance. In comparison to the data cited in the beginning of Unbreakable, as of 2019, the comics industry generates, in North America alone, around 1.21 billion dollars annually. This is a combination of single-issue comics, graphic novels, trade paperbacks, and digital comics. Yet, during the time of Unbreakable’ s release, Marvel was in the process of mortgaging their character’s licenses to avoid bankruptcy. The question is when and why did it change?

The beginning of the Monoculture of comics began with the corporatization of comic characters. When characters began to be acquired by major corporations (WB, Sony, Disney), and those characters started to become successful, those corporations began to give us more of the same. As I alluded to earlier, there is an inherit flaw in Capitalism that causes profit driven media corporations, and the people who run them (mainly white men), to squeeze every ounce of financial capital out of all intellectual property they have. For example, when you compare Marvel Phase one with Marvel Phase four, there is a gradual decline in the tier of characters along with spreading them thin over an interconnected universe that spans many types of media platforms (film, television, shorts etc.)

Geek Aside

Ok, I know many Marvel Zombies that may have read that statement and now have a huge geek beef. Sigh. I am aware that a lot of the characters in Marvel’s Phase 1 were not considered upper tier in the comics until the movies were successful (Iron Man being the prime example), and that their most successful character in the comic books at the time was off limits because that character (Spider-man), and all of the characters associated with him, were owned by another company. Yes, Marvel had to make do with what they had left and what toy manufacturer Avi Arad didn’t set up yet at other studios. But again, this comes back to capitalism. If you always need more profit, and you use up a character, (this is particularly pertinent when considering movies, how long they take to make and the natural aging of actors.) you are bound to find other “revenue streams” (characters) on which to exploit.

Before and After the Invasion (Continued)

 Yet, because Unbreakable was produced and released before comic book legitimation by the corporatization of superheroes, it is a time capsule of how comic books were treated before all of this. It harkens back to a time when going to a comic book show had the same amount of shame as an adult bookstore. The entrance to comic book shops were in weird alleyways and your “stash” would be wrapped in the all too familiar black plastic bag. Comic book fans up until the 2000’s (really the 2010’s) were the bullied. This did not change until the economy shifted, and we saw a rise in tech based white collar jobs (not to mention the Silicon Valley dot com boom of the 90’s). This is because there is a strong overlap between comic book enthusiasm and school academics, particularly computer technology. So, it stands to reason that when that the cultural interests of those individuals who now were in high status positions, the subcultures they were interesting and a part of would also be elevated. Unbreakable just came too early for the culture to truly appreciate it, and because it wasn’t linked to a preexisting IP, it did not stick around in the public consciousness[6] Thus, it was forgotten in the mainstream public for 19 years.

The Unplanned Trilogy: Insurgency, Archetypes, and subverting expectations

 In interviews, M Night Shyamalan always said that he had ideas for an Unbreakable trilogy. Shyamalan has stated that Unbreakable was the origin of a superhero who would have a peak then fall. Originally, “Unbreakable 2” was going to center on David Dunn tracking and capturing “The Horde”  Then, because a series of cinematic setbacks, Shyamalan was hesitant to dip back in, at least directly. So, he conceived the next film to be stealth sequel and as a super villain origin story. Yet, only marketed Split as a psychological thriller, without mention of what universe the film lives in, allowing the film to stand on its own two feet. However, because Shyamalan is a master of hyping his own work, he used the inclusion of David Dunn at the ending of Split to test the audience interests for Glass. The reveal and subversion went better than Shyamalan expected, going so far as to increase the positive word of mouth for Split, thereby raising ticket sales and green lighting the final chapter in the “trilogy”.  Unfortunately, unbeknownst to both Shyamalan and the audience, their expectations have crystalized into a desire he was not willing to fulfil.

The reaction to the end of Split is partially a function of, and reaction to the ingrained mono comic culture that we live in.  When the camera pans and reveals David Dunn in that diner at the end of Split, audiences are expecting the next film (Glass) to be an exclusive clash between Dunn and Crumb, in the spirit of the comic book culture to which they have been conditioned. Instead, they got a dissertation, the thesis of which was far more contemplative than the audience expected. Through this (albeit shallow) academic analysis, (That was, to Shyamalan’s credit, consistent with the tone and world he set up in Unbreakable) Shyamalan deconstructs comic books and comic book storytelling that has, in the interim, tapped into our basic instincts and feeling of childlike wonder, to become a touchtone of modern cinema. In short, the problem with Glass is not in the film itself, it is in what people wanted from it. Most people wanted to see a fun action movie where the hero and the villain fight, with the spectacle and majesty that they have grown accustom to. They were not looking for a philosophical meditation on the notion of heroism. They came for a party, instead they walked into a lecture.  

Because Glass was tasked with merging two seemingly independent stories and was written at a time where culture is saturated with comics/superhero content, Shyamalan was purposeful in his design to subvert expectations of the audience. Glass twists the audience into a pretzel as it continually promises, fulfills and undermines audience expectations.  The first twenty minutes of Glass is everything a modern comic book fan would want. A straightforward structure of The Hero tracking The Villain, saving the hostages, and engaging in fisticuffs.  Then, at the beginning of Act II, the film grinds to a halt and starts to ask deeper questions, that given the film’s rotten tomatoes score many people were not interested in asking. As the third act begins to ramp up, Shyamalan teases a huge MARVEL-ous climax that involves fighting in a newly constructed building that may or may not explode[7]. He has the audience again, then has the “showdown” in the front grounds of the institute unceremoniously. This again, is consistent with the thesis from Unbreakable. The fight on the building with thousands of people in danger would be the comic book version about something, that in the film’s reality, took place in a parking lot.  Unfortunately, regardless of this consistency, we have reached a point in the permeation of comic culture, that modern audiences wanted the teased comic book come to life, rather than an introspective scholarly evaluation of the subject.  The result was disappointment. Not for what the film is, but because of the audience’s exaggerated expectations; primed by a culture run amuck, the film was set up to fail.     

