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.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

I just hope my death makes more cents than my life.

Joker (2019)
(SPOILERS) So the murder sprees didn’t happen, and a thousand puff pieces desperate to fan the flames of such events and then told-ya-so have fallen flat on their faces. The biggest takeaway from Joker is not that the movie is an event, when once that seemed plausible but not a given, but that any mainstream press perspective on the picture appears unable to divorce its quality from its alleged or actual politics. Joker may be zeitgeisty, but isn’t another Taxi Driver in terms of cultural import, in the sense that Taxi Driver didn’t have a Taxi Driver in mind when Paul Schrader wrote it. It is, if you like, faux-incendiary, and can only ever play out on that level. It might be more accurately described as a grubbier, grimier (but still polished and glossy) The Talented Ripley, the tale of developing psychopathy, only tailored for a cinemagoing audience with few options left outside of comic book fare.

Dude. You’re my hero and shit.

El Camino: A Breaking Bad Movie (2019)
(SPOILERS) I was going to say I’d really like to see what Vince Gilligan has up his sleeve besidesBreaking Bad spinoffs. But then I saw that he had a short-lived series on CBS a few years back (Battle Creek). I guess things Breaking Bad-related ensure an easy greenlight, particularly from Netflix, for whom the original show was bread and butter in its take up as a streaming platform. There’s something slightly dispiriting about El Camino: A Breaking Bad Movie, though. Not that Gilligan felt the need to return to Jesse Pinkman – although the legitimacy of that motive is debatable – but the desire to re-enter and re-inhabit the period of the show itself, as if he’s unable to move on from a near-universally feted achievement and has to continually exhume it and pick it apart.

Two hundred thousand pounds, for this outstanding example of British pulchritude and learning.

The Avengers 4.18: The Girl From Auntie
I’ve mentioned that a few of these episodes have changed in my appreciation since I last watched the series, and The Girl from Auntie constitutes a very pronounced uptick. Indeed, I don’t know how I failed to rate highly the estimable Liz Fraser filling in for Diana Rigg – mostly absent, on holiday –for the proceedings (taking a not dissimilar amateur impostor-cum-sidekick role to Fenella Fielding in the earlier The Charmers). I could watch Fraser all day, and it’s only a shame this was her single appearance in the show.

The past is a statement. The future is a question.

Justified Season Six
(SPOILERS) There have been more than enough damp squib or so-so show finales of late to have greeted the demise of Justified with some trepidation. Thankfully it avoids almost every pitfall it might have succumbed to and gives us a satisfying send-off that feels fitting for its characters. This is a series that, even at its weakest (the previous season) is leagues ahead of most fare in an increasingly saturated sphere, so it’s a relief – even if there was never much doubt on past form – that it doesn’t drop the ball.

And of those character fates? In a show that often pulls back from giving Raylan Givens the great hero moments (despite his maintaining a veneer of ultra-cool, and getting “supporting hero” moments as he does in the finale, 6.13 The Promise), it feels appropriate that his entire (stated) motivation for the season should be undermined. He doesn’t get to take down Boyd Crowder, except in an incarcerating sense, but as always he is sanguine about it. After…

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
(1982)
(SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek, but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.

You’re only seeing what’s in front of you. You’re not seeing what’s above you.

Mr. Robot Season 2
(SPOILERS) I suspect my problem with Mr. Robot may be that I want it to be something it isn’t, which would entail it being a much better show than it is. And that’s its own fault, really, or rather creator and writer-director of umpteen episodes Sam Esmail’s, who has intentionally and provocatively lured his audience into thinking this really is an up-to-the-minute, pertinent, relevant, zeitgeisty show, one that not only has a huge amount to say about the illusory nature of our socio-economic system, and consequently the bedrock of our collective paradigm, but also the thorny subject of reality itself, both of which have been variably enticing dramatic fodder since the Wachowski siblings and David Fincher released a one-two punch at the end of the previous millennium.

In that sense, Mr. Robot’s thematic conceit is very much of a piece with its narrative form; it’s a conjuring act, a series of sleights of hand designed to dazzle the viewer into going with the flow, rath…

What about the meaningless line of indifference?

The Lion King (2019)
(SPOILERS) And so the Disney “live-action” remake train thunders on regardless (I wonder how long the live-action claim would last if there was a slim hope of a Best Animated Feature Oscar nod?) I know I keep repeating myself, but the early ‘90s Disney animation renaissance didn’t mean very much to me; I found their pictures during that period fine, but none of them blew me away as they did critics and audiences generally. As such, I have scant nostalgia to bring to bear on the prospect of a remake, which I’m sure can work both ways. Aladdin proved to be a lot of fun. Beauty and the Beast entirely tepid. The Lion King, well, it isn’t a badfilm, but it’s wearying its slavish respectfulness towards the original and so diligent in doing it justice, you’d think it was some kind of religious artefact. As a result, it is, ironically, for the most part, dramatically dead in the water.

Never compare me to the mayor in Jaws! Never!

Ghostbusters (2016)
(SPOILERS) Paul Feig is a better director than Ivan Reitman, or at very least he’s savvy enough to gather technicians around him who make his films look good, but that hasn’t helped make his Ghostbusters remake (or reboot) a better movie than the original, and that’s even with the original not even being that great a movie in the first place.

Along which lines, I’d lay no claims to the 1984 movie being some kind of auteurist gem, but it does make some capital from the polarising forces of Aykroyd’s ultra-geekiness on the subject of spooks and Murray’s “I’m just here for the asides” irreverence. In contrast, Feig’s picture is all about treating the subject as he does any other genre, be it cop, or spy, or romcom. There’s no great affection, merely a reliably professional approach, one minded to ensure that a generous quota of gags (on-topic not required) can be pumped out via abundant improv sessions.

So there’s nothing terribly wrong with Ghostbusters, but aside from …

It’s the Mount Everest of haunted houses.

The Legend of Hell House (1973)
(SPOILERS) In retrospect, 1973 looks like a banner year for the changing face of the horror movie. The writing was on the wall for Hammer, which had ruled the roost in Britain for so long, and in the US the release of The Exorcist completed a transformation of the genre that had begun with Polanski’s Rosemary’s Baby; the realistic horror film, where the terror was to be found in the everyday (the home, the family). Then there was Don’t Look Now, which refracted horror tropes through a typically Nic Roeg eye, fracturing time and vision in a meditative exploration of death and grief. The Wicker Man, meanwhile, would gather its reputation over the passing years. It stands as a kind of anti-horror movie, eschewing standard scares and shock tactics for a dawning realisation of the starkness of opposing belief systems and the fragility of faith.

In comparison to this trio, The Legend of Hell House is something of a throwback; its slightly stagey tone, and cobweb…