Star Trek (2009)

June 4, 2009 Posted by David NcloseAuthor: David N Name:
Email: dvnilsen@gmail.com
Site: http://reasonfromscripture.blogspot.com
About: In 2003 I graduated from high school with no set direction for my life. I spent a year in Iowa before returning to California to attend Junior College. I changed majors 3 times; from Physics to Business to Film (as you can see, no direction). I was a Christian, attending church regularly, but furthering the cause of Christ in this fallen world was not a high priority. In 2005 I picked up an issue of TableTalk magazine, and I was re-introduced to the work of R. C. Sproul (whom I had read once in high school). Later that year, while taking a biology class with an ardent atheist professor, I picked up a copy of Lee Strobel's "The Case For A Creator." In the Fall of 2006 I came to Biola University and was introduced to the works of J. P. Moreland and John Mark Reynolds. My fate was sealed. Just a few years ago, I was passionless. Now I have two passions: Studying the Word of God and engaging in the task of Apologetics. 1 Peter 3:15 exhorts all Christians to be ready to give an answer for the hope that we have. My goal is to be able to give my answer articulately and powerfully, but even more importantly, in love. There are many purposes for apologetics, but by far the most important is the opening of minds and the softening of hearts for the work of the Holy Spirit. If we don't care about and pray for those with whom we engage in apologetics, we fail to fulfill this purpose. As a wise man once said, "Take a stand for the Truth, but do it in love fool!" Education Info: --Currently: M.A. in Historical Theology student, Westminster Seminary California --2008: B.A. in Philosophy, Biola University --2006: A.A. in Liberal Arts, Palomar CollegeSee Authors Posts (75)

I’m a huge Trekkie. I admit to loving all ten movies (yes, even Nemesis) and all 5 of the TV shows (including all four seasons of the short-lived and disappointing Enterprise). When it comes to anything Trek I have a hard time being objective. So it was a foregone conclusion that I would love J. J. Abram’s new Star Trek. But as painful as it is to say this, I’ve managed to muster the strength to be objective, and I have to give the movie a solid B (maybe a B+).

It was definitely entertaining. Not only was it packed with non-stop action, interspersed with scenes of touching drama and great comic relief, but the characters were perfect. The actors managed to give us just enough of the original that we were instantly familiar with them, and yet breath some of their own style into the role. And while the plot seems a bit cumbersome (not unlike the seventh film in the franchise, Generations), I can write off most of that as an effect of the need for the writers to alter the established Trek timeline in order to make their own version of the original series. All that I am left with in terms of criticism are some minor complaints (which I won’t take the time to mention here, but suffice it to say that they all revolve around the insane number of barely believable plot devices that were required to move Kirk from a fresh-faced cadet to Captain of Starfleet’s flagship in the course of about one day), and then one BIG complaint, which centers around the relationship between Kirk and Spock.

It has been suggested (and I can’t remember by whom) that the Kirk-Spock-McCoy trio is a good representation of Plato’s tripartite soul: Spock representing the logical nous, Kirk representing the brave and powerful “chest”, and McCoy the emotional, appetitive part of the soul. Spock and McCoy are the extremes, kind of like the little angels on Kirk’s shoulders, and Kirk is somewhere in the middle, using the advice and perspectives of both of his closest friends to make his decisions. But in this movie, that dynamic is removed in favor of a stark contrast between “faith” and “reason.” In the beginning, Pike praises Kirk for a spirit that leaps without looking, suggesting that such cautionless risk-taking is something that Starfleet has lost. The parallels between this and the Kierkegaardian “blind leap of faith” are made stronger when, at the end of the film, the elder Spock councils his younger self to put aside logic and “do what feels right”, referring to his own actions earlier in the film as “an act of faith.”

One of the problems this creates for the film is that it becomes very hard to feel any sympathy for the character of Spock. Kirk is always hot-headed and seemingly irrational, and yet he is always right. He jumps without looking, cuts corners, cheats on tests, and repeatedly disobeys orders, and the whole time you’re just waiting for him to get rid of Spock and take command of the Enterprise. Meanwhile Spock only gains our sympathy after he realizes he was being a cold jerk and submits to Kirk’s leadership. In short, Kirk never learns anything; He never grows. This creates a skewed picture. Instead of showing faith (or emotion) and reason to be complementary and essential to one another, they become opposed. The middle element of the soul is removed and it becomes simply a battle between cold logic and raging emotions. This certainly wasn’t the intention of the writers, since we are meant to think that it is the coming together of the unstoppable duo of Kirk and Spock that wins the day in the end. But one need only ask the question, in what way does Spock contribute to this duo? Certainly not as a counter-balancing force to Kirk. Instead, we have a repentant Spock who follows entirely Kirk’s lead. Even near the end of the final battle, when Spock is expressing doubts about his ability to pilot his future self’s ship and successfully complete their mission (a rather logical concern), Kirk merely silences him by repeating “It’ll work”, and that’s that. At every turn it seems as though logic and reason are more of a hindrance than a help. Spock has little to offer the heroic, rebellious young Kirk, except to shut up and go along with his instincts. What we are left with, I think, is an unbalanced, uber-macho Krik who always gets his way by doing what he wants and feeling his way around in the world with nothing but blind faith. And standing right beside him is a Spock to whom he can always turn and say, “I told you so.”

I am, however, still optimistic that much of this will see some resolution in the sequel. In this first movie we see the strength of passion and risk-taking. And in some ways this was all necessary to propel Kirk into the Captain’s chair. But now that he’s sitting there, the writers have a marvelous opportunity to humble him. What I would like to see in the next film is Kirk’s brash risk-taking get him into some deep trouble; trouble that he can only get out of after learning a hard lesson, and only with the help of Spock and his logic. Abrams said from the start that he was always fascinated by the interplay between Kirk and Spock, emotion and reason, faith and science (and he even attempted to mirror this relationship in LOST with the two main characters, Jack and Locke). But what could have been a fascinating look into the relationship of these two seemingly opposed aspects of the human mind/soul and how vital they are to one another, ended up being a rather simplistic, Disney-esque message of “follow your heart.” I hope the relationship will begin to see deeper and more sophisticated exploration in the next movie (without losing all the “low brow” action and humor, of course!).

Related posts:

1. First Images From The New Trek Film!
2. Movie Review: Star Wars- Revenge of the Sith (NO Spoilers)
3. George Lucas and the Inconsistency of Star Wars
4. Movie Review: Fever Pitch
5. R. C. Sproul Interviews Ben Stein
6. Movie Review: Elizabethtown

Posted in David's Posts, Movie Reviews, Philosophy, Science