Star Trek V: The Final Frontier (1989)
Plot: Shore leave for the crew of the Enterprise NCC-1701-A is interrupted by urgent orders. Federation, Romulan, and Klingon ambassadors have been taken hostage on Nimbus III, a.k.a. The Planet of Galactic Peace. Despite the ship’s state of disrepair, the crew rushes off so that Kirk can mount an ill-conceived low-tech horse charge on the hostage compound.
To everyone’s surprise, the hostage-taker is not a malevolent force, but a charismatic Vulcan leader named Sybok, who happens to be Spock’s half-brother. Sybok rejected his logical upbringing and embraces the animal passions of his ancestors. He now commands the loyalty of a band of followers, including the supposed hostages. Sybok’s plan is to hijack a starship to travel to the center of the galaxy, penetrate the galactic barrier, and find God there.
Sybok gains the upper hand over Kirk, and after some extraneous interference from a Klingon warship, the galactic barrier is duly penetrated. Sybok then relinquishes the ship back to its crew, but Kirk cannot resist continuing to explore the mystery before him. Instead of God, they find a powerful being, who wants to use the Enterprise to escape its prison and “carry [its] power to every corner of creation.”
In the end, there are opportunities for Spock to make peace with the Klingons, and for reflections on family and friendship, and the true resting place of God in the human heart.
Thoughts: I was 15 the summer this film was released, having just finished Sophomore year of high school. This was the same year as Indiana Jones: The Last Crusade (another arguably oversentimental film of which I am unreasonably fond), Back to the Future II, Dead Poets Society, and Ghostbusters II. I confess I have always liked Star Trek V better than its poor reputation would indicate.
To this teenager, the thick nostalgia seemed indulgent but earned. I appreciated and admired the film’s sense of humor about itself (Spock neck pinches a horse! Scotty knocks himself out just after saying how well he knows the ship!). The themes of family and friendship had strong appeal. I, too, wanted to grow up and have remarkable friends.
Most of all, I appreciated the central way in which the film rejects violence as the engine of the story. Sybok isn’t some kind of maniac, he’s a healer. The schemes he hatches are in the service of exploration and ideas. This was kind of story I wanted to see. I was disturbed by the ugly alternative realities depicted by other 1989 films Lethal Weapon 2 and Tim Burton’s Batman. I still hadn’t come around to feeling reconciled with Wrath of Khan, for elevating violence and revenge over Star Trek’s more traditional themes of reconciliation through discovery of common ground. I was glad and proud that Star Trek was still a place where the firing of a photon torpedo was less important than “Row, row, row your boat.”
I was going to grow up to be a peacemaker, after all, you know, not some kind of hooligan. I’ve always felt more kinship to Frodo than the Klingons.
And today? Well…
I’m not particularly interested in overwriting my warm feelings about the movie with a jaundiced critical take. The film has merits that disappear when you focus too closely on the grain of the shadowy cinematography, poorly conceived sets and action pieces, threadbare special effects, and jumps in the story logic. Some moments really land, and others don’t. I like the idea of transforming others by finding and releasing their inner pain, but I’ll thank you not to ask me to defend Sybok as a realistic character.
It’s tempting to tear the movie down and blame everything on the broad target offered by William Shatner’s egomania. But while Star Trek V does not represent the best of Star Trek, it does represent much of what I value about Star Trek, and what makes it different from Star Wars, Aliens, or 2001: A Space Odyssey. I just wish we could have gotten all that, plus better characterization, philosophy, science fiction, action, and special effects.
The characterizations seem off. Spock is never quite allowed to be Spock. He professes to have no interest in shore leave in “Shore Leave.” His attitude seems more avuncular than alien. Wouldn’t he rather be studying than toasting marshmallows? Has age, resurrection, and all his experiences changed him so much? I would like a more nuanced take on the evolution of the character.
At least Spock comes off better than Scotty and Chekov, who are made into broad caricatures. It’s interesting to see Scotty and Uhura in a relationship, but it’s handled in such a sketchy way, it feels apocryphal. In fact, the whole film feels apocryphal. I was hoping to be hit by a wave of nostalgia, but somehow Star Trek V doesn’t feel like a close fit with the rest of the series.
Watching all of Star Trek obsessively allows me to spot the roots of the story in TAS 1.8, “The Magicks of Megas-Tu,” where the ship travels through great dangers to the center of the galaxy to meet Lucifer (God in the original draft of the script). Roddenberry attempted his own Quest for God story in his original unproduced screenplay for Star Trek: The Motion Picture. Shatner still probably convinced himself it was his own original idea.
I did find the proceedings tedious sometimes during this rewatch. I still wouldn’t trade Star Trek V for any of the reboot films. Look at that frame from Yosemite. Yes, I’m as puzzled as Bones as to why Kirk is free-climbing mountains. I’m also confused about how the rocket boots work. But the scene is unforgettable.
What do y’all think?
http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Star_Trek_V:_The_Final_Frontier
Leave a Reply