I Don't Care If You Don't Get It
From a piece on Benedict Cumberbatch (the best name in show biz since Stirling Silliphant), who's in Star Trek Into Darkness, which opens today.
The British actor says: “It’s no spoiler I think to say that there’s a huge backbone in this film that’s a comment on recent U.S. interventionist overseas policy from the Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld era.”
I see. So they finally decided to do Paul Kinsey's script.
posted by LAGuy @ 12:13 AM
5 Comments:
Well movies comment on current political conditions all the time and as long as they are not to agitprop or obvious that's generally fine. I think the question of "rendition" or the concept or outsourcing unpleasantness or compromising certain principles for the sake of other ones (or however you want to frame it) are all great themes to take on. However I do object to the notion of a "backbone" of a film that's a "comment"- that just fails basic literacy. (Does the New Yorker still do "Block That Metaphor"?)
Science fiction is a great forum for commenting on issues of the day--unless it's wrenched into a situation (are you listening, George Lucas?) or done ham-handedly, and Cumberbatch's comment suggest this film will be a bit less subtle than "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield."
George Lucas wasn't bad actually-only the true believers seemed to mind much
He wasn't bad originally, but then he decided to respond to George Bush with lines about how we vote away our freedom and how you can't just call things evil--jarring lines that not only didn't fit the situtation well, but went against everything he'd built up in Star Wars.
I wonder if Starfleet will reject the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld tactic of imprisoning people without due process, and elect an enlightened Federation Commissioner who will replace imprisoning-without-warrant to killing-by-robot-without warrant? And then in the next scene, all his enlightened constituents will cheer for him without ever feeling hypocritical?
Naw, that's too far out for science fiction.
Post a Comment
<< Home