To Boldly Go...Backwards
I can't remember wanting to love a movie as much as I wanted to love the new Star Trek.
I grew up watching the original series in re-runs, entranced by the hard-charging, womanizing captain of the Enterprise, his coolly logical (but underneath the exterior, tormented and passionate!) first officer, and its egalitarian vision of the future.
I watched every episode. I went to all the movies. I devoured every paperback that detailed the further adventures of the Enterprise's crew. When I was thirteen, I even -- oh, this is painful -- convinced my parents to take me to a Star Trek convention in downtown Hartford. (My parents were not the most socially adroit people, but even they somehow realized that this was a severely nerdy undertaking. They dropped me off at the corner).
When the ads for the new film started running, I should have been suspicious. "Not your father's Star Trek?" What was wrong with my father's Star Trek? I liked my father's Star Trek! But still, there I was, on opening day, with a bucket of popcorn, surrounded by what looked like the entire staff of several area comic-book stores.
There was much to love about the movie. Kirk was hot, and Spock was cool, and their relationship felt just right, at once edgy and familiar. Unlike the earlier outings, where a shaken camera connoted a collision, danger, and/or black holes and time warps, the special effects were, indeed, special.
I'm not so much of a nerd that I couldn't handle the way the film chucked continuity and ignored some of the original show's rules of the road (although, note to J.J. Abrams: if a Vulcan is bonded and his spouse suddenly dies, he either dies, too, or ends up in mortal agony, and should not be depicted just calmly hanging out on a transporter pad. Okay, fine, maybe I am that much of a nerd).
I was even okay with the way the plot recycled Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (in "Khan," the villain deploys a Doomsday weapon because he believes Kirk was responsible for the death of his wife. In "Trek," the villain deploys a Doomsday weapon because he believes Spock was responsible for the death of his wife....and let me just add that, in the all-important categories of "pecs," and "scenery chewing," Eric Bana is no Ricardo Montalban.)
Honestly, I didn't have a problem until about midway through the film...at which point I realized that every single lady on screen was either a mother, a ho, or an intergalactic hood ornament.
We begin with mama Kirk. As the film opens, she screams and grunts her way through labor, pops out young James T., bids her doomed husband a weepy farewell, and is never seen or heard from again. How does she feel when her reckless son runs off to join Starfleet? We don't know. The movie doesn't ask.
Next up: the luscious Andorian Kirk beds at Starfleet Academy. She's green. That's about it...except somewhere, Eddie Murphy is smiling (I'd link to his bit about the dubious hygiene of green-faced girls, but it's filthy. Filthy!)
Even though Romulan war ships were, in the original series, frequently commanded by women, there's nary a chick aboard rogue Romulan Nero's vessel. This, perhaps, explains why he and his crew are in such a bad mood.
The film throws the ladies a few bones in the form of a couple of female members of the Vulcan High Council. There's a woefully underutilized Winona Ryder as Spock's human mother, and a tossed-off reference to Leonard McCoy's ex (the bitch took everything, don'tcha know, leaving him with just his...well, never mind).
Finally, there's Uhura...and what Abrams and company do with the Enterprise's communications officer will not be warming the cockles of any feminist hearts.
We first meet her at a bar, all ponytail, miniskirt, and long legs. Kirk hits on her. She brushes him off. He persists, prompting Uhura's fellow cadets to mop the floor with him (couldn't she have kicked his ass herself? Probably. So why didn't the movie let her?)
We are told, rather than shown, that Uhura is an extraordinarily capable linguist. We are told, rather than shown, that she's intercepted an important transmission, the plot device that jump-starts the film's action...as soon as Kirk tells Captain Pike about it. But Uhura's primary function isn't professional. Her job, in this brave new universe, is to look cute in a red dress, and to humanize (and by "humanize" I mean "mack on") her coolly logical, eminently reasonable mate.
In other words, she's Michelle Obama in outer space.
I'm willing to be patient here. I understand that, to attract an audience glutted on testosterone-heavy summer flicks, you need a certain amount of the old ultraviolence to get butts in seats, and that the lofty, utopian ideals of the original have to make way for a few brute shoot 'em ups. I understand the value of simply showing audiences an (allegedly) strong black woman, even if most of what she does is stand around looking worried; the same way I know that Michelle Obama has to tread carefully as she makes the role of First Lady her own. And hey, maybe organic gardening and pairing J. Crew twin sets with kicky belts and cute pins aren't bad places to start. Baby steps.
