60 Years Ago: Star Trek: "What are Little Girls Made Of." (October 20, 1966)

Stardate 2712.4

The U.S.S Enterprise approaches the frozen world, Exo III, which was the last known location of Dr. Roger Korby (Michael Strong), a renowned scientist described as “The Pasteur of Archaeological Medicine.”

Aboard ship is Nurse Christine Chapel (Majel Roddenberry), Korby’s hopeful fiancée.

To the surprise of everyone, including Captain Kirk (William Shatner) and Mr. Spock (Leonard Nimoy), a signal from Korby is received. Miraculously, he has survived for five years on the inhospitable world.

Kirk and Chapel beam down to the planet surface and discover that Korby has discovered, in the planet’s deep caverns, the remains of an ancient Civilization -- “The Old Ones.” 

Among other achievements, these highly-advanced (but now extinct…) beings could create perfect android duplicates of human beings. Even more impressively, they could transfer consciousness from human form to mechanical form.

Kirk is concerned, however, because Korby’s androids, including Ruk (Ted Cassidy) and the lovely Andrea (Sherry Jackson) have developed signs of independent will.

Korby creates an android duplicate of Kirk to assume command of the Enterprise, planning to take his discovery of androids out to the far reaches of the galaxy, beginning at a colony, Midas 5;  a world “abundant with raw materials.”

Penned by the great Robert Bloch (1917-1994) to feature strong H.P. Lovecraft overtones (particularly in the mention of the “Old Ones,”) “What are Little Girls Made Of” makes for an effective episode of Star Trek’s (1966-1969) first season. 

Christine Chapel’s engagement to Dr. Korby provides the narrative’s emotional hook, and Ted Cassidy’s hulking Ruk supplies plenty of menace. Without exaggeration, Cassidy (1932-1979) is a huge man, and he dwarfs the other actors. He tosses William Shatner across various sets like a rag doll, and projects not just malevolence, but inhuman strength.

Meanwhile, Sherry Jackson’s Andrea proves both tragic and gorgeous, and Kirk comes off particularlytoo. Specifically, our beloved captain displays his resourcefulness -- and thorough understanding of his first officer -- by dooming his android double with a subconscious racist message (“I’m sick of your half-breed interference, Mr. Spock.”) This is the only clue the intrepid half-Vulcan requires to understand that his captain is in danger.

The quality that proves most compelling about this Star Trek episode, however -- especially in light of future “generations” -- is the anti-technology theme running through it. 

Even though Korby has transferred his human consciousness into an android body, he is still depicted as being a slave to machine nature; to programming that makes him a “monster.”  The episode’s final point is that “something doesn’t survive the process” of transferring human consciousness to a machine.

Today, that idea seems antiquated and fearful, especially as man and machine grow closer than ever to an inevitable merging.

Hopefully we won’t become the Borg.

Star Trek: The Next Generation’s “Technology Unchained” idea is not yet in full effect here, clearly, and throughout the Original Series, one can detect a certain level of wariness and concern about new technology supplanting man. 

In “Court Martial,” for example, a lawyer rails against the idea of computer testimony being utilized in a court case. 

And in “The Ultimate Computer,” a thinking computer is seen as both a job killer and a competitor for superiority. Its Achille’s Heel is the fact that it lacks a human conscience and moral barometer

The same is true here.  

No middle ground can be forged with Dr. Korby and his androids, though it would be beneficial, perhaps to do so. '=

Clearly, they can’t be allowed to assume control of a Federation Colony. But shouldn’t Federation scientists study the life-saving principles discovered by Korby’s party?  Andrea, Ruk, Brown and Korby, despite being androids, are still individuals. The episode successfully writes itself out of a nuanced solution by having all these individuals die by either attacking humans (and be phasered..) or committing suicide.  The moral debate their existence raises seems to die with them, at least so far as this episode is concerned.

I’m firmly an Original Series fan in terms of my preferences, but this blog retrospective is about an objective look back at a 50 year classic.  And objectively speaking, this is another arena in which Star Trek: The Next Generation is plainly superior in its commitment to and exploration of its creator’s humanist values. 

