Star Trek Into Darkness: Too many dicks on the Enterprise. :
shickalenia:
Over the years, various Star Trek movies have attempted to redress the gender imbalance in the original crew of the Enterprise. With one woman and six men in the core cast, it’s already kind of a sausage-fest. This movie adds Carol Marcus, played by Alice Eve, but although her role is that of a scientist and a Starfleet officer, she isn’t exactly treated with respect. Not only does she have a completely gratuitous semi-nude scene halfway through the movie, but McCoy hits on her while she’s trying to defuse a bomb. Oh, and her most important role in the movie is governed by her relationship with a male character—her father.
Other than Carol Marcus and Uhura, there pretty much aren’t any women at all in Into Darkness. Seriously. At the beginning of the movie we see Noel Clarke’s comatose daughter and grieving wife, and later on Kirk has a threesome with two hot alien chicks—part of Abrams’ image of Kirk as “a player,” which somehow sounds a lot douchier than Kirk’s admittedly flirtatious characterization in the original series. Onboard the Enterprise we do see a new female helmsman (helmswoman?), but unlike the male background officers, she doesn’t get any lines.
I actually understand a lack of interest in adding women to the core crew of the Enterprise. Those roles are already filled: by Kirk, Spock, Bones, and the rest. But when it comes to side characters and antagonists, almost every single one is male, for no discernable reason. At one point, we see one of the main villains in the captain’s chair of a ship that seems to be crewed entirely by men. Earlier, Kirk, Spock and Uhura are confronted by a platoon of Klingons—all apparently male as well. Are we expected to believe that a mysterious plague has wiped out 75% of the women in the galaxy? Throw me a bone, here. [READ MORE]
I will add that the helmswoman who replaces Chekov does have a line. Annoyingly, though, the reason I remember this is that I specifically remember being thrilled and surprised to hear her talk. You know, without having to strip down to her underwear to do so.
It’s all about context. In the context of big Hollywood movies being made these days, STID is unremarkable in its treatment of race and gender. In the context of Trek movies, though, it makes me sad.
I don’t think Abrams was consciously trying to be racist by casting Cumberbatch in a role that Trek fans (at least) would know was canonically a POC. I assume that decision was made like this: They needed a very charismatic name actor, someone who’s hot right now and could pull off a super-intelligent supervillain. I’m sure Cumberbatch was on a short list of people they most wanted, and that they were ecstatic that he was available. That they tried hard to conceal the actual identity of the character he was playing can be explained, I think, as garden-variety desire to deliver a bigger surprise at that moment in the movie, rather than a guilty attempt to avoid charges of whitewashing. It could also have been both, I guess.
Especially if you’re a white guy (like me), you could make a case that by disregarding race in casting Cumberbatch, Abrams was being commendably race-blind. That is, that all he cared about was that he have the actor with the biggest possible combination of name-recognition and personal charisma, without regard to race. I don’t doubt that that interpretation was offered as an excuse when the casting was being considered. I bet when push came to shove it was a pretty easy decision: dollar signs and the chance to make a more-compelling movie for the large mass of people on one side. A commitment to advancing social justice as part of the franchise’s traditions on the other. With Abrams, someone who unapologetically acknowledges not getting Star Trek while he was growing up, thinking it was too philosophical, in the central decision-making role, I’m not surprised how it went.
It’s the same thing with having Alice Eve pose in her underwear. I’m sure there was someone, even if it wasn’t Abrams, saying they needed more sexy images of women’s bodies for the young dudes they hoped to draw to the theater. I’m sure there were people making the same argument back in 1966; otherwise we wouldn’t have had the green belly dancer or Mud’s women or any number of other sexist elements of TOS. But what I’m pretty sure we also had back then was someone in a key position pushing back against the worst of it. Saying okay, you can have the green belly dancer, but in return you’re going to give me this script three episodes down the road that turns on examining the evils of sexism in a way that’s really progressive for the mid-1960s.
The people who believe the Trek franchise has an obligation to be progressive in its treatment of race and gender, that those attitudes are baked into the future Trek imagines, may have been in the room while STID was being developed. But they didn’t have the final say, and the people who did have the final say didn’t care. It just wasn’t a battle they were interested in fighting.
It’s a good movie, as far as it goes. It’s entertaining and emotionally engaging. There are really interesting things happening with Spock, in particular. In all those ways it’s arguably better than the majority of past Trek franchise output.
But it’s not Trek. It’s something more conventional. I like a lot of what’s there, but I miss what’s not, and the more I think about it, and read these critiques by others who are similarly disappointed, the more I miss it.
Reposted from http://lies.tumblr.com/post/50914844119.