Shyamalan Criticism

            The consensus on Shyamalan’s filmography is that he starts out strong in his first four films, but progressively got worse with each film after Unbreakable up until Split. Some of the speculation was that with the success of his first quartet of films, he garnered enough support and trust in the industry that those in production with him did not censure his work. Shyamalan is known for keeping the same people around on his production crews from film to film. This could have had the consequence of insulating him from the limits and criticism from which his best work develops. This all culminated in the atrocious duo of films in a three-year period, The Last Airbender[8] and After Earth. The former being a whitewashed concentrated adaptation of a progressive and much beloved animated show. The latter a stealth Scientology soliloquy.   

If you look at Shyamalan’s filmography a subjective argument can be made that he makes his best work when he has both limits and something to lose.  This is why, starting with The Visit, Shyamalan began to fully finance or co-finance all of his films with horror producer Jason Blum of Blumhouse productions. Shyamalan has mortgaged his house, and re wrote whole scripts while in the development stage and the results of these restrictions were rewarded in renewed acclaim for his films.

One of the criticisms of Shyamalan’s recent work that has merit, revolves around Split’s use of the real diagnosable condition DID (Dissociative Identity Disorder). Many groups in support of those with a DID diagnosis, believed depicting the disorder in this way would add to the already horrible track record Hollywood has for representing mental illness on screen. These groups also presented data on the frequency of DID patients acting violently. In an open letter to Shyamalan himself, the presented data that showed violence among DID patients to be a rarity.  In this regard, there was a missed opportunity in Split’s third act. Shyamalan had already set up the character of Karen Fletcher (played by Betty Buckley) to be on the fringes of the psychological community. Therefore, when Karen confronts “The Horde” at the end of Split, she could have said a simple line of dialogue: “I was wrong.”

Split falls into another trap in the way that it uses the trope of abuse and child sexual violence. In the film, it can be interpreted that the abuse experienced by Casey, “the final girl”, to use horror movie parlance, does “save her” in the end due to the ideology of “The Beast” valuing “the broken” as pure. While this is nothing new, horror movies for generations have played on these ideas. Yet, it is disappointing that in such a progressive age, this sexist tired and lazy plot device would still be used. However, if I am at my most magnanimous, “The Beast” defines her “pure” not because the knowledge of the sexual abuse is made aware to him; but because he sees the scars on Casey’s body from “cutting”, a common coping mechanism for trauma. The Beast is only aware that she has experienced trauma, as he has, but he does not know what kind; the nature of the abuse is only revealed to the audience, which is not necessary. 

CONCLUSION

            For the last decade, film culture has been besieged by comic books and Superheroes to the point that the films that make money at the theater. In 2019, Disney alone made up 33% of the market share for overall ticket sales. Their closest competitor only had 13% (WB).  Couple this with the bureaucratically homogenized way that Disney, and other corporations, consume IP and produce their content, is there any wonder why all (studio) films look the same? These studios also have the marketing budget to make sure their product gets in front of as many eyes as possible.  The result is a negative impact on film culture itself. It has caused the expiation of the best picture categories from 5 to 10, created the discussion of the “popular” Oscar category, and set such an unrealistic bar for success that it has killed mid-range budget filmmaking. I often wonder what “The Eastrail 177 Trilogy” would look like if Shyamalan would have got to create his trilogy closer together in time. What would the Unbreakable/Split/Glass story be, if it did not have to contend with a film culture that is so supported by the “comics off the page” aesthetic? Would it have been better received? I would like to think so; and that is the ultimate tragedy of the whole thing. Because, in the words of Martin Scorsese, “the [filmmaking] situation at this moment is brutal and inhospitable to art.” As it turns out, even inhospitable to other comic/superhero interpretations outside of those owned by giant corporations.    

---

[1] I wanted to regulate this mini argument to a endnote. There are some that would not define Superhero films as a genre. In this (usually passionate) defense of superhero films not being a genre many will point to several more recent examples of superhero films that are also a crime story (TDK) or an espionage thriller (Winter Soldier). Yet, the same can be said about various films categorized in Drama, Comedy, or Action.  There are certain beats that the Superhero film, regardless of the other genre’s it is intersecting with, that they have which make it a superhero film

[2] Symbolic ethnicity is a term by Mary Waters to describe the particular form of white privilege that allows white people to only be abstractly connected to their ethnic heritage in superficial ways

[3] Nope the comics code does not count

[4] This has become of increasing importance to the film industry because it is a direct line to the consumer. Many actors now may gain or lose roles based upon their social media presence and the number of followers they have  

[5] Black Panther

[6] There was little merchandising and cross platform promotion for Unbreakable to make and keep public engagement in the project

[7] Shyamalan even trolls the audience in a magazine article for the Building by calling it a Marvel in the same letter font and style of the Company/Studio

[8] Personally, due to my love of Avatar and its sequel series Korra, Shyamalan’s film is the worst thing I have ever seen. In addition to the film being poorly paced with too much exposition and wooden acting The film sparked race representation controversies. According to a comprehensive report in 2016 from the University of California  "71.7% were white, 12.2% Black, 5.8% Hispanic/Latino, 5.1% Asian, 2.3% Middle Eastern and 3.1% other",

Logan Review

*Spoilers Ahead…

INTRODUCTION

  Logan is the best film in the “Bryan Singer X-Men Universe.” I am bias of course, so let me be self-reflexive up front. I knew I was already going to love this movie several months before I even saw it. I knew I would loved it because Hugh Jackman was going to end his tenure as the character of James Howlett/Logan/Wolverine with this film, it was going to serve as the “unofficial” end of the Bryan Singer X-Men timeline[1], and they were adapting the Old Man Logan storyline[2] one of my two favorite Wolverine stories from the comics. So, I was in the bag for this film for those reasons. What I didn’t expect, was the various social commentaries this film presents through its narrative that goes beyond the standard mutants as a metaphor for “insert marginalized group here.”[3] The commentary on immigration, family, and the relationship between masculinity, violence and emotional suppression, are woven together in such a rich tapestry of social critique.  Yet, one needs to be emotionally prepared for the social, psychological and emotional depths that this films journey takes you on; at the end of which you realize this film does what few superhero films achieve; a transcendence of genre[4]  This is a stripped down deconstruction of the character of James Howlett/ Logan/ The Wolverine something that was attempted before in the overall superhero genre, but with far less success.[5] Thus, through its plot construction, characters, and social commentary Logan is a film that deserves a place among the pantheon of elite superhero films[6]