There, in episodes such as “11001001,” “In Theory” and “Measure of a Man,” the android Data (Brent Spiner) explores his humanity and his rights. If he had been activated in Kirk’s time -- on Stardate 2712 or thereabouts -- he likely would have been met with suspicion and fear. 

Next Gen episodes such as “Redemption” Part II display the fact that some Starfleet officers carry hostility towards artificial life into that 24th century era, but “What Are Little Girls Made Of” trades in outright paranoid possibilities; android duplicates infiltrating human populations and assuming control of them. There is no discussion of the idea that these machines have consciousness, and therefore the right to exist.

Kirk also talks about the idea that machines can’t feel love, tenderness, or sentiment here. Again, when one looks at Data, that’s a difficult argument to make. Data possesses a moral barometer (as we learn in the “Descent” two-parter), and a finely-developed sense of friendship.  He is not a loveless, unsentimental monster bent on human conquest.

I think there’s an interesting comparison to be made between Trek generations and their views of technology. The original is conservative, viewing new developments as potentially dangerous, and demanding that humans remain (as they have been) in control of their technology.  

The Next Generation is much more progressive, assuming a position of equal rights for all, and noting that whether biological or mechanical, we’re “all machines.”

In terms of production, “What are Little Girls Made Of” is a real triumph. The split-screen scenes in which the two Captain Kirks share a dinner table are virtually flawless. 

The android-making process is a little silly and fanciful, but unforgettable.  What’s with all the spinning table?  But I absolutely appreciate the horror overtones of the process. Basically, a life -- like a golem -- is created from a hunk of proto-form plastic or clay.  It lives, but it doesn’t possess a soul.

Or does it?

One area where the production falls down on the job: the hunk of cave ceiling Kirk pulls down and uses to protect himself from Ruk. I’m sure it is unintentional, but by golly it really does look like a giant phallus.  

Was nobody paying attention?  How did this make it to air?

I have written before that the original Trek is incredibly kinky, yet I don't think that this prop was intentionally made to resemble a phallus.  

In terms of deliberate kinkiness, "What Are Little Girls Made Of" has plenty to crow about, elsewhere. Andrea is, plainly, a mechanical "geisha," created to love and service Korby. Chapel pins him down on this "relationship." When he asks if she thinks he could love a machine, she replies "did you?"  

That verb tense and word choice suggests sexual intercourse, rather than emotional attachment. The point is established. She's a pleasure-bot.

Finally, the supporting cast-members don't have much to do this week, but nonetheless, Nichelle Nichols again makes the most of her limited screen-time. 

When Chapel learns that the love of her life is still alive, and that she will soon see him again, Uhura leaps up from her station on the bridge and hugs her friend. It's such a spontaneous gesture of love and support, and a testament to Uhura's humanity. 

The Korby-Chapel relationship has been resurrected in Trek history, interestingly, on Strange New Worlds, and that relationship serves as a kind of prequel to this tale. I think that story works here, in part, because it starts to prepare us for Korby's darker impulses. By the time, continuity-wise,  we get to this story, if we've watched Strange New Worlds, the relationship feels deeper and more authentic.

Deep Focus Episode 4: Friday the 13th (1980)

 

50 Years Ago: In Search of (1976-1982)

"This series presents information based in part on theory and conjecture. The producer's purpose is to suggest some possible explanations, but not necessarily the only ones, to the mysteries we will examine."

- opening narration/disclaimer from In Search of (1976-1982).

In the mid-1970's, the perplexing mysteries of the world were laid bare, dramatically, in the documentary-style, syndicated TV series, In Search of.  

This series from producer Alan Landsburg ran for six seasons, and was hosted by Star Trek's (1966-1969) Leonard Nimoy. Nimoy -- often seen on-screen in some very 1970's fashions -- expertly guided viewers through stories examining the Bermuda Triangle, Bigfoot, life after death, reincarnation, The Loch Ness Monster, the existence of Martians and much, much more. The series went in search for historic Dracula and the Lost Colony, explored the cases of individuals claiming to be psychic detectives, and even investigated the fate of the missing pilot, Amelia Earhart.

