The other day I found myself listening to an audio interview with Catherine McGoohan, speaking about her father Patrick. As I have said before, I am not, nor have ever been a fan of Patrick McGoohan, but I thought I might learn something from Catherine about her father's time whilst living here in Loughborough during the war and into his teenage years, which is of interest because it is local to me. I didn't. However I was interested to hear Catherine's description of her father's involvement in the production of the Prisoner. Catherine described Patrick as being the "Co-creator," which is how I have always seen him to have been,
co-creator with George Markstein. Be seeing you.
You need to listen again because she never once said that. The nearest she said to that, in the section where they discuss the prisoner show was, "he had a lot of wonderful writers who took it on and went with it, but he was basically left alone"
ReplyDeleteShe then says she thinks he wrote five of them and directed about four......
If you're going to be an Ologist, at least get your facts straight man.
Here's the link in case you've forgotten where it is, as well as what was said. http://www.thisisnextgen.com/profiles/blogs/catherine-mcgoohan
Hello Moor Larkin,
ReplyDeleteI did, and you are perfectly correct. I must have not been listening properly the first time, or miss heard, or something. But I could have sworn.........
It's a good though, and nice to hear the interviewer and Catherine McGoohan talking about what happened after 'Danger Man,' what happens to an agent after he's had enough of his job, and wants to resign, but cannot go free, not after all he's done, the information inside his head. Listening to Catherine McGoohan and the interviewer talking, one could almost believe........but no, that's a closed avenue now.
Regards
David
{With apologies to Catherine McGoohan}
Hello David
ReplyDeleteIt does not seem possible that Mr. George Markstein could have created anything about 'The Prisoner'. His entire concept was based on the idea of John Drake having been interned in an Inverlair Lodge like institution (an SOE holding area). Knowledge of Inverlair Lodge was not known until after 'The Prisoner' had already been sold to ITC ( by Mr. McGoohan).
In 1965 Mr. McGoohan had spoken of his ambition to make a film about a society in which people have ' no names only numbers'... where 'leisure' was the greatest priority.
In April of 1966 in the UK press Mr. Lew Grade mentions that Mr. McGoohan had pitched his 'new character' in reference to the purchase and green lighting of 'The Prisoner.
In July of 1966 Mr. McGoohan commented that 'John Drake of Secret Agent is gone.'
Mr. Bernie Williams is on record as stating that Mr' Markstein had 'zero' status as a 'co-creator' that ' it was all Patrick'.
Perhaps Mr. Markstein could be seen as an 'influence' on the series but certainly not as 'co-creator' as stated in various fan magazines.
Sincerely
Mr. Anonymous
Hello Mister Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteYes, well the question of the co-creation of 'the Prisoner' would not have arisen here, had it not been for the fact that I miss heard, misunderstood, was mistaken about what was said in an interview with Catherine McGoohan.
I suppose I was all too eager to see a point, which has been something of a pet theory, that 'the Prisoner' was co-created, had finally been aknowledged. But I was wrong, and hold my hands up to that.
A society in which people have no names, only numbers, and in which leisure is the greatest priority......in the Village? It appears to me that people work just as hard in the Village as they do in any Village in the world. It looks very much to me, that it's the Prisoners who have it easy, once they've given up the information inside their heads. Lounging about sunbathing, playing beach ball, chess, attending the regular Brass Band concerts. painting, drawing, not to mention all other leisure activities.
I mean take No.6, just what does he contribute to the Village? Nothing, absolutely nothing. He's not forced to tke a job, he's not forced to do anything. If that were me, I'd be bored out of my skull. Even a man like No.6 cannot spend each and everyday fighting the Village. What we see in 'the Prisoner' is but a glimpse of his 15 month period in the Village. Not to have some kind of occupation during that time, well No.6 should have gone stir crazy!
