Jammer's Review
Star Trek: Enterprise
"Similitude"
Air date: 11/19/2003
Written by Manny Coto
Directed by LeVar Burton
Review by Jamahl Epsicokhan
"This is a screwed-up situation." — Sim, understatement of the year
In brief: Provocative enough to make me think, but far too mired in its frustrating hypotheticals and manipulations.
I have little doubt there are people out there who will love "Similitude" and think it's a standout hour of Star Trek. I will respect their viewpoint but not agree with it.
This is an episode that, yes, deserves credit for trying something audacious. But ultimately, it just doesn't work. In order to get where it's going, "Similitude" resorts to the most blatant audience manipulation of the year, turning the screws of plot in ways that don't quite seem fair. It does not simply depict a can of worms unleashed, but reveals a script where the sci-fi can of worms has been allowed to explode. Manny Coto, who has written a complex and at times thoughtful script, ventures out on a limb, which snaps. There are more questions than the script is able to deal with in a meaningful way. Certainly the characters don't deal with the issues adequately.
Granted, I'd rather see this than a "Carpenter Street" exercise in mediocrity. I like tough questions. But I do not buy this story. The entire show is built on a foundation of unbelievable science, and then it stacks one extreme (and unconvincing) situation upon another. If the episode's theme is about the dangers of using science irresponsibly, then the episode itself is an example of using science fiction irresponsibly. Part of me admires Coto's willingness to plunge the characters into this moral quagmire. Part of me hates that each new situation is based on what seems like an absurd comedy of science errors. The episode is its own quagmire.
Here is the story. Trip is critically injured in a catastrophic accident in engineering. He is left lying in a coma. The only way he can possibly recover is if he has neural tissue transplanted to his brain from a matching donor. There is no matching donor.
However, Phlox has in his medical inventory — which I'm tempted to now call Phlox's Convenient and Magical Chamber of Horrors — a strange "mimetic symbiont" that has the ability to exactly clone whatever organism's DNA is injected into it. The clone lives out the full lifespan of whatever it copies in the course of 15 days, and then dies. Phlox hesitantly proposes that a clone be grown to Trip's age such that the transplant can be performed and Trip can recover. Of course, this means the clone will be dead within 15 days of being born.
Archer cautiously (although not cautiously enough) approves the plan despite the ethical questions, citing the fact that Trip is a vital part of the crew who is necessary to complete the mission. "Earth needs Enterprise. Enterprise needs Trip," Archer reasons. Simple as that.
Well, I'm not a fan of this reasoning. The Enterprise had better be able to function properly without the loss of one man — even the chief engineer — or there should be hell to pay. After all, this is a dangerous mission where any or all of the crew could presumably be killed at any moment. If Trip's function is so crucial, Archer should have competent personnel backups ready to take his place. To have Archer quickly sidestep his ethical questions by way of the increasingly catch-all excuse of We Must Save Earth At All Costs is something that strikes me as slightly fraudulent as presented by the story. The plot manipulates us into this spot where Archer's logic seems to hold water in the interests of humanity's survival. I don't think so; if that's the case, Trip should never be allowed to go on an away mission again, because he's too valuable.
So Phlox clones Trip. Before you know it, the symbiont has grown into a fetus, a baby, and an eight-year-old boy. Phlox names the child "Sim," which is just a little bit disturbing. (Might as well name him "Clone" or "Copy" or "Quad: Charles Tucker IV.")
The next revelation is that the child's memories are passed along genetically. The older he gets, the more he remembers. He gradually remembers everything from Trip's life, as well as everything from his own. I'm honestly not sure what to make of this. It's weird and bizarre and strikes me as, well, unlikely. Unless Sim's brain can process information like a computer, this kid should be going insane from memory overload. He gains new memories at, what, the rate of five years' worth every 24 hours? I don't even want to question the biological aspects of this accelerated growth, so I won't.
I have to admit that I didn't get much from any of the scenes of Sim as a child. The drama exists in another universe, because in my universe I want to comprehend this miracle of biology, while fighting every urge in my mind to reject it outright. (I kept telling myself: This is sci-fi; it's about accepting the impossible.)