I wanted to believe.

Structurally this fifty-year old TV series cobbles together dramatic re-enactments of monster sightings with on-camera interviews of experts in various fields, and also, in some cases, it features beautiful natural photography. There's a travelogue aspect to the series. It is a way to see Greece, or Egypt, or the Pacific Northwest, for example.

In terms of dramatic re-enactments, the Bigfoot episode opens with a frightening, and well-shot dramatization of an attack on settlers by a family of Sasquatch, in an isolated log cabin. I remember seeing this creepy, unsettling sequence when the series first aired, and the POV images from the re-enactment have stayed with me to this day. In Search of is also my first memory of seeing the 1967 Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot film. That footage is dissected in this episode, with fascinating results.

Leonard Nimoy's participation on In Search of provides one of the great strengths of the series' format as well. The actor's presence is a great coup for the produces because his persona is so inter-tangled with his most-famous rational and logical alter-ego: Mr. Spock. Thus every wild or weird theory presented on In Search of sounds tantalizingly plausible, or at leas possible. Nimoy's gravelly, intelligent voice makes every episode of the series a rich, aural delight.

Also, in fairness, In Search of garners tremendous respectability today, in our modern age of "fake news" with its many attempts to appear judicious and even-handed in its explorations. In The Loch Ness Monster episode, or example, a paleontologist notes on camera that he he believes no monster exists in the lake. He just flat out says it. Nessie doesn't exist! 

Similarly, in the episode featuring the Ogopogo Monster, a scientist notes on-screen that he finds it difficult to believe that a prehistoric monster could exist in a lake so small, and so young, geologically-speaking. 

So the episodes here may explore topics that some people consider absolute nonsense, but the way In Search of goes about its explorations suggests that it is interested in science, not phantasmagoria.

It is clear that the series wishes to foster interest in its controversial topics, but also clear that it doesn't ignore fact or evidence, to do so. One episode, about The Bermuda Triangle, opens with Nimoy's statement that mainstream science has determined there is no phenomenon impacting ships and planes in the Triangle. 

Then, however, following that disclaimer, the episode examines historical disappearances, and some first-person "encounters" int the Triangle. The creepiest (and most unforgettable) portion of the episode, however, involves a radio DJ who hosted a show on the topic of the Bermuda Triangle. During the radio show, a strange individual called in to the station, leaving a weird, inhuman-sounding message about the truth of the Triangle, and how it serves as the "aura" of our world. The actual recording is played during the episode and is so weird and unnerving that it captures the imagination, and more than that, spawns further interest in the mysteries of the world. 

In Search of''s episode about Astrology charts similarly even-handed territory. It opens with a question: "What strange influence does the moon have on the behavior of man?" Then, however, during the course of the investigation, the series finds time to feature an astronomer who says, in no uncertain terms that he feels Astrology is but an "an ancient religion" with no basis in fact. "Millions of people fall for Astrology," he says, right to the camera, "but I hope you do not." 

Again, the series is to be commended for never buying into the mysteries it investigates.

The episode "Pyramid Secrets" is also fascinating for the way it tackles the construction of Egyptian pyramids. The writing structure of the episode explores three ideas about the pyramids. One is that they are but elaborate tombs ("a central part n the quest for immortality.") The second is that they are "Earth Base One," ground zero for the colonization of Earth by ancient astronauts, and three, that the pyramids are some kind of "radio transmitter" or "energy generator." 

The more outrageous theories are debunked, however, by a scientist who says, quite simply, that mankind possessed the knowledge it needed, in antiquity, to construct the pyramids. They are, he says, a testament to man's ingenuity, not a supernatural or alien construct. Once more, the series explores theories, and, at the same time, provides a scientific explanation to counter the wilder ones. 

