Snowpiercer Review: A Marxian, Weberian, Totalitarian Train Ride

Author's Note: Please see this film. If you are planning to see this film do not read any further as this review will contain major spoilers.  The power of this film and its storytelling is contingent on knowing as little about the film as possible. Here is the trailer:

Once you have seen the film, I encourage you to read the review. 


  INTRODUCTION

     Being the cinephile that I am, I am always looking for a film to watch and appreciate.  Since I have exhausted most of my desired films currently playing in most mainstream cinema, and I refuse to watch a three hrs explosive set piece designed by Michael Bay (whom I've deemed War of the four horsemen of the film apocalypse), I turned my attention to other possibilities.  In my search, I started to notice a lot of positive buzz around Snowpiercer, a sci-fi Dystopian film by South Korean director Joon-ho Bong (based on a French Cartoon) originally released in 2013 that had just recently made it to the US in limited release. With sci-fi dystopia being one of my favorite genres, I was just hoping to be entertained (even though the critical acclaim had me hopeful for more). But what I got was a film that deals with a lot of social issues in a sociological way. Seeing threads of, Marx's proletarian revolution, Weber's Iron Cage, Totalitarian propaganda and population control this films gives the audience a deeply rich story about the human condition, that should not be missed.

 PLOT

      2014; in an attempt to curb global warming Countries around the world unite to release chemical CW-7 into the upper atmosphere. The result is a new ice age that wipes out all life on earth. 2031: the last surviving remnants of humanity live on a train that is in perpetual motion around the globe.  The train is separated into an elaborate caste system, based upon the type of ticket passengers had when they first boarded. Those with first class tickets live towards the front of the train and those that had 3rd class tickets or were free riders live at the end of the train.  Feeling the pain of the social and economic stratification caused by living at the end of the train, Curtis (Chris Evans) decides to lead a revolt.  As he and his fellow band of rebels (Including John Hurt, Octavia Spencer and Jaime Bell)  move through each compartment, getting closer to the fabled "eternal engine", they are faced with horrific realities that test their mission, their morality, motivations and mortality.

GENERAL ANALYSIS

       One the best compliments that I can give this film is that it is not American made. Therefore, it does not fall into some of the same tropes and plot traps that a lot of genre films that are produced written and directed in the US often succumb. The American film structure, especially within the genre of Sci-fi fantasy has a certain structure and character moments that are often repeated which, for a fan often gets boring and predictable.  Snowpiercer, sets up a number of these tropes, but just when you thought you knew the character(s) their motivations and future actions, the film reveals something in the narrative that changes the audience outlook on the film, causing them to reassess. The ending of the film goes beyond what we would typically expect from Hollywood, and that is always a breath of fresh air, and a welcomed change of pace.

SOCIOLOGICAL ANALYSIS

     Themes

           Marxism

          It is quite clear from the promotional trailers, screen caps and descriptions of this film that the aforementioned caste system and subsequent revolt is reminiscent of the proletarian revolution Karl Marx envisioned in his most famous work. In the film, the class distinctions on the train (at least at the beginning) mirror the class struggles between Marx's bourgeoisie and the proletariat.  Those in the front of the train represent the bourgeoisie ( their figure heads being played by the ever brilliant Tilda Swinton and Ed Harris) and those at the back of the train represent the proletariat.
       Those in the front of the train speak of their position as one of divinity not of privilege; even to the point where some of the bourgeoisie characters try to empathize with the proletariat; bemoaning that their position is not without its sacrifices. Those living in the tail end of the train represent the proletariat, and the impoverished.  Even though the adults in the tail end of the train are not described or shown to be workers on the train ( doing maintenance, or food service for the bourgeoisie), it is clear, given the conditions that they live in, that all they own is their bodies, and they have only their labor power to sell.
      Another Marxian aspect in this class distinction is in the use of families.  Marx believed that the family unit was important to Capitalism because it was a space to recreate the labor force: First, in giving those current workers a space for rest and recuperation before and after work. Second, allowing for a space to have children who will eventually replace the adults in the labor force as they age.  As the film progresses, the audience realizes that the only reason that the tail-end proletariats are allowed to live is because they provide more children (because sex is fun and cheap) to be used as labor on the (manual running) train.
      Thirdly, there is also a Marxian stratification of resources among the front end of the train and the tail end. While the front end of the train dines on Sushi, fresh water, vegetables and fruits and real meat. The tail-end proletariats however, were reduced to cannibalism.

 
         "I hate that I know what human flesh tastes like, and that babies taste best."- Curtis

       After the first month without food, the passengers in the tail end began eating their fellow (weaker) passengers, and babies. To curb this practice, people started willingly gave up body parts so that everyone could survive.  This is an extreme version of communist solidarity.  However, once the bourgeoisie was alerted to this practice they began manufacturing protein bars that are fed to the proletariat (to keep the worker working); its ingredients we learn are all of the unsavory bits of protein found on the train...reminiscent of soylent green.
  
Weber's Iron Cage

       As the film reaches its ideological climax, the proposed Marxian revolution that the audience has been invested in throughout the most of the movie, is revealed to be part of an elaborate bureaucratic process of population control. Every few years, "government" moles in the tail end of the train fuel the fires of rebellion getting the workers to revolt.  The subsequent casualties on both sides (although the ruiling body always makes sure that their are more losses for the proletariat) maintains the population so that the train will continue. This added system of control reminds me of one of the overall messages of The Matrix Trilogy.
     What Snowpiercer and The Matrix Trilogy have in common is the inclusion and interpretation of Max Weber's Iron Cage of Rationality. Being a (some what) contemporary of Marx, Weber concluded that the proletarian revolution that Marx saw as inevitable (due to his faith that people would be fed up and demand social change) was never going to happen. This was because Weber understood that people were regulated by a bureaucracy which not only dehumanized, disenchanted and controlled people  but trapped them in what C. Wright Mills called "Private Orbits" unable to see anything or desire anything outside of their own limited perspective leading to complacency and a maintenance of the Bureaucratic order.
       Other, more contemporary scholars like George Ritzer have added that this maintenance of complacency requires distraction, a way to focus attention away from the plight of the oppressed or from their own circumstances in order to quell revolution and revolt.  This is nothing new. In ancient Rome they had the coliseum, In  present day United States we have social media, and endless types of pop cultural entertainment that spans, multi-media platforms. If we spend as much money on these distractions as we did on fighting homelessness, poverty or disease all of these social problems would be eradicated.
        In SnowPiercer, there are two main types of distractions used by those in power. The first is a socialized system of propaganda that deifies Wilford ( Ed Harris) the creator of the train forcing children to watch brainwashing videos that reinforce stereotypes as well as recite mantras that invoke fear of leaving the train. This aspect of the film is paralleling both the regimes of North Korea and China in the way they present their leaders and censor information.

