From: AT.MLM@forsythe.stanford.edu (Mark Miller)
Subject: OPINIONATED COMMENTS (SPOILERS for THE FIRST DUTY)
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 20:14:14 GMT

You know, being away from the net for a few weeks was sort of
interesting.  (A $40 million budget cut for a university tends to
create absured levels of work for a human resources department.  Not
to mention paranoia over job security when your section is being cut
back pretty severely.  But I escaped...this time...).  I found I
missed the gossip, the information about future episodes, the
debates about sundry Trek issues (though the truly interesting ones
*are* few are far between).  I missed Tim Lynch's wise and
insightful reviews ("wise and insightful" because they usually
agreed with my point of view! ;-) ).  I missed little snippets about
people's favorite and least favorite episodes.  (These never cease
to amaze me; as I was perusing the 600 or so postings that were in
r.a.s.c over the last week, someone, maybe Tim or Atsushi, mentioned
that "Transfigurations" was widely despised!  Sheesh, I liked it
quite a bit!  And I won't even get into my astonishment at some of
Atsushi's recent capsule reactions to episodes from previous
years.  Oh, maybe a couple, based on my faulty memory:  A 2 for "The
Most Toys"?  A 3 for "Evolution"?  Maybe everyone else is with
Atsushi on these, but both are among my favorites.)  And I admit, I
missed Atsushi's reviews.  Almost invariably, I disagree with him
(often quite strongly), but he has a point of view, and it's based
on reason.  (Well, reason and probably an affective/motivational
component--a preference for TOS?).  It's interesting, and that's
what counts in the end.

But from the remnants of his review of Cause and Effect, I think I
agreed with the overall thrust of it (though perhaps not all of the
particulars).  I thought it started off with the perhaps most
dynamic, exciting prologue in the history of TNG, maintained
interest for a while, then got difficult to believe and bogged down
in the repetitions through the time loops.  Honorable mention to
Frakes for trying to use different types of shots to spruce things
up, but basically ended up as a weak B/strong C for me.  (Wasting
Kelsey Grammer didn't help).  And it looks like I'm going to agree
with the next review.  Onward...

Atsushi Kanamori writes:

Spoilers below for THE FIRST DUTY.



>This episode carries two themes: #1) "finally put Wes in a no-win crisis
>where he *can't* wriggle out using his scientific claptrap genius" and
>#2) "divided between honesty to loyalty to friends." I'll do #1 first
>because it was far and away the best part of the show.

The best part, probably; "far and away"?  I think it worked better
for me, for reasons that we'll get into below.

>[Good points deleted for the sake of brevity]

>Which brings me to the Ready Room scene between Picard and Crusher.
>Ah... Patrick. I've been a little underwhelmed by Patrick's performances as
>of late (largely because Picard has been getting underwhelming roles as
>of late) but tonight, I was on my feet applauding. He sounded every *bit*
>like a father whose son had betrayed his most secret principles -- hurt,
>shocked, betrayed, indignant and trying his best (barely successfully)
>to keep his emotions under control. I won't try to describe it any further
>than that -- this one must be watched. It really *is* a pleasure to
>see Stewart sizzle again -- give us more of that, folks!

My girlfriend watched this episode in L.A., and called me as soon as
it ended there, the same time as it ended here in the Bay Area.  She
was sort of nonplussed by the episode, whereas I told her that the
interchange between Picard and Crusher made the show for me.  The
power in Stewart's anger with and disappointment in Wesley was
positively riveting and reminds one of his abilities as an actor.
Especially when he said to Wesley, in effect, "Ok, you little twerp,
I'm going to make this REAL easy for you..." and then barked out
"*Dismissed!*" when Wesley tried to respond.  I also thought it was
interesting that Wil Wheaton did a good job of hanging in there with
Stewart even though Stewart was on a real roll (with the possible
exception of how Wheaton wheeled around and walked out--his
expression and the way he walked out suggested to me the actions of
a sullen, spoiled child, rather than a relatively mature Star Fleet
cadet, who had just quite correctly gotten his butt nailed to the
wall.)

>So much for what worked. What *didn't* work was the character of Nicholas
>Locarno, and for that matter, the entire "choose between friendship and
>truth" angle. The problem was in that every scene, Nick projected
>"silver-tongued phony" at me -- he had no depth, no charisma, nothing to
>make him sympathetic and indeed, I couldn't *believe* that Wes would feel
>such loyalty towards the creep (the way Robert McNeill delivered lines
>like  "No one could have asked for a better  team, or better friends"
>screamed "INSINCERITY" at me.) Yes, we are TOLD (not shown!) via Boothby
>that the Nova team is a highly worshipped team on campus and that the team
>members would follow Nicholas into hell and back, but I just couldn't
>believe it from what I saw. Wesley's struggles felt forced -- I could
>believe he was concerned about his career, but not about his team-members.
>Nick was your stereotypical slick talker, and the two dames were completely
>passive -- they were never allowed to develop to any degree, so they
>never generated much interest or sympathy.

>Nick's eleventh hour noble sacrifice rang false -- it was inconsistent
>with the character he'd projected for the past hour. Now, it's certainly
>possible for a character to do something unexpected, yet for it to make
>sense afterward. It doesn't here. He talks (a great deal) about loyalty
>to the team, yet he's willing to frame his dead comrade for the accident.
>The other problem is that the actor who played Nick just didn't
>project any depth -- he played it like an obvious, one-dimensional phony.
>It would have been *MUCH* more interesting if Nick really *was* a character
>of depth, if he *did* display redeeming character features that made us
>*want* to protect him, at least somewhat. THEN, Wesley's moral dillemma
>would have been genuine. As it is, we're TOLD, rather than SHOWN, that
>Nick is more than a self-centered con-artist -- and I don't buy it.