I would never vouch for any of these mysteries, or their wilder explanations. Like Mulder, I want to believe, but temperamentally I am more like Scully. I tend to be skeptical. For me, the great thing about In Search of is the fact that it approaches its weird mysteries with an open mind, and makes time, in virtually every episode, for scientists to make their case about why the mysteries are not valid.  

Today, In Search of has been remade twice (hosted in the early 2000's by Mitch Pileggi, and in 2019, by Zachary Quinto), but it is the original series that remains a pop culture touchstone for those of us who grew up in the 1970's. There were six seasons, In Search of books, and even a movie documentary. The third Star Trek movie was jokingly referred to as "In Search of Spock" before the official title was settled on: The Search for Spock.

My childhood self both loved and was terrified by In Search of. I felt afraid of the mysteries, as dramatized in the creepy re-enactments, but I also felt safe throughout, because Mr. Spock himself, was my guide through these tantalizing "conjectures." 

As an adult, revisiting the series has given me a newfound respect for it. I'm glad that there are so many scientists front-and-center on the series, willing to stand up and debunk the wildest, most unsubstantiated theories. And at the same time, I like that the series still spurs my imagination about things that go bump in the night, and exist outside the things dreamed of in my philosophy.

50 Years Ago: Land of the Lost: "Cornered" (October 16, 1976)

This week on Land of the Lost (1974 – 1977), the episode is titled “Cornered” and it involves a fire-breathing dinosaur, nicknamed Torchy.  This Dimetrodon-like dino arrives in the Lost City and begins spraying flame into the Sleestak tunnels.   Torchy also battles Big Alice, at least briefly.  The mighty Allosaurus turns tail and leaves her territory in a hurry rather than confront the biological flame thrower.

The Sleestak blame the Marshalls (again!) for the presence of Torchy in their valley and Enik (Walker Edmiston) demands that the humans eliminate the threat by nightfall.  As leverage, Enik offers Uncle Jack (Ron Harper) the cure to a mysterious illness that has felled Will (Wesley Eure).  

The young man was struck by Torchy’s poisonous tail and now risks falling into an eternal sleep.  Enik promises that if Torchy is dispatched by sundown, he will give the Marshalls the cure.

With Holly (Kathy Coleman) and Chaka (Philip Paley) in tow, Uncle Jack attempts to lure Torchy out of the valley, using giant coal bricks as breadcrumbs.  The mission is successful, and Will heals on his own.  

In other words, Enik was tricking them…

Although “Cornered” is perhaps not as downright, upfront awful as “Survival Kit” or “The Orb,” it’s pretty close.  

Once more, the Sleestaks are out to destroy the Marshalls, despite a past history of cooperation.  And once again, Enik lets himself be used as the Sleestak mouthpiece…as though he is just a slightly-less evil member of that race.   

It’s actually grating to watch the scenes of the Sleestak Leader ordering Enik around because these scenes forget that Enik is an evolved Altrusian from another era, not a lapdog or lackey for the barbaric Sleestak.  Why Enik allows himself to be used this way is a mystery.

Once more, in “Cornered” we get a strange reference (from Uncle Jack) to Enik’s “famous logic,” an allusion not to the real Enik, but to the “Mr. Spock Enik” that this season has introduced.

Finally, just when you think “Cornered” can’t possibly get any worse, Will wakes up and sings a syrupy song while plucking the guitar.  At this juncture, the series loses any sense of respectability and dignity, and emerges as ridiculous high-camp, going from fire-breathing dragons one minute to terrible musical-numbers the next.

Then, the episode just stops…mid-moment, as though in terminal embarrassment.   The final cut and lead-in to the end credits is jarring and sudden…but you can’t blame the editor for pulling out.

I don’t object in theory to the idea of a fire-breathing dinosaur in the Land of the Lost, but as usual, the third season writers seem to forget that the land boasts rules.  Altrusia maintains a sense of balance, and it is also closed universe.  Given these facts, where did Torchy come from?  Why hasn’t he been seen before?  I’d be perfectly happy to accept that the earthquake of “Aftershock” stirred him from a long subterranean slumber.  But no such explanation is provided.

