Movie Review: Ender's Game(2013)

Ender's Game is my pick for top science fiction film of 2013. Unlike something such as Star Trek: Into Darkness, it felt like a legitimate contribution to the genre, exploring themes of war, peace, love, the military, and child soldiers.

Ender is a boy who is expelled from school for fighting a bully and kicking him while he was down. This causes him to be recruited by Colonel Harrison Ford, who admires Ender's ability to battle strategize; he didn't kick the bully after the fight was won because he enjoyed it but because he knew that it would prevent all future fights from happening. This is relevant to Earth's defense, as an alien species who attacked years ago appear to be mounting another offensive; they need to be dealt with in a way that will prevent future danger. And so Ender attends a military academy in a space station, where very young cadets are training for military command (apparently the computing power of youth is seen to outweigh the benefits of experience in terms of military leadership).

What I found to be the most interesting theme of Ender's Game was that of knowing one's enemy (and subsequently coming to love them), which Ender seems to master. He finds that when he understands his enemies, he also comes to understand each one of them as another self and their reasons for their self love. In this way, Ender himself comes to love them. This puts him in an awkward position when he has to fight his enemies, one that results in anxiety and regret.

Another theme, one I find especially relevant to world issues today, is the idea of preventative war and under what conditions, if any, it can be justified. How should foreign policy be conducted? Out of fear? With demonstrations of power? Perhaps with empathy? It is my hope that stories like Ender's Game will spark many a discussion of how to think of others as equals who deserve the same respect. (For example, most Americans would not stand for a foreign military having a base on US soil, so why is it hard for them to understand why foreigners might not want US bases in their neighborhoods?)

As well, Ender's Game is entertaining. It is almost like a Harry Potter scenario except where kids learn battle strategies instead of witchcraft and play an interesting sport slightly more plausible than quidditch. It is well-paced; no scene seemed out of place and Ender's ability to gain the respect and loyalty of his fellow cadets feels authentic rather than something the script simply dictates happening.

At no point did Ender's Game feel cliché or like a rip-off of a story we have heard before. It really is science fiction at its finest, and it comes highly recommended.

Movie Review: Star Trek: Into Darkness (2013)

I found this review by Sam Staley of Star Trek: Into Darkness to reflect my own thoughts on the film. (And, of course, there is Mr. Plinkett's video review that shows how almost all of Into Darkness was ripped off from previous Star Trek movies.) Staley begins by stating his reaction was "ho hum." Why is this? Because Into Darkness lacks what makes science fiction most appealing as a genre, specifically dealing with matters of "individual autonomy, technology, free will, and the role of the State." Classic science fiction stories, such as those by Isaac Asimov, Frank Herbert, and Robert Heinlein do these things, as does the Star Trek television series.

The very first episode of Star Trek explores the question of how important human freedom is when Captain Pike encounters aliens with such fantastic mental powers that they not only are telepathic but can affect humans' brains so much as to cause them to see illusions (kind of like the Holodeck). These aliens capture Captain Pike and try to pacify him with the illusion of being back home on his farm with his favorite horse, a picnic basket, and a beautiful woman. The question thus presented to the viewer is: if you could indulge in all earthly pleasures (though artificial) to your heart's content, but would physically be trapped in a cage and studied by aliens, would you? Another interesting issue that Star Trek deals with (and which Into Darkness touches upon) is the Prime Directive, which is the principle that Star Fleet should not interfere with the development of more primitive cultures. (I wrote on this issue from a libertarian perspective here.)

But, states Staley, "nothing in Into Darkness rises to the level of meaningful social, political, or philosophical commentary." At best, it is a sign of how far we have come since the '60s, when "a biracial kiss was a big deal," a racial group could be openly denied equal protections under the law, and the Cold War potentially threatened thermonuclear war. But it is certainly not the case that the Western world is problem free or that moral issues involving technology are gone. This is clearly so when one considers the surveillance state, drone warfare, crypto-currencies, and so forth. One hopes that writers and artists will create content that grapples with such issues.

And this might be the biggest issue with Star Trek: Into Darkness: it is simply an action movie held in a futuristic setting. Star Trek didn't become the phenomenon that it is by doing action sci-fi well, but by presenting and wrestling with the political and social issues of our times (as well as future and past times), and allowing us to imagine what space exploration might be like. It's not that Into Darkness is a bad movie, but that it falls short of what we hope to see from Star Trek.