Patrick McGoohan did indeed pitch an idea of the series he wanted to make to Lew Grade. But pitching an idea, is not it's creation. Patrick McGoohan did not write the first episode of 'Arrival,' and we have discussed this before, is attributed to David Tomblin and George Markstein. Okay, McGoohan did have had some suggestions of his own put into 'Arrival.' But you cannot get over the fact that the writers of 'Arrival' are in text David Tomblin and George Markstein. McGoohan might have known what he wanted with 'the Prisoner,' but he did leave the writing of the first episode to Tomblin and Markstien, and if that's not co-creation.........
But this is an avenue I've been down before, and the avenue has just turned into a cu-de-sac. And so time to turn back.
regards
David
BCNU
Hello David
ReplyDeleteActually I think there is a whole freeway of information here, big enough to drive a lorrie down marked No.1. ;-))
There is internal evidence in the original scripts that shows that the first script completed was not 'The Arrival' but Mr. McGoohan's Free For All, also since it was Mr. McGoohan's 40 page outline 'history' of The Village that guided all of the scripts it would be his materials that would be considered, by most author's standards, as sole creator of 'The Prisoner'.
The above dates (see earlier post) show that it was not possible for Mr. Markstein to have access to the materials that he states in his filmed interview ( Inverlair Lodge) at anytime for it to have been an influence on the early scripts of The Prisoner.
Thank you for your thoughtful comments.
Sincerely
Mr. Anonymous
Hello Mister Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteIndeed there is a great motorway of information, but I was always under the impression that once McGoohan had got the go-ahead from Lew Grade for 'the Prisoner,' that he then charged David Tomblin to write the first episode 'Arrival.' I have never seen text evidence that 'Free For All' was written before 'Arrival.' In the original filiming order, 'Free For All' is the second episode, this according to 'Prisoner' film librarian Tony Sloman, and should have been second in the television screening order. Why should anyone write the second script before the first episode, that makes no sense at all!
I thank you for all your thought provoking comments.
As always
Best Regards
David
BCNU
The Arrival appears to be a fusing of two separate stories, one by Tomblin showing the arrival of McGoohan's character in a Village where he is given the Number of 6.. [Andrew Pixley]
ReplyDeleteTroyer: How would you have described or explained the concept of the series to those writers, the first time you sat down with them, what did you tell them?
McGoohan: It was very difficult because they were also prisoners of conditioning, and they were used to writing for "The Saint" series of the "Secret Agent" series and it was very difficult to explain, and we lost a few by the wayside. I had sat down and I wrote a 40-page, sort of, history of the Village, the sort of telephones they used, the sewerage system, what they ate, the transport, the boundaries, a description of the Village, every aspect of it; and they were all given copies of this and then, naturally, we talked to them about it, sent them away and hoped they would come up with an idea that was feasible.
Troyer: What about the philosophy, the rationale of the Village? What did you tell them about that? Its raison-d'etre, not its mechanics...
McGoohan: (very deliberately) It was a place that is trying to destroy the individual by every means possible; trying to break his spirit, so that he accepts that he is No. 6 and will live there happily as No. 6 for ever after. And this is the one rebel that they can't break. [Troyer interview]
McGoohan: The first one I re-wrote. It came out...not the way I wanted, and then the last one, I wrote. The penultimate one, I wrote. Free For All - another one, and then there was another one, I can't remember the name of it offhand. It's a long time ago. [Troyer interview]
"..it took about a month to write that one..." [David Tomblin concerning the writing of The Arrival]
Hello David
Because Mr. McGoohan had first hand knowledge of his own creation of The Prisoner it is only natural that he would have written Free For All at the same time as The Arrival was being written, as the Tomblin/Markstein version. Later Mr. McGoohan re-wrote The Arrival.
In that it only took Mr. McGoohan some 36 hours to write Free For All and Mr. Tomblin in an interview spoke of a month to complete The Arrival ( before Mr. McGoohan's re-write) one can conclude that the independent storyline of Free For All would be finished first. In fact it is very logical.
