ZD30's makers appeared
to be baffled -- or unaware -- that there was criticism of their film from the
anti-war and pro-human rights camp. They did not bother, either during the film
itself nor in their awards season defenses of the movie, to contemplate the
idea that perhaps there could have been another action taken with bin Laden
besides killing him. However, that possibility is raised, by analogy, in Star
Trek Into Darkness. As Spock points out,
there are laws for these things. There are courtrooms designed to give every
accused, even a terrorist, a fair trial. And the film illustrates what never
seems to have occured to Bigelow or Boal, to Obama or Eric Holder, in the case
of bin Laden; that a captured terrorist may have info on who his collaborators
are.
I won't get into ZD30 's view on torture here, partly because it's complicated to interpret, but also because I have already gotten into it elsewhere.
But we can clearly see a difference between Star Trek
Into Darkness and another boffo box office
hit: The Dark Knight. And it is
gratifying to see Abrams offer an antidote to Christopher Nolan. Though in this
film Kirk beats up a terrorist who is captive and defenceless, much the way
Batman wailed on the Joker , this
time there isn't the Frank Miller-ian implication that you have to become the
evil you abhor in order to fight it. Instead, the outburst is completely gratuitous,
and doesn't give Kirk any information -- nor cow his victim. In fact, Kirk just
seems weakened by his stumble into the dark side; he is the only one who comes
out of it all banged up, though his prisoner never lays a finger on him. And
what the physical abuse says about character has already been set up by Kirk's
nightclub conversation with his beloved Starfleet father figure: we've been
reminded of the Kirk who had to rise above bar brawls to become a real
captain, the hothead whose leadership ability can still be jeopardized by
immaturity.
Of course, this is not the first big fantasy blockbuster to
critique what the U.S. government has been up to since 9/11. There was, for
instance, plenty of political allegory in the Star Wars prequels of the early 2000's (fittingly, since the
original Star Wars, according to
George Lucas' own statements, was
about the Vietnam War).
In V for Vendetta, the Wachowski siblings
adapted a graphic novel about Thatcherism into a subversive analogy for George
W. Bush's fear-mongering, repressive government. And James Cameron crafted a
searing indictment of resource wars and corporate imperialism enforced by an
explicitly American military -- with his state-of-the-art extravaganza Avatar. But Star Trek Into Darkness is no Johnny-come-lately to the party, either. It is
not merely reconstituted criticism of the Bush Administration. It also points
its laser beam on the policies of the sitting Democratic president.
The assassination-instead-of-capture of bin Laden happened
on President Obama's watch; the failure to take any meaningful action against
America's use of torture is at his feet; the bombing of other cultures
continues under his command. All three of these come under scrutiny in this 12th
Star Trek film .
And even more encouragingly, in terms of what might be getting discussed behind closed doors these days in the Hollywood Hills, it appears this Star Trek team may well have an opinion on how Obama has waged a "war on whistleblowers", to cite the title of Robert Greenwald's new documentary. Obama has relentlessly pursued whistleblowing against government abuses -- as seen in the treatment of Bradley Manning, Julian Assange, John Kiriakou, and Thomas Drake -- and this is especially grievous because, rather than utilize his Department of Justice to go after those who tortured during the Bush Administration and committed other war crimes, Obama has used it instead to prosecute those who let the cat out of the bag about the atrocities. Just when you're wondering if anyone in the Democratic stronghold of liberal Hollywood has even noticed (besides John Cusack, who writes online protest articles on the subject occasionally), lo and behold, Abrams comes along with an entertaining and moving defense of whistleblowers smuggled inside the new Star Trek.
Early in the film, Spock files a report about rule-breaking
which he witnessed; a major violation, in fact, of the hallowed Prime Directive
not to interfere with other races or peoples. Kirk allows a primitive planet to
see the Enterprise rise up right in front of them, and it's a religious
experience for the natives which may ultimately alter their belief systems --
or their technology, perhaps. (Kirk dismisses the idea of any ill effects.)
Soon, Spock's report has gotten Kirk into serious trouble, and this causes a
rift between them. The tension is then milked for much of the picture; Kirk is
especially miffed since he was trying to save Spock's life at the time of the
infraction.
Much comedy is made of the fact that Spock simply can't help
his compulsion to do the right thing. (The same could be said, perhaps, of many
whistleblowers. They are driven by an internal moral compass which will not
permit them to see injustice without speaking up. And that just seems weird to
folks.) Spock gets lots of flak for his strict morality, not just from Kirk but
also from Spock's feisty girlfriend Uhura (Zoe Saldana). But of course it's his
great charm as well, and moreover, time after time, he's right -- and his
wet-blanket precautions turn out to be vital.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
4
3
2
