Star Trek's foray* into the "awkward teen coming to age" trope is downright phenomenal. So many elements and influences come together to make something that remained eminently watchable.
The premise is brilliant - a myth of beings, Thasians, somehow helping the sole survivor, a boy, to survive by giving him powers and unaware of human psychology as well as society social norms.
One thing I liked: Humanity may have evolved by the 23rd century (as well as remaining recognizably human, early TNG fans to this day remember how some people joked that the only human on the 1701-D bridge was Data
), but teenagers are still teenagers and here's Charlie, who's had no parental guidance or upbringing but is otherwise neurotypical in every sense.
Including those raging racing hormones, indy-kai-yay. Keeping in mind that Charlie only had a computer with voice interface, with no visual elements, never mind other real people, and thankfully solid state technology was more reliable than today's tablets and computers but before I digress, it's not surprising he's going bonkers over the first female he sees, which - if the plot wasn't creepy for two reasons already, let's add a third: Puberty.
Well, I say "creepy" - this episode dives into the horror genre that also feels like The Twilight Zone had been an influence - only in good ways since Charlie, like that multi-car pile-up on the freeway, is impossible to not watch with interest.
Ditto for Lord of the Flies - at least for partial setup, given Charlie being isolated. There was no real breakdown of society as such, but had Charlie taken over the Enterprise and ended up on the colony, perhaps a trope reversal would have taken place.
Notice the depth and handling of the interplay between Charlie and Kirk. Two great actors knowing perfectly well how to get the most out of an amazing script, put in their all and it shows. One feels the authority of Kirk, the angst from Charlie, and later as Charlie does as Spock predicts and openly refutes Kirk's leader role. (And later on, the handling of how the big three realize that Charlie's straining himself by using his abilities to control the helm and navigation, without dumbing down the audience - this script is genuinely great.)
Best of all and I love details like these: Even the set lighting tells us without dialogue that Charlie is aiming to take over the ship by lighting him with the same shadow detail they accord Kirk. This is tangible brilliance. And the use of color, new to 1966 audiences, is bold and well-chosen. I'd LOVE to be working for television at the time - new technology, a new frontier, top embrace and really explore it. The TV screen is the canvas, embrace it, make it interesting, make it compelling and immersive and exciting. That's what the makers did at the time, knowing that motion video isn't too different from print media and knew basic color theory and balance, and it's absolutely zero surprise that RCA would sponsor the show, because Trek - when compared to other shows of the time - was more colorful and bold with the use of new features. It's only natural and TOS's palette, bold and colorful, is still refreshing - especially in today's ubiquitous, gaudy yet comatose teal and puke orange palettes that were trite by 2004, never mind the tail end of 2019. The only other show of the era I recall that played with color so much might be "Batman", but Trek nailed the ability to use bold, bright color without making it garish, over the top, or campy -- which was Batman's job to do and both shows did what they did, in their respective genres, extremely well and extremely creatively and are that much more interesting as a result. There, I finally got a chance to compare Star Trek with Batman in a way that actually works because they're so vastly incompatible in scale and scope.
When Charlie goes off the deep end and starts torturing the crew, the ideas on script and as executed on screen are downright chilling. And Kirk proves humankind's evolution by even trying to defend Charlie (who wasn't malicious by intent) to the Thasians despite it all - a recurring theme in TOS if not Trek in general, to create antagonists with depth and dimension and, indeed, sympathetic resonance despite it all - and Charlie comes across as creepy, albeit unintentionally and the script is smart enough to set up this nuance and deftly so. Baddies aren't always evil by default. The Salt Critter from last week's episode may have been a partial misfire, but Charlie was a demonstrable example of how to do it as perfectly as it was done compellingly.
The Thasians themselves - is the name a play on "phasing", given they're an early example of incorporeal ball-of-light lifeforms (that are handled extremely well in this case, something later episodes would drop like a hot potato - like Trelane's "parents")? Their introduction on screen almost feels abrupt, but they don't detract from the story but allow it to conclude and in a very palpable way. And the dialogue accorded Charlie is arguably the most chilling, his relaying an incorporeal existence and not even being able to touch. This aspect is brought back and used differently in "By Any Other Name", which works (as well as upping the ante on "How we can torture the crew this week" by the process Rojan used and described disturbingly well and impeccably so) but "Charlie X" being a formative episode for Trek had to be rock solid to set the stage for exploring themes in other ways later on in other episodes.
Might this episode be deemed "slow", over five decades later? Provisionally. One would have to be raised solely if not initially on the current hyperrabidgerbil ADHDTV schlock to not simmer in the tension and build-up that older television was afforded. Yes, old shows sometimes have more padding that they don't use. I'm not seeing that much in this episode, but I will add to the chorus of the not uncommon complaint that the rec room singing scene did extend too long. Or the other complaint that some of my review posts tend to get overly long...