In spite of my disappointment, I've still got high hopes for the new Trek franchise. In a few years, my daughters will be old enough to watch TV and movies the way I watched them: for entertainment, yes, but for inspiration, too, for a vision, or a series of competing and overlapping visions, of how their future could look.
Plus, if the guy who gave us Sydney Bristow and Kate Austin can't serve up any kick-ass, take-charge ladies, then who can? It's only logical.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
This is typical of most movies today. That's why I rent a lot of foreign films from Netflix. Until women start making their own movies, this testasteroni pablum is all we'll get. And just a note to Pixar: you need to hire some women writers, just sayin'.
Oh, please.
larmarch5's point is fair and valid. But I disagree, Star Trek specifically is not pablum. It's a good film...now G.I Joe? Transformers? Terminator? etc. I'm guessing pablum with them.
Why should they? They make classics the way they are now.
Also, why shouldn't a bunch of females in the industry start they're own animation company?
I recall from Enterprise that the linguist communications officer (seto?) was a brilliant linguist. And yes, we saw her at least pretending with some credibility to be able to do that job. Was "must be a Miss Universe"? the main casting criteria for Uhura?
Snark aside, it was hard for Star Trek (2009) NOT to have better portrayals of women than Trek '66ish. (Imagine a unrequited Chapel moping around sick bay in this movie! )And along the way, we've had uh-huh emancipated whatever but still deadly stereotyped females. I'd rather have Abrams' women than another helping of Janice Rand/Beverly Crusher/Deanna Troi/Jadzia Dax/Kathryn Janeway.
So no, not entirely happy, but if it makes me a traitor to the cause that I LOVED this movie as a return to the old fun! (vs. campy octegenarian reprisals), so be it.
"Enterprise" also had three years in which to show Sato's brilliance, not two hours.
Whoa, hey - what was wrong with Crusher and Dax?
Troi ... okay, in that purple fruit-roll up suit, okay. 7 of 9 and T'Pol, good gravy, a step backwards to be sure.
But Crusher and Dax? They were they bomb!
I, too, have plenty of similar issues with it. But...you do realize that the original was even worse?
I would love to see Jennifer Garner come back to TV in more episodes of The Alias series.
Loved her edgey intelligent as well as hot character. She was also more than just a comic book character. She had some real life dimension and her character developed with the passing years. .
Loved your analysis. I could almost Hear your voice through it all. Your dry, tongue-in-cheek reminds me of myself lo those many decades ago when I was on the cusp of joining the "grown-ups" in adult land. sigh... what a disappointment that has been. It seems we just go backwards. Not true. Movies can be deceiving when it comes to reality. too bad this movie was not worth seeing. thanks for the heads up
I was disappointed in the movie. I think you may have put on your finger on the biggest reason regarding women. Also you're right the plot was just recycled. BUT saddest of all, none of the actors convinced me they WERE the part they were playing. Rather it all had the feel of "look I'm playing Spock" or Kirk etc.
Hey, at least there ARE women in the movie. Where are the LGBT people?
Working their stations throughout the ship, of course. Not everybody wears their preference on their sleeve like Jack McFarland.
This is what straight people don't get -- straight people DO wear their preference on their sleeve! Every reference to a wife or girlfriend or who is hot is broadcasting their sexual preference! We were clearly shown the preference of Kirk, Uhura, and Spock by their secual advances even. And I love your "working their stations" of course - -I can only hope you're right and we get some revelations in the sequel -- like a kiss between CHEKOV and SULU -- now that would be adorable!
A very thoughtful and interesting post. What a rarity among the guest writers here.
Sheesh - talk about over-analyzing.
Yet another way in which New Trek is the new New Coke. Over-reliance on testosterone as a substitute for character development, story development, or dare I say it, acting ability. The new Kirk comes off as a Hayden Christiansen (as Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader) clone. God's gift to women, a legend in his own mind, and about as self-aware as George W. Bush. Swaggering into the simulator for the Kobyashi-Maru test munching an apple and not expecting the onlooking brass to immediately know something was up. Really. Not even Shatner was that crass.
