Friday, May 24, 2013

Further Reflection: "Star Trek Into Darkness"


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