Reflections on characters and themes in Star Trek and The Wrath of Khan

 

Reflections on Star Trek,

with reference to the original series and Star Trek ll: The Wrath of Khan

 

Gene Roddenberry created “Star Trek” to give expression to studies of our most human traits and societal issues set against a backdrop of excitement and adventure in space. Over the years it and its offshoots have dealt with a myriad of aspects and issues of life such as racism, responsibility, friendship, religion and seeking God, duty and doubt over one’s purpose in life, and emotions such as love, anger, remorse, pity and envy, to mention but a few. And all of this is set in imagination-inspiring backgrounds and settings whose purpose was to offer clarification of the issues raised.

Inspiring viewers to reflect on life and treat the Star Trek characters as heroes and role-models, while also encouraging scientists to actually develop technology which appears in the series, and even inspiring some to study and learn the completely fabricated and artificial Klingon language, few TV shows can lay claim to have exercised such an influence on outlook and society as a whole, and the reason is not so much the sci-fi environment but rather the exploration of the profound humanity of its characters.

At the heart of Roddenberry’s creation is the United Federation of Planets, an administrative organisation that aims to promote principle, justice, benevolence and exploration. This idealistic body seeks to offer order, stability and fraternity to its members, though there is scope for disagreement and cultural conflict among its affiliates as they endeavour to work together for the common good.

Although set in the vast expanses of outer space, resolution of quarrels and friction frequently requires personal debate and reflection on moral or philosophical issues, leading to judgement, decision and action.

While the mission of the Enterprise may represent humanity’s desire to constantly expand and develop its knowledge and understanding, the crew may be viewed as a single unit pooling a variety of skills and acumen to undertake and complete their task. These range from engineering and motor skills to communication and health care, but all are supervised and steered by the triumvirate of McCoy, Spock and Kirk, and in these characters we have a trio who bear a remarkable resemblance to the Freudian model of the human psyche. Bear with me while I explain what I mean…

According to Freud, the ID is, very roughly, the emotional or instinctive part of the brain, and McCoy constantly evokes emotion and instinct, while Spock espouses logic, rules and order, representing the SUPEREGO which, Freud suggests, exercises control over our primitive desires. Between these two clashing components of our judgement system lies the EGO which has to take account of both views and reach a decision that leads to action. This would be the position occupied by Kirk who holds ultimate responsibility for whatever decision is taken, and action pursued. This dynamic contributes to many plots in the original series and provides the foundation for interplay and debate between these three characters in the script of The Wrath of Khan.

A recurring theme in The Wrath of Khan is ageing and death, and how we deal with them, and this is contrasted with the theme of renewal and the circle of life.

Kirk is restless and frustrated as he has been promoted out of the ranks of the active and, as he sees it, the worthy. He sees little future for himself. McCoy advises him to concede to his instincts and seek a command again, while Spock offers conformity and acceptance, and Kirk appears to go along with that view, if somewhat reluctantly and out of a sense of duty. However, when a potentially dangerous situation arises, Captain Spock willingly relinquishes command to the senior officer, Admiral Kirk, as it is judged the young and inexperienced crew will benefit from Kirk’s experience and leadership.

The refurbished Enterprise with its young crew and the very nature of Project Genesis, offering life from lifelessness, contribute to the theme of renewal and contrast not only with Kirk’s mid-life crisis, but also the fate and location of the film’s antagonist, Khan.

Having been deposited on an isolated planet by Kirk some fifteen years previously, as a result of a murderous plot to take control of the Enterprise, Khan and his cohort have suffered great loss and hardship due to the decay and destruction of a neighbouring planet which caused disastrous and irrevocable changes to their own orbit and environment.

However, Khan’s contribution is not restricted to the theme of ageing and decay. His entire outlook is at variance with the fundamental principles of compassion and brotherhood of the United Federation of Planets, and comes into conflict with its underpinning ambition of promoting humanity. The result of genetic engineering, Khan is hugely intelligent and that, interestingly, is also his principal source of weakness in terms of his antagonism.

We humans strive constantly to extend and develop our knowledge and understanding, but in so doing, and in recognising the limits of our existing knowledge and understanding, we show a certain humility and we recognise the value of fraternity as we help one another in the joint aim of development.

