#Manua Apgar

[startrekplotnthemes]

S3 Episode 14 A Matter of Perspective

CW: SA Mentions

Riker in this episode is accused of murder of Dr. Apgar by Tanguan investigator Krag. In lieu of direct testimony Riker's guilt is tested in the holodeck based on testimony. The episode explores themes of accused guilt and a woman falsely accusing a man of SA. Manua, Dr.Apgar's wife comes up with a narrative where Riker attempts to show his affections.

In the meta, the watcher knows that Riker is innocent. He behaves violently and directly, assaulting Manua and her husband in her version of events. The crew discovers that Dr.Apgar was attempting to kill Riker with said Krieger waves rather than Riker attempting to murder him, proving Riker innocent. Riker is proven innocent and it is a happy ending, but a contemporary understanding of the episode potentially leaves something to be desired. A woman accusing a man of such an act only for it to be a falsehood is a rather questionable plot points looking back.

[filmjunky-99]

s t a r t r e k t h e n e x t g e n e r a t i o n created by gene roddenberry A Matter of Perspective [s3ep14]

[thegreaterlink]

Reviewing Star Trek TNG - S3E14 "A Matter of Perspective"

This screenshot is an absolute trip.

THE PREMISE

The Enterprise drops off Riker and Geordi at the Botanica IV space station to check on the progress of Dr Nel Apgar (Mark Margolis), who has been researching Krieger waves as a potential power source. When the Enterprise returns the next day, the station explodes moments after Riker beamed back from his meeting with Apgar.

Tanugan investigator Krag (Craig Richard Nelson) comes aboard to accuse Riker of murder, since under Tanugan law he is guilty until proven innocent, and demands that he be turned over. Picard requests that they hold a trial to determine Riker's innocence.

MY REVIEW

Before we begin, I have to highlight the cold open where Data innocently talks shit about Picard's painting. I love it. Definitely the highlight of the episode.

Okay, back to the actual plot.

Here we have the first of many episodes where a main character is accused of some heinous crime and has to prove their innocence. Or as I like to call them, a slow day in the writers' room. Get used to these. You're going to be seeing a lot of them going forward.

Personally, I'm not a fan of these episodes because we always know that the accused is innocent, so there's no tension or intrigue.

Fortunately this at least has an interesting twist on it, taking advantage of the futuristic setting to have each witness's version of events play out in the holodeck.

First, we get Riker's version of events. This doesn't do the lack of tension any favours, since we know he's innocent, but okay.

I'd give you an image, but I used it for the header. In his version, Riker is neutral and business-like, Apgar is irritated by Starfleet's interruption but tries to be polite, and Apgar's wife Manua (Gina Hecht) can hardly keep her eyes off Riker, and insists that he and Geordi stay on the station despite having arranged accommodation on the planet.

Over in Riker's guest quarters, Manua essentially comes on to him, despite his insistence that she leave. Apgar enters, catches the two of them in an... awkward position, puts two and two together and tells Riker that he'll make a formal complaint to Starfleet. Though Riker notes that this last part never happened and he didn't see Apgar until the next morning.

Speaking of which, Riker's account ends with him leaving on amicable terms. Krag calls bullshit, claiming that Riker fired a phaser since the lab's ground computers detected a large energy pulse at his exact position right as the transporter was activated. Krag runs his own hypothesis, which shows Riker firing on Apgar as he was beaming out.

We then get Manua as the first witness, with much more modest clothing and demeanour than in Riker's account. Her account from before the Enterprise's arrival shows Apgar anxious over how Starfleet will respond to his lack of progress. Riker arrives, acting much more like his usual self, as well as blatantly checking her out. That night, he acts much more... predatory than usual, causing Riker (by which I mean the real Riker) to interrupt in protest, even attacking and threatening Apgar when he catches them.

Despite the foregone conclusion of Riker's innocence, it is entertaining to see Jonathan Frakes acting against type for a change.

Plus Riker gets so appalled at this attempted slander that he gives us yet another meme template.

I hope you're keeping track of these. There'll be questions later.

I'm joking.

Or am I?

Anyway, Picard calls a recess, with the evidence stacked against Riker and Troi claiming that they're somehow both telling the truth.

"We can't both be telling the truth."

"It is the truth… as you each remember it."

"But her version puts a noose around my neck."

Later comes the third witness: Tayna, Apgar's assistant, who describes what Apgar told her of the incident. Even though her account is essentially hearsay, Krag allows it since Apgar is dead.