 
     The second type of distraction that those in power uses in the film is hope itself. Ritzer, Weber, and Mills knew (and their work is a testament to this notion) that one way to keep people under control is to give them the illusion of choice and the illusion of freedom and free will.  Just as we have the illusion of choice in our own entertainment (which is presented and packaged and controlled by only 6 companies), and other commodities through manufacturing desire, in the film the desire for revolution is similarly manufactured and controlled.  Thus, like the other illusions, the revolution in the film (being a part of the system) doesn't change anything. Ironically, the first non coerced choice that is made in the film, is what leads to the ultimate demise of the train and almost everyone on board. But leaves enough for life to start again.

      CONCLUSION

         This is a deep, well crafted, thought provoking and entertaining film. It is a premise that lends itself to rich sociological analysis ( as you can see).  I assumed that a film with this premise to be "believable" there would have to be some human rights abuses and a fair share of atrocities...and I got that in spades.  This movie is so powerful for me because it takes the very real types of inequality, and difficult social problems we see in our contemporary society (from war, to classism, poverty hunger, terrorism, drug addiction, and genocide) and takes them to an extreme for the fantastical situation presented.  This is what good science fiction/fantasy is supposed to do; take relatable problems and social issues and present them in a different way for the purposes of entertainment, but more importantly as an allegory.  This is the brilliance of Snowpiercer, a film that should at least be appreciated (if you hate it or the genre) and at most celebrated as an important contribution to film and social analysis.

Sociology Alert! SCOTUS Ruling: Corporations are more of a person than Women

      Well, in case you've been living under a rock this morning...(or a luddite) you will know that the SCOTUS ruled on the contraceptive mandate in the Affordable Care Act ("Obama care").   

     To give those not in the know some context.  The contraception mandate in the Affordable care act requires all employers to provide birth control for their employees. Craft store Hobby Lobby (a Family owned company) appealed this mandate stating that it was in violation of  their religious freedom.  The ruling given out today (in a 5-4 decision) was in favor of Hobby Lobby and their corporate personhood, over the body rights and agency of women.  You can read a bit about this decision here, here and here.
       The idea of corporate personhood has been in contention for some time, mainly because by law a corporation can buy and sell property and be sued like any other person in court. However, what makes a corporate person different is that they can not be tried for murder as a non-corporate person can. Also, even though corporations have been sued for crimes and human rights abuses, unlike most people, corporations have the money to pay settlements and if not, they have armies of lawyers to tie up the case in the court system. With this lack of accountability being so common, some research has identified a corporation as a textbook Psychopath.

        The source of this major social problem is The profit motive, inherent in Capitalism as an economic system, which results in the exploitation of both the workers and the consumers. Unchecked and unregulated Capitalism leads to the complete deconstruction of human rights across the globe. As a sociologist, what I didn't consider is that corporate control would be so absolute (a part of what Mills calls the The Power Elite ) that the they would be able to roll back civil rights so completely to the point where over 1/2 of the US population would be considered sub human.

   This decision is another recent blow to the rolling back of reproductive rights for women in the US.  The other blow was the recent Massachusetts court case that determined that protest buffer zones for planned parenthood clinics (where they provide abortions and other services like counseling and health care consultations) were illegal. Not to mention that many other states (like North Dakota) whose clinics that provide abortions are few and far between that many women have to travel for hours just to get there.  It is practices like this that have made reproductive rights for women de facto( in practice) illegal. However, with the recent court ruling(s) it looks like this de facto illegality will soon be de jure ( by law). 
     In protest to this ruling, many feminist scholars and organizations have taken to the internet to show their justifiable outrage. They mention that the 5-4 decision was made by men and that all of the Supreme Court Justices that are women decided against this ruling. In fact, in an act of pure awesomeness, Chief Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg wrote a 35 page dissenting opinion where she had some amazing things to say .  Essentially, these are individuals and organization that are railing against the very tangible reality of the patriarchy and male privilege.
     A prime example (in this context) of male privilege is that women in our culture are burdened with responsibility of birth control more so than men.  Men then have the privilege of not being responsible for birth control (assuming women are either on the pill, or if they get pregnant they will "just take care of it") leading to some men being coercive to reduce condom use ( typical storylines being: "I want to be closer to you, I want to feel you etc.). Because of the aforementioned burden, there are more options for female responsible birth control, and while they only recently became federally funded (long after pills like Viagra), the Hobby Lobby court decision makes federal funding of female responsible birth control a moot point. 
     What is the most telling by this court decision is that patriarchy is still alive and well in the US. In the most recent Supreme Court election, many people celebrated a landmark event when 3 out of 9 women were seated on the Supreme court at the same time. Yet, as this court ruling painfully illustrates it is not enough to make tangible legislative changes.  Women only make up 1/3rd of the Supreme Court, but women make up over 50% of the US population, therefore a majority of men on the Supreme Court are making decisions for all women. 
   The question that I am plagued with is: what does corporations have to gain from excluding women's access to birth control, aside from controlling women's bodies and reducing their personhood status in the US? It would seem that since women make up the majority of all part time workers, which many corporations take advantage of (due to the exploitative behaviors inherent of the profit motive), wouldn't they elect to work somewhere else that gives them more reproductive agency? Are corporations like Hobby Lobby, relying on the gender pay gap and the poverty trap to keep women in under employed( so they can't go anywhere else) in order to maintain their staffing needs?  But like the kerfuffle with Chick-Fil-a, this is not about rationality, this is about inequality and with court decisions like these they are becoming more overtly (instead of covertly) structural in nature.
     Part of this source of this shift in our cultural context is due to the belief that we are in a post feminist society, that we have reached equality of the genders.  a barometer of this change is in the increasing inability of young women to define themselves as feminist, even though they may support and defend feminist policies. To them feminist is a bad word, it is old fashioned and unnecessary.  This is due to not only the minimization, and vilification of feminism in the media ( books like "The Decline of Men" and "The End of Men" to anything that Rush Limbaugh says ala "Femin-azi") but the rise of exaggerated femininity and enlightened sexism . The point, not only have many young women been socialized and enculturated to hate other women (going so far to denounce and deny the struggles of women in the past whose victories they benefit from), but to validate the male gaze, and the hypersexualization of women as forms of empowerment.  This is the quintessential example of how patriarchy has won...for now.

The Films of Christopher Nolan: The Prestige

      The fifth film in my in-depth analysis of the films of Christopher Nolan is the underrated and often overlooked masterpiece The Prestige.  Often referred to as "one of  magician movies of 2006", The Prestige competed for audience attention with The Illusionist, another period piece about magicians starring Edward Norton which was released a scant two months (almost to the day) earlier.  While the fear of audience fatigue was very real, Nolan's superior story and storytelling translated into higher box office numbers and greater praise.  Based on the book of the same name , Nolan's story of rival magicians in London at the turn of the 20th century may seem muted compared to his previous film at that time.  However, in The Prestige, Nolan crafts a sci-fi period thriller with so many plot twists that it is positively Hitchcockian.

