“A Matter of Perspective” is Star Trek’s attempt at Rashōmon, a courtroom drama where the holodeck is used to show us a murder from three different perspectives.
There’s a lot to appreciate about the episode, including the opening scene of Picard in a painting class. Data comes in and analyzes the three painting students’ interpretations (or perspectives, get it?) and finds Picard’s somewhat wanting:
Data: While suggesting the free treatment of form usually attributed to Fauvism, this quite inappropriately attempts to juxtapose the disparate cubistic styles of Picasso and Leger. In addition, the use of colour suggests a haphazard melange of clashing styles. Furthermore, the unsettling overtones of proto-Vulcan influences –
Picard: Thank you, Mister Data.
The main plot begins when Chief Investigator Krag accuses Riker of murdering a scientist, Dr. Apgar, and asks for an extradition hearing.
The mystery of Apgar’s death is tightly and well-written – Krag initially suggests Riker decided to shoot Apgar while transporting back to the Enterprise, and Apgar’s wife and assistant present supporting testimon, although at times it’s not clear whether the reenactments are meant to be funny or suspenseful.
There are two areas where the Rashōmon framework doesn’t really work for me. The first is that we know Riker is innocent, so it doesn’t invite us to really inhabit the other witnesses’ perspectives.
The second is the way the differing perspectives are used to talk about alleged attempted sexual assault.
In Riker’s story, Dr. Apgar’s wife, Manua, comes on to him basically from the moment he walks in the door. She tells him she’s bored with her husband and starts undressing herself in Riker’s guest room, despite his protestations.
Apgar walks in on them, slaps Manua and tries to take a swing at Riker. He leaves, threatening Riker.
Of course, Manua’s story is quite different. In her story Riker insists on staying the night, traps her in his room, and tries to rape her.
Riker interrupt the testimony to insist he didn’t try to rape her. And we know he didn’t because he’s Riker.
A recess is called and Riker protests to Troi that Manua is lying, but because it’s Rashōmon, Troi says she doesn’t sense deception from Manua:
Troi: It is the truth as each of you remembers it.
Riker: But her version puts a noose around my neck.
So, troublingly, the “perspectives” framing of this episode suggests that a woman could be entirely honest testifying at a rape trial, and yet still be objectively lying or misremembering. For more on why that’s an issue, check out my review of the Voyager episode “Retrospect.”
It would almost be better if Manua were lying in order to cover up the truth: that her husband tried to kill Riker, not out of jealousy, but to cover up the fact that he was withholding scientific information from the Federation in order to make a more lucrative weapons deal with one of the Federation’s enemies.
As it is, once the truth about the murder is uncovered, the fact that Manua still honestly felt like an assault victim is forgotten.
Bechdel-Wallace Test: Fail
2 Comments
Add Yours →Frankly, following the dialogue of the episode, the only possible interpretation is that Riker DID assault Manua, or at least tried to. Troi says Manua is telling the truth as she saw it – but crucially, Troi says no such thing about Riker. And it’s more than slightly odd that the episode just leaves that hanging! No one on the Enterprise seems in the least interested in finding out about anything besides the murder.
I do think, from a writing standpoint, the creators misstep in leaving this ambiguous / in making the version of events so disparate from each other. They could have achieved the same thing without suggesting attempted rape – simply have Manua remember Riker as consistently flirtatious, that he tries to kiss her once and she rejects him, but that he doesn’t push further because at that very moment her husband intrudes. Then, we the audience can assume based on Riker’s characterization this far that he would have backed off and not attempted to assault her upon her rejection, while still achieving the intended effect of creating a situation that would put Riker & Mr Apgar at odds. Then Deanna’s reading would be less contentious. However the writing of the episode as it stands leaves huge questions it has no interest in investigating, and frankly, which I don’t believe they intended to produce such unsettling results.
However, in context of the episode as it stands, it’s clear they want us to ponder the fallibility of memory and perspective. What I keep coming back to, is that each memory of the early moments of their encounters is colored by the later events. Riker perceives Manua as having been sexually available all along up to her husband’s interruption, because right at that point there was some sort of sexual interaction. Manua perceives Riker’s attention as forward and unwanted all along because at the point of testifying, she has decided she wasn’t attracted to him (whether you see it as a guilt response or because she’s horrified he seems to be a murderer). But ultimately it’s a difficult thing to reconcile in the watsonian sense. From a doyalist lens I think it’s safe to understand that Riker is a flirtatious man but one who understands boundaries, and that we’re meant to continue seeing him as such despite this episode.