[Note that followups are directed to rec.arts.movies.current-films and rec.arts.movies.startrek.current only, not to rec.arts.sf.movies. -Moderator]
STAR TREK: FIRST CONTACT
A film review by Cameron Shelley
Copyright 1996 Cameron Shelley
Star Trek: First Contact (Paramount)
---- Also available at http://watarts.uwaterloo.ca/~cpshelle/Reviews/stfc.html -----
Review by:
Cameron Shelley December 3, 1996.
Cast:
Patrick Stewart, Jonathan Frakes, Brent Spiner,
LeVar Burton, Michael Dorn, Gates McFadden,
Marina Sirtis, Alfre Woodard, James Cromwell,
Alice Krige.
Screenplay:
Rick Berman, Brannon Braga, Ronald Moore
Director:
Jonathan Frakes
Whereas the previous film, Star Trek: Generations, was very like a mediocre TV episode, Star Trek: First Contact (ST:FC) was more like a competant episode from the Next Generation TV series. Most likely we have director Jonathan Frakes to thank for that. Frakes certainly seems to be in his element here, and deserves credit for making this movie an enjoyable spectacle. Visually, this film works well, matching the feeling of entrapment and restriction with the darkness of the Borg-controlled areas of the ship, the ceiling-height shots of armed patrols passing through the corridors, and the feeling that being in orbit is like just starting to fall a very tall cliff.
Although the premise of the film is not especially promising (more on that below), it is really a film for the director and actors to lose, and they don't. Being in the director's chair relieves Frakes from having to "act," so that Cmdr. Riker can just sit in the background and smirk at events in the foreground, such as Troi getting drunk or Cochrane turning up the tunes in his spaceship. The lead actors, namely Stewart, Spiner, Woodard, Cromwell, and Krige all perform well to admirably, although Stewart is the only one allowed to show any depth of character (but not too much). The effect is enjoyable and without surprises.
Where ST:FC tends to fall down is the writing. The plot itself is mildly irritating where it is allowed to intrude on the events on screen. The difficulty starts with the tried-and-thoroughly-boring device of time travel. Remember Roddenberry's injunction, at the start of the ST:TNG TV series, that the Enterprise wouldn't be allowed to exceed warp 10 because it had become such an overused ploy to create tension and plot movement? A similar moratorium should be placed on time travel (or at least time machines) right away! Five minutes into the film, I found myself asking why it was that the Borg had to fly to Earth, and into the teeth of a Federation fleet, to travel back in time when they could have done it far away from Earth with complete impunity?
In fact, the easy recourse to time travel exposes a fundamental problem with the character of this film. Besides being a crutch for weak plots (as in ST:Gs), time travel allows ST to scratch its metaphorical itch for self-examination. Part of the reason Star Trekkers travel back in time so much is for the cheap thrill of witnessing history. Having achieved perfection (as we are repeatedly assured by the characters on screen), the only place to go for excitement in the 24th century is the 20th century (or the 21st, in a pinch). Time travel is the ultimate form of tourism, borrowing adventure and novelty from events for which the outcome is safely assured. The problem with this habit of borrowing is that it makes "genuine" novelty superficial.
Looking around the scenery, we can see the kind of thing Picard apparently means when he says that the challenge in the future is to "improve oneself." Dr. Crusher is now a blonde, the new Enterprise looks different from the previous ones, Jordi has some even funkier eyeware than before, Picard can hear the Borg singing, Data can turn his emotion chip off, and the Starfleet uniforms are a little different. Some borrowing is justified, eg, the "Alien"-like look of the Borg collective, the spacewalk on the bottom of the saucer section (compare with the spacewalk in ST:TMP), and maybe even the cameos from the Voyager TV crew, but the combined effect is too much. The narrow focus on history and cosmetic change make ST:FC seem like an ongoing "trvia challenge" sometimes.
The writers are certainly aware of this problem. Cochrane (who is known from the original ST series as the inventor of warp drive) is worshipped in the 24th century as an icon of virtue but is portrayed as a drunk, a lout, and a would-be Casanova. Some humor is made by contrasting his real personality with the myth that has evolved afterwards. But Cochrane is safely domesticated by the end of the film. Inadvertant self-parody is achieved when the mysterious "aliens" prophesied by the Enterprise crew turn out to be---the Vulcans! Was there every any doubt? The film leaves us with the cozy image of something both the characters and audience already knew would happen.
In a nutshell, ST:FC is a mixed bag. The acting and direction show that there's life in the old girl yet. The story, however, is a failure by the same consideration. Roddenberry used to say that ST was about issues: sex, war, justice, and so on. Now ST is about ST, and ST:FC is an enjoyable and largely empty experience.
cpshelle@watarts.uwaterloo.ca - Phone: (519) 888-1211 x2555
Me:
The review above was posted to the
rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup (de.rec.film.kritiken for German reviews).
The Internet Movie Database accepts no responsibility for the contents of the
review and has no editorial control. Unless stated otherwise, the copyright
belongs to the author.
Please direct comments/criticisms of the review to relevant newsgroups.
Broken URLs inthe reviews are the responsibility of the author.
The formatting of the review is likely to differ from the original due
to ASCII to HTML conversion.
Related links: index of all rec.arts.movies.reviews reviews