There are two ways of looking at No.6, as a hero, who is very brave, strong, a man of steel who will not give into torture, and coercion. Who has held fast, resisted, maintained his individuality,against an enemy who wishes to extract the information in his head. Nay, to turn him to the Village, to make him one of them! As in the case of Cobb, who musn't keep his new masters waiting, and No.2 who stated in his address to the Delegates of the Assembly in Fall Out, that what is so deplorable is, that he resisted for so short a time!
Then again No.6 could be seen as being a subversive, not wanting to co-operate. Refusing to accept the Village and it's society. Someone who