But under the surface there's something about all this that somehow feels phony. I could never accept Sim as a character because he was such a bizarre sci-fi specimen and was obviously the object of a plot destined to kill him. The story's science facts upstage the characters and all their choices, and the script throws so many curveballs that some decisions come across as arbitrary.
There's the revelation that Phlox was wrong and he realizes Sim will die if the neural tissue is extracted. This creates a new moral dilemma (while hinting at gross negligence on Phlox's part), but on top of that there's Sim's discovery that an experimental procedure could slow his accelerated aging to that of a normal human. This experimental procedure is almost certain to fail, Phlox says. But try explaining that to someone who wants to live for more than a few more days. Basically, either Sim lives, or Trip lives. But the catch is that even if Sim lives, Sim dies — whereas if Trip lives, Trip actually lives. Are we balancing scales here? Archer might be.
I didn't much care for the extreme swings in Archer's behavior. In one scene, Archer is telling Sim, "We don't see it that way," when Sim believes that he must sacrifice himself to save Trip. But then, a scene later, after Sim expresses a desire to live, Archer pulls a 180 and confronts Sim, basically telling him that he has no rights. Which is it? I would call Archer a hypocrite, but the plot is so murky that even that may not apply.
The confrontation scene, by the way, is about as well acted as anything I've seen this season on Enterprise, with Scott Bakula simultaneously conveying about 10 different emotions in a situation that warrants nothing less than that. Archer tells Sim that he intends to bring back Trip at all costs. "Even if it means killing you." The delivery of that line is spectacular and chilling, but the thing is, I didn't believe it as anything more than a written line. It's so extreme as to be implausible, and opens ethical issues the show doesn't begin to address.
What also bothers me about this scene is its lack of accountability. Archer knowingly gave the order to allow Phlox to open the can of worms, and then Archer shows a willingness to play God when the worms get away from him. Is that the point? I'm not sure, because the writers let him off the hook by having Sim make the sacrifice willingly — a sacrifice that I guess makes logical sense but also seems like an overly neat and simplistic resolution to this mess.
I respect the ambition here, but I can't endorse the end result. Ultimately, I think what bothers me most about "Similitude" is that I had no emotional investment in it because of the endless sci-fi machinations. Intellectually involved? Yes. Emotionally involved? No. And that's a problem. I didn't feel like I was watching Sim make a sacrifice. I felt like I was watching a superficially pithy solution to the ultimate hypothetical situation — a situation that had been compounded by every possible hypothetical complication along the way.
I want to take that leap of logic and explore the underlying issues. But there are no underlying issues here. The fact of the matter is that on a fundamental level I simply refuse to believe Sim can be grown from something off Phlox's shelf. The story obviously wants to draw parallels between its hypothetical situation and real-life issues surrounding cloning or stem-cell research. But the paralells are too far apart. They exist in separate universes.
As for Sim, I find that I can't identify with his plight. His emerging feelings for T'Pol pose a question to us: Is Sim feeling it, or do the feelings really belong to Trip? To my amazement, I realized that I didn't care. The show had worn me down with too many conditions, filling me with too much resistance.
There's so much to ponder here that you might just call it ponderous. You might also say that "Similitude" has too little verisimilitude.
And I don't even want to know what else Phlox has sitting on his shelf. The cure to death, perhaps.
Next week: The Xindi go to Detroit to put a preemptive strike on Eminem's next album.
Previous episode: North Star
Next episode: Carpenter Street
Season Index
31 comments on this review
The science was totally unbelievable. Memories passed on through DNA? But that doesn't matter too much. I had a real emotional connection with Sim. 2.5 seasons into the series, and no other episode has gotten me attached to any of these characters. Well, almost none. I do feel pity for Mayweather, since he's so neglected.
This episode reminds me of that one where Tuvok and Neelix melded into one body. Everyone called him Tuvix, I think. It was pretty much the same dilemma, except the Tuvix episode really took the hard edge resolution. This episode's resolution was a little too easy.
Levar Burton really is one of the best ST directors. I hope he gets to direct one of the movies if he hasn't already done so.
This......this is just a mental experiment played out with no real emotional impact. coma to thing to clone to solution. Just...meh.
