My lecture today ladies and gentlemen concerns the question of debate, to discuss, to question, and theorise over the matter of ‘the Prisoner.’ Does group or mass-debates really resolve any of the complexities of ‘the Prisoner’ series? I mean does it really matter that in one scene No.6 is wearing one coloured pair of socks, and in the next the socks are a completely different colour? I mean that's simply a question of continuity isn't it? Or the lack of it I should say, and trivial at that.
If a thousand people watch ‘the Prisoner’ and you asked their opinion of the series, you would, in all probability, get one thousand different responses, and those one thousand responses would be right. But you will always get those people who shoot off into the realms of fantasy, coming up with outlandish theories about the Prisoner series. Like when someone said that in the opening sequence the Prisoner was demonstrating his rebellious individuality by entering a building via a pair of doors marked "Way Out." Well this is gobbledygook, because the Prisoner is not entering a building, he is simply leaving the underground Car Park via the "Way Out." You see it's a question of perception, this person perceived, wrongly as it turns out, that the Prisoner was demonstrating his rebellious nature, well nor was the Prisoner rebellious. He was about to hand in his resignation, there's nothing rebellious in that action. There might well have been a good reason behind the Prisoner's resignation, and no doubt he had much on his mind that morning. But I bet you a pound to a penny rebellion wasn't one of them. What's more the Prisoner's resignation wasn't a spur of the moment thing, it was planned. After all the Prisoner returned home to collect two ready packed suitcases, his passport and airline ticket, he'd bought that airline ticket in advance! That's where the understanding of ‘the Prisoner’ comes, not going off half-cocked into the realms of fantasy, but by looking at the series in the cold light of reason.