PLOT

After the events of Days of Future Past we catch up with Logan/Wolverine (Hugh Jackman) in 2029 where he is in living on the Texas/Mexico border driving a limousine under his birth name James Howlett. Logan is trying to scrape together some money to pay for medication for himself (his healing factor has seen better days) and for an aging Professor X (Sir Patrick Stewart), as well as save up to buy a boat. He is keeping a low profile several reasons. Natural Mutation has ceased, causing no mutant births in 25 years. This makes Logan, Charles and their friend Caliban (Steven Merchant) some of the last mutants on earth. Lastly, Professor X has been classified as a WMD by the US government as his Dementia causes seizures that paralyzes and suffocates anyone within a city block radius.  The boat, we find very early on, is an end of life plan that Logan has for both Charles and himself.  The idea being that they both will sail out to the ocean and die, Charles by complications with dementia and Logan through an adamantium bullet he had saved from the failed Weapon X program. Yet, before Logan can put this plan in motion, a woman with a young child (Dafene Keen) being pursued by hired mercenaries (led by Boyd Hollbrook) of a Genetics company, convince Wolverine (with some help from Charles) to take them to a proverbial Eden in North Dakota. The Road to “Eden” is fraught with peril, violence and death. Eventually it is up to an ailing and broken Logan to protect the next generation of mutants by any means necessary, even at the cost of his life.

HISTORICAL ANALYSIS

The label of “superhero” film is often given to the films that involve comic book superheroes from one of the two main “houses” Marvel and DC. The venin diagram of characters and rights has been made increasingly complex, as different studios have the rights to different characters.  Marvel is split with the X-Men and any kind of Mutant Character’s film rights owned by 20^th Century Fox[7], along with the Fantastic 4. While Universal has the rights to a solo Hulk film and Namor. Up until recently, Sony had exclusive rights to Spider-man and all characters in his Universe.  With the Sony deal made with Marvel over Spider-man it is possible for Marvel to get all of its characters back. Though given what Warner Bros, has done with the entire pantheon of DC heroes after Nolan’s The Dark Knight Trilogy, which is not any indication that ownership equates to success.[8]

 In the early days, the “superhero” film (then dominated by DC Comics with the 1978 Superman film franchise and 1989 Batman film ) was one where the protagonist has “special abilities” or “powers” who then fought an Antagonist (of which the hero had a hand in creating) for the fate of a group of innocent bystanders. While there was other film elements to it, the first three decades of Superhero films reinforced, doubled down, and improved on that genre.  The Best “superhero film” that fits this 30 year old model was Christopher Nolan’s Batman Begins in 2005. Nolan gave is a stripped down character study of Bruce Wayne that made us care about the man in the cape and cowl rather than just be entertained by his villains. This decision to get to the core of the character was so well done that it was used again in 2008 for the Maiden voyage of the Marvel Cinematic Universe with Iron Man.

Beginning in 2008 with the critical and commercial success of The Dark Knight that garnered Oscar buzz for best picture (and director) and Oscar gold for Heath Ledger’s performance of the Joker; audiences raved at how the film “transcended the genre”. This constant refrain was to acknowledge that The Dark Knight  broke the decades long mold of Superhero film and was one of the first films of its kind to invoke other genres ( in this case a crime thriller) that just happen to involve superhero characters.  Today, regardless of personal taste, any list of the best superhero films have this common theme among them: they are not often defined as a “superhero film”. Instead, they are defined as a film involving Superheroes. In fact, if you look at the change in tone, scope and certainly in budget of all of the X-Men films, they can be used as a barometer for the way our cultural taste in superheroes has changed from the early days of Superhero fare, to the current flavors we are interested in today. 

The threat for an X-Men film in early 2000 was that the source material was a comic book.  At the time it was still seen as too geeky, and colorful.  Thus, they powered down (most of) the characters, stripped them of their iconic costumes (putting them in black leather) and made their display of powers a set piece rather than a part of the characters everyday reality.  At the time, this (thirty year) approach garnered success with the first three X-Men films, and the Sam Raimi Spider-man trilogy. However, the last films in each of the trilogies were caught in the wake of the changing tide of superhero film taste.  Batman Begins’ gritty realism and character study, again aped by Marvel’s Iron Man, signified a sea change that went against the model we’ve seen and used before, to a stripped down essence of a character. 

This shift was heavily influenced and motivated by the success of Nolan’s Dark Knight Trilogy. Unfortunately. Hollywood producers yet again took the wrong lesson away from this, and for a few years we saw a deconstruction of the superhero, to horrible results (AKA Anything by Zack Snyder). What these producers didn’t understand is that the Nolan Batman trilogy was not perfect because it was a gritty realistic take on the character; it was perfect because it was a character piece about Bruce Wayne, in a tone that fits for his identity and the world in which he lives. In this new cultural ocean, the X-Men franchise could not get its bearings. With the failure of X-Men Origins: Wolverine, the producers (who were still contractually obligated to make an X-Men film every few years to retain the film rights or otherwise they revert back to Marvel) decided that the next set of X-Men films would be a period piece involving the escapades of young Charles Xavier and Erik Lehnsherr (X Men: First Class). The film was a moderate success and was much better received than Origins. However, in 2012, Marvels The Avengers came out and the tide of our cultural ocean rolled again.

With the release and explosive success of Marvels The Avengers, Marvel Studios cashed in on the riskiest gamble they have ever taken. They brought back the colorful costumes and leaned into the very comic book nature of their properties using it to fuel their storytelling. But that was not the risk; the risk was establishing continuity, and it paid off in spades. When we first see all of the Avengers on screen together it is magical. Therefore, to follow this new cultural shift, the X-Men film franchise attempted to cobble together continuity through the film X-Men: Days of Future Past, attempting to connect the Cast of X-Men First Class with the original X-Men trilogy and Wolverine films. It seemed to be the right film for Fox at the right time. The film went on to be both a commercial and critical success; something that has often eluded the X-Men film franchise.[9]  However, the current of our cultural ocean was going to change again; but this time Fox was going to be the cause, rather than just caught in its wake.

