I have a lot invested in “Star Trek Into Darkness.”
I’m not a huge fan of the franchise as a whole. I’m one of those fans, the ones who got involved in “Star Trek” when J.J. Abrams came out with the reboot — hardened Trekkies would laugh at my newness to the fandom. But my love is honest and true; I feel for that movie what those of a previous generation felt for “Star Wars.” I fell in love with Chris Pine’s Kirk the second he threw that punch and started a completely unnecessary bar fight; Zachary Quinto’s Spock won my heart the first time he told someone to “live long and prosper” in a way that suggested he wished them to do neither. I cannot even begin to tell you the number of times I have seen this movie; it is my go-to film for rainy days, it’s what I watch whenever I need a pick-me up.
If you need more proof that I’m a big “Star Trek fan,” consider this; I flew halfway across the country a few weeks ago, just to see the film with some similarly obsessed friends. If you factor in the plane ticket, this is the most I’ve ever spent on a movie in my life.
I really wasn’t kidding about being invested in this film.
Weeks after seeing it, I think I’m emotionally able to talk about the movie on an semi-honest level. I can now, after a period of deep reflection, admit to myself that it wasn’t as good as I thought it was the night I saw it. There were plot holes. There was completely gratuitous nudity. The story lines for the women in the film were flimsy, their motivations firmly tied up in their feelings for a male character.
But most damningly, there was whitewashing. And this, this has been the hardest thing to admit to myself; it doesn’t matter how wonderful Benedict Cumberbatch’s performance was, the fact remains, he should not have been playing Khan.
There has been much ink spilled on the topic of whether or not it is acceptable for a white man to play a character that has historically been played by an actor of color. To me, it’s not a debate. It’s obvious that doing so is out of line. Imagine, if you will, Lando Calrissian being portrayed by a white man, in a reboot of “Star Wars.” Imagine if J.J. Abrams had decided to cast a white woman to play Lieutenant Uhura. The very thought is ludicrous. And the absurdity of a white man playing a man named Khan Noonien Singh is self-evident, if you’re South Asian. End of story.
Others have pointed out the special injustice that is involved when a role like Khan gets whitewashed. Khan is supposed to represent the pinnacle of human evolution; to cast a person of color in the role makes a statement, as opposed to the more traditional choice for an ubermensch; a Nordic, Anglo-Saxon type. Also, to take a complex, layered role away from a person of color plays into Hollywood’s habit of giving people of color simple, uncomplicated villains to play, while reserving the meatier bad guys for white actors. But most importantly, to cast a white man in this role shows a total lack of respect for the struggle that is associated with having the name “Khan”, in today’s world. Khan marks you at the airport, and at the border. Khan puts you on no-fly lists and turns you into a permanent person of interest. When Khan finally means something more than all that — that’s when it gets taken away from the real Khans of this world.
I know all of this, logically. I feel the injustice of what’s been done deep in my bones; I wonder what “Star Trek” creator Gene Roddenberry would say, were he alive to see what Abrams has done with the progressive, inclusive universe he invented. None of this is going to stop me from seeing the movie again next weekend. And probably the weekend after that.
I’ve seen people on the internet furiously argue that we have a moral obligation to withhold our dollars from the filmmakers, until they learn their lesson. Self-righteous person after self-righteous person has told me how they’re going to stay at home and watch “The Wrath of Khan” on repeat in protest of Abrams’ bastardization of a beloved story. They should do what they feel is best. Me? I’m going to go see the movie again.
I’m weak, okay? The story has pull over me; I’ll close my eyes to the racism, I’ll swallow my indignation. I’ll even admit that Cumberbatch’s performance was marvelous, the best of the entire film, if it means getting to see Kirk try to reach Spock through the glass window one more time. Real life is hard, and I just want to be able to to lose myself in the world of “Star Trek.” I want to give up the burden of being a conscious person of color, at least until the movie ends.
I recognize this feeling. It’s the same impulse I felt as a child, watching classic episodes of “The Simpsons,” wanting so badly to laugh at Apu, instead of feeling desperately sorry for him. I forced myself to rationalize as hard as I could, telling people that he was my favorite character on the show, telling people that “Yes, that’s what it’s really like to be Indian!”, and praising Hank Azaria’s ridiculous accent — all while wondering if the show was laughing with us, or at us. I want to pretend there’s an easy way around all these thorny questions, but of course there isn’t.
