SIDE
TREK: OF ABRAMS, KIRK, AND “DARKNESS”
by
Bennett Campbell Ferguson
Above: Deep Roy and J.J. Abrams on the set of "Star Trek Into Darkness"
As some of you readers know, I recently posted
a review of “Star Trek Into Darkness” that was forgiving but hardly
enthusiastic. Yet even with my verdict
in, there is much work to be done. While
the film doesn’t rank among 2013’s finest offerings, it is still an installment
in one of the most important franchises of all time and the latest offering
from a filmmaker whose work is becoming increasingly fascinating and prolific. In short, I propose that for all its flaws,
“Into Darkness” successfully advances the “Star Trek” saga into more
complicated thematic territory and extends the preoccupations of its director,
J.J. Abrams.
In
many ways, the film is building off some of the ideological shakiness in the
first film, 2009’s “Star Trek.” The core
conflict of that movie was between Kirk (Chris Pine) and Spock (Zachary
Quinto), starship officers in disagreement over how to apprehend Nero, their
terrorist nemesis. Throughout the story
Spock advocated avoiding a manhunt while Kirk impulsively lobbied for a
preemptive strike—something that would hardly be advisable in the real
world. And yet the film created a
situation in which Kirk’s suggestion was the only logical answer, the only way
to stop billions of citizens from being pulverized.
Ultimately,
Kirk is my favorite character in Mr. Abrams’ rendition of “Trek.” But even so I was disturbed by his
militaristic stance in the first film, particularly his declaration of, “Either
we’re going down…or they are.” A very
cool line, but one that feels leftover from the Bush era. I had to wonder—was W. the real captain of
the starship Enterprise?
Having
seen “Into Darkness,” I know the answer to this question: not anymore. While the movie presents a Kirk who is just
as violent and adversarial as ever (he describes a brawl in which he attempted
to beat three people as “a good fight”), it also forces the man to recognize
the impracticality of his own personality.
Admittedly, the realization is slow—even when he sets out to avenge his
mentor Admiral Pike, he advocates murdering the assassin, which Pike would
never approve of. But seeing his friends
aghast at his own brutality, Kirk is forced to look in the mirror like never
before.
This
theme is most clearly advanced in a heated conversation between Kirk and his
engineer, Scotty (Simon Pegg). Kirk has
stocked the Enterprise with
seventy-two torpedoes to devastate the region where Pike’s murderer, John
Harrison, is hiding out. Scotty,
however, has ethical objections to the mission.
“This is clearly a military operation,” he reminds his captain. “We’re supposed to be explorers.” At the time, Kirk doesn’t agree but in a
speech at the end, he surrenders his warrior’s mantle freely. His new mission? “To seek out new life and new civilizations,”
he tells us, reciting the words that have been famous throughout the “Star Trek”
franchise. And so the film ends with
Kirk and friends setting off on a five-year exploratory journey, one that may
remove them from the battlefield so they can reclaim their roles as both
adventurers and scientists, as astronauts in stylish primary colors.
Frankly,
I was surprised that the film ended on this note, considering Mr. Abrams’
input. For better or worse, his work is aggressively
fast-paced, something that has been reaffirmed for me while watching his first
film, “Mission: Impossible III” (2006).
The movie’s action sequences are nearly endless, blending together into
one nonstop rage of battle—if the Vatican isn’t being infiltrated, than a
bridge is being bombed. It makes sense
because Mr. Abrams has talked at length about how he has been inspired by the
rapid pacing of the original “Star Wars” trilogy, and watching his films you
can certainly see the influence.
Initially, it would seem that by ending “Star Trek Into Darkness” on a
peace-loving note, the director might be trying to refute the violent speed and
intensity of his own style, but the fact remains that Mr. Abrams next project
is in fact a new “Star Wars” movie. One
has to wonder if he felt free to bring peace to “Trek” because he knew he could
get back to fiery explosions in “Wars.”
Yet
for Mr. Abrams, it is not enough to create an explosion—whatever transpires
onscreen has to at least carry a touch of beauty. Witness the opening scene of “Into Darkness”
in which the Enterprise rises from the ocean, splattering fierce sprays
of water. In moments like these, the
action becomes powerful and expressive, a visual extension of the characters’
emotional determination. And there’s
also the fact that Mr. Abrams has essentially cleaned up “Star Trek,” making
everything from starship uniforms to futuristic apartments look cleaner,
shinier, and generally more beautiful.
Nevertheless,
aesthetic pleasure isn’t everything.
While the original “Star Trek” was a masterpiece, every other film Mr.
Abrams has directed rates somewhere between passably good and deplorably
rotten. I think that “Into Darkness”
could have escaped plunging into this category, but it never acquires the
urgency of a great sequel, like “X2” or “Spider-Man 2.” Those films ended with shocking conclusions
that completely upended your conception of their franchises, vaulting you into
startlingly emotional territory. And
while “Into Darkness” attempts to achieve something similar by altering the
characters’ status quo from warriors to scientific adventurers, there’s an odd
coziness to the final scene, in which Kirk and Spock stand on the bridge of the
Enterprise, preparing “to boldly go.”
It would be a fine scene if it didn’t feel exactly the finale of the
first film, and the repeat with far less emotional urgency and excitement regarding
the pursuit of the unknown. The truth is that as much as I love the world of "Star Trek," I don't want it to be a reiteration of the familiar because each new mission should be just like the first--exhilerating and dramatic, as if it was the beginning of the future all over again.
No comments:
Post a Comment