Erik has never been the opposite of truth, goodness and beauty. In fact, he has always stood on the opposite side of pure evil, which is why Charles can accept Erik. Born in World War II and the Holocaust, being murdered by the Nazis as a Jew, and being a mutant who indirectly caused the death of his mother because of his identity, the belief that the rift between races will never be bridged must be deeply rooted in young Erik. in the worldview. He wants to punish the killers who persecute innocent people, he wants to fight, and only by winning the war can he get his due rights. What's the difference between what Erik does and what all superheroes do? What superhero, like Charles, would believe in a little goodness in their enemies?
Love and hate, mutants and humans, friends and foes, black and white.
At the same time, Erik is a very responsible character. He has an obsession with protecting the people around him (the one in DOFP did not hesitate to go out to meet the enemy at the last moment, and the one who kept everyone behind him was him), but his pursuit of righteousness far surpassed all others. Little Love. In this way, Erik is the traditional superhero. In many movies, the gray parts are blurred, and the audience is trapped in an unrealistic plot, involuntarily accepting this black-and-white view of good and evil. Even if this question was raised at the beginning of the civil war, it directly ridicules the convention itself at the level of the plot, which is still a usual way of choking the audience's thinking.
On the other hand, Charles grew up in loneliness and loneliness (at the beginning of XFC, he told Raven that my mother would never make me hot chocolate. People around him should also be very afraid of his brain control ability.) But the loneliness of this affluent environment is far from the extreme atmosphere of Erik's. At the same time, because Charles' appearance is no different from ordinary people, and even his ability will bring him some convenience, the sense of crisis that Charles feels brought by the identity problem is largely given to him by the ability itself. What was brought is dissolved.
Fate's gift to Charles is a force of generosity. In his own words, it was hope—a tenacious hope for humanity that grew out of the deepest pain, a faith in humanity that was tempered by fire. It is because he has witnessed all the pain, all the darkness, all the hurt, and still sees that people are not dehumanized, that he can have this rational hope. Precisely because he knew he was still willing to face all his pain, rather than ignore them (to bear other's pain without breaking). It is precisely because of the brilliance of human nature that we are always struggling with pain.
Because of this, he develops a paradoxical and tearing sense of control over his loved ones. (In DOFP, Raven said to Charles "you've been trying to control me all these years", and Erik said to the momentarily weak Raven, "are you Charles's Raven or Mystique?" Actually, as far as DOFP is concerned, for Raven, she is exactly Agreed with Charles. All she was fighting against was Charles' control over her.) He wanted everyone to see that, a humanity that was obvious to him and that most people don't lose.
The difference between Charles and Erik is that Charles doesn't believe in good and evil. Good and evil are always at odds, and he is the one who sees how good and evil are possible. He has seen too much, everyone has their own reasons to choose various paths, good and evil hurt each other, a superhero in one person's eyes is a demon in another person's eyes.
What Charles believed was the common denominator of human nature.
Erik's upbringing made him believe that the differences between people cannot be erased, and Charles' ability made him believe that people are the same. Pain, anger, restlessness, joy, peace, and love that everyone feels. "The point between rage and serenity" is a kind of thorough tenderness that people can have after seeing all the pain and pleasure.
But I believe that both Charles and Erik are at heart some kind of liberal liberal. Their pursuit of civil liberty, the pursuit of identity rights, is the reason why they can stand together at a critical moment. It's just that Erik may think that it is positive freedom (liberty...to), that is, he hopes to not be dominated by any external force and truly become his own master. This is likely related to his early experience with Sebastian Shaw being forced to develop his abilities. And Charles, should be a person who is more inclined to negative freedom (liberty...from), as long as power does not interfere with freedom, then there is no need to consider the nature of power (high and low between races, etc.). He was concerned with a personal, larger-scale relief from suffering. What he has been trying to do is to free those who are trapped in pain, one by one. Politically he is not as clear-cut as Erik's.
In XMA, for Cherik, the most touching thing is that both Charles and Erik are willing to let each other change themselves - whether it is Erik really trying a "better way of life" or Charles finally forming Xmen. The view of good and evil and the world view deeply rooted in their hearts have not changed, but they have been honed by the years and become more complete. XMA fell short of my expectations in every other sense - fighting scenes, villains, etc. But the audience can see that the influence of the plot on the characters ultimately involves the level of concepts, and the behavior of the characters is rationalized, which ultimately promotes the plot.
In this sense, the original intention of the Xmen series is still unchanged.
View more about X-Men: Apocalypse reviews