Tayna's account is a happy medium of the two versions. Long story short, Apgar catches Riker and Manua making out, Apgar hits him and says he'll complain, and Riker threatens him. Later, Apgar tells Tayna to take his wife down to the planet and that he'll deal with Riker and continue his research. And we all know (more or less) how that went.

Now, throughout this whole thing there's been a subplot where the technical team (Geordi, Data and Wesley) have been checking for evidence of Riker's innocence. There have also been two radiation attacks which melted away part of the hull. Analysis has found that there's been the exact same time intervals between them and that they're precisely in time with the Krieger wave generator on the planet's surface. With this knowledge, Picard has determined the cause of both the radiation bursts and the explosion, as well as who killed Dr Apgar.

Picard reconvenes everyone back on the holodeck, claiming that despite all the testimonies they've yet to see what really happened.

Okay, a whole lot of shit happens in this last big explanation, so I'll do my best to keep it brief by just explaining the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

inhales

Tayna's version of events is correct.

Apgar had already finished the wave generator and was lying about his lack of progress, since he was more interested in the potential financial gain which the Federation couldn't offer.

The holodeck simulation of the wave generator (which is apparently also fully functional somehow) has been focusing the energy from the generator on the planet, damaging the ship.

Apgar had attempted to kill Riker by aiming the wave generator at him, but the energy beam bounced off his transporter field and hit the converter, destroying the station.

With the new evidence presented, Krag agrees with the conclusion that Agpar accidentally killed himself while trying to kill Riker, and offers his apologies. Yay!

A bit messy to be sure, but it all worked out in the end. The writing could've been punched up in some places, maybe by giving Tayna and Manua different motivations for testifying, like if Agpar and Tayna were having an affair or something and Tayna wanted to cover it up. Just a thought.

6/10 - I've seen worse.

[colonel-kira-nerys]

More Thoughts on “A Matter of Perspective”

Content Warning: Discussion of Attempted Rape and Domestic Violence

Since my list of episodes with themes of sexual assault and other upsetting content has been making the rounds again, “A Matter of Perspective” has been weighing on my mind. 

Even all these years after watching this episode for the first time, it still upsets me more than almost any other episode in the Star Trek canon, so I just wanted to expand a little bit more on why it’s so distressing, while there are still people possibly interested in hearing my thoughts.

The following is an in-depth look at “A Matter of Perspective,” which may be upsetting to some people, so I’m putting my analysis beneath the cut. Please let me know what you think, because I still feel the need to scream into the void about this 30 years after it aired.

“A Matter of Perspective” (TNG: Season 3, Episode 14), at first glance, has an incredibly intriguing premise. The opener is Data critiquing Picard’s sub-par painting skills (talk about tone problems... Jesus) and then Riker beams back to the Enterprise after spending the night at an alien space station, where he was supposed to be checking up on the progress of a scientist named Dr. Apgar. 

But upon beaming back, the entire space station explodes. Riker acts surprised and clueless as to how this would’ve happened. Whenever he’s asked about what happened on the station, he gets cagey, even before the trial starts.

It’s clear he’s hiding something, so when an alien Inspector beams aboard asking for Riker’s arrest and extradition, the audience is prepared for it, because we know that something must’ve happened.

Then, when he’s accused of murdering the scientist and blowing up the station, there becomes the issue of who has jurisdiction over the crime. Does the Enterprise have the right to hold the trial on board, or should Riker be released into the custody of the Tenugan Investigator, Crag? 

It’s important to note that I’m not coming at this from a place of hatred, in the sense that I wasn’t looking for something wrong. I thoroughly believed this was about to be a BRILLIANT episode, with lots of moral ambiguity and intrigue.

Boy, was I wrong.

The two sides (Starfleet vs. Tenugan) eventually settle on recreating the events of Riker’s time on the station via the Holodeck. THIS WAS SO COOL. I wish all crimes were able to be recreated, down to the tiniest detail, through a simulation. I thoroughly looked forward to seeing the detective work being conducted through simulations, but only because I had no idea that Riker was also going to be accused of attempted rape. I went into this completely blind. 

Riker gets the first word in the trial, which I think was a gross miscarriage of justice, because he is the one being accused of the crime--of course he’s going to deny it!!! Why would you let the Defense make their case first...?! 

It prejudices Captain Picard to see Riker’s story first, because he’s already more likely to be believed and protected by his own captain. It also prejudices Deanna Troi--whose presence/function during the trial, by the way, is never explained. As far as I can tell, she’s there to be a lie-detector, which is hilarious in its absurdity, because she can “sense no deception” from either Will or Dr. Apgar’s wife, Manua.

I guarantee you if the attempted rape had been shown first, this episode would’ve had a completely different tone, and that is part of the problem.

