"There are times, Catarina, when I find myself transfixed by a shadow on the wall, or the splashing of water against a stone. I stare at it, the hours pass, the world around me drops away, replaced by worlds being created and destroyed by my imagination. A way to focus the mind." — Leonardo DaVinci, "Scorpion".
|
By Jason
Davidson
When Voyager wraps up its journey home, a noticeable era of the Star Trek franchise history will be over. That era-- the years since the end of The Next Generation, has, like Voyager's own journey home, been a rocky one-- marked by severe peaks in troughs in show quality and fan interest. But when Voyager ends, the last spinoff series of The Next Generation will be over, and, for the time being, at least-- the book will be closed on the 24th century era of the Star Trek future. But it's not really over. For better or worse, just like TNG heavily influenced the early character of both Deep Space 9 and Voyager, Voyager will heavily influence the next era of Trek television shows (and possibly even feature films). That seems kind of strange. |
If DS9 was Trek's ignored child, Voyager often seemed to be its maligned one. It was never too hard to find detractors of the show at any point during its run. That's understandable: after TNG's end, Voyager was propped up as the "heir" to the Trek throne. Voyager has always benefitted from a bit more exposure and hype. That level of interest has been counterbalanced by an equally strong opposition whenever it disappointed. It has always been in comparisons to other Trek series that the criticism has come from. So why is Voyager going to be the series whose lessons will most influence the next era of the franchise? (Okay, for argument's sake here, let's just take a detour around the simple answer, "Brannon Braga").
It's a cliche that those who are maligned are simply misunderstood. But with Voyager, that might really be true. Voyager was often criticized for holding back a bit too much. And while that might also be true, there might be an aspect of truth in it being a bit too bold for the audience it had been bequeathed. In many ways, Voyager was probably the misunderstood child of Trek in that it once it found its own creative voice, it stayed pretty true to it. The only problem was that this 'voice' was not in harmony with the expectations of an audience pampered by the format of serialization that Voyager fought so hard against. Well, good for it.
No story arcs on Voyager? Not true. Voyager had thematic arcs rather than the plot arcs favored by DS9 and other contemporary television shows. What Voyager did was take certain themes and throughout the course of the series, explored them from many new, intriguing angles without getting too obvious about it.
Too often Voyager is criticized for taking from the pre-established
Trek
canon, but not given credit for its contributions. Many seem unwilling
to concede Voyager its due credit of innovation. Voyager
opened up new forms of sophistication in storytelling to
Trek audiences.
Previously, this storytelling "sophistication" to most audience meant
arcs, arcs, arcs!, but nevermind the narrative ingenuity of many Voyager
episodes, which tweaked the way stories-- even if generic ones-- are told.
|
This made Voyager a breath of fresh air to the straight-ahead,
straight-laced story telling model Trek has held fast to for what
seems like far too many decades now.
Criticism for Voyager in general often comes in comparing it to other shows and genres completely. Lots of people like to compare Voyager's perceived stinginess in the reflection of many other of prime time's most popular shows. Comparing Voyager to something like The West Wing is ridiculous. The whole point is that they are not alike. Part of the appeal of Voyager is that you can't get its stories anywhere else. Why should the show bend away from its unique product to ape what is readily available elsewhere? |
In terms of Voyager's raison d'etre for the past few years, it has been a show that has taken one topic in particular and passionately explored it in a fascinating way that befits Trek well. Voyager, at its core was a series that had running underneath it a long love affair with the role of myth and legend in the lives of Trek's heroes. Specifically-- how the status of legend affects their lives, and more importantly, how others see them. That's a nice little analytic survey into Trek itself that no one else bothered to touch.
In that way, the goal of Voyager was to get back to its Trek roots: the "larger than life" idea of heroes in the vast unkown, the final frontier. The great thing about Trek is that this idea opens up the floodgates of the imagination. What Voyager tried to do was tap into those waters and tell a legendary story.
Voyager established a mythic, complicated hero in Janeway, and
a disparate crew of travellers to back her up. In having that crew,
the show was able to outline the making of a legend. If the history
of Voyager were to be re-told, through only eye-witness accounts or oral
re-telling, would these people be interesting, even heroic? Yes.
The stories of the Voyager crew would capture the imagination.
It would be worth thinking about being there with those people or
even BEING those people, off on their weird adventures, facing those larger
than life problems. The "high-concept" crises Janeway got challenged
with are crises that demand you step outside yourself in the face of crisis
and become something more. There are many ways to do that, and what
we saw from Janeway was a real person-- a scientist, and modest human being--
who stepped outside herself, often in flawed ways. That's because
Janeway is a character with two sides. One that is intrinsically
simple, relatable and human. And another side that seems larger than
the simple aura of her commanding presence. This weird symbiotic
relationship between the two sides is the storytelling ingredients that
Voyager
thrived on.
|
That's why the role of myth has been so important to the series. The Voyager crew has been the subject of a play ("Muse"), a novel ("Author, Author"), a holo-fantasy ("Pathfinder") and even a museum dedicated to them (Living Witness"). These are people that are inherently imaginative and who encourage a sense of participation from those who hear about their adventures. This was a ship and crew that maked you wonder about them-- their adventures and what it would be like to be there. This encouraged initiative amongst its audience. |
Voyager, like TOS inspires creativity in a way not accomplished in quite the same way by their counterparts. It was about a journey home, but its storytelling cradle was in possbilities and the mind. Common themes were the means stories are told, either literally or by extension where the action often took place within the playground of the mind. Voyager was interested in the wonders that could occur in this mindscape, and the weird ways humans perceive things became the modern substitute for literal "strange new worlds". Even if you ignore the stylistic modernization of the show, if Voyager's legacy is that it broadened the concept of the possibilities in Trek, then it was all a success.