The song is well-sung, and the lyrics discuss in detail life aboard the ship. And given the fact that sci-fi was not popular or common for adults in the 1960s, this is actually for the benefit of the person glowing irradiated behind the tv set. And it works. Could a verse be truncated? Arguably. For 1966, I might also argue it's a perfect length. Time and original context are still key.
Is this episode sexist? Not in any conventional sense. The episode is dealing with a heterosexual teenage boy - a fish out of water trope, albeit not used as comedy (and proof the trope can be used to chilling effect). I don't know how common it is for a teenage boy to be interested in a relationship with someone someone twice his age, apart from those increasingly (tacky and frequent) news articles where the teacher is arrested for initiating and engaging in certain relations with a student. PSA time: That episode of "Married with Children" where the teacher hits on Bud, this is what we call "creative satire". Not "documentary" or "how-to guide". Or conversely, how often is the teenager a girl that's in a relationship with a bloke twice her age? And are there any possible double standards to this possibility or are there possible ethical nuances that render one allowable but the other not so? But I digress (again).
But I will say this: Trying to move forward the Charlie/Rand subplot by having him see two guys slap each other on the butt as platonic camaraderie and his repeating it unaware that it's a no-no to slap a woman there as platonic camaraderie just like how none of us has ever seen a man do that to another man as platonic camaraderie... erm, that didn't work.
In a way it does, it adds to the plot of Charlie not being immersed in society and getting increasingly frustrated over being socially awkward. Which is crucial to the success of the story, which clearly does succeed.
The only other issue I recall is that of Spock. While McCoy, Uhura, and Kirk are pretty much defined perfectly from the get-go, Spock is still incompletely defined and recovering from pilot-isms with the goofy smirks and other examples of "Earth emotions" (pardon my pinching that phrase from WNMHGB, which is a field day in its own right.) At the same time, as he states sans emotional how his legs were broken by Charlie (as Kirk is still in pain from the ribs we can attribute to Charlie's will as well), this is an early inkling of Spock's character finally getting the definition he would be properly known for.
* or the franchise's first foray as TNG would do its own coming of age story with "The Dauphin", but in a refreshingly different (but still successful) way. But "X" is the best. Later spinoffs may have dipped back into the well, but I don't remember any of them. Maybe because Charlie and Dauphin are genuinely memorable, the former more so but I like 'em both. And now I'm going to copy and paste this post into my word processor and find out how many times I used the word "but". Oh, I used it only 21 times. But I opted not to use it 23 times...
The premise is brilliant - a myth of beings, Thasians, somehow helping the sole survivor, a boy, to survive by giving him powers and unaware of human psychology as well as society social norms.
One thing I liked: Humanity may have evolved by the 23rd century (as well as remaining recognizably human, early TNG fans to this day remember how some people joked that the only human on the 1701-D bridge was Data
), but teenagers are still teenagers and here's Charlie, who's had no parental guidance or upbringing but is otherwise neurotypical in every sense.Including those raging racing hormones, indy-kai-yay. Keeping in mind that Charlie only had a computer with voice interface, with no visual elements, never mind other real people, and thankfully solid state technology was more reliable than today's tablets and computers but before I digress, it's not surprising he's going bonkers over the first female he sees, which - if the plot wasn't creepy for two reasons already, let's add a third: Puberty.
Well, I say "creepy" - this episode dives into the horror genre that also feels like The Twilight Zone had been an influence - only in good ways since Charlie, like that multi-car pile-up on the freeway, is impossible to not watch with interest.
Ditto for Lord of the Flies - at least for partial setup, given Charlie being isolated. There was no real breakdown of society as such, but had Charlie taken over the Enterprise and ended up on the colony, perhaps a trope reversal would have taken place.
Notice the depth and handling of the interplay between Charlie and Kirk. Two great actors knowing perfectly well how to get the most out of an amazing script, put in their all and it shows. One feels the authority of Kirk, the angst from Charlie, and later as Charlie does as Spock predicts and openly refutes Kirk's leader role. (And later on, the handling of how the big three realize that Charlie's straining himself by using his abilities to control the helm and navigation, without dumbing down the audience - this script is genuinely great.)
Best of all and I love details like these: Even the set lighting tells us without dialogue that Charlie is aiming to take over the ship by lighting him with the same shadow detail they accord Kirk. This is tangible brilliance. And the use of color, new to 1966 audiences, is bold and well-chosen. I'd LOVE to be working for television at the time - new technology, a new frontier, top embrace and really explore it. The TV screen is the canvas, embrace it, make it interesting, make it compelling and immersive and exciting. That's what the makers did at the time, knowing that motion video isn't too different from print media and knew basic color theory and balance, and it's absolutely zero surprise that RCA would sponsor the show, because Trek - when compared to other shows of the time - was more colorful and bold with the use of new features. It's only natural and TOS's palette, bold and colorful, is still refreshing - especially in today's ubiquitous, gaudy yet comatose teal and puke orange palettes that were trite by 2004, never mind the tail end of 2019. The only other show of the era I recall that played with color so much might be "Batman", but Trek nailed the ability to use bold, bright color without making it garish, over the top, or campy -- which was Batman's job to do and both shows did what they did, in their respective genres, extremely well and extremely creatively and are that much more interesting as a result. There, I finally got a chance to compare Star Trek with Batman in a way that actually works because they're so vastly incompatible in scale and scope.
