“The High Ground” is written by: Melinda M. Snodgrass and
is directed by: Gabrielle Beaumont. It
was produced under production code 160, was the 12th episode of Star
Trek: The Next Generation Season 3, the 60th episode overall,
and was broadcast on January 31, 1990.
“The High Ground” is inherently difficult to discuss. When people discuss media that has aged
poorly, it rightly comes with the caveat that the poorly aged aspects were not
okay at the time and are not okay now. “The
High Ground” is one of those episodes where there are certainly things presented
that fall into this camp, but it’s also an episode that is quite progressive
for 1990 while propping up in the end a very centrist message. Centrism as an ideology is weak, built on
compromise that can only ever get you so far that instead of say acknowledging
the humanity on both sides of a conflict, it actively picks the more
authoritarian side by necessity of having to be on both sides. This is an episode that does this in
spades. Melinda M. Snodgrass meant “The
High Ground” to be an allegory for the Troubles and the fight for Irish independence
from the United Kingdom. As with any
piece of allegory that does not explicitly map everything one-to-one, it does
mean that the interpretation of a group of terrorists or freedom fighters
depending on your perspective attempting to break away from an authoritarian
regime by any means necessary after nonviolence doesn’t work. The most obvious modern day parallel is Israel’s
ongoing genocide in Palestine. This is
particularly made obvious due to the dialogue of the Rutian characters, that is
the authoritarian regime, explicitly calling the Ansata, the rebels against the
government, animals. The main Rutian
representative also is presented as a moderate who has been radicalized because
of the death of several children, though her advocacy for the Ansata isn’t
actually giving them rights and yet is presented by the end of the episode as
on the morally superior side.
There are particularly good lines, said by Finn our
main “terrorist” character saying “The difference between generals and
terrorists, doctor, is only the difference between winners and losers” and “How
much innocent blood has been spilled in the cause of freedom of your
Federation, doctor?”. Snodgrass’s script
is showing humanity on both sides and wants to get to the complexities of the
issues. Data played perfectly by Brent
Spiner is also given lines about this particular line, bringing up the in universe
Irish Unification of 2024 among other violent conflicts. The actual plot of the episode that is using
this conflict from the backdrop is that Dr. Crusher is kidnapped by Finn as a
hostage and the Enterprise has to negotiate for her release. Now one aspect of the episode to be praised
is the opening sequence where Crusher is captured. It presents Dr. Crusher as determined to help
the injured in the attack despite Picard demanding she, Worf, and Data be
beamed up. Worf and Data get away, but Crusher
is captured and treated well by Finn throughout the episode, she has to be because
Snodgrass understands that if you want to actually examine terrorism the terrorists
do have to be humans. Gates McFadden for
her part is given particularly meaty material, though through Crusher’s capture
there is the issue of slightly implying a Stockholm syndrome-esque relationship
at points. Richard Cox plays Finn with as
much sympathy as the script clearly wants the audience to view him as, though
the episode takes the time to build him as a well-rounded person while making
him a martyr for short term gain on the authoritarian regime.
That’s when the Enterprise leaves, which would
be a powerful statement but the episode falls apart completely with this conclusion. It wants to read to the audience as being
sympathetic to the terrorists, there is a moment where one of them puts down a
gun and it is commented upon as possibility of peace. Snodgrass just has the Enterprise
leave but frames their exit and not actually taking a side in the conflict as
perfectly morally responsible, despite Finn at several points telling Crusher
that in them not taking a side they are taking the side of the
authoritarians. It's the sin of inaction
when someone has the ability to do things, completely being uninterested in
examining what the Enterprise could actually do to bring peace to these
people. The decision to have the Ansata
bomb civilians and children is meant to be read as the horrible war crime that
it is, however, while presenting the Rutian and the Rutian government as being
authoritarian the latter gets mentioned less and that is a problem. It’s an example of shifting the blame on the
authoritarian regime to the individual and not the system that has created the terrorist
threat in the first place through their own human rights violations and war
crimes. That is the central problem of
the episode and is what is dragging it down.
The third act doesn’t want to take sides but then implicitly does. Now, once again, some of this is partially in
retrospect of an allegory being parallel to other conflicts, Snodgrass wants
the viewer to be thinking about the Troubles and while other conflicts even of
the time are there, this is reacting to one where history is written by the
victors with the 35 years of retrospect since this episode was broadcast.
Overall, while Melinda M. Snodgrass and director Gabrielle
Beaumont does want to avoid assigning a moral high ground, that is what “The
High Ground” does by the end of the episode and that’s what makes it
frustrating. There is so much to
actually really like here, the performances in particular and the decision to
at least attempt portray terrorists as sympathetic. But it does not want to actually say anything
in the end and that leads to an episode that comes across as being pro-authoritarian
because our heroes just leave the authoritarian regime to continue their oppression. The score of this one is also a bit arbitrary,
but 4/10 seems right.

No comments:
Post a Comment