Ragged Edge Online Home

A 'Last Stand' Against Cure

by Robert McRuer

X-Men: The Last Stand has not been particularly well-received by critics in the mainstream media. One of my graduate students at the George Washington University, in fact, said that when she attended the opening, a friend turned to her mid-way through the film and said, "Did George Lucas write this dialogue? It's AWFUL."

X-Men: The Last Stand, directed by Brett Ratner, has been perceived by many as less intellectual and more invested in meaningless visual effects than the two previous X-Men films, directed by Bryan Singer. It's often a "cartoon" in the negative sense -- not, in other words, the fine artistry legible in the best comics or comics-turned-film, but rather two-dimensional, big-screen mediocrity.

I have to agree that X-Men: The Last Stand is atrocious in a lot of ways. And yet, from a disability perspective, it's one of the more complicated films to emerge from Hollywood in a long time.

Cultural representations do change because of the arguments we make and the activist movements we shape.

I had a great time teaching one of the X-Men comics in a Disability and Culture class this past semester (it was the final text of the semester, and I used the Ultimate X-Men, Volume 1). We talked at length about the X-Men ethos, articulated most consistently by wheelchair-user Professor Charles Xavier.

The X-men ethos is basically integrationist or assimilationist into U.S. society as it is; it is a reformist agenda that sees the structure of society as generally fine and that understands "mutant" identity as simply a variation on "human" identity. As with reformist movements more generally over the past century (jump cut to the Human Rights Campaign or similar groups), the catch phrase for the X-Men could be "except for small differences we're just like everyone else."

The Brotherhood of Mutants ethos, in contrast, stresses a distinct identity or difference, and is essentially separatist and revolutionary or "terrorist" depending on the angle from which you approach them (and a lot of the conversation indeed was about just how tricky that line is, not least given the imbrication of the two terms historically in the American and French Revolutions -- an imbrication that Neil Smith discusses brilliantly in his recent book The Endgame of Globalization).

The Ultimate X-Men series is much more complicated than this simple set of binaries suggests, but this was nonetheless how things lined up in our class discussion, and a not insignificant number of students, it seemed to me, empathized with the Brotherhood of Mutants. Nominally, I would argue, the ideal reader of the comic is not "supposed" to empathize in this way, or if you do, you're supposed to relinquish that identification, cathartically perhaps, by the end.

Several students however, kept stressing, "well, you know, the Brotherhood of Mutants is really right to be so angry and aggressive; they are right to reject the integrationism of the X-Men. Given the government-sponsored genocide the mutants face, these arguments really make sense." And, of course, students had as the background for sorting out these questions the complex (and fabulous) conversations we had sustained all semester about disability culture as a multi-faceted entity similarly able to support both reformist and more revolutionary arguments (although, certainly, in the United States reformist agendas have been dominant -- more revolutionary disability arguments have emerged as disabled people have forged alliances across national borders).

Which brings me back to X-Men: The Last Stand. Despite being panned by critics, the film is in some ways, of the three films in the series, the most charged from a disability perspective, mainly because the government's new weapon in the War on Terror -- I mean, the war against the Brotherhood of Mutants -- is a "cure," initially offered to any mutant that wants to take it but quickly turned, by the Department of Homeland Security and other government agencies, into a weapon (and isn't it amazing how quickly the Department of Homeland Security has been absorbed by popular culture? -- almost as if the "real life" agency had been brought to you by Marvel Comics in the first place).

The U.S. government in X-Men: The Last Stand, despite its "tolerance" for mutants who toe the party line and despite the presence of token mutants even in the administration, is on a crusade against mutants. And when governments invoke a crusade, as we know, the primary goal is to force the opposition to convert, to reject its identity, community, culture, and history. Enforcing normalcy, we might say, to invoke disability scholar Lennard J. Davis: if you're not "just like everyone else," we'll make you that way!

What's fascinating about X-Men: The Last Stand, however, is that it ends up producing a range of varied responses/positions on said "cure," with mutant crowds (and their supporters) outside the pharmaceutical company, on one side of the street, yelling "no cure! no cure!" and mutant crowds, on the other side of the street, lining up for the injection. Halle Berry's character Storm gives the most articulate minority defense, and she sounds like innumerable disability activists; Storm asserts forcefully that a cure is absolutely unnecessary because there's nothing wrong with being a mutant.