Deep Focus Episode 3: Prometheus (2012)

 

60 Years Ago: Star Trek: "Mudd's Women" (October 13, 1966)

Stardate: 1329.1

The U.S.S. Enterprise pursues a “hazard to navigation,” a J-class cargo ship with no navigation beam.  

the small ship attempts to evade capture, and darts into a nearby asteroid belt. 

Captain Kirk (William Shatner) extends the Enterprise’s shields to protect the endangered ship -- over Scotty’s (James Doohan) objections -- burning out the starship’s lithium crystals, but managing to save the crew of the vessel.

Captain Leo Walsh (Roger C Carmel) and three unnaturally attractive human women -- Eve (Karen Steele), Magda (Susan Denberg) and Ruth (Maggie Thrett) -- beam aboard.  

Almost immediately, the presence of the gorgeous women aboard ship causes “a mysterious magnetic effect” on the male crew-members of the Enterprise.

claims that the women are the equivalent of mail-order brides, bound for Ophiuchus 3 and new husbands, but Kirk is more interested in holding Walsh for trial.

The Enterprise limps to Rigel XII, a mining planet, to acquire the much-needed and rare lithium crystals, but Leo Walsh -- really a scoundrel and lawbreaker named Harcourt Fenton Mudd -- negotiates secretly by communicator with the leader of the humans there, Childress (Gene Dynarski).

Childress will only give Kirk the much-needed crystals if he drops all charges against Mudd, and allows the women to marry the miners. 

As Captain Kirk negotiates, he learns the truth. The three women have taken an illegal medicine, the Venus Drug that creates the impression of incredible beauty.

Would I have to turn in my Star Trek fan cred if noted that I am not the world’s biggest fan of Harry Mudd, or the episodes that involve this particular character?

It’s nothing against Roger C. Carmel or his performances. I just find the character, his costume, and his flamboyant behavior a bit too reminiscent of Lost in Space-Season 2. 

He's the visitor to the ship/planet of different dress and different attitude, representing some aspect of old Earth (the pirate, or con-man).

A space-going con-man, scoundrel, of course is a popular character in science fiction productions. With names like Han Solo and Captain Mal Reynolds, the trope is well-represented in the genre. But Mudd -- with his big-sleeved blouse, large hat and twirly mustache -- seems more like a colorful cliché than a real person, let alone a real person that would be encountered by the starship Enterprise.

Especially the starship Enterprise as it is depicted in these early Trek episodes. 

These stories feature the amazing “lower deck” component I've talked about before, exploring the personalities of non-bridge crew members. These stories are a bit more humorless, and sometimes even grim. So Mudd feels piped in from another universe all-together.

Also, without treading too deeply into sexual politics and the way that they have changed in fifty years, I find it impossible to disregard the underpinnings of this story which state essentially that Mudd is both a pimp and a drug pusher.  

He’s a “man used to buying and selling people.”

I don’t mind Star Trek featuring a pimp and a drug pusher. Or prostitutes. I believe all those elements can absolutely exist in a gritty, grim (and often kinky) series. 

But I do object to the depiction of a criminal of that stature as a harmless buffoon, and charming rogue.  Mudd is trafficking in women. He's pushing illegal drugs. Those aren't funny quirks. Those aren't victim-less crimes.

I suppose my disdain for Mudd puts me in the same camp with Captain Kirk, who seems largely non-amused by the character, at least here. 

I also feel that "Mudd's Women" is terminally-conflicted between two aspects. On the "gritty" side we have miners living in a perpetual dust-bowls, desperate women willing to sell themselves to men they've never met, and a drug that, while being a "cheat," promises a temporary increase sexual attraction.

Then, on the other side, we've got big, cartoony Harry Mudd.

Also, “Mudd’s Women” feels over-the-top in the scenes involving the male crew-members lusting after Eve, Magda and Ruth. The soundtrack doesn't help.

