Review Star Trek Is There in Truth No Beauty?

This July and August, we're celebrating the release of Star Trek Beyond by taking a look dorsum at the third flavor of the original Star Expedition. Check back every Mon, Wed and Friday for the latest update.

The third season of Star Trek is very odd. Information technology stands quite apart from the previous two seasons.

There are a lot of reasons for this; a new executive producer, the loss of veterans from the first two seasons, production limitations imposed by a slashed budget. Star Trek was never a lavish evidence, and it ever faced production challenges, but those challenges were never more acute than during the third season. In a lot of cases, that oddness is not a practiced thing.And the Children Shall Atomic number 82 and Spock'southward Brain are very foreign pieces of television, but non in a good manner. They are impuissant, cheap, ill-judged and ill-advised.

Healthy greenish glow.

At the same time, that foreign vibe of the third flavour is not inherently bad. There are a number of episodes produced during the third season (particularly during this stretch of the third season) that feel weird and odd, simply also refreshing and exciting. Episodes similar Is There in Truth No Beauty?, The Empath and The Tholian Web accept an eccentric and ethereal quality to them that feels quite removed from the outset two seasons of the show. They are also three of the strongest episodes of the season, feeling adventurous and playful.

After all, for all that the third flavor is maligned, it is surprisingly influential. The tertiary season of Star Trek contributes a nifty bargain to the language and iconography of the franchise, possibly as a result of the unusual constraints and production realities that inform it. Is There in Truth No Dazzler? is an odd little tale, simply information technology is likewise a clever and effective metaphor that explores g ideas in the classic Star Trek tradition.

Jonesing for for some Diane Muldaur.

One of the large issues with the tertiary season of Star Trek was that the production team suffered something of a brain drain. Gene Roddenberry resigned in protestation over the rescheduling of the show to Friday nights. This meant that he was much less engaged with the running of the show, although he was not gone entirely. Roddenberry even so made a point to meddle in the solar day-to-day running of the series. Roddenberry advocated for certain scripts like Elaan of Troyius and The Paradise Syndrome, and interfered rather directly with Is There in Truth No Beauty?

At the aforementioned time, a host of writing talent departed. Gene Fifty. Coon and Dorothy Fontana are 2 of the most underrated and influential Star Expedition writers ever, and they were responsible for quite a large number of classics beyond the first 2 seasons of the show. However, Coon had accepted a job on It Takes a Thief at the outset of the year, limiting his power to contribute to the third season. Fontana had stepped aside as script editor, and the way that her script for The Enterprise Incident had been handled left her with lilliputian desire to contribute more scripts to the third season.

Spock, e'er a trusted add visor.

Certain writers were carried over from the second season. Margaret Armen had been responsible for The Gamesters of Triskelion during the second season, and the production squad tapped her to write The Paradise Syndrome and The Deject Minders. David Gerrold would pitch quite a few story ideas for the third flavor, including ideas that would later develop into More than Tribbles, More Troubles and Bem, only his only on-screen credit would be developing the story for The Cloud Minders. John Meredyth Lucas wrote Elaan of Troyius.

With that in mind, the production squad had to look exterior of the established pool of Star Trek writers to notice new scripts. This undoubtedly contributes to the weird tone of this run of episodes, every bit the production team are working with episodes written by writers with little (if any) feel writing for television in general and science-fiction in particular. The Empath was the first (and only) script written by Joyce Muskat. The Tholian Web marked the outset of Judy Burns' long career in boob tube.

Thinking inside the box.

Is There in Truth No Beauty? was written by Jean Lisette Aroeste, a reference librarian at UCLA. She would continue to contribute the script forAll of Our Yesterdays later in the flavor. Equally Aroeste explains, information technology was almost by hazard that she found herself pitching for Star Expedition:

"I met someone at a party whose brother I had known and who was in the screenwriting business organisation, and he said, 'Oh, y'all should make it touch with my agent,' gave me her name. So, I did that," Aroeste told Blastr. "She said, 'well, why don't you send me a curt description of the episode you have in mind, and we'll see if I can exercise anything with it.' She liked information technology and sent that to the producers, and they liked it."

Information technology is piece of cake to see why the producers liked Is There in Truth No Beauty? It was fix exclusively on the Enterprise and featured a small guest cast, which fabricated it cost constructive in this troubled third flavor. Notwithstanding, despite these elements, Is There in Truth No Beauty? is a very foreign episode.

" data-medium-file="https://m0vie.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/tos-isthereintruthnobeauty4.jpg?w=300" data-large-file="https://m0vie.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/tos-isthereintruthnobeauty4.jpg?w=400" class="size-full wp-image-82071" src="https://m0vie.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/tos-isthereintruthnobeauty4.jpg?w=468" alt=""Let's Keats this to ourselves, eh?"" srcset="https://m0vie.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/tos-isthereintruthnobeauty4.jpg 400w, https://m0vie.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/tos-isthereintruthnobeauty4.jpg?w=150 150w, https://m0vie.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/tos-isthereintruthnobeauty4.jpg?w=300 300w" sizes="(max-width: 400px) 100vw, 400px">

"Allow'southward Keats this to ourselves, eh?"

Is There in Truth No Beauty? is a very literate episode. Fifty-fifty the title is an allusion to Keats' Ode on a Grecian Urn, which airtight on the poet's reflection that "dazzler is truth, truth beauty." The episode feels similar a very literary style of science fiction, one driven by big ideas and meaningful dialogue. Is In that location in Truth No Beauty? has an endearing lyrical quality to it, skilfully probing the human condition while focusing on grapheme evolution. It is a story populated with profound conversations and fleshed-out individuals.

In other words, Is There in Truth No Beauty? is precisely the sort of literate high-brow scientific discipline-fiction to which Star Trek aspired. There are, of course, enough of before examples. Episodes similar Censor of a King and Dagger of the Listen had cribbed their titles from Shakespeare every bit a sort of literary bona fides. Stories like Where No Human being Has Gone Before and What Are Footling Girls Made Of? wrestled with what information technology meant to exist man. Scripts like Return to Tomorrow and By Any Other Proper noun had characters talk around it in flowery dialogue.