So in the end, that’s probably the real burden of being a person of color who consumes culture. It isn’t the struggle of not seeing proper representation; it’s the fear that your indignation will overpower your enjoyment; that it will take away the emotional outlet that mass media provides. Yet staking out your right to enjoy things carries with it uneasy questions of collaboration. Should a feminist watch a Polanski film? I have no idea. I’m going to take these questions one at a time, because in the end, it isn’t about ideology, or grand ideas. It’s about what you feel is right, and that is, ultimately, a personal question.
Jaya Sundaresh lives in Hartford, Connecticut. She grew up in various parts of the Northeast before deciding to study political science at McGill University. You can follow her on Twitter at @anedumacation.
While I understand where you’re coming from, and you’re certainly not the first person to raise these concerns, to point out the racial wrongs in the Star Trek series is like shooting fish in a barrel.
If you want to limit yourself to Abrams’ version of the franchise, I laughed at the fact that John Cho (South Korean) stepped into the chair previously occupied by George Takei (Japanese). And there’s the (un)subtle composition of the crew under the white Captain Kirk. But, back in the day, this was groundbreaking. When Star Trek first premiered on TV, it was unusual to have so many cultures represented, even though the Scottish “Scotty” was played by a Canadian actor.
But, it seems like your problem mainly rests with the character Khan. It’s difficult to discuss this in full because I don’t know how far to get into this. You say you’re just a fan of the Abrams version. Well, in the Abrams version, they don’t get into the Khan backstory. All we know is his name is Khan, which is admittedly a Desi name. However, we also know he is a genetically engineered being. There is no “South Asian-ness” to the character. It’s not the equivalent of a white actor playing Desi. You cite his full name, but that is not mentioned (I don’t believe) in the movie.
Another more interesting note is, well, I’m not sure why you’d want a South Asian actor in the role. You claim that the name Khan is a marker at the airport. Well, in the movie, Khan annihilates what looks like most of San Francisco and is, to put it mildly, very, very evil.
Finally, if we want to go into the backstory a bit more, the role, before it was Khan, was actually written to be a Nordic ubermensch. I’ve read that they only changed it to Khan (according to Wikipedia in order to honor a friend of Roddenberry’s) after they were able to cast Ricardo Montalban in the role. Obviously, Ricardo Montalban is not South Asian, but is in fact Mexican. Montalban would play Khan in TV and later in the second Star Trek movie and his Khan is still widely regarded as one of the greatest villains played on screen. How British Benedict Cumberbatch would somehow later become a Mexican Desi is just one of the many plotholes Star Trek has to overcome. But you already know that.
This topic is one that never ceases to amaze me, because it so entirely misses the point. There is a naive, charming assumption that movie execs sit around a table asking themselves, “Should we hire a white guy for this? Or a person of color? You know, the role was created by Ricardo Montalbán, but a white guy is more appealing.”
As someone who lives and works in Hollywood, I can promise you that that conversation NEVER happens. They didn’t go with Benedict Cumberbatch because he’s white; they went with a white guy because he was Benedict Cumberbatch. Not only did they not cast a person of color, they also didn’t cast a million other white guys. Cumberbatch is hot right now, and he was willing and available. There you have it. Hollywood IS color blind; the only color they see is green.
Cumberbatch is not only weedy, but is pasty and revolting. Definitely NOT super-human material.
Cumberbatch is gorgeous, and scintillating as Khan. His performance in the role was near universally acclaimed. David Letterman’s taken aback reaction after seeing a clip of the film at the end of his otherwise sleepy interview of Cumberbatch on the David Letterman show was typical (Youtube).He went from his usual jaded self to fumbling for words after seeing Cumberbatch as Khan.
he was ridiculously good….
I’d call that comment bullshit, but it would need dozens of elevations to get to bullshit level. Moronic will do
it’s unclear if you would be accepted by Khan or are in fact already part of Khan’s tribe…let’s take a look at you.
Author here. The thing is, the original Khan and BC’s Khan are the same Khan, as the Abrams verse is technically the same as the TOS verse. It would follow that this Khan would have the same backstory as Montalbán’s Khan. So Khan is still a Punjabi Sikh, in whatever version of Star Trek we’re talking about.
