|
Stigma (Star Trek Enterprise)
T'Pol becomes seriously ill with a disease condemned by most parts
of Vulcan society. Timothy W. Lynch pulls his critic's pen out, but
to stab or praise this episode of Star Trek Enterprise, you'll have
to read on to discover ...
"Stigma" Enterprise Season 2, Episode
14 Written by Rick Berman & Brannon Braga Directed by David
Livingston
"Stigma"
is one of those episodes that needs to be looked at on several levels.
There's the question of how it works as drama within "Enterprise",
the question of how it fits into the broader Trek universe, and,
since this was billed very explicitly as the "AIDS parable episode,"
how it works as a metaphor and as an analogy. Let's take them in
order.

In and of itself, the A-plot of "Stigma" works reasonably well.
With a season that seems to have spent all too much of its time
sleepwalking its way through stories, the energy level here was
way up. While I had concerns about T'Pol the Vulcan (more about
that later), I had no problems with T'Pol the Victim of Intolerance,
except for the convenient rewriting of history meant to put her
into that mold.
For those who haven't seen the episode, T'Pol has apparently been
suffering from Penarr's Syndrome for a little under a year, and
Phlox's regular treatments have begun to lose their effectiveness.
The Vulcans might have more research which could help her, but it
turns out that they're reluctant to share it - the syndrome, you
see, can only be contracted via mind-meld, and those Vulcans who
meld are considered deviant and abhorrent by the remainder of Vulcan
society.
If the High Command even knew T'Pol had the disease, it's entirely
possible that she'd lose her commission and be recalled to Vulcan
- hence, she has no interest in asking for help from her own kind,
and it falls to Phlox to attempt to get information on his own.
There was more than a bit of predictability about the plot, but
within those constraints I was buying into much of the story pretty
well. Much of that is overwhelmingly due to John Billingsley, who
as usual gives Phlox a certain gravitas that's worth an extra look
or two.
When the doctors confront him on Enterprise, suspecting that his
original request wasn't entirely honest, he stands by T'Pol with
a calm fire one doesn't often see. (McCoy certainly had the fire,
for instance, but not a calm one - it always burned way too close
to the surface for that. Bashir managed it on occasion in later
years.)
Later, when Archer hears the news and presses the pair for the
truth, Billingsley again does a good job of showing Phlox caught
with nowhere to go: he doesn't want to lie to Archer, but he also
doesn't want to back down from his previous actions, seeing them
as both right and proper. I'm impressed.
The predictability, however, was something of a problem - enough
so that many aspects of the story could be called almost beat for
beat. With three doctors, it's perhaps a given that one of them
will probably be more sympathetic than the others - but did we have
to have the Stodgy Elder Statesman, the Younger and Even Less Sympathetic
One, and the Sympathetic One Who Harbors His Own Secret?
The instant he paused after Archer's first meeting, Lisa said,
"ah, so he's sympathetic because he can mind meld too." I've no
problem with familiar, but it shouldn't be THAT predictable.
In terms of passion, I'd like to take the rare opportunity (rare
for me, anyway) to praise Jolene Blalock. She had a lot of the heavy
lifting for the episode, and basically pulled it off. You can question
T'Pol's decision to keep silent about how she got the disease, but
it's a decision that the character clearly felt strongly about and
just as clearly had every right to make.
I've still got a lot of serious concerns about how Vulcan T'Pol
is or isn't, but this was one of the few times I've really bought
into her portrayal in any way. Kudos to her.
This is where some revisionist history comes in, though - and it's
revisionist even within Enterprise, not just a diversion from the
"normal" Trek universe. Everyone encourages T'Pol to get treatment
for her condition, saying that the Vulcans will be more likely to
help her if she explains the circumstances, because she was coerced
and attacked, not entering into the mind-meld by choice.
Pardon me, but that's not correct, and T'Pol at least should know
that. I agree that the continuation of the meld was both
forcible and unwelcome, but back in "Fusion" she entered into the
meld of her own free will. One could certainly argue that she was
manipulated into it, but there was no coercion at the outset.
When T'Pol told Archer that he wasn't correct (about her needing
to come clean), I thought for a moment that that's where she was
going to head with things. I've no real objection to her making
the Noble Cause In Pursuit of Justice [TM], but it doesn't sit well
when she's only in that state due to writer fiat. (Let's point out
that a season ago, mind-melds were also unknown. Now apparently
everyone knows about them - it's just that most Vulcans can't initiate
them, and everyone disapproves of those who can. Excuse me?)
The other objection I'd have dramatically is that the "oh, no -
T'Pol's been recalled!" tease as a way to manufacture drama is getting
hugely, hugely old. More to the point, until and unless the powers
that be actually do it for a while and shake things up a
bit, it's an empty threat.
