X-Men First Class: We Don't Need No Stinking Allegories

I wanted to give X-Men First Class some time to settle in my brain before I wrote down my opinions about it.  There have been a lot of fantastic responses on the internets regarding the portrayal of race and gender in a movie set in a time very unfriendly to people of color and women (more unfriendly than now), and they said a lot of what I was thinking.

There has also been a lot of talk about the continued use of the X-Men movies as an allegory for the struggle of GLBT people.

The day before I went to see the movie, I read a review on AfterElton.com (spoilers!):

These gay parallels were edgy and interesting in 2003 (and in 2000, when the first X-Men movie came out). But in 2011? It hasn't just been done — it's about as far from edgy as you can get. Why not an actualgay mutant, not just mutants as metaphors for gays? Even the "assimilation or separatist" debate has long since been settled by most GLBT folks.

Ignoring that last statement, which is completely ridiculous and fodder for another post all together, I think that's a valid question.  Har har, there was a "Don't Ask Don't Tell" joke nearly a year after it was overturned.  Timely!  Don't worry though, that guy's in love with a lady (who likes ladies also, but only in the comics and not in the movies... yet), so you won't have to actually see anything involving same-sex affection.  Whew!

Meanwhile, elsewhere on the internets, I started to see a lot of fan reaction from a lot of people talking about the chemistry of Charles Xavier (James MacAvoy) and Erik Lensherr (Michael Fassbender).  Not just saying they had good chemistry, or that they were great in their roles - there was that too - but sexualizing the interaction they had with each other.

What really blew me away about this was people with fairly progressive and critical mindsets walking out of a movie that's arguably about the terrible way we treat people who are different and deciding to fetishize the relationship between two men.  And a few times actually getting defensive when called on it, criticizing people who didn't hold the same opinion.

If you're a comic fan, you may remember when Hal Jordan, in A Cry For Justice, mentioned having a threesome with Lady Blackhawk and Huntress.  There was a lot of intra-community backlash, including a lot of people asking why two women can't just have a friendship without there being anything sexual about it.

I started to feel guilty about my reaction to the First Class stuff and my discomfort with the way people - mostly women, from what I saw - were sexualizing something that, to me, was platonic.  After all, I completely hone in on subtext between two women all the time.  I've been doing it since Xena: Warrior Princess, and I still do it in Rizzoli & Isles.

But then I realized: I'm looking for representation.  Representation of me and the kind of relationships that I have.  I'm not looking for two women to have sex to titillate me.  I'm looking for myself on the screen.  And I'm not finding me there.

Look at me, I'm back at my point.

I don't think we need gay parallels in movies.  I don't think we need allegories anymore.  I think we need actual legitimate, well-written, three dimensional lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender characters on our screens.

The X-Men titles have a few that could be used.  One was already in the movie. Mystique is interesting!  She can change her gender at will, and has been in at least one long-term relationship with a woman.  But we don't see any of that.  We see a girl with low self-esteem who throws herself at men.  Okay.

People like me, the people who have longed for representation in the media we love,  could use some real stories.  Maybe the X-Men movies aren't the place to get those stories.  But don't pretend.  It's 2011, and we don't need allegories any more.  We need our stories.

Don't Ask Me, I Won't Tell You

Happy Thanksgiving to my American readers and happy Thursday to everyone else.

So this week's Detective Comics was pretty awesome. More of Kate's history, especially her days at West Point (ah, knew that was coming), the stepmother thing, her meeting of Renee (classic!), and her run-in with the Bat (I hope there's more to that, because it didn't seem particularly "fateful"; like Batman hasn't saved a billion women that are being mugged?). Which means this was a highly political issue, natch. Had to be, because Kate was washed out (well, dishonorably discharged) for violations of... uh, something numerical. I'm a little unclear on whether this was pre-DADT or post (DADT being Don't Ask Don't Tell), since, well. She was asked. Though she was also sort of accused. It seemed to be pre-DADT, but I don't think Kate's that old.

Back in the halcyon days of 2002, when my friends and I were convinced that President Bush was going to 1) re-instate the draft and 2) start drafting women in order to bulk up the military for the upcoming wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, my favorite law was Don't Ask Don't Tell.

I know, I know, Bad Gay.

Listen, I'm all for equality, but if someone asks me to kill someone else for "freedom," (or most other reasons, as I tend to be anti-killing) I'm going to go out and get gay married as soon as possible. Or make out with a lady. Or something. And I knew plenty of legit straight people who felt the same. My patriotism (and I am patriotic in my way, thanks) does not extend to ending other peoples' lives or being, in any way, responsible for ending those lives (though my tax dollars are, sigh).

So anyway, DADT is a really stupid law, which pretty much everyone ever agrees with. And Kate got herself discharged for making out with her room mate (wtf, why does everyone have a "room mate" story?) and her dad thinks that's just great. So her dad's cool, in case we hadn't figured that out before.

And her stepmom is cool too, but Kate doesn't want to give her a chance (understandable, if unfair). I didn't give my stepmom a chance. Then again, I was eleven (and she didn't really become my stepmom until much later). And I guess Kate's money comes from her stepmom now, and not old money? Maybe I'm forgetting 52, or maybe it was a retcon. Either one is likely.

I loved her meeting with Renee initially. Totally classic. I was hoping for a "frisk me officer" moment, but oh well. At least we got some ladies making out and in bed together. Huge! This doesn't happen anywhere but Showtime! And Logo, I guess. And independent cinema. Oh, and sweeps week. It really doesn't happen as often as I make it seem, particularly in a positive, normalized way. Props to Rucka for it, props to JH3 for the way it was drawn (the same way heterosexual love scenes are drawn) and props to DC for letting it through.

