Tag Archives: Star Trek: The Original Series

Star Trek Into Darkness Review Part 2: Whitewashing Khan Means Plotholes & Mediocre Science Fiction

“Is this a military operation? Is this what this is now? I thought we were explorers?”- Bones

“I’m not J.J. Abrams, who’s ultimately responsible. I’m just his Asian puppet. Which, by the way, is also the title of my autobiography.”

-John Cho, Interview at Straight.Com

oops white khan

Image from Perez Hilton

Please see my first post: Star Trek Into Darkness Review Part 1: What I Enjoyed

To be honest, this blog post has been months in the making. The content of which has been stewing in my brain for a long time. I grew up a self-taught Star Trek fan, watching The Next Generation and Star Trek: The Animated Series with my brothers, and fanboying every Saturday about Deep Space Nine. DS9 holds a special place in my heart for two reasons: first, it appealed to my love of science and critical thinking, addressing the economic/Ferengi issues of the day, and second, true to the Star Trek legacy of diverse casts (not just tokens, but major players in the story), DS9 had the ship lead by Commander Benjamin Sisko (played by Avery Brooks). I admit to being bitter I will never see a DS9 movie (I still have hope), but the stories were rather inaccessible and the dialogue was not on a 4th grade reading level. Sorry but not sorry. DS9 helped me to escape from my experience of marginalization as an African American male, who was smart, the guy who jocks tried to cheat off of (and they failed at that), in a school system and society where I was told over and over “No you can’t”, in more ways than one, that I could not. DS9 told me, “Yes you can. You can be great regardless of how others see the color of your skin.” If it weren’t for Jesus and DS9, I don’t know where I would be.

When I heard that J.J. Abrams was going to make a Star Trek trilogy a few years ago, I really was apathetic. I had a long long history of facebook statuses dedicated to critiquing LOST, its fandom, but I held out a glimmer of hope since I really enjoyed Abrams’ ALIAS. I saw Star Trek 2009 opening weekend in theaters, and it wasn’t half bad. But as I keep going back, there are a number of visual cues through out the film that, the three of the first four scenes in fact, are all fights, they are all pro-jock, anti-intellectual lens-flare-filled action sequences. This was not going to be the Star Trek I knew, of thoughtful dialogue; it was going to be IDIOCRACY’S version of TOS, with J.J. Abrams playing the part of President Camacho.

Fast forward to last year, rumors of the Star Trek sequel said it was going to be “darker” but with just as much high flying action. The most disturbing of the rumors was that Abrams had recruited Benedict Cumberpatch to play Khan Noonien Singh from Star Trek II: Wrath of Khan (1980s TOS movie) and season 1 episode, “Space Seed.” In the episode “Space Seed,” Khan is identified as a political tyrant from India in the 1990s, possibly Sikh. In other words, Khan is a POC powerful villain who outmatches Captain Kirk, and it takes a betrayal and the sacrifice of one of Kirk’s closest friends to defeat Khan. Our white U.S. American hero is defeated by a racial minority who believes in empire building and racial superiority. In the post-World War II context of Star Trek: The Original Series, the idea of additional World Wars was something that was held by the audience. Khan is a symbol both of what the future that we dread, and that a Man of Color could be part of an authoritarian regime (or to put it nicely, be an ACTIVE participant in determining the future as a SUBJECT) was part of what Roddenberry’s TOS+film was trying to envision.

Now, yes, I know there’s a lot of problems with Richardo Montalbon ( who is of Spanish and Mexican heritage playing a person who was geographically located on the Indian continent), but the message remains consistent: A person of color can portray a complex, sympathetic antagonist, one who puts our leader on the brink, and who REMAINS part of the cast in what is considered one of the greatest (if not the greatest) science fiction films of all time.

Space Seed+ Wrath of Khan are far superior efforts in storytelling, they were not dependent upon CGI, mass-media hype, or unnecessary violence or sexual exploitation for that matter. Speaking of sex and gender issues, in spite of having Zoe Saldana play a strong Lt. Uhura, this movie managed to FAIL the Bechdel Test. There is not a scene where there are at least two women talking to each other, let alone conversating about topics outside of the male protagonist. There were plenty of women featured, just like with racial minorities, but outside of the opening sequence where Into Darkness barely manages to pass the Race/POC Bechdel, no interaction between minorities or women. J.J. Abrams’ dumbed down, jocked up bro-culture “update” of Star Trek actually goes backwards when it comes to gender and race. Women and racial minorities are nothing but props as the future is lead by white male political players.

white khan

Seriously, why did Abrams choose to lie over and over again about him whitewashing the story of Khan? He knew what he was doing, just as Christopher Nolan whitewashed at least two (I would argue three) Batman villains/antagonists, Talia Al Ghul, and Bane, just as the heroes in live-action version of Avatar: The Last Airbender were whitewashed , and just like the movie based on the true story of the World Trade Center, where two actual black heroes were replaced by white actors. .

Hollywood producers, directors, and executives do not believe that people of color can perform these roles, and they do not believe that (majority white) audiences will connect characters who are People of Color. In other words, it boils down to profit, choosing profit over people. When one talks about whitewashing history, she is referring to denying the contributions of non-whites in a society, as well as denying that those people ever had any agency to begin with. They are the passive recipients of whites’ activity. Every time you whitewash a movie, you are sending a Public Service Announcement to racial minorities that white bodies are more valuable than the bodies of the people of color. J.J. Abrams, in short, by whitewashing Khan, is informing people of color that we CAN’T; we don’t belong in the movie industry, we can’t be valid actors in history. That’s where Abrams is highly mistaken. I know Star Trek. Unlike JJ Abrams, I love Star Trek. And according to DS9, I can!

