I watched X-Men: First Class recently. Cool movie, my friends and I all agree.
But the intended moral takeaway is that Professor Xavier (hippie peace-creep who thinks mutants and humans can live together in harmony forever and ever) is the good guy, and Magneto (cold, concentration-camp scarred realist who believes humans will exterminate mutants if given half a chance) is bad. But is the audience’s conclusion based on anything deeper than the observation that Xavier seems like a good dude, while Magneto scowls a lot?
Magneto acts under the assumption that humans and mutants are destined to conflict. Xavier, that we can all live together as one happy family. So based on the feel-goodness of his motivations, we side with Xavier.
But Magneto and Xavier’s disagreement is not based on what mutants and humans should do. It is a question of how humans actually will react to the presence of mutants in their world. Since the world provides many examples of humans’ inability to live in harmony with those who are different and powerful, my position on the Xavier/Magneto debate is clear: The latter is a clear-headed advocate for mutant survival through independence and self-sufficiency, while the former is a coddled, doe-eyed optimist, unable to see the world for the series of cynical conflicts it is. The X-Men sequels actually end up clearly supporting Magneto’s pessimism – but still, how many in the general audience would even consider siding with Magneto? Very few.
*
Many years ago, my favourite cartoon was Beast Wars. Basically, the characters were animal-based transformers, and it was all kinds of awesome. I’m getting nerd chills just thinking about it.
But almost every episode followed a similar plotline: The Predacons (bad guys) would devise some evil scheme to kill all the Maximals (good guys). Every time, their plan would be foiled at the last minute by the heroic efforts of the Maximals, who would follow up by letting the Predacons retreat to their base and start planning for next week’s attack. On several occasions, the good guys were presented with opportunities to destroy their enemies’ base. Each time they refused. A quote I still remember from the Maximal leader, which prompted a WTF even from my childhood self: “Our goal is to defeat the Predacons, not annihilate them.” Never mind that this is a recipe for never-ending war at best, since the Predacons have clearly and repeatedly stated that their goal is the complete destruction of the Maximals.
Another random memory: In all of the commercials for action figures that shot projectiles, the ad would show one action figure shooting a pile of blocks that would then collapse on another action figure. Apparently an actual direct hit would have been too much for our young minds.
Moving right along, let’s talk about Batman.
At a glance, Bruce Wayne seems like the ultimate reactionary superhero. Fed up with the inability of Gotham’s government to reign in crime, he becomes a vigilante and brings justice and order to the decaying city.
And yet, in Batman Begins, he can’t bring himself to demonstrate his commitment and loyalty to Ninja Skull and Bones by killing a criminal. His response when asked to do so is, “I’m no executioner.”
Why Bruce? Is it a union thing? Justice requires men who catch criminals, and men who fine, jail, and kill them. If you care so much about fighting crime, why are you only willing to do half the job?
Later on, Commissioner Gordon says to Batman that if the police get semi-automatics, the mafia will get automatics, if they get body armor, they will buy armor-piercing rounds. His logic implies that the Gotham police force should arm itself with whiffle bats, so that it can only face criminals with same. A wittier Batman might have responded by pointing to the desolate slums of Gotham, and asking, “So Commish – how’s that philosophy workin’ out for ya?”
So even a badass like Batman, whose raison d’être is fundamentally right-wing, must be packaged in pacifistic bromides before he’s deemed fit for public consumption. And still, we’re supposed to see Batman as a good, but flawed figure – a decent man, driven by the death of his parents to use extreme means to achieve noble ends. The idea that noble ends sometimes require dirty hands has left the building.
Next up: Star Wars.
I have little to add to this classic article, ”The Case for the Empire.”
In Episode IV, after Grand Moff Tarkin announces that the Imperial Senate has been abolished, he’s asked how the Emperor can possibly hope to keep control of the galaxy. “The regional governors now have direct control over territories,” he says. “Fear will keep the local systems in line.”
So under Imperial rule, a large group of regional potentates, each with access to a sizable army and star destroyers, runs local affairs. These governors owe their fealty to the Emperor. And once the Emperor is dead, the galaxy will be plunged into chaos.
In all of the time we spend observing the Rebel Alliance, we never hear of their governing strategy or their plans for a post-Imperial universe. All we see are plots and fighting. Their victory over the Empire doesn’t liberate the galaxy–it turns the galaxy into Somalia writ large: dominated by local warlords who are answerable to no one.
Which makes the rebels–Lucas’s heroes–an unimpressive crew of anarchic royals who wreck the galaxy so that Princess Leia can have her tiara back.
I’ll take the Empire.