Wade Wilson/Deadpool has always been a popular character in the comics. His rabid fan base has been clamoring for him to be faithfully brought to screen (the glimpse of whom we saw in Origins doesn’t count). Since this dismal portrayal of the character, Ryan Reynolds had always wanted to atone for his participation in the previous film by striving for ten years to get 2016’s Deadpool to screen. It is important to note that this hard work in fact did not pay off. The script and test footage was shelved; Fox being gun shy that a Deadpool film was what they and the public really wanted.  In the end, it was a strategically placed “leak” of the test footage for the film online, and the ravenously positive fan reaction that followed, allowed the studio to give it a chance. However, during production the producers traded the film’s production budget (lowering in to a menial 58 million) in exchange for an R rating. Deadpool’s success and massive box office returns paved the way for Logan.

   

FILM ANALYSIS

Logan is the pinnacle of the superhero genre today. It is both an elevation and deconstruction of a near immortal superhero at the end of his life. It is not an “X-men” film, by old model standards. Following the precedent set by The Dark Knight as a crime thriller, Logan is a Western road trip movie with Superhero characters.  With a lower budget and an R rating afforded to them thanks to the success of Deadpool, Logan tells his final tale with immaculate gore and heavy pathos. Yet when looking into the film, its character studies, themes, cinematography, and direction; all of it allows for a transcendent experience above the substantive mediocrity of the bombastic fanfare “films” that usually grace the movieplexes.

  

Character studies

            One of the things that sets Logan apart, and more importantly, allows it not to get drowned out by the litigious grandiloquent cacophony of vacuity commonly produced by the corporatized franchise latent film industry[10] is its characters.  This movie has a beautifully slow pace that allows the characters to breathe, to take up space, and make that space feel lived in.  Even the characters that have less backstory, less “meat”, in terms of inclusion in the script or screen time, or those that are just the personification of a trope or a theme, have more to do, and more interesting things to say in this film, than most other films in this genre. But outside those rich background characters, the three characters that make up the ethos of this film are the characters of Logan, Charles and Laura. These characters and the actor’s performances are the pillars on which this film stands.

            Logan

            “There are too many wars, and life is just so damn long.”[11]- Logan

            As an audience, we have been with this character through all of the trials and tribulations of his life.  From a young Canadian in the 1800’s to the titular “old man” in this film, we have wept, raged and laughed with him[12] Because of this, we have a vested interest every minute he is on screen[13], and what we see is shocking.  We see a Wolverine that has more than just “lost a step” or one that has “gotten older”.  This is a Logan/Wolverine that is broken. Yet, this is a very different kind of “broken” that we’ve seen before. In The Wolverine, Logan is emotionally broken because he cannot accept what he has done and what he is…a living weapon. In Logan, he is a broken weapon; corroded…poisoned by one of the things that made him stand out, made him unique and special. It is breaking him down piece by piece, and now at the end of his life, he’s ready for decommissioning.

However, despite some fan theories about his healing factor possibly being severely compromised by the genetic food manipulation concocted by Dr. Rice which wiped out the majority of the mutants on the planet, we don’t get answers to how Logan got this way, which is both infuriating and fascinating. Infuriating because it is such a huge departure from where we last left the character in Days of Future Past[14]who was both healthy, fully whole, and content with is his place in the world. Additionally, if you look at the organization of the X-men Timeline[15] that includes the events of Logan; the altered “brightest future” timeline that Logan creates at the end of Days of Future Past only affords him 5 good years (2023-2028) where he is healthy and happy with his surrogate family before “The Westchester Event”[16] happens. This realization is both sad and tragic adding to the emotional weigh (upon re-watch) to the beginning of Logan set in 2029.  As infuriating as this is, it is also fascinating that, in the context of the story, those answers are unnecessary. Wolverine being a “shadow of his former self” is chalked up to other factors; most notably age (he his close to 200 by this point). These factors are reinforced by some of the themes, inspirations and source material which help to minimize the importance of these (usually) essential questions to the character’s backstory.  But, once we know the stakes for the character, every slash, stab or bullet that Logan takes, we feel it too. Thus as the story progresses, we realize that with every bit of damage Logan endures, he is that much closer to death…which becomes a sobering reality by journey’s end. 

As I have mentioned in a previous post, Hugh Jackman’s Wolverine is an icon. It was his portrayal of Logan that was one of the best things to watch in all of the previous Wolverine films. Here, supported by a strong script, and the foreknowledge of ending Logan’s story[17], Hugh Jackman gives it his all. In this film, he is the Wolverine we have always wanted to see. crude, brash, murderously rage filled and swearing like a sailor. Like an athlete playing their last game, Jackman gave it his all and “left it all out on the field” or in this case, the screen.[18] There is little doubt that Hugh Jackman leaving the role has created a massive void, which makes the task of recasting impossible. 

            Charles

            “I would like to say that you were a good pupil, but the words would choke me.” –

Charles Xavier

            Another character that we have equal investment in is Charles. Like Logan, but to a significantly lesser extent, we have experienced the life of Charles Xavier from childhood.  Played brilliantly over the last 17 years by Sir Patrick Stewart and James McAvoy. It was the gravitas brought by Stewart[19] and the human fallibility brought by McAvoy that both complimented each other. They rounded out a character that was thought of as “God like”. Stewart created the refined professional cultivated out of a lifetime of various experiences. McAvoy showed the human struggle the character went through in order to reach that serenity. In Logan, as we catch up with Xavier at the end of his life, broken distraught and succumbing to dementia (something that has consequences for more than just him). Stewart has the ability to give us glimpses of the refined gentleman he’s played in the past, along with flavoring his characterization with hints of McAvoy’s performance wrapped up in a Shakespearean (King Lear) shell.[20] This Xavier, understanding that his time is short, and seeing all of the progress he fought for turn to ash in his mouth with the erosion of modern society into the bleak dystopia that opens the film, clings to the idea of helping just one more mutant find their way. With his memory shot, and his powers unhinged, he is a source of conscience and despair. Stewart is beyond his usual magnificence here, tapping into something special.  It is a performance that is Oscar worthy and deserves, at the very least a nomination. 