Scott Baluka isn't the best of actors but he nails it here. He obviously doesn't like this whole idea at all, But more then that. He hates himself even though he's totally justified, And Scott Baluka seem manages to convey that well in this episode. It's as much about his character development as it is Sim's very brief life.
It's not so much growing attached to Sim that's the focus but it's more of desperate measures. Even in a desperate situation can it be justified. Is there some things you simply can't do, even if it means extinction of your people. This episode reminds me more of DS9's 'In the Pale Moonlight'. Archer trading his self respect and being able to sleep at night in order to do everything he can to ensure the survival of his species. He may be wrong that Trip is so vital to that mission but in his mind, Trip is.
And sickbay is turning into a representation of the Voyager universe - where very little is seemingly impossible. And T'Pol kissing Sim at the end - how laughable!
Yeah, sometimes you have poor episodes where the writers essentially failed and didn't think hard enough. I'd rather have that, than a very poor application of science. Too often, Star Trek becomes more fantasy than science fiction.
What does concern me is how the characters (esp. Archer % Phlox) completely ignore the ethical implications of their actions. Star Trek was always as much about exploring moral issues as it was about exploring space. And this episode takes the whole thing and just throws it out the airlock.
Yes, we are in the expanse here. Yes, the stakes for Archer and his crew are high. But that's exactly the point. One of the morals of Trek was always that the ends never justify the means. This episode completely turns that on its head. Which is why I don't think it should be called "Trek" at all.
So that could have made this story interesting. But alas.
The authors failed here in fact. Archer (once stressed about his sick beagle!) and Phlox are not hesitating to sacrifice Sim´s life, and show the similar harshness as in the episode Dear Doctor, which turned them into Social Darwinists, by letting dictate Nature the rules, while they never accept Real Dictators in other episodes (and on all planets they visited). In other Hollywood movies they would have been the bad guys by now, but not here!
A plot twist could have saved the day, letting Sim live by this experimental treatment, and bury the coma - Trip. Trading places would have put the captain-doctor duo on a high moral level, nobody would have noticed it, Sim and Trip were identical, and the Xindi could be found and defeated, since Sim proved his engineering skills in this episode. But the authors quickly jumped away from such "easy escape", and made the captain & the doctor the grim duo again. Then again, this trading places trick was used before in Star Trek- in Voyager´s episode Deadlock, Harry Kim died, and the rest of the series the parallel Harry lived on. No one protested.
But Voyager had a highly moral captain, ready to sacrifice herself, in comparison with her, the authors made Archer a pragmatic cowboy, and Enterprise a ship to stay away from.
Maybe it reflects the change in the world between the optimistic 90s and the more pessimistic first decade of the 21th century. Maybe they wanted to shock the audience by showing a dead Trip in the opening scene, and let the audience wonder how this crew member would miraculously return, to get this cruel solution as a cheap trick after all.
Who knows. But the feel-good Star Trek seems gone forever. Betrayal to the series almost, and messing around with the hope and expectations of the audience as well.
The first reason I hated the episode was the bad science. I can stand some bad science, even in Star Trek. To be honest, I've always considered Star Trek to be more science fantasy, than science fiction. That's fine as long as it sets reasonable rules, and it doesn't blatantly break those rules. The symbiote or "absurdus plotdevicious" cloning memories with the DNA doesn't make the slightest bit of sense. I find it nearly impossible to get around that; it's like the breaking the warp 10 barrier in Voyager's Threshold.
And as for the moral debate, BenSisko hit the nail on the head. There was no moral debate. The moral debate consisted of the whole crew completely denying Sim's rights as a sentient being, because it's inconvenient for them. There is no real debate, and anything on the opposing side seems very hollow. Hell, the debate on both sides seems hollow.
Contrast Star Trek with Heroes. Heroes is complete fantasy and cannot be considered science fiction at all. It's watchable because it has decent character development. Never mind that I have to turn off half my brain when I watch it.
My main problem with this isn't the bizarre science, although there are probably cleverer ways to clone someone than using magic slugs. I had trouble connecting emotionally with the episode because so few of the characters seemed to give a crap. No one--not even Phlox!--debates or questions the situation. It seems to be taken as a given by everyone except Sim that he deserves to live less than Trip. I would have appreciated some hints that other members of the crew--Hoshi? Reed?--were uncomfortable with the situation.
