I had mixed feelings about this episode. It featured some strong and memorable performances, particularly from the two main guest stars, Arnold Moss and Barbara Anderson, and a somewhat interesting and unexpected twist near the end.
But it's not really a "Star Trek" episode. It's really more of a mundane mystery that has nothing to do with science fiction. The episode leaves a very odd, kind of hollow feeling afterward. This has got to be one of the least entertaining episodes of the series; it's actually quite a downer, and there doesn't seem to be any useful "lesson" to extract, either. Sort of an exercise in artistic pointlessness-- good performances in the services of a sort of 'dead' affair.
MAJOR SPOILERS FOLLOW:
Basically, Kirk pursues a personal vendetta against a man who may or may not be a notorious historical figure who committed mass murder, though under unusual circumstances. It becomes all too obvious early on that the man at issue is indeed the same as the historical figure, yet Kirk stubbornly refuses to accept the facts (Spock is quite right here, and even McCoy grudgingly supports Spock). The plot is complicated by the fact that Kirk is infatuated with the man's 19 year old daughter.
But in the end, nearly everyone "loses". This was one of the most negative episodes of the series. The historical figure dies-- but at the hands of the one person who loves him. Arguably he deserved to die, but not like that. Because of his stubborn refusal to accept the facts, Kirk puts both himself and another crew member (Lt. Riley) needlessly at risk and almost costs Riley his life.
But the most unsettling part was the convincing nature of Barbara Anderson's psychopathic character. Basically, she needlessly brings destruction on herself, her father, and on the only surviving eyewitnesses of the massacre. Good, but very unsettling acting job; she's a bit too convincing as a nutcase.
The whole thing seems a little pointless by the end. The historical figure could have faded into obscurity, yet he chose a career (actor) that necessarily exposed him to a broad array of audiences. Somehow, he utterly fails to keep his dark past a secret from his daughter, yet she too is inadvertently corrupted (a bad seed? If so, strange idea for a Stark Trek episode). Kirk gets his "vengeance", but it feels thoroughly hollow, as the man is essentially harmless and remorseful now, and the daughter is destroyed as well in the process.
By the end, I thought to myself, why is this a Star Trek episode? I know that Gene Roddenberry liked to explore non-scifi issues, but this one just seemed like an exercise in unpleasantness. There doesn't seem to be any lesson here. I suppose Kirk achieves one slightly positive end-- he stops the insane daughter from killing again-- but it just doesn't feel like much of a victory by the end.
But it's not really a "Star Trek" episode. It's really more of a mundane mystery that has nothing to do with science fiction. The episode leaves a very odd, kind of hollow feeling afterward. This has got to be one of the least entertaining episodes of the series; it's actually quite a downer, and there doesn't seem to be any useful "lesson" to extract, either. Sort of an exercise in artistic pointlessness-- good performances in the services of a sort of 'dead' affair.
MAJOR SPOILERS FOLLOW:
Basically, Kirk pursues a personal vendetta against a man who may or may not be a notorious historical figure who committed mass murder, though under unusual circumstances. It becomes all too obvious early on that the man at issue is indeed the same as the historical figure, yet Kirk stubbornly refuses to accept the facts (Spock is quite right here, and even McCoy grudgingly supports Spock). The plot is complicated by the fact that Kirk is infatuated with the man's 19 year old daughter.
But in the end, nearly everyone "loses". This was one of the most negative episodes of the series. The historical figure dies-- but at the hands of the one person who loves him. Arguably he deserved to die, but not like that. Because of his stubborn refusal to accept the facts, Kirk puts both himself and another crew member (Lt. Riley) needlessly at risk and almost costs Riley his life.
But the most unsettling part was the convincing nature of Barbara Anderson's psychopathic character. Basically, she needlessly brings destruction on herself, her father, and on the only surviving eyewitnesses of the massacre. Good, but very unsettling acting job; she's a bit too convincing as a nutcase.
The whole thing seems a little pointless by the end. The historical figure could have faded into obscurity, yet he chose a career (actor) that necessarily exposed him to a broad array of audiences. Somehow, he utterly fails to keep his dark past a secret from his daughter, yet she too is inadvertently corrupted (a bad seed? If so, strange idea for a Stark Trek episode). Kirk gets his "vengeance", but it feels thoroughly hollow, as the man is essentially harmless and remorseful now, and the daughter is destroyed as well in the process.
By the end, I thought to myself, why is this a Star Trek episode? I know that Gene Roddenberry liked to explore non-scifi issues, but this one just seemed like an exercise in unpleasantness. There doesn't seem to be any lesson here. I suppose Kirk achieves one slightly positive end-- he stops the insane daughter from killing again-- but it just doesn't feel like much of a victory by the end.