Exactly. Much is being made that a fictional genetically engineered superbeing that was originally supposedly Sikh but was played by a Mexican actor is now being played by a British actor. Except it’s “technically the same as the TOS verse.” So somehow the British actor is supposed to grow into the Mexican actor playing the Sikh with a strong Mexican accent.
Imagine if a South Asian actor had been cast instead. Then a South Asian actor would have been playing a character named Khan, a superpowered Terrorist that wipes out an entire city by flying an aircraft directly into the center of a metropolis. That would have been MUCH more well received.
Except that Montalban at least looked the part!
This is just too ridiculous and petty for words. The actors performance should be everything. Yet the blog is a whining minority wimmin demanding changes to suit HER and people like her (and we’ve seen the mess THAT makes in “Elementary”) and others displaying a dislike for Brits and trying to hide it behind how it should be a mexican for **** sake……Montelban looked like what he was. An aging man working out with flabby tits – great performance but he can’t play Khan now, can he ? Shatner’s too old etc etc etc
He was NOT a “Punjabi Sikh” for God sakes – do your damn homework and don’t base everything on a NAME. I have an Irish surname, but I couldn’t be LESS Irish
This blogger has valid points, BUT what she fails to realize is that Star Trek is NOT about race/color, it’s about going BEYOND that! Also, why don’t more desis (w/ capital) invest in films made by desis? This is a complicated issue…
correct.
Cumberbatch is a ridiculous choice. The Rock would have been a better choice. He has the build and the IQ (yes, true). Mine is not a racial argument – even though I have a child of the right genetics to play Khan. Mine is a canon argument – stop messing with it. This is not Star Trek – it is a parody.
The Rock, ugh what a thought! Thank god the choice wasn’t up to you, you would have ruined the movie. As it was, Cumberbatch’s performance lifted the movie!
Rock has the IQ…….you’ve talked drivvel constantly, and this is the cherry on the top. A little evidence of this “IQ” would be nice. WEVE SEEN PRECIOUS LITTLE EVIDENCE OF IT
Well for starters, he has a degree in Criminology – which I’m betting you can’t match. The character Khan was a superhuman in build, and was intelligent. Cumberbatch is an ugly, scrawny man. As for your rudeness, I’ll ignore that, it shows more about you than it does about me. If one is to stick to Trek canon, then Cumberbatch was ridiculous.
from a trek perspective don’t think that is correct….see comments above…
you might have a personal preference for a different type…that is different.
a physically strong choice to play that role would have betrayed the fact that he is a strategist….a ‘big brute’, however smart, will always be cut down first in battle….
the smarter choice (who will live longer) is someone who no one sees coming…
Not to spilt hairs or distract from the many valid points the author makes, but Montalban’s parents were both Spanish immigrants to Mexico. Kahn has never been played by a man of color. The last one just had a better tan than the current one.
Whining wimmin of minority whine how story should be altered to show minorities better and lose money hand over fist sensation. Currentlyt the same moronic activity is taking place on Cumberbatch’s “rival” ELEMENTARY where Watson is a woman and so is Moriarty, and the show is a laughing stock, and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle is spinning in his grave. Has it improved the story ? NO All it’s done is pleased fools that make a living out of whining.
Khan….Rodenberry’s idea was a Nordic genetically altered superman. He DIDN’T name him Khan originally. He RENAMED him after a USAF AirForce friend – CARL Noonien Singh.
Indian name was incidental
The name Khan, while an indian surname, is not Indian in origin nor is it exclusively found in India.
The name has its roots with the mongols who used it as an honorific title (e.g. Ghengis KHAN). The origins are Eastern (Mongolian).
In reality, the surname Khan is found throughout Asia – consistent with the movement of the invading mongol armies, who moved from Mongolia across all of central Asia into Russia and Eastern Europe, invading many places along the way – including but not limited to India, Pakistan, Afganistan….Russia, Georgia, Romania.
Hence, Khan is originally an Eastern name but in modern times is found everywhere across Asia. It is in point of fact a pan-Asian name.
The original Star Trek episode picked the name Khan probably to accentuate a global theme but, in particular, to emphasis the rise of Asia – as a continent – all of Asia (from one side to the other).
