|
|
 |
Part 1:
Well, I got my DVD. My plan was to sneak up on the post office, act cool, and hope that they weren't expecting my surprise attack just before 9 a.m. on Friday morning. And it worked! They handed over the package and I didn't even have to pay import tax. Huzzah!
So, now for a review of what I've watched so far - I just started the book, "To Reign In Hell", which is already pissing me off with typos, but more on that when I finish it. I also still have a couple of extras on the DVD to watch.
I started off watching the "Original Interviews" extra, which is interviews of the main cast from 1982. William Shatner seemed to have nothing intelligent to say, and gave the impression of a student who is trying to convince you that, yes, he really did do the reading for the class, but in reality hasn't. Leonard Nimoy, despite having not wanted to be in the film in the first place, had some intelligent things to say and seemed quite enthusiastic. DeForest Kelley wasn't asked much, but talked about McCoy and humour. Ricardo Montalban wasn't asked much either, but gave the standard reply of all actors playing villains, that Khan isn't really a villain.
Next, "Captain's Log", which is a present-day documentary on the making of the film. Harve Bennett and Nicholas Meyer (the producer and director) both came across as very knowledgable and enthusiastic, and Bennett in particular was well worth listening to. William Shatner sounded monumentally pissed off about some of Nimoy's actions, and at times I couldn't figure out whether he was genuinely murderous or just trying to be funny. I suspect his feelings were genuine. Leonard Nimoy was informative, but sounded as if he could've lived without having to do the interview. Ricardo Montalban was the only one of the actors in this set of interviews who actually seemed likable. He talked about preparing for the part, and trying to get away from his "Fantasy Island" role. One of the funnier parts of the documentary is Harve Bennett talking about having developed the script, with Khan in it, getting the green light, and then someone piping up, "Er, maybe we should ask Ricardo if he wants to be in it?" Indeed, Montalban says that at first he wanted a more substantial role, but then he figured that since all the other characters spend the whole film TALKING about him, it would seem more substantial to the audience.
"Designing Khan" was about the set and costume design. I was disappointed that it didn't go into more detail about Khan's costume, because it is a feature of the movie that has been very controversial. The general idea seems to have been that Khan and his gang were like a biker gang who had been left out in the desert too long. But the docu was very informative about the Starfleet side, and the ways in which the film had made the Enterprise more like a Navy vessel. Also about the ways in which production and art designers go about doing things and getting their inspiration: pretty interesting and often funny stuff.
The theatrical trailer was far too cringeworthy for me to watch today. Sorry.
Now to the actual film. I watched it once normally, and once with director Nicholas Meyer's commentary. The actual film has a few missing scenes from the original - the only one I noticed is one about Scotty's nephew, which actually isn't such a great scene, but at least explains Scotty's later grief over his death. After all the trouble I went to getting the movie, I was half afraid that the film wouldn't turn out to be as good as I remembered. It's been years since I saw it. The end result is that the Khan scenes were as good as I remembered them, and the Kirk plot was much better than I remembered. I had thought that all the time Khan wasn't there, things were monumentally dull, but now I appreciate them much more. I was even rather impressed by Shatner's acting in a couple of places... although Meyer explains that this was only because after the 6th take Shatner would get fed up and just deliver the lines normally.
The film also made me realise how much Bryan Singer pilfered from this movie in order to make X-Men 2. When I saw X-Men 2, I didn't think about Khan at all, but then I heard some references to it, and now that I'm watching Khan again, it really hits you in the face. But it's a *nice* thought, that two of my favourite films are related like this.
I also realised that Ricardo Montalban's performance is much more understated that I remembered. I remembered him screaming all the time, being much larger than life, and in the actual film he hardly ever raises his voice. I suppose I thought that since the character had such an immense impact, he must have been loud, and physically huge. But, watching the film again, his performance is a real masterclass on how to have that impact, but stay quiet, always keeping something back. The villains from X-Men, played by Ian McKellen and Brian Cox, have this wonderful capability as well. As does Tom McCamus, of course, as anyone who has seen Tom do any villainous roles will attest.
The only thing that grates about the film are all the shots of Khan's followers standing around on the bridge. They don't have any lines. They don't move. They don't react. They just stand there and wait to get blown up. Surely in the real world Khan would've sent them off to make tea or something...
Now, the commentary... It's good - Nick Meyer gives a lot of background to his own career, and his approach to the film as a novice director, trying to dodge all the politics that were developing between cast members, and between the filmcrew and the studio. He also talks about the use of intuition as a director, and the ways in which he worked with the actors. He actually says some disparaging things about Shatner, which I guess is quite brave, but then he backs it up with comparisons to Spencer Tracy and James Stewart, so I guess he doesn't entirely dislike Shatner! He seems to have got on much better with Montalban, and talks about asking Ricardo why on earth he wasn't doing King Lear inside of Fantasy Island. Which is a good question. Someone get on the phone to Ricardo right now and demand that he get his ass on a stage immediately.