" data-medium-file="https://m0vie.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/tos-isthereintruthnobeauty8.jpg?w=300" data-large-file="https://m0vie.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/tos-isthereintruthnobeauty8.jpg?w=400" class="size-full wp-image-82075" src="https://m0vie.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/tos-isthereintruthnobeauty8.jpg?w=468" alt=""We do all we Khan to make guests feel comfortable."" srcset="https://m0vie.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/tos-isthereintruthnobeauty8.jpg 400w, https://m0vie.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/tos-isthereintruthnobeauty8.jpg?w=150 150w, https://m0vie.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/tos-isthereintruthnobeauty8.jpg?w=300 300w" sizes="(max-width: 400px) 100vw, 400px">

"Nosotros exercise all we Khan to brand guests experience comfortable."

Information technology is non that Is There in Truth No Dazzler? does anything specially novel of itself. Indeed, several key sequences feel like familiar Star Trek standards at this point. The dinner hosting Miranda Jones feels very much like the dinner for Khan Noonien Singh in Space Seed, particularly with all the simmering tensions bubbles beneath the jovial atmosphere. Marvick'south deranged hijacking of the Enterprise leading to catastrophic consequences recalls Basic' drug-induced insanity in The City on the Edge of Forever.

However, at that place is something interesting in how Is In that location in Truth No Dazzler? puts all of these elements together. Information technology is a surprisingly tranquility episode of Star Trek, particularly given that it features a madman hijacking the Enterprise and flight information technology outside the milky way, not to mention a afterward sequence in which Spock freaks out and tries to murder the bridge crew. However, the material stakes of Is At that place in Truth No Dazzler? always feel secondary to the character dynamics and interactions. There is a lot of talking and discussing, and a (relative) minimum of action.

" data-medium-file="https://m0vie.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/tos-isthereintruthnobeauty14.jpg?w=300" data-large-file="https://m0vie.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/tos-isthereintruthnobeauty14.jpg?w=400" class="size-full wp-image-82081" src="https://m0vie.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/tos-isthereintruthnobeauty14.jpg?w=468" alt=""It has been said that social occasions are only warfare concealed."" srcset="https://m0vie.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/tos-isthereintruthnobeauty14.jpg 400w, https://m0vie.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/tos-isthereintruthnobeauty14.jpg?w=150 150w, https://m0vie.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/tos-isthereintruthnobeauty14.jpg?w=300 300w" sizes="(max-width: 400px) 100vw, 400px">

"It has been said that social occasions are only warfare concealed."

After all, The Enemy Within had wedded its high-concept reflection on the dualistic aspects of man nature to a literal conflict between the two halves of James Tiberius Kirk. Loonshit presented its reflections on the pointlessness of conflict through the prism of Kirk's fight against a giant reptile. Fifty-fifty Allow That Be Your Last Battlefield would centre its race relations allegory around a plot that constitute the Enterprise hijacked. In contrast, the big scenes in Is There in Truth No Beauty? are repose conversations, whether the dinner to welcome Miranda or Kirk's failed seduction.

The result is an episode that feels in many ways similar a distillation of the series' science-fiction bona fides. Indeed, Is In that location in Truth No Beauty? feels most similar 1 of those early experimental tie-in novels from Bantam or Pocket Books in the sixties and seventies, from a time before those lines were standardised into a recognisable house style. It is not difficult to imagine Is At that place in Truth No Beauty? every bit a science-fiction brusk story or novella rather than a Star Trek episode.

" data-medium-file="https://m0vie.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/tos-isthereintruthnobeauty29.jpg?w=300" data-large-file="https://m0vie.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/tos-isthereintruthnobeauty29.jpg?w=400" class="size-full wp-image-82100" src="https://m0vie.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/tos-isthereintruthnobeauty29.jpg?w=468" alt=""What's in the box?"" srcset="https://m0vie.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/tos-isthereintruthnobeauty29.jpg 400w, https://m0vie.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/tos-isthereintruthnobeauty29.jpg?w=150 150w, https://m0vie.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/tos-isthereintruthnobeauty29.jpg?w=300 300w" sizes="(max-width: 400px) 100vw, 400px">

"What'due south in the box?"

This literary quality is apparent even in the character of Administrator Kollos himself. Kollos is a existence impossible to return on screen, a creature then far beyond the realm of man perception that to gaze upon him is to invite madness. It is a very literary thought, with obvious antecedents in the fiction of H.P. Lovecraft or Robert Chambers. Kollos is very much a contemporary twist on that classic Lovecraftian concept, i that strips abroad (or at least interrogates) the idea of "monstrosity" that underpins Lovecraft's Cthulhu mythos.

Of course, Star Trek has pre-existing ties to the Lovecraft in the form of Robert Bloch. Bloch had been a fan and student of Lovecraft, and it is no surprise that Bloch's contributions to Star Trek would serve to necktie the serial to Lovecraft'south vast and horrifying cosmology; the "Old Ones" are referenced in Bloch's scripts for both What Are Fiddling Girls Made Of? and Catspaw, while Wolf in the Fold is essentially the story of a madness that travels betwixt the stars. Bloch's horror-tinged writing fit quite comfortably with the howling empty universe that marked much of the first season.

Lighten up.

Is At that place in Truth No Beauty? offers a different sort of homage to Lovecraft. It is non as literal as the references that Bloch incorporated into his own first and second season scripts. Aroeste is not seeking to necktie Star Trek into the framework of the larger Lovecraft mythos via references to an overarching continuity. Instead, Aroeste is taking some of Lovecraft'due south core ideas and building her own science-fiction allegories around them. It is a very clever and very literate approach that plays into the idea of Star Trek every bit belonging to the rich tradition of weird American fiction.

Much like the "Former Ones" of Lovecraft's vast cosmology, to gaze upon a Medusan is to invite madness. It is an alien that cannot be depicted on screen, save for a weird sequence of flashing lights and abstruse imagery, as if the camera itself cannot process what a Medusan would await like. It is maybe the most alien and abstruse creature depicted on Star Trek to this point, which is no hateful achievement for a series that featured the Melkotians in Spectre of the Gun. It is a shame that the later Star Expedition shows would movement away from that imaginative style.

Talk most getting into her head.

