Excessive Criticism of “STAR TREK VOYAGER”

Voyager.jpg

EXCESSIVE CRITICISM OF “STAR TREK VOYAGER”

For the past two decades, I have never encountered so much criticism of one particular Star Trek show than I have for the 1995-2001 series, “STAR TREK VOYAGER”

Ironically, I used to buy this negative opinion. Or accept it. One of the reasons I had ignored “STAR TREK VOYAGER” for so many years, because I had assumed that those fans who had deemed it inferior to the other shows in the franchise were right. When my sister found out that the rest of our family was ignoring the show, she fervently suggested that we watch it. This happened when the early Season Five episodes were going through its first run. Well, we did. We watched some of those early Season Five shows. We also watched the previous episodes from Season One to Season Four that were currently in syndication. And guess what? My family became fans of the show.

I am not going to claim that “VOYAGER” was perfect. Yes, it had its flaws. I have even posted a few articles about some of the flaws I had encountered. But I was also able to pick out both major and minor flaws in the other Trek shows at the time – “STAR TREK”“STAR TREK NEXT GENERATION”, and “STAR TREK DEEP SPACE NINE” – while still enjoying them. I never really became a big fan of “STAR TREK ENTERPRISE”, but there were a good number of episodes that I really enjoyed.

This fervent need to nitpick everything about “STAR TREK VOYAGER” in order to deem it as some kind of pop culture disaster is mind boggling to me. Every time I access an article on the Internet – especially on a Trek message board – about series, the criticism seemed to strike me as unnecessarily excessive . . . and constant. And most of the complaints I have come across are either about some ridiculously minor flaw or how Janeway was a terrible star ship captain. I do not understand this opinion. Janeway made her mistakes. So did the other Trek captains. What made her worse than the others? Her gender? Star Trek shows were not allowed to have women as the leads, or even worse, in the command position?

More importantly, these same fans seem very reluctant to point out the flaws – both minor and major – about the other Trek shows. At least not to this extreme degree. What is going on? If you are going to state that “VOYAGER” was simply the worst show in the Trek franchise, do not expect me to buy this opinion anymore. After seeing the show and the others in the franchise, I really have great difficulty in accepting this view. So what is it? What is the real truth? I guess in the end, these are questions that no one can really answer. After all, art and entertainment are subjective.

“THE INFORMANT!” (2009) Review

“THE INFORMANT!” (2009) Review

As a rule, I am not particularly fond of whistleblower films. I find them rather boring and unoriginal. Then I saw Steven Soderbergh’s 2009 movie, “THE INFORMANT!” and concluded there might be one whistleblower film that I do like.

Based on true events and the 2000 non-fiction book, ”The Informant”, by journalist Kurt Eichenwald, the movie is about Mark Whitacre, a rising star at Decatur, Illinois based Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) in the early 1990s who wound up blowing the whistle on the company’s price-fixing tactics, only after his wife forced him to. Soderbergh cast Matt Damon as Whitacre and Scott Bakula as FBI Special Agent Brian Shephard, the man to whom he ratted out ADM.

The movie began in 1992 when the FBI was brought in to investigate a possible case of corporate espionage against ADM. The espionage case later was found to be groundless, but during their investigation, Mark Whitacre, under pressure from his wife, told an FBI agent named Brian Shephard that he and other ADM executives were involved in a multinational conspiracy to control the price of lysine. So far, this plot struck me as no different than any other whistleblower movie. But what made ”THE INFORMANT!” unique to me was the character of said whistleblower – Mark Whitacre. The movie’s first half portrayed him as an eccentric man and enthusiastic executive who seemed reluctant to expose his superiors at ADM. But he eventually dedicated himself into assisting the FBI into spending years in gathering evidence by clandestinely taping the company’s activity in business meetings at various locations around the globe such as Tokyo, Paris, Mexico City, and Hong Kong, eventually collecting enough evidence of collaboration and conspiracy to warrant a raid. Following the raid, it all went downhill for Whitacre. The stress of being the FBI’s mole for three years led him to react to the media in a bizarre manner. More importantly, the FBI and the public discovered that Whitacre had embezzled millions of dollars from ADM.

When I first saw the billboards for ”THE INFORMANT!”, I thought it would be some kind of espionage film like the Jack Ryan novels or something like 1974’s ”THE CONVERSATION”. I eventually learn that the movie might have more to do with industrial espionage . . . and the fact that it was another whistleblower film. Why I did not bother to skip this film upon hearing this, I do not know. Perhaps I was willing to give it a chance due to the fact that Soderbergh and Damon (who did the three ”OCEAN’S ELEVEN” movies) were working together, again. And you know what? I am so glad that I gave it a chance. What started out as an amusing, yet detailed account of Whitacre’s years as a whistleblower for the FBI, ended in a chaotic character study of a very intelligent man who turned out to be a chronic liar and embezzler. As much as I enjoyed the movie’s first half, I really enjoyed the second half that exposed Whitacre’s crimes. The plot – or should I say Whitacre’s character – began to spiral out of control once the whistleblower tried to deflect himself from fraud charges in hilarious ways. By the time the movie ended, I did not know whether to be astounded or amused by how it all fell apart for Whitacre.

”THE INFORMANT!” featured a pretty good solid cast that included Scott Bakula as the long suffering FBI agent Brian Shephard who had recruited Whitacre to act as an informant for his agency . . . and lived to regret it. Joel McHale portrayed his partner, the more outgoing FBI agent Robert Herndon. It was interesting to see comedians like Thomas F.Wilson, the Smothers Brothers – Tom and Dick, Allan Harvey, Patton Oswalt and Scott Adsit all in serious roles. I enjoyed Tony Hale’s performance as Whitacre’s first attorney, James Epstein. Watching his reaction to the growing chaos that seemed to surround Whitacre was rather funny. And Melanie Lynskey gave a strong performance as Whitacre’s wife, Ginger, who seemed to act as the whistleblower’s conscious and backbone. But who am I kidding? The movie is owned lock, stock and barrel by Matt Damon’s brilliant performance as Mark Whitacre. I cannot even describe how good he was in capturing this complex, deceiving and yet, sympathetic personality. I found it criminal that Damon was not nominated for an Academy Award nomination for his performance.

Do I have any quibbles about ”THE INFORMANT!”? Uh . . . I can only think of one or two complaints right now. I found Soderbergh’s cinematography rather uninspiring. Yep . . . that is what I had said. The film’s director had also acted as the photographer. And I found it dull and slightly metallic at times. If Soderbergh honestly considers himself a genuine cinematographer . . . well, I would suggest that he stick to directing and producing. And I must admit that right before the FBI had decided to arrest some of ADM’s executives, the pacing became so slow that it nearly dragged the film. Aside from those complaints, I really enjoyed this movie. But I must warn you . . . if you are expecting it to be another ”THE INSIDER” or ”DEFENSE OF THE REALM”, you are going to be sadly disappointed. ”THE INFORMANT!” struck me as possessing an unusual and highly original story for it to be viewed as another whistleblower film.