If you read the entire piece, you’ll see it really is an open and shut case. The Rebels are a bunch of dickheads. But in a contest between a scrappy bunch of rag-tag misfits who dress in white, vs. an effective, peace-seeking, but stern empire clothed in black – viewers cheer for the rebels every time. Filmmakers know how to trigger our “good guy” and “bad guy” switches, and they do it so effectively that several generations of Star Wars audiences have spent their lives generally agreeing that the rebels are in the right, and the Empire is in the wrong.
*
I could go on with a few more examples, but I’ll leave the rest to the live studio audience. Readers, two questions:
1) Who are some of your other favourite reactionary pop culture anti-heroes?
2) Which supposedly good characters are we supposed to empathize with, but are actually pieces of shit?
{ 56 comments… read them below or add one }
Maybe you should retitled this progressive propaganda through movies? You just hit every major progressive theme that’s normally pushed. Every reactionary charterer are reshaped and remodeled to fit our progressive world view.
Great reactionary: Bronson in Death Wish.
1. I love Beast Wars!
2. I always thought Batman not killing was stupid and the reasoning of “but how is he any different from them?” (would they like a list?). But there are plenty of “anti-heroes” because apparently they no one can just be regular heroes if they kill people.
3. I never agreed with the Rebels when I watched Star Wars, I just didn’t fall for their Rebel-Scum lies. That and I like Sith more than Jedi. I read this
article a while ago but the one you linked to seems to be very interesting.
In answer to question 2)
I cannot think of anything else at the moment but I am sure there are plenty more.
Doctor Smith from Lost in Space might qualify as an anti-hero. I don’t know if he was any more reactionary than everyone else on that show.
Most James Bond villains had more interesting personalities than James Bond, at least in the movies. Bond in the books was more interesting.
I am tempted to cite a bunch of reactionary heroes, like Dirty Harry Callahan, but clearly he is actually a hero who pretends to be an anti-hero so that he doesn’t look like a wuss.
X-Men: men and mutants are different, the public knows at unconscious level different beings can not live together. So they side with humans. Keep in mind that: 1 – the Xavier solution is just exhorcizing the fear (ie a zoo for mutants like savage animals – or living hidden like vampires in Twilight) 2 – Anyway mutants are not equals each other and will battle and kill each other
Batman: true it would be more serious if he killed criminals, like the Punisher. I believe he does not kill because he comes from an age of optimistic trust in the authority (Batman comic is born several decades ago, it is not a recent thing). An hero born today has no such moral restraint.
Star Wars: probably the Empire is evil because it searches the power without any good for the population. It never comes to mind Darth Vader wants gold or money. The message is: if the authority is bad, some rebels will kill it. We can imagine Leia will do more good than the Emperor. It is Davig against Goliah, and since many people feel small, it is easy stay on David’s side.
With regards to Star Wars, while it’s true that episodes 4-6 didn’t say much about what the Rebel Alliance’s post-Empire goals were, there is a rich canon after Return of the Jedi to be found in the books. The answer to this question can be found there.
The Rebels were fighting to reinstate the Old Republic, the fall of which is the subject of Episode I. The new government is called the New Republic and it endures a long struggle with the Imperial Remnants.
Episode I depicts Palpatine, the representative from a small backwater planet called Naboo orchestrating a false-flag attack on his own world. He gets the Trade Federation army to create a crisis that must be solved. The galactic Senate proves itself incapable of resolving the situation quickly, and through a parliamentary procedure the Senate leader is removed and replaced with Palpatine.
Episode II shows how Palpatine continues the false flag terror operations, but stepping it up to all out war. He starts a war against endless clones; an enemy so difficult to defeat that Palpatine must be given dictatorial power. The Empire is created when he “achieves” victory thanks to his immense powers.
The empire is thoroughly evil and tyrannical. Recall how the Death Star is used on Leia’s home world when she refuses to reveal the locations of Rebel bases.
You reference “switches” being used to direct our hatred and sympathies. I think this was used to enhance the good vs. evil of the fantasy, rather than an attempt to make viewers think the Empire is evil when they actually aren’t so bad. It has to do more with good storytelling than playing tricks on the viewer.
Herp derp, I should have put this in the original comment: DOC SAVAGE.
The man was a freaking monster.
Here’s an appetizer:
In one of his early adventures, he discovers a lost native tribe with unlimited supplies of gold. Of course he has to take some, to finance his adventures. So does he cut them in for a piece of the take? Nope, he just takes it all.
But the main course of morally repulsive villainy was how Doc Savage treated his enemies. He would capture them alive. Then he would operate on their brains and cut out the brain tissue that allowed them to misbehave.