"Are you watching closely?" Alfred Borden

PLOT

      London 1897, two young magicians working as apprentices to a known professional at the time strike up a friendship as they navigate the deceptive and secretive world of magic. They are the perfect pair, Alfred Borden (Christian Bale) has superb technical skill.  There is no trick that he can't deduce or recreate; driving his desire to push the boundaries and "get his hands dirty." Robert Angier (Hugh Jackman) is an excellent showman, able to manipulate the crowd to get them to believe in the impossible.  This friendship is ruptured when, during a magic trick on stage, Borden pushes boundaries a bit too far resulting in the death of Angier's wife.  What follows is an intense rivalry spanning several years that pushes both men to the brink of insanity and into the realms of science, sacrifice and the supernatural.

ANALYSIS (spoilers ahead)

   One of the more interesting things that I noticed during my analytical viewing of The Prestige is that this is a film without a clear protagonist and antagonist.  Now, given the set-up and structure of the film you might assume that this distinction is clear: Angier's wife dies, we as an audience are supposed to sympathize with him and the film follows Angier's story from more or less his perspective.  But as the film continues, and Angier is more willing to "get his hands dirty" we become less sympathetic to his choices and his methods and we realize that the reason we don't follow the story from Borden's perspective is to keep his method to his magic a secret.  By the film's end, we realize that each man, in their pursuit of perfection, have both given (and lost) everything that is important to them; and are worthy of both sympathy and contempt.  

"No one cares about the man in the box." Robert Angier

         Themes

 

       On the surface, this film has they very blatant themes of obsession, revenge, sacrifice and rivalry that are common in a lot of Christopher Nolan films.  In fact they are so common that one could say that you know you are watching a Christopher Nolan film when one of two things happens: 1) there is a protagonist with a psychological problem that attempting to deal with that problem through revenge, sacrifice or both. 2) A non-linear story structure.  Because these are themes that are in virtually every Christopher Nolan film ( and I have addressed them in other reviews) The theme that I am going to focus on in this review is this film being an allegory for the relationship between the filmmaker and the audience. 

        In the beginning of the film, Cutter (Michael Caine) explains the three parts of a magic trick:

        "Every magic trick has three parts or acts. The first is called 'The Pledge'. A magician shows you something ordinary; a deck of cards, a bird, or a man. He shows you this object, may even ask you to inspect it, for you to see that it is indeed real...normal. But it probably isn't.  The second part of the act is called 'The Turn'. The magician takes that ordinary something and makes it do something extraordinary.  Now you're looking for the secret, but you won't find it; because, of course, you are not really looking. You don't really want to know. You want to be...fooled. But you wouldn't clap yet, because making something disappear isn't enough, you have to bring it back. That is why every magic trick has a third part; the hardest part, the part we call 'The Prestige'."

     For Christopher Nolan, this is not just a description of a magic trick, it is the description of the filmmaker's relationship with the audience.  The filmmaker is the magician in this analogy and as such, Nolan gives the pledge, the turn and (hints at) the prestige for the film within the first few opening shots.  It is almost as if Nolan, through Cutter's speech and the underlying shots is giving us his film philosophy, or at the very least his own job description. 

    Nolan's brilliance shines through when we the audience (much like the character of Angier) believe that the method (of this film) must be more complex than it actually is and so we start adding complexity to the story even though we've already been given all of the pieces of the puzzle but we don't know how all the pieces fit together until the end of the film. Once we know ending (secret), and we've gotten a peak behind the curtain, it changes the experience of watching the film. Thus, when watching the film multiple times, you get a different experience (which is Nolan's goal in every single film he makes).

      As I was contemplating this theme ( seeing the film a 6 and 7th time through) I legitimately asked my self "Do today's audience really want to be fooled?" In our multi-platform social media spoiler filled culture, it seems that not only people don't want to be fooled but they want to figure out or come up with the answers before hand...to be smarter than the filmmaker; even though there is significant evidence that shows that spoilers (for stories we are invested in) reduces anticipation and therefore reduces the pleasure we receive from them. The conclusion that I have come to (aside from spoilers being a way for individuals to get a sense of self, recognition or their fifteen seconds of fame on the internet) is that many people in the audience want to be smarter than the filmmaker because many filmmakers treat the audience like they are morons.   This is why films that have wide appeal have no plot, no story and are socially, culturally and politically problematic. Yet, filmmakers like Nolan who treat their audience's intelligence with respect, are given latitude to suspend disbelief.

            "It took courage to step into that machine every night; not knowing if I would be the man

              in the box, or the prestige." Robert Angier

 Characters 

      This film is full of stellar performances from all the principle and supporting cast. It is their abilities that keeps the illusion Nolan is creating in tact.  Hugh Jackman's Angier is assumed to be the films protagonist (as I've previously mentioned) but when he stops being driven by revenge and becomes a man obsessed he stops becoming sympathetic.  Yet, like his character, Jackman is so earnest and affable that the audience rationalizes (almost) all of his behaviors.  He goes around the world to find an answer to a simple trick and ends up paying for it with his life 100 times over...literally.  Meanwhile, the Borden twins not only sacrifice their lives ( each only having half a life) but the lives of their loved ones ( both Sara's suicide and one brother murdered by Angier's trap).  This is what happens when extremes meet. 
      As an aside, I really enjoyed Rebecca Hall's performance as Sara in this film.  Her ability to tell the difference (albeit subconsciously) between the Borden brothers by the way each of them says "I love you" was brilliant. To that end, I have been able to determine (through several viewings of the film) which Borden brother was in each scene: Borden (S) loved Sara and Borden (O) loved Olivia. 

      First off let me say that I believe that Borden (O) was more in love with Magic and its technical mastery than Borden (S). Also, Borden (S) tends to be more sympathetic and remorseful towards Angier at the beginning of the film. But here is a list of the scenes and which Borden brother is present:

1) Borden (O) ties the knot that kills Julia (Angier's wife)
2) Borden (S) shows up at Julia's funeral
3) Borden (O) gets baby news from Sara even though the baby is Borden (S)'s
4) Borden (O) gets shot by Angier
5)Borden (S) gets his wound tended by Sara
6) Borden (S) Buys Sara the house
7) Borden (O) sabotages Angier's acts
8) Borden (O) gets buried alive
9) Borden (S) when Sara is drinking
10) Borden (O) when fighting with Sara
11) Borden (S) wants to leave Angier alone
12) Borden (O) is framed by Angier and executed
13) Borden (S) avenges his brother and takes back his daughter.

Cutter (Michael Caine) is our way into the film.  He explains exposition and gives us all the answers we need...even if we don't believe them. Scarlett Johansen as Olivia serves her purpose ( as a prop and object for each man) she is the distraction Nolan uses to keep us in the deception of the film.  Lastly, David Bowe is Tesla...Nolan's only choice, and in the film you can see why...amazing.