I also seriously doubt the real Starfleet would put a 23 year old recent Academy graduate in charge of its flagship. Seriously, did no one in that organization ever study the Battle of Little Big Horn? That's what happened the last time somebody that young and cocky and full of himself was given that much rank all at once. I would love to have seen Kirk earn it. If this movie hadn't shot its entire wad all at once, we might have enjoyed the next half-dozen or so films where we see the making of a legend.
Shatner's Kirk was at least ten years older than Pine's Kirk. Shatner's Kirk was also a raving horndog who slept with every woman, human or otherwise, that crossed his sights and fathered a kid out of wedlock. It's completely in-line with previously established material.
Geek alert--
Starfleet was already in the middle of something so big that most of its fleet was gone. They sent the ships that were left to Vulcan, where they were destroyed along with their crews. Captain Pike can no longer do his job, and somebody has to. Along comes Spock Prime, who can offer them technology from 129 years in the future. But he wants Kirk to get the Enterprise. Now, is it really that hard to see why Starfleet agreed to give Kirk command?
It may not make sense in the real world, but this isn't reality. This is Trek. Relax and enjoy.
I think the swaggering silliness was part of the character, and part of the arc that he had to go through in order to mature.
The fact that Ms. Weiner uses the term "ho" to describe some of the women in this film is way more offensive to me than the portral of women in this film. Who exactly are they??? The green woman Kirk is sleeping with maybe? But if that is who you are referring to, why is she a "ho" and not Kirk?
good point......
Excellent catch on 'ho labeling. I can't watch Bond films because of the degradation of women. This film was lightweight in terms of stereotypical portrayals. I find it fascinating that the original Star Trek episodes were not far more disturbing to the writer.
Referring to the green woman/cadet as a 'ho' suggests that your mind is still somewhere in the 1950s, where any female who didn't wait for marriage was a 'round heeled slut' and any guy that conned a gal into bed was, hey, a real man. Please! So she likes pretty men and picked Kirk up. As for Uhura being just eye candy, were you getting popcorn during the scene where she coolly and logically explained why she should have been assigned to the Enterprise, not the Farragut and Spock agreed and changed the assignment? When the first Trek aired I was 16 and was so thrilled to see a woman on the bridge that if her part wasn't huge, it was still important. I had friends with navy vet dads who explained to us that anyone who had a regular bridge position was a big deal and the fact that she was communications was also special - the comm officers were often the difference between success and failure. For this aging Trekkergal, this movie was magnificent.
Who are you speaking to me or the person who wrote the blog, Jennifer Weiner? Because I agree with everything you just wrote...
But it's Star Wars Trek! It's new and not confusing...although I question the intelligence and agenda of anyone who called the previous Trek movies confusing. This one had all the cliches: big nasty initially unbeatable ship; time travel; spurious interpersonal conflict.
This one just had a cast of ovum.
"In other words, she's Michelle Obama in outer space."
Well that's an odd comment. I really don't understand why you're seeing any connection to Michelle Obama here( there is none) and why you felt the need to toss that little dig in.
Why would you want to see Uhura kick kirk's behind? Uhura was not "macking on " Spock, again another questionable term to use. I loved her relationship with Spock and found it touching and mutual and they obviously really cared about each other. I'm wondering if you have some problem seeing Black women in roles that aren't "traditional" for them. Like you think they should be "superbad" Sapphire's or something.
I understand your frustration with the lack of female characters, but something is off about your tone here.
I figured that means she's wearing $500 shoes, or the 23rd century equivalent, and for the first time in her adult life she's proud of her, well, planet.
Mmm lack of context, overdose of talking points, rear their ugly heads again.
Star Trek has never been about women (which is why I have never been a fan). Going to a Star Trek movie and expecting strong female lead characters is like expecting the same from Goodfellas or Master and Commander. I give the screenwriters (who wrote Uhura; JJ was the director, not the writer) credit for at least giving Uhura a present intelligence and dignity.
(By the way, it's Kate Austen, not Austin.)
You're aware that this is still an introductory film requiring the quick introduction of a large ensemble cast and brand new concepts in the space of two hours, right? And that Uhura is technically a supporting character and therefore is going to be downgraded for the time being?
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