Wait a minute and recall all those fond notions we have of “free will” and “moral agency” and “human dignity.” Doc Savage ruins all those.
If Doc Savage captures you, you’d better have a cyanide pill in your teeth, buddy. Once you go under the knife, you’ll be a slave to Doc Savage’s notion of goodness. You’ll be a soulless near-zombie. You won’t be *able* to make decision of which Doc Savage wouldn’t approve.
As a child, I believed implicitly in free will, and the prospect of losing my free will terrified me. I believed I had a soul, but I needed a full brain to keep it. With Doc Savage’s brain surgery, I feared I might be trapped in a non-responsive brain, paralyzed, unable to change my actions as my brain did “good deeds” without my consent. As an adult, I am somewhat skeptical of free will – I think it is more likely that human behavior is biologically determined, so I am not worried about losing a soul.
thoughful article
it’s v enlightening, re-viewing some of the Star Wars flicks decades after release
agree 100 percent, go empire, tho no sith fan — looking back, the Multikulti Rebels were definitely feminist/progressive propaganda from lucas et al
one of the films (empire strikes back?) actually closes with solo, skywalker etc virutally grovelling before a “restored” princess leia, she elevated above them and the “heroes” in proper obesience to their ruling goddess
projectile barf-a-thon
on recent viewing of revenge of sith, also found myself rooting for darth vader against the insufferable moral supremacist obi wan kenobi, who in current parlance resonates obama
the simpering SNAG kenobi (“I’ve got the high ground”) leaves his former pupil to burn to death on hellplanet, then gloriously climbing aboard his starship, yeah v compassionate there buddy
Most of time the main hero is a boring white-knight loser who kills 10 -100 men to save one “independent” woman of questionable character who later learns (with no training usually) how to kick ass better then all the men, save the hero and the main villain, just by virtue of being the hero’s girlfriend. I wonder if martial arts experience can be transmitted trough sperm.
Great article. Most movies nowadays make you side with the bad guys, mostly because the so called good guys are pompous douchebags.
Yeah, I often wondered why the superheroes don’t sit down, find out how to best take out the villains using applicable skills, and be done with it.
Actually, Mark Miller in “Old Man Logan” (set fifty years in the future, with a meek, pacifist Wolverine working on a ranch ruled by Hulk’s brutal kids) did just that, but by the villains. They took over America.
I won’t give any more details, just to say that this 7-issue arc is one of the best ever written (and drawn by Steven McNiven as well!).
Finally, Watchmen, being one of the best comic book stories deserves some mention. How Ozymandias decides to commit mass murder in order to stop global annihilation between US and USSR.
That’s why i like the Punisher. He finds the scum, blow his/her brain, case closed, forever.
When a bad guy sees the Batman, he simply surrenders with a smile on his face because he knows nothing is going to happen to him, maybe a couple of slaps, couple of days in jail, and then a “friend of a friend” frees him.
When a bad guy sees the Punisher, he is terrified because he knows he will be dead few seconds later.
Star Wars: probably the Empire is evil because it searches the power without any good for the population.
The Empire provides ORDER, which is a good for the population. The Rebels provide chaos, destruction, disorder. We don’t know that they provide any positive goods.
The empire is thoroughly evil and tyrannical.
But we don’t see that.
I was rooting for Magneto. Much more interesting character.
Frankly I could never tell what the point of the republic was. It was not a military alliance as shown by their lack of armies/ways to fight off invaders. It was not a trade league as traders could restrict trade whenever they felt like it. And it was not a structure that provided order and standardization. Nor where the Jedi master assassins that could have kept the individual plants in line.
The republic would have been destroyed by warlords and civil war with in weeks of it’s formation.
aah beast wars, that brings back memories.
I agree that the attitude of the maximals was unrealistic and over the top ‘good’, but then it was a children’s show.
One episode I remember actually turned the idea around very nicely: In it Optimus gets infected by a virus that was supposed to make him a coward, but has the opposite effect. He becomes agressive and wants to end the war in a definitive manner. When his fellow maximals try to stop him he responds with “NO, dont you see ? We have to hit them the only way they understand: hard, fast… and right where it hurts.” He then breaks out and goes on a rampage until the inevitable reset button. I’m pretty sure every kid who saw that scene actually agreed with him, I know I did.
There’s this Japanese movie, Thirteen Steps. Some thugs attack a guy and his girlfriend, and they rape the girl and make him watch. Years later the guy kills their leader and spends time in prison for it. There was also some other plot about something else and I forget what happens, but in the end there’s a lot of weepy sermonizing about how it’s always wrong to kill anyone for any reason and how the guy should feel really bad about the horrible thing he did. Of course the viewer is supposed to agree with this. What a load of fucking bullshit. Pacifism is an evil ideology and really brings my piss to a boil. What’s even worse is that this bullshit is all too common in the real world.