Is There in Truth No Beauty? builds upon other ideas tied to Lovecraft's work, most notably the strong connection that exists between perception and sanity. In a great Lovecraftian twist, the insane Marvick decides that the just identify to find peace from the chaos of beingness is exterior the galaxy itself. This plays into the Lovecraftian theme of life itself as hostile, as Gavin Callaghan argues in H. P. Lovecraft's Dark Arcadia:

I would suggest that the moon-ladder and all other "baroque conceptions" witnessed by Danforth at the end of Mountains of Madness represent just such a projected image: a cosmicised version of what Lovecraft elsewhere calls the "snarling chaos and grinning fear that lurk behind life" in The Lurking Fear. "Life" is the operative word here: not the terror of the oblivion, which Lovecraft in any case welcomes, or the hurting of death, but rather the terror of being itself, as brought into beingness and nourished via the mother, and created during the key human activity.

Driven mad by his exposure to Ambassador Kollos, Marvick seeks condolement in the vast empty space that exists betwixt galaxies. When Kirk asks where they are, Marvick assures him that they are "beyond the boundaries of the milky way. Nosotros made it. Nosotros're condom." Ranting and raving, Marvick speaks like a Lovecraft protagonist driven insane past some subconscious noesis about the universe. "They come in your dreams! That's the worst! They suffocate in your dreams!"

A whole milky way of terror.

(In keeping with the sense that Is There in Truth No Beauty? is function of a weird American science-fiction tradition, guest star David Frankham had appeared in an episode of The Outer Limits with a few similarities to this episode. Don't Open Until Doomsday saw the actor playing a grapheme menaced by a hideous conflicting hiding inside a box. Of course, the actual mechanics of the episode differed significantly from those on display in Is There in Truth No Dazzler? Nevertheless, the superficial similarities underscore the script's strong science-fiction underpinnings.)

However, while Lovecraft used his themes to arts and crafts horror stories, Aroeste riffs on them to impact on big ideas about dazzler and reality; about perception and prototype. Indeed, information technology could legitimately exist argued that Is There in Truth No Beauty? is one of the nearly feminist episodes of the troubled third season, specially in its exploration of the character of Miranda Jones. Seeing and perception are one of the episode's major themes, particularly as they relate to the treatment of professional person women.

Kirk rose to the occasion.

Repeatedly over the course of the episode, Miranda Jones finds her dazzler the discipline of contend and discussion by her male person colleagues. Fifty-fifty the crew of the Enterprise are guilty of objectifying Jones, reducing her to their expectations of a pretty woman. "I tin't empathize why they let you go with Kollos," Kirk remarks at one bespeak. "The male person population of the Federation. Didn't someone try and talk you lot out of information technology?" This sets the tone for the chat, during with Kirk and McCoy spend more time discussing her appearance than her profession.

It seems similar Jones is surrounded by men who would diminish her. The male characters repeatedly insist that she conduct like a woman, every bit if that is incompatible with her beingness a professional. At some other point, Kirk advises her, "Sooner or later, no matter how beautiful their minds are, yous're going to yearn for someone who looks like yourself, someone who isn't ugly." Notwithstanding, things get really heated during her confrontation with Marvick, who insists that she give up her vocation and her life in order to be with him.

Somebody hasn't read his workplace harassment guide book.

"Why don't y'all try beingness a woman for a change?" Marvick demands. The sequence betwixt Marvick and Jones still resonates decades later on, every bit Marvick expresses the entitled attitudes that one might expect from an emotionally immature beau unable to cope with the notion of female person independence. Equally far equally Marvick is concerned, Jones has no agency of her own; she needs to recognise her predetermined role. "I sympathise that you're a woman and that I'm a man, one of your own kind, and that Kollos will never exist able to give y'all anything similar this."

It is worth noting the minor detail that Marvick helped design the Enterprise. It is a dainty touch on of itself, an example of the script's fannish attention to continuity and world-edifice. It too explains how Marvick is able to hijack the transport so easily. Nonetheless, it also fits thematically. The Enterprise is frequently characterised equally female; "her", "she." This is well-nigh notable in Bones' recommendation that Data "treat her similar a lady" in Encounter at Farpoint. Every bit such, Marvick is a human being who designed his own adult female, after a fashion. He is attempting something similar with Jones.

Marvick is a maverick.

The confrontation between Marvick and Jones is a wonderfully scene, highly charged and astutely observed. It hits on problems of male entitlement and female person empowerment that are still relevant half a century afterward the episode was broadcast, elevated by two superb guest performances. David Frankham is great equally Marvick, but the episode very much belongs to Diane Muldaur as Jones. Muldaur is i of the franchise'southward most superlative recurring performers, and Is There in Truth No Beauty? offers the actor the meatiest material of any of her appearances.

Muldaur is fantastic equally Jones, playing a woman who has hardened herself against the world. Information technology is revealed early in the script that Jones is telepathic, a nice nod to the show's sixties sensibilities. Nevertheless, Muldaur'south functioning suggests a paradox. Constantly exposed to the emotions of others, Muldaur positions Jones as detached and disengaged. Jones apparently spent time on Vulcan, and Muldaur'southward operation occasionally mirrors that of Leonard Nimoy. Rather than totally burying Jones' emotions, Muldaur instead suggests that they are simmering.

Doctor Jones, Dr. Jones, calling Md Jones.

This is the 2d of iii roles that Muldaur will play in the Star Trek franchise, having previously appeared in Return to Tomorrow. Co-ordinate to managing director Ralph Senensky, Muldaur was not the starting time selection to play the office:

The other half, the role of Miranda, was more difficult. We checked out Jessica Walter, but she was non available. Other availabilities were checked with no success. Now Star Trek had a standing dominion that guest stars could not repeat unless they were coming dorsum to play the same part. At this point I daringly suggested we bring back Diana Muldaur (who had guest starred the previous season in Return to Tomorrow, about which the less said the improve) and that nosotros put her in a blackness wig. That proposition was finally accustomed.

Muldaur was far from the start performer to suspension that particular rule. Mark Lenard had appeared in Balance of Terror and Journey to Boom-boom. William Campbell had washed The Squire of Gothos and The Problem with Tribbles.