You can't manufacture drama by suggesting something's going to
happen unless the viewer's got at least a little bit of expectation
that it could wind up happening. TNG pulled that sort of thing off
on occasion (with the original "The Best of Both Worlds" cliffhanger
being a case in point), and DS9 actually did move its characters
around enough to make subsequent threats of moving them plausible.
I've seen no evidence that the ENT powers that be are willing to
take anyone off the ship for any length of time at all, except (as
in "Shockwave") where the cliffhanger itself is how to get them
back. I hasten to point out that it's not a problem per se to leave
all the characters in place - but it is a problem to leave
them in place and then set up the "gasp! X might leave!" gambit
every half-dozen episodes or so.
Acting-wise, things were fine apart from the continuing difficulty
of getting guest stars who can do convincing Vulcans. In many ways
I think that's due to a deliberate choice on the part of the writers,
however, which leads me nicely to part two of this review.
In the broader context of the Trek universe, I think the portrayal
of the Vulcans here has officially turned a corner into Who-The-Expletive-
Deleted-Are-These-People Land. A year and a half ago, when the series
premiered, the Vulcans were "villains" in that they were essentially
overprotective parents who felt humanity was too impulsive and too
irrational to be trusted in the larger galactic community without
some serious chaperoning.
That, to me, was an excellent way of making the Vulcans the bad
guys - as much as we like 'em, they do tend to be holier-than-thou
and they do tend to be smug in their belief that their way is the
most enlightened. Since then we've had evidence that Vulcans tend
to run covert espionage operations ("The Andorian Incident"), don't
mind it if innocent lives get caught in crossfires ("Shadows of
P'Jem"), and topple governments they believe to be corrupt ("The
Seventh").
The Earth- Vulcan tension that formed part of the show's basis
has now been replaced with a willingness to use the Vulcans as fall
guys for any particular unpleasant trait we want to give them. They're
not characters any more - for the most part, they're not even stereotypes.
They're straw men.
"Stigma" takes this to an extreme. Now they're not only convinced
that their way is right, but they're so convinced that emotion is
evil that anyone who shares any innermost thoughts in an
intimate way is someone so abhorrent that any self-respecting Vulcan
should be willing and even eager to let them die. Great.
The Vulcans are no longer somewhat paternalistic allies - now they're
a race of Bill Dannemeyers. If you don't place the name, Dannemeyer
was a Congressman from California in the '80s and early '90s who
suggested, among other things, that homosexuals should all be exiled
to an island where they could die off naturally and not let decent
God- fearin' folk be infected by their horrible morals and filthy
practices. Sound familiar?
Dr. Strom even borrowed a few of his core themes in one of his
final speeches here about melders being "genetic aberrations" and
T'Pol being willing to let them "spread their infection."
To the series' credit, I do get the impression that this is deliberately
setting up for something. One thing about "Stigma," both in terms
of its mind-meld use and its characterization of the Vulcans, is
that it strongly suggests that we may be due for a substantial change
in Vulcan culture before the series has run its course.
I'll give credit where it's due for laying the groundwork for that
change if it happens, but at this point I'm starting to feel as
if they've gone so far afield that no change can be convincing.
I mean, at this point we're only a little over a decade away from
the birth of Vulcans we know (such as Sarek), and if there's that
much upheaval on his world just as he was born I'm going to have
difficulty believing he'd never mention it.
The other concern I have about Vulcans, perhaps not surprisingly,
is the ongoing difficulty of portraying them. Even if this "they're
every bad thing we can think of and a few we're working on" portrayal
is a setup later for conscious change, it's been established time
and time again on this series that all the Vulcans are supposed
to completely reject and repress all emotion. Why, then, is it that
three of the four most emotional portrayals we had in "Stigma" came
from the Vulcans?
T'Pol - okay, fine, she's allegedly more emotional than many others
and has lived with humans for a year and a half. The sympathetic
doctor - fine, he's different because he can meld. But the other
young one, the one who's the most callous and the most uncaring?
By the final speech, he's sounding about as unemotional as your
average political demagogue. Contempt is as real an emotion as any
other, and Jeffrey Hayenga did not exactly go out of his way to
avoid it.
In sum, I'm starting to think that I need to watch Enterprise as,
not a Trek prequel, but some sort of series that uses the same names
and tropes as older Trek while playing in a completely different
universe. It's fanfic, basically. I hope to be proven wrong.
On to part three - "Stigma" as social commentary.
Longtime viewers may remember a TNG episode called "The Outcast,"
which was supposed to be Trek's big "gay episode" and plea for tolerance.
