Sunday, August 5, 2012

Wookies vs. Trekkers

5.1
Recently I re-watched two of the most iconic movies in the Action/Adventure/Science Fiction/Fantasy genres:  “Star Wars: Episode IV, The New Hope”, and “Star Trek: The Motion Picture”.  Both of these movies are parts of franchises that have enormous groups of loyal followers.  The interesting part is that while these two movies are similar in many ways these groups of followers seldom overlap.  In fact, Star Wars vs. Star Trek, as to which you are a fan, has become a way in which people in the science fiction genre sometimes type themselves.
The beliefs are similar in both movies.  Good will triumph over evil and working together will bring victory.  In “Star Wars”, our heroes must rise from adversity, or from humble beginnings to find their greatness.  In “Star Trek”, the crew who has proven their worth is called on to save the day.  An added element to “Wars” is the magic and mystery of “The Force” which Luke must learn—again pitting good vs. evil, and the element of surprise in “Trek” is the “Singularity”, or how a machine reacts to its coming of consciousness.
Formulas in both movies follow some similar and some different paths.  The general fantasy structure is seen in both, with elements we must stretch our minds to accept, and characters that are foreign to our known world.  Action/Adventure and the fight to save the world and the damsel are parts of both films.  Certainly the space settings qualify both in the science fiction realm.  Both have a coming of age focus, though the two are very different in the subject of this.  I find that they differ and that “Wars” is more of a romantic saga, and “Trek” follows the formula of a buddy movie.
Even though they are both set in space and presumed in the future, “Wars” gritty, and dismal view makes me feel it relates closer to the past.  Tatooine, and its dusty farms, where young Luke dreams of something greater, is reminiscent of Dorothy’s Kansas in Wizard of Oz.  “Trek’s” slick and orderly earth, with a diverse set of human and alien working together, seems to be more desirable of the future.  With this in mind one can envision a change in the formula of Coming of Age over the years.  In the “Wars” past version, Luke lives a simple life but dreams of greatness until an event, the arrival of the droids and the murder of his aunt and uncle, propels him in to action.  A mentor, Kenobi, guides him toward a goal, and then leaves him to discover his courage and save the day.  The coming of age in “Trek’s” future version is about Spock’s acceptance of feelings, with Kirk to help him learn, and the machine V’Ger’s transformation from machine to sentient being and a search for purpose, and Decker’s sacrifice to become the guiding program.
I believe that formulas of the past stay true as the years pass.  Both of these movies draw heavily from the past and from formulas that drive characters that do not matter if they are driving a Roman chariot or an X-Wing fighter.  “Wars” borrows from the “King Arthur” mythology and from the medieval prince and princess formulas.  The rules of honor, family ties and rites, kingdoms and royalty are found here.  “Trek” is closer to the formula of the old westerns of the 50s and cop buddy movies.  Kirk and Spock and their crew are on an adventure in to the frontier friending and fighting those along the way while they protect the integrity of the Federation.
          Learning about the formulas that drive these films along with the other parts of the entire “Wars” and “Trek” franchises helps me to understand the division between the two sets of fans.  “Wars” fans do roleplay and reenact parts of the films, putting themselves in to the mythology and fantasy of the films.  They want to be those characters and fight those fights for  honor and to preserve the kingdoms.  “Trek” fans, on the other hand, do roleplay and create new characters, languages and elements of the ever-expanding frontier.  Anything is possible on the horizon or on the holodeck, but the bonds of the crew buddies remain strong. 