Hey, you know that American Idol guy who caused a furor over being gayish on TV? At least he didn't show nipple. Woo boy.

Quasi-random, don't mind me.

I was a little underwhelmed by her meeting with Batman, like I said. Wow, she beat some dudes up and then Batman showed up. She was living in Gotham, was it really that much of a surprise? I mean, was it really intense enough that she decided to slap a bat on her chest and become a vigilante?

I imagine the next issue will get more into that. How many times can someone see Batman (not even in action this time) and decide to emulate him? There's got to be something else, right?

While I enjoy that the reason she becomes a Bat doesn't seem to be directly related to her trauma as a kid (btw, I don't think Alice is dead for a second, weird Crime Bible people aside), I'm waiting for something else. Plenty of people don't become a Bat just because they see The Bat. So what's the difference between those plenty of people and Kate Kane.

I really enjoyed this issue overall, though. The art continues to be awesome and the origin story is engaging. There may be some clichés (the room mate thing, the hating the stepmom thing) but they work in the context of the story because the story is led by a lesbian. I dig clichés when they're being used in a way they aren't normally (and therefore normalize things that aren't considered normal).

I'm using the word normal a lot, but I'm not sure if I'm conveying what I'm trying to convey.

The reason Detective Comics can still kick ass where a book led by, say, Dick would be boring is because it's not a cliché for a woman to do these things. And while there are certain lesbian clichés that she's falling into, I'm okay with it for the purpose of this book just existing and being well written, well drawn and, most importantly, well received.

Go read this book.

(I also picked up a bunch of other things this week, including the entire run of Cry for Justice, because Supergirl and Captain Marvel were making out and I want to know what's up with that. And a bunch of Marvel titles, one of which was funny, despite my hatred of Spider-Man, and one of which almost made me cry, because Sam Guthrie is a Big Damn Hero. I'll write more on those later.)

And as a bonus, here's me in the 1991 Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade. I'm one of the three Jewish elves on Santa's float:

Redo!

Fantastic Fangirls' most recent Q&A asked:

What comics story do you want reimagined or covered, and by whom?

I'm reprinting my answer here, possibly with a few more details, definitely with some pictures, because... it's my blog and I'll do what I want to. You would cry to if it - oh, wait.

Just a small music tangent: Lesley Gore's iconic songs, "It's My Party" and "You Don't Own Me" were given an extra layer of interestingness (flickr invented that word, don't blame me) when she came out as a lesbian in 2005, and said she'd been gay since her late teens. Seriously, go check out those lyrics.

Anyway, my answer!


I'd like to see someone redo Camelot 3000. I really enjoy the idea of the story, but the 80s' idea of the future is... laughable now. I didn't read it until about six months ago, and the art and story both seem dated. I feel like a modern writer/artist team could give it a spin that just feels more correct and holds up better with time. I love retro-future ideas, but most of the ones from that decade just don't hold as well as the ones written in the 50s and 60s. I liked the struggle of the knights to find themselves in the 40th century, but I didn't feel like the 40th century reflected well enough on the 20th century that the writers were coming from.

As for that writer/artist team. Hm. I'm currently enamored with Greg Rucka and Gail Simone. I think Rucka does really interesting things with mythological constructs (I'm basing this on the Crime Bible stuff) and I just like the way Gail Simone thinks about and writes comics (there's a great interview with her on AfterEllen that really piqued my interest in her writing) and I think between them they could put out a good story with interesting characters and a good adapted mythos. I will absolutely admit to mainly wanting to see the Tristan/Isolde story retold by a modern writer, but the rest of it would be great, too. Also, maybe we could ignore the tired old Arthur/Guinevere/Lancelot thing. Granted, the resolution in the original was fairly cutting edge, but I think by the 40th century they could just all get together and be happy.

Another tangent: David Franzoni's/Anton Fuqua's weird-but-enjoyable (Sarmatians? Really?) take on Arthur, the one that finally had a Celtic warrior woman (who needed a sandwich, but still), did a good modern twist on that triangle, making it Arthur and Lancelot who were the unrequieted tragic lovers. Not, like, on screen (because Heaven forfend men be in love in an action movie), but the undercurrents were pretty clear. To me. And even if they weren't, Lancelot was very obviously more interested in Arthur than Guinevere.

And artists, hmmmmm. I know less about artists. I really enjoy the more realistic style of Stuart Immomen, whom I recently discovered, and I think it would work well for that kind of story. Also a cover or two by Alex Ross would be iconic and amazing.

That art as it is is... well. Dark and strange. With odd detailing and accents. I'm sure it was very good for its time, but it's definitely not a style I enjoy. It reminds me of Heavy Metal and Ralph Bakshi settings. I don't like Ralph Bakshi settings, because they do the dark-and-bright-at-the-same-time thing in a strangely surreal way that removes me from the story. Seriously, have you seen War Wizards? WTF. I guess it has its place in fantasy (and I certainly like surreal artists like Peter Chung, so maybe it's more that I prefer surreality in science fiction over fantasy) but I'd rather see Camelot 3000 done with a more realistic, modern bent.

Besides Stuart Immomen, I also enjoy the artist doing Batwoman on Detectice Comics right now, JH Williams. Like I said before, I like his noir style. And while Kate Kane may be a bit vampiric, he's certainly capable of adding pigment to people, so I think that'd be fine. A neo-noir Arthurian story would be sort of cool, really. Like Blade Runner meets Sin City meets, well. King Arthur.

So that's my personal answer. I was an Arthurian geek before I was ever a comic geek.

abtkcn92z6