Photography

   Wally Pfister once again is Nolan's director of photography on this picture.  The film is full of sweeping wide gorgeous shots of Colorado that make the world feel large and expansive and by association the film as well. However that open feeling is often stunted whenever the characters are walking outside on a backlot set.  Instantly, the wide open feeling is contained in a suffocatingly tight space that makes London of the early 20th century seem miniscule. 
     However, Pfister does a lot of shoulder camera work in this film that adds an organic feel to a lot of the dialogue ( like watching a play) because the actors aren't sure when they are getting a close up or even if the camera is covering them at that moment.  This also allowed for actors to freely explore the sets during shooting having less restriction on space...meaning that they didn't have to stand in a proper spot to get camera coverage. Because of this method, there were many times in the film where I felt the movement of the camera added to the emotional resonance of the scene.

Direction and Conclusion

       Outside of The Dark Knight Trilogy,(which stands in a class by itself) The Prestige is one of my two favorite Nolan films. The other being Inception, these are both films about film ( more on that when I get to my review of Inception). In The Prestige, Nolan is illustrating his vision of the relationship between the filmmaker and the audience.  It is also clear that this film represents Nolan's love of cinema and literature in its construction and period setting.  His passion for the art of film is so strong in this film that you can not help but be suck in by the undertow. Yes, this film could have been handled by another director, maybe even a director for hire, but it would be far more formulaic and far less captivating. Yet, regardless of its scope and grand themes, this film seems a far more (and welcomed) intimate affair than the previous film Batman Begins, or the following sequel The Dark Knight.
    

The Films of Christopher Nolan: Batman Begins

This film will also be a part of a separate review of Christopher Nolan's complete Dark Knight Trilogy

INTRODUCTION

        The fourth film in my comprehensive examination of The films of Christopher Nolan is Batman Begins.  This film marks Christopher Nolan's entrance into the superhero film genre and a reimagining of the character of Bruce Wayne/Batman that had never been seen before on screen. Nolan and company (i.e. David Goyer and Wally Pfister) gave us a Batman that was several steps closer to the dark, brooding character fans of the comics are familiar with. Nolan's decision to ground Bruce Wayne in (what is now being called) hyper-realism, (thus making the character of Bruce Wayne and the idea of Batman as plausible as possible) was the key to  resurrecting the character from the campy popcorn hell that he was condemned to by Joel Schumacher in Batman and Robin.

HISTORY

      From a mainstream perspective, prior to 1989 the image of Batman had always been the 1966 Adam West Batman. Full of colorful costumes with equally colorful villains this movie and subsequent T.V. series "Biff", "Bamed" and "Powed" its way into the hearts of the public.  Regardless of only airing for two years, this image of Batman had invaded the public consciousness that solidified the image of Batman as an icon to the people. 

        Growing up in the 80's and early 90's, comic book fans had a different image of Batman: a dark brooding, violent, merciless and vicious character that was born out of tragedy.  This image of Batman was solidified in the 1980's with four seminal graphic novels: Batman: Year One, and The Dark Knight Returns by Frank Miller,  Arkham Asylum by Grant Morrison and The Killing Joke by Alan Moore. To the comics community they had not  seen Batman on screen until Tim Burton's Batman; affectionately referred to by fans as "Batman 89".

         Batman 89 was a smashing success; this was in part due to Jack Nicolson's Jack Naper/Joker and a soundtrack by the immensely popular Prince. Fans of the Comic book iterations of Batman in the  mid-to late 80's were so thirsty for a darker Batman that they looked past all of the character missteps, continuity problems and lack of themes that Batman 89 and its sequel produced. Regardless, this darker Batman was soon compromised as a wacky caricature the more creative control Burton was given (ala Batman Returns). The result of which was half the revenue of the previous film, while having double the budget.

      After Burton's departure during the development of the third film, Warner Bros, wanting to increase merchandising and capturing a wider appeal (than they could get with a Burton film) hired Joel Schumacher to re-tool and direct the third film that would be called Batman Forever. Even though the events of the two previous films were still in continuity, Batman Forever saw Gotham and Batman taking on a lighter tone ( Batman joking to Alfred about getting drive thru for dinner) both in color and scope.  There were more jokes, fewer stakes and both Jim Carrey's Riddler and Tommy Lee Jones' Two-Face aped Nicholson's Joker. It was a shift back into embracing the 1966 aesthetic. While it was commercially successful ( both a the box office and merchandising), it was not true to the Batman character of the comics or one that they had previously established.  The image of Batman on film had been mortally wounded.

        On June 20th 1997 the fourth Batman film (in Batman 89 continuity)titled Batman and Robin was released. By July, Batman on film was dead. The film was widely panned by critics and fansalike, labeled as too silly, wacky and campy.   Any plans for future Batman installments were shelved or scrapped.  

       Finally in late 2002 Warner Bros approached relatively unknown independent filmmaker Christopher Nolan (who had just completed the Insomnia remake for the WB) to direct the next Batman film.  Nolan, wanting to reinvent the character making it different than any other iteration audiences had seen, pitched his idea for a "realistic" Batman; going back to tell the training of Bruce Wayne and the origin of Batman. Influenced by the aforementioned Year One, the comic "The Man who Falls" and Jeff Loeb and Tim Sale's The Long Holloween; Nolan tells the very human  story of fear, loss, will and determination against the backdrop of a superhero origin story. In 2005, Nolan gave us Batman Begins   

    

PLOT

          After being unable to avenge the death of his parents (when he was a boy) due to police corruption and Mob control, Billionaire Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) forsakes his fortune to travel the world penniless and alone to understand the criminal fraternity. Five years later, he is approached in a  Bhutanese prison by Henry Ducard (Liam Neeson) who offers to train Bruce in the ways of combat, stealth and fear to become a member of the League of Shadows. He accepts.

         For two years, Bruce embraces the harsh but focused mentorship of Ducard under the watchful eye of the League of Shadows leader Ra's al Gul ( Ken Wantanabe).  But when faced with his final test of murder, Bruce refuses leading to the destruction of the League of Shadows base and the death of Ra's. During the fray, Bruce is barely able to escape saving Ducard in the process.

       Returning to Gotham City, Bruce uses his families wealth (and his training with the League) to make himself a symbol in order to eliminate crime and corruption in the city. Inspired by a childhood trauma, he becomes "The Batman". Aided by the one good cop in Gotham, Sargent James Gordon( Gary Oldman), District Attorney and childhood friend Rachel Dawes (Kate Holmes), Tech Genius Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman) and Alfred Pennyworth (Michael Cane) Bruce begins a one man assault on crime. Yet, as he begins to uncover just how deep the corruption goes he discovers plot to destroy Gotham city by Psychologist Jonathan Crane (Cillian Murphy) and The League of Shadows lead by Ducard; who reveals himself to be the real Ra's al Gul.

