Science fiction seems to have a fatal flaw: its vulnerability to becoming politicized. (1) We have probably all seen examples of politics intruding upon the domain of science fiction. Here are examples from some recent movies:
Avatar (2009)--Billy Wilder famously called Titanic"horsesh_t." Unfortunately, he died before having a chance to comment on the more execrable (and far more derivative) Avatar (which I think should be retitled Ferngully in Space). There is much to dislike about the movie, but I'm not sure that anything about it is more ridiculous than the fact that James Cameron, who presumably holds his own corporation and who made and released Avatar with and through other corporations, so vilified corporations in his movie, or that he did so in such a heavy-handed and sophomoric way. I'm not here to defend corporations. They don't need my help. But Mr. Cameron's unconcealed and self-righteous opinions about them call attention to his total lack of irony or self-awareness. And if it's not a lack of irony, it's a kind of special pleading that goes something like this: "It's okay for me to hold a corporation," he seems to be saying, "because my corporation is good. Those corporations over there, on the other hand, are downright evil." It's obvious that Mr. Cameron holds the military in contempt as well. He simply disguised his feelings in Avatar by making his military men part of a corporation, falling back on the progressive canard about a "military-plutocratic" alliance about which I wrote in my previous posting. It shouldn't come as any surprise that James Cameron is progressive in his politics, that he subscribes to the cult of global warming, or that he is an atheist. However, I would not want to characterize him in a simplistic way, the way he has characterized the military or people, like him, who form corporations.
War of the Worlds (2005)--Steven Spielberg's take on H.G. Wells' classic is not overtly political. Terrifying scenes of a sudden, unexpected, and devastating attack evoke memories of September 11, 2001, but those scenes are devoid as far as I can see of political content. However, they make it clear that the people of Earth in Mr. Spielberg's movie are Americans on 9/11 and that the Martians are the terrorists. But then, in the scenes that take place in Tim Robbins' basement--the place where an otherwise good movie goes to die--political commentary creeps in. It was put there (presumably) by the co-screenwriter, David Koepp, who seems to be speaking through Tim Robbins (the perfect mouthpiece for such commentary). Robbins' character's words are, in effect, that the occupation of Earth by the Martians won't work because occupation never works. Did you hear that, President Bush? Occupation never works. The implication is that in the real world, Americans are the Martians. If it's okay with the makers of War of the Worlds, I'll go on with the understanding that Martians and terrorists are the badguys and that we are not, at least for as long as we stand for human freedom.
Gravity (2013)--Gravity is an exciting movie. It harkens back to the hopeful and determined attitude of science fiction movies from the past. In the end it proves to be a little empty, though, as movies tend to be these days. I don't think that sense of emptiness just happened, though. Like War of the Worlds, Gravity is not overtly political. But despite all the struggles and hazards, Sandra Bullock's character never--as far as I can remember--says even the most obvious of prayers: "Please help me" or "God help me." In fact, the only reference to religion or faith that I remember seeing (other than the death and resurrection of Sandra's lord and savior, George Clooney) is a little Buddha statue floating around in freefall. Some people report seeing an icon of St. Christopher, but that slipped by me. Peter T. Chattaway, on a website called Patheos: Hosting the Conversation on Faith (Oct. 4, 2013), has commented on the issue. I'll let him speak:
Star Trek Into Darkness (2013)--I have lots of complaints about Star Trek Into Darkness. First, why, when you have an opportunity to tell any story you want about anything in the entire universe, would you make a remake of a remake? Star Trek Into Darkness is Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982), a movie based on an episode of the original show (from 1967). That story has already been told. Why tell it again?
Anyway, there is political content in Star Trek Into Darkness, but it seems to me pretty muddled. It all has to do with terrorism and George Bush and/or President Obama and the Middle East and/or Afghanistan and the United States and militarism and national defense and the martial spirit and preemptive attacks and drone-fired missiles and/or other things I can't remember. The terrorist is a white guy named Khan Singh, who is nominally a Sikh, except that Sikhs are usually not white and are not terrorists, but we can't say who the terrorists are because that would be politically incorrect or racist, unless the terrorist is Benedict Cumberbatch, who with his terroristic words used the terroristic phrase "colored actors" when referring to some of his fellows, one of whom he blew up in the movie, but then he (Cumberbatch) prostrated himself before the Tyrants of Twitter, apologizing profusely for "giving offense," but then he was probably okay anyway because of his otherwise enlightened, liberal views on things. There are Klingons in the movie, too. In the original show they represented Asiatic hordes, but now they represent something or other. I guess I'd better watch the movie again to get it all straight.