McCoy'south toast is toast.

Jones challenges the men effectually her, refusing to conform to their expectations. "How can one so beautiful condemn herself to look upon ugliness the rest of her life?" McCoy toasts. "Will we allow information technology, gentlemen?" Miranda doesn't quite point out that it is not McCoy'due south place to "permit" her selection, instead teasing, "How tin one so full of joy and the beloved of life as you, Doctor, condemn yourself to look upon disease and suffering for the rest of your life? Tin we permit that, gentlemen?" It is a very pointed response; McCoy seems to get the message.

One of the more interesting aspects of Is There in Truth No Beauty? is the episode's willingness to complicate Jones as a graphic symbol, rather than reducing her to a one-dimensional martyr. Jones is shown to be hyper-sensitive when information technology comes to her profession, particularly insecure around Spock. At dinner, she accuses Spock of wearing a piece of jewellery to spite her. This is a ridiculous notion. "I dubiousness that Mister Spock would don the most revered of all Vulcan symbols just to annoy you lot, Doctor Jones," Kirk observes.

Miranda-ising her.

Jones' insecurity makes a certain amount of sense, particularly given the way that the men around her scoff and patronise her. After all, both Kirk and Marvick seem to suggest that she has no identify committing to the life that she wants to atomic number 82. With that in mind, it is only rational that she should exist wary of Spock every bit a potential challenger or replacement. Nonetheless, that wariness becomes paranoia. Is At that place in Truth No Dazzler? offers a surprisingly circuitous approach to Jones as a character. She is nuanced and adult, merely non idealised.

Jones has bureau and graphic symbol, she is not simply an embodiment of an platonic. Jones is shown to be flawed, in ways that are reasonable understandable given the way that people behave towards her. However, unlike the flaws affecting the Romulan Commander in The Enterprise Incident, these flaws practise non undermine or undercut Jones' power every bit a feminist character. By treating Miranda Jones as a fully fleshed-out human being, Is There in Truth No Beauty? only emphasises its own themes and ideas.

" data-medium-file="https://m0vie.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/tos-isthereintruthnobeauty24.jpg?w=300" data-large-file="https://m0vie.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/tos-isthereintruthnobeauty24.jpg?w=400" class="size-full wp-image-82093" src="https://m0vie.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/tos-isthereintruthnobeauty24.jpg?w=468" alt=""They call this 'the Kirk Manoeuvre'."" srcset="https://m0vie.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/tos-isthereintruthnobeauty24.jpg 400w, https://m0vie.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/tos-isthereintruthnobeauty24.jpg?w=150 150w, https://m0vie.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/tos-isthereintruthnobeauty24.jpg?w=300 300w" sizes="(max-width: 400px) 100vw, 400px">

"They call this 'the Kirk Manoeuvre'."

In keeping with the literate tone of Is There in Truth No Beauty, David Greven argues in Gender and Sexuality in Star Trek that the episode could be read every bit a feminist and postcolonial reinterpretation of The Tempest:

In a way that anticipates the final episode of the series, Turnabout Intruder, Miranda openly chafes against male rule. In a manner that would be surprising in any series of this era, she vehemently competes with Spock alternately challenging him most and chafing against his ain ability to communicate with Kollos. Well-nigh interestingly of all, during the obligatory scene in which Kirk hits on her (in an arboretum this time!), Miranda, far from succumbing to his charms, exhibits no sexual involvement in him whatsoever. If this episode is a version of The Storm ("O brave new world," a character quotes), information technology is Shakespeare'due south valedictory play with Prospero – the white imperialist male ruler, who colonises the planet of his abhorred slave Caliban – excised. This is The Tempest with Miranda, Prosperos' daughter, and Caliban-Kollos equally the protagonists: woman and the sub-altern given eye phase.

In many ways, Is There in Truth No Beauty? embodies the raw potential of Star Trek. It is an optimistic humanist fairy tale that finds a feminist riff on one of the archetype seafaring legends. Information technology imagines a future rich with potential.

Alive long and Prospero.

Of course, this is the tertiary flavor of Star Trek. In that location are problems. Although the most feminist episode of the season to this point, Is There in Truth No Dazzler? inevitably hits ane or two sour notes. The near awkward moment comes tardily in the episode, when McCoy reveals that Jones is actually blind. Information technology is a very clever and poetic twist in its own correct. Information technology plays into the themes of the episode, the idea of perception and dazzler. More than that, it makes perfect sense in the context of Jones' relationship with Kollos. It is, to quote Spock, an "elegant solution."

At that place is something very clever in the revelation that Jones gets around her disability using a sensor net embedded in he apparel. The symbolism is quite rich. Jones literally dresses herself up as a sighted person, effectively disguising her disability. More than than that, to take off her apparel represents a different kind of nudity. In undressing, Jones exposes herself to the people around her. Fittingly, Jones removes the clothes towards the end of the episode, every bit she tends to Spock. Her disability revealed to the crew, her vulnerability showing, Jones is in many ways naked.

Dressing down…

The trouble is in how the episode treats her disability. Jones processes the world through that complex sensor net sewn into her dress, affording her a unique way of "seeing" the earth. "I am continuing exactly one metre, four centimetres from the door," she tells Kirk. "Tin you gauge altitude that accurately? I can fifty-fifty tell yous how fast your eye is beating." Even so, McCoy refuses to let her to navigate the transport with Kollos. "I realise that you tin can do nigh annihilation a sighted person tin practice, only you tin can't airplane pilot a starship."

This seems like an arbitrary brake, given everything else that Jones tin can practice. It would be 1 thing if Jones and Kollos were going to wing the ship like an X-Fly, ducking and weaving through asteroid fields while relying on sight to navigate. Nonetheless, that is non how Star Trek traditionally portrays navigation, and it is non how Is There in Truth No Dazzler? treats it either. Spock flies by pushing buttons; mapping a class, responding to readouts. The Enterprise navigates through sensor grids not dissimilar those weaved into Jones' wearing apparel.

That revelation certainly blindsided everyone.