I like how in Firefly the main character, Mal, just casually kills people whenever it’s necessary. In the first episode there’s a hostage situation, and when he shows up he doesn’t say anything and just immediately shoots the hostage taker in the head. Case closed.
“Andrei Seeds June 8, 2011 at 6:28 am
Great article. Most movies nowadays make you side with the bad guys, mostly because the so called good guys are pompous douchebags.”
Kind of like this site/the manosphere? You guys claim to be good guys but you’re such pompous douchebags. :)[Mucius Scaevola: nope]
I liked Episode IV because I thought the Force was something more spiritual than midichlorians.
I still like Obi-Wan in the context of all six episodes, because Obi-Wan IS an anti-hero.
Obi-Wan is not a moral supremacist. Obi-Wan is just a jerk who enjoys lying to people.
Luke:”Ben … why didn’t you tell me the truth?”
Obi-Wan’s Ghost:”From a certain perspective, I told you my truth.”
Luke:”In other words, Jedi promises mean whatever the Jedi wants?”
Obi-Wan’s Ghost: “Only if it helps me do what I want, or avoid what I don’t want.”
Luke: “You’re a real horse’s behind, Ben, did I ever tell you that? I’ll never trust you, or any other Jedi, ever again.”
Obi-Wan’s Ghost: “Ha ha, I’m incorporeal, you can’t slap me!”
On a separate topic, I only watched Doctor Who during the Tom Baker era, but I think the Doctor might qualify as a reactionary anti-hero. He’s autocratic, slightly insane, and doesn’t respect the rights of others.
I don’t think any of us ever claimed to be good. We claim to be sophisticated enough to read fancy-schmancy-nancy books like Voyage au bout de la nuit. That’s not the same as being morally good. If anything, it’s the high-brow version of a popped collar and a spray-on tan. Showing off one’s liberal education is just like showing off one’s steroid-enhanced bicep.
1) The original Woody Woodpecker. He always had this smart-assed nasal voice that I thought was cool. He always stole things from Wally Walrus, was a glutten, and hit everyone in the head with his beak. I think he smoked too.
2) The Original Road Runner. All he ever did was beep beep. He always outsmarted Willie Coyote and I hated him for it. The Road Runner had the personality of a spoiled squash. I really wanted to see the episode when the Coyote ate his ass or blew him to a thousand pieces.
It’s pretty well known in WN circles that comic books in general and X Men in particular serve as propaganda for diversity and multiculturalism.
Look at the X Men. “Don’t hate mutants because they’re different!” The diversity and tolerance lines are very apparent if one looks for it. Captain America, of course, spent a great deal of time fighting the Nazis.
For some reason, the Holocaust narrative figures promenently in many comic storylines. The Sentials rounding up mutants, the Mutant Registration Act, that island (muir island) that was a work camp.
To be perfectly frank, I think one of the reasons I used to read comic books was that it often was drawn like softcore porn. Those writers knew horny teenage boys like looking at women. My God, just look at some pictures:
http://media.photobucket.com/image/recent/Chase_Stein/2weymno.jpg
” Kind of like this site/the manosphere? You guys claim to be good guys but you’re such pompous douchebags. :)
[Mucius Scaevola: nope]”
Dude, it was a joke. See the smiley face at the end? Is this site going to become like all the feminist site who only approve comments that blindly support their ideas?
fine, sorry. you can say whatever you want, just be intelligent
im trying not to be trigger happy. i guess i interpreted it as criticism based on what you left at sofia’s site also. i promise im not a nazi, ill tread more carefully
Hate to rain on your parade, but aren’t we forgetting that Darth Vader blew up an entire planetful of innocent people to get Princess Leia to cough up the location of the Rebel Base? That’s not peace-seeking or “good” or providing order. Plus, they just created a bazillion new chunks of intergalactic debris that will be hitting spaceships and causing Armageddon scenarios for years to come. Flagrant misuse of superweapons does not legitimize political authority.
“…Darth Vader blew up an entire planetful of innocent people..”
Actually, it was Grand Moff Tarkin who ordered the destruction of Alderaan. All Darth Vader did was make Leia watch.