Anna Paquin's character Rogue, in contrast, is the most conflicted of the X-Men, and understandably so; Rogue is not able to touch another living being without sapping the life force from them. Challenging both the two-dimensional, able-bodied "cure or kill" mentality and a hard-line anti-cure activist position, X-Men: The Last Stand, from a disability perspective, is pretty complex. Ultimately, I'd say the film nominally comes down "against cure," but then again, the X-Men (the heroes of the film) are simultaneously fighting for the government and against the Brotherhood of Mutants. And it's inescapably the Brotherhood of Mutants who mount the most articulate anti-cure stances.

Given that Ian McKellan's character Magneto is Jewish and survived the Holocaust, that articulateness is understandable. And, of course, audiences who bring to the theater the knowledge that McKellan is an openly gay actor have only one more reason for weighing his arguments carefully. I've seen Magneto described in the mainstream press as Osama bin Laden, but gay, disabled, and Jewish viewers (along with those who have been listening to us over the past few decades) are likely to have a slightly more nuanced reaction to McKellan's performance.

My point here is definitely not to reverse the more widespread critique the film is receiving but simply to provide another angle for understanding X-Men: The Last Stand. There is so much in the film that viewers should be simply and straightforwardly annoyed at, like Berry's ridiculous and extended fight scenes with Dania Ramirez (Ramirez, who plays Callisto, is the only other primary character who is a woman of color -- neoliberalism, I'd say, needs these women to be arch-enemies, thereby showing "tolerance" in regards to race but forestalling the possibility that women of color might just get together and change things!).

To say that X-Men: The Last Stand marks a different kind of Hollywood take on bodily, cognitive, and behavioral difference is not necessarily to embrace it uncritically, but to encourage us to be vigilant: cultural representations do change because of the arguments we make and the activist movements we shape. We, in turn, need to continually access new critical vocabularies for comprehending, and altering yet again, those changed representations.

Robert McRuer is an Associate Professor of English at the George Washington University and the author of Crip Theory: Cultural Signs of Queerness and Disability (NYU, 2006).

Yes! Yessss!!!! Thank you!!!

Though I must take issue with "atrocious" . . . you don't need to keep apologizing for watching the thing. Doing so doesn't make you any less of an intellectual or less of an authentic comic aficionado. Know that these films are what they are; they aren't supposed to be cinema; they're a fair balance between action and explosion and dialogue and nerd.

But the cure . . . the horrific and torturous cure!! You see, my friends, why I was punching you in the theater?

I have been very pleased with the recent movies on the marvel "heros", and the way that they have been portrayed. I see them as a good way to encourage disabled kids to look at their "disablity" in a positive way. Those on the autistic spectrum are often gifted in ways that most people regard as being disablling. But these same things are often the basis of genius level talents in the great minds of history. Throughout history, people with unusual talents have bee both admired and regarded with varying degrees of suspicion or fear, even while the fruits of their genius has been eagerly accepted and used. So I see movies such as the "X Men" and "Fantastic 4" as being useful as a kind of modern legend, and to see these people as folks with disabilties making lemonade out of the lemons life seems to have handed them. Our oldest son, who has Asperger's Syndrome, admires Ben Grimn of the "Fantastic 4" as someone who is percieved to be horribly different, but when someone takes the time to look past the exterior, finds a sweet person. Our son has also found Ben a great help in learning to control his temper- something always a problem with those on the autistic spectrum.

I admire what Professor Xavier does by providing a school where children can be taught the positive uses of their talents.....I wish to God that there were people such as he in the real world who are openminded enough to look for the talent in the disabled, and develop it as he does.

As a mother with two children with disabilities and someone who has seen the film (and didn't really like it), I tried to make sense of your piece but couldn't. I could not make sense of what you think we should do in your last paragraph. Are you saying I can change Hollywood movies by being "vigilant" and making arguments about them? I don't know how or why I would do that. And what does mean for me to "access new critical vocabularies"? You lost me there. I apologize for not understanding, I'm not a college professor, but I do have a college degree and run a successful home business. Thank you for your time.

To the first poster - I believe that by labelling the film "atrocious" the author is not trying to establish his intellectual bona fides, but simply stating his (and my) opinion of the movie. Perhaps individual opinions of films should be taken for what they are, in the same way you believe films such this should be.

To P. Franko - I don't think he is necessarily advocating "changing Hollywood" per se. Rather, it may be his contention that films such as "X-Men: The Last Stand" provide cultural representations that can be altered and remade for the benefit of those they seem to represent. While there is no direct evidence of this (yet), there is certainly reason to believe that the filmmakers adapted this movie to be more directly in conversation with disability studies because the field had embraced the last two films so strongly.