To explain: these are men who serve with beautiful women every single day; women such as Lt. Uhura, Yeoman Rand, Nurse Christine Chapel, and Dr. Helen Noel.  

There is no reason to portray the crew as sex-starved sailors who haven’t been to port, or seen a woman, in months. It’s just silly. 

I realize the women are using the Venus Drug to seem more attractive, but even then, it's all a little nutty, especially given the stripper-styled sound-track accompanying the women everywhere they walk.

Still, some elements of "Mudd's Women" do work quite well, and add considerably to the the Trek universe. I enjoy very much the dialogue and the relationship between Kirk and Eve. She is a smart, resourceful person, but an essentially lonely one. She shares that quality in common, I believe, with Kirk. In a way they are kindred spirits: both head-strong, both determined, and both alone. Also, they are both people of real integrity.

I also admire the episode's final act set on the windswept planet, Rigel XII. The miners there live in modest buildings...or hovels. The wind never stops blowing sand against...everything. Survival is difficult, and companionship the greatest treasure of all. 

This is the real final frontier on the series, an inhospitable world being conquered, a hunk of dirt at a time, by pioneers and dreamers.  

So often -- in all iterations of Star Trek -- the captains contend with Heads of State, Ambassadors and other “formal” personalities. In “Mudd’s Women” Kirk deals with Childress, a miner who wants what he wants and isn’t intimidated by the might of a starship. That's a really nice aspect of this program, I feel.

This episode also features some great Kirk/Star Trek wisdom (with a modifier from Mudd, so as to make it less sexist.):

 “There are only two kinds of women in this universe -- or men for that matter.  Either you believe in yourself. Or you don’t.”

Wonderful frontier philosophy… and words almost on a par with Kirks advice to Charlie in “Charlie X.”

Alas, while I believe wholeheartedly in this philosophy, I don’t believe that “being high on yourself” can actually change a person’s hair-do, or add make-up to their facial features  Eve thinks she takes the Venus Drug, but she's been tricked. It’s a placebo. 

Still, she goes from un-made-up to made-up, from un-coiffed, to completely coiffed.  Silly, but I guess her self-esteem transformation gets the point across.

In terms of Star Trek's on-going growing pains, this week we get a description of Spock as part "Vulcanian" (rather than Vulcan), "lithium" (rather than Dilithium) and Uhura in a gold uniform instead of her trademark red one.

30 Years Ago: The X-Files: "Home" (October 11, 1996)

“They really went caveman on him…”

-          Mulder in “Home.”

I make no bones about the fact that “Home,” written by Glen Morgan and James Wong, and directed by Kim Manners, is one of my all-time favorite episodes of The X-Files (1993 – 2002).  

This fourth season installment is ultra-violent, witty, and scary-as-hell.  “Home” is so disturbing and disgusting in fact that Fox TV only aired it once, and then banned the episode from prime-time television permanently.  

Or as Chris Carter told me during a 2009 interview: “We did an episode like "Home," and the day after we did it I was given a very stern lecture about never, ever pushing those limits again.”

Today, I remained gratified that Chris Carter pushed those limits, not just for advancing the horror genre on television, but because “Home” is still timely and brilliant meditation on the violence that can occur when times change too fast for some citizens.  

In particular, the episode concerns a throwback family, the Peacocks, who judge all outsiders as interlopers (and who use no electricity, and who raise their own food…and stock).  When the Peacocks’ long-standing way of life is threatened by the march of American modernity the family responds with murderous force in an attempt to utterly stamp out that modernity.  The Peacocks feel threatened by change they don’t understand, and respond to that change not with adaptability or humility, but with a homicidal doubling down (with a baseball bat, no less…).

“Home” is a genius episode of The X-Files for many reasons, but not the least because it explores this dynamic of progress and pushback in America.   Much of the episode concerns a nostalgic African-American sheriff, Andy Taylor (Tucker Smallwood) who longs for the days of yesteryear, when it was safe to keep his house unlocked at night.  He fears that such a world is disappearing in “Home,” but is unaware of an important irony.  He, in fact, is emblematic of the very change that so terrifies the Peacocks.  Accordingly, he is the first target of their wrath when they feel jeopardized.