As such, there is no reason why Jones should not be able to navigate on behalf of Kollos. If annihilation, Jones' unique agreement of distance and space would give her a unique border. Indeed, Star Trek: The Next Generation seemed to tacitly admit this fact, with Geordi LaForge serving every bit navigator during the show's kickoff season. Indeed, information technology seems like the only reason that Jones cannot fly the Enterprise is because she is not listed in the opening credits. Spock is the master grapheme of the two, so the script has to justify giving him something to practise.

In that location is another outcome with the episode's portrayal of Jones. Belatedly in the episode, Kirk heavily suggests that Jones was responsible for what happened to Spock. "What did you do to him on the Bridge?" Kirk demands. "Did yous make him forget to put the visor over his optics?" It is a bold accusation, one that seems to come out of nowhere. Jones' professional jealousy of Spock occasionally leaned into paranoia, but having Kirk make those accusations so boldly feels ridiculous. The implication risks turning Jones from a flawed and insecure human existence into a monster.

A stunning display.

The episode is ultimately ambiguous on the matter. It is possible to read the episode so that Jones did requite Spock a telepathic push button, but it is also possible to read the episode then that Kirk is but being paranoid and overprotective. This ambiguity does not enhance the episode. It feels like the script offers just enough evidence to back up Kirk'southward allegation, which would seriously undercut Jones as a character. Afterward all, if Kirk was incorrect to make the allegation, it does not paint him in a very flattering low-cal.

Of course, it is very difficult to prove anything, given how ambiguous Jones' telepathy must be. The revelation that Jones is telepathic is very much a piece of sixties pseudo-science, harking dorsum to the studies of ESP in Where No Man Has Gone Before. After all, there is no indication in the episode that Jones is annihilation other than fully human. Although somewhat foreign given the (relatively) rational outlook of the spin-offs, in that location is a sense that Star Expedition believes that some humans might legitimately accept psychic powers. It is a very sixties show, after all.

This is Spock'due south brain on acid.

Then again, Is There in Truth No Dazzler? fits reasonably well in the context of the tertiary season, the sense that the sixties are slowly dying. Marvick's mental breakdown presents him every bit something equivalent to an acid casuality of the tardily sixties, the drug-fueled carousal of the sixties turning sour. Marvick recalls an academic whose consciousness expanded so far that it snapped. It helps that the wide-angle lenses and the perspective shots and the quick quites all evoke the televisual and cinematic linguistic communication of the"bad trip."

After all, Spock'due south initial encounter with Kollos is presented equally enlightening and enriching for both of them. The episode suggests that both are experiencing new possibilities, their minds wandering and expanding. Spock smiles. Spock quotes Byron. Spock seems to flirt with both Uhura and Jones. Spock is very much one, with both Ambassador Kollos and with the universe every bit a whole. He is able to navigate the ship without a frame of reference. In many means, it plays like an idealised depiction of psychedelics as "consciousness expansion."

" data-medium-file="https://m0vie.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/tos-isthereintruthnobeauty19.jpg?w=300" data-large-file="https://m0vie.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/tos-isthereintruthnobeauty19.jpg?w=400" class="size-full wp-image-82087" src="https://m0vie.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/tos-isthereintruthnobeauty19.jpg?w=468" alt=""I'm freaking out!"" srcset="https://m0vie.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/tos-isthereintruthnobeauty19.jpg 400w, https://m0vie.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/tos-isthereintruthnobeauty19.jpg?w=150 150w, https://m0vie.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/tos-isthereintruthnobeauty19.jpg?w=300 300w" sizes="(max-width: 400px) 100vw, 400px">

"I'm freaking out!"

Yet, this cannot terminal. Spock is eventually exposed to Ambassador Kollos in his purest form. This causes Spock to freak out and become insane. He becomes violent and uncontrollable. He has a mental breakup. The problem is that his mind has turned as well far in. "Unless Miranda can look down into his mind and plow it outward to us, we volition lose Spock," McCoy states. This is very much the flip side of the sixties psychedelic feel. This is the hangover, the bad trip. As with the residue of the tertiary season, information technology feels like the sixties is coming to an end.

While Is At that place in Truth No Beauty? was the piece of work of a novice author, it benefits hugely from the feel of veteran manager Ralph Senensky. When discussing Star Trek, it is quite common to overlook the contribution made to the franchise by directors. There are lots of reasons for this. Nigh obviously, television criticism tends to treat the writer and producer as the televisual auteur rather than the director. While film directors are regarded equally the writer of the finished product, television set directors take historically been considered hired hands.

And always wearable sun visors.

The classic mode of tv set production relied on tight schedules and deadlines; the platitude is that the director was effectively the foreman on a conveyer belt. Information technology was the director's job to keep the production on schedule, to keep the actors moving, to forbid plush overruns. The pre- and mail- production periods were typically overseen past the producers rather than the directors, who were frequently hopping between different episodes or fifty-fifty different series. With this kind of force per unit area, television management was traditionally more conservative than film direction.

To exist fair, this attitude has changed a great deal since the late nineties. With shorter flavor orders and higher television production value, directors have get a more appreciated and integral office of the television production process. Directors are at present helming entire extended seasons, or managing spectacle on the calibration of a blockbuster production. Still, historically speaking, in that location is a trend to overlook or ignore the contributions made past directors to classic idiot box. A lot of their work is taken for granted.

Transporting viewers to another world.

However, Ralph Senensky stands out as i of the best directors to work on Star Trek. He was also one of the most distinctive. Aroeste's script for Is There in Truth No Beauty? is unique, but Senensky's direction is also distinctive. Despite (or perhaps because of) the dialogue-driven nature of the script, the management of Is There in Truth No Beauty? is particularly kinetic. Senensky keeps the photographic camera moving, and puts it in unusual positions. Given that the episode unfolds entirely on the standing sets of the Enterprise, that is no small accomplishment.

There is a dynamic quality to the management and editing. This is obvious even in pocket-sized sequences like Marvick running away following his attempt to murder Ambassador Kollos; the camera chases him through the corridor, but cannot keep up with the energetic madman. That same shot is effectively contrasted with the after sequence of Spock visiting Ambassador Kollos; this fourth dimension the camera is able to go on footstep with Spock. These ii sequences course a nice visual shorthand, cuing the audience into Spock'due south visit to the Ambassador. They also help to build tension.