But, that is not to say the embrace was not without its complications. And that may be where the "new critical vocabularies" are needed, to simultaneously criticize and popularize significant representations that crosscut popular cultural and disability studies.

One of the difficult things about the cultural representation of the Disabled is that even when they are portrayed in a positive light, as some have seen in X-Men 3, the disability must have be accompanied by a "power." Even Halle Berry's rightful rejection of a "cure" for Downs Syndrome on NPR was coupled with a claim that a niece she knew with Downs Syndrome was particularly sweet.

If we are ever to challenge the system of valuation that treats the Disabled as a medical problem to be cured, we must not be tempted to say, "they aren't a problem since they have super powers." Much like the representation of Daredevil, where his blindness is accepted because of his super-hearing, it's fairly easy to accept the "difference" of Professor Xavier, Magneto, or even Beast.

So when people tell me that we should reject a cure because individuals with Downs Syndrome are sweet, I say, "what about those who aren't?" People with disabilities can be intelligent and kind, but they can also be violent, incontinent, annoying, and quite difficult to be around. Do THEY matter? Once we adopt the system of valuation, we have already lost the ability to say "yes."

Excellent point, Jeremy. Thanks.

Just wanted to add how much I appreciate Mr. Mc Ruer's article on the "disability angle" of X-Men. As a person with a disability who was a longtime fan of the animated series, it was that "angle" that drew me to X-Men and made me want to watch the third movie. I wholeheartedly agree with the statement that the third installment of the movie is the most charged from the disability perspective. My hope is now those in the disability community will discuss the issue(s) it brings up.

I appreciate this article for attempting to get at the complexities of the movie, but we're missing something big in the disability community in regards to this film, I think. Does anyone else have a problem with the fact that the woman (forget her name) with a "Dual Personality" a) had to have one of her personalities hidden, b) had a personality that was evil and c) was killed in the end? This is, for me, the most provocative and most disturbing aspect of the movie. As an individual with a mental health disorder, I saw the third X:Men as society's commentary on mental illness (Zoloft, anyone?) since pills are being used to attempt a "cure" and do dampen some more intense aspects of a person's psyche.

More than that, this woman having a dual personality where one side has to be hidden because it is evil plays on the fear of the misinformed public about individuals with mental health disorders, especially dissociative disorders where people sometimes forget whole blocks of time. The media would have us believe that people with mental illness are more violent than those without, which Parade Magazine and the McArthur Foundation proved wrong in 1993 and 1998 respectively. The "cure" for this woman was death (much like the mercy killing in Million Dollar Baby, but worse because she didn't ask for it).

For argument's sake, let us say that she was violent because of her mental illness, did anyone wonder why they didn't use the cure on her and instead had to kill her?

I'm not an advocate of pharmaceuticals, though I do take two right now. I think our nation is overmedicated, overpathologized and just dead wrong about the facts of mental illness. This film said it all perfectly. I left the theater disgusted.

Hi, Amy --

Jean Grey, for the record, is the character's name.

Good point about an alternate "personality" being "evil" and the stereotypes that assumption can perpetuate. Your view is well understood.

I wondered about the many alternatives to killing Jean too -- among them using Rogue (young gal who wanted to receive the cure so she could have human contact) to temporarily weaken her, or bringing the "cure" kid near her for a bit. You probably don't recall because you're not as big of a nerd as I am, but earlier in the movie Jean DID actually ask Wolverine to kill her, and he didn't care much for the idea.

Here's the consolation I take in that: I agree wholeheartedly that we're, as you said, overmedicated and overpathologized, and whether we take anti-whatever pharmaceuticals -- or refuse to, as I do -- ought to be an individual choice and not forced or "persuaded". I think that many of the drugs used to treat mental "illness" carry with them the unfortunate side effect of suppressing some of the charming (or not) little nuances of emotion, behavior and personality that make us who we are, and, as Jean said, "I don't wanna fix it". Perhaps Jean saw death as an alternative, not to being her uninhibited self, but to being forced into a state of suppression, "cure".

Or maybe not. I dunno. Maybe the creators didn't think that deeply. But it makes me feel a bit better, eh?

