I finally saw Star Trek (2009) when it came out on dvd. In strict movie terms, as in the technicalities of filmmaking, it was not a small achievement. The blockbuster has it all: convincing special effects, a logical and well-paced storyline, entertaining dramatic and humorous elements. But, regarding its content, I could hardly stand its Americancentricism. The film glorifies extreme individualism, as embodied in the young Captain Kirk (smart-ass, rebellious, unconventional ladies’ man and leader type). The ‘multicultural’ crew also includes ethnic stereotypes: the Russian genius with a strong, yet charming, accent (an ironic point since the rest of the cast shares one, homogenous, accent), the African hottie, and the Asian martial arts expert. This is definitely picture-perfect diversity from an American perspective. While the male characters manage to be quite diverse, the other two wallpaper female signifiers include the mother (Spock’s) and the slut (Uhura’s roommate, whose green skin is, one must note, quite ‘exotic’). Worst of all is the underlying colonial project thinly disguised under the peace-keeping mandate of the United Federation of Planets. If one is sensitive to the past Vietnam war, and what is still going on in present-day Afghanistan (to name a few well-known conflicts), one knows that U.S. peace-keeping usually means the consolidation of power, combating communism, testing new weaponry, and the plundering of another people’s natural resources.
There are, however, two revealing moments for me that are of course not emphasized in the film. The first is when we learned about the origin of the red matter, a super weapon that can create a black hole that destroys any planet, or any celestial phenomenon it is planted within. This weapon of mass destruction, that later fell in the hands of the terrorist Nero, was originally created by the Federation – with good intentions, of course. Does this sound familiar? The second moment is when Kirk insincerely offered the terrorist compassion and Spock sincerely, vindictively, and yet easily convinced him otherwise. Although it was presented as a comical emotions-triumph-over-logic moment, what it showed to me is the simple philosophy that everyone, including our heroes, is capable of committing evils. If anything is learnt, it is that power should never be in the hands of a few.
One might ask: so what if Star Trek is Americancentric? It is after all a Hollywood (aka American) movie. The problem lies not only in the promotion of Americanism that has no regards for other cultures but also in a distribution system that enables a movie like Star Trek to be available to everyone all over the globe, and hence subject to its underlying propaganda.
Star Trek is a good movie but is it innocent?
I find it more urgent than ever for film critics to raise consciousness about such underlying (whether intentional or not) propaganda in seemingly apolitical blockbusters.
