Reviews

Star Trek: Motion Picture Trilogy

In terms of story, these films comprise a trilogy. However, in tone, theme, and character development, they couldn’t be more different.


The Search for Spock / The Wrath of Khan / The Voyage Home

Director: Nicholas Meyer, Leonard Nimoy
Cast: William Shatner, Leonard Nimoy, DeForest Kelly
Distributor: Paramount
Rated: PG
Year: 1982
US DVD release date: 2009-05-12

J.J. Abrams’ Star Trek arrived in theaters back in May of this year. Days later, Paramount re-released the six original films featuring the cast of the first Star Trek television series. Perhaps with the intent to drive innovation towards the 23rd century, Paramount only released the full boxed set of all six movies on Blu-ray. However, that majority of film fans who are still stuck in the DVD age were granted the opportunity to purchase half of the Star Trek collection (sequels II through IV) as one boxed set on DVD.

While the release of the full collection only on Blu-ray might be in part an attempt to push consumers towards more advanced home video technology, it is more likely an attempt to separate fans from their money. On 22 September, the complete Star Trek Motion Picture Collection will be released on DVD, suggesting that distributors might have hoped for fans to buy the Star Trek Motion Picture Trilogy thinking it was the only Trek available and then, four months later, buy the same movies again.

For those who already have copies of Star Treks II, III and IV, there is no compelling reason to seek out the Trilogy collection. For those who don’t, this might be a worthwhile collection if you don’t care about waiting for the complete set, which includes Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country (the only film missing from this trilogy that’s worth its salt).

The films here are as they always have been (more on them shortly), though its worth noting that the picture quality of this set is particularly good. The special features range from somewhat engaging to pointless and, in one case, irritating to a degree that lessens the viewer’s appreciation of the film itself.

Each film has a commentary track with two commentators providing banter of varying quality. Of the six commentators brought on for this purpose, only one actually worked on any of these three films. That commentator, Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan director Nicholas Meyer, fills the Khan commentary track with so much highbrow gasbaggery one can’t help but regret enjoying his film.

Meyer is apparently of the opinion that Western culture has been on the decline since Shakespeare, and contemporary culture does little more than whittle away at man’s fragile attention span. In his lengthy rant to this effect, he quite literally argues that Americans would all be listening to symphonies if not for the emergence of the three-minute pop song.

More damningly, he claims that “fans don’t know what they want”. That’s a hell of a thing to say on a commentary track for the most beloved Star Trek movie.

One would expect the director of the best Star Trek film to appreciate that the line between high culture and pop culture is blurry (or, really, completely artificial), but alas, it is not so. While none of the other special features top the Wrath of Khan commentary track in obnoxiousness, none of them quite compensate for it, either.

The other two commentary tracks are enjoyable enough, but since the commentators can only speak about the films as fans, they don’t have much to say. The most enjoyable special features are those that include Harve Bennett, producer and writer for all three films. Bennett is amusing because he has no problem talking himself up. He claims to have single-handedly “revived” the Star Trek film franchise, and further claims that “the age of the sequel may be blamed upon” himself.

Bennett may have influenced the proliferation of sequels through the ‘80s onward (though this phenomenon really started before the Star Trek films), but at least the sequels he made are solid pieces of cinema. Conventional Trekker wisdom has it that the even-numbered sequels to Star Trek: The Motion Picture are the ones worth watching, and I certainly won’t argue. However, despite its odd-numbered shortcomings, even Star Trek III: The Search for Spock has its kitschy virtues.

Presenting The Wrath of Khan, The Search for Spock and The Voyage Home as a trilogy is at once logical and dubious. The story of The Wrath of Khan stands on its own, but The Voyage Home relies on the viewer’s knowledge of the films preceding it and, like Back to the Future Part II, The Search for Spock is a totally dependent film—it basically exists to make The Voyage Home possible.

So in terms of story, these films most certainly comprise a trilogy. However, in tone, theme, and even character development, these three movies could not be more different.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan was conceived as an attempt to save the Star Trek film franchise from its poor critical fortunes. The first film had done well at the box office, but it was not reviewed positively and seemed to fans to be disloyal to the spirit of the television series.

The Wrath of Khan certainly makes up for its predecessor. The characters ring true and the tone is more consistent with the original series, possibly because the story picks up where an episode of the show left off.