Manua, after all, is the one who requires justice, not only for her husband, but also for herself. Although, at this point in the episode, we don’t even know that she’s accusing him of sexual assault, because the Inspector didn’t charge him with that crime from the beginning.

In a way, this was a great tactic to get Riker to hang himself with his own words---with his own testimony---but because every Starfleet officer in the room is already prejudiced, that’s not how the episode plays out. 

In Riker’s version of events, he is cold, robotic, and professional to a fault (as in, he seems completely uninterested in pleasantries, or, you know, doing his job with any sense of diplomacy). He makes it very clear from the beginning that he’s uninterested in Mrs. Apgar’s hospitality and just wants to get to work. 

Note: why would it be important for Riker to assert with his whole heart from the very beginning that he wasn’t interested in Manua, unless he knew that Manua was going to make a claim that in his view ‘wasn’t true’?! He acts SO SURPRISED that Manua would view his advances as attempted rape, and yet, here’s the thing: we know that Riker is a fan of the ladies, so what some might see as  “innocent” sexual banter could’ve been attributed to his personality, if he’d shown us his usual charm in his version of events. We expect this of him--to be a bit cocky and sensual. We might not like it, but we know that he’s a playboy, in the kindest interpretation of the word. So, as you’re watching his version of events, most people would find it strange that he would refuse hospitality from someone, because Riker has always been “up for anything” as they say. 

Instead of admitting that he might have given Manua the wrong impression by flirting with her, he makes himself out to be cold and unfeeling, in order to preserve an image of cool professionalism that we as the audience know isn’t true to his character.

So, any attempts at hospitality on the part of Manua are immediately spurned by Riker, even those that seem to be genuinely a part of social graces that are indigenous to populations everywhere, not just this alien one. “Can I get you a drink?” isn’t meant to be sexual, in most cultures. This is the bare minimum requirement of a hostess, to ask if anyone needs a refreshment, and yet, Riker makes it clear that this was the start of her sexual overtures... because he needs to cover his tracks. Manua explains later, in her own version of events, that she was worried her husband’s antisocial behavior might negatively impact Riker’s report, and so it was important to make him feel welcome--hence, the drink.

According to Riker, he made hotel arrangements down on the planet for Geordi and himself, but Manua insists that they stay in the guest bedrooms instead. I know Geordi is needed for the science fiction subplot, but why isn’t he in the room to confirm or deny at least this part of Riker’s story? Can’t this specific assertion be easily fact-checked? Even alien hotels presumably have a record of reservations. Like, if Riker was telling the truth, this bit is easily provable, though I would argue that just because he made other arrangements doesn’t mean he didn’t change his mind when he saw the opportunity to have sex. My point is, why is no actual detective work done to confirm the facts of Riker’s story...? 

Anyway, according to Riker, Manua then tries to seduce him once they’re alone in his guest quarters. Mr. Apgar walks in on them in a compromising position, and here’s something I failed to address in my earlier breakdown of the episode: At first, Apgar isn’t angry at Riker; he’s angry at his wife. 

He says: “I knew I’d find you with him. Did you think I didn’t notice how you looked at him? I’m not the fool you take me for.” AND THEN HE BACKHANDS HER, HARD, ACROSS THE FACE.

Her husband attacks her, by Riker’s own admission, and then, only after doing that, does Mr. Apgar try (and fail) to hit Riker, too. But it’s clear his wife was the person he wanted to spend his anger on.

In all versions of this story, Mr. Apgar tries to hit Riker. That’s 100% consistent. But in Riker’s version, Apgar makes a point to “punish” his wife first. Why? This is important, because no matter which of the three versions is true, Manua is either a victim of domestic violence or of sexual assault. 

Now, you can argue that Tayna wouldn’t have included Apgar hitting his wife in her statement, because Mr. Apgar is her boss, and you can also argue that Manua excluded the fact that her husband hit her from her own testimony in order to appear as though their marriage was better than it was, but why on earth would Riker feel the need to add this, if it weren’t true? Why add the assault of a woman by her husband, unless to show that this man was a “bad guy” compared to his much more “honorable” actions...?

Why isn’t this addressed? In all versions of events, Manua is physically assaulted, but only in Riker’s version does her husband slap her hard enough to nearly make her fall. I believe Riker over Tayna (the Assistant) on this specific count, because, frankly, her version is hearsay, told to her by her boss, and it’s very clear that Mr. Apgar was lying to Tayna when he claimed to beat the crap out of Riker. 