Equally problematic was Archer's single-minded and pointless aggression. The overly friendly, slightly dumb, slightly goofy Archer of seasons 1-2 got pretty annoying, but the hyper-aggressive Archer of this season is no more appealing. The scene in Trip's quarters where he essentially berates Sim for wanting to live disgusted me.
This episode made me and my girlfriend cry, because the story was so sad and the plight of Sim so disturbing. I have a degree in cosmology. She is researching neuroscience, specifically MEMORY. If two actual scientists can make the leap, why can't you?
The irony is that even the best scientists out there can fail to see the world in new ways. Only 150 years ago, scientists believed that the human body would not survive travelling at the speed of locomotives; that invasive surgery was impossible; and that radio had no future. Almost 100 years ago, Einstein himself thought quantum physics to be incorrect (even though he accidentally invented the discipline), and atomic energy to be impossible. So if you are unable to predict the future of science then you are in good company. However...
Star Trek has never been anything more than sci-fi for the masses, but generally speaking it never crosses too great a line with sci-fi as to make it unbelievable. What's to say that whatever Phlox injected the symbiont with did not contain Trip's memories? There is enough leeway to say that this episode does not cross that line as much as other "Fun With DNA" episodes, in fact probably less. Ultimately, the idea that it IS "Fun With DNA" is narrow minded interpretation, rather than incorrent implementation. This episode, as far as I'm concerned, does not cross the line. It is only a means to an end. And it's a very poignant end.
If you can't accept weird ideas or new ways of thinking about science at all, why are you even watching science fiction?
I am rarely overwhelmed by a TV show. But the plight of SIM did it for me. As a parent of small children, maybe I was particularly vulnerable to the scenes of babies and the young boy.
Archer's dialog was superb. Telling SIM he would kill him to save Trip (to save Enterprise, to save Earth) reflected how complicated real-life situations really are. What would you do? Personally I problably couldn't kill Sim, while at the same time knowing full well that I probably should.
For me, end-justify-the-means arguments almost never hold up. But what if the whole world were at stake? What if not just your humanity but all humans faced imminent destruction? In that scenario all bets are off.
Great Trek.
PRO:
1. I liked the ambitiousness of the plot. Thank God this wasn't another "Archer goes to jail" episode!
2. Call me an old softie over here, but I liked Sim's interaction with T'Pol. I thought it was sweet, well acted and hit all the right marks.
3. I liked the imagery of the barnacle things on the ship. Nice work from the effects department there.
4. I connected with little Trip on an emotional level.
5. Travis finally got a line.
CONS:
1. As was the case with the first two seasons, Archer is still an idiot. But, now he's an angry idiot who apparently doesn't shave anymore. I'm not sure this is an improvement. I'm getting a very "George W Bush presents Homeland Security" vibe from Archer this season, and the idea of George W Bush in space does not thrill me.
2. If the clone only lives for 15 days, wouldn't whatever they transplant into Trip have a similar shelf life? I actually had a harder time with that part than with the memory thing.
3. It bothered me that the barnacles on the hull came off so easily when they left where ever it is that they were stuck. It sort of took some of their bite away.
4. Archer threatening to kill Sim was very un-Trek-like. I also felt that whole enzyme plot twist came out of nowhere. Everything from the Sim talking about it in sick bay to Archer's psychotic freak out in Trip's quarters was kind of a mess.
5. Phlox's zoo is starting to bother me a little bit too. How many creatures does he have in there? How does he feed them all? How come future trek doctors don't have a petting zoo in their cabinets?
Conclusion:
All in all, I'd have to say this episode was a success only because it provoked such polarized responses from the other commenters here. It was far from perfect. But, still, I'd rather see this than most of the mediocre material Enterprise usually puts out.
I will say this right from the start: I'm not even put off by the pseudo-science that is thrown at us during these 40 minutes, and that says a lot given my field of studies (B.Sc in Biology). Yes, memories that are passed through DNA is very hard to swallow, but there IS such a thing of "suspension of disbelief" and even though I agree (like some of the previous readers commented) Star Trek is usually rooted in science, I don't mind short excursions into the realm of fantasy to serve the plot, for as long as it makes a compelling storyline. The problem here is that said compelling storyline suffers so much from its other flaws, it makes the entire trip like a picnic on Qo'noS. So unpleasant one wishes at least the science were sound.