The name Khan would have been a good choice to reflect a character who needed to represent all of Asia, who had a desire to unite and rule ‘all of Asia’ and who’s ultimate roots were murky, unclear, vague (again, leaning on the story line from the original Star Trek episode where his aspirations were revealed).
In this way, and consistent with current reality, the name Khan is pan Asian and encompasses all the known races of that continent.
From that perspective, the character of Khan could realistically be played by anyone who currently lives across the Asian continent – white, indian, etc.
Per the script , the character Khan is an anti-hero. His cause is not altogether without merit. He seeks to save his kind from eradication. It is his methods that are amoral. He is singularly focused on achieving his noble end and gives no thought to whether the means he uses to achieve those ends are moral, amoral, or mad.
The original Star Trek gets all of this right. The movie tries a slightly different spin, gets many things right (Alice Eve being one of them) but possibly doesn’t explain all of this clearly enough.
Both the movie and the TV show episode end with the same moralistic story line.
Team ‘random genetics’, led by Kirk and Spock, who possess more spirit and a higher moral code, defeats team ‘engineered genetics’, led by Khan. It’s a game of sport with the human race in the balance.
Though Khan’s purpose is noble – to save his kind – he is stopped because his methods are immoral.
The ending is where the movie and the TV show truly part company.
In the TV show, Kirk, victorious, could have Khan executed. He would be well within his rights.
Instead Kirk does something unexpected, something…random…human.
He frees Khan and his tribe to live out their days on an isolated planet – a planet teeming with life, raw, brutal in every way, all struggling to survive.
The raw, brutal environment of the planet reflects the brutal and singular nature of Khan and his people.
Kirk reasons – It would be immoral to squash all this potential before giving it a chance to see what it can do, before seeing what it can become.
Effectively, Kirk is hoping the raw, brutal environment of this isolated planet will ‘produce, over time’ a more moral version of Khan. hum…..I leave it to the geneticists in my audience to comment.
Kirk’s choice reflects the overall theme of the episode – that genetic engineering might produce stronger, smarter humans, but it doesn’t create better human beings; the spiritual and moral core is what defines true greatness and Kirk and Spock have it while Khan, so eager to prove his superiority, lacks it.
is Kirk correct in freeing Khan? Is Khan just a weed, an aberration who should be eliminated? Khan is certainly dangerous – possibly mad – and the choice to free him is a risky choice. Kirk is hoping that over time, Khan will evolve and develop a moral center to match his superior capabilities. Would that then be the end of Kirk and his kind?
Kirk’s choice is courageous and betrays his feelings of empathy with Khan. On some level he must relate to Khan. He must see some version of himself in Khan.
Kirk is no stranger to moral relativism and bending the rules to achieve some ends. From day one, we are told that Kirk does things ‘his own way’. He produces his own ‘moral code’ to suite his needs.
Are they so different?
The difference is possibly only of perspective and certainly of degree.
The overall theme of the movie and the Star Trek TV episode are the same – though the endings differ.
The choice of Cumberbatch to play the role of villain is interesting. He does a brilliant job of capturing the nuances of the character, his righteous, moral clarity about wanting to save his friends, his lack of remorse at using amoral means to achieve his goals.
It is however, not exactly carte blanche for actually BEING superior. Rather it is a case study in what is not SUPERIOR. It is a case study in ‘brute strength’ vs. ‘moral character’.
In this episode at least, moral character wins out over brute strength.
Since Khan is clearly not superior, the choice of which actor should play him reflects in a sneaky way a very PC choice. The original choice of actor is in fact not a very PC choice (e.g. the suggestion is that Khan and his tribe are all ‘unsophisticated, moral and physical brutes’).
The original episode makes clear however that Khan’s people are of all types (throughout Asia). The core issue is overt genetic engineering vs. pure, environmentally driven selection.
Consistent with that spirit, Khan and his brethren are ‘young, first generation’ and can be expected to improve with age if they survive.
The experiment has only just begun…
I care more that there was just a loss of continuity that would have been just as appalling as if Spock was suddenly Black, or Kirk was suddenly Chinese. It didn’t make sense. The racist thing wasn’t what stuck out for me, but then again, I’m white. Which is…bad? Whatever, keep Start Trek as Start Trek, cast accordingly. CumberKhan was good, might have been fine if he’d just been plain old John Harrison after all.