In the film, Admiral James T. Kirk is taken to task by the villain Khan, whom he left behind on a verdant, healthy planet that, for some reason, became barren shortly after Khan and his people arrived. While struggling to keep himself and the crew of the Enterprise alive in the face of Khan’s vengeance, Kirk also struggles with his advancing age, the pain of meeting a long-lost lover again and realizing her child (his son) despises him, and finally, the death of a shipmate and friend, Spock.

The Wrath of Khan is as emotionally dense as Star Trek gets, making it the most complex and human film in this set. Star Trek III: The Search for Spock approaches the franchise from a different angle.

While Star Trek II pits Kirk against his first true loss as a space captain and human being, Star Trek III swoops in to make it all better. Though Spock dies at the end of The Wrath of Khan, The Search for Spock contrives a scenario whereby he semi-plausibly comes back to life at the same age he died, with all the knowledge and memories he accrued over his first lifetime intact. The Search for Spock further kills or otherwise rids the franchise of the new characters (and planets) that first appeared in The Wrath of Khan.

In order to make The Search for Spock something more than a reset button, director Leonard Nimoy and writer Harve Bennett add exciting little flourishes to the movie, like the destruction of the Enterprise and the first on-screen occurrence of Vulcan hand-sex. All of the elements of this sequel should add up to a terrible movie, but considered on its own terms, The Search for Spock is pretty fun.

Essentially, Star Trek III is a movie with the heart of a comic book, much like a Buck Rogers matinee, and Leonard Nimoy embraces that comic-book heart as the film’s director. The movie is colorful and bright, and it trades emotional weight for cheesy, overblown adventure. It will never be canonized as great science fiction, like The Wrath of Khan might be, but it is definitely entertaining.

Also very entertaining, though again quite different from its predecessor, is Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home. Having returned the crew of the USS Enterprise to their pre-Wrath of Khan state (sans the Enterprise itself), all that remains is for Kirk to return home and answer for some Federation laws he broke in order to bring Spock back from the dead. However, due to some vaguely explained plot device, Kirk and his shipmates first need to travel back to the late 20th century, retrieve two humpback whales and bring them into the 23rd century.

The plot of The Voyage Home allows the film to do two things: reach a wider audience than other Star Trek films by placing the heroes in the late-20th century, and provide an environmentalist message about the importance of protecting whales from commercial harvesting. As a result, Star Trek IV is the most immediately likeable of all Star Trek films.

The familiar trope of time travelers struggling to fit into the audience’s present day delivers plenty of laughs at the same time that it humanizes the Enterprise’s intrepid spacemen. Through its conservationist message based on Leonard Nimoy and William Shatner’s alliances with Greenpeace, the film flirts with being overly didactic. However, it is certainly better to present the case for conservation too strongly than it is to cast those who seek to protect the natural world as villains, as some films still do today.

The Star Trek Motion Picture Trilogy is unlike any other of the better-known American film trilogies. The first and third films in the set are probably the best-loved films in the Star Trek series, but they’re beloved for very different reasons. If it weren’t for the use of the Star Trek characters and the continuity of particular story elements, these three films would not be described in one breath. The first film in the set is a ruminative military epic in space, the second a cheesy sci-fi comic book, the third an early example of the environmentally-minded family adventure films that have become common over the past two decades.

All three of these films are worthwhile in their own rights, but the inconsistencies from one film to the next betray a carelessness on the part of Star Trek’s handlers. These three movies will never be thought of as a trilogy in the way the Star Wars films are because, even if story threads run from the first film through the third, the three films barely seem to represent the same franchise.

The six commentators on this DVD set have worked or do work for the Star Trek franchise in one capacity or another, and every one of them makes some comment about the too-intense demands that fans have for the television and film series. I don’t doubt that Trekkers are particularly outspoken devotees. But perhaps they would calm down a touch if Star Trek provided them a more consistent product.

And sadly, if the massive Star Trek product rollout of 2009 sends any message to Trekkers, it’s that what they pay for Star Trek is far more valuable than what they think about it.

7

From genre-busting electronic music to new highs in the ever-evolving R&B scene, from hip-hop and Americana to rock and pop, 2017's music scenes bestowed an embarrassment of riches upon us.


