So, now that nobody cares anymore, about that Star Trek movie.
Not only is it full of homages to Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, it’s the thematic opposite to that movie, covering youth rather than age. Nowhere is this more evident than in one of these little homages. No, not the chief villain who wants revenge against a single one of Our Favorite Crew, and doesn’t care how much carnage he creates in pursuing it; not the mind-control beastie; not the starship hiding in a cloud trick; not the part where after a space-battle victory, the Enterprise is almost swallowed up by cosmic anomaly until argle-blargle space magick frees it. Nor the straightup dialogue lifts or riffs — “Are you out of your Vulcan mind?”; “I have been, and always shall be, your friend”; “You lied…. I implied [exaggerated].”
Not those. This: while Kirk circumvents the Kobayashi Maru simulation, he’s nonchalantly eating an apple. Because in Khan when Kirk is sitting in the Genesis cave explaining how he circumvented the Kobayashi Maru simulation, he’s eating an apple.
Why’s he eating that apple? In Khan, the plot centers on Kirk facing up to age, which means reckoning with death in a way he’s always avoided. He’s cheated death so many times he doesn’t believe the reaper’s really out to get him. Until he eats the apple, in the Edenic cave of, ahem, Genesis. Which he does while explaining how he avoided even pretending to face death. That act of insouciant hubris is the turning point in the plot that sends it, inexorably, to the death of his closest friend. Kirk has finally to reckon with the reality of death—that it’s coming for him, too—which lets him grow up, a bit, at last, ready to face the universe anew.
(You might think the earlier death of Peter Preston undermines this interpretation. But it doesn’t: Preston’s death touches his uncle, Scotty—it’s real to Scotty—but it doesn’t really touch Kirk, who uses it as an opportunity to grandstand a little as the Great Captain and to castigate himself for being a little slower on the uptake than he should be. Kirk here, as always, is a bit of a jerk; almost everyone is an expendable red-shirt to him.)
But in the new Star Trek, Kirk’s eating that apple much younger. And he should be—unlike the Kirk of Khan, this Kirk has had to reckon with death snapping at his heels since the moment of his birth, when the cosmos opened its maw and swallowed his father. Both Kirks do death-defying deeds, but for different reasons and in different ways. Shatner-Kirk risks lives, including his own, without ever really believing in the stakes. Pine-Kirk does it knowing that tomorrow he may die. It’s the difference between Peter Pan and Batman.



13 comments
June 10, 2009 at 4:33 pm
zz
I care. I wanted this close reading!
June 10, 2009 at 4:57 pm
Andy Vance
God. I can’t remember major plot points from the new flick, much less passing allusions in the quarter-century-old one. Thanks for ruining my evening.
June 10, 2009 at 5:22 pm
Andy Vance
(That said, I liked this so much I’m posting it on the fridge next to Berube’s take on Space Odyssey)
June 10, 2009 at 5:38 pm
Charlieford
I’ve been watching some of the old TV show now and again, and the thing that stands out most to me is how often the minor, non-regular characters are played by actors who, um, just aren’t very good looking. Nowadays, everyone has to be beautiful. I also think Shatner’s a pretty excellent actor, at least for what he’s doing there, at least most of the time. He’s not real good when he’s supposed to be in agony.
June 10, 2009 at 6:09 pm
eric
Thanks, zz and Andy.
Charlie, I think Shatner’s real good at playing a certain version of Shatner, you know?
June 10, 2009 at 8:14 pm
Sybil Vane
I love you.
June 10, 2009 at 10:30 pm
Nora Bombay
I heart this.
Shatner, Kirk, the new movie.
My love of Star Trek is reborn, like a phoenix.
June 11, 2009 at 5:00 am
arbitrista
That’s a really interesting interpretation of the movie, one that hadn’t occurred to me. Thanks!
June 11, 2009 at 10:18 am
lewishayden
That apple-eating on the mock-bridge really, really bugged me until I read this post. Now I think that Abrams must be a much bigger Trekkie than he’s willing to admit. Nice catch.
June 16, 2009 at 5:46 am
JadeInTheATL
I agree, nice catch, though I disagree a bit with your final paragraph. Young Kirk did not experience his father’s death, as he had no knowledge of his father when it occurred. Thus George Kirk’s death was not a loss felt, but a circumstance lived with. Based on the episode with the Corvette alone, I would say young Kirk definitely remains in close proximity to Peter Pan.
I would go further and opine that the younger Kirk’s apple presages his being kicked out of the “Eden” of make believe (Star Fleet Academy) and into the reality of life and death. (The destruction of the fleet at Vulcan. A fleet manned by classmates he just spent 3 years with as peers, rather than redshirts.) Thus both apples represent gaining the knowledge of good and evil.
June 16, 2009 at 8:06 am
eric
Let a thousand, uh, apples bloom, J.
June 16, 2009 at 8:13 am
eric
(Which is to day, I like your reading better. Either way, though, Pine-Kirk has to be more serious at a younger age than Shatner-Kirk.)
June 16, 2009 at 8:39 am
JadeInTheATL
I agree. The differences will be interesting to explore in future films. If going forward they continue to eschew the Bones-Spock balance with Kirk as the fulcrum and instead make it a Kirk-Spock dichotomy as they did in this one, Kirk needs a little more complexity.
For an interesting discussion (or close reading) of the classic triad structure as personified in Star Trek the Motion Picture, I recommend Joe Johnson’s podcast on that movie.
http://stevebrownetc.com/podcasts/watching-theology/wt0209-star-trek-the-motion-picture-1979/
Again, I really enjoyed your observations. Since my wife and I made a point of sitting down to watch Khan before going out to see Abram’s Trek on the first day, I could see immediately where you were coming from on this.