[There were two letters to the editor in issue 2, but this is the only one I've found in softcopy form. The other one, from George Lyons, was also on this subject.]
Dear Editor,
Kurt Kober's "Morph like an Egyptian" was a fine analysis of Stargate. However, Mr. Kober is too quick to condemn certain aspects of the film as mystical. For Objectivists, this is a serious charge – one that shouldn't be cast around lightly and without forethought.
Before going on it will be useful to define "mystical" – lest he and I wind up arguing past each other. Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary (1977) defines it in three ways, only two of which I believe are relevant here: "1. having a spiritual meaning or reality that is neither apparent to the senses nor obvious to the intelligence" and "2. of, relating to, or resulting from an individual's communion with God or ultimate reality." What is essential here, though the definitions only hint at it, is the way the mystical is outside reason and the reality given to the senses. Anyway, the definitions seem applicable to so called mystical happenings like communicating with the dead.
Stargate doesn't fall under either of these definitions of mystical. In fact, the movie finds a rational explanation – rational within the context of the story – for Ancient Egyptian religion. Ra, the bad guy, we quickly find out is merely some alien with a lot of high tech gadgets and a short temper. Not exactly some mysterious force clouding our cognitive abilities! He reminds me of an evil magician not a god. His henchmen – who wear elaborate headdresses that change shape at the touch of button – are mere humans. Ra used such devices to awe his slaves and soldiers alike. However, just because a character in a story tries to dupe others by setting himself as a godhead doesn't mean that the story itself is mystical.
Of course, Stargate also posits that human civilization got a push from space. Such an idea can be seen as an attack on human ability – i.e., people by themselves could never form a civilization, build pyramids, or invent carphones – but this is not the same as mysticism. But such a charge should be balanced against the fact that, within the story, Ancient Egyptians were able to overthrow Ra on Earth causing him to flee across the stars. No small feat for puny humans!
For examples of mysticism in film see Quo Vadis or The Evil Dead. They both use mystical elements as major story elements. God tells Saint Peter what to do in Quo Vadis. A few ancient phrases manage to start a chain of possessions by demons in The Evil Dead. These are supposed to be contact with God and the action of the supernatural. This is a long way from Ra and his antics!
"Science fiction" must also be defined, since Mr. Kober claims that Stargate is not science fiction but fantasy. This charge is not as morally and emotionally laden as that of being mystical, but part of his problem is what he expects of science fiction. After all, if we accept his equating "science fiction" with "hard science fiction" then most of what has been called science fiction in both film and books will have to cast out. I admit my taste in science fiction goes toward the hard stuff.
If we again look at the dictionary definitions, we get either "fiction dealing principally with the impact of actual or imagined science upon society or individuals" or "literary fantasy including a scientific factor as an essential orienting component." Both definitions pass the test of works commonly thought of as science fiction, such as The Time Machine (both the book and the various movie versions), Battlestar Gallactica, and the Aliens trilogy.
Of course, some works can be utterly fantastic, well beyond the power of any possible science or technology, but still be science fiction. I think The Time Machine is an example of this as is any of the Frankenstein screen adaptations. Yet Stargate does not, by these definitions, approach the border except in the "stargate" itself – a means to travel 28 lightyears instantly from Earth to Ra's planet. This piece of alien technology is no more mystical than the transporters of Star Trek fame.
None of the above speaks against the poor writing that characterizes Stargate and most other science fiction films. Mr. Kober quotes Rand on the grounding of film in literature. It's an idea that many of today's producers and directors should become familiar with.
Sincerely,
Daniel Ust