Something fishy is going on here…

Senensky also shoots the "freak out" sequences with a wide-angle lens, giving those scenes a disorientating quality. The cuts in those sequences are quick and brutal, helping to continue the audience off-balance. Perhaps near notable is the fashion that Senensky shoots from the perspective of Marvick and Spock during their moments of insanity. It is a very adventurous decision for Star Trek, a franchise that is traditionally quite conservative in terms of direction. Still, it works very well. Senensky uses these sequences as an effective visual metaphor.

Is In that location in Truth No Beauty? asks its audience to sacrifice their position every bit objective viewers and put themselves in the shoes of Marvick or Spock every bit they wrestle with their insanity. These subjective shots play upon the title of the episod; as Miranda Jones herself points out, and as the episode suggests by revealing her to be blind, "dazzler" is ultimately a subjective concept. "What is ugly?" Jones challenges Kirk at ane point. "Who is to say whether Kollos is too ugly to conduct or likewise cute to bear?"

Nosotros accept lift-off.

More than that, it could be suggested that by inviting Marvick and Spock to share a perspective with the television audition at domicile, the episode constructive "breaks" their perception. Is In that location in Truth No Beauty? alludes repeatedly to the work of H.P. Lovecraft, and this might exist a very self-aware example. Lovecraft's characters are often driven insane by the revelation of truths that are too big for them to process. In request Marvick and Spock to see the Enterprise through the same photographic camera as the audience, do those characters skirt a universal awareness?

This subjectivity is most apparent in the quick shots of Ambassador Kollos, who is represented through a sequence of abstruse visual furnishings quickly cutting into certain scenes. Information technology should exist noted that these special effects are not composited into the container that holds Ambassador Kollos; instead, they flash straight in front end of the photographic camera, as if the audience is staring right at the Medusan and the Medusan is staring right dorsum. It is a bold choice, one that again puts the audience in a very subjective position, looking at the characters head-on.

Talk about being green with envy.

For his office, Senensky was not particularly happy with the integration of these special effects into the episode. He explained to Starlog:

In the third season, the scripts weren't always ready and in that location was the nonsense — which upwardly until that betoken hadn't been not- sense — when fourth dimension is of the essence and the actor is now starting to say you have to rewrite this or that line. I always felt that with the production staff of the concluding yr, the tenor had changed. With Is In that location in Truth No Beauty?, there were some cuts made in mail service-product that, for my coin, were schlock, horror cuts. They hadn't been in the script, were not in the concept and were thrown in by [third season producer] Fred Freiberger. He kept cutting- ting back to the box, the container, with lights flashing. You lot didn't need it. That's underestimating the intelligence of the audition. Because they weren't planned cuts, they became arbitrary and rather similar spring- cuts, which I've always resented. That was the third season's problem. The real tightening of the budget was the first thing, and then, probably having to do with those budgetary cuts, the calibre of the writing went down.

Senensky makes a reasonable argument. There is a sense that Freiberger did not trust the audition. All the same, those special effects shots do contribute to the general sense of ethereal weirdness that drives so much of the episode.

That is some really smashing framing.

Even outside of the big showcase sequences, Senensky demonstrates a bully understanding of the script. Senensky'south direction plays into and enhances the cadre themes of the story. His framing choices are particularly astute. Most notably, the framing of Jones during the celebratory dinner held in her honour. Senensky consciously and repeatedly frames Jones through the gap between Scotty and Marvick, creating the impression of a adult female being hemmed in and restricted by men.

At the aforementioned time, Is There in Truth No Beauty? does suffer from some questionable creative decisions that were made without Senensky'south input. The well-nigh glaring of these issues comes in the final scene, with Spock and Jones in the transporter. In the script, Kirk leaves the room before Spock transports Ambassador Kellos. However, the sequence is awkwardly edited to suggest that Kirk leaves the room afterwards Spock transports Ambassador Kellos. This creates a continuity issue. Information technology suggests that Kirk might have been exposed to Kellos during the transport.

Helm of his destiny.

As with the insertion of the abstruse imagery symbolising Ambassador Kollos, the change was made in postproduction outside of Senensky's control. Discussing the scene, Senensky lamented:

Finally the last scene of the film. Was it possible there would be no further reasons to cause me anguish? What could possibly exist done in postproduction to a simple scene in the Transporter Room?

Did you take hold of the gross error? The script and my director'south cut had Kirk say, "Peace", and then he exited. Who decided to take him hang effectually, without a visor, which wouldn't have protected him anyway because he was human? I have run out of scorn!

It is admittedly a minor item, but it does speak to the lack of attending that was beingness paid at certain points in the production of the third flavour as a whole.

Drinking it in.

The third flavor of Star Trek is interesting for many reasons. In many means, the third season is treated every bit a failure. Fred Freiberger is still blamed for the perceived pass up of the show, with many fans and critics accepting that there was a abrupt drop in quality from the offset and second seasons. The third flavor of Star Trek is openly discussed as a disappointment past everybody from the fans to the creative team. Whether or not this reputation is entire fair, it definitely exists.

However, this sense of failure belies the huge influence that certain primal elements of the third season have over the residual of the franchise. The third season of Star Trek introduces a large number of concepts that really shape and define the franchise as it will live on long later on the broadcast of The Turnabout Intruder. To selection two obvious continuity-drive examples, The Enterprise Incident really encouraged the show to wait across Starfleet while The Day of the Dove in some ways established a template for after appearances from the Klingons.

As cold as eyes.

There are lots of smaller continuity details scattered across the season. The Lights of Zetar introduces the concept of "Memory Alpha", which would give its name to a website so ubiquitous that Simon Pegg and Doug Jung would consult it when writing Star Trek Across. Kahless the Unforgettable first appears in The Savage Curtain. Even in Is In that location in Truth No Beauty?, it is confirmed that Uhura's name translates (loosely) as "freedom" in Swahili. Despite its reputation, the third season builds a lot of the finer details of the larger Star Trek universe.