Anyway again, there's a lot of crying in Star Trek Into Darkness, but the image that really sticks with me is the scene in which the Federation forces, dressed in their best Nazi-gray uniforms and their tall Nazi hats, assemble for some reason or other. That all brings up a question: Do the moviemakers mean to imply that the Federation, and by extension the United States, is a Nazi or fascist or totalitarian organization? Or are they (the moviemakers) just clueless as to appearances? I have seen that question before--Is Star Trek fascist?--but that's a topic for another day.
. . . I cannot help but note that the way this [St. Christopher] icon functions in the film echoes a pattern that is often seen in Hollywood films: the main white American protagonists are typically secular and have no religion to speak of, while it is often some sort of exotic "other" who represents the spiritual dimension of the story. The Russian cosmonauts bring icons into space, and the Chinese taikonauts bring a smiling Buddha into space, but the Americans, as far as we can tell, bring nothing more than a Marvin [the] Martian toy.I doubt that the absence of religion and faith was a political decision on the part of the moviemakers, who are by the way almost certainly secular in their outlook. They just don't think of these things. They wouldn't pray, so why would one of their characters, especially a scientist, resort to such superstitious nonsense? So maybe the decision to keep religion or faith out of Gravity has to do with secular or liberal ignorance, indifference, or squeamishness. Or it could have been a marketing decision in which the moviemakers decided not to risk offending anyone by having a character say something as natural as, "God help me." (2)
Star Trek Into Darkness (2013)--I have lots of complaints about Star Trek Into Darkness. First, why, when you have an opportunity to tell any story you want about anything in the entire universe, would you make a remake of a remake? Star Trek Into Darkness is Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982), a movie based on an episode of the original show (from 1967). That story has already been told. Why tell it again?
Anyway, there is political content in Star Trek Into Darkness, but it seems to me pretty muddled. It all has to do with terrorism and George Bush and/or President Obama and the Middle East and/or Afghanistan and the United States and militarism and national defense and the martial spirit and preemptive attacks and drone-fired missiles and/or other things I can't remember. The terrorist is a white guy named Khan Singh, who is nominally a Sikh, except that Sikhs are usually not white and are not terrorists, but we can't say who the terrorists are because that would be politically incorrect or racist, unless the terrorist is Benedict Cumberbatch, who with his terroristic words used the terroristic phrase "colored actors" when referring to some of his fellows, one of whom he blew up in the movie, but then he (Cumberbatch) prostrated himself before the Tyrants of Twitter, apologizing profusely for "giving offense," but then he was probably okay anyway because of his otherwise enlightened, liberal views on things. There are Klingons in the movie, too. In the original show they represented Asiatic hordes, but now they represent something or other. I guess I'd better watch the movie again to get it all straight.
Anyway again, there's a lot of crying in Star Trek Into Darkness, but the image that really sticks with me is the scene in which the Federation forces, dressed in their best Nazi-gray uniforms and their tall Nazi hats, assemble for some reason or other. That all brings up a question: Do the moviemakers mean to imply that the Federation, and by extension the United States, is a Nazi or fascist or totalitarian organization? Or are they (the moviemakers) just clueless as to appearances? I have seen that question before--Is Star Trek fascist?--but that's a topic for another day.
To be continued . . .
Notes
(1) It might be more accurate to say that science fiction is already essentially political and that any non-political science fiction is that way only because the people who politicize things are busy elsewhere at the moment. More on that later.
(2) This all makes me think of Fritz Weaver's character in The Twilight Zone episode "The Obsolete Man," who becomes obsolete himself when in a moment of weakness and desperation he cries, "In the name of God, let me out!"
 |
| In the original Star Trek show, the crew of the Enterprise dressed like Nazis because they were going undercover on the Nazi planet Ekos. In Star Trek Into Darkness, they dress like Nazis for some reason I can't think of. |
 |
| Speaking of Nazi-like uniforms in science fiction, Angelina Jolie's duds looked the part in Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow (2004), a throwback to Gernsbackian super-science stories, which inspired the futurism of the 1930s and comic books of the Golden Age. Note the forward-looking or progressive title and theme coupled with overtones of fascism, nazism, or totalitarianism. That idea will come again later in this series. |
Original text copyright 2015 Terence E. Hanley