How plausible is the basic premise of Star Trek V that taking away one's pain will prompt absolute loyalty to whomever removed it?Not very. While there are certainly people who have been severely traumatized, often by systematic abuse, they cannot function in society, the idea that someone who is functional, but carrying around the pain of loss or failure, will abandon all other loyalties when that pain is magically taken away is implausible.
Things might have been more plausible if sybok was a cult leader who had literally brainwashed his followers. I have known some Christians who worked with counseling ex-cult members who have said some of his patients literally need to learn to re-love family members and re-learn how much they appreciated their old life. Many of them cannot. But that was not the case with Sybok. William Shatner based the character on a faith healing televangelist he had seen and decided to modify his shtick from physical healing to emotional. Clearly, it did not work as well. I also find it odd that faith healing televangelists like Benny Hinn are charlatans, but Sybok was supposed to be the real deal.
The best part about it is near the end of The Final Frontier when Sybok offers to take away Kirk’s pain, but he refuses to allow it, then states you cannot wipe away personal pain with a wave of your hand. You know things are going badly in the movie when the writer/director dismisses the major plot point himself on screen. Of course, by that point you have certainly found so much else to mock about the film, you probably barely notice that.
No comments:
Post a Comment