"Maybe the creators didn't think that deeply"

Realllllllllllllly good chance they didn't. It's based on a comic book and is a major motion picture about comic book heroes. I bet they spent more time making sure Halle Berry's outfit fit or that Wolverine's witty dialogue hit "just the right note".

I think that all of this is great for anayltical discussion and drawing parallels, but ascribing too much of it to intentional acts by the movie makers, as it relates to pwd, is probably taking it too far.

FYI, the supression of Jean Grey's alternate psyche was because her alternate psyche literally had the power to actually kill everyone around her- if not in the world.


I appreciate many of the comments regarding whether the X-men fits within a disability sub-text, but I would like to respectfully posit that it can't for one reason. According to the X-men story, the X-men and all mutants are HOMO SUPERIOR. They are not disabled but ultra-abled. Their abilities, their genetic makeup, designates them not as a different species so what Homo Sapiens consider disabled could be completely different for Home Superiors. In fact, we - homo sapiens - are probably considered disabled.

Certainly, the theme of tension between different social groups is shared between those considered disabled and those not. but the only X-men who might be considered having disabilities would be those like Cyclops (who can't control his optic blasts) or Prof. X whose legs are paralyzed.

The fight for integration should really be considered in evolutionary terms. They (mutants) only integrate because they have little culture of their own. Ultimately though, they will supersede the Homo Sapien culture, who will need to integrate possibly via adaptive equipment. Xavier's mission to teach mutants how to use their powers contains not only the idea of integration but supplantation of the the human race. One wonders whether mutants will ditch our quaint notion of disability or integrate it in whatever social system they develop.

Yes, X-Men was based on a comic book and, yes, Jean's alternate personality has the capacity to kill everyone in the world.

If you've ever taken a critical film or literature class you would know that even comic books provide reflections of the times we live in, with all its biases, etc. And that they have the power to influence.

Secondly, there is a fear, well documented through film, that those with mental illness, especially those with "dual personalities", as Professor X labeled her, are liable to strike out and kill. This cute portrayal of dual personalities as somehow an "evil" and "good" dichotomy is WRONG. I know several people suffering from what is called "Multiple Personality Disorder" and none of their personalities are violent.

Also, Parade magazine did a study in 1993 that found that 72% of characters with a mental illness on prime time TV are portrayed as violent. Do you know the real ratio?


Yes, the media, including film and comic books are dead wrong about mental illness and portray it as scary, not just to make a profit, but out of ignorance and I would say, as with other minority culture suppression, hatred.

There is no excuse for leading the public astray about "dual personalities", disabilities, etc. In fact, it is things like comic books and action movies that have the most power of persuasion in our lives because we don't consciously analyze them as they're just "for fun".

Also, the ultra-ability characteristic of the X-Men fits perfectly within the disability suppression context. Cultures throughout history have either seen disability (especially mental disability and seizure disorders) as evil or that those with them are superior, blessed by God. The point that the disability rights movement makes is that we are no different than anyone else...don't see us as dogs and don't see us as super human---that puts on us self-expectations that we can never live up to, thereby increasing any self-abusive thoughts and behaviors that might have been there before that help the majority culture subdue minority cultures.

What if Jean happened to have Cerebral Palsy and this happened to be part of the reason why she had to be killed (or else major destruction to the earth and life everywhere would ensue.) Of course, everyone would be in an uproar. The disability rights movement needs to move further, in my opinion, in accepting mental illness as a disability, with all of the discrimination that goes along with it, and begin analyzing common beliefs about it.


You raised some great points. I finally saw the movie and was pleasantly surprised by the ideas being tossed towards the audience. It does present an interesting polemic about society trying to force conformity on those different, or ostracizing those who refuse to conform.

I certainly agree with your comments and references regarding how mental illness is poorly portrayed in the pop media. For one of the few positive portrayals, I suggest people read the Doom Patrol comic books by Grant Morrisson. You should be able to find the three collections on Amazon.com or other fine interent stores. Morrisson introduces a superheroine called Crazy Jane who has a different super power for each of her multiple personalities. The character was inspired by the story of Trudi Chase in the book "When Rabbit Howls."

I have not seen the movie but have seen the others. I have seen the correlation between the mutants in X-Men and repressed groups in our society.

After reading this point of view, I have to go see the movie. Yes, I will be disappointed in the movie itself but any film that makes you think after it is over is certainly worth it.

Post comment

(All entries are checked for inappropriate content before they appear on the site. Thanks for waiting.)

Powered by
Movable Type 3.2
Email this page to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):