I have seen the new Star Trek movie. There are only minor spoilers ahead for it, and probably nothing that would surprise anyone who’s seen the trailer or the original series, but let that sentence stand as warning.
Courtesy Paramount/Star Trek promo photo
So I saw the new Star Trek movie this weekend, and I liked it quite a bit. I’ll let others discuss its merits as a movie, or a reboot, or an adventure, or what have you; I’ll let MoDowd go crazy with the Spockian parallels (no link; I don’t encourage the read). I want to use it briefly to discuss the American view of what it takes to be a leader.
There are two ways to summarize this Star Trek movie in terms of how things work out for James T. Kirk (pictured above — the one without the pointy ears).
- James T. Kirk has great instincts that lead him to be in the right place at the right time, and it is these superior instincts that lead others to trust and assist him, culminating in his ascension to captain of the U.S.S. Enterprise. Call this the “Skilled Leader” summary.
- James T. Kirk is a wild, irresponsible, extremely lucky bastard who careens from adventure to adventure, taking huge risks. By luck (or perhaps because of the odds), some of these risks payoff, which convinces others that he must have hidden and superior leadership skills. The talents of those who follow him act as a buffer against bad things happening even when he does take big risks, so his overall leadership success seems high. Call this the “Lucky Son-Of-a-Gun” summary.
A persuasive argument could be made for either side in this movie (and probably in the series as a whole). What’s interesting is not that we can’t tell which it is — it’s that the second option is a viable way to swiftly climb the ranks. And not just in Starfleet, but in the world we live in: you could switch out “James T. Kirk” with any number of current world leaders and still make a great argument for either of these paths to power being primary.
The ways that American media consider and reconstruct leadership, both in news stories and in the creative arts, seems telling of the way Americans look at and for leaders. Would we ever elect James T. Kirk president? I think we would — in fact, I think we have, not so long ago. We’ve certainly got a whole raft of Kirk-like characters in charge of our banks and automotive companies at the moment. And though we’re paying a high price for that, I think a large swath of Americans would still love to have a more Kirkian president at the helm. I understand the romance of it as well as the next amateur Trekkie — oh the adventures! — but I also understand the risk. James T. Kirk rarely loses, but he lives not only in the future, but in the fictional future. Here on real Earth, I’m not sure the second style of leadership should ever be rewarded with a real commission.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Catherine Forsythe
Writer to the Stars
Emily Holleman
Iron Skillet
Leslie Harpole
old new lefty
Salon.com
Comments
Can't forget that his father was a wartime hero, either. No one in the movie did.
It seems that Kirk was the only Academy student to actually complete the impossible final exam. The exam was designed to have the student fail at some point. The rules would at some point, force the student into a fatal error.
Well, Kirk simply changed the rules so that he could win without breaking the rules.
Oh yeah.
Second, Kirk has a tendency to draw people to him that are loyal, yes, but also *highly competent*. This is a difference between Kirk and, say, a recent national politician. Yes, Kirk has a tendency to act impulsively, but he is aware he has a top-notch team to haul his ass out of trouble.
It is a worthwhile argument to make that Kirk in the TV show displayed the latter ability much more; Kirk in the film merely "inherits" the Enterprise crew (modulo Scotty), about which he knows little. (Counter argument--as Star Fleet's flagship, the Enterprise is stock to the brim with Star Fleet's top people, and it's not unreasonable for Kirk to assume this.)
But in short, Kirk inspires loyalty from profoundly *competent* people, as opposed to book-licking toadies from Freedom University; his expectation that they will excel is hardly unwarranted.
I have been re-watching the old shows, and as someone who always thought Kirk was an idiot who got his fat pulled out of the fire by his excellent crew, I have been amazed at how often *Kirk* is the one who comes up with the winning plans. e.g., in "The Doomsday Machine," it's *Kirk's* analysis that leads them to realize how to destroy the giant killer flashlight; not Spock, or Scotty, but *Kirk*. Spock merely confirms Kirk's hunch.
Just one Star Trek nerd's view.
I think D.Moran brings up the stuff most Trek lovers would say – that the character traits you mention are only part of the Kirk character, and they’re the ones they chose to emphasize in this action-packed opener. The character had legs because the guts and instinct part of the character were only part of his merits.
BTW – Did ‘ya see The Onion’s take on the movie?
But beyond that, there's something you are getting wrong, here. Kirk's gambles don't "sometimes" work out. They ALWAYS work out. That's gotta say something. You know, there are people who see things the rest of us don't. Maybe not even consciously, in which case we chalk it up to "intuition" (and what woman is going to pooh-pooh intuition, I ask you!), or maybe because they just think faster and deeper than we do.
