Before I go into my rant, let me just say that I still haven’t had a chance to check out the new Star Trek series Star Trek: Discovery. I only mention this because I may be partially wrong in what I am about to say, that perhaps the progressive vision of Star Trek — informed by, but I would say, also evolved out of Gene Roddenberry’s original vision – that runs throughout all of the TV series and at least some of the films, is still alive and well at least on the television front of Star Trek. The source of my specific angst — why I felt so compelled to write this polemic (!) — stems from the recent announcement that Quentin Tarantino is going to direct the next Star Trek movie. Being a life long fan of Star Trek, it has been bad enough to see what J. J. Abrams has done with the recent rebooted Star Trek films, but now turning my beloved series over to Quentin Tarantino has turned my extreme frustration to a gloomy feeling that the Star Trek that Roddenberry original envisioned and which I have come to know and love is dead and buried.
The Progressive (Utopian) Vision of Star Trek
Roddenberry’s original vision for Star Trek and as it has evolved over the decades into a general progressive (utopian) view of humanity — and I would say a progressive horizon that includes a challenge to thought itself — stems from its many varied progressive and visionary episodes. Defining this progressive vision is challenging to say the least, since over the years and the multitude of episodes, this vision has grown to such a degree that I think the only way one could ever capture it is by actually watching every episode of every series and track the many ways Star Trek gets progressive elements in most if not all of its episodes (hmm…perhaps a future project!). But, to at least get at this vision, I will list some of the core progressive threads that run through Star Trek. It has depicted: a humanity that is diverse and multicultural; a humanity where the seeming perpetual self/Other divide (e.g., Otherness defined in terms of race/ethnicity, gender/sex, class status, sexual orientation, and so on) is negated; a humanity who uses reason, critical thinking, sound research, and science to guide its choices and directions; a humanity who seeks out “new life and new civilizations,” not to conquer them or exploit them but to study them, learn from them, include them into the family of species, though only if that is what they want, a crucial point, since the respect of other beings’ views and desire for self-determination is of paramount importance in Star Trek, which is, crucially, a negation of such historically dehumanizing ideologies as imperialism, colonialism, white supremacism, “manifest destiny,” “white man’s burden,” and so on; a humanity where individuals are given opportunities to pursue their talents whatever they may be (versus being determined by capitalistic forces and other determining ideologies); a humanity that respects the environment over exploiting it for resources or other destructive (mercenary) reasons; a humanity that truly respects a diversity of beliefs and views, where divisive (religious) doctrines are a thing of the past; a humanity that is altruistic in its innate being; and a humanity that has done away with inequality, class hierarchies, hunger, poverty, war, and violence.
Star Trek has explored many progressive issues, including the self/Other divide, such as was examined in the remarkable original Star Trek episode, “Let That Be Your Last Battlefield.”
An Inconsistent (Progressive) Vision?
Yes, all of the above are contradicted in many story lines but that typically stems from outsiders who clash with these inherent values of a future utopian humanity or various “alien” takeovers that degrade characters’ humanity in some way. In dealing with the many societal ills of today – via other species or degraded versions of humanity – we get to examine our own failings through a utopian lens of a futuristic humanity who has risen above our most primitive leanings. I know, I know, I can hear many of you detractors saying, but what about the regressive elements of Star Trek, such as the patriarchal hierarchy of command and the sexism in Star Trek and the really unbelievable lack of LBGTQ representations in Star Trek until really just introduced in the new series Star Trek: Discovery? I would be the first to admit that Star Trek has been far from perfect and indeed some episodes of older series are just plain painful to watch due to their lack of a progressive vision (and I’m not just talking about the original series!), but I would argue that, relatively speaking, Star Trek on the whole pushed forward a progressive and evolutionary vision of humanity in a way no TV series that I am aware of has done and few other mainstream science fiction texts in general have done.
Alternative Horizons of Being and Thought, an Evolved Progressive Reality
I want to add one other crucial element to my disquisition on the progressivism of Star Trek. One of the things that I have always loved about Star Trek is that many of its best episodes tackle mind blowing moral dilemmas and alternative ways of seeing and thinking and being, forcing viewers to expand their horizon of thought in complex and often uncomfortable ways, which, for me, is also the very definition of progressivism, a way of being where one is forced out one’s comfort zone so to speak, forced to confront issues and ways of being that differ from one’s own sense of being — one’s sense of “normalcy” — pushes one’s self to an alternative or evolved horizon of being and thought. Such a progressive or evolved sensibility is really necessary if we are ever to evolve ourselves out of our present self-destructive direction, instead creating alternative, healthy (evolved) directions, which at least begins to move us to the utopian horizon of Star Trek.