         In the climatic battle Bruce's skills and ideology are tested, and he emerges victorious, crippling the League of Shadows after the death of Ra's al Gul.  In the aftermath, Gordon, now a Lieutenant, fears the escalation Batman's presence will cause in Gotham. He eludes to a recent gruesome and more "theatrical" crime whose perpetrator leaves Joker playing cards. With a few inspiring words Batman and Gordon solidify their partnership in the coming struggles ahead.

THEMES

"Why do we fall Bruce? So we can learn to pick ourselves up."

Thomas Wayne

           Fear

       Christopher Nolan has said in many interviews (both before and after the film was released) that the main theme in  Batman Begins is fear.  One does not have to look at the film too closely to see all of the fear related imagery. On the surface, young Bruce Wayne get a lesson about fear and its inherent power by Carmine Falcone:

  

 "Look around ya, kid. You'll see a councilmen, a union official, a couple off duty cops and a judge. Now I would have a moment's hesitation to blow your head off in front of them. That's power you can't buy. That's the power of fear."

 Secondly, the character of Jonathan  Crane/ Scarecrow is the embodiment of fear. He personifies the power of fear and how it can take a hold of you.  This is played out through his use of a weaponized fear toxin that has the potential to have its victims tear each other apart trying to battle their own worst nightmares.

     Looking a little bit deeper, however we see that Bruce Wayne is motivated by and uses fear.  Initially he is traumatized by an experience with bats as a child. Later, when his trauma is triggered during a night at the Opera, his desire to leave precedes the mugging and murder of his parents.  The resulting guilt causes an inconsolable rage mostly directed at himself.  That rage is bottled for 14 years, and when his chance for vengeance is stolen from him, the fear induced guilt and rage is almost too much to bare. He decides to bury it, and suppress it and replace it with anger rather than overcome it. Eventually, he becomes an empty shell, lost in his own pain. It is only when he meets Ducard does he start to face his fear. He learns to channel his fear into the criminals he seeks, (seeing them as uncomplicated, cowardly and superstitious) going so far as to don the image of the thing he fears the most.

    

"Bats frighten me...it's time my enemies shared my dread."

Bruce Wayne

      Catharsis and Therapy

          When Bruce dons the cape and cowl he is transformed once again that angry, scared little boy in that alley. However, rather than freeze with fear and confusion, he now has the skills and the training to make a difference in both himself and others.  To that end, being Batman is cathartic for Bruce.  He is able to finally release a lot of the pain and rage that he has been feeling for most of his life. Thus, being Batman is in some way an extreme form of exposure therapy. To help get over the fear and guilt of his parents murder, he continually puts himself in the same or similar situation with the same type of criminal that killed his parents. Thus, every person he saves, he is saving the little boy inside him. It needs to be understood, that in this film at least, the symbol and persona of Batman is a coping mechanism for Bruce Wayne to understand and move on from his parents death.

          



"Training is nothing. WILL, IS EVERYTHING..."

Ra's al Gul

    Will

     It is commonly understood that Batman is a superhero without superpowers. I do not hold that to be true. Batman has the super power of unwavering will and determination to complete his goals. In the face of insurmountable odds, and unbelievable circumstances, Batman in the comics has always soldiered on. In a place like Gotham City a person has to. In the DC comics universe, Gotham is the worst place on earth. Some of the best writers see Gotham as a Black Mirror reflecting the worst parts of its protectors*   Nolan's Batman shares that will and determination, but unlike the comic books, Nolan's Gotham has the possibility to become a better place.*

*This will be expanded upon in a future post about Nolan's complete Dark Knight Trilogy

SOCIAL ANALYISIS

        Outside of being a cinephile and a comic geek, I am a Sociologist. Thus, I would be remiss if I did not talk about some of the social themes in Batman Begins.  It is in looking at this film (and a lot of Christopher Nolan films save Inception and The Dark Knight Rises) sociologically, that I have to be more critical toward Nolan than I usually am. 

        One of the initial problems with Batman Begins  is in its source material.  Bruce Wayne in the comics and in Nolan's film has a lot of privilege. He has class privilege, racial privilege, sexual privilege and male privilege.  It is the advantages visible and invisible that is awarded to him that allows him to become Batman in the first place. While this can be easily explained away as a product of the social context in which Batman was created; this same image with the same privileges gets continually perpetuated in monthly comics leading to issues of not only body shame and colorblindness among the readers, but also their internalization of these messages shape their expectations.  This will inevitably have an effect on the media portrayal of the character, especially in

our world of social media dominance.

    I am happy to say that Nolan attempts to subvert Bruce Wayne's class privilege (at least) in a number of different ways.  First, he paints Thomas and Martha as social crusaders, nearly bankrupting Wayne Enterprises combating poverty, creating cheap public transportation for everyone in the city...and using it themselves, even going so far as to not feel threated by going out a side exit in an alley.

"You've never tasted desperate; you're Bruce Wayne, the prince of Gotham. You'd have to go a thousand miles to meet someone who didn't know your name. So don't come down here with your anger. People from your world will never understand; and you always fear, what you don't understand."                                                                                          Carmine Falcone

     Secondly, after confronting Falcone, Bruce realizes that his class privilege has blinded him to the suffering of people and the social causes of crime.  As a result, he gives away his money and destroys his IDs in order to see the world as it is.    It is with this action that Nolan's Bruce Wayne becomes a cultural Anthropologist using participant observation to understand culture and the nature of criminality.

     The other glaring issue that I see in this film is the damsel in distress trope.  This trope is represented in the character of Rachel Dawes played by Katie Holmes.  While Nolan and Goyer give her the trappings of a smart, confident, independent women she is constantly being stalked, and or being rescued by the hero.  There were several scenes where her presence was not crucial to the plot other than motivating the hero into action. To be fair, the entire superhero genre has this problem and it is a problem that Nolan works through/out by The Dark Knight Rises.

FIGHT COREOGRPHY*

"In many films today I find that violence has lost its threat. It has become more dance like and the audience has become comfortable watching it.  I wanted to take [the fighting] back to a grungier place where people will once again be concerned with the violence they are seeing on screen."

Director Christopher Nolan

     In the comics, Batman has Mastered 127 different styles of Martial arts. He consistently uses an idiosyncratic mixture of Tae Kwon Do, Judo, Muay Thai, Dragon style Kung Fu, Boxing, Jujitsu, Ninjitsu and Capoeira. He is one of the greatest martial artists on the planet. If he hasn't trained with the other greats they have been trained by him. Since showing this level of mastery is not possible in a two hour film, Nolan and Company, even though they show him being adept at panther and tiger Kung-fu, Jujitsu and ninjitsu early in the film, decided to create a fighting style for Batman that was organic and able to adapt to any situation.  To that end, they chose a new,  evolving style called Keysi Fighting Method (KFM). as the pinnacle of Batman's fighting art and prowess in the film. The style of KFM is all about intension, organic movement of how a person's body reacts, and close quarter techniques designed to end the fight quickly. 

