A few years ago when the television show Picard was dropping its first trailers, I discovered a dearth in my language. I had an idea which I wanted to express to an excited friend regarding the upcoming show, certain reservations I couldn't quite put into words.
I said it would be political, and she replied that Star Trek was always political. In a sense, she was right. From its inception, Star Trek was inherently political; it has always preached a certain worldview. At her rejoinder, I realized that "Political" wasn't really the word I wanted. "Preachy" came to mind, but I figured it fell into the same trap.
It wasn't so much that it preached or was politized, but the offense was in the politics being preached.
When Kirk kissed Uhura, that was meant as an offense, but it was an offense against something truly offensive. My reservation really wasn't that the show would preach, but what it would preach. When it was politized against racism, a real evil, I was for that politicization. Yet, I had a dark suspicion, growing as I started to notice a pattern with legacy characters returning to the silver screen, that the good reputation Captain Picard had was about to be hollowed out, its core replaced with a new message, a new politics.
The best I could express myself was by analogy. "It's poisoned," I think I said. "Star Trek has always been on the liberal side, but right now the liberal side has gone insane." The conversation moved on, but I always felt like I hadn't quite said what I was trying to say. Perhaps I was too afraid to use the word propaganda.
- Did you bother watching Picard? What did you think?
- Do you find that legacy characters like Captain Picard are used more for propaganda than art?
- How would you explain the difference between propaganda and art?