An Example of a Progressive Episode: “Tuvix”
The sweet and endearing Tuvix
To better understand this latter view, I’ll take a closer look at one of my all time favorite Star Trek episodes, from the highly underrated series Star Trek: Voyager, titled “Tuvix.” In this episode, two major characters, Neelix and Tuvok, get combined into one wholly different and new entity, Tuvix, a character who establishes himself as a wholly differentiated character. In the course of the episode, we get to know Tuvix and come to see just how different he is from Tuvok and Neelix (though of course also registering characteristics of both of these characters), a truly unique character and a character who we come to see as a wonderful being in his own right. Of course, eventually the Doctor comes to find a way to reverse the accident and re-split Tuvix and bring back Tuvok and Neelix. At this point, we get what is to my mind one of the most mind blowing and heart breaking moral dilemmas ever, where we, with Captain Janeway, have to decide whether to let Tuvix live or end his life so they can bring back their cherished shipmates and friends/family, Tuvok and Neelix. What makes this episode so much more powerful is that the creators of the episode don’t cop out, don’t give Janeway – and us – an easy way out, which they could have easily done. For example, they could have had Tuvix voluntarily give his life to bring back Tuvok and Neelix; or, indeed, even easier, Tuvix could have done it himself over the objections of his new crewmates, a sacrifice of himself; or even easier yet, the combining phenomenon is only temporary and the accident just reverses itself, giving Janeway and Tuvix no choice. Not as easy but still a way out would have been to make Tuvix unlikable, making it easy for us to choose between the lives at stake. But, no, living up to its reputation as creating cutting edge and complex scenarios, the creators of this episode make it exceedingly painful for Janeway and us in making this excruciating choice. Ultimately, Janeway chooses to reverse the results of the accident and, in effect, end Tuvix’s life, what could be seen as “murder.” Complicating this scenario even more are the many possibilities that could have easily altered Janeway’s choice. For example, had this not been Tuvok and Neelix, but rather two strangers Janeway did not know, would she have made the same choice? Or, had Tuvix lived among the crew for a longer period – say a year – and the crew became almost as attached to Tuvix as they had been to Tuvok and Neelix, would Janeway (and, again, us) have made the same choice? As it stands, I think Janeway made a terrible choice, again, in effect “killing” (“murdering”) Tuvix, a character I personally came to find wholly endearing, a character I myself could not have “killed,” even to bring back two cherished friends who one could say had already “died.”
The Progressive Nature of “Tuvix”
What makes this episode so progressive? To my mind, that it is a “moral dilemma” episode means that it does what all of the great moral dilemma episodes (or any other text) do, it forces us to delve into the weightiest and most complex issues of the human condition. More pointedly, the episode forces us to determine sanctity of life and “human” (species) rights issues. Who has the greater right to live, Tuvix or Tuvok and Neelix? If we think of Tuvok and Neelix as ostensibly “dead,” then doesn’t the sanctity of life become more weighted in favor of Tuvix? Indeed, if we think of Tuvok and Neelix as “dead,” isn’t “killing” Tuvix simply a “human” rights violation? (Interestingly, in these latter terms, we could see this as a self/Other scenario, where Janeway degrades her own humanity due to only being able to see Tuvix as an Other, e.g., he can only be a degraded form of Tuvok and Neelix, inferior to them.) But, then, if we see Tuvok and Neelix as still alive — via Tuvix — then shouldn’t the sanctity of life question be weighted in their favor? In this context, we could say that Tuvix can only live by “killing” Tuvok and Neelix, who are not “dead” but left in a kind of limbo where they await rescue. Whatever way you go in the evaluation of this profoundly weighty choice, the final determination is on determining who most deserves to live, the human right to life then becoming the core barometer of our choice, a deeply progressive way of being the world.
But even those weighty contemplations are, in my view, not just what makes this episode so profoundly progressive. Rather, just the process of going through this gut wrenching decision forces us to elevate our thought process to a more evolved way of thinking and being, a way of thinking that we may never have had to move ourselves if it wasn’t for this episode. In this way, the episode pushes us to explore and examine not just the complex issues that this episode poses — and explore them in terms of human rights — but it forces us to think in a way that will be best suited to engaging real world complex issues, seeing the many layers of complexities instead of taking a more conservative black and white position. Nothing can be more progressive than that.