In contrast, Khan is self-satisfied and is smugly impressed with his existing knowledge and understanding, so his superior intelligence appears to result in his failure to recognise his own limits. Thus, he has no humility or great sense of fraternity. His crew are devoted to him and follow his commands in admiration and faith, but their loyalty and devotion are their value to him, not their thoughts or opinions.

As a result of all this, Khan is given to pride and that leads to obsession. When presented with the opportunity to escape definitively and avoid pursuit and conflict, he dismisses it in favour of pursuing and avenging himself on his old enemy Kirk, the only man to have outdone him.

The theme of Khan’s obsession is underscored by numerous references to Moby Dick, the famous tale of whaling captain Ahab hounded by the thought of revenge on a giant whale which, on a previous voyage, bit off a piece of his leg. These references include a prominently placed copy of the book in Khan’s home on Ceti Alpha V and quotations from it at various points.

These traits contrast with the underpinning precepts of Star Fleet in general, but in particular with Spock’s act of self-sacrifice to save the Enterprise and her crew. Spock may couch his act of courage in logical terms (the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one), but there also had to be a willingness to act for the benefit of others at one’s own expense, and that is an act of humanity, not mere logic.

Spock’s death comes as a considerable shock and there is genuine sorrow and grief as we, the audience, are tested in exactly the same way as the trainees when they undergo the “Kobayashi Maru” exercise at the start of the film. Out of the blue, we are forced to confront death and defeat, and I have to confess I fail that character test each time I watch the film. We may admire Kirk’s ingenuity in finding a way through the test and his determination to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat, but Kirk did fail to address the issue at the time. His emotional yet controlled reaction to Spock’s demise, combined with his measured but poignant recognition of Spock’s self-sacrifice and his motivating insistence on the importance of humanity at his funeral, contribute significantly to the overwhelming sense of loss in the audience while demonstrating Freudian EGO-style leadership as he controls his emotions and exercises control of the situation. This may be viewed as a solution to the Kobayashi Maru test while holding on to a combination of reality and hope.

I suspect that when The Wrath of Khan was being developed, it was foreseen as the final Star Trek film, making its themes of decay, death and renewal all the more pertinent. It is somewhat ironic that it actually served to regenerate the series’ popularity and commercial viability, leading to four further films with the original crew, five if you include the handover film, Generations.

My thanks for taking the time to read this article. I hope you found it of some value.

 

Stuart Fernie (stuartfernie@yahoo.co.uk)

 

HOME

 

BLOG

 

 

 

 

 

Characters and themes in Seven Days in May (1964)

 

Reflections on “Seven Days in May” (1964)

Directed by John Frankenheimer

Screenplay by Rod Serling

(From the novel by Fletcher Knebel and Charles W Bailey)

Starring Burt Lancaster, Kirk Douglas, Fredric March and Ava Gardner

“Seven Days in May” was made at the peak of the Cold War and toward the end of the era of McCarthyism, and the principal catalyst for its action is the divisive issue of peace between the major powers of America and Russia, and how best to maintain it.

President Jordan Lyman has, with the approval of the governing authorities, signed a treaty with Russia which requires both great powers to do away with their nuclear arsenals. However, this has met with considerable political and public disapproval and anxiety, and the case for maintenance of the existing nuclear deterrent is championed by General James Mattoon Scott, one of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who claims the opposition cannot be trusted and America must be able and ready to defend itself against aggression.

Scott seeks to maintain his nation’s strength and control through perpetuation of power and threat, while Lyman seeks to establish safety and security for all by eliminating the nuclear threat to all. One promotes national defence and posturing while the other advocates international co-operation and détente.

The crux of the film is, from General Scott’s standpoint, how best to challenge the legal and political situation in order to effect change. Using constitutionally endorsed, and therefore legal means, will take time and so, convinced he has the support of the people and he is acting in the best interests of his country, General Scott conspires with other like-minded Chiefs of Staff to seize power militarily.

The dichotomy between politics and the military is somewhat blurred as devotion to duty and service to country are confused with the knowledge, wisdom and authority to direct duty and country. It appears that these military leaders have grown overly accustomed to authority, military discipline and the following of orders and they possess, perhaps, a necessarily blinkered and restricted view of political strategy and reality.

General Scott dazzles audiences with his charismatic delivery of single-minded rhetoric untroubled by the complexities of political understanding, compassion, tolerance and doubt. This is a man whose certainty and belief in himself signify strength for many and engender admiration, but these may also be viewed as his greatest weaknesses as they blind him to other paths and the potential consequences of his actions.