It is clear that in the X- Men series Doctor Xavier represents Dr Martin Luther King Jr. And Magneto represents Malcolm X. Dr King, like Xavier is the good guy, who thinks blacks and whites can live together in harmony forever and ever. Malcolm X like Magneto is the bad guy, who believes that racial harmony is impossible. Malcolm X acts under the assumption that blacks and whites are destined for conflict. Dr. King acts under the assumption that we can be one big happy family. So based on the feel goodness of Dr. Kings message we side with him. And today he is seen as a hero, and his birth day is celebrated. Whereas Malcolm is seen as a black militant, and a racist, no one celebrates him. In reality Malcolm X was a clear headed advocate for black survival through independence and self-sufficiency. Malcolm was a Black Nationalist who believed that blacks should have our own nation, completely independent of whites. But Dr. King was the unrealistic optimist who refused to see the world for what it is. History is a series of conflicts between different racial, ethnic religious etc.. groups for land and natural resources. There will never be racial harmony between blacks and whites. The reason is that neither group is willing to lose themselves in pursuit of peace. If blacks are to be fully accepted within white society we have to adopt the world view that whites have. If we don’t adopt that world view we will be shunned. We have to become white, and do things that whites define as right and acceptable. This is called selling-out. The mutants, in order to become accepted into human society, have to change. They have to live their lives based on what the humans define as good and righteous. This means that they have to pretend to be human and abandon their true identity. When the mutants behave like mutants they set humans on edge, they are viewed as a threat to human survival and dominance. Of course blacks are view in the same way, not human, violent, savage etc..
I liked “The Last Ringbearer”, a novel about the War of the Rings from the Orc’s point of view.
You guys have a funny definition of evil.
In the first movie, we see the empire kill a tribe of Jawas for no other reason than they came into contact with R2D2 & C3PO (aka: “classified material”). Same for Luke’s aunt and uncle. Then they blow up an entire planet, millions of people dead in the blink of an eye (which is an atom bomb parallel). I don’t care about moralizing, but killing people just trying to get by is by definition evil and oppressive.
For good anti-heroes in comics, read just about anything by Warren Ellis (Spider Jerusalem from Transmetropolitan, Richard Fell from Fell, William Gravel from Gravel).
For an industrial strength anti-hero, look no farther than John Constantine from Hellblazer.
I also found X-Men: First Class entertaining.
Unfortunately, the message of the movie is literally gay. Instead of the usual racial solidarity/racial antagonism dynamic, this installation of X-Men had a homosexual vibe — Mutant “pride,” didn’t ask didn’t tell, et cetera. It was a clear appeal to narcissism in a culture of narcissism. Like Lady Gaga, it reinforced the message that people are “Born This Way” — as if we are all born perfect superstars — and should be valued merely on the basis of being different. The film contains nothing that suggests that individuals ought to be valued on the basis of their character, ability, and achievements.
Xavier in First Class seemed morally contemptible not because he was MLK, but because he was Rodney King. He wasn’t working based on principle for a world where we’re all valued for what we do, but working out of fluffy feelings for a world where we’re valued just because we exist. Xavier now has a dream: not that we may all be judged on the basis of our character, but that we may all just get along.
I don’t really view collective retribution as evil. Or if it is, it’s certainly a necessary one.
The Rebel Alliance is depicted in not restricting their mayhem to armed members of the Empire as well, so clearly they agree.
Uck links didn’t work.
Anyway here is another article about the bad guys in Star Wars
http://www.changingthetimes.net/samples/brooks/who_were_the_bad_guys.htm
Here is one about Glinda in the Wizard of Oz
http://www.cracked.com/article_18881_5-reasons-greatest-movie-villain-ever-good-witch.html
Good article.
How great was the joker in batman.
He totally out shone him and I think has some of the best monologues ever from an actor.
Showing off one’s liberal education is just like showing off one’s steroid-enhanced bicep. ~ Yellow Supremasist
Quote of the day.
And if you want a reactionary anti-hero–for my money, nobody beats Alfred Bester’s Gully Foyle (…The Stars My Destination):
Gully Foyle is my name
And Terra is my nation
Deep space is my dwelling place
The stars my destination
Watch the Chinese movie “Hero” starring Jet Li. It specifically concerns this conflict between the chaos and suffering caused by multiple warlords/warring states and forcibly imposed authoritarian order. If you know the terrible amount of deaths throughout China’s internal warring history and the Confucianism statist philosophy, the conclusion to the movie will not surprise you.
One could make a very interesting critical analysis of Foyle’s sexual conduct. I argue that the author was presenting him as a hero, as an essentially decent guy who made some mistakes.
Other people would argue that Foyle was a rapist, plain and simple.
I’m showing my age here, but does anyone else remember the Gray Mouser from Fritz Leiber? Some critics have said the Gray Mouser raped somebody and Fafhrd allowed it, but I never saw that particular story.