Here is a video from the Batman Begins special features  

 

Nolan made an active choice to film the fight choreography from the criminals/victims perspective. This is why you get a lot of quick cuts and glimpses of Batman fighting especially when Batman first takes out the guys at the docks. In their fear and confusion, these criminals don't know what they're seeing.  As we approach the final fight between Ra's and Batman, there are longer shots of action where we can see the fight a bit clearer.

PHOTOGRAPHY AND DIRECTION

       This film continues the collaboration between Christopher Nolan and Wally Pfister (previously working on both Memento and Insomnia. It is well known that Christopher Nolan does not use a second unit.  All of the scenes shot in this film (and all of his films) are constructed and framed by Nolan and Pfister themselves.  This is a well crafted and beautifully shot film.  Before there is a discussion on specifics, it should be noted that this is the first Batman film (since 1966) that was shot on multiple locations for major set pieces (and it would not be the last). 

         Wally Pfister consistently tries to outdo himself. He took what he learned shooting in the fog on Insomnia and applied it to shooting in the Himalayan mountains. His critical eye to scout and shoot a location is unparalleled. A perfect example of this is the swordfight between Bruce and Ducard on a frozen lake.  In a interview Pfister gave he revealed that they shot this in one day over a few hours. The creeks cracks and "groans" of the ice were not sound effects but they were picked up by the boom mics on the day.  After they got their final shot, a huge chunk of the glacier behind them broke off and slammed into the frozen lake destroying the location they had just shot never to be used again.  A lesser DP wouldn't have found that place or not be brave enough to shoot on it.

        This film has some classic Nolan techniques. It has a nonlinear story structure which, at the time was unheard of in Superhero cinema.  Before this film, you can count beat for beat the structure of the "classic" superhero origin story narrative. It became boring and stale. Nolan's chronological fluidity, while not as free as some of his other films, made the audience have to pay attention and be present in the film. He assumes the intelligence of the audience and does not spoon feed you information.  This is to undoubtedly make the film a singular experience for each person who watches it; while allowing for interpretation enough to get something different out of the film the more times you watch it.

        Some other Nolan traits we see here are quick cuts, to the point of cutting of dialogue abruptly or dramatic effect, and a unique color scheme that fits the tone of the film.  Because the film centers around the notion of fear, Nolan uses dark, metallic color with a hint of rust to evoke the macabre. However, in thinking about it more, the color scheme also reminds me of dusk and considering this is "Batman Begins" it would not surprise me that the notion of dusk was on Nolan's mind signifying that "Night" has yet to fall; and Bruce has yet to be named "The Dark Knight".  

FINAL THOUGHTS

This is the best superhero origin story.  In 2005, this was the Batman film I had been waiting for. The only person that could top Nolan in this arena is himself twice over; first in 2008, then again in 2012. But it was Batman Begins that introduced me to the brilliance of Christopher Nolan and beyond my love for the character of Batman, I will be forever grateful to this film for that and for that reason it always has a special place in my heart. 

     

X-Men: Days of Future Past Review

Author's Note: To give context to my full experience of this film I am going to start this review with a history of the X-men film Franchise leading up to X-Men: Days of Future Past. If you are uninterested and just want to get to the review, I have divided the review into subheadings for easier organization. Needless to say, Spoilers ahead.

 

HISTORY

     In July of 2000 the first X-men film hit theaters and ushered in a golden age of superhero cinema that we are still enjoying today. Without X-Men, we would not have had the Sam Raimi Spider-man trilogy, Nolan's exceptional Dark Knight Trilogy, or even The Avengers and the entire Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU). While Richard Donner's Superman, the Donner/Lester hybrid of Superman II and Burton's Batman came before X-Men, they were films that were stood alone. These previous films were about characters that were already American icons (Superman and Batman respectively) already embedded into our culture through television and merchandising; they had a built in audience.  The X-men and their characters not only had very little exposure in the mainstream public, aside from a popular 90's cartoon.  Thus, being relatively unknown, and having a lack of public good will, the gamble of producing such a superhero film can not be understated, translating into a modest budget of 75 million dollars.  However, the gamble paid off and X-Men's success (to the tune of nearly 300 million) started the first superhero (team) franchise.

    

       Riding on the success of X-Men director Bryan Singer and producers at 20th Century Fox threw caution to the wind and, with a significant increase in budget, gave us the stellar X2: X-Men United in 2003. This film delivered on every level from Nightcrawler's assault on The White House that opened the film, the multiple layers of character development throughout, to a promise (for comic book geeks) of something cosmic at the end.  The film was a blockbuster and was (and still is) considered one of the best in the genre.

    

        Even with a proven formula for success, problems plagued the production of X3 (later to be titled X-Men: The Last Stand (ironic)). Bryan Singer left to direct the subdued Superman Returns taking Cyclops (James Marsden) with him (thus shortchanging Scott Summer's story arc). Two director changes ( Brett Ratner hired a month before shooting started), script rewrites and a ridged shooting schedule (a result of 20th Century Fox retaining the rights to X-Men on film) lead to a film that was not well received by critics or by fans. To be blunt, the filmmakers didn't even like this film.

"I realized my mistake before, during and after watching the movie."

Bryan Singer on regretting not directing X-Men: The Last Stand

       Due to the travesty that was X-Men: The Last Stand, 20th Century Fox shelved plans for any future X-Men films with the original cast. Instead they began to plan prequel films (ala Star Wars) under the Banner "X-Men Origins" There were plans for films that centered on Professor X, Magneto, and Wolverine...which was the only one produced.

    

       There are few things to like about X-Men Origins: Wolverine, but they need to be mentioned.  The opening sequence of young James Howlett and the preceeding credit sequence following Wolverine through the years in all of the different wars was breathtaking and amazing. I wanted that 4 minute sequence to be the entire film.  However, it was the relationship between Hugh Jackman's Logan and Liev Schreiber's Creed that kept me invested throughout the film.  Their scenes were so captivating that I could ignore (for a little while at least) the memory erasing adamantium bullets, Barraka-pool, and an unnecessary inclusion of young Scott Summers, Gambit and Professor X.  Both the producers and Hugh Jackman have publicly stated that not only do they feel that X-Men Origins: Wolverine is a flawed film, but they were under studio pressure to get the character of Wolverine's backstory on film before they could do their labor of love "The Japan story" by Frank Miller and Chris Claremont resulting in The Wolverine  in 2013. 

    

       With the trend of diminishing box office returns continuing after Origins, 20th Century Fox attempted to course correct yet again. They abandoned the "X-Men Origins" banner but maintained an idea for a more "all inclusive" prequel that would cover the early days of Xavier's school for the Gifted. Finding it difficult to get a lock on the plot, character and story elements from the aforementioned X-Men Origins: Magneto film were added to flesh out the script thereby shifting the focus of the film from Xavier's students to the friendship and eventual antagonism between Charles Xavier ( Professor X) and Erik Lensherr (Magneto). This was X-Men: First Class.