In fact, I'll go one step further: Watching this episode unfold is like witnessing Rodin sculpt "The Thinker" with a sledgehammer. There is no room for grace, subtlety, or nuance, a concept which alas could easily be applied to the rest of the series.
For starters, the opening scene (before the theme song rolls): it takes less than 40 seconds between the opening shot and the camera moving and stopping on Trip (Sim) lying horizontal in a coffin, supposedly the big "dun dun" moment the writers were aiming for. Uhm... have you ever of building *suspense*? I don't know, perhaps something like Hoshi sitting sadly in the cafeteria, cut to two crewmen talking to each other in the hallway and exchanging memories on the defunct character (something which could be applied both to Trip and Sim, but would not yet reveal the identity of the deceased), cut to Archer writing in his journal about someone dying. I don't know, something *intelligent*! Instead, the short span of time before the annoying music plays says nothing more to the viewers than "it looks like Trip is dead". Just plain lazy!
As for the whole ethical issue, it's the episode's biggest flaw. First, there is the lack of accountability: creating a sentient being and sending him to his death simply for the purpose of saving another one raises a lot of ethical & moral issues. The episode attempts to tackle some of them, but the way it handles itself is less than satisfactory. "Even if I have to kill you" says Archer? Really? Is this what it's come to? Losing one's humanity at the cost of completing a mission, as vital for mankind as it may be? Trek's main strength has always been the high moral character of its captains: Kirk, Picard, Janeway, even Sisko... and yet with Archer we have consistently thrown all that out the airlock in this series. All because of the "increasingly catch-all excuse of We Must Save Earth At All Costs". Jammer could not have said it better.
But even so (and this brings me back to the sledgehammer issue), if Archer had to convey the message he was going to use "every means necessary" to save Trip, even at the cost of killing Sim... could he not have been more *SUBTLE*!!? Could he at least have strongly *implied* it, so that Sim would understand, but not explicitly state it? The writers are obviously going for the shock-effect, but it's so out of Trek-character it was less shocking and more actually disgusting for me. I suppose emanding subtlety from B&B and a series known to include fart jokes and even one "peeing in a cup" in this episode is too much. Finally, I completely agree with Jammer's comment on Archer's extreme swings of behavior (first when Sim believes that he must sacrifice himself to save Trip, Archer tells him "We don't see it that way,"; then later after Sim expresses a desire to live, Archer pulls a 180º and tells him he has no rights). Hypocrisy doesn't even begin to describe it.
I dare postulate that if this situation had presented itself on TNG, Picard would have eventually refused to operate on Sim, citing his humanity as the moral guide. And obviously for the sake of the story, Sim (who at first would have expressed a desire to remain alive) would then have agreed to sacrifice himself for the sake of the crew. Because he *understood*. And because after all, the crew were his friends: he had the memories of the original copy (Trip on this Enterprise), and therefore every meaningful person to the original would have also been meaningful to him. Kinda like it's done here when Trip references his sister, in a much less subtle/creative way.
Such a damn shame.
I'm not sure what I would have done in all those circumstances, but FWIW I found the characters attempts to deal with them engaging.
I am considering giving up on this show again (I dedided to back and watch from season 2 onwards to see the supposed improvements) but I just find the main characters so horrible- there is no one with any true trekkian morals, they are all self serving George Bush types. Archer was monstorous in this episode, he is no role model for any viewer- even Janeway was more thoughtful than this.
Tuvix was a masterpiece compared to this dull and ludicrous episode.
I'm sure Archer would be more than happy to be called a murderer if his mission was a success. Small price to pay.
My reaction to this episode is similar to "The Visitor"...I watched it, scratched my head and found it had some good ideas, some silly ideas and generally mixed execution, only to discover that people were moved to tears by it...