I would call him an anti-hero. Leiber had some pretty weird ideas of ethical and admirable conduct.
LONE WOLF AND CUB
The X-Men movie simply proves that Brian Singer shouldn’t write OR direct any more superhero movies. X-Men 3 might have been the most derided in the series, but it actually had the most complete moral philosophy:
1. There REALLY ARE MUTANTS THAT ARE DANGEROUS AND MUST BE REGISTERED-i.e., class 12 psychics or whatever you called the Phoenix. For both the sake of the humans and the sake of the less-powerful mutants.
2. Humans are really handy to have around when you need lots of men with guns.
3. So is Wolverine. I love how they show him as the ultimate go-to guy for dangerous missions-and the fact that while he heals quickly and is very hard to kill, everything that happens to him still hurts like the dickens. He’s the ultimate MGTOW otherwise, and that’s probably key to his popularity-being above the idiotic political gamesmanship that’s forced on the mutant teams.
4. Speaking of philosophy, I’m surprised no one called out the alpha Magneto versus the recovering-beta Beast vis-a-vis the alpha slut Mystique. Magneto simply gauged her need for acceptance and sucked her into his own secret world of ‘us mutants against the humans, baby.’ Beast pedestalized her as ‘the ONE’ who would make everything better, which led to hasty and untested scientific experimentation on himself and a permanent reminder of her every time he looked in the mirror. (Oh, and Mystique also sleeps around on Magneto with Azazel-she IS the mother of Nightcrawler, remember. Even the alpha “pull” of Johnny Magnetism can’t resist the seduction technique of Mr. I-can-teleport-and-I-look-like-a-sexy-red-devil. )
This movie was much less an exploration of the Martin Luther King vs. Malcolm X thing than the Bryan Singer vs. Matthew Vaughn. Since Gay Bryan Singer is writing it, the overarching plot has to include groan-inducing ‘topical’ lines and a hate-the-humens mentality, but since Matthew Vaughn is actually DIRECTING it, he can include all the extra scenes and subplots that work in the real universals of alpha versus beta males, which he explored to much greater effect in the still far-more-excellent Kick-Ass.
@ Black:
” If blacks are to be fully accepted within white society we have to adopt the world view that whites have. If we don’t adopt that world view we will be shunned. We have to become white, and do things that whites define as right and acceptable. This is called selling-out.”
What are you refering to here? What values do black americans have that are not shared by at least some white Americans,and vice versa? You talk as if there is a black morality and white morality. But I am not aware of any philosophy, religion, economic theory, technology or political viewpoint that isn’t multiracial, unless it is defined by race. Really, on earth are you talking about?
Oh, how could I have forgotten Severian from Gene Wolfe’s Solar Cycle. He’s a parallel for Jesus in a previous iteration of creation that is a less perfect world than ours.
He’s raised by an ancient institution of torturers that work for the moribund, dystopian and authoritarian state. He becomes a headsmen due to his committing the ‘sin’ of mercy by allowing a ‘client’ to kill herself; and he of course along the way winds up raping one female companion (don’t worry though, cause he’s pretty sure she wanted it, he assures us as the narrator), and has lots of consensual sex with a woman who is probably his own grandmother that he inadvertently resurrected from death with his divine powers.
1) Reactionary heroes and anti-heroes: William Wallace from Braveheart (differs quite a bit from the historical version, but whatever), Captain Sisko from Star Trek Deep Space 9 (best example is the episode where he allows an assassination to occur, then covers it up, in order to bring about peace), Ed Elric from Fullmetal Alchemist (his whole motivation is rooted in personal responsibility, and over time in both continuities he develops from a no-kill idealist to a considerably darker, more ruthless, but still principled guy, and who is never afraid to stick it to the man).
2) Star Trek is a weird case. Most good episodes (at least of TOS, Next Gen, and Deep Space 9) are just real-world moral quandaries written into the setting. For instance, the aforementioned assassination, an episode about euthanasia, or another about the planet with virtual warfare. Each of these episodes is usually pretty good about showing both sides of the deal, and approaching it both from an emotional and a coldly logical experience. The writers are inconsistent enough that either side can be taken. My favorite example would be the one where Picard is captured and tortured by the Cardassians, and at the end, the torture really, really does break him (“He told me there were five lights when in fact, there were only four. But in the end, when he asked me, I really saw five lights.”)
