Okay, before I launch into this 98-epsiode review of why Enterprise killed Star Trek as a TV institution, I have a couple of things I want to say. First impressions, so to speak.
I have already watched the first and part of the second season of the series and have come to a couple of conclusions, without needing to carry out any indepth analysis.
The first such conclusion is that Enterprise failed, at least in part, because it is incredibly juvenile.
In its writing, its characterizations, its humour, Enterprise is clearly aimed at the teen male audience. One could argue, of course, that all of the Star Trek TV series were aimed at this audience -- teen and young adult males are some of the biggest consumers of science fiction -- but Enterprise displays a disrespect for the intelligence and discernment of this group that was all but absent in TOS, mostly absent in TNG, mostly absent in DS9 and only started to creep into Voyager in its later seasons.
Examples: the hyper-sexualisation of the female characters and the overly-entitled, "prideful", yuck-yuck "good old boys" portrayal of most of the men.
Enterprise features two recurring female characters: T'Pol and Sato.
The writers, directors and producers seem to look for opportunities to place T'Pol especially in sexualized situations, dressing her in a skin-tight uniform and stripping her out of that uniform as often as possible. This begins in the series premiere in that ridiculous decon scene that sadly served as a template for later episodes. Later, T'Pol's bottom is the subject of discussion in one episode, her breasts are rubbed in Archer's face for laughs in another episode, she is shown in silhouette stripping to nude in a third episode and a fourth deals extensively with Archer's repressed sexual attraction for her, culminating in a dream sequence that includes yet another hypersexual decon scene.
The fixation on T'Pol as a sexual object is so intense that there is even an entire episode that involves an effort by a guest star to "free her" of her inhibitions, which results in what can only be described as a psychic sexual assault. Sure, Archer "addresses" the assault but, instead of affording this despicable crime the seriousness it deserves, he merely tells the perpetrator that he is no longer welcome on Enterprise and should leave immediately. There are two significant messages here: freeing T'Pol of her emotional control (which eliminates her as a sexual partner for members of the crew) is a legitimate goal and assaulting T'Pol when she refuses to participate is nothing but a minor transgression.
Where have we seen this pattern before? Oh yeah, in the later seasons of Voyager when, in a blatant effort to win over the mastubatory teen male viewer, Berman and Braga replaced Kes with Seven of Nine, another emotionally distant, physically attractive young woman dressed in a skin-tight suit. Lacking the talent and creativity to attract viewers with strong stories and interesting philosophical contemplations, the producers attempt to appeal to the adolescent fantasies of the young male viewer. Or, should I say, the producers' own continuing adolescent fantasies.
Sato escapes this kind of attention, at least for the first several episodes. But it is significant that, in the second major decon scene, Sato and T'Pol are both present and both engaged in physical interactions that are presented in a highly sexualised ways. Sato is portrayed as a weak, emotional, incapable character who is not trustworthy on away missions and is often given assignments which are, frankly, insulting for a person of her accomplishments (such as finding out Reid's favourite food).
I think it is especially problematic that, in Sato's one star turn, the entire plot revolves around her fear of the transporter and, once she is trapped in some alternate transporter-created world, she immediately strips down and spends the rest of the episode in a sports bra and workout shorts. Trivialised and sexualized in the only episode to date in which she is the central focus.
What about the men?
I honestly think the viewers, male and female alike, were as turned off by Enterprise's portrayal of men. The series presents Archer, Tucker and Reid, in particular, as peevish, self-centered, overly emotional beings who are dominated by their own sense of entitlement and of their absolute right to rule the day.
How many times do we have to suffer through Tucker losing his temper and shouting at someone, be it Star Fleet, the Vulcans, or some poor alien race that is simply interacting with the human crew? Are we supposed to find this charming? Are we supposed to feel good about how this reflects on the human race? What impact does it have on how we feel about Tucker in other situations when he is portrayed as a sweet, kind, fun person?
How often can Reid pout? How often can he sink into a depression at the thought of his own death, one that tends to render him completely incapable of taking effective action to help himself, his crewmates and the ship? Is this supposed to make him dark and mysterious? In several episodes, he comes off as a less interesting rendition of Marvin the depressed robot in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. Again, is Reid's brooding narcissism supposed to be attractive? Is it supposed to make us identify with him and the crew? Is it supposed to make us feel good about the human race?
And then there is Archer, the captain of the vessel. The man for whom we are all supposed to feel a sense of respect, of trust. The writers certainly take great pains to have members of his crew remind us of how wonderful a captain he is. He is supposed to stand on the same platform as Kirk, Picard, Sisko and Janeway yet he lacks almost all of their admirable qualities. He is vain and self-centered. He is emotionally out of control and quite abusive of people around him. He doesn't question authority in a measured, thoughtful and intelligent way: he shouts it down.
Are we supposed to find it laudable for example that, in one episode, he appears ready to sacrifice several of his crew members' lives rather than humble himself by asking the Vulcans for help? That it is only when T'Pol challenges him directly that he finally relents. That, in another episode, he argues passionately that the ship should proceed without much needed replacement equipment just because he doesn't want to "humiliate" himself in apologizing to the alien race that can supply the equipment for offense already caused? And come on, is Archer really so stupid that he thinks it's smart to bring his dog down to the planet of a race that he already knows is extremely sensitive to offense?
Is Archer's overwhelming, rather dangerous pride something we should respect?
With the possible exception of Mayweather (and Phlox), the male characters in Enterprise are written and portrayed as proud, immature, self-centered, entitled children who would be the last people the human race would choose to represent it in its first contact with other races.
Thoughtful viewers could not possibly like them, nor identify with them.
One of the most significant failures of Enterprise as a series is its failure to respect its intended audience. It seems specifically designed to appeal to the lowest instincts of that audience: where earlier Star Trek series at least made an effort to present a more evolved world, a more mature human race, more intelligent, thoughtful stories, Enterprise went the Animal House route on the assumption that the path to a young male audience is through childish jokes, scantily clad women and boorish child-men.
I know. One of the key selling points of Enterprise was that it was to present the human race as it learns the lessons of interstellar travel and first contact, as it struggles to overcome its own self-centeredness. But the men in particular of Enterprise are far less evolved than most of the viewers of the show, even though the series is supposed to be set years into the future.
I think we were turned off by the show because Berman and Braga insulted us right from the off.
No comments:
Post a Comment