60. White Hills - Stop Mute Defeat (Thrill Jockey)

White Hills epic '80s callback Stop Mute Defeat is a determined march against encroaching imperial darkness; their eyes boring into the shadows for danger but they're aware that blinding lights can kill and distort truth. From "Overlord's" dark stomp casting nets for totalitarian warnings to "Attack Mode", which roars in with the tribal certainty that we can survive the madness if we keep our wits, the record is a true and timely win for Dave W. and Ego Sensation. Martin Bisi and the poster band's mysterious but relevant cool make a great team and deliver one of their least psych yet most mind destroying records to date. Much like the first time you heard Joy Division or early Pigface, for example, you'll experience being startled at first before becoming addicted to the band's unique microcosm of dystopia that is simultaneously corrupting and seducing your ears. - Morgan Y. Evans

Keep reading... Show less

This has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it.

It hardly needs to be said that the last 12 months haven't been everyone's favorite, but it does deserve to be noted that 2017 has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it. Other longtime dreamers either reappeared or kept up their recent hot streaks, and a number of relative newcomers established their place in what has become one of the more robust rock subgenre subcultures out there.

Keep reading... Show less
Theatre

​'The Ferryman': Ephemeral Ideas, Eternal Tragedies

The current cast of The Ferryman in London's West End. Photo by Johan Persson. (Courtesy of The Corner Shop)

Staggeringly multi-layered, dangerously fast-paced and rich in characterizations, dialogue and context, Jez Butterworth's new hit about a family during the time of Ireland's the Troubles leaves the audience breathless, sweaty and tearful, in a nightmarish, dry-heaving haze.

"Vanishing. It's a powerful word, that"

Northern Ireland, Rural Derry, 1981, nighttime. The local ringleader of the Irish Republican Army gun-toting comrades ambushes a priest and tells him that the body of one Seamus Carney has been recovered. It is said that the man had spent a full ten years rotting in a bog. The IRA gunslinger, Muldoon, orders the priest to arrange for the Carney family not to utter a word of what had happened to the wretched man.

Keep reading... Show less
9

If The Prince of Nothingwood will popularly be remembered for celebrating the creative spirit of its star Salim Shaheen, it is equally an important communication on Afghanistan, it's culture and its people.

"Now I am just more tired and poor. So no, I haven't changed. I'm just older and more tired," says French radio journalist and documentarian Sonia Kronlund, as she looks back on the experience of making The Prince of Nothingwood (2017).

Joining Salim Shaheen, the most popular and prolific actor-director-producer in Afghanistan on his 111th no budget feature, Kronlund documents the week-long shoot and the events surrounding it. She crafts an insight into a larger than life persona, yet amidst the comedy and theatricality of Shaheen and his troupe of collaborators, she uncovers the heavier tones of the everyday reality of war and patriarchal oppression. If The Prince of Nothingwood will popularly be remembered for celebrating the creative spirit of its star, it is equally an important communication on Afghanistan, it's culture and its people. Alongside the awareness of the country cultivated by mainstream media news outlets, Kronlund's film offers an insight into a country that can humanise the prejudice and xenophobic tendencies of a western perspective towards Afghanistan.

In October of this year at the UK premiere at the BFI London Film Festival, Kronlund spoke with PopMatters about being driven by questions rather than inspiration. She also reflected on the subjective nature of documentary filmmaking, the necessary artistic compromises of filming in Afghanistan, and feeling a satisfaction with imperfections.

Why filmmaking as a means of expression? Was there an inspirational or defining moment?

Not really, no. I have always done documentary. I used to write scripts and TV series but I only make documentaries myself for radio and television. For this story, I figured out after a while that it deserved a bigger ambition and a bigger screen and that's why I don't very much believe in inspiration. To be honest, I made this film because I had to do something. I didn't have a big project where I thought: I want to make this. I went there and I found a little money and at the end the ambition and the inspiration came along the way. But there was not an urgent necessity to make this film. It fits with a lot of things that I'm interested in, like popular culture -- What does art stand for and why do we go to the cinema? What is the purpose? This is a question I'm interested in, but inspiration, not so much.

Has The Prince of Nothingwood provided you with the answers to those questions?

It has, and I hope it helps people to think about this question. It tells you that there is an urgent need to make images, to make films, even during war,and even if you don't have the money. And even if the films are not very good, they will find somebody who will like them. So something is going to happen, and I think that's very touching. I don't like Shaheen's films, I hardly watched them -- I paid somebody to watch them. But I'm very moved by all these people that do like his films, and it makes you think about the value of art and the purpose of why we make cinema. I used to study aesthetics in London, so it was one of the questions I had and while the film is lighter than this, that's what was in mind.

