Mutant Resentment and Normative Conforming of ‘Freak Culture’ in “X-Men: The Last Stand”

Based on a Marvel comic book series, the movie “X-Men: The Last Stand” directed by Brett Ratner, presents it’s audience with an action packed story of the repercussions the human race faces as it dabbles in genetic engineering to “cure” the mutant X-Gene (the gene found in all mutants said to cause the extra-human like qualities). From the get-go, the movie documents a young Warren Worthington III (the mutant named Angel) cutting off sprouting wings from his shoulder blades (X-Men: The Last Stand). As the movie progresses we learn Warren’s father, Warren Worthington II, is embarrassed by his son’s “mutations,” and invests loads of money into a genetic project planned to stop, reverse and cure the mutant X-Gene (X-Men: The Last Stand). This cascades the movie into a fight between roughly three sides: the humans (the norm), a violent army of resisting mutants led by the powerful mutant Magneto, and a school of mutants who follow Professor Charles Xavier, dedicated to celebrating corporal difference. Among these conflicting sides, the movie’s tagline asks, “Whose Side Will You Be On?” However, underneath all of the cinematic explosions and war rhetoric, a social critique on what it means to be “normal” and what measures the government, humans and “mutants” will go to become/resist normality arises. In critically analyzing particular scenes of this movie along with arguments presented by Rosemarie Garland-Thomson's essay, “Introduction: From Wonder to Error— A Genealogy of Freak Discourse in Modernity,” a discourse touching upon current political and social issues will arise. At first we must ask: what does it mean to be a mutant (a freak) and against this, what does it mean to be human?

In her essay, Garland-Thomson marks a shift in the way society views “freaks” or “corporeal others” around the time of the Enlightenment. She notes that prior to Enlightenment logic, the “foreboding monster” or “wondrous freak” was explained by mystic theories, gods, God etc. (Garland-Thomson, 4) However, with the shift to logical thinking after the Enlightenment, the “freak” was transformed into a, “category of curiosity” (Garland-Thomson, 4). At once owned by wondrous thought, in modernity the freak is now, as she said, “owned by scientists” (Garland-Thomson, 4). Hence, with modernity and rational thinking Garland-Thomson suggests, “the freak (has moved) from the embodiment of wonder to the embodiment of error.” (Garland-Thomson, 13) In other words, what makes freak bodies different than normal bodies can now be explained by scientists as a result of genetic error— gene mutation in some cases. And since, as Garland-Thomson noted, that the discourse surrounding the “freak” embodies “error,” there is a chance for a reverse of error, or a “cure.” This absolutely pertains to the “X-Men: The Last Stand” narrative, because as the movie’s trailer suggests, “A major pharmaceutical company has developed a way to suppress the mutant X-Gene permanently; they’re calling it a cure” (X-Men Trailer). The trailer continues as the mutant Storm (on Professor Xavier’s team) says, “It’s not a cure! Nothing’s wrong with any of us for that matter” (X-Men Trailer). This reasserts that while the mutants following Magneto wish to end the human race in all, Professor Xavier’s team chooses to resist the discourse of mutant as corporeal otherness, which resists the “us and them” altogether. But how does Professor Xavier's team resist this discourse without violence?

To understand this perspective, let us draw upon ideas brought up in a movie review published in The Chicago Times, written by accredited Roger Ebert. In his review, he noticed some parallels with “X:Men: The Last Stand” and “current political and social issues” (Ebert). He continued saying that, “‘Curing’ mutants is obviously a form of genetic engineering and stirs thoughts of ‘cures’ for many other conditions humans are born with, which could be loosely defined as anything that prevents you from being just like George or Georgette Clooney” (Ebert). What Ebert is touching upon is the way in which we discriminate against a natural condition if it does not fit into a societal norm. Garland-Thomson writes, “Thus, what we assume to be a freak of nature was instead a freak of culture” (Garland-Thomson, 10). However even Ebert touches upon the mutant resisting feeling in saying, “The fact is, most people grow accustomed to the hands they've been dealt and rather resent the opportunity to become ‘normal.’ (Normal in this context is whatever makes you more like them and less like yourself.)”(Ebert). This resentment is what drives Magneto and his team (freaks of culture) into violent resistance. However, as noted before the movie brings up another resisting force which is not of resentment, but rather one of “exceptionalism” and conforming with normativity. Professor Xavier’s team chooses to view mutants in a realm of cohabitation corporeality, regardless of shape, color, or power. However this view also encourages mutants to be able to control their impulses, in order to better fit in the human world. What do you think about this idea of conforming to normatively? Whose side are you on?

Work Cited:

Ebert, Roger. "X-Men: The Last Stand.” Chicago Sun Times. 26 May. 2006. Web. 27 November. 2010.

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060525/REVIEWS/60509005

Garland-Thomson, Rosemarie. “From Wonder to Error—A Genealogy of Freak Discourse in Modernity.” Freakery: Cultural Spectacles of the Extraordinary Body. Ed. Rosemarie Garland Thomson. New York: New York University Press, 1996. 1-19.

X-Men: The Last Stand. Dir. Brett Ratner. Perf. Patrick Stewart, Hugh Jackman and Halle Berry. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, 2006. DVD.

Trailer found on Youtube.com: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kajEhbglG7k