It seem to me that Kirk's gambles are not gambles, at all. He knows they will work. Spock tries to tell him his plan has only a 4.3% chance of success, but Kirk KNOWS it will work. He reassures Spock of that, and guess what! It works! Ta-daaaaaa!!! Just like Kirk said...every damn time.
The man has got something behind those sexy blue eyes.
And there is also something to be said for risk on principle's sake. He knew that if he didn't try something, Earth would surely be destroyed, and he was willing to risk his own life and crew to save all the billions of people on Earth. And thank goodness he did!
Kirk has the intelligence, judgment and good looks . . . er, I mean courage . . . that make for a great leader. It just seems to us lesser folk as if he's taking big risks. Obviously, since they work out 100% of the time, we should trust him.
Besides -- and I can't emphasize this leadership quality enough -- who wouldn't go for the gorgeous, rakish bad-boy, huh? HUH???
Yeah, that's what I thought.
If I may revise a Spock line (Holmes quotation): Once you have ruled out the paths to certain disaster, whatever remains, however risky, must be the choice.
I was *extremely* surprised by Karl Urban as McCoy. I thought he was great; showed much more range than I would have expected after "The Lord of the Rings" films.
Dana, David, and Douglas (the three D's!) -- I actually agree with you that Kirk over the long term is a good combination of skill and luck: luck putting him in the right places, but skill (like remembering Uhura's overheard transmission) giving him the chance to take advantage of those places. And all of the Trek shows worked to show their leaders had cowboy instincts but also Vulcan cool logic and a lot of insider's knowledge of How the Galaxy Works. Knowing the history (future?) of Kirk overall, sure, I can say he's a balance of the two.
But I don't think that the events in this movie made an air-tight case for Kirk As a Leader. Kirk as a persuader? Maybe. Kirk as able to trade on other people's knowledge of his family? Sure. But at every turn except one -- and that's that he remembered Uhura's translation and had read Pike's dissertation -- he benefits from circumstances that surround him. Kirk shows a lot of daring and courage and confidence in the film, but without a huuuuge dose of luck (or creative license -- like Dana said, things always work out for him), there's no way a cadet five minutes before is getting command of Starfleet's flagship vessel.
I'm really not arguing against James T. Kirk's leadership abilities over the full course of the Star Trek series. Just that in this movie, the question of whether he's good, or lucky, or both is left very open. Honest! I thought the movie was great!
Though this movie's Kirk does take enormous risks, once he's in a leadership position, he mostly takes big risks against a backdrop in which more people will be hurt if he doesn't do something than if he does (as Dana points out -- Earth will explode if he doesn't act). So while I can totally buy the point on Bond and Bourne with the escalation of casual violence, I don't think it's a fair criticism for the Star Trek series.
Though as a study of the changes in public willingness to tolerate violence, it's certainly interesting.
The Reel World Kirk had a sensible, practical, logical partner who acted as this Kirk's reasonable and ethical adviser.
In the Real World, Spock would have a figure-head position like V.P. of Best Practices and the minute he gets in the way he would become unemployed.
"Live long and prosper!" Red-shirt guy who gets killed in the first 15 minutes of the episode.
(And BTW – Thanks for not linking Dowd).
Or they could follow Navy tradition and promote him to Lieutenant, but give him command of some old rust-bucket (the Farragut?). He would still be "Captain Kirk," but his *rank* would be lieutenant. Even that would be an incredible jump for a still-green cadet, but it would be understandable.
Point the second: re: Galaxy Quest, maybe the reason Scotty doesn't die in the movie, even though he wears a red shirt, is because he's the plucky comic relief?
thumbed and dugg
But he's not perfect for being a Lieutenant Colonel or Admiral or whatever's above in the particular military in question. And in the context of your story, he's not perfect to run for public office. Different skill utterly. The charisma might help, sure. But the rule of law is not a war.
I'm so glad McCain didn't win the election. He may have been great in the military for all I know. But I don't think it qualified him at all to be President. He seemed to me like a gambler who was about to crash, and we could not afford to gamble more than is simply forced by circumstance. Obama can't avoid it entirely, but at least he's conservative in important ways.
I think that word is spelled "wessel." LOL!
This is truly sad, and sadly true.
You go, girl.
He was lucky to have Spock and in his favor he listened. Bush had Cheney or Cheney had Bush.
Kirk was a risk taker and that creates drama. I need less drama in my life... so Kirk as President would just be too much for me. I can't shake and bake like the actors could as he put the ship through hell.
Spock? Now there's someone I'd vote for. Let Kirk be second in command so Spock can veto some of his more impulsive decisions.
Yabut...Spock was gonna go confab with the federation and let Earth be destroyed. That's what you would vote for? Damn cowardly libs!
Thanks, Dana! And on the second comment, I agree, young Spock in charge might not be any better than young Kirk in charge, as I, too, am a fan of Earth surviving.