The film uses Shaheen as a doorway, beginning as a story about one man which becomes a story about Afghanistan, its people and culture.

Yeah, but it's not so much about Afghanistan and it's not my purpose is to say things about the country. There's one guy like him in Iran who makes cowboy movies in the Iranian desert and there's also a guy like that in Tunisia. I mean you have this person with an urgent need to film whatever they have under their hand and since it's war, then it tells you something about the war. But it's not so much interested in him.

There was a lot of editing, 148 hours that you haven't seen [laughs]. Making a documentary is really telling a story and I don't have any idea of objectivity -- it is my point of view on Shaheen. Some people say to me that they would like to show his films, that they really want to see his films, and I say: "You don't see how much I have edited. I show you the very nice parts of his films." People think he's a great filmmaker and that's the story I wanted to tell -- but I could have told another story.

To my mind, objectivity is a human construct, a falsity that does not exist.

Except mathematics maybe, and sometimes physics.

The purist opinion of documentary as objective is therein built on a faulty premise. From the subjective choices of the filmmakers that bleed into the film to the subjectivity of the subjects, it's not purely objective. Hence, it calls into question the traditional dividing line of the objectivity of documentary and the subjectivity of narrative fiction.

Totally! It's the editing, and why you chose this guy, how you film it and what you show, or what you don't show. It's not only subjectivity, it's storytelling. Not many people ask me about this, they take it for granted that it's the real Shaheen. But I'm not lying, I'm not saying things that aren't true, but I am telling a story, a fictional story out of what I filmed. I took scenes that happened one day and I put them with another story that happened three months later and that's why we had seven months of editing with three editors. So it was a lot of work.

One of the striking aspects of the film are the light and comedic moments offset by a darker and heavier sensibility, which include moments when, for example, Shaheen talks about arranged marriages.

We made 70rough cuts and there was one version we tested and you couldn't believe you were in Afghanistan. People would say: "Oh this is too funny. You don't see Afghanistan, it's just a bunch of crazy guys." I then said: "Let's put in a little more darkness." You then have to strike a balance and to me, if it's not perfect, I'm happy.

Shooting the film in a dangerous and volatile part of the world, was the approach that once you had enough footage you then looked to shaping the film in the edit?

It's not when you feel you have enough, it's finding a balance between security and artistic concerns. That's it. You have a plan and you have an agenda. There are things you want to do, but it has to be balanced with security concerns. The real story I was going to tell about Shaheen I found in the editing room and in the end, I only kept five days of the shoot. The whole film takes place in Bamyan (Province), nothing in Kabul, although I had weeks and weeks of footage there that I had to take away.

There's a moment when Shaheen asks if you are scared, which sees him verbalise our silent recognition of your boldness and courage to bring this story to the screen.

It's very difficult and it's not like you are walking in the street and there's a bomb. This is not what's difficult. The difficulty is to cope with your fear and to have rules and to follow or to not follow those rules. There are many foreign people that never go out at all in Kabul -- it is forbidden. You have British diplomats who do not even drive their car from the airport to the embassy -- they will take an helicopter that costs £2,000 each way. Then you have foreign people who walk in the street without a scarf -- these girls get kidnapped.

In between these you have Shaheen, who is telling me all the time that I'm too scared, because it's a man's value to be brave and he's a brave guy, there's no question about that. He was in an attack two weeks ago. There was a bomb in a Shia Mosque and he helped to carry out the bodies. So there's no kidding about the fact that he's a brave guy and he has to be because he's been fighting to make his films. But you are in the middle of this and I'm not a brave person at all and I don't think being brave is a very important question. It is, but I'm not brave, I'm very scared and so in the middle of all of this stress it's enough just to manage to not go crazy, or to not drink too much [laughs].

Salim Shaheen and Sonia Kronlund (courtesy of Pyramide Films)

Related Articles Around the Web

People aren't cheering Supergirl on here. They're not thanking her for her heroism, or even stopping to take a selfie.

It's rare for any hero who isn't Superman to gain the kind of credibility that grants them the implicitly, unflinching trust of the public. In fact, even Superman struggles to maintain that credibility and he's Superman. If the ultimate paragon of heroes struggles with maintaining the trust of the public, then what hope does any hero have?

Keep reading... Show less
Pop Ten
Mixed Media
PM Picks

© 1999-2017 Popmatters.com. All rights reserved.
Popmatters is wholly independently owned and operated.

rating-image