I have to say, if I were to point to the greatest problem with the episode, it's that the character motivations and the acting don't open the doors for me to care about the moral arguments. Add to that the fact that the "debate" (as others have pointed out) is barely presented in the dialogue. In "Tuvix," no one suggested that either Tuvok or Neelix were irreplaceable, and the performances by Lien and Mulgrew especially were so strong and committed, that I cared about the fate of a character created in the span of 45 minutes. Here, we get to see a snap-shot version of Trip's life (a character whom we know) and little in the way of performance lends itself to scrutiny.
I have a big issue with the way T'Pol is portrayed in this episode in particular--what backwater school of emotional repression did she attend to get choked up when Sim confesses a crush on her.
Is this another score by that new Trek composer? I am extremely impressed by his work, it made a mediocre episode palatable.
2 stars.
"The utilitarian analysis often rests on imprecise judgements of the utility calculus itself . . . assuming that questions of value can be reduce to a quantifiable amount" (ethicist Donald Brown).
Here we see Archer make a judgement that Trip's life is more important than Symb's. On what basis? They are identical people, so why is one more valuable than another? Because the one is human and the other isn't?
This episode did nothing for me. I could not help comparing to Tuvok and maybe since the other series have done the provoking topics there is nothing ground breaking left for this series.
It was an amazing episode, as in it's probably one of the most shocking things I've seen in all of Trek. But that's not... really a good thing. Once again, it was gripping and thought provoking, but staggeringly cynical and anti-Trek.
Personally I wasn't bogged down by the implausible science. Yes it's one of those cases where it heads more towards fantasy than sci-fi... whatever... they're similar enough. Most scientists have argued that warping space is a bit far fetched too, now look, apparently it's not as difficult as previously thought if you don't mind wiping out the system at the other end. Things change.
But I was certainly depressed and disturbed by the darker than ever nature of the episode. (And also to tears - I did get emotionally invested in it, setting the science behind me). At this rate I'm not surprised Star Trek was put out of its misery a season later - the soul of it is gone. Gone is the "we can find better solutions to our problems and save humanity by BEING human" (something Archer himself said a few episodes back), gone is the idea of humanity turning to barbaric solutions to its problems.
I'm struggling to motivate myself to continue watching the show, but I'm a completionist and will see it through.
I really hope there were consequences to this for Archer. Frankly I think the guy needs to be hauled in front of a court martial because he's a torturer and very nearly a murderer (arguably something similar), but that wouldn't help save his character, only the optimism of the show. He needs... NEEDS to struggle to live with this. So far every time we've seen him tossing and turning in bed it's been excused as things like a bad skin rash. Sorry, no, this man needs a conscience or he's just irredeemable. Even
Like a few others here, I'm not too sure what to make of it.
- Good idea; Poor science.
- Occasionally moving; Occasionally too easy.
But ultimately, I think it's still better than the average Enterprise ep to this point.
I rate this 3.5 stars.
Sometimes you do have to ask people to die to save the majority. We've seen this in Star Trek II, when Spock sacrificed himself, and in a TNG episode where Deanna realizes in a command simulation that sometimes you have to order people into a situation in which they will die. In this case Sim wasn't given any choice.
I agree that Archer is sometimes a little too much like GW Bush, which may be one of the reasons that this show did not do so well, but I liked this episode. I thought the acting was fine. Young Trip/Sim was very, very good, excellent for a child actor; the scenes between Trip/Sim and T'Pol were touching. Sim's telling Phlox he was a good father was touching, too.
As for the holes in the science, well, there are so many holes in the science - or holes in what we understand.
Instead of the awful "even if it means killing you" scene, Archer could say, Enterprise needs Trip, can you be Trip? Sim says, I'm better than Trip! I'm Trip and Sim. Archer says, Okay, I'll talk to the doctor. (As noted, Sim had proven his engineering capabilities!)
Option 1: Phlox determines that the experimental procedure for Sim is likely to work, saves Sim, Sim replaces Trip. (Trip can either die, or more interestingly, hang around in sick bay. Maybe at one point they can find another cure and we can have a neat few episodes with both of them!)
Option 2: Phlox determines that the experimental procedure for Sim is unlikely to work, Archer tells Sim that he needs one of them and Trip is his best bet. Then it makes sense for Sim to reluctantly agree to sacrifice himself.
As is, Archer again just comes off as an awful person and bad captain.
Submit a comment