Problem is, taking Star Trek’s continuity as a whole, you get the peacenik commie-utopia where humans are all willing to do productive labor for free and they have very few xenophobic instincts. Those that do come from the Deep Space 9 run, and except for O’Brien, they are all portrayed as being indisputably wrong. Even the Borg, who should be the perfect “It’s OK to hate us” bad guys, still manage to get sympathy episodes. This is a galaxy where militaristic species with similar or superior technology are always, always thwarted by the peaceniks. Peaceniks without small-unit tactics, grenades, any form of protective gear, or the imagination to use their magic transporter/replicator technology to just win life.
‘This movie was much less an exploration of the Martin Luther King vs. Malcolm X thing than the Bryan Singer vs. Matthew Vaughn. ‘
Yes, but – the whole X-men mythos is rooted in Jewish sensibilities, and American comics are heavily Jewish. If you do a bit of digging, you can find lots of American Jews who worked on X-Men and who candidly discuss how their feelings of Jewish supremacy informed their work.
@Bob: Fullmetal Alchemist is a great story, and interestingly enough, it was written by a woman.
“Yes, but – the whole X-men mythos is rooted in Jewish sensibilities, and American comics are heavily Jewish.”
Yes, but it’s not the Jews in the comics industry who run Hollywood.
It’s the GAY Jews who run Hollywood. And Bryan Singer is their leader. X-3 was comparatively free from the silliest Jewish and gay cant of the first two movies thanks largely to Brett Ratner’s direction.
“If you do a bit of digging, you can find lots of American Jews who worked on X-Men and who candidly discuss how their feelings of Jewish supremacy informed their work.”
And who aren’t being consulted by either Vaughn or Singer. The number of non-continuities with the comic books is in the thousands, and given Magneto’s rather loose connection to any Jew that isn’t his mother in the movie, it’s less the main focus than the letting of one’s freak flag fly that informs the homosexual community much more. Mainstream Jews would at least sympathize with Professor X’s ability to navigate the motivations of the host population a whole lot more.
I agree with the general theme that the good guys in the movies are generally useless pansies who deserve to be victimized by the villains that they refuse to finish off. However, those of you who side with the Empire against the Rebel Alliance in Star Wars had better remember this: we already have an extremely powerful military force keeping order on planet Earth with ships, bases, and weaponry stationed all over the world under command structures divided up by regions. It’s called the United States military.
Lots of folks on this website, though, like to criticize America’s active international military posture as a waste of money, a waste of American lives, and as selfish, immoral exploitation and domination of other nations whose resources we covet. This is despite the fact that the U.S. is a good deal more morally constrained than the Empire is in Star Wars. When you extol the virtues of an empire, take care to consider the full implications of what you are saying.
I thought First Class was interesting in that Professor X’s thesis at the beginning is basically the same as Magneto’s, but by the end of the movie he seems to have decided that Magneto’s way is too scorched-earth to work. To paraphrase Watchmen, what’s the fun in being the most powerful telepath on the cinder? Also, rather than being an infallible wizard-type, Professor X’s long-term patronizing of Mystique leads to her eventually leaving his side.
While there is some validity to the MLK/Malcolm X parallels, I see Magneto as more representing law-of-the-jungle Darwinism while Professor X’s argument is that our big brains let us go beyond the whole response-stimuli thing and develop the shared delusion that is morality.
Also interesting is the concept of freedom. While Magneto and the Professor both claim to represent it, Xavier’s version seems to be “find and develop your strengths” while Magneto is pretty much just into collecting a stable of omegas and converting them into his beta bitches, a la Billy Bob Thornton in School for Scoundrels.
As for why Batman doesn’t kill criminals? Actually, he did, in the good old pre-Comics Code days. As was pointed out upthread, sniping bank robbers is really more the Punisher’s bailiwick, and if all you’re going to do is murder people, a gun is a fuckton more efficient than a Batarang. Not to mention the old rule that the only people who stay dead are Bucky and Uncle Ben (in the DCU, that would be Bruce Wayne’s parents, I guess). Different writers have had different takes on the subject,but I find Frank Miller’s Dark Knight work the most compelling. In that, killing seems to be the one thing Batman won’t do because he knows that if he allows himself to start with finishing off the Joker, he will wind up sniping purse snatchers.
Of course, they’re just comics, and probably shouldn’t be read into too deeply.
I think you would have enjoyed the Batman as it was originally created. He did kill people. However, since the target audience was ‘kids’, they kind of dialed it back a little on the violence level due to protests.
‘This is despite the fact that the U.S. is a good deal more morally constrained than the Empire is in Star Wars.’
False.
The U.S. resorts to a lot of torture, atrocities, and propaganda operations that have no parallel in the Star Wars mythos.
