Subject: REVIEW: STAR TREK: FIRST CONTACT (1996)

From: [email-masked] (Cameron Shelley)
Date: 4 Dec 1996 19:27:52 GMT

[Note that followups are directed to rec.arts.movies.current-films and
rec.arts.movies.startrek.current only, not to rec.arts.sf.movies.  -Moderator]

                           STAR TREK: FIRST CONTACT
                       A film review by Cameron Shelley
                        Copyright 1996 Cameron Shelley

Star Trek: First Contact (Paramount)

----
Also available at
   http://watarts.uwaterloo.ca/~cpshelle/Reviews/stfc.html
-----

Review by:
       Cameron Shelley  December 3, 1996.
Cast:
       Patrick Stewart, Jonathan Frakes, Brent Spiner,
       LeVar Burton, Michael Dorn, Gates McFadden,
       Marina Sirtis, Alfre Woodard, James Cromwell,
       Alice Krige.
Screenplay:
       Rick Berman, Brannon Braga, Ronald Moore
Director:
       Jonathan Frakes

Whereas the previous film, Star Trek: Generations, was
very like a mediocre TV episode, Star Trek: First Contact
(ST:FC) was more like a competant episode from the
Next Generation TV series. Most likely we have director
Jonathan Frakes to thank for that. Frakes certainly seems
to be in his element here, and deserves credit for making
this movie an enjoyable spectacle. Visually, this film
works well, matching the feeling of entrapment and
restriction with the darkness of the Borg-controlled areas
of the ship, the ceiling-height shots of armed patrols
passing through the corridors, and the feeling that being
in orbit is like just starting to fall a very tall cliff.

Although the premise of the film is not especially
promising (more on that below), it is really a film for the
director and actors to lose, and they don't. Being in the
director's chair relieves Frakes from having to "act," so
that Cmdr. Riker can just sit in the background and
smirk at events in the foreground, such as Troi getting
drunk or Cochrane turning up the tunes in his
spaceship. The lead actors, namely Stewart, Spiner,
Woodard, Cromwell, and Krige all perform well to
admirably, although Stewart is the only one allowed to
show any depth of character (but not too much). The
effect is enjoyable and without surprises.

Where ST:FC tends to fall down is the writing. The plot
itself is mildly irritating where it is allowed to intrude
on the events on screen. The difficulty starts with the
tried-and-thoroughly-boring device of time travel.
Remember Roddenberry's injunction, at the start of the
ST:TNG TV series, that the Enterprise wouldn't be
allowed to exceed warp 10 because it had become such an
overused ploy to create tension and plot movement? A
similar moratorium should be placed on time travel (or
at least time machines) right away! Five minutes into
the film, I found myself asking why it was that the Borg
had to fly to Earth, and into the teeth of a Federation
fleet, to travel back in time when they could have done
it far away from Earth with complete impunity?

In fact, the easy recourse to time travel exposes a
fundamental problem with the character of this film.
Besides being a crutch for weak plots (as in ST:Gs), time
travel allows ST to scratch its metaphorical itch for
self-examination. Part of the reason Star Trekkers travel
back in time so much is for the cheap thrill of witnessing
history. Having achieved perfection (as we are repeatedly
assured by the characters on screen), the only place to go
for excitement in the 24th century is the 20th century (or
the 21st, in a pinch). Time travel is the ultimate form of
tourism, borrowing adventure and novelty from events
for which the outcome is safely assured. The problem
with this habit of borrowing is that it makes "genuine"
novelty superficial.

Looking around the scenery, we can see the kind of thing
Picard apparently means when he says that the challenge
in the future is to "improve oneself." Dr. Crusher is now
a blonde, the new Enterprise looks different from the
previous ones, Jordi has some even funkier eyeware
than before, Picard can hear the Borg singing, Data can
turn his emotion chip off, and the Starfleet uniforms are
a little different. Some borrowing is justified, eg, the
"Alien"-like look of the Borg collective, the spacewalk
on the bottom of the saucer section (compare with the
spacewalk in ST:TMP), and maybe even the cameos from
the Voyager TV crew, but the combined effect is too
much. The narrow focus on history and cosmetic change
make ST:FC seem like an ongoing "trvia challenge"
sometimes.

The writers are certainly aware of this problem.
Cochrane (who is known from the original ST series as
the inventor of warp drive) is worshipped in the 24th
century as an icon of virtue but is portrayed as a drunk, a
lout, and a would-be Casanova. Some humor is made by
contrasting his real personality with the myth that has
evolved afterwards. But Cochrane is safely domesticated
by the end of the film. Inadvertant self-parody is
achieved when the mysterious "aliens" prophesied by
the Enterprise crew turn out to be---the Vulcans! Was
there every any doubt? The film leaves us with the cozy
image of something both the characters and audience
already knew would happen.

In a nutshell, ST:FC is a mixed bag. The acting and
direction show that there's life in the old girl yet. The
story, however, is a failure by the same consideration.
Roddenberry used to say that ST was about issues: sex,
war, justice, and so on. Now ST is about ST, and ST:FC is
an enjoyable and largely empty experience.

</dev/cam
--
 Cameron Shelley - Department of Philosophy - University of Waterloo
  Email: [email-masked] - Phone: (519) 888-1211 x2555
        Me: <URL:http://watarts.uwaterloo.ca/~cpshelle>