Is At that place in Truth No Dazzler? introduces 2 major concepts that volition exist of considerable interest to the franchise every bit it develops. Most obviously, and most controversially, the episode introduces the Vulcan "IDIC" symbol. Spock wears the medallion to dinner with Jones, and then wears information technology once again at the very finish of the episode. The medallion symbolises "space diversity in infinite combinations", a succinct summary of the franchise's idealism and in some ways a clear ready-upward of the utopia that Gene Roddenberry would truly brainstorm to craft with Star Expedition: The Movement Movie.

IDK nigh the IDIC.

The inclusion of the medallion was an idea that came directly from Factor Roddenberry, and it was massively controversial. William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy took exception to Roddenberry's plans to monetise medallion by selling replicas through his company "Lincoln Enterprises." Co-ordinate to Ralph Senensky, this disagreement ground product to a halt:

Bill Shatner and Leonard Nimoy had very strong objections to a portion of the scene nosotros were scheduled to practise that day and were refusing to film. Since the objection was to dialogue involving a slice of jewelry that Gene Roddenberry had designed, he was summoned to the set. (I take since learned that Leonard Nimoy first phoned producer Fred Freiberger to tell him of the trouble. When Freiberger refused to have any action, Leonard called Roddenberry.) The morn was spent in a round table war with the vi characters involved in the scene plus Gene and me. But the battle was strictly Bill and Leonard vs Gene. Bill and Leonard felt Gene was using the scene as a promotional commercial for a pivot he had designed; the pin was role of Leonard's costume. Cistron vehemently denied these accusations, simply the guys were adamant in their refusal to be a office of something they considered to be commercially oriented. The final result of the long morning'southward angry combat was that Gene agreed to rewrite the scene. That meant it could not be filmed that mean solar day.

In many ways, this is an instance of Roddenberry at his most cynical and hypocritical. The producer had tried to incorporate the medallion into Spock'south Encephalon, only that did not work out. He merely took the adjacent available opportunity to publicise his coin-making scheme. After all, Roddenberry was not fifty-fifty a specially agile producer on the show at this betoken. Showing up to get Spock to sell his wares seems a very crass manoeuvre.

" data-medium-file="https://m0vie.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/tos-isthereintruthnobeauty1.jpg?w=300" data-large-file="https://m0vie.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/tos-isthereintruthnobeauty1.jpg?w=400" class="size-full wp-image-82068" src="https://m0vie.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/tos-isthereintruthnobeauty1.jpg?w=468" alt=""These will be listed in our Fall catalogue."" srcset="https://m0vie.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/tos-isthereintruthnobeauty1.jpg 400w, https://m0vie.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/tos-isthereintruthnobeauty1.jpg?w=150 150w, https://m0vie.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/tos-isthereintruthnobeauty1.jpg?w=300 300w" sizes="(max-width: 400px) 100vw, 400px">

"These volition be listed in our Fall catalogue."

In Star Trek Memories, William Shatner outlined his ain objections to the scene, painting an nigh sympathetic portrait of Fred Freiberger and a contemptuous take on Roddenberry:

I got my script modify, read the new scene and with my jaw all the same hanging open, I chosen Fred downwardly to the set, asking him, 'What's this IDIC thing nigh?' I knew that Lincoln Enterprises would before long be selling these things, and there was no way that I was going to muck up a perfectly expert story line only then nosotros could include Cistron's rather thinly veiled commercial. With that in mind, I flatly refused to do the scene. Freiberger hemmed and hawed about the difficulties involved in re-revising the script, only equally I spoke to him recently for this book, he finally admitted that he was really relieved that I wouldn't practise the scene. It was probably the commencement time in history that a producer was glad to be dealing with a 'hard' player…

Leonard and I had both seen through Gene's marketing ploy, and i subsequently some other we'd refused to play the scene. Nevertheless, when Gene came to the set, he did his very best to push it through. To his credit, Roddenberry was completely honest virtually the situation and didn't attempt to mask his gratis publicity scam behind whatsoever one-half-baked creative half-truths. He but stated that Lincoln Enterprises would before long be marketing these medallions, and that he'd really capeesh our cooperation in getting the production into this storyline.

While Roddenberry undoubtedly had every right to make a living, it seems disingenuous for the author to return to the bear witness he abandoned in our to boost his own post-society business. The Ferengi would be proud.

Medallion man.

Indeed, the ruthlessness with which Roddenberry embraced this capitalist endeavor stands in precipitous dissimilarity to the socialist utopianism that he would profess in his afterwards years with The Motion Film and The Next Generation. In I am Spock, Leonard Nimoy argued that the sequence cheapened Spock every bit a character and the series as a whole:

Although I didn't appreciate Spock beingness turned into a billboard, I at to the lowest degree felt that the IDIC idea had more value than the content of the original scene. We filmed the scene as Gene had rewritten information technology. But the whole incident was rather unpleasant; Roddenberry was peeved at me for not wanting to aid his piece of mail-social club merchandise get off to a resounding beginning, and Fred Freiberger was peeved at me for going over his head.

It is non a story that paints a particularly flattering picture of Gene Roddenberry, instead suggesting that the franchise creator was something of a huckster and conman willing to jeopardise long-continuing relationships and the perceived integrity of the show in gild to brand a quick buck.

Blind to Kirk'south amuse.

In some ways, the controversy over the "IDIC" speaks to the contradictions of Gene Roddenberry. Roddenberry is a complicated figure in the history of Star Expedition. It is tempting to pigment Roddenberry as a visionary with a unique insight into the potential of mankind, painting a utopian vision of the time to come that spoke to millions. At the same time, information technology is just equally tempting to paint Roddenberry as a charlatan prone to cocky-mythologise while belittling and diminishing the contributions made past others to his legacy. The truth likely lies somewhere in the middle.

Roddenberry does himself few favours. Many of his public statements are readily falsifiable. Roddenberry claimed to desire a diverse depiction of the future, telling a story about how he struggled against the network to present an international ensemble; the truth is that NBC advocated for the variety of the bandage, overruling Roddenberry. Roddenberry claimed that NBC were not ready for a woman in a position of authority like Number One in The Cage; the truth is that NBC were uncomfortable with Roddenberry casting his mistress is so prominent a part.

Everything is nether control here.