So, it’s more than likely that Mr. Apgar did indeed hit his wife, if we look at it from the lens of what it makes sense for Riker to lie about, and what it doesn’t. The “beating” was taken by Manua, and not Riker, in the truest version of this story, which has to be somewhere in the middle of all of the versions, apparently.

Apgar might’ve changed this part of the story when telling it to Tayna to save face with her. Also, I don’t know who, besides her, could possibly believe that Apgar won a fistfight against Riker. 

Regardless, why would he insist his wife and assistant be transported off the space station unless 1) he believed Riker was a sexual predator and/or 2) he wanted no witnesses to what he was about to do next.

[Note: This episode was heavily inspired by Rashomon, a Japanese film which explores the retelling of the same events by multiple characters, in which everyone shows their “ideal self” by lying. In that story, however, the wife is actually raped. Like, there’s no “matter of perspective” claiming she didn’t get raped. The “perspective” change only offers different ways the rape could’ve happened, and how the characters involved all acted after the rape changes from person to person. The murder is treated as the more important issue in that movie, too, because misogyny.]

Why bring up Rashomon? Because the writers should never have changed this part of the story to imply the attempted rape didn’t happen. They shouldn’t have adapted it in such a way that the main goal is to cast doubt on the assault of the woman; they should’ve committed to the assault happening, but three people telling it three different ways, so that at no point is the story trying to tell us that rape is “a matter of perspective,” but rather that the undeniable rape itself was seen by three different people in three different lights.  

I think this episode could’ve been a meaningful exploration of the issue that men often don’t perceive their dogged pursuit of women as predatory, especially when the woman in question eventually “submits.” This could’ve been a story about how Riker didn’t realize he had as much power over Mr. Apgar’s scientific research (and by extension, Manua’s life) as he did. Manua and Apgar were completely dependent on Riker’s glowing report, and it’s made very clear in Manua’s version of events that she felt she couldn’t just excuse herself from the situation entirely, because her husband’s research was at stake.

This episode could’ve shown us how a “good” man, with a somewhat oblivious understanding of his power, could still abuse his power over a woman with regard to her ability to consent... but no. They immediately try to paint Manua as a lying seductress rather than a rape victim.

Here’s the thing: Manua’s version is the only one where her character has a clear motivation to testify against Riker. If this were only about her husband’s death, her testimony would be mostly irrelevant, because she obviously wasn’t there when it happened. And, if she had tried to seduce Riker, she wouldn’t need to “cry rape” to solidify Riker’s motive to kill her husband--he already had motive, which was Apgar’s threat to report his promiscuous conduct to Starfleet. Making a false accusation of rape doesn’t benefit her in any way. Not to mention it clearly traumatized her to recount it. She had to excuse herself by the end of it.

Another reason it doesn’t make sense for Manua to lie about the attempted rape is simply that she didn���t know the true nature of her husband’s research. The show missteps here, too, by making it so clear that she was in the dark about it, because if they hadn’t done that, they could’ve argued that she lied as a red herring to distract the Starfleet officers from discovering that her husband was making a weapon. But no!! Both she and Tayna had no idea that Dr. Apgar was making a weapon, and therefore that had no bearing on the rape accusation. So, the writers make absolutely no effort to explain what possible motivation Manua could’ve had for lying---because there isn’t one!!

Even in the original script, it says that Manua’s version of events characterizes Riker in a much more believable way:

(And it’s important to note that in this take on the story, Riker’s attitude is less aloof and formal. He's relaxed and charming. In fact, in some ways he is more like the Riker we know and love.)

Moreover, Deanna Troi, who canonically is supposed to be able to tell when people are lying, can sense no deception from Manua. Not that you should need an empath in the room to believe a woman when she says that someone tried to rape her. But putting that aside, the fact that there is an empath–who is compromised to begin with because of her relationship with Riker–and she believes Manua’s presentation of the events... that alone is some pretty damning evidence. 

If Manua feels as though Riker tried to harm her–feels it so strongly that Deanna empathically senses that she is telling the truth–it shouldn’t matter what Riker thinks of the accusation. Assuming Riker really does believe his version of events, and Manua believes hers, why are the writers making such an effort to both discredit and support the truth of Manua’s testimony at the same time...?

And, just in case your blood isn’t boiling yet, there’s this: 

Michael Piller recalled that the episode was "probably the hardest story to break. It was a technical nightmare for the director. I was very, very, happy with the script and I thought the show was disappointing. I guess it didn't translate properly. It was very ambitious, but the casting was off. If you had put Lana Turner in the role of the woman in that show, you would have understood it all – but I don't think it played as it was intended. 