The one criticism of the commentary is that there are a lot of things he doesn't talk about that I would've liked to know about: how the ceti eels were done; the character of Terrell; how Khan picks up Chekov (wires?); what that huge thing Khan lifts off Joachim's body was really made of (I just find it hilarious to see actors pretending things are incredibly heavy... but then, maybe it *was* incredibly heavy); the character of Joachim, who isn't mentioned ONCE on the commentary, and neither is Judson Scott. But then I guess not everyone can be Bryan Singer, who in his commentaries seems to cover absolutely everything that made it to the screen, didn't make it to the screen, and might've made it to the screen.
Well, I guess I'm off to watch it again with the text commentary by Michael Okuda. This is just one great, great movie.
Part 2:
I finished the book. It didn't take me very long, which tells you pretty much all you need to know about it: (1) it's not very complex, (2) it's a pageturner, and (3) it wasn't so bad that I couldn't bring myself to finish it.
The book, Star Trek: To Reign In Hell, is really quite good as Trek novels go, and if you're a Trek fan it's certainly worth a read (it goes without saying that it's worth a read for Khan fans). It seems that all the Trek novels I actually like focus on the peripheral characters: Garak, Q, Khan. This one certainly does better when it's talking about Khan and the colonists rather than the fleeting appearances of Kirk, Spock, McCoy, and Sulu. Kirk's internal thoughts seem rather 'off' for Kirk, and the others merely play out their roles.
The character of Khan, while present in all factual accuracy, quoting his way through the novel, is made synpathetic, but lacks the intensity of Ricardo Montalban's original performance. He's only truly interesting when we see him through the eyes of Marla McGivers, and her character is the real triumph of the novel. Perhaps it's because there was less there to work on to begin with, but Marla becomes a real sympathetic heroine, and her love for Khan is the most convincing thing in the novel. Her musings about what on earth a "supermodel" might be were the only thing that made me laugh in the book. (Oh, that, and the slightly veiled idea that Grace Jones is a genetically engineered superwoman).
The rest of Khan's group are rather lacking in personalities. We have the dull henchman, who is the very epitome of "henchman". We have the doctor who seems totally identical to McCoy except in name (oh, and who seems to have a gay relationship with a superhuman Indian cricketer...). We have Grace Jones. Well, ok, I actually *like* the Grace Jones character, but she isn't too original. But then, Khan's henchmen in the movie weren't terribly rich in character either, so perhaps this is all accurate. Joachim turns up to play chess with Khan and stop him committing suicide, but that's about it. Poor, characterless Joachim. He deserved so much more.
Author Greg Cox's attempts to resolve all the bizarre things in the movie are rather mixed. Some of them, such as the "how in hell does a planet just explode?" scientific problem are probably sufficient, but I'm no cosmologist. Some of them are just plain silly. I can understand that Khan may have injured his hand through an overloading phaser and therefore has to wear a glove, but the ideas of him standing there in terrible pain looking at his blackened hand thinking (as he does in the book) "I will have to wear a glove" is just ridiculous. Other explanations about why Kirk never went back to check on the colony, and why the Reliant thought Ceti Alpha V was Ceti Alpha VI, and why Chekhov never mentioned anything about Khan, all seem very strained explanations and it sounds like Cox doesn't believe them either. A more "dangerous" explanation involving Kirk actually being more guilty than he is portrayed here would have been more interesting, but sadly isn't attempted.
The plot in itself is kind of "Survivor: Ceti Alpha V" in which Khan and co despatch one predator just as another disaster occurs. Another problem about the characterisation of his followers is that they all die off in rather rapid succession. It's hard to really get a feel for a character when they show up, only to be smashed by meteorites or burnt by acid seas. The wraparound plot about Kirk and co returning to Ceti Alpha V is rather boring, but at least wraps up the story.
So, all in all, a good read for Khan fans and Trek fans alike, but I doubt that there's much in here to appeal to the non-fan. It's very much a fan book, with countless references to what will eventually occur in Star Trek II. One of these made me wonder: in one scene, Khan berates himself for thinking two-dimensionally, allowing a sabre-toothed tiger to attack one of his men. Would he really make the same mistake twice? Anyway, unquestionably what makes this book worth reading is not Khan at all, but Marla McGivers. I hadn't expected to like her much, but Cox makes her character into a triumph.
~Lonelywalker
|
|
