In Defence of V'Ger

Meta
Title:	In Defence of V'Ger
Creator:	Sarah Smith
Date(s):	January 1982
Medium:	print
Fandom:	Star Trek: TOS
Topic:
External Links:
Click here for related articles on Fanlore.

In Defence of V'Ger is a 1982 Star Trek: TOS essay by Sarah Smith.

It was printed in Communicator #2.

Some Topics Discussed

• Star Trek: The Motion Picture
• the opinion of a then-feral fan
• fans' general disappointment in the movie, and how they were wrong, because all those flaws were actually Gene Roddenberry's genius, as well as about repressed sexuality

Excerpts

I became a S.T. fan only after I saw the movie in December 1979. I'd previously seen a few episodes and quite enjoyed them, but nothing more than that and until a few weeks ago, I had no idea why it was the movie and not the series which made such an impression on me.

I can remember the thing which struck me most the first time I saw the movie as a 'non fan' was the 'heavy' atmosphere. It fascinated me. Every aspect of the film combined to create a powerful, intense mood. I wanted to be a part of that mood, to lose myself in it, but at that time I didn't realise what the attraction was.

Once I found out about fandom, I was puzzled and disappointed by the reaction of the majority of long-standing fans. Most seemed to be disappointed with the movie and I couldn't understand why because my episode viewing was so limited. But as I got to see more episodes I began to see what the fans were getting at for the episodes had little in common with the film, and in time I oven came partly to agree with what seemed to be the consensus of opinion. The movie retained its fascination though I still didn't know why - but life was too short to worry about it.

Then I saw the movie again a couple of weeks ago with another fan and we came to the conclusion that all the elements of the film which jar with the fan's existing concept of Star Trek were designed to do just thatI

The above discovery led us to another conclusion - that it's inconceivable Gene Roddenberry could have got it wrong. Over the years, the fans may have adopted a stereotype in their own minds of what S.T. should or should not be but that has nothing to do with him, or with his conception of S.T. for S.T, is his to do with as he will, whether we like it or not. He spent years working on the movie, so we must assume that what we saw on the screen is what he wanted us to see - and not a mistake or a miscalculation. It's therefore very sad to me that after hearing the reactions to the movie, he began to make excuses for the emphasis given to special effects etc. I wish he had stuck to his guns and not backed down because the movie doesn't need to have excuses made for it.

Neither time, nor S.T., stand still. Gene Roddenberry recognised this and I'm convinced that many of the 'differences' apparent in the movie were designed with this in mind. To put it bluntly, if the 1980's S.T, doesn't bear enough resemblance to the series for many fans, well that's just too bad. S.T. can't be allowed to stand still for that reason and surely fans should be the last peopie to want to dwell in the past? Bright colour schemes in sets and lighting and action/ adventure with a happy ending are fine - but they belong to a simpler age when all you needed was love, and colour T.V. was still a novelty. The movie fits the downbeat mood of the 80's perfectly, but unfortunately it has been criticised for this.

Looking at fan reactions to the movie it is invariably the same things which are criticised: the redesign of the Enterprise, the cold, bleak sets, the wishy-washy colour schemes, the effeminate uniforms, the lack of character development and personal relationship scenes, the length of time devoted to special effects rather than people, especially in the case of the V'ger flyover sequence etc, I say especially this sequence because it seems to me that this is the focal point of the movie. Why should so much time be devoted to it if it wasn't meant to be important? Ironic that it should be the scene many wanted re-edited and sad too.

There's nothing new in all of this. An undercurrent of sexuality was there in the series in a more overt form. And the sexual symbolism isn't there simply to foster a favourable response from the audience. In this case it is valid because the sexual emphasis is central to the film's meaning. Witness the importance of the Deltan Ilia to the plot and ask yourself, why Ilia and not a human crewmember was chosen by V'ger as its probe. Could it be that human beings are not yet sexually mature or honest enough for its purposes? And the sexuality of the human crewmembers, especially Kirk, is deliberately subdued too (no - I didn't like the uniforms either) in order to heighten Ilia's superiority in this respect. Decker, an average human male, is not even capable of handling a relationship with her, so how can humanity alone hope to cope with V'ger? A possible solution is suggested at the climax of the movie in the merging of all possible elements i.e. the male/female, emotional/logical, alien/human with the machine to achieve the next stage in our evolution.

Tho sexual imagery is the key, though, and it's there right from the beginning. Not just with V'ger but from the moment when we see the throbbing power of the Klingon warships. From then on we are treated to a series of penetrations, each of which can be sexually parallel and each more significant than the last. For example - the aircar delivering Kirk into the 'womb' of Starfleet; V'ger's bolts of fire (use your imagination again!), the Enterprise penetrating first space, then the outer layer (i.e. the body) of V'ger? Spock, the life force penetrating V'ger's mind' (but only its mind because Spock is unable to come to 
terms with his own sexuality at that time and cannot provide what V'ger needs);
 and the final penetration into the core of V'ger (its 'soul', if you like,)
 resulting in the creation of a new life form.