Sincerely
Mr. Anonymous
Hello Mister Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteI'm not out to try and prove a point here, because quite honestly it's no skin off my nose which epsiode was completed first. However, in view of your comments, I have been doing some digging myself. Apparently, and this is noted in both 'Escape' Journal, and Andrew Pixley's book, that it was George Markstein who wrote the first draft of 'Arrival' in late spring of 1966,{this I take to be late April or early May} refining it with David Tomblin, who went on to say that he then locked himself in a room for one month {not literally I shouldn't think} with George, and we came out with the first episode which Patrick took and embellished. Embellished meaning adding the decoraions to the script, adding little things, some ideas of his own which McGoohan wanted adding to he script, and not re-written. Of course there was the rewriting of a scene on Tuseday June 21st, but that was of a scene in No.2's office, 'not' the whole script.
McG says that he wrote 'Free For All' in 36 hours, which may very well be true, yet there is no mention of dates, when did he write it? Now regarding 'Free For All,' there was a General Election held in Great Britain at the end of March 1966, which saw the Labour party returned to government. It was {and this is Andrew Pixley's book} McGoohan's aim to satirise the process of campaigning and elections, and the way the press present their coverage. Yet it does not follow that McG wrote the script for 'Free For All' directly after the said general election. Indeed {as I have already stated} there are no dates to indicate when 'Free For All' was actually written. It could have been 2 or even 3 months later. The only way one could say with any certainty, would be if someone at the time was looking over McG's shoulder as he penned the script for 'Free For All.'
The trouble with trying to pin anything down, such as matters as this one in hand, is that in later years McG said things which contradicts what he said at the time. For example, in an interview in 1983, McG emphatically stated {and I am simply using the following as an example, and nothing more} "There was no connection between Number 6 and Drake. John Drake did not become the Prisoner. I know a lot of people who thought so, and I don't blame them" he said. But what does such a statement mean, or truly account for after the event, when we should be concerned with what McG said at the time of 'the Prisoner.'
In the summer of 1982 George Markstein told Roger Langley in an issue of 'Escape,' 'Of course he was Drake.' John Drake was originally created by 'Danger Man's original producer, Ralph Smart, but McGoohan wanted a show with his own creation, as Markstein explained to one Peter Dunn. 'However I wanted to call the Prisoner John Drake originally {and you will recall how it was that George Markstein wrote the first draft of 'Arrival'} because my idea was John Drake had resigned, as Pat had resigned as 'Danger Man' had resigned.....McG loved the idea. Then he screamed, 'My god! John Drake! That means we will have to pay Ralph Smart royalties.' Frank Maher, McG's stunt double recalled hearing about the new project after a game of squash one evening. Maher asked McG "If it was supposed to be John Drake?" he told Larry Hall and Arabella McIntyre-Brown in an interview in the autumn of 1987, "and McG said it was, although this wasn't going to be stated.' And that is what I mean. People rely too much on what McG had to say about 'the Prisoner' years after the event. When the emphasis should be placed on what was said at the time of the production of 'the Prisoner' series.
Regards
David
BCNU
Hello David
ReplyDeleteI do not think anyone will be flayed alive for the modest exchange of information we have traded. ;-)
I agree that the closer the materials quoted are to the time of production the more likely they have some import. That is why I think that Mr. McGoohan's quote, to reporter Robert Musel in the Los Angeles Times in August 1966, of "John Drake of Secret Agent is gone." is important as it settles the issue once and for all that "John Drake" is clearly not No.6 as insisted upon by Mr. George Markstein so many years later.
The matter of Free For All's election is quite interesting. Given the theme of TV as a danger that Mr. McGoohan stated was one of his concerns, expressed in the Los Angeles Times in Nov. 1967, it strikes me Free For All may have been about the Kennedy, Nixon debates. But that is just my opinion.
Sincerely
Mr. Anonymous
Hello Mister Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteOh I agree, no-one would be flayed alive for our deliberations, but I've known those to have been burned at the stake for less!
