Skip to main content

Help me, Jim. Take me home.

Star Trek III: The Search for Spock
(1984)

(SPOILERS) It’s a somewhat over-optimistic suggestion by defenders of the third big screen Star Trek that it doesn’t deserve to be lumped in with the curse of the odd-numbered Trek movies. What they’re getting at is that The Search for Spock isn’t actually bad. Which it isn’t, but it is blighted by being so non-descript in its ambition that it rather gets lost between the surrounding sequels that actually do vie for attention, in whatever manner. The truth is, there’s a more than solid – even maybe really good – picture lurking within The Search for Spock, but it’s flattened into the very obvious studio floor that is Genesis by the utterly unimaginative TV direction of first time movie helmer Leonard Nimoy.


Although, accusing Spock of TV direction is a bit of a slur on some perfectly good TV directors; indeed, the original series, if rarely ground-breaking stylistically, is still often striking in the way TV of that era, taking full advantage of the glories of the advent of full colour and an increasingly psychotropic sensibility, can be. Spock doesn’t even have that. It limps along visually, somewhat apologetically, which helps ensure it comes across as a woefully Khan-lite continuation. A Khan-lite villain, the return of the thematic elements of loss and friendship, but Khan-lite-r, and a Khan-lite score from James Horner. The picture is rarely an outright dud (although some of the costumes are really so) but it’s rarely outright good either. You can feel the absence of Nimoy the actor, because Nimoy the director doesn’t make the Spock-shaped hole in the plot mean something, and writer Harve Bennett fails to plug the gap with strong character work for the remainders. In the latter respect especially, it’s an extraordinary wasted opportunity, but then Generations didn’t make the most of its pared-down crew either.


I’m not particularly out to knock Nimoy, who had four TV credits as a director prior to this, including calling the shots on the Shat on a T.J. Hooker the year before, but a firm vision was never his strong suit, which is most definitely what a Trek movie needs. Unless… well, easily his best work as a director is his subsequent Trek movie, The Voyage Home, because it requires an entirely different sensibility. The lightness of touch, the unobtrusive lens, the capacity for comedy, are what make Voyage Home work (some would include 3 Men and a Baby as effectively serviced by those skillsets, although I wouldn’t want to push it; at very least, Nimoy’s approach didn’t hurt that picture’s success).


Here, though, armed with a Bennett screenplay that hits all the right beats but needs a Nicholas Meyer to mould it into something more, he flounders. Say what you will about The Final Frontier, and there’s a lot to be said about it that isn’t very positive, it shows that the Shat has an eye. Two of them even. Nimoy’s on the myopic side. Not only is he unable to rouse us into excitement at any point, he does little with the simple character drama. After Khan, you can feel all those moments where Meyer would have taken the essence of a scene and let it breathe or resonate. Nimoy points the camera flatly and nods. Genesis goes from that wonderfully evocative final shot (and I know Meyer wasn’t responsible for it, but it’s a further reminder, with the number of scenes here repeated from Khan, of how much better Star Trek II is) to a painfully-evident studio set.


Pauline Kael, who was in raptures over Khan, nailed it again when she said this was one for Trekkies, while others would find it “tolerable but yawny”. I wouldn’t claim energy is everything, or I wouldn’t like The Motion Picture, but it can certainly help. She’s wrong when she asserts Spock’s predecessor is “self-mocking”, but right that what was witty and vibrant there too often becomes po-faced and inert here. And that’s all about the moderation of the director.


Kirk: It seems I left the best part of myself back there, on that new-born planet.

There’s so much potential here, in a picture demonstrating the reversal of the “needs of the many” Spock enacted at the end of Khan, that it’s a great pity it becomes merely “okay”. Bennett immediately jettisons the character development of the principals when he leaves out David’s mum and separates Kirk from his son for the entire picture. The ruminations on aging and purpose are consigned to a bin, as well as maybe since the Admiral had been last left feeling young, but they’re replaced with not very much at all. Why is Carol absent? Probably because it would have been too much hard work to include her, but it’s a bit of a rude excision, and David (Merritt Butrick looks about 10 years older in the space of two) and Saavik (a decidedly underwhelming Robin Givens, who seems set on suggesting some emotional capacity in her Vulcan at every turn; most unbecoming) lead a less than scintillating expedition to that generic, studio-bound world I mentioned, where they discover ever-growing Spock. What fuels this growth? Clearly proto-matter is a substitute nutrient.


On one level the reveal of an unstable world could be interpreted as a kneejerk agreement with McCoy’s outrage over power unchecked in Khan, that assuming Godlike capacities is dangerously hubristic. Mostly, though, it’s seamlessly astute reasoning on the part of Bennett that gets us to a place where we can get Spock back. If it’s unstable, so can Spock’s physical shell be. And many of his further inspirations are strong ones. The idea that, in Roddenberry’s soon-to-be lethargically pure future, people screw up, and the all-high Federation isn’t so holy after all, is much more appealing, as it takes advantage of one of science fiction’s better capacities, reflecting the flawed humanity of here and now in the supposedly advanced (see also Gallifrey in Robert Holmes’ vision of Doctor Who).