“Dead ‘Man’ Walking”: Janeway walks (forces) Tuvix to his death
The Reboot Star Trek Films Sounding the Death Knell of Star Trek
The new reboot Star Trek films have never even attempted to go in this direction of taking our thought process to a higher plane of thought. Instead, in my view, Abrams (perhaps at the studio’s insistence?) has attempted to turn the progressive Star Trek vision into a money making blockbuster franchise, which means that they have largely eschewed the progressive vision that made Star Trek special and turned it instead into a typical escapist, action oriented science fiction drama, more along the lines of the Star Wars franchise. The truly tragic — and darkly ironic — thing about the new films, a fact that has raised the ire of true blue Star Trek fans, is that they entail one of the core failings of humanity that traditional Star Trek tried to alleviate, putting profit before all else. But, because of its progressive core vision and the cerebral exploration of the human condition that I address above, arguably (and I’ll pose an alternative view on this in a second), Star Trek was never really meant to be some mega-blockbuster franchise. Indeed, I would argue that all that these new films have done is alienate true blue Star Trek fans while largely not dragging in doggedly anti-Star Trek Star Wars fans. (To my frustration, for some reason there has been created this Star Wars versus Star Trek conflict, which, to my mind, is silly since the two franchises are as different as they can be and each satisfies a science fiction stimulation for science fiction fans.) The beauty of most of the earlier Star Trek films is that they attempted to keep the core progressivism of Star Trek intact while putting its storylines on a grandiose scale for the big screen. The obvious example is Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (1986, Leonard Nimoy), a film that didactically preached sustainability and, in the best utopian view of the show, the sentience of other life forms we normally don’t think of as having sentience, in this case whales. Adjusted for ticket price inflation, that film was the third highest grossing Star Trek film in Star Trek movie history ($257, 808, 707), profitable but not raking in the uber profits that studios demand of these ever more costly blockbuster projects. Still, the point is that Star Trek: The Voyage Home was relatively successful while not compromising its cerebral, progressive lineage. In other words, such a fusion of progressivism and crowd pleasing stimulation is very much possible sans monster profits.
I would just add this somewhat contradictory thought: I have my own pet theory that if Star Trek could embed a cutting edge cerebral, progressive element into an entertaining package, such a strategy could blow the roof off this franchise. Nothing is more mind blowing than a mind blowing cerebral shock to the system. We have seen this in science fiction in recent years with remarkable films that packaged action with deep content, films such as The Matrix, V for Vendetta, and Mad Max: Fury Road. (I will do full blown deep analyses blog posts for all of these films at some point but for now, in short: The Matrix (1999, Lana and Lilly Wachowski) is perhaps the best rendition of Plato’s “Allegory of the Cave” metaphor; V for Vendetta (2005, James McTeigue) reveals how an authoritarian model is dependent on a self/Other dynamic; and Mad Max: Fury Road (2015, George Miller) brilliantly identifies two models of being, a dehumanized patriarchal, capitalistic one and a utopian one.)
Quentin Tarantino…Really???
Image via Wikimedia Commons/Georges Biard
What Abrams has done by turning over the next Star Trek film to Quentin Tarantino is add insult to injury, pour a bucket of salt onto a shotgun wound. Now, let me just say that I mostly enjoy Tarantino’s films (The Hateful Eight notwithstanding…I really did not like that film!), blatant exploitation films that aren’t attempting to be deep or interesting, just hyperkinetically entertaining. Tarantino’s best films are creative in their use of cinematic form and can be provocative and even audacious (think about how Tarantino creates a reality where Jews and African Americans can change history and defeat their oppressors). Add in his homages and intertexual references to previous exploitation works (e.g., his Kill Bill films especially come to mind) and I will be the first to admit that Tarantino has a kind of genius in his filmmaking abilities. However, and I am open to being wrong about this, especially considering that I have never really studied his work, I can find no real deepness in his films nor no real progressive/utopian agenda in his films, creating empowered Others (women, Jews, African Americans) notwithstanding. In short, I can see nothing in his work up until now that suggests a compatibility with a cerebral and deeply progressive (utopian) Star Trek. In short, in other words, if Tarantino is going to make an exploitative, hyperactive, provocative (provocative for provocative sake) film, as a way to remake Star Trek and/or give it life at the box office and/or make if viable to mass audiences, then I think this direction is a disastrous direction for Star Trek. It turns Star Trek into something it is not, turns it into something that betrays everything it stands for, one of the few holdouts to the potential for a utopian humanity. And that makes me very sad.
reagan@yourfilmprofessor.com 