It does not help matters that Roddenberry tended to downplay the contributions of others. His character assassination against Harlan Ellison's The Metropolis on the Edge of Forever is legendary. Gene L. Coon's contributions to the Star Trek mythos are largely undervalued, likely in part due to Roddenberry'due south self-publicising. William Shatner has been quite candid in his assessment of Roddenberry, "He was a chiseler who wanted a cut of outside money his cast earned, demanded to be chosen 'master,' and prohibited poor Nimoy from using a visitor pencil."

This is to say zilch of Roddenberry's involvement in some of the franchise's more ill-judged moments. Roddenberry would cultivate a narrative that presented him equally a utopian pacifist, only he was as well heavily involved in some of the series' more patriotic pro-Vietnam episodes like A Private Petty War and The Omega Glory. Roddenberry might contend that Star Expedition was a feminist testify, but he was also one of the primary advocates for scripts like Elaan of Troyius and The Paradise Syndrome. At times, information technology seemed the series succeeded despite Roddenberry.

Drinking glass act.

Withal, there is as well a sense that Roddenberry did contribute something of worth, despite his crass and exploitative tendencies. The philosophy of "space diversity in space combinations" might have arrived as part of a drastic sales pitch from a producer who had stepped abroad from the series when it needed him most, simply that does not mean that the phrase is entirely without merit. It might be a contemptuous cash-grab, just information technology also speaks to something that fans truly love about the serial and the franchise.

This is the complicated legacy of Gene Roddenberry. The man was in some respects a charlatan and a huckster, a questionable author and an untrustworthy business associate. However, he also played an instrumental role in creating something that spoke to audiences on a primal level. Roddenberry created Star Expedition. His office in defining information technology and expanding information technology might be exaggerated, his skill at writing for it might exist highly debatable, but Roddenberry did offer an inspiring and utopian vision of the future.

Out of this galaxy.

Even the "IDIC" itself has a value across that published in the catalogue for Lincoln Enterprises. Information technology means something to the fans of the series. As Jennifer E. Porter reflects in Star Expedition Conventions as Pilgramage, the iconography has taken on an well-nigh religious quality:

During Star Trek conventions, fans come to perceive, clear, and embody IDIC. "Just expect around you," ane man at the Trek thirty convention told me, "anybody here is different. Infinitely so. This is it. This is IDIC." A woman later told me much the same thing. "Star Trek," she said, "gives a positive, hopeful outlook for the futurity. People are treated equally, non judged by race or colour. Information technology's evident at conventions – no 1 cares who or what you are – you're just some other Trek fan!"

It is heartwarming. It is tough to take that abroad from fans, hard to argue that this feeling of delectation and satisfaction is somehow macerated because it all originated in a coin-making scheme concocted by a producer trying to sneak some free advert on to the show.

The real McCoy.

As such, Roddenberry'due south legacy is problematic. Indeed, a lot of the legacy of the original Star Trek is problematic. This tends to get obscured in the myths that build upwardly around the franchise, and information technology is of import to acknowledge these problems without diminishing the inspiration. Uhura might have inspired blackness women similar Whoopi Goldberg and Mae Jemison, but that does not insulate the show from criticism in how it treated her character in episodes like The Changeling. The kiss in Plato'due south Stepchildren was nevertheless of import, merely it was not equally important every bit many claim.

The "IDIC" symbol is mayhap the best case of the problematic legacy of Gene Roddenberry. Information technology is an detail of incredible symbolic importance that also speaks to the less savoury aspects of its creator. These two sides of the IDIC cannot be completely divorced from one another, nor can they exist entirely reconciled. It is possible for the icon to speak at once to the utopian idealism of the Star Trek franchise equally a whole, while also reminding the audition of merely how flawed Gene Roddenberry actually was.

Seeing ruddy.

Although the IDIC is by far the virtually prominent piece of mythology introduced in the episode, it is not the only element of Is There in Truth No Beauty? that will exit a lasting impression on the Star Expedition franchise as a whole. The other legacy of Is There in Truth No Dazzler? is buried quite deep in the episode, so deep as to be invisible to the audience watching at home. Nevertheless, it is another example of the franchise'southward future manifesting itself in the midst of this troubled third flavour.

Is There in Truth No Beauty? features what is intended to be the prototype for the holodeck. Roddenberry would be a major proponent of the holodeck, fifty-fifty before introducing it in The Next Generation. Roddenberry was fascinated by the idea of an entirely artificial environment on a starship. It is suggested that the arboritum area that Kirk and Jones visit in Is There in Truth No Beauty? was intended to exist an artificial environs in the style of the holodeck. It would lated be introduced more skilfully inThe Practical Joker andEncounter at Farpoint.

Blooming miracles.

As Jon Peddie outlines in The History of Visual Magic in Computers:

While the Holodeck was not in the Original Star Trek Series it was first introduced in Star Trek: The Animated Series, as Uhura, Sulu, and McCoy become trapped in it in the animated episode The Practical Joker. The concept of the Holodeck goes dorsum even farther. Roddenberry had wanted to do something similar in Is In that location in Truth No Beauty? only the closest they could come to it back in the days of the original series was to accept some plants and lighting, which would simulate a non-spaceship environment.

As such, the episode sews the seeds of what would later on become the holodeck.

Back petalling…

Although the bogus environment in Is There in Truth No Dazzler? is a long fashion from the afterwards marvels of the holodeck, information technology is still a reminder of how much of the future of the franchise can exist traced back to this weird and dysfunctional third season. Star Trek was facing cancellation at the stop of the yr, and the tertiary season strikes an appropriately funereal tone. However, there is likewise a foreign sense, watching the flavour with the benefit of hindsight, that the prove was preparing for the time to come; for a life beyond these three seasons.

Is At that place in Truth No Beauty? is a strange episode from a strange season. However, information technology is also proof that what is strange can besides be beautiful.

Filed under: The Original Series | Tagged: diane muldaur, feminism, is there in truth no beauty?, Jean Lisette Aroeste, kirk, lovecraft, ralph senensky, spock, star expedition |

turnerfrok1948.blogspot.com

Source: https://them0vieblog.com/2016/08/01/star-trek-is-there-in-truth-no-beauty-review/#:~:text=Is%20There%20in%20Truth%20No%20Beauty%3F%20is%20an%20odd%20little,something%20of%20a%20brain%20drain.

Share this post