I just want to get this out of the way: Star Trek Into Darkness couldn't have been more of an allegorical storyline, mirroring some of the present day events in society than it was. And with that, it remained true to Gene Roddenberry's vision as best as it possibly could. I'm saying this because I happened to see a Next Generation cast member get taped by TMZ one night, stating that the film and Star Trek was missing Gene's aura, or something to that effect. Maybe it was just one of those bad times where one of those foolish tabloid magazines catches someone at the wrong time of the night, who really knows, but I respectfully disagree with that assessment. This write up is for those who have seen the two films I'm going to discuss, and if you haven't seen them yet I apologize in advance for skimming some plot details. The bottom line is I feel out of all the Star Trek feature films, Into Darkness and Insurrection have the strongest message about what society has mucked up in recent memory, as well as concepts about forced relocation that have been a stain on humanity for centuries.
For starters, for many who think that Into Darkness had a weak message to the behavior of society in the past 50-60 years, I offer a quote, care of a Vulture.com article, from the actor who played Admiral Marcus in the film, Peter Weller, " Curtis LeMay had eighteen nukes stored on his own that he didn’t tell the NSC or President Kennedy about — because he didn’t deem them knowledgeable enough about war. That is unbelievable arrogance! So, Admiral Marcus is basically like LeMay. I’m looking at this touchy-feely egalitarian nice guy in Kirk: Is this really the guy that’s gonna buckle up, saddle up, put on the guns and fight the Klingons, who are encroaching on our airspace, in our territorial infinity? No! There are military leaders now in the United States who feel that, for instance, Obama’s a wimp. So it’s very simple to step inside that skin. Could this all go wrong? Yeah, but on the other hand, he’s trying to protect his country, his nation, his universe, his infinity. He’s a patriot," said Weller. So right there I could probably end this article now without any of my own talking points on why I think Into Darkness hits a strong allegorical note. If the theme of war in this film wasn't enough to underline the allegorical nature, just look at the opening scenes of the film, with Kirk and co. attempting to do everything in their power to save a planet from dying. Granted, he (Kirk) got his ass chewed from Pike later on, for violating the Prime Directive, but the fact the opening scenes of the film dived right into such a debate is as on the nose about staying true to Gene Roddenberry's vision as apple pie is to Americana (or what's left of it). I just think that it may have been the brake neck pace of this movie and the intensity of the action, that made a lot of people forget to notice what was really taking place in the context of the story. But really, look harder, there's some more than solid themes at work in this movie that don't give a disservice to Gene Roddenberry's vision of Star Trek.
Additionally, I would argue that the Admiral Marcus character is essentially a Starfleet version of Dick Chaney, someone who is really FORCING the issue of war down Starfleet's throats and creating this sort of paranoia and fear that never existed before in the utopian world of Star Trek. But why must you ask does this sudden fear and insecurity exist in JJ Abram's Star Trek? Ah, did you see the previous film?!? People forget that the chain of events set in motion by Star Trek (2009), with an enemy like Nero and the futuristic Romulans coming back and obliterating Vulcan, along with almost obliterating Earth changed everything for Starfleet and how new threats are viewed. Instead of just carrying along like a peaceful, scientific organization, they became one that had to create a division that could come up with resources to respond to sudden threats like the one that almost wiped them from the map a few years prior. And if anyone thinks old school Trek didn't have some out of control characters like Admiral Marcus, think of Commodore Decker, a character who witnesses a serious threat to the federation, and in the small pocket of time he has a chance to act he's willing to take down not only what's left of his ship, but someone else's as well. Chaos changes everything.
And the ending of Into Darkness as as optimistic as you're going to get, with Captain Kirk reading a passage that dove tails everything Star Trek's emblematic of before he and the crew you know and love warp off on the 5-year mission to seek out new life, etc. Was this film pretty dark? Sure. I mean hell, you have an Admiral getting his skull crushed by a genetically engineered human (at least you heard it versus the horror of seeing it), you have Admiral Pike getting lambasted by all sorts of high-tech weaponry through the windows of Starfleet headquarters, and even Kirk dies at one point. However, like most iterations of Trek, the ending wraps everything up into a nice bow and creates a sense that no matter how dark things become, Gene Roddenberry's vision outshines everything else that gets in the way. For that, I felt this film couldn't have fit better into the world he (Gene) created back in the 60s and later on with Star Trek The Next Generation...Speaking of...
Star Trek Insurrection is a film that was like the girlfriend you maybe once had that did things pretty OK, was never really a true let down, but at the same time you just weren't sure if she had enough to keep you coming back for more. For myself, it has taken me almost 14 years to finally embrace this film, particularly the allegorical nature of the story, to fully appreciate it from beginning to end. However, the story's allegory, about the wrongs of forced relocation of 600 some odd inhabitants, was considered weak by some critics back when the film was released. Namely Roger Ebert (someone I think was fairly on point with a lot of his reviews, but not all), who said " Our own civilization routinely kills legions of people in wars large and small, for reasons of ideology, territory, religion or geography. Would we contemplate removing 600 people from their native environment to grant immortality to everyone alive? In a flash. It would be difficult, indeed, to fashion a philosophical objection to such a move, which would result in the greatest good for the greatest number of people." OK, but would it still be RIGHT to forcibly move people from their native land that they put in the legwork to settle there and live for 300 years? Whether it's right or wrong, the fact that this film stirs a debate over that concept tells me the story succeeded in being true to Star Trek's vision and prime directive of non-interference in other worlds. Is it right any time one country invades another strictly for their "resources"? In the case of this film, the planet's inhabitants, the Baku, just happen to live on a fountain of youth planet, where the planet's rings contain the magic potion needed to keep anyone living on the surface from ever needing botox, or plastic surgery of any kind! What would humanity do if another country had a resource like that, there for the taking? Would the citizens be allowed to stay put or would the invading country also move them as well? Interesting debate and one that Star Trek Insurrection should stoke your brain's furnace so that you even just slightly consider the implications in the real world.
I'll also say as a side-note, I find Insurrection to be an overall enjoyable film, something I didn't think years ago. There's a real attempt at some humor here, the cast seems to be having a very good time, the shooting locations are arguably the most gorgeous a Trek film has ever shot in, the battle sequence inside the Briar patch was engaging and well paced, and I must be the only person who feels F. Murray Abraham's Ru'afo character was a fun villain to watch go mad as the film progressed. I never read or hear many people lauding his performance here, and that's a crime in my eyes. I loved it, and I thought he was a hell of a lot more entertaining to watch than Tom Hardy's Shinzon character in the hit or miss follow-up, Nemesis. Give this film a whirl if you haven't before or haven't given it another chance in a few years. You may find yourself appreciating it a whole lot more.
In the end, both films respectively carry the torch of Star Trek more than any other Trek film that's been made in my opinion. Feel free to agree or disagree below. Nuff said!
No comments:
Post a Comment