Ok, here's where I'm a little between Atsushi and (I believe, from a
previous post) Jose Gonzalez.  For the most part, I thought that
Robert McNeill was fine.  He was supposed to be a *youthful*,
leaderly type.  My experience has been (and I base this upon
personal observation, as well as my previous life in academia, part
of which was devoted to research and teaching on leadership) that
young people, when cast in the role of leadership, aren't very good
at subtleties.  They're not very smooth.  So they rely on the most
obvious strategems to establish credibility as leader--establish
physical bearing, determine clear lines of authority, etc. *and* use
manipulation to your advantage.  I thought this was what Lacarno did
best:  Try to move the team in the desired direction by pushing the
correct manipulation pressure points--play on norms of loyalty to
team, play on fears of loss of career, and so forth.  It doesn't
make him less a leader--just an immature one.  I don't think it
makes him, necessarily, self-centered or a con artist or insincere.
He's playing a role (which is what leadership is, in large part,
playing out a grand performance on a social stage), the best way he
knows how.  His interests may well be in the team (as well as
himself) but he's willing to manipulate, even deceive, the team to
get them to go where he wants them to.  I think we're probably all
familiar with such leaders.

Where I did have problems with McNeill was in an area that I can't
rightly blame him, seeing as how he is still a young actor.  I've
done a little acting, and I like to flatter myself by thinking that
I'm an amateur student of theater, and I think that one of the most
difficult tasks confronting an actor is in the area of what I call
"leakage".  It's where you are trying to communicate a fully rounded
character, one with character traits that one is trying to conceal
but on occasion "leak out".  (Like when you're trying to impress
someone on a date or in an interview--sometimes you're trying to
cover up aspects of yourself that you don't think would play well in
the immediate situation, but because they're so central to who you
are, they just have a tendency to briefly leak out in the tiny
cracks of the line you're putting forth).  The way McNeill should
have played Lacarno is as a strong, impressive leader who is
quietly, subtly manipulating his team to do what he feels is best
for the team--but where his true motivations and thoughts briefly
flash themselves (in nonverbals, for instance, or in *how* he says
certain things, not so much *what* he says).  Instead, the character
was all one shade (and thus Atsushi's perception of being one
dimensional) because McNeill hasn't grown sufficiently as an actor
that he can deftly finesse such things.  I think he was quite good
at what he did, but didn't pull off what is, in fairness, a quite
difficult thing to do.  (It's hard to guage what is coming across as
too obvious to the audience versus too subtle to be perceived at
all.)  So I agree that the character wasn't fully credible--but I
thought it was a good effort.  (Did that make any sense?)

By the way, I didn't have any problems with Lacarno's final act of
falling on his own sword, and two different motivations seem
perfectly reasonable to me.  (Which, if either, is correct, who
knows?  And I really don't care.)  One, I'm quite willing to believe
that, behind all the manipulation and deception, he truly believed
his statements of putting the team first.  And he may have thought
that the very existence of any semblance of the team was in
jeopardy, without him sacrificing himself.  So he did just that,
willingly, if not happily.  Alternatively, it may have been a final
act of self-presentation (boy, I'm beginning to talk like a
psychologist again...):  "My butt's in the sling for sure, I'm bound
to get tossed out of the Academy anyway, so maybe I can at least
make myself look as good as I can by one final act of 'graciousness'
and 'courage':  I can save their careers by one final, moving
speech.  And I can go out with some measure of pride and honor."
Completely self-serving, and also completely understandable.  Both
explanations I think would be comprehensible, from the perspective
of the Lacarno that was outlined in the episode.

>A little bit about acting: Jacqueline Brooks was certainly well-cast
>Admiral Brand; that dragon is *not* someone I would want staring at me
>through a magnifying glass! The other performer that leapt out at me
>was Richard Fancy (Captain Satelk): leapt out as "incredibly bad actor",
>that is. He seems to be from the Kim Cattrall school of Vulcan acting,
>and he was even worse than *she* was. Blech.

Agreed on both counts (perhaps slightly less so on Fancy, but Nimoy
he certainly isn't--and I have to assume that the makeup person who
did his hair had one too many Stoli's the night before).

>GRADE SHEET FOR THE FIRST DUTY:
>-------------------------------
>
>  Premise:    B  ("college prank kills a kid" is hardly original, but this
>                  was a solid premise whose time had come.)
>  Execution:  C+ (Picard & Wes worked fine, but BIG points off for the
>                  Nova Team angle.)
>  Characters: C+ (Big points for Crusher and Jean-Luc, but big points off
>                  for Nicholas Locarno.)
>  Acting:     A- (Good Wheaton, DYNAMO Stewart, but a little off for
>                  McNeill and Fancy.)
>  Music:      F  (some things never change.)


>  Overall:    B- (I liked it, I hated it.)

You still pay attention to the music?  It's so nondescript any more,
I don't even bother.  I'd give it a full B overall, but that's
splitting hairs, right?  When I get around to seeing The Outcast,
I'll have to check out your review and see if our new-found
consensus continues...