Other Reactions to The X-Files Movie
Over the last few days, I’ve read a lot of blogs and reviews about the movie. For the most part, they express disappointment. Some say it wasn’t big enough. Some wanted more of the paranormal. Some say it didn’t feel XF enough. Some say it’s homophobic. Some just befuddled me.
But joyfully, I found at least two reviewers who sees things (at least partially) the way I do.
Roger Ebert also says that the movie is a rip-roaring thriller. His review applauds the realism of the movie, and this is something I really enjoyed. Instead of visiting Mulder and Scully in their world, I felt as if Mulder and Scully were operating in mine. For me, the “realness” of the crime made things that much scarier.
MaryAnn Johanson adds to this by pointing out that the changes we see are the result of the passage of years. I’m not the same person I was six years ago. I don’t expect Mulder and Scully to be the same people I got to know.
They’ve been on the run. They’ve tried to adapt to their new lives. They’ve learned to live with each other. And also, they no longer are a part of the X-Files world. I see the disconnect from that fictional, fantastical XF world. They have been mundane, ordinary, in hibernation.
Quick sidebar: To me, one of the most intriguing things in a hero’s saga is what the hero does after meeting and being left by the divine (god, wizard, what have you). How do you live after you’ve been touched by such power? (An even quicker plug to watch the new Doctor Who.)
As far as the subject matter, I think the movie is consistent with the series. XF has always held that humans can be far worse than the most devilish of monsters. To this day, I cannot see Nick Chinlund (Donnie Pfaster in “Irresistible” and “Orison”) without wanting to jump behind the couch. And humanity’s science has resulted in some of XF’s most memorable monsters (Flukie, Eves, the Great Mutato).
The accusation of homophobia is harder for me to address. I can only offer my reaction—which is to say that it didn’t occur to me while I was watching the movie. Oh, I saw the parallels, but I thought about the elements in totally different ways.
Unless it’s going to be a fake TV evangelist, a pedophile priest is pretty much the only religious sinner game in town. I thought they made the bad guys married to show the depth of their commitment to each other. As the heterosexual couple put their son through hell and went to questionable lengths to keep him alive, the homosexual couple also made the same decisions to maintain their love.
The use of women’s bodies is very problematic. I can’t help but think that Chris Carter just wanted the shock factor and didn’t think any further than that. Part of me wants to believe that he’s making a call back to Silence of the Lambs, since Scully owes a debt of existence to Clarice Starling. But CC has demonstrated that he has trouble with women in his stories. He could have easily made one victim male and one victim female to avoid this issue.
If there was a message that being molested will turn you gay, I totally missed it. For me, they needed a connection from Father Joe to the bad guys, and this was the answer with an added bonus of suggesting God’s hand. All this, of course, is just my opinion and what I experienced.
Finally, let me defend Amanda Peet and Xzibit. I thought Amanda Peet did a heck of a job eye-acting underneath all those hats. Her character came off as tough, professional, and not-entirely-but-only-thinking-about-whether-or-not-she-should flirt with Mulder. Xzibit had a clench going that would have made Skinner proud. His character was more one-note than hers though. I was tired of Agent Drummy by the end, but I’m hardly going to fault the actor for tackling a character that was always going to be less than Doggettt, less than Spender.
Discussion Area - Leave a Comment