“Home” succeeds for other reasons beyond the social critique.  The episode offers a twisted meditation on motherhood (and the commitment required of mothers), and is also one in which Mulder and Scully are constantly jeopardized because they can’t conceive of an enemy such as the Peacocks.  Every assumption they make in the episode is proven wrong.  They simply don’t understand the throwback nature of the family, at least until Mulder references a “nature” TV show concerning animal instinct.

Regardless of how it is interpreted, “Home” is terrifying, and among the smartest, scariest, and most subversive hours ever to air on American network television.

A dead baby, apparently inflicted with several genetic deformities, is unearthed in a shallow grave in the sleepy town of Home, PA.  

While investigating the case, Scully (Gillian Anderson) and Mulder (David Duchovny) learn that the baby was buried while still alive, and attempt to interview the residents nearest the crime scene: the Peacocks.

But the Peacocks are territorial…and terrifying. 

The family consists of three mutant brothers (Chris Nelson Norris, Adrian Hughes, John Trottier) who are not only physically-deformed and mentally-stunted, but who don’t quite feel or register pain.  And their crazy old mother (Karin Konoval) is an amputee who also happens to be the progenitor of the boys’ offspring.

After Home’s sheriff, Taylor (Tucker Smallwood) is bludgeoned to death by the Peacocks, Mulder and Scully attempt to arrest the family on their own turf, a home filled with murderous booby traps.

In addition to all its overt horror material it expertly explores, “Home” presents a clever social commentary about the way that Americans respond to progress, or to change, and how they view the past versus the present.

In my introduction above, I described the Peacocks as “throwbacks.”  Indeed, the Peacock men physically resemble our cave-men ancestors with their pronounced brows, and savage demeanor.  Mulder even specifically describes their behavior as “going caveman.”  

Outside of such physiological characteristics, the Peacocks dwell in another iteration of the “past,” in the immediate context of the post-Civil War world.  

Their ramshackle farmhouse -- with no heat and no electricity -- reflects that time period in terms of technology or lack thereof.  But beyond their home, the Peacocks’ still boast the Civil War mind-set of the Confederacy.  Specifically, they call the Civil War “The War of Northern Aggression,” in the episode’s dialogue.  This comment is a symbol of the Peacock’s intransigence.  The family never moved passed the Civil War into modern American, and have aggressively resisted modernity in all its forms ever since.

Basically, the Peacock’s have carved out a life -- on the outskirts of Home, Pennsylvania -- where they can live their lives as their ancestors lived it generations earlier.  The Peacocks have not permitted “progress” or “modernity” to take root in their traditions or family values.  Instead, they have mythologized their “way of life” as the only way to do things.  And to preserve that heritage, they have even resorted to (catastrophic…) in-breeding.  No outside contamination from modernity is permitted.  Outsides like Mulder and Scully are guilty of, in the words of Mama Peacock, “trying to change the way things are.”  Notice the certainty of that phrasing, and how it is parsed in the present tense.  These values are now and FOREVER, according to the Peacocks.

But -- and here’s where it gets really interesting -- contrast the Peacocks with Sheriff Taylor. 

He is an African-American man and accomplished professional who just a generation earlier would never have been permitted to hold the position of sheriff because of the color of his skin, and because of entrenched and institutional racism.  He has thus benefited from social progress, and more than that, excelled because of it.  His safe, mansion-like “home” has come about because of progress and modernity, not in spite of it.

And yet Taylor and his wife long aloud for a time in American history when it was “safe” to leave your front door unlocked.  This romanticized attitude is a reflection of the oft-repeated Myth of the 1950s, which is often -- without much examination -- held-up as a perfect era in American history. 

But in point of fact, the Taylors are not imperiled in “Home” by the modernity of the 1990s, but rather by the violent response to that modernity by a mindset closer to the 1890s.  The pervasive Myth of the 1950s comes up to bite the Taylors, for the Peacocks arrive to murder them in a classic 1950s “Big American car” while listening to the 1957 “Wonderful! Wonderful!” on their car radio.

