XMFC rewatch
Jul. 11th, 2011 11:28 pmYesterday I saw X-Men: First Class for the second time (it was at the cheap theater).
1) Erik has awesome, awesome hats. And one dorktastic helmet which he inexplicably paints purply-pink to match his cape. Oh, Erik, what happened to your fashion sense when you came over all Magneto?
2) You know the gun that Charles hands to Erik at the start of the big "Erik turns the satellite dish through the power of LOVE" scene? Well, during the following scene of Kennedy's speech, Erik is still holding the gun. In fact he gestures with it. A big gun = Erik's version of a comfort blanket, obviously. He clings to it when he's worried.
3) CHARLES AND ERIK LOVE EACH OTHER SO MUCH, OH GOD WHY DOES IT HAVE TO GO WRONG AND BE SAD?
4) Okay, this is the disturbing one. Given the way Schmidt talks and behaves towards Erik, I find it not merely plausible but likely that Schmidt was in some way sexually abusing him as part of the process of "unlocking his gift" through pain and anger. And yet I find I don't really want to explore this in a story, because poor Erik has enough trauma already, damn it. Part of my head canon for Erik has long been that sex is one of the few ways he can experience closeness and trust and happiness; somehow for me his having that safety valve makes the difference between an Erik who is functional and an Erik who is really, truly broken.
5) OH GOD WHY MUST ERIK'S LIFE BE SO SAD?
1) Erik has awesome, awesome hats. And one dorktastic helmet which he inexplicably paints purply-pink to match his cape. Oh, Erik, what happened to your fashion sense when you came over all Magneto?
2) You know the gun that Charles hands to Erik at the start of the big "Erik turns the satellite dish through the power of LOVE" scene? Well, during the following scene of Kennedy's speech, Erik is still holding the gun. In fact he gestures with it. A big gun = Erik's version of a comfort blanket, obviously. He clings to it when he's worried.
3) CHARLES AND ERIK LOVE EACH OTHER SO MUCH, OH GOD WHY DOES IT HAVE TO GO WRONG AND BE SAD?
4) Okay, this is the disturbing one. Given the way Schmidt talks and behaves towards Erik, I find it not merely plausible but likely that Schmidt was in some way sexually abusing him as part of the process of "unlocking his gift" through pain and anger. And yet I find I don't really want to explore this in a story, because poor Erik has enough trauma already, damn it. Part of my head canon for Erik has long been that sex is one of the few ways he can experience closeness and trust and happiness; somehow for me his having that safety valve makes the difference between an Erik who is functional and an Erik who is really, truly broken.
5) OH GOD WHY MUST ERIK'S LIFE BE SO SAD?
no subject
Date: 2011-07-12 08:10 am (UTC)I don't think Schmidt is necessarily a sexual abuser - it could be psychological and physical torture without that extra component. Erik does emulate Schmidt in some very disturbing ways (the finger waving and tutting at the Swiss banker, for instance) but I also like to think there are some small areas of his life untouched. (And, unlike Scott Summers in X1, he just doesn't read to me like someone who has been sexually abused - I mean this solely textually, without reference to how real-world survivors "should" behave. Erik is physically confident and comfortable, does not seem to be promiscuous, neither hides nor displays his body, and is not disturbed by Mystique showing up in his bed naked.)
tangential
Date: 2011-07-12 08:18 am (UTC)(It's been eons since I've seen the earlier movies.)
Re: tangential
Date: 2011-07-12 08:21 am (UTC)Re: tangential
Date: 2011-07-12 04:33 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-07-12 04:31 pm (UTC)Oh, it could be. It's not necessary to see Erik as having been sexually abused in order to make sense of his character, for which I'm very grateful. But it's still a possibility that makes sense, and makes sense in particular with the twisted love that Schmidt shows Erik.
Maybe what I'm seeing in the text is primarily psychological abuse/abuse of love. I'm thinking particularly of the moment when, after Schmidt kills Erik's mother and Erik smashes up the office and lab, Schmidt goes and puts his arm around Erik's shoulders. And Erik lets him. Which is not to in any way imply that Erik is complicit in his own abuse, whatever form it took. But he was a little boy all alone except for Schmidt, and it's not hard to imagine some kind of Stockholm syndrome happening. The element of love makes the abuse look sexual, but it's not necessary, as you say, to read it that way.
no subject
Date: 2011-07-12 08:16 am (UTC)Yes, cripes, WHAT THE HELL.
Given the way Schmidt talks and behaves towards Erik, I find it not merely plausible but likely that Schmidt was in some way sexually abusing him as part of the process of "unlocking his gift" through pain and anger.
Iā¦have thought that too. And much like you, I find I really don't want to write it. But other people have, so I don't feel too bad for chickening out. The canonical torture and child abuse is quite enough for me.
no subject
Date: 2011-07-12 04:37 pm (UTC)Gah, now I must think happy thoughts about Erik's hats instead. And his turtlenecks, and his simple-but-perfect little leather jackets. Clotheslust: I has it.
no subject
Date: 2011-07-13 09:13 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-07-13 10:23 pm (UTC)I need this movie to come out on DVD now so I can hit pause a few million times and just stare.
no subject
Date: 2011-07-12 10:15 am (UTC)I am enjoying the batshit fandom explosion, though.
I find it not merely plausible but likely that Schmidt was in some way sexually abusing him as part of the process of "unlocking his gift" through pain and anger.
I think that's pretty likely, unfortunately. I'm never going to write that, but plenty of people have.
no subject
Date: 2011-07-12 04:41 pm (UTC)