Support is expressed for Scott’s views at political rallies, but his supporters would undoubtedly expect the principles and values he espouses to be validated by democratic means. However, Scott and his co-conspirators display egotistical delusions of grandeur when, used to authority and direct action, they perceive in this public support a mandate for the autocratic taking of political power.  

The calmly intelligent, persuasive and manipulative Scott involves other senior figures in his plan to overthrow the elected government of the US, but he and his plan are dependent upon the blind devotion to military command of his subordinates.

At one point, when a US Senator is held in a secret military camp, this devotion is put to the test and is found lacking. A senior officer, when disabused of his carefully devised ignorance concerning the whole truth and purpose of his mission, opts to put allegiance to the values of the Constitution above loyalty to his military commander and helps the Senator to escape from the secret compound, and I imagine many more under Scott’s command would also put patriotic loyalty above personal or military allegiance.

General Scott is eventually accused by President Lyman of being a megalomaniac with a Napoleon complex. It would certainly require a huge ego and sense of self-importance to allow him to overrule the very duty and loyalty to nation he claims to hold sacrosanct, though apparently these apply only if the government is travelling in a direction of which he approves, thus underlining his egomaniacal nature.

This nature, augmented by the authority of his elevated position, triggers a willingness to put himself above the constitutional process of election and endowing of responsibility. The principles and values he espouses may be genuinely held, but his untoward methods and attempts to impose his views are debatable to say the least, and reveal facets of his character which may be considered less than admirable.

In contrast, President Lyman is a man of principle who will not stoop to personal attacks, even when the chips are down. He may be viewed as an elder statesman focused on the bigger international picture. He is not self-centred or self-promoting and he is willing to work with former enemies and make concessions, if these are reciprocated, in order to build a lasting and secure relationship based on understanding and tolerance, not national or individual strength and threat.

His great weakness, certainly in the eyes of General Scott and his supporters, is his dependence on trust. Lyman must trust that his counterpart shares his vision and is able to deliver on his proposals on his side, while Scott rejects that position entirely. Lyman offers a way forward based on aspiration to reciprocal trust and confidence while Scott offers a historically successful defensive position based on fear and distrust.

Politically speaking, each position is valid, but in terms of the Constitution, only one man has the authority to act and that concept is really at the core of the film. All actions should be measured against the idealistic and objective values set out in the Constitution, values that are held as sacrosanct, and which may even be regarded as the true heroes of the film.

This contention is supported by the attitude and actions of Colonel Jiggs Casey, General Scott’s right-hand man.

Dramatically speaking, Col. Casey is probably the most interesting character as he faces personal challenge and conflict while other main characters represent fixed and opposing views. At one point, Casey reveals he shares the political views of General Scott but, unlike Scott, he accepts the status quo and is willing to play his part to support government policy, offering a contrasting yet similar perspective on Scott’s viewpoint.

Casey discovers evidence of a military plot to overthrow the government, and his perceptions, suspicions and actions allow the authorities to avoid an embarrassing and potentially calamitous event. However, he is forced to choose between disloyalty to his much-admired commanding officer and loyalty to his commander-in-chief and the Constitution, and he reluctantly adopts underhand and distasteful tactics to uncover the whole truth, causing pain to himself and to others. He is praised frequently for his actions in defence of his nation but he is profoundly distressed by the personal ethical price he has had to pay, in terms of what he sees as betrayal and manipulation, to achieve his mission.

Toward the end of the film, Scott, who demands and expects loyalty and respect from his staff, accuses Casey of being a Judas but Casey points out that it is he, Scott, who has failed to maintain loyalty and respect to the principles and values of his nation.

Burt Lancaster gives a powerful portrayal of threatening strength and power while Fredric March and Kirk Douglas are thoughtful and pained as their characters dig deep to combat this enemy within.

The intelligent and literate script, combined with taut direction, allow for ample character development and expansion of the points of view and arguments advanced by the characters, as well as the personal impact the core conflict has on each, and all within a framework of ever-increasing tension, drama and suspense.

Apparently, at the time of the film’s release in 1964, John Frankenheimer stated he saw his film as a nail in the coffin of McCarthyism, but I suspect certain characters, traits and actions may resonate with contemporary viewers.

 

My thanks for taking the time to read this article. I hope you found it of some value.

Stuart Fernie (stuartfernie@yahoo.co.uk)

 

HOME                        BLOG