For additional criticisms such as this, I would recommend:

Why not pick an Indian to play Khan in Star Trek? by Deepanjana Pal of First Post Bollywood

Star Trek: Into Whiteness at Racebending

A few thoughts on Star Trek: Into Darkness by Racialicious

And my personal favorite, The Whitewashing Khan Tumblr

Star Trek Into Darkness Review Part One: What I Enjoyed


English: J. J. Abrams at the 2010 Comic Con in...

English: J. J. Abrams at the 2010 Comic Con in San Diego (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

For my movie review of Star Trek Into Darkness, I want to try something different. I want to start doing two-part reviews for movies (well, probably more than likely blockbuster films), starting with the positive, what I liked, and then the more critical end for the second. If it works out, maybe I’ll continue doing it this way. Critical fandom studies and blogs get cut less slack than it already is, maybe this is an alternative way of doing things. We shall see.

J.J. Abrams‘ take on Star Trek emphasizes more style over substance; depending where you stand, you can either live with it or just grit your teeth endure it for the remainder of this trilogy. Into Darkness was filled with action sequences and stunts that had the audience sitting on the edge of its seat.  I walked into the fan a long-time (eight years I believe) critic of JJ Abrams, and probably walked out of the theater even less so. Well, okay, just a little bit less so.

Into Darkness passes the Race/POC Bechdel test, which for those unfamiliar is just a way of measuring racial diversity of a film. How so? There has to be one scene where 2 people of color discuss anything but (usually) white protagonist. That simple, really. The Help barely passes. No, I’m dead serious, it was like 90 minutes into that movie before it happened. Into Darkness within the first 2 scenes I believe had a scene with Sulu and Uthura talking about the U.S.S Enterprise. It was a pleasant surprise. Sulu and Uthura did have larger roles this time around. Sulu served as acting captain at one point; Lieutenant Uthura was more than just Spock’s trophy gal-pal.  In fact, she saves Spock’s and Kirk’s life not once, but twice, first on Chronos when the Klingons had the our trio in the corner, and then at the end, it was her love that prevented Spock from destroying the one thing that could save Kirk.

Noel Clarke

Noel Clarke (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I also admit, I Doctor Who fanboyed when Mickey Smith (Noel Clarke_ came across the screen. I just loved Mickeys/Rickey’s story arc in Doctor Who, and it was so much better to have a real black sci legend in a Star Trek movie than ahem Tyler Perry.

As far as acting performances go, I would like to give a shout out to Karl Urban as Bones, Simon Pegg as Scotty, for these two made me want to feel like I was watching a Star Trek film. Benedict Cumberpatch as John Harrison was just complex, brilliant, just awesome.

Thus ends part 1 of my review of Into Darkness. Next time, on the 300 CLUB, we will examine Rod’s issues and criticisms of Star Trek Into Darkness.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Star Trek: Where No Man Has Gone Before



The very first episode of  Star Trek: TOS to air was Where No Man Has Gone Before.
Like the unaired pilot before it, The Cage, Where No Man Has Gone Before, was driven by questions of gender and epistemology (how do human know things? Is it experience? Is it reason/logic?). Unfortunately, the approach to the sexes in this episode is very much watered down, compared to “The Cage” but sorta makes up for it with an opening scene that has a positive portrayal of Black men (though they don’t have any lines really). Hey, it’s better than most shows today, so, off to a good start diversity wise for TOS. What troubles me the most about this episode is the depiction of Dr. Elizabeth Dehner, who’s a doctor only in that she like a psychiatrist, talking to patients about their problems (reminiscent of TNG‘s Deanna Troi). Dehner is a strongish female character that gets turned into the goddess damsel in distress. When an accident transforms Captain James T. Kirk‘s friend, Lt. Commander Gary Mitchell into a telepath endowed also with telekinesis and superior strength, trouble ensues on the Enterprise as Mitchell wishes to eradicate all humans starting with his own crewmates.

Mitchell is placed into the science fiction trope of an evolved human who sees himself as divine. Mitchell argues that the world cannot exist with two races living side by side, so the weaker humans have to be eliminated. Mitchell’s dream of domination is explained while he is having lunch with Dr. Dehner, with the meal being an apple from a different planet. Roddenberry sticks to ripping off Genesis again (Adam and Eve in The Cage), and now a man and woman eating of the fruits, claiming of divine power. Mitchell and, for a while, Dehner, obsess over how self-important and glorious they are over and against homo sapiens. Kirk, who had argued with Spock earlier over a game of chess about the importance of emotion, contends that “every god needs compassion.” Mitchell the new god is defeated by force and human ingenuity because Kirk has very little choice. At the conclusion, Spock admits to learning emotion, and then Kirk responds, “there is hope for you yet.”

Within this episode, one can see a clear battle of ideas: who will the man of the future be? The MAN of Passion or the MAN OF Rationality? What about ways of being and knowing in the world that include a concept of community and the presence of the Other, specifically women? The division of logic and emotion is not the simple, the mind cannot be severed from the body, and vice versa. Or what about religious epistemologies, say, Christianity, that affirm the presence of the Spirit in the everyday lives of believers, many of whom are renowned thinkers? With these ideas in mind, I think it’s fair to say that Star Trek while being intended to be progressive on gender issues, takes a step back, returning to Where Many Men Have Gone Before.


Enhanced by Zemanta