J. J. Abrams' latest Star Trek
flick has elicited a mixed bag of responses from critics, with many
enthusiastically taking to his pacy, action-packed additions to the
franchise, while others have accused him of “dumbing it down”.
The divide seems to fall largely between loyal Trekkies and the rest
of us approaching these films with fresher eyes. Personally, I feel
that Abrams' version does something fantastic in dispensing
with the Star Trek series'
dull, drawn-out debates and long, static, conversational scenes,
without getting rid of its characteristic intellectualism and moral
complexity. Instead, he follows that classic film adage - “show,
don't tell”, to present the same moral dilemmas and thought
processes through exciting action sequences. To compare specific
examples, the opening sequence of Into Darkness
sees Kirk and Spock arguing over Starfleet rules and regulations –
while Spock stands in the middle of an erupting volcano. On the other
hand, the opening of The Wrath of Khan sees
an ageing Kirk wandering around a surprisingly quiet Starfleet HQ
having moody, sulky conversations about how he's getting too old for
adventuring.
Far from “dumbed
down”, I felt that the political aspects of this film were strong,
clear and engaging. The moral dilemmas it threw up were complicated,
often remaining unresolved as it played off personal and family
responsibilities against duty to society as a whole. The story's
inciting incident is a man agreeing to do something terrible in order
to save his dying daughter's life. It's extremely difficult to
condemn a desperate father, particularly one that informs on himself
in advance of the crime he feels compelled to commit. This theme
continues as Kirk and Spock are repeatedly thrown into situations
that force them to balance the needs of the many against the needs of
the few. As both of these characters have lost all blood relatives,
their crew is now the only “family” they have left. Sacrifices
must be made, and between them they must decide whether or not their
duty as Starfleet officers to humanity as a whole outweighs their
duty as leaders to their crew.
Connections
are repeatedly drawn between the events of the film and real-world
terrorist activity. There are several striking visual sequences,
including a bomb attack on London, and the deliberate crashing of a
spaceship into a major American city, with terrified citizens running
about as skyscrapers collapse around them. These present-day
parallels fit in well with the film's musings on the nature of time
and change. The past/future contrast first emerges in the
aforementioned volcano sequence, where the Enterprise, with all its
advanced technology, is juxtaposed against a much more primitive
civilization. Later on, we see an extremely old character attempting
to grapple with modern scientific and cultural developments, and at
one point, Spock calls on his alternate future self to ask for help.
This interplay even extends to the costume design: Uhura's very 2010s
civvies on Kronos contrast sharply with the classic 60s style of the
Starfleet uniforms, reminding us of how the story takes the form of a
kind of alternate history to the pre-existing Star Trek
films and series.
The
other main criticisms that have been levelled at the film concern
representation. The first of these is race-related, and
unfortunately it's difficult to talk about this very much without
giving away a major plot point, but essentially the issue is that a
white actor has been cast as a non-white character. Given Star
Trek's reputation for political
correctness (which at times has verged on the ridiculous), this is
genuinely problematic, though to be fair to the filmmakers, I doubt
that their casting decision was racially motivated: I suspect it was
more a question of deciding which star they wanted to include. It's
not at all difficult to see why the actor in question was chosen –
his performance is undeniably spellbinding. Still, thoughtlessness
should never be a valid excuse.
The
second concern is a gender-related, and perhaps even less excusable
one. Whilst I can appreciate the 60s throwback element of the film,
and recognise that the representation of women in Into
Darkness is considerably better
than it is in older films like The
Wrath of Khan (even
before they do anything stupid, you only need to look at the way the
women are dressed to get an idea), it is incredibly frustrating that
Abrams and his writers were unable to resist an unnecessary
stripping-off scene for one of its female characters, Dr Carol
Marcus. Those who know a little about the franchise and the
characters already will of course recognise that this particular
scene is actually designed to set up something big between Kirk and
Marcus (Kirk being with her when she starts taking her clothes off),
but it's still an incredibly lazy, sloppy way of going about this:
their relationship would have been much more satisfactorily set up
through better development of Marcus' character, and the
establishment of proper, believable chemistry between the two of
them, rather than just seeing Alice Eve in her knickers.
All
that said, one of the best characters in the film overall is
Lieutenant Uhura, for whom neither race nor sex seem to be a problem.
Although arguably the new addition of Spock and Uhura's romantic
involvement in 2009's Star Trek
film has seen her relegated to a slightly more sterotypical “love
interest” role, Zoe Saldana plays the part with great integrity.
Not only is she more than a match for her male colleagues in terms of
intellect and courage, but along with Spock, she is the emotional
centre of the film, taking the audience with her in her shifts from
fear to relief, and from frustration to joy.
Great
performances are given by most of the major cast members. There
aren't all that many films that can boast multiple actors capable of
convincingly playing thoughtful, introverted, intellectual
characters, but Into Darkness is
definitely one of them. Both Benedict Cumberbatch and Zachary Quinto
(quite possibly the two best names in Hollywood), are not only
brilliant at conveying their characters' complex interior lives, but
also manage wholly to persuade us of their alienness, and this
without alienating viewers. Zach Quinto presents a Spock divided
equally between Vulcan logic and human emotion, whose feelings are
all the more powerful because of his attempts to conceal and
out-think them. Cumberbatch similarly wavers between putting up a
cold and unfeeling exterior, and offering insights into the deeply
troubled and damaged man beneath. Unfortunately, these actors'
subtlety rather shows up the lesser abilities of poor Chris Pine, of
whom many more demands are made in this film than in the last. Though
pretty good at all the Shatner-esque comedy, Pine is undeniably let
down by his rather hollow, melodramatic responses to deaths and
crises.
Overall,
this movie gives you everything you could want from a summer
blockbuster, as well as a great deal more. It's great to see
successful film franchises like Star Trek and
Iron Man refusing to
talk down to their audiences, challenging them even as they
entertain. Still, it has a few flaws that could easily have been
ironed out with a little more care and attention. There are a couple more issues left to get over - a couple more frontiers yet to cross over.
No comments:
Post a Comment