Longtime readers of mine may recall that I didn't find the analogy
convincing, as sexual stereotypes were in abundance, homosexuality
was never mentioned, and the ending was so ambiguous as to give
those who wanted an anti-gay message more than sufficient ammunition
about how "curing" homosexuality would be fine and dandy.
"Stigma" certainly did better than that, by a long shot, but it
ran into the problem many analogies like this tend to hit - it's
both too close and not close enough to the message it's trying to
convey.
For starters, there's the statement that T'Pol's illness is "unique
to a subculture [of Vulcan society] - a small percentage of our
population [whose] behavior is neither tolerated nor sanctioned."
The intent, presumably, is to make "melders" stand in for gay people.
All well and good, except that it's about half a decade too late
to be even marginally outspoken. Perhaps living out my adult years
in the Los Angeles and San Francisco Bay areas has colored my perceptions,
but so far as I can tell homosexual behavior is no longer something
that most of America finds particularly horrific.
We're not in the days when showing two men in bed together on "thirtysomething"
could make advertisers yank ads from the show - "Will and Grace"
is one of the more successful sitcoms out there, and there are any
number of shows, both popular and not, with regular gay characters
who are quite sympathetic and not there simply to be the token gay
character. It's old news.
This is not to say, mind you, that we don't have a lot of progress
yet to be made - the upcoming Supreme Court case involving sodomy
laws being a case in point, not to mention the ongoing struggle
to legalize gay marriage, which is something that certainly could
lead to the makings of an interesting story if anyone on the Trek
staff wanted to write it. It's just that the specific points "Stigma"
seemed to be making were a bit tired.
(On the technical side, there's also the point that "melding" is
a specific activity, while AIDS can be spread any number of ways,
sexual contact only being one of them.)
Additionally, if this is the big message show about AIDS, what's
the message? "AIDS is bad?" Thanks, folks - I think we were clear
on that. "More people should speak out?" AIDS is one of the most
public diseases out there at this point. "Don't blame everyone who
gets it?"
Okay, anyone who needs that message probably isn't watching
the show. I can't help feeling that this is episode is less something
meant to talk about AIDS and much more about Trek patting itself
on the back for being so gosh-darn tolerant and progressive.
If this somehow has a positive effect, I'll be the first to stand
up and cheer - but while I give it credit for good intentions, I'm
having trouble seeing why this episode's being made now. (Ten years
ago, yes - now, no.)
Astute readers will have noticed by now that after much space,
I still haven't talked at all about the B-plot, starring dear old
Trip and those wacky Denobulan sexual practices.
That's because I tried to blot it out as much as I could. Even
ignoring the fact that it had some of the most blatantly godawful
dialogue this side of ... well, anything, really (the "insert the
thick end into this opening" exchange about the neutron microscope
being high atop the list), and that the technobabble-as-filler quotient
was pretty unpleasant here, might I respectfully point out that
your AIDS parable is a really bad place to put the subplot whose
point is that it's only limited human morality that doesn't accept
randomly promiscuous sex as a wonderful thing? Bad placement, folks.
After all that, I'm still leaning more positively about "Stigma"
than I've been about a chunk of the season. Why? Because, flawed
though it was and leading to big long-term concerns about the Vulcans,
it is at least something that got me thinking and did at least have
a point.
That may not be grounds for Emmy material, but it's a step up from
being simply an hour's worth of filler. ("Precious Cargo," anyone?
"Marauders"? "A Night in Sickbay"?)
Other observations and comments:
- The episode opened with a dedication: "In memory of the Columbia
crew ... you will always be an inspiration." Amen to that.
- Travis, Hoshi, and Malcolm all got token scenes. I did rather
like Travis' injury - seems the poor man's into rather extreme forms
of sports. It's an interesting character trait for a boomer.
- Hoshi's practice joke on Trip isn't bad, either. It is nice when
the characters are allowed to be human.
That about does it, I think. Good thing, too, as this is one of
the longer reviews I've written lately. "Stigma" is certainly a
step up from a lot of this season's fluff pieces, but it's also
flawed enough and forced enough that I'm not at all sure where things
are headed. Let's hope for the best.
So, wrapping up:
Writing: Fine on intentions, iffy on execution - and who are those
pointed-eared non-Vulcans? Directing: Not a lot of standout moments,
but certainly no complaints. Acting: Kudos to Billingsley and Blalock,
and they were certainly the key elements here.
OVERALL: Let's go for a 7 on this one, based in no small way on
good intentions.
Timothy W. Lynch
Copyright 2003, Timothy W. Lynch. All rights reserved,
but feel free to ask ... This article is explicitly prohibited from
being used in any off-net compilation without due attribution and
express written consent of the author. Walnut Creek and other
CD-ROM distributors, take note.
|