So,
new Star Trek trailer. One one hand, it does look pretty cool. OTOH, talk about gender FAIL.
Which reminds me - as you know, I'm trying to watch 100 movies in a year, meaning roughly 8 movies a month (or more, since I'm behind). I try to have a good mix of simpler fare and critically acclaimed stuff. And while watching The Shawshank Redemption
(
Read more... )
I think in your comment that we are approaching the same point in a different manner. However, the point that you invoke is somewhat contradictory to the idea that Star Trek is (or was) progressive. There is nearly always a disjunct between the realization of the conceptual ideal (in Star Trek embodied by the IDIC concept and fully stated continuously that gender equity is a feature of future society), and the actualization by artists/writers in the modern age. There can be no real argument that TOS provided a milestone in regards to women on TV, and promoted women's rights significantly at a critical juncture. Was that portrayal great in the modern context? Oh, definately no. And as a gay man, I can give my own personal interests as an example of where Star Trek on TV and film is still and imperfect conceptual realization (and one that could be so eaily and inoffensively remedied). But even so, and as you point out, it's closer to the ideal in so many ways, it's more than a little counterproductive to cast aspersions in that direction when virtually very other show is so much further off the mark. And my second point is less technical and more artistic. TOS quickly developed into the story of Kirk and Spock (tempered by McCoy, and supported by Kirk's close circle. It's *OK* that works of fiction feature two men, or three men, or a whole host of men with no women around (or the reverse); there is no real need for every story to be gender balanced. In fact, that's counterprodutive. (But I agree with all of you guys that there are not enough shows with gender equity on TV overall.) And when we look at Star Trek overall, even if there is not gender parity (like the equitable Voyager), the Star Trek series typically field strong featured roles for women in a genre that tends to be very male-oriented (heck, I always though DS9 was the Major Kira show!). Uhura was hardly the 'token' woman - there were two women on the bridge for the first season. Further (see below), there were also two women on the bridge in the original pilot in even more prominent roles.
I think it's essential to take the long view on equity issues, and to place critcism in context before becoming judgmental, and when one does make a criticism, one needs to do so concretely and with reasonable expectations. Star Trek as a series is a bit difficult in this respect, because of the nearly 50 year time span and the breadth of media the universe encompasses. One must also be *very* careful to use modern values to critically evaluate artistic endeavors of the past. (As an example, the original pilot episode involved the original Enterprise Captain Pike and his Number One - played by Majel Barret. Their Chief Security Officer was also a woman. The studio and (mixed gender) test group reactions were incredibly critical of women being placed in such positions (command positions in military settings). It was scandalous at the time, and resulted in the entire show being redone with a mostly new cast (and Majel becoming Nurse Chapel). The plot can now be seen as The Cage.)
Reply
Leave a comment