 In the X-Men film Universe, Charles Xavier is one of the most powerful mutants on the planet. Thus, Charles then can be solution to any problem the X-Men face. This is so apparent that several fans have asked, with tongue firmly planted in their cheek: “Why even have any of the X-Men if Charles can just fix everything?” This has undoubtedly has become a thorn in the side of the filmmakers over the years. The writers would have to consistently write themselves out of the “Charles can fix everything” corner. In X-Men he was “poisoned” by Cerebro, X-2 he was captured with his powers nullified, X-Men: The Last Stand he was atomized by Dark Phoenix, in X-Men: First Class he was nullified by Sebastian Shaw’s helmet and the powers of Emma Frost, in X-Men: Days of Future Past he was addicted to a drug that annulled his powers and in Logan, Xavier has lost the ability to control his power, and is targeted for elimination by X-24. While the elimination of Xavier has become a trope in these films, it isn’t done with as much pathos, emotional relevance, and utter heartbreaking finality as in this film. Charles’s death is not glorious, heroic or iconic. The tragic simplicity of being stabbed in bed by the NEGA version of your adopted son, while you come to grips with the soul crushing reality of the catastrophic calamity you brought upon your other adopted children, is cinematic poetry.  This is the lyrical partnership between Patrick Stewart the actor, and the writer director James Mangold. One is the visionary and the other a life bringer. Together their Charles is my favorite Charles: Deeply full of Pathos. His dialogue dripping with shades of elegance followed by a string of vulgar practicality. It is magnificent.

Laura

"Don't be what they made you.” James Howlett/Logan Wolverine

            The central plot device in Logan is the character of Laura.  Who is she? Why is she important? What is her relationship with Wolverine? All of these questions about Laura are essential for the unfolding of the plot. Since she is the driving force behind the unfolding of the story, the final Wolverine Story is, in many ways, an origin film for Laura X-23 (The All new Wolverine in the comics)[21]. While we have seen this sleight of hand before[22] here it is so masterfully implemented and beautifully blended into the texture of the film’s story, that it seems like the most natural progression. And even though you are sad to see Hugh Jackman’s Wolverine exit, you want to have more stories with Laura and the “New Mutants”. [23]

What also makes this story better than a niche conclusion to a superhero property is in its execution. It does not retread the same tropes and stereotypes that we often see. One example of this is Laura’s character progression. Her development is not marred by the tragedies we have seen befall her father. Instead, with Wolverine’s help, Laura is re-forged by her experiences both good and bad, to not be defined by those horrors she has both seen and committed. So in addition to a secret origin story, Laura’s place at the end of the film, and her rejection of “the animal/weapon” that she was meant to be, redeems and saves both her and Logan. This outcome is layered throughout the climax of the film where Logan tells Laura (in two separate occasions) that she can be better than him, and to not be anyone’s tool (which comes with being saddled with her own set of demons). There is an interesting gendered subtext I place here, seeing a father warning his daughter about the objectification of women in our culture, and saying that it is ok to rage against it. (Yes, this might be an analytical “stretch.”)  All of the subtlety and subtext are possible due to the outstanding performance by newcomer Dafne Keen.

            Ms. Keen radiates emotion as Laura having to use nothing but body language and facial expressions as she is considered mute through the majority of the film. Through one look; a stare or a narrowing of the eyes, she not so subtly announces her parentage in both look and action. Ms. Keen is able to portray a girl on the edge, but with a softness and childlike exuberance. Much of this could be the young actor’s own youth fueling her character.

 Ms. Keen’s chemistry with the other principle cast is remarkable especially with Jackman. The scenes with Wolverine and Laura together, especially when they are fighting together, are so palpably kinetic that it reminds me of Lone Wolf and Cub. A feeling that left me frustratingly insatiable, always wanting more of their teamwork, bond and love.

 The Chemistry with Stewart is equally grand. While I am of the mind that Patrick Stewart would have chemistry with a stool,[24] his onscreen relationship with Keen is tender and magnificent. While there is no dialogue exchanged between them throughout the film; a look, and or a clasp of a hand is all we need to recognize the depth of feeling these two characters have for one another.

Cinematography

The cinematography of Logan is spectacular. The director of photography John Matheson provides the audience with a very intimate framing that is uncharacteristic of a general superhero film. There are extreme closes ups, with longer takes that make a scene carry on longer than on would expect. This helps to set and maintain the slow pace of the film, mirroring the struggles of the main characters.

Matheson also really captures the western film genre aesthetic constantly enveloping the shot with maroon and dark oranges of the southwest as well as draping Hugh Jackman in brown and gold which not only invoke the western overtone, but also of the character of Logan’s iconic costume. This is only contrasted in two parts of the film. The Vegas scene and the scene in the forest; where the neon lights of Vegas and the vibrant greens of the forest conflict with the color pallet of the film but blend nicely with the blood and gore that sprays across the screen. However, the true beauty in the cinematography is the use of color timing; culminating in the creation of a black and white version of the film.

 The origins of this version of the film began when, during the marketing campaign for Logan. Director James Mangold started releasing black and white photos to the public on Social media. The overwhelming positive response to this campaign lead the filmmakers to create a black and white version of the film titled Logan Noir available on the Blu-ray release of Logan.

Logan Noir in many respects, is a superior cut of the film. The blacks and greys in the film pop off the screen and seem to add to the bleak tone the film is trying to set. The crisp sharpness of the images, and use of shadow, makes the visuals more vibrant. From Logan’s grizzled face and deeply detailed scars, to Charles’s withered hands and gaunt face, the black and white version enhances the character definition, thereby elevating the actor’s performance. Through the black and white version, one can really see the influences of Kurosawa (Particularly his films Yojimbo and Sanjuro). Everyone should see this version at least once.   

 Themes

            The majority of films have something that they want to say. Even those films without a clear vision, purpose or point, have a message and contribute to the social/cultural zeitgeist; as films are at once both a product of and purveyor of culture. To the extent that films succeed in their thematic pursuits varies regardless of genre. Logan is unique because it combines genre that allows for an amalgamation of various themes that at first glance, don’t seem like they go together. The first two themes will be placed in this film analysis section, whereas the other two themes will be placed in the Social analysis section.

Theme 1 : Death.

In comic book culture there is something known as “the Superman Problem”; which refers to characters that are so powerful, that they cease becoming relatable and lose the connection with the readers.[25] While Logan/Wolverine/ James Howlett hasn’t really lost touch with the readers, but, due to his healing factor, has been functionally immortal.[26] With that immortality there is an emotional disconnect that happens. We know, for all intents and purposes, that that Wolverine is going to be OK. That loss of threat, does not do well to build dramatic tension. Which is why, in the film version of Wolverine he has been able to be manipulated by Magneto, bested by Sabertooth, and depowered to fight Ninjas. While all of these aspects are in the comics, they are employed in the films to increase the sense of threat for the character.