All of this may seem rather fanciful unless you make a conscious effort not to assess the movie in relation to the T.V. series and the amount of screen time your favourite actor or actress was or was not allocated in the movie, Surely if S.T. is to.develop it must consist of more than watching a favourite performer in 'relationship' scenes) There is a parallel here with V'ger's development, for are we not being urged to realise that we might have lost the aims and ideals of S.T. somewhere along the line through our own preoccupation with the actors and the characters they portray? I'm just as guilty as the next person of doing that but if you look at the film objectively it's easy to see why the scenes between the main characters are never very long and not sufficiently developed. It is because the individual is seen as no longer being of primary importance. Could this not be a comment on our society too, in an age when many people seem to be self-obsessed. In the movie the aim is to centre attention on V'ger. The concrete and familiar aspect of S.T, (i.e. the ship and her crew) are purposely lacking their usual vitality because both are instruments to that end. The huge, impersonal and colourless sets where both Kirk and we, as the audience arc distanced from the crew are not there solely to illustrate the loneliness of command. The aim is to submerge individuality in order to enphasise the central purpose and the S.T. characters are used to illustrate V'ger's coming of age.

Compare William Shatner's performance with the Kirk of the T.V. series. His performance is far removed from his usual extrovert style. He is consciously subduing his responses in order to merge his individuality into the film as a whole. The same is true of Leonard Nimoy. It is fine internalised acting and they are perfectly in tune with each other. Not so any other member of the regular cast, De Forrest Kelley in particular, looks so actively bewildered and out of things one can almost feel sorry for him. This is a film to be viewed on several levels. The majority of the S.T. regulars are on one level and Kirk, Spock, Ilia and Decker are on another - along with V'ger. And the more subjectively you view the film as an S.T. fan the less satisfying an experience it is.

I can't help but think it is mainly Gene Roddenberry's ideas which are being expressed here, especially in view of his well-known preoccupation with human sexuality. And I would love to know how many people at Paramount really understood what he was daring to express in a ' U' certificate film.

Fan Comments

Boy, that review on"V'ger" is going to get some feedback and not just from me! I ended up half astonished at Ms Smith's view of ST-TMP - she would seem to have seen the film on an entirely different level from me, and I wouldn't say I was lacking in imagination - and half irritated by her long-winded psychological interpretation of V'ger and the movie. Ms Smith appears to have found sublimated sex oozing from the film everywhere! The one thing V'ger was not was sexy! Threatening and frightening yes - so much awesome power always is - but sexy?!! I do admit I have been a Trekfan longer than Ms Smith and love the series (well, most of them!) and I did enjoy the film, even though not Trek as I know and love it. It is a good science fiction film but the flyover and other drawn out V'ger scenes which lift Sarah to such raptures left me cold and frankly BORED - after the first time I took a nap whilst they were on... yawn! Just goes to show how differently people see things, eh?

I think Sarah must also read different articles from the ones I read concerning Roddenberry and his endeavours to make the movie he had visualised for so long. It seemed he had a continual fight to keep even the 'Trek' which came through in the movie. The big film company moguls seemed determined to spend madly on special effects when the whole point of Trek is people/individuals and relationships. They even refused him sufficient time to edit the film properly before its release hence a lot of valuable footage ended up on the cutting room floor. Think of all the aliens publicised so much and never seen; the dinner scene cut from the end of the movie, etc, etc. Thank heaven they did allow the beautiful scenes in Starfleet Terminal; in the Drydock and of the Enterprise's departure. I, for one, only hope they listen to someone who knows what Trek means next time - or not bother.

However, the portion of the review which tickled me most was her comment that the V'ger probe chose Ilia, a Deltan (i.e. a sex-oriented and 'superior' race) when, if I remember the scene correctly, she, pushed Spock out of the way when the probe approached him after he had just foiled its attempt to utilise the ship's, computers, and was caught and taken by the probe. Naturally V'ger wanted contact with a superior mind and had already had contact with Spock on Vulcan and the ship. No—one else in the galaxy, including Ilia, had had any such contact.

I feel her comments about individuals "no longer being of primary importance" are very immature (sorry Sarah) - does she want to consign us to be no more than just a part of an unthinking living machine? I would say that in this crazy mixed-up uncertain recession world of the, 80's we need our free-thinking individuality far far more than during the optimism of the 60's - and I am old enough to have lived through the 60's as a young adult - eager and well travelled. The whole point of Trek has always seemed to me to be that we - humanity - as free-thinking Individuals have to work together if we are to build such a world as conceived by Roddenberry .. a universe which epitomises the spirit of NOME. Only that way can we go on to meet the next step in our evolution, whatever that may be.

I think Ms Smith has tried to see too much into what was, after all, a film made to entertain and of course to make money for the film company; I do wonder if she ever views anything - or reads anything - with the good old-fashioned notion of simply being entertained? I, for one, am glad that I am not so burdened (or is it blessed]) with having to analyse everything so thoroughly and thus end up missing the whole point.

I felt I had to make this comment after reading 'In Defence of V'ger' by Sarah Smith. I don't wish to argue with Sarah's interpretation of ST-TMP as everyone has a right to their own ideas, but I do challenge her assumptions about Gene Roddenberry. That what we saw on the screen is what he wanted us to see and not a mistake. [a long quote from an interview with Roddenberry from a one of the Roddenberry Phone Calls at August Party on August 1, 1980 regarding Paramount's refusal to let Roddenberry edit the movie or have more creative control]: "I was effectively excluded from post-production."