

# [film] "Star Trek: Insurrection"
A Postview, copyright 1999, P-M Agapow

Star Trek the Decaffeinated Generation are ask to clear a planet of 
its peace-nik native inhabitants, get self-righteous and engage in a 
few ludicrous fight scenes.  Fin.

Delayed that it is, and futile a task that it is (how many people's 
minds am I going to change on the subject of "Star Trek"?), a review 
of the latest Trek cinematic offering is in order.  But more than 
review the film, I'd like to think out loud about Trek, science 
fiction and the cinema.  And although it will be interpreted 
otherwise, this is not a Trekkie-bash.  (Or Trekker-bash.)

For those who came in late: it seems like the Federation have 
discovered a source of Plotdevicium on a distant planet, which acts as 
a fountain-of-youth.  Recovery of the Plotdevicium requires the help 
of the Son'a, a race of aliens whose names sound like cough medicines.
Naturally the Son'a insist on doing it the "Viking and coastal village 
way" (remember: ugly aliens are evil aliens), meaning the native Baku 
must be evacuated.  Data goes haywire (again) and blows the cover of 
the undercover observers on the planet surface.  (Later he is talked 
down by Picard singing Gilbert and Sullivan songs.  Don't ask.)  As 
the natives now have tumbled to the Federation's plan, there's nothing 
for it but for Picard to romance the immortal native with the highest 
"schwing!"  factor.  (And if you wanted to know, immortals look like 
30-something white Californians.  To contrast them with the ugly 
aliens, they have names like modular Swedish furniture.)  Thus 
politicized and empowered, the Enterprise crew tells the Federation 
where they can stick their Plotdevicium and goes rogue to protect the 
natives and fight the evil and ugly Son'a.

That's not exactly a promising start, but this need not matter if it 
leads to some decent action or drama.  This happens to some degree.  
(There is a few nice jokes about Worf going through Klingon puberty.)  
Unfortunately there are some terribly cringeworthy moments in between, 
many involving the Federation's most dangerous piece of technology, 
the android Data.  (Proof that getting a plausible skintone and eye 
colour for robots is too hard for even the top scientists of the 23rd 
century.)  Data gets to deadpan lines like "lock and load" and be 
taught the value of play by a child.  (Remember those agonizing scenes 
in "Terminator 2" where John Connor pals around with the T1?  This is 
much worse.)  Picard's romance is lukewarm at best, so his concern for 
his lust-mate and her fate seems forced.  Indeed there's something 
oddly virginal and coy about the relationships in the movie.  Even 
when Troi and Riker romp naked in a bubble-bath, you can't believe 
that they'll ever actually have sex.  (Or that we have left the 1980s 
far behind.)  It's relentlessly PG. A similar comment can be made 
about the violence within the film.  The scowling Son'a villain 
(played by F Murray Abraham) seems more petulant than malevolent.

Having said that, I have to give full credit to the scriptwriters for 
something that we should see more of but don't: a cast of mature 
women.  A movie where you can have three significant female characters 
(Troi, Crusher, Anja), clearly not in their 20s anymore and not 
pretending to be, who are accomplished, active and sexually attractive 
is a rare thing.  I wish this wasn't something so rare, but kudos to 
the filmmakers anyway.

Going back to the character of Riker , it seems Frakes is unable to 
direct himself as an actor.  At least this is my interpretation of the 
terrible mugging performance that he delivers when he appears as 
Riker.  Looking more and more like a teddy-bear on steroids everyday, 
it becomes hard to believe that the Enterprise crew stands between the 
natives and genocide when Riker is grinning from ear to ear.  Given 
the light tone that pervades the whole picture, someone else should 
direct the next film, preferably one of the creators on the meatier 
old Trek films.

Don't misunderstand me - "Insurrection" isn't a bad film.  Genial 
perhaps, not predictable but unsurprising, maybe lightweight.  Even 
given the more ridiculous moments as listed above, about the worst you 
could say is to wish you'd waited for video.  It is certainly not near 
the worst of the Trek series.  (Number 5 has that category stitched 
up.)  But as you watch the film, the fairyfloss texture lets your mind 
wander to other subjects.

Is "Trek" science fiction?  Is it even speculative fiction?  Barely, 
by the evidence of this film.  Characters sprout long strings of 
gobbledygook in order to get themselves in and out of situations.  
(Pick 4 words from the following list and shuffle them together: 
reverse, phase, flux, radiation, energy, particle, resonance.)  It 
isn't so much that their words are meaningless but that they are just 
a way to create and solve dramatic situations.  This would not be so 
bad - it's just a story - except that the point has long been passed 
where there was any sort of consistency.  At least two items from 
"Insurrection" (immortality and defeating force shields by "matching 
resonances") should change the shape of the Trek universe forever.  
Want to bet they don't?  In Trek, the more things change, the more 
they stay the same.

Indeed, Trek has stopped trying to explain itself at all.  What if you 
had never seen any Star Trek.  Could you make head or tail of 
"Insurrection"?  What if you had just seen Trek Classic?  Would that 
help?  To a large extent, Trek has become strange people doing 
unexplained things in implausible ways for unapparent reasons.  It 
pitches itself solely at the (admittedly huge) fan market, those who 
know.  (And for whom the series is familiar people doing the same 
things in any convenient way for the usual reasons.)  The very 
definition of a movie franchise, it has become a commodity.  Every two 
years, the market shall be given 90 minutes of film.  File next to 
bread and milk.

Is this a problem?  If the Trek faithful are kept happy, what's the 
issue?  Perhaps nothing.  But I sense an opportunity wasted here, a 
chance for big screen SF, a chance for spectacle, a chance for Patrick 
Stewart to do some fine acting.  As in a franchise there's a weakened 
drive for quality and novelty, this opportunity will probably go 
wanting.  In 20 years time, Trek will be just like the James Bond 
series, pushing out more of the same, never being very bad but never 
being very good either.

Hmm.  For such a lightweight film, I've been (unintentionally) left 
with a lot of thought.  [**/ok] and a mild cheese on the Sid and Nancy 
scale.

"Star Trek: Insurrection"
Released 1998.
Directed by Jonathan Frakes.  
Starring Patrick Stewart, Jonathan Frakes, Brent Spiner, LeVar
   Burton, Michael Dorn, Gates McFadden, Marina Sirtis, F. Murray
   Abraham, Donna  Murphy.

--
Paul-Michael Agapow ([email-masked]), Biology, Imperial College
"We were too young, we lived too fast and had too much technology ..."