            When Hugh Jackman revealed that he was donning the claws again for a third solo Wolverine film, he did so under the hastag #OneLastTime. The implications of which were clear, that this was going to be his last film portraying the character. At the time the speculation (later confirmed) on the reason for this decision was, in part, due to Jackman’s natural aging. Because of that, many of us fans rightly surmised that they were going to pull from the “Old Man Logan” storyline so that Hugh Jackman could play over his current age. Additionally, the tone and location of the film in the X-Men timeline, along with this being the swan song for Hugh Jackman’s portrayal of the character, greatly suggested that the end was going to involve the death of one or more than one character. However, the audience is rarely prepared for the movie being about death and the grief that comes with it.

            Death hangs over this film like a specter. It is set at a time of post-modern dystopia, characters are strategically introduced in deserted environments, all of the other characters from this series that we know and love are gone, while the film makes us watch the characters that are still alive sadistically struggle. As the film progresses, death follows our main characters. Wherever they go, Logan, Laura and Charles bring death; whether by their own hands, or in the case of the Munson Family, by circumstance.

From the first frame of the film, the suggestion of death is very apparent. During an interview director James Mangold  states that the opening shot of Logan where the titular character is awoken inside his limousine, is in fact a metaphor for a coffin; one that he never really escapes throughout the film. The director wanted to indicate to the audience that, even at the beginning of the film, Logan is dead already; and with death comes grief.  

            The Kubler-Ross stages of grief are widely publicized and known to the general public; but what is less well known is that these states (denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance) are not linear stages. Logan can be seen in all of these particular stages throughout the film. To this end, all of the rage that Logan portrays in this film can be framed as a part of the Kubler –Ross stages. This rage is not one that is generated from the immediate situation, it is one that is a culmination of his entire life. Throughout the rest of the film, Logan is at a different stage of grief:  He denies help to the nurse protecting Laura (later even denying that Laura is his daughter and initially rejecting the love she gets from him), he only decides to help the nurse and Laura after bargaining for enough money to help him and Charles buy the Sun-seeker. It is clear Logan is depressed about his life, especially after the death of Charles. He finally has acceptance when he follows the kids into the woods, and a short while later, even accepts his death with Laura by his side.  Thus, from the beginning of the film, Logan was in the stages of grief, but it was grief over the loss of his own life, one that had come to an end a long time ago. In essence, Logan, at the start of the film was dead already, he just didn’t know it.

Theme: 2 Family   

The second major theme of the film is one of family.  There is a clear family dynamic between the three principle lead characters: Charles being the patriarch, his son James/Logan and his granddaughter Laura. While this family isn’t a cohesive unit at the beginning (predominantly because Logan is rejecting the love that Laura represents and, in his own way, he is attempting to protect her from his own toxicity). As the film progresses the family unit begins to congeal. Yet, it is apparent that in the early part of the film, Charles is the glue and the focal point for formation and maintenance of the family. It is Charles’ act of reaching out to Laura (in the aforementioned Shakespearean way) in order to repair and secure his legacy that motivates the story, and it’s Logan’s desire to protect Charles that holds the family together until Charles’ death.

 In a brilliant humanistic turn, in the father son relationship between Logan and Charles the filmmakers represents the realities of many adult children have when caring for older parents. There is such care given to this relationship, and the raw honesty of seeing a son have to help his ailing “father” use the toilet; having to pick him up and have to navigate the use of the wheelchair in transport, emotionally resonates with the daily existence of so many people.

In addition, when Logan has to deal with Charles’s lack of memory and dementia (outside of the existence of superpowers) he has to bear the sharp barbs or hurtful ridicule and violent anger from a person he has loved and respected for years. And, like many other adult children today; Logan, even though he is hurt by those words, recognizes that it is not Charles that is saying this, but his illness. Because of this recognition he does not take it to heart. Never has a superhero film dealt with and portrayed late stage aging and elder care in such a believable way.   

Charles and Laura have a clear grandparent/ granddaughter relationship. In the beginning of the film we hear that Charles is telepathically “talking” to someone. While it is later revealed that that person is Laura we are never privy to their psychic conversation. Yet, we can get a glimpse of their relationship in the way they physically interact with one another.

Laura constantly cares for cares for Charles, protecting him from violence (even going so far as to take a bullet for him) and is gentle with him. He imparts sage wisdom about life and attempts to guide her along her way. Seeing the film from Logan’s point of view, we do not see what happened in the hotel room to make Charles have a seizure, but we can clearly see that Laura was trying to protect him, and vice versa. Charles is constantly reminding Logan about Laura, to not forget her and that she represents the future of mutant kind. The intensity of the Charles/Laura relationship culminates in her blind berserker rage at the knowledge of his death.

Laura and Logan’s relationship is strained from the beginning. Laura having been weaned on tales of her father from comic books (which is direct opposition to the man that she is presented with) and he does not want to believe that he has a daughter. Logan continually attempts to leave her and rejects her at almost every turn. It is only Charles that links these two people together, and that link is nearly severed once Charles dies. It is only when Logan is willing to die with purpose, that this bond is forged completely; a father willing to die for his daughter, a daughter who is willing to protect her father by “killing the monster” inside of him and be there, by his side, at the end.

Additionally, the action of Laura killing X-24 can be emblematic of the way that having children cause parents to put aside less admirable traits and behaviors that they had before the child was born. Many parents stop smoking, drinking and or making poor decisions in order to provide a better life for their child. Thus, the destruction of X-24 could be read as metaphor for a parent “cleaning up their past,” and becoming a better person for their child. Also, it is at that moment that Logan is the most loving and amenable to Laura in the entire film; moments before his death.

 SOCIAL ANALYSIS

Like any form of entertainment, Logan is a cultural product that is also a reflection of it. Through its plot, Logan allegorically becomes a commentary on the social issues of immigration and toxic masculinity.