So Genesis creating a “galactic controversy”, and a conspiratorial environment forming to silence wagging tongues, and especially the Enterprise crew, concerning “A quarantined planet and a forbidden subject” is a natural and astute element, particularly as it puts our heroes under surveillance. A more engaged production team would have made more of this, with the escape from Federation harbour played all-too casually (they should be casual about it, but the escape itself should be intense).


So parts of Spock feel germane, where it is rightly inspired by the quality of its predecessor, while others suggest it is merely living off Khan’s carcass. There’s nothing special for the Klingons to do, despite Kruge (Christopher Lloyd) having a very clear point when he levels the charge that the Federation is creating an ultimate weapon and has become a “gang of intergalactic criminals”.


The problem is, the Klingons’ inclusion is a lazy, crowd-pleasing gesture in a screenplay that doesn’t need them, but does need a motivating antagonistic force. There’s the occasional nice touch, since Valkris (Cathie Shirriff) is essentially guided by the same impulse as Spock when her knowing too much leads to her willing to demise for the common good; here, however, we’re encouraged to see it as a negative, unjustified act.


But unfortunately Lloyd is no great shakes as a villain; he’s simply not intimidating, and worse, he has so little to work with. His most engaging feature is his pet muppet lizard. And, while he has some gloriously stupid stooges, by the time he’s demanding the secret of Genesis on a disintegrating planet, he looks just as stupid himself.


Saavik: Admiral, David is dead.

There are other problems too. The continuation of the Kirk-David story almost seems to be there purely to draw a line under it, such that David’s death is almost an embarrassment. Not because of Kirk’s “You Klingon bastard” triple-stinger, which I remembered being more poorly judged than it is (it’s actual just lacking in terms of emotional weight), but because it’s immediately followed by the destruction of the Enterprise.


The latter is a great gambit from Bennett, and Kirk’s quick thinking in a tight spot is an example of strong structuring almost on a level with Khan, but it’s the right scenario at the wrong moment. Kirk’s “My God, Bones, what have I done?” as his beloved ship disintegrates occurs when his mind should be full of the loss of his beloved son. Even if it is emotionally telling (as in, their relationship may be more honestly portrayed through this response), it’s awkward and misjudged given the intent.


David is at least a vaguely-sketched (if purely functional) character here, though. Which is better than the rest of the stalwarts get. Most incredible is the disservice to Uhura, who gets a single scene where she shows her mettle before she is banished from the screen with the promise she will see them at the rendezvous (it’s like a missing sequence from The Empire Strikes Back, but that was actually off-screen, post-movie). Scotty (“Mr Scott, have you always multiplied your repair estimates by a factor of four?”), Chekov (he speaks Russian instead of having anything worthwhile to offer and dresses like Little Lord Fauntleroy; the casualwear in this movie is a century-long fashion disaster) and Sulu (lusting after the Excelsior, which is hideous, like an egg-bound duck with nowhere to lay) are less hard-done by, but it’s all relative.


McCoy: You left me on Genesis. Why did you do that?

The exception to this, and I’m including Kirk in that, who, while the Shat is and always will be the Shat, isn’t nearly as inimitable here as he is in other appearances, is McCoy. By default, this is probably DeForest Kelley’s best showing in a big screen Trek effort. His half-struck-with-Spock performance gives rise to some amusing moments, and a winning display of classic irascibility, as he gives a CIA/Federation snoop a nerve pinch in a sub-Star Wars cantina (complete with Tribble – except the bar scene in that episode was much more memorable). The movie provided a good chance to explore the Kirk-McCoy relationship on the big screen, but while there are some decent exchanges, it is probably better served in The Undiscovered Country (from Meyer… funny, that).


And what of Kirk, then? Caught like a toupee in the unflattering head lighting of a TV cinematographer (it really does look that way, and he really is), the Shat is showing signs of wear and tear, that rug and paunch expanding without respite. And without a director with a keen ear and eye for pacing, moments that should be gold, if they don’t quite wither on the vine, become merely serviceable.


There’s the reintroduction of Vulcan mysticism (memorably suffusing through the opening passages of The Motion Picture) but Nimoy, who should be its greatest purveyor, rather lets it hang; “But if ever there’s a chance that Spock has an eternal soul, then it’s my responsibility”, is a fine line, but it feels unnourished, just another moment as the director plods form set up to set up without wherewithal, or a desire to really evoke the spiritual aspect it’s endorsing.


It’s nice to see Mark Lenard as Sarek again (“Spock entrusted you with his very essence”) and the scenes with Kirk are as close as the picture gets to a dramatically-invested pulse, but none of it is as revelatory or entrancing as it should be. So too the material concerning pon farr. The Motion Picture will always have its detractors, but that vignette on Vulcan succeeded in making the religion both arcane and intriguing. Spock doesn’t even have the crazy-eerie ‘60s series music to spice it up.


