The “X-Men” movies often feel like a cultural afterthought. The films came out, audiences saw them and they were immediately erased from memory, and that is a shame. The series has some astonishing highs that far overshadow its epic lows, and its social commentary is some of the best in superhero fiction.
The “X-Men” movies are incredibly rich in both content and commentary. In short, the series follows the adventures of the “X-Men,” a team of superheroes – lovingly called mutants – whose powers originate from genetic mutations.
These mutants face prejudice that mirrors discrimination faced by marginalized groups in real life, and the series is at its best when exploring the characters’ reactions to that marginalization.
Specifically, the mainline entries’ exploration of the dichotomy of the friends-turned-enemies Charles Xavier and Erik Lehnsherr is incredibly compelling. Where Xavier aims to cultivate coexistence between humans and mutants, Lehnsherr aims to dominate humankind. However, their differences run deeper than their ideologies, and the best example of that is their upbringing: Xavier grew up steeped in privilege in Westchester, New York, whereas Lehnsherr is a German-Jewish Holocaust survivor.
Xavier’s and Lehnsherr’s differences in upbringing profoundly affect their philosophies, and this deepens the films’ social commentary. Although these films cast Xavier and the “X-Men” as heroes and Lehnsherr and his allies as villains, the audience gains a profound understanding of Lehnsherr’s perspective – however much we may disagree with it. As a Holocaust survivor, Lehnsherr witnessed firsthand what extreme prejudice can lead to, and it is clear he carries his trauma in every decision he makes. He lost his people once, and he does not intend to lose them again.
“X-Men” asks us if violent actions can be justified by trauma and highlights how perspectives on that question can vary greatly depending on upbringing. In this way, Xavier and Lehnsherr act as parallel figures to Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X, respectively.
Like their mutant counterparts, King and Malcolm X differed both in their upbringings and in their means of protesting prejudice. And, although history often simplifies King and Malcolm X to be good or bad versions of social justice leaders, can their philosophies be abstracted as such? Can you blame Malcolm X for his “extreme” rhetoric, considering his childhood was fraught with racial violence and systematic failures?
Both leaders aimed for the same goals, but which had the more just method of achieving them? Are King or Xavier righteous because they worked within the system? Are Malcolm X or Lehnsherr a radical because they didn’t?
The real linchpin of the franchise’s message is Xavier’s and Lehnsherr’s friendship. Despite their ideological differences, the pair respect each other as leaders and even love each other as friends.
Scenes that portray moments of friendship between these two are highlights of the series: Xavier visits Lehnsherr in prison to play chess in “X2,” Lehnsherr scolds Pyro when he says he would kill Xavier if given the chance in “X-Men: The Last Stand;” and the pair lament that they wasted their lives fighting one another when they are cornered by the sentinels in “X-Men: Days of Future Past.”
Although the pair disagree, they recognize why they disagree and understand the validity of their counterpart’s perspective. So, through Xavier and Lehnsherr, “X-Men” begs us to work to understand those we disagree with. Countless factors shape our ideologies, and what makes sense to one person may appear alien to another. If Xavier and Lehnsherr can treat each other with love and respect despite their history of conflict, so can we.