Theme 3: Immigration

The history of US immigration has always been a tenuous one, fraught with periods of intense hypocrisy. In this country, we have an ideal cultural value that, as a country of immigrants, the United States is a refuge, a bastion of pro-immigrant policies. However, due to the power of cultural assimilation, once individuals are able to assimilate into the culture (this ability is variable by race, class ethnicity and historical context) we attempt to close the door behind us.

Currently, the United States is having a resurgence of isolationist and non-interventionist policies that has caused an increase in restrictions on immigration, and the criminalization of certain people (the undocumented, refugees etc. SB 1070, the 7 nation Muslim Ban). While these ideas have been fought against, challenged, and blocked; there is still a lot of anti-immigrant sentiment in our country. There was the removal of DACA, while also holding the program hostage in order to fund a border wall with Mexico. This, coupled with the desire our 45^th president has to promote more white ethnic immigration, one can imagine that the current discourse around immigration itself is quite volatile.

One needs to barely scratch the surface of Logan’s plot structure to find the importance of immigration as a theme. On the surface, it is clearly written into the text of the film that the story of the children and their escape to Canada from Mexico is a clear refugee allegory.  To be clearer, it was the Spanish speaking children who were the product of genetic experimentation in Mexico (with the implication that in Mexico there are lax government restrictions on human test subjects) become refugees using the United States as a transitional country on their way to find safe haven in Canada.

The filmmaker’s choice to use Canada may have been one part driven by character (as Wolverine has always been a Canadian superhero) and two parts socio-political:

  

1.  During the production and photography of the film the Syrian refugee crisis was in the news, and very much on the minds of the public. In that time, newly minted Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, had a near open door policy for Syrian refugees (as opposed to the far more antagonistic stance of the US.) going so far as to personally meet refugees at the border with blankets, food and water. The gesture seemed to ideal that it is possible that it motivated the end of the film[27]

2. The image of a multi-racial group of young exploited and outcast mutants hoping to find refuge in Canada while running from an American Military contractor that wants to capture and weaponized them speaks to the painful realities of the problems of immigration in this country. It is allegorical because in speaking to a lot of underline fears we have, this kind of extremism is not far from reality.

Theme 4: Toxic Masculinity

            Toxic Masculinity is a term that refers to the various cultural and social practices (usually performed by men, but often supported by women) that reinforces a specific and limited expression of manhood; that ultimately harms both men and women.  This narrowed form of masculinity promotes a suppression of emotion (all except anger), strict heteronormativity, terseness, and violent and sexually explicit behavior. This is the type of masculinity that gets reinforced through its acceptance and validation within the social structure. Our social institutions (the economy, politics, the family, healthcare and certainly the military) have reinforced and given rewards to this type of masculine gender expression.

 Additionally, because we socialize our boys and girls to live in an exclusive gender binary, boys’ gender expression is ridged. They have to be boys, and that is usually understood as a rejection of anything that is considered feminine. Therefore, everything else outside of this narrow and specific masculine script is seen as a failure.  This means that this masculinity is not only toxic but it is also fragile.

            Because of this fragility, boys and men are constantly in danger of their inevitable masculine failure. Since boys have to recreate/reaffirm their masculinity in every social situation they are in (especially around other boys/men), they are in a constant state of anxiety over the continuous threat to their masculinity. That anxiety can lead to various examples of overcompensation on the part of boys and men, to be seen as masculine both among boys and among heterosexual girls/women. You can see this in the examples of masculine posturing, to the development and marketing of clothing and other products (cars, movies, music, and sports) that promise to make a boy/man “a real man”.

However, the major problem happens when boys attempt to regain their masculinity after it has been revoked.  The three most common ways in which one can alleviate the shame of “un masculine” behavior and validate their masculinity.

Sociologically speaking, the three quickest and easiest ways to regain masculinity in the US culture is through:

 1) Mass consumption of Alcohol

2) The sexualization/conquest of women

3) Violence.

Thus, the reason why this form of masculinity is culturally toxic, is in the very real consequences of binge drinking, rape, and death that are clear consequences of men having to regain and maintain their “manhood”.

In the comics, the character of Wolverine is the epitome of Toxic Masculinity. He, modeled after the archetype of the cowboy, is laconic (allowing his actions rather than his words judge his character), he is prone to fits of anger that is playfully referred to in the comics as a “berserker’s rage”, he is known to have sexual relationships with a cadre of women, whom he gruffly objectifies by referring to each of them as “Darlin”. But, like many characters of his archetype, he is “strong and silent”; never expressing his emotional pain in healthy ways, only through violence. Yet, even Wolverine’s masculinity is policed in the comics in the way that his height (he is only 5’2 ) is constantly ridiculed; and in true toxic masculine fashion, it is met with a violence response; either in threat or in action.

Throughout the majority of its films, The X-Men film Franchise has done little to dissuade the audience from this portrayal. In the early days of the original X-Men Trilogy the fan reaction was that they wanted to see Wolverine “cut loose”.[28] What they meant by “cut loose” is they wanted to see Wolverine be more violent. With each passing film there was a ratcheting up of violence that culminated in the R rated Logan. However, the interesting result of the pursuit of a pure, authentic masculine portrayal, Logan in its execution, becomes a subversion of it.

During the previous films in the X-men film Franchise there was unparalleled amounts of violence. As with other PG-13 films marketed to children, there was no restrictions on the amount of violence, just restrictions on how real that violence seemed. Therefore, even in these other films, you saw copious amounts of violence, it was just without the realities that violence produces. This inevitably creates a disconnect in the viewer’s mind and desensitizes them to the violence on screen[29] and contributes to the overall masculine toxicity.

Logan by being rated R, reinstates consequences to violence that we have rarely seen in superhero fiction.  Unlike other R rated superhero fare like Deadpool (which is Looney Tunes-esque in its approach to its uber-violence), Logan realistically imagines what the consequences would be if someone was attacked by a man with blades coming out of his knuckles. By adding the real like consequences of evisceration, severed limbs and decapitation the violence in Logan is no longer glorified, it is disturbing, disgusting and hard to watch. This is culminated in a key scene when Laura, Logan and Charles are in Vegas and Charles’ seizure has frozen space-time around his potential attackers. We watch in horror as Logan slowly, painstakingly moves down the corridor and into the room mutilating the paralyzed, yet conscious assailants. Thus, it is through the character of Logan, that we not only see the dangers of Toxic Masculinity, but also how to save ourselves from it.