It is the old force of tradition and the past, as represented by the Peacocks, which rise up to threaten the Taylors, not the forces of the millennial age.  

Thus there’s a whole subtext and tension in “Home” about the romantic illusions of the past meeting the realities of the present. This theme is timely right now, because America is currently undergoing the same crisis on a much larger scale.  The cultural battle in this country is now between those who accept modernity, and those who deny it to their dying breath. 

For some, modernity -- with its acceptance of new technology, equal rights for women, minorities and homosexuals, immigration reform, a black President, and so forth-- is a threat to the “old ways,” and one that must be met with, in the words of a failed 2012 Senate candidate, “Second Amendment remedies.”But the Peacocks showcase the ultimate fallacy of such thinking. 

For when you close out new ideas, you become trapped in a bubble of madness, never able to change, never able to evolve or grow.  Instead, you become dependent on instinctive thinking -- on “pack thinking” -- instead of rational thinking.  By rejecting modernity, the Peacocks have become practically prehistoric in nature.  As Mulder explicitly notes in the coda, “time” catches up with the family, finally.

Given this dynamic, it is not surprising that the Peacocks’ last stand in “Home” is against the Federal Government -- represented by Scully and Mulder -- that they don’t recognize or accept as having authority over them.  As we can see by the pervasive “government is the enemy” rhetoric in our national discourse today, this is the pressure still building in the body politic. 

Beyond the entrenched social critique, “Home” works splendidly as a meditation on “what a mother goes through,” in the heart-felt words of the Peacock matriarch.  Specifically, Mrs. Peacock positions herself as a woman superior in character to Agent Scully because she has learned and practiced total sacrifice…to raise and love her sons.  

Mulder confirms in this episode that this is the first time he has “ever seen” Scully “as a mother,” and that line of dialogue will have repercussions going forward on The X-Files.  Many episodes of the latter seasons see Scully wishing to broach motherhood more than anything else and, in the end -- after achieving motherhood -- being forced to forsake it.  

By series end, she has learned, indeed, “what a mother goes through” to see to a child’s health.  Of course, Scully and Mrs. Peacock see the world quite differently. They boast wildly divergent views of modernity and motherhood.  But the act of raising a child, in the end, changes both of them dramatically.  In some sense, “Home” is the beginning of this plot strand on The X-Files.

Creating a scary work of art isn’t necessarily a matter of algebraic equations, but “Home” is so terrifying, even after multiple viewings, I reckon, because of the fact that it works against our confidence in Mulder and Scully.  

In a typical X-Files episode, the audience follows step-by-step with the beloved lead characters, and their assumptions, research, and speculations almost universally turn out to be on the right track.  

Not so in “Home.”  

Here, they both guess wrong again and again.   For one thing, they first believe that the Peacock baby died from genetic deformities.  It didn’t…it died from being buried alive.   Then they believe that the Peacocks have captured an outside woman, a traveler perhaps, and are using her for breeding stock.  Again, that’s not true: there is no captive in the Peacock house.  And then they try to rescue Mrs. Peacock, before realizing that she is exactly where she wants to be; she is “home.”  

Again and again, the episode undercuts audience confidence in Mulder and Scully and their decisions so that when the final battle in the booby-trapped house occurs, viewers are thoroughly unsettled, and uncertain about how things are going to turn out. There is a moment of palpable terror here when Mulder goes down battling a Peacock brother, and Scully nearly activates an almost-invisible trip-wire.  This one is a nail biter all the way…

Finally, I love how visually gorgeous “Home” is.  It is a distinctive-looking episode of The X-Files, in part because of the exteriors shot at the Peacock estate.  Some low-angle compositions outside the farmhouse reminded me of Daniel Pearl’s cinematography in The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974).  And so there’s a feeling in “Home” -- like the vibe in that the Hooper film -- of reality giving way to unending nightmare.