Yes, I should think that does just about settle the matter of John Drake. However, if I've learned anything about McG, it is this. That what he says to people in private, those who worked on 'the Prisoner,' is completely different to what he told to newspapers and members of the press in general. This I have heard from their own mouths.
Regards
David
BCNU
"John Drake of Secret Agent is gone." Patrick McGoohan to reporter Robert Musel in the Los Angeles Times,August 1966
ReplyDelete"That what he says to people in private, those who worked on 'the Prisoner,' is completely different to what he told to newspapers and members of the press in general. This I have heard from their own mouths." David Stimpson
Hello David
Would you be good enough to tell me what one of the production crew may have said in contrast to what McGoohan had informed the press in the quote above. The quote seems rather definitive.
Sincerely
Mr. Anonymous
Hello Mister Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteWell Frank Maher, McG's stunt double, re-iterated the conversation he had with McGoohan when he asked if No.6 was John Drake, and McGoohan said 'Of course he is.'
Camerman Jack Lowen when asked at a 'Prisoner Convention' if No.6 was John Drake, Jack Lowen said there was no doubt that he was.
And of course scriptwriter George Markstein put the idea to McGoohan that No.6 and John Drake are one and the same, McGoohan went for that, but then realised that they could not state the name John Drake in 'the Prisoner' series for copyright reasons. It's really six of one and half a dozen of the other, meaning it's neither here nor there, depending on who you believe.
I also refer you to answers I have stated to this original post in a comment, and other posts which tackle the question of No.6 and John Drake being one and the same.
Regards
David
BCNU
Hello Dave
ReplyDeleteThank you. Those comments are fascinating.
I do have to wonder how it is even possible for Mr. Markstein to make the claims that he does as The Prisoner was sold to ITC on April 16, 1966 as an idea of Mr. McGoohan, who stated on that date to the press, that the series was based on a different character and that Danger Man was ending production. Mr. Markstein could not have had any knowledge of Inverlair Lodge as that information was released at a later date by the British government in an official history by MRD Foot.
The American press reporter Rick Du Brow makes clear that on June 3, 1966 that 'Secret Agent' is no longer in production and that The Prisoner is a concept of Mr. McGoohan's alone and will "get him away from playing only agent type roles".
In light of the above perhaps Mr. Markstein's claims seem a bit of a stretch.
Sincerely
Mr. Anonymous
Hello Mister Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteWhatever one thinks of what George Markstein has to say on the question of the identity of No.6, one CANNOT ignore what McG said to his stunt double Frank Maher about the subject, as I have noted in previous posts and comments.
Regards
Dave
BCNU
Hello Dave
ReplyDeleteI recall something of the Maher comments and I believe there is a further comment about the name 'Drake' being found on some of the 'continuity scripts'.
The comment by Mr. Maher is fascinating but it sounds like Mr.McGoohan was just pulling his leg as I believe the full quote is 'Of course he is [but we aren't going to tell anyone]. This is not unlike when Mr. McGoohan asked Mr. Markstein what 'balloons' had to do with the world of John Drake, the answer of course was 'nothing' as No.6 was never conceived as John Drake, at least not by the creator of 'The Prisoner', one Mr. Patrick McGoohan.
As for the 'continuity scripts' comment that seems clearly to have been the ongoing confusion of Mr. Markstein who, as Mr. McGoohan pointed out, could not let go of an obsolete character concept.
Since recorded history shows (see earlier above comments) that Mr. Markstein could not possibly have created 'The Prisoner' from the sources he states (Inverlair Lodge) it must mean he brought them to the show at a later date and caused much of the confusion in his role of 'script editor'(possibly explaining why there had to be so many re-writes by Mr. McGoohan).
Thank you for a lively dialog.
Sincerely
Mr. Anonymous
Hello Mister Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteI too have enjoyed this lively dialogue.
Currently I an carrying out some research concerning the origin of 'Danger Man,' the result of which will be appearing in a blog post soon.
Regards
Dave
BCNU