Everything about Logan in Logan is a deconstruction of toxic masculinity; analyzing its overall danger in our culture. A near literal interpretation of this masculine toxicity is the adamantium poisoning Logan experiences. The very thing that made him a living weapon is killing him. In fact, every single time he uses his claws, or his healing factor, the closer he comes to death. Therefore, the more Logan contributes to violent masculine behavior, the faster he is poisoned. The continuation of this form of violent masculinity has literally become toxic.

Secondly, many men when they start to have a family often have to reconcile their own history with toxic masculine behavior, making sure they do not attempt to reproduce that same behavior in their children. This form of reckoning is especially true if these toxic masculine reformists have daughters (This is because we often frame a girls/woman’s humanity through their value in relation to men) because men are more likely to adopt feminist friendly policies if they see girls/ women as human and not objects.

Logan’s toxic masculinity reckoning comes in the form of X-24 a younger, more feral, mindless killing machine that Logan has to face in order to protect his daughter (who experiences and adopts the consequences of toxic masculine practices), from the same fate. So, in the end, Logan battles his toxic masculine demon in order to protect his daughter.

 Ironically, like most men mentioned above, Logan is saved from his own toxic masculinity by the existence of his daughter, who in the film, doesn’t just change the way Logan thinks, but literally kills the embodiment of her father’s toxic masculinity through the death of X-24. After the destruction of X-24, Logan, with his new found emotional maturity,  can finally express the love he has for Laura. He gives the lovingly fatherly advice, while telling her she does not have to be like him; that she does not have to fight; she “[Doesn’t have to] be what they made [her]”. It is then, at the moment of his death, Logan rises above the toxic masculinity that has plagued him thought his long life to become a complete person.

CONCLUSION

At the time of this writing, Logan is the first superhero film to be nominated for an academy award for Best Adapted Screenplay. While I want the film to win, being a realist, and having a keen insight into Hollywood’s inner workings, I know this will not happen. It is (as they say) just nice that the film was recognized.  Win or lose, this does not take away from the fact that this film is one of the most sophisticated superhero films welcomed into the exclusive pantheon of genre bending superhero films. However, Logan’s character study, depth of emotion, kaleidoscope of genre mixing (superheroes, western, Road movie, Family drama, etc.) and Shakespearean quality makes it the perfect non “superhero” Superhero film, and one that is worth your time and contemplation.

---

[1] This point is moot considering that the film franchise timeline is already so convoluted and chopped to pieces that it is nearly as incoherent as the comic books

[2] Loosely, of course.

[3] Something I think that was not fully explored in the whole of Bryan Singer’s films.  He only used mutants to explore two marginalized groups: gays and lesbians and Jewish Holocaust survivors

[4] Some people are of the mind that since Marvel Studios has achieved its dominance in the field, they make genre pictures with superheroes in this such as “Space Opera” with superheroes = Guardians of the Galaxy  or “Political Thriller” with Superheroes = Captain America: The Winter Soldier. I disagree because they still follow a superhero organizational structure.  It is one that works, but it is one that is quickly getting tired.  

[5] Watchmen

[6] The Pantheon includes: The Dark Knight Trilogy, Superman the movie,  Black Panther, and Guardians of the Galaxy vol 1 +2

[7] This portion of the article was written before the Disney/ Fox mega merger that will solidify Disney as the single biggest and most powerful media company. Fans, this is not a good thing and I have written about this in a separate post

[8] See the Snyder led DCEU

[9] Unfortunately, all of the critical good will they wasted later, on the dumpster fire that was X-Men: Apocalypse

[10] Look into the relationship between Disney and China. Disney films have been huge successes in China. So, Disney often panders to the Chinese audience. As they did with different versions of the film and the Tibetan erasure in Dr. Strange

[11] This dialogue is not in the film, but was used as a part of promotional material revealing a black and white photo of Jackman’s Wolverine

[12] In my previous post I have already discussed how Hugh Jackman’s performance embodies the character to the point where recasting the role within the next 10-15 years will be impossible. 

[13] Given the marketing and the relatively common knowledge that this was going to be Hugh Jackman’s last performance as the character, Logan’s death was a possibility for me in this film. The same way that the death of Bruce Wayne was a possibility at the end of The Dark Knight Rises

[14][14] I do not count his cameo in Apocalypse because it inconsequential to what we have seen before, and everything about that movie I wish I could just ignore.

[15] A Futile effort I know.

[16] The first time Charles has a seizure that injures 600 people and wipes out the X-Men

[17] Hugh Jackman started the marketing for this film with the hashtag #OneLastTime Indicating his decision to walk away from the role.

[18] One of my favorite anecdotes of the making of this film is Jackman recounting the filming of the forest sequence where he was supposed to run full speed up hill toward the camera. After a few takes, Jackman got winded after one of the shots but he said “ Alright! Let’s do it again!”. The DP said, “Na, we’re gonna wait because you just passed out, mate.” Hugh was so keyed up that he didn’t even realize it.

[19] One of my favorite scenes in any X-men film is the first conversation between Xavier and Magneto in the first X-men, where they acknowledge their friendship and outline their basic differences in their philosophy about mutants and humans https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkRyP8bp0Io

[20] A performance that is absolutely deserving of an Academy Award Nomination but for many anti-genre reasons, Stewart was snubbed.

[21] James Mangold is now writing the continuation of Laura’s story

[22] John Blake in The Dark Knight Rises

[23] I know they are not actually the named NEW MUTANTS

[24] Certainly more than Clint Eastwood had at the 2012 RNC

[25] It is important to note that whenever you read fiction there is a necessary suspension of disbelief that goes on. You know, for the most part, that the protagonists will win and that the antagonists will be defeated

[26] In fact the character of wolverine was just resurrected in the comics

[27][27] It certainly motivated the criticism of the film. During the Storm Of Spoilers podcast,  film journalist Joanna Robinson  that in the film Logan  Justin Trudeau was still Prime Minister and flies around protecting the border on a Hypogryph (from Harry Potter)

[28] This is referring to the number one complaint/criticism that Hugh Jackman received from fans in between X-men and X2: X-Men United.

[29] There are many studies that have been done on desensitization which has been linked to a loss of empathy