When Charlie goes off the deep end and starts torturing the crew, the ideas on script and as executed on screen are downright chilling. And Kirk proves humankind's evolution by even trying to defend Charlie (who wasn't malicious by intent) to the Thasians despite it all - a recurring theme in TOS if not Trek in general, to create antagonists with depth and dimension and, indeed, sympathetic resonance despite it all - and Charlie comes across as creepy, albeit unintentionally and the script is smart enough to set up this nuance and deftly so. Baddies aren't always evil by default. The Salt Critter from last week's episode may have been a partial misfire, but Charlie was a demonstrable example of how to do it as perfectly as it was done compellingly.
The Thasians themselves - is the name a play on "phasing", given they're an early example of incorporeal ball-of-light lifeforms (that are handled extremely well in this case, something later episodes would drop like a hot potato - like Trelane's "parents")? Their introduction on screen almost feels abrupt, but they don't detract from the story but allow it to conclude and in a very palpable way. And the dialogue accorded Charlie is arguably the most chilling, his relaying an incorporeal existence and not even being able to touch. This aspect is brought back and used differently in "By Any Other Name", which works (as well as upping the ante on "How we can torture the crew this week" by the process Rojan used and described disturbingly well and impeccably so) but "Charlie X" being a formative episode for Trek had to be rock solid to set the stage for exploring themes in other ways later on in other episodes.
Might this episode be deemed "slow", over five decades later? Provisionally. One would have to be raised solely if not initially on the current hyperrabidgerbil ADHDTV schlock to not simmer in the tension and build-up that older television was afforded. Yes, old shows sometimes have more padding that they don't use. I'm not seeing that much in this episode, but I will add to the chorus of the not uncommon complaint that the rec room singing scene did extend too long. Or the other complaint that some of my review posts tend to get overly long...
The song is well-sung, and the lyrics discuss in detail life aboard the ship. And given the fact that sci-fi was not popular or common for adults in the 1960s, this is actually for the benefit of the person glowing irradiated behind the tv set. And it works. Could a verse be truncated? Arguably. For 1966, I might also argue it's a perfect length. Time and original context are still key.Is this episode sexist? Not in any conventional sense. The episode is dealing with a heterosexual teenage boy - a fish out of water trope, albeit not used as comedy (and proof the trope can be used to chilling effect). I don't know how common it is for a teenage boy to be interested in a relationship with someone someone twice his age, apart from those increasingly (tacky and frequent) news articles where the teacher is arrested for initiating and engaging in certain relations with a student. PSA time: That episode of "Married with Children" where the teacher hits on Bud, this is what we call "creative satire". Not "documentary" or "how-to guide". Or conversely, how often is the teenager a girl that's in a relationship with a bloke twice her age? And are there any possible double standards to this possibility or are there possible ethical nuances that render one allowable but the other not so? But I digress (again).
But I will say this: Trying to move forward the Charlie/Rand subplot by having him see two guys slap each other on the butt as platonic camaraderie and his repeating it unaware that it's a no-no to slap a woman there as platonic camaraderie just like how none of us has ever seen a man do that to another man as platonic camaraderie... erm, that didn't work.
In a way it does, it adds to the plot of Charlie not being immersed in society and getting increasingly frustrated over being socially awkward. Which is crucial to the success of the story, which clearly does succeed.
The only other issue I recall is that of Spock. While McCoy, Uhura, and Kirk are pretty much defined perfectly from the get-go, Spock is still incompletely defined and recovering from pilot-isms with the goofy smirks and other examples of "Earth emotions" (pardon my pinching that phrase from WNMHGB, which is a field day in its own right.) At the same time, as he states sans emotional how his legs were broken by Charlie (as Kirk is still in pain from the ribs we can attribute to Charlie's will as well), this is an early inkling of Spock's character finally getting the definition he would be properly known for.
* or the franchise's first foray as TNG would do its own coming of age story with "The Dauphin", but in a refreshingly different (but still successful) way. But "X" is the best. Later spinoffs may have dipped back into the well, but I don't remember any of them. Maybe because Charlie and Dauphin are genuinely memorable, the former more so but I like 'em both. And now I'm going to copy and paste this post into my word processor and find out how many times I used the word "but". Oh, I used it only 21 times. But I opted not to use it 23 times...
