

Star Trek: Insurrection
A film review by Marty Mapes
Copyright 1998 Marty Mapes

**1/2 (out of 4) There is a rule of thumb that says odd-numbered Star
Trek movies are bad, and even-numbered ones are good (INSURRECTION is
Star Trek 9). I really hate that rule because at some point it becomes a
self-fulfilling prophecy. People look for flaws in odd movies and
OVERlook them in even movies. STAR TREK: INSURRECTION is, to some
extent, a victim of this perception, particularly from that most
ubiquitous critic, Roger Ebert.

This time, the film opens on an idyllic little planet with kids
frolicking in stacks of hay. Commander Data is part of an invisible crew
that's monitoring the progress of this civilization. Without warning,
Data apparently goes berserk, firing on the other anthropologists and
exposing himself and the other scientists to the unsuspecting
civilization.

Concerned (but strangely, not shocked), Captain Picard ditches a boring
diplomatic party and takes the Enterprise to the planet where Data was
working. Picard heads out in a shuttlecraft to capture the rogue
android.

Sure enough, there was a perfectly logical explanation for his behavior.
It turns out that a blow to his head (from one of the other
anthropologists, no less) disabled Data's neocortex, leaving his base
programming to kick in. Since his base programming says to protect the
innocent, the crew of the Enterprise is left wondering what the
anthropologists were doing. Why would Data's base, unreasoning altruism
dictate that he blow their cover?

Turns out the Ba'ku, the "anthropologists," were not merely studying the
Son'a, the planet-dwellers -- they were trying to figure out how to
steal their fountain of youth. The way to steal the rejuvenating
"waters" would involve destroying both the local solar system AND the
source of the fount. Ordinarily, this would be a space no-no.

But since the Son'a, it is learned, are space-age settlers, and not a
native, developing culture, the Federation considers them exempt from
the protections of the Prime Directive. (For the uninitiated, the Prime
Directive was conceived by Star Trek creator Gene Roddenberry during the
Vietnam War. It says that the Federation cannot interfere with the
affairs of developing civilizations). The crew of the Enterprise
disagrees. They think this unique culture should be protected. Thus the
film's title: insurrection.

Although this film is actually a mediocre entry into the series, this
moral question is worth talking about. Is it okay to move 600 people off
their homeland so that billions of other people might benefit?

The Federation says yes. More influentially, Roger Ebert says yes, and
he even got the cast of the
film to say yes, although he phrased the question in a way that slanted
the responses.

Ebert failed to take into account three key points. One, these billions
of lives won't be SAVED, they will merely be IMPROVED. Two, extracting
the youth-water destroys its natural source. Three, there is no
guarantee that, once extracted, the stuff can be replicated.

I'd like to propose a comparable, modern-day question. Would it be okay
to destroy a rainforest (where some Quaker settlers have been living for
hundreds of years), to build a road, to get to a small puddle of
something like aspirin? Everyone on the planet can have a little taste,
but there's no guarantee we can synthesize it in a laboratory once the
supply is gone.

Seems like a big waste of resources, a situation ripe for corruption,
and a rash destruction of something that future generations may be able
to better understand and use. Seems like the sane, sensible thing, would
be to leave this fountain of youth intact for further study by future
generations.

At least, that's what I think Roddenberry would say.  

Aside from the moral dilemma, STAR TREK: INSURRECTION is alright. It
wasn't my favorite, and in fact, Data's naïve antics were starting to
get on my nerves. It will probably fade into obscurity, as many of the
other odd-numbered movies have.

It's just too bad that the Star Trek Rule of Thumb had to gain
credibility, because it may doom 50% of all future Trek movies to
failure.

Check out more current movie reviews at http://www.moviehabit.com

-- 
Marty Mapes
[email-masked]

Movie Habit
http://www.moviehabit.com