Star Wars had a planet that got blown up. It had corrupt leaders whose evil was evident from the way they used “Force Lightning.”
The U.S. has efforts like the “School for the Americas,” “Project Bluebird,” “COINTELPRO,” etc. Reality is much, much uglier than Star Wars.
Good comments, by many even a few I disagree with. For instance I disagree with Kyle, but he does put out some interesting characters for me to explore, so thank you Kyle. Special shout-out to Gorden, Bob, and Epoe.
Now I’m going to put Batman into his historical context. Like more than one character, he started out rather “dark” back in the 1930′s. As pointed out above, the earlier Batman wasn’t above killing. Comics reached great levels of popularity in the US in the 1940′s, but during the 1950′s there was a great moral panic lead by Dr. Frederic Wertham which led to the cancelation of many classic comics (such as the EC horror line) and the juvenileization of pretty much all the others. To be fair, Batman had already left its darker roots in the early 1940′s with the introduction of Robin, so this didn’t affect Batman as much as it did, say, Superman. Anyway because of the code social commentary in Comics nearly totally ceased and the artform became known as one that only appealed to children. In Batman’s case, the campy Batman show of the 1960′s (Adam West!) and the campy movies didn’t help matters any. It was only with Frank Miller and others in the mid 1980′s that interest in Batman’s darker past began to resurface.
Underworld. I’ve always dislike Selene for choosing to destroy her species to defend a man she is in love with, a man who has no idea what the larger stakes are. Typical.
Viktor is a cool character because he did what he had to do in order to ensure the survival of the vampires. Though his hatred of lycans was a bit irrational, he at least understood what was important.
I wonder how well the lycans faired after the vampire elders were destroyed. Pretty well, I imagine. Man, that movie was so unjust.
The problem that I have with this sort of thing is that most pop culture is not Atlas Shrugged, and can therefore be fit into multiple ideologies. It might take a bit of work, but you can read all sorts of fun things into anything that doesn’t beat you over the head with fat steaming 60-page piles of incoherent moralizing.
The classic example of that is the WNs’ claim that Avatar is actually a WN movie. Then there’s Natural Born Killers, which can be either reactionary, American-style conservative, or Nietzschean, depending on what brand of goggles you’re wearing when you watch it.
Hell, based on the information in that Empire article, I think I could make a case that Star Wars is pro-Confederacy.
in the same vein as the case for the empire (but reversed sort of)– howard zinn and noam chomsky discuss Lord of the Rings
http://www.mcsweeneys.net/2003/04/22fellowship.html
Eincrou:
So the rebels are quasi-fascistic (romantic and utopian notions of reviving a bygone era of peace, order and unity). If there is anything analogous to ultranationalism or corporativism in the extended universe (I never got into it) please tell.
Anyway you addressed the evil of the emperor but the Galactic Empire himself was much more than that (as has already been mentioned, regional despots, etc), and if you had actually read the linked article (which you clearly didn’t) you will see, as the author said, it’s “open and shut” (you can find justification for the destruction of Alderaan, et al)
“Finally, Watchmen, being one of the best comic book stories deserves some mention. How Ozymandias decides to commit mass murder in order to stop global annihilation between US and USSR.”
That seems to me to be a progressivist/feminist endorsement of totalitarianism and not at all reactionary. Just like a feminist to commit mass murder (against, say, men) to stop a perceived catastrophe.
@BLACK: So in what issue does Magneto convert to Islam and decide that everyone would get along, mutant and human, if they all just converted to Islam?
@Lyle read the linked article about the empire. And if I recall (I only read half of Transmetropolitan) Spider Jerusalem was a pacifist crusading for egalitarianism. The worst he would do to someone was make them crap their pants, he never got laid and he stumped around with at least one harridan (I can’t remember if the second broad he partners up with was a cock-cutter but probably)
@Anonymous re: Hero – that’s understandable as Hero is a Chinese movie and Chinese culture is traditionally patriarchal and authoritarian.
I know its late but I just watched the movie Thor. Same sort of thing. The Ice Giants in that movie are portrayed as a completly evil race that can only be forced to accept peace at swordpoint. Loki, wants to prove he is just as worthy to rule Asgard as his alpha male borther thor. Loki, being a crafty beta male, sets up a plan to destroy the Ice Giants for good. He even kills their king. He is not a traitor like you are led to beleive throughout the movie. In the end though he is the bad guy because everyone, no matter how many times they prove that they are violent and dangerous, deserve a second chance in today’s stupid moral code. Thus Thor is the good guy for saving the Ice Giants and ensuring future problems–but Loki is evil for being practical and relaistic.
{ 4 trackbacks }