Heroes vs. Celebrities

   4.2


In today’s fast paced, but lonely and competitive world, it is important to have solid heroes that provide moral guidance and inspiration through the adversity we face.  Often people find themselves looking up to celebrities who charismatically fill their needs as someone who has the things they want; fame, talent, recognition, wealth, beauty, etc.; but do not generally see that person as a role model for their actions or substance.
While there are many varying definitions of a hero, a very appropriate one is defined at dictionary.com.  A hero is “a person who, in the opinion of others, has heroic qualities or has performed a heroic act and is regarded as a model or ideal”.  Another of the listed definitions also applies; “a man (or woman) of distinguished courage or ability, admired for his brave deeds and noble qualities”.  These would be the people in real life we would look up to and seek to emulate.  Other definitions, such as being god-like, immortal or superhuman, apply to the comic book character type heroes that save the day in fantasy worlds that we might revere but do not identify with.
On the other hand, celebrity is defined as being famous or well known, or the act of being famous or renown.  Nothing is said about the person’s quality or deeds.  Certainly heroes can be famous and be well known, but the act of simply being famous does not a hero make.
Scott LaBarge, an Ethics educator at Santa Clara University, cites the tie between heroes and morality and points out that persons who find heroes in people who work toward goals or fight for a cause, such as Martin Luther King, or Susan B. Anthony, will have a far different view of what is good and right than someone who idolizes and emulates celebrities like Paris Hilton, or 50-Cent.  The
 difference seems to be the depth to which one seeks to know about their hero.  Does the person want to emulate deeds of their hero and are they drive to reach goals, or are they simply saying, “she’s pretty and I want to be pretty”.  The qualities of our heroes define the qualities we have or want.  Mr. LaBarge cites examples of young people who list celebrities as their heroes and the dangers of losing sight of the importance of the difference that people of courage and nobility with a sense of purpose and drive to a goal have made to society.  He believes that teachers and others in society should help to highlight positive role models and show young people the difference between enjoying a celebrity and emulating a real hero.  He also points out that pervasive cynicism in today’s world breaks apart those who should be heroes to show they also have a human and fallible side, casting a shadow on the positive deeds they have done, when it is their human weakness and likeness to us that should show us that any of us can rise to do great things.
           Elizabeth Goren in an article in The American Journal of Psychoanalysis suggests that just prior to 9/11 heroes in this country were based only on their fame, fortune, beauty, or prowess and that these symbolized the superego that the media and our country’s values of disillusionment had given to the people.  These heroes were temporary and fleeting, quickly replaced by the next best thing.  The effect of 9/11 was to bring us back to more traditional heroism, and honoring the firemen, police, politicians and others who held steady on that day and that such traumas create common heroes as they do common enemies.  In time however, disillusionment would befall even these heroes, moving then from the heroic symbol of an unwavering servant to a human who might drink or fight or have other faults.  She surmises that in our process of being vulnerable and grieving traumatic events like 9/11 we first see heroes like the firefighters as having courage in the face of defeat, but as we grow stronger we cast those heroes aside because we can no longer associate defeat with the trauma and we move on to our soldiers who are the new hero avenging the action, and we will move forward from the soldiers to another form of hero representing our victory as that becomes available. 
Ms. Goren’s explanation of the cycle of heroism can be used to partly explain the concept of the “Cult of Celebrity”.  Cult of Celebrity can be defined as a “widespread interest in arbitrarily famous individuals, or celebrities".  As we move through the mourning process we arbitrarily assign value to and want to be the sacrificers (the firefighters), the saviors (the soldiers), and then the victors, building them up and then diminishing them along the way.  In the same way, we watch with fascination as a new celebrity gains glory and fame only to implode or be exposed as human, and then to be replaced by the next star.  In a podcast, Dr. Angie Hobbs from Britain’s Warwick University states that the Cult of Celebrity that we follow is dangerous to society, keeping people from being as productive or happy as they could be.  Putting fame as our first priority provides no substance, and fame should be a secondary goal to some other heroic action in order to be healthy.
I agree with Dr. Hobbs.  Celebrity in itself does not fulfill the definition of hero, and it shouldn't since it does not provide any understanding of how hard the celebrity worked to reach their status or what their true values are.  To find a hero we first must find deeds that inspire us to reach our own goals, and then we should identify with their success.