"Star Trek Into Darkness": The REAL exploitation of Alice Eve
Star Trek: Into Darkness opened on May 17, and -- as I type this on July 26 -- some critics/cultural observers/bloggers are still upset (most recently here) about the scene in which Alice Eve as Dr. Carol Marcus strips to her underwear prior to getting into a spacesuit. Usually this umbrage is accompanied by a still photo of Alice Eve in her underwear.
Does this strike anyone else as ironic or cynical or disingenuous?
The first I knew of the now infamous scene was in a trailer for the film where the image appeared, without context. I remember thinking that this was probably Dr. Carol Marcus, whom the earlier film Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan revealed was a past lover of Capt. James Kirk. I assumed this was a scene from their ... courtship, let's say. Instead it's a throwaway scene which the director has confessed he now regrets. I still think this is a tempest in a teapot, and all the faux outrage is much more exploitative than the scene in the film itself.
Firstly, the shot of Alice Eve is extremely brief. If it lasted more than 5 seconds, I'd be surprised. It's a perfect illustration of the expression, "Take a picture; it'll last longer." That's what all these critics have done by running that still: made it last longer.
(As I said above, at best it's ironic -- they don't know that they are doing the very thing they are decrying -- or cynical -- they don't care if they are doing the very thing they are decrying -- or, worst, disingenuous -- they know they are doing the very thing they are decrying.)
Secondly, in the context of the film, I assumed it was a jokey reference (there were a number of such in-jokes to other science fiction) to the scene in Alien where Sigourney Weaver's Ellen Ripley strips down to her underwear before getting into a space suit and zapping the alien out of the escape pod. That was a much longer scene, but I don't recall as much negative reaction.
Thirdly, the underwear was more akin to a bikini than sexy lingerie. Really, it wasn't that revealing or exploitative. I was more concerned by all the destruction of property -- and, though we didn't see it, presumably lives -- caused by the crashing of a starship into a densely populated Earth city. I guess Americans are still more upset by nudity and sexuality than violence, destruction and death. That's the real exploitation.
Does this strike anyone else as ironic or cynical or disingenuous?
The first I knew of the now infamous scene was in a trailer for the film where the image appeared, without context. I remember thinking that this was probably Dr. Carol Marcus, whom the earlier film Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan revealed was a past lover of Capt. James Kirk. I assumed this was a scene from their ... courtship, let's say. Instead it's a throwaway scene which the director has confessed he now regrets. I still think this is a tempest in a teapot, and all the faux outrage is much more exploitative than the scene in the film itself.
Firstly, the shot of Alice Eve is extremely brief. If it lasted more than 5 seconds, I'd be surprised. It's a perfect illustration of the expression, "Take a picture; it'll last longer." That's what all these critics have done by running that still: made it last longer.
(As I said above, at best it's ironic -- they don't know that they are doing the very thing they are decrying -- or cynical -- they don't care if they are doing the very thing they are decrying -- or, worst, disingenuous -- they know they are doing the very thing they are decrying.)
Secondly, in the context of the film, I assumed it was a jokey reference (there were a number of such in-jokes to other science fiction) to the scene in Alien where Sigourney Weaver's Ellen Ripley strips down to her underwear before getting into a space suit and zapping the alien out of the escape pod. That was a much longer scene, but I don't recall as much negative reaction.
Thirdly, the underwear was more akin to a bikini than sexy lingerie. Really, it wasn't that revealing or exploitative. I was more concerned by all the destruction of property -- and, though we didn't see it, presumably lives -- caused by the crashing of a starship into a densely populated Earth city. I guess Americans are still more upset by nudity and sexuality than violence, destruction and death. That's the real exploitation.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home