Y’all... this FUCKING ASSHOLE claims that the real reason the episode didn’t work was because of the casting of the wife. He believes that people would’ve “understood it all” if Lana Turner, a sex symbol and famous pin-up model, had played the role. 

What he’s saying is: if the wife had been sexier, a walking pin-up, the audience would’ve understood the episode better, but because the actress playing her was... what? too average-looking? too demure? people “didn’t get it?”

This has the terrible implication that he thinks the rape story wasn’t as believable because the actress playing Manua wasn’t hot enough. Think about that for two seconds and tell me you don’t want to shoot this guy in the balls. 

This could’ve been a meaningful exploration of how Riker didn’t realize he took advantage of Manua; in his mind, she was willing, but in hers, she thought she had to have sex with him or else it would negatively effect his report on her husband’s research. It could’ve been a commentary on how a man can abuse his power without meaning to--without even realizing he has it--and that, if the woman then feels violated, it’s still an assault, even if she eventually gave in and appeared to “consent.”

This episode should’ve been about Riker not realizing he’d coerced a woman, and so he truly believes he’s innocent. But no, instead it becomes a situation in which there is no possible way there was a middle ground between the two accounts. Manua’s testimony is so clearly an assault, there could be no way Riker interpreted her begging him to stop as seduction.

In conclusion, this episode goes out of its way to make it seem like rape victims are liars who can’t be trusted. Keeping in mind this was 30 years ago, I just want to end by saying: according to the United States Justice Department, only approximately 2% of all rape complaints are false, while almost three out of every four rapes go unreported. We need to stop perpetuating the lie that women often “cry rape.” Statistically speaking, they don’t. 

If you made it through all of this, I would love to know your thoughts on my analysis, if you have a moment to spare to share them.

[jimintomystery]

TNG: “A Matter of Perspective”

When Commander Riker is accused of destroying an orbital station at Tanuga IV to murder Doctor Nel Apgar, the Enterprise crew attempts to clear his name by reenacting witness testimony on the holodeck.

The conceit of this episode is that the holodeck is essential to Riker’s extradition hearing.  Picard wants a chance to establish Riker’s innocence before turning him over to Inspector Krag, but Krag insists interrogation can only happen down on the planet because he “must recreate, step by step, moment by moment, all the events leading to the explosion.”  At this point the holodeck is presented as a solution, but I’m not sure why. The implication is that the Tanugans don’t have holodecks, but do have some other process for presenting depositions that is just as precise but confined to the planet’s surface.  But all the holodeck does is act out the witnesses’ statements, so I’m left to conclude a standard Tanugan criminal trial involves an acrophobe performing a puppet show.

The big concept is to depict the altercation between Riker and Apgar prior to the explosion from three different perspectives, with details changed to reflect the biases in each deposition.  All the actors do this well--I particularly like Mark Margolis portraying Apgar as a fussy little man in Riker’s deposition, a devoted husband in Manua’s, and a fierce ass-kicker in the version Apgar himself told to his assistant. 

What’s troubling, though, is how the episode deals with Manua saying Riker attempted to rape her.  It’s odd to me that neither Krag nor Picard follow up on that, as if affirming Riker’s innocence regarding the explosion somehow “proves” the rest of his story is true.  We “know” Riker didn’t assault anyone on the station mainly because he’s the good guy on a TV show.  From a Watsonian perspective, though, that’s not enough to dismiss Manua’s rather serious accusation.  I guess Tanugan law might say she hasn’t got a case, but I would expect Starfleet regulations to demand an inquiry nevertheless.

The solution to this whodunit involves a cute plot device: The holodeck’s simulation of the crime scene--Apgar’s lab--is so precise that it is fully functional.  That works for this plot, but raises a lot of weird questions about the increasingly magical nature of the holodeck.  If it’s this easy to replicate Apgar’s work with holograms, and so trivial to operate a holodeck, why is Starfleet funding what appears to be a rather costly station made of expensive real matter?  Apparently they could’ve parked a starship at Tanuga IV and let him conduct his research in a holodeck, and achieved the same breakthroughs with far less hassle.

[sokorra]

The Rewatch: 139 A Matter of Perspective

The Rewatch: 139 A Matter of Perspective

Series: Star Trek: TNGEpisode: 3.14 A Matter of Perspective (02-12-1990)Rating:  3.5/5Redshirt Status: 0/1.5/23 Notable Guest Stars: Craig Richard Nelson – Krag.  He had an recurring role in the TV series Square Pegs, and appeared in the 1989 film Honey, I shrunk the Kids.Mark Margolis – Nel Apgar.  He earned a Emmy nomination for his role in the TV series Breaking Bad.Gina Hecht as Manua…