Maltz: You said you would kill me.
Kirk: I lied.

Kirk has some decent lines, then (“The word is no. I am therefore going anyway” and, pre-empting the Voyage Home’s mangled 20th century colloquialisms “I think he’s as fruity as a nutcase”) while Scotty gets a vulgarism (“Up your shaft”) befitting one who makes Kirk look svelte. There’s an early appearance from Miguel Ferrer as the Excelsior’s First Officer, and his Captain (James Sikking) is a suitably cocksure type, just waiting to be taken down a peg or two. Lloyd manages to pop some alien death worms (off-screen; what kind of crap is this? I get it with David, but we want to see giant maggots’ heads explode – an occasion where the comic adaptation delivered) and then we’re back to Vulcan for some mind-body reintegration, Spock having luckily ceased aging in the nick of time (and just as the studio technicians got heartily sick of hoisting up bits of set to simulate a planet falling apart).


Spock: Your name is… Jim.

That final moment, as Nimoy raises an eyebrow while friends gather round (let’s face it, Spock was always a bit snotty to anyone who wasn’t Kirk and Bones) is a cheesetopia worthy of the end of an original series episode, which for the most TV-esque movie outside of Generations is, I guess, something of a backwards accolade.


The Search for Spock was one of the Top 10 US movies of 1984, so on that score it ranks as one of the series’ bigger hits (inflation-adjusted, it comes in sixth). It’s sad to say that, for a move focussing on Spock, and directed by Spock, with Spock in the title (you can’t really imagine even Kirk warranting that), what hurts it most is the man who played Spock, whose dramatic touch is sorely lacking (Nimoy said he wanted it to be operatic in scope, which it is, if you film an opera in a TV studio), and who gives the audience enough to sustain them and no more than that. It is an insult in this case to say The Search for Spock is merely okay, as it could easily have been in the top tier of Treks. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with its bones (which you couldn’t say about V, VII, IX), but the flesh is weak.






Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Popular posts from this blog

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

Other monks will meet their deaths here. And they too will have blackened fingers. And blackened tongues.

The Name of the Rose (1986) (SPOILERS) Umberto Eco wasn’t awfully impressed by Jean Jacques-Annaud’s adaptation of his novel – or “ palimpsest of Umberto Eco’s novel ” as the opening titles announce – to the extent that he nixed further movie versions of his work. Later, he amended that view, calling it “ a nice movie ”. He also, for balance, labelled The Name of the Rose his worst novel – “ I hate this book and I hope you hate it too ”. Essentially, he was begrudging its renown at the expense of his later “ superior ” novels. I didn’t hate the novel, although I do prefer the movie, probably because I saw it first and it was everything I wanted from a medieval Sherlock Holmes movie set in a monastery and devoted to forbidden books, knowledge and opinions.

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a Thousand Enemies.

Watership Down (1978) (SPOILERS) I only read Watership Down recently, despite having loved the film from the first, and I was immediately impressed with how faithful, albeit inevitably compacted, Martin Rosen’s adaptation is. It manages to translate the lyrical, mythic and metaphysical qualities of Richard Adams’ novel without succumbing to dumbing down or the urge to cater for a broader or younger audience. It may be true that parents are the ones who get most concerned over the more disturbing elements of the picture but, given the maturity of the content, it remains a surprise that, as with 2001: A Space Odyssey (which may on the face of it seem like an odd bedfellow), this doesn’t garner a PG certificate. As the makers noted, Watership Down is at least in part an Exodus story, but the biblical implications extend beyond Hazel merely leading his fluffle to the titular promised land. There is a prevalent spiritual dimension to this rabbit universe, one very much

In a few moments, you will have an experience that will seem completely real. It will be the result of your subconscious fears transformed into your conscious awareness.

Brainstorm (1983) (SPOILERS) Might Brainstorm have been the next big thing – a ground-breaking, game-changing cinematic spectacle that had as far reaching consequences as Star Wars (special effects) or Avatar (3D) – if only Douglas Trumbull had been allowed to persevere with his patented “Showscan” process (70mm film photographed and projected at 60 frames per second)? I suspect not; one only has to look at the not-so-far-removed experiment of Ang Lee with Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk , and how that went down like a bag of cold sick, to doubt that any innovation will necessarily catch on (although Trumbull at least had a narrative hinge on which to turn his “more real than real” imagery, whereas Lee’s pretty much boiled down to “because it was there”). Brainstorm ’s story is, though, like its title, possibly too cerebral, too much concerned with the consciousness and touting too little of the cloyingly affirmative that Bruce Rubin inevitably brings to his screenplays. T

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013) (SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight ; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

Maybe the dingo ate your baby.

Seinfeld 2.9: The Stranded The Premise George and Elaine are stranded at a party in Long Island, with a disgruntled hostess.