     

       X-Men: First Class marks the beginning of the course correction for the X-Men film Franchise. It sees the return of Bryan Singer ( he gets a story credit and acts as a producer) while having a cast of phenomenal actors to play the young(er) mutants. Most of the credit needs to be given to Michael Fassbender's Nazi killing Magneto and Kevin Bacon's superbly villainous turn as Sebastian Shaw whose introduction reminds the audience of Bacon's talent and range.  The inclusion of mutants in major historical events (in this film the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis) was cited as one of the film's flaws, instead, I found this refreshingly captivating regardless of its historical in accuracies. To be fair, the crisis would have turned out differently if mutants had been involved. :)  

      

        The Next film in the franchise chronology is the superbly written and well crafted The Wolverine  directed by James Mangold in 2013. I have written about this film extensively on this blog here and here. The only other thing that I would add is that the 6 disc blu-ray combo pack has a longer unrated cut that fleshes out the story a bit more while cutting fewer corners as the theatrical cut did.

     With the success of First Class there was an uncertainty of the franchise's future among fans. Were they only going to be doing period pieces, moving forward with the new cast until they run into the timeline of the original X-men film cast?  How do they account for some of the" retconing" and character misalignments? We get our first glimpse of answers in the mid-credit sequence of The Wolverine: Patrick Stewart's Professor Xavier, thought to be atomized and obliterated by the Phoenix midway through X-Men: The Last Stand, is alive and well, as well as a fully empowered Ian McKellen's Magneto are together to warn/recruit Hugh Jackman's Wolverine to help them in the coming war. This directly ties/leads into X-Men: Days of Future Past.

X-MEN: DAYS OF FUTURE PAST REVIEW

       This is the best X-Men film to date. It capitalizes on the course correction of both X-Men: First Class and The Wolverine giving us a story that is not only respectfully embracing one of the most beloved X-men storylines from the comics (something that only lasted two issues in the 1980's), but respects most of the films that have come before. While there are a few geek knit picks here and there Overall this is the much needed success both critically and commercially that has revitalized the X-men film franchise moving forward. 

PLOT

       2023, (ten years since the end of The Wolverine) a dystopian earth. New York is ravaged by war. Mutants are rounded up by hunter/killer robots called "Sentinels". Those that are captured are lead to mutant extermination/"concentration" camps.  Mutants are forced to wear collars to suppress the Mutant X-gene and are systematically eliminated. They are on the brink of extinction.  The few survivors include The original X-men team last seen in X-Men: The Last Stand (Storm, Wolverine, Iceman, Shadowcat, and Colossus) along with Professor X,  Magneto and four new allies: Warpath, Blink  Sunspot and Bishop.   Reveling that Shadowcat/Kitty Pryde has the secondary mutation to phase a person's consciousness through time, the remaining X-men devise a plan to stop this war before it begins by stopping the catalytic event that causes it. In this case it is the murder of scientist Bolivar Trask by Mystique in 1973 (10 years after the events of First Class), as well as her subsequent capture and torture that leads to the development of advanced "Sentinel" robots that can adapt to any adversary.  Wolverine's healing factor and ageless appearance makes him a prime candidate to make the trip back. He is charged with finding both Xavier and Magneto bringing them together to help stop Mystique and saving the future.

 TIME TRAVEL AND CONTINUTITY

    In a film genre that is heavily relied on rebooting their characters in recent years (Spider-man, Hulk, Batman, and Superman) X-Men: Days of Future Past, through the plot device of time travel, embraces and preserves a lot of the original film continuity while allowing both the younger versions (First Class cast) as well as the original cast to have the possibility of more adventures (ala Star Trek (2009)). 

    Secondly, It is explained early on that as the time travel is taking place both realities are happening at once.  This is used to build tension throughout the film especially in the film's climax that alternates frequently between the time periods showing both Magneto's attack on DC in 1973 while the X-Men are entrenched fighting a horde of future Sentinels in 2023.

      Thirdly, this acceptance and realignment of continuity not only makes all the films in the franchise that much better it allows to alter story mistakes and missteps.  The last moments of the 1973 timeline along with the now altered 2023 timeline erases the majority of the events in X-Men Origins: Wolverine and all of X-Men: The Last Stand. I find this ironic and poignant considering that these are the only two films that Bryan Singer has little to no involvement with.  This secures the X-men film franchise as his vision, and his version of the X-men.

CHARACTERS

    One legitimate criticism that has been levied against all of the X-men films has been that it has been all about Wolverine. Due to fan popularity and Hugh Jackman's relentless loyalty to the character (and the franchise), it is no wonder why so many of the X-men films have been Logan/Wolverine centric. This criticism was brought up, yet again before the films release when it was announced that he would be the time traveler rather than Kitty Pryde (as it was in the comics). However, in X-Men Days of Future Past (DOFP)  I think this works on several levels: 1) How they establish time travel sets up that only Wolverine can make the trip, and more importantly 2) This is a great role reversal with Wolverine having to be the patient mentor to Xavier allowing for some great character development that is more inline with his current comic incarnation.

         As I eluded to above, this is the first X-Men film that actually feels like an X-men comic, about a lot of X-men characters (other than Wolverine).  The three central characters in DOFP are James McAvoy's Xavier, Michael Fassbender's Magneto, and Jennifer Lawrence's Mystique.

          In 1973, McAvoy's Xavier is a broken man. Much like Bruce Wayne at the beginning of The Dark Knight Rises, Charles has lost everything. He was abandoned by Erik and Raven, once the war in Vietnam got worse a lot of his students were drafted and the school shut down. Losing his hope and his faith in people has caused him to lose control of his powers.  Feeling overwhelmed by his abilities he becomes addicted to a drug that suppresses them. It is only through a conversation with his older self in in 2023 does Xavier learn to hope again, taking a large step towards becoming the Professor Xavier that we all know and love played by Patrick Stewart.

         In the 10 years since the events in First Class Magneto has been locked up; wrongfully imprisoned for the assassination of President Kennedy ( the curved bullet theory was because of Magneto). Upon release, and finding about the future, Magneto sets out to find the most direct ( and violent) solution to the problem at hand; leading to him turning the tables on his "enemies" at the end of the film.   Fassbender's portrayal of Magneto illustrates for the audience his rage warped by the horrors experienced by the Third Reich and determination to "protect" his people.  It is from this determination that Erik feels betrayed by Charles, who gave up his powers and hid from the world while mutants were dying. Unlike McAvoy and Stewart, Fassbender's Magneto is moving further away from Ian McKellen's older more remorseful, and Gallantly Noble  Magneto.

"All those years wasted fighting each other Charles, to have a precious few of them back has been an honor."

                                                                                                               Ian McKellen as Magneto

        Raven Darkhome/ Mystique is the middle ground between Charles and Erik in this film. She has love and compassion for others as Charles does but does not abhor violence like him.  She, is a pragmatist in the film that has very clear, rational and understandable goals that make sense given the context of the film.  While the end of the film does not see her redeemed she is pulled back from the brink and may have been the catalyst for positive mutant sentiment in the future.    