In this regard the show was fortunate for actors like Kate Mulgrew and Jeri Ryan whose nuanced, expressive non-verbal approach to their characters and style of acting gave the impression of significance on different layers. In high concept ideas, it flirted with the limitless bounds of creativity where the barriers of time, space and distance didn't matter, and more to the point, were part of the fun of watching the odd mix that often played out.
You could not get episodes like "Haunting of Deck Twelve", say, a fairly standard issue alien story couched in a camp fire story, anywhere else on TV. That's the strength of Voyager.
One very controversial argument to come from Trek is that Janeway is the best captain to come from the franchise. Heresy! Or not? As played by Mulgrew, Janeway was a nuanced character. In terms of the actors lending credit to their characters, Mulgrew stands in very good stead.
If such conditions were necessary for judging the "best" Trek captain,
it might immediately discount Sisko, whose seemingly two-note portrayal
of the character consisted within an indelicate balance between stiff aloofness
and over-the-top histrionics. Few other captains can be considered
as dept as Patrick Stewart, who had remarkable depth to his voice but rarely
the demonstration of raw humor or emotional extremes other than anguish
that Janeway gets to frequently tap into.
|
There's no undermining the other captains. All were good.
But Mulgrew's performance lends fuel to the idea of her character's unusual
contrast as a modest mortal person whose legacy transcends her human existence
into mythic status. Her actions and behaviour create an interesting
thesis and antithesis of the character from which an impression of mythic
heroism results.
It's always interesting to quantify that status, but it's not always possible to do in the most satisfying manner. |
The "Classic Janeway" moment? In keeping with the idea of legends, you have a lot of possibilities for her most "heroic" moment. Maybe it was when she turned the tables on the Hirogen Hunter in "The Killing Game, II". Or when she faced the Collective at the end of "Scorpion, I". Or maybe it was in "Unimatrix Zero, I" when she was assimilated, with phaser rifle swingling in the most convincingly Alamo-esque moment to come from Trek. DS9 spent an entire season dropping Alamo references. But the status of 'legend' does not simply rub off by association. It usually comes through action. In that regard, perhaps Janeway's seminal moment of glory came within her first introduction-- perhaps there was no better moment than her decision to destroy the Array, the decision which began Voyager's oddysey.
"Endgame", Voyager's final episode, promises to hint at a future where it takes Janeway at least another nine years to get home-- a future where things started to go downhill, but one in which the ship still got home anyway. That is appropriate to Voyager, somehow, that there are many events that happened that are part of the complete understanding of the ship, the crew and their journey but that can't be tagged and dated. The uncertainty and the imagination around it contributes to the sense of legend. In that way, maybe Janeway's "mythic moment" is rightly in "Year of Hell"-- appropriate in that it never exactly happened-- when she crawled back to her chair on her wrecked bridge. Events like these stir the imagination and encourage a sense of wonder. That these events are not part of the canonical continuity is entirely irrelevant. It doesn't matter if they didn't happen-- they lend an understanding of these people in bizarre, extreme situations and they contribute to their sense of legend.
As such, the classic feeling of what Trek "is" and what makes it unique was not only kept intact but sustained for a new generation. It seems appropriate to the moniker of 'legend' that there are different facets of the crew of Voyager characters that we know little about... adventures they themselves were part of but now forget.
Voyager tried lots of things, but it was its high concept ideas that really identified it and that allowed it to bend the reality that surrounded them and to create a mystique around its humble characters. When you meet Janeway, she would still be striking, but would you ever imagine the amount of her deeds? That is a legend because there is uncertainty around her, a deceptive mystique that encourages the imaginative processes. That's why Voyager's crew has been the subject of a museum, among others.
In one, pop-culture line, simplified as it may be, Voyager was about this cool ship and this weird crew and their even weirded adventures. That's a seven year run that was not too badly spent.
Oh sure, there are lots of little issues and controversies associated with Voyager.
What's the deal with Seven of Nine? Seven's prevalence was not because she is a statuesque blonde or how she looks in the catsuit or even because of who she is dating. It's because if you saw Seven walking down the street, you'd be amazed. It's that sense of tangible wonder that Voyager is trying to convey, and get the audience to connect with.
What's the deal with not changing the characters? On the surface, Voyager really didn't change the formula too much, character wise. But the characters themselves have changed a great deal, through sub-currents that have always run throughout the series, and by the end, the changes for many of them have been significant.
Really, the list could go on. But with any series that lasted seven seasons, you could find a long list of questions and quabbles that need to be resolved. Because of the frequent controversy, a lot of people are defensive about liking Voyager. They shouldn't be. Voyager was inconsistent. Who cares? If you connect with what they were trying to do, that is something that is great. If you can identify with the sense of imagination they tried to foster, then that is something wonderful. Something that you can't get too many other places on television these days.
So in some ways, Voyager is the underestimated child, that in some other ways, really did overachieve, even if it didn't quite deliver what was wanted. When it goes, it might leave a vacuum. Still, perhaps fans should count themselves lucky that it is this modernization of storytelling, as well as the vast strides in technical improvement (in directing, particularly) that Voyager will contribute to a new chapter of exploration in the Star Trek universe once it ends.
Feedback can be sent to jasond7@home.com.