      There were however three characters that I felt were misused in this film; all for different reasons. The first, for nostalgia, is Kitty Pryde. She is one of my favorite characters in the X-Men especially in the current run by Brian Wood. She is a Samurai, has a pet dragon, is a powerful courageous leader (being president of the United States at some point) and is the heart and soul of the X-Men. While I understand why she wasn't the time traveler and I enjoyed how she was the vehicle that made the time travel possible, I wanted to see more of her, more of her range skills and interactions with others.

       Secondly, I thought Bishop was underused.  I thought that the character of Bishop was only there because he is a time traveler in the comics and he was in an episode of the the X-men Cartoon series titled "Days of Future Past".  Most mainstream audiences don't even get that his presence in 2023 in the film is because he physically time traveled back from 2055 to stop the annihilation of the X-men.  His existence in this film however foreshadows sequel events for X-Men: Apocalypse.   

        Lastly, I do not know why Quicksilver/ "Peter" Maximoff is in this film. I understand his parentage and his importance to Magneto and the X-men, but since his involvement didn't lead to any big revelations or have consequences for the film, ( even though there was room to allow those revelations/consequences to take place) his character could have been exchanged very easily by someone else.  Even though I really enjoyed the Quicksilver showcase in the pentagon kitchen ( especially the way it was shot) it seem unnecessary and did not serve the plot. It just seemed superfluous.  

EFFECTS AND ACTION SET PIECES

        I was completely blown away by how visually stunning this film is. While not on the same level as Christopher Nolan or Wally Pfister, this is a very good looking film. I was most impressed by the future scenes of the X-men battling the Sentinels you clearly get a sense of threat and danger as they begin to engage. During their final engagement with the Future sentinels as each X-men begins to fall I was riveted, at the edge of my seat. I would have liked to see that carried over into the battle with the 1973 sentinels ( mark 1 version). We get a glimpse of this when Beast starts to tear the head off one Sentinel but that was about it. There were few action pieces in 1973 and none that were as captivating as the Future Sentinel assault.

    As I mentioned earlier I enjoyed the kitchen Quicksilver scene, the effects were brilliant and well shot ( I read that Bryan Singer shot Evan Peters at a different frame rate to achieve the look of super speed). It really gives you a perspective on what it must be like to move that fast.

    I am looking forward to what they bring to X-Men: Apocalypse as it has been described as a disaster film set in the 1980's.

   

  FINAL THOUGHTS

This is by far the best X-Men film to date.  I am leaving this open ended for several reasons: 1) I am not sure if I count The Wolverine as an X-men film as it has no other X-men (until the mid credits scene) and I like the Japan Story...a lot. 2) All the buzz that I am hearing about X-Men: Apocalypse  is that it will be epic (with Bryan Singer back to direct with the New and original cast coming back in varying capacities) possibly spinning off into a X-Force film featuring Cable. 3) Three words: Old. Man. Logan. the possible storyline for Hugh Jackman's swan song as Wolverine.  In the end, there is much to be happy about thanks to DOFP  a lot to look forward to in this revitalized franchise. Let us hope the moment continues.



X-Men and how I learned about Inequality

      I first came to know about the X-men through the excellent early 90's television series. It, like Batman the Animated Series, gave me a sense of wonder, adventure and excitement when I was a child. However, with X-men I got my first glimpse into a topic that would end up being the focus of my academic study when I was a student, as well as the field of research specialization in my career: Social Inequality.  It was through the X-men that I took my first steps into a larger world; understanding mature concepts like privilege, discrimination, segregation, genocide, normalization through colorful characters that would fight each other.   

        The X-men are no strangers to social commentary.  Since their inception, "The X-men" and other related characters have been used as an allegory for holocaust survivors, people of color, LGBTQAI, Persons with disabilities (PWDs) or any other social outcast or alienated group (e.g. angst ridden teenagers that made up most of the comics readership).  Although the X-men were originally created as an easy way to explain their superpower origins (ala "They're a mutant"),  the growing multiculturalism and diversity of the X-men roster (across it's multiple monthly comic book titles) means that a reader can find at least one X-men character that looks like them/and or they can identify with; which is difficult in our media saturated world where most of our heroes depicted or portrayed by straight, white, able-bodied men. Credit for this vibrantly diverse world of "real" characters needs to be given to Chris Claremont.

      Stan Lee may have created the X-men, but it was Chris Claremont that gave them life. In Chris Claremont's tenure as the chief writer of many X-men and X-men related titles; over the years he expanded the X-men universe exponentially.  He gave us the origin of Magneto (pairing him off with Xavier as loosely representing the ideological differences of Malcolm X and MLK), the Phoenix and the Dark Pheonix sagas, Days of Future Past, Nightcrawler, Storm, Rouge, Mystique, Wolverine and the highly underrated and overlooked Kitty Pryde.  Claremont not only introduced these great stories and characters, but he is responsible for making the X-men socially relevant and socially conscious. From the idea of the mutant registration act, (forcing Mutants to have to register with the government), genocide through the Sentinal program,  the notion of a cure for the mutant X-gene, and the Morlocks.  Claremont echoed the struggles of Jews,  people of color, LGBTQAI, and PWDs. (It is these socially relevant ideas that has lead to great casting opportunities in the X-men film Franchise.)  Claremont made sure that the outcasts of the Marvel Universe, in reality, represented all people in maligned and marginalized groups; myself included.

      As I have mentioned previously on this blog I was born with a mild form of Cerebral Palsy.  To that end, I knew that I was different and that the world I lived in wasn't constructed for me, it was constructed for others; people who were "normal". It was because of this know difference and feelings of being an outcast that, I gravitated to the X-men when I was a pre-teen and teenage boy.  I hoped, against my rational judgment, that because I was physically different it was possible that I could also be a mutant. Because, if I have a physical disability/deformity, life would seek to balance that out by giving me a really cool mutant power. It did not happen ( at least not that I know of ).  Instead, I found a kinship with these characters that has only grown as I've gotten older.  I now believe that the popularity of the X-men, unlike other superhero teams like the Avengers or the Justice League, comes from its diversity and its ability to be relatable to all people. 

       The relatable tradition that was started with Claremont continues in the works of Brian Michael Bendis (who is also doing Guardians of the Galaxy for Marvel: Now) and Brian Wood.  Together their respective "All New X-men and "X-men" runs embrace socially conscious diversity that tackles social inequality as an intersectional problem across age, race, ethnicity, gender, disability, social class and sexuality. 

        Out of the two, I would personally recommend Brian Wood's X-men. This is the first X-men team made up of an all female roster lead by Storm and Rachel Summers( see Image below)  being the headmasters of the Jean Grey School of Higher Learning (created after the events of Schism). There is even an on the nose joke about calling themselves X-men (because they don't like the terms "X-(wo)men" "X-ladies") and they have as yet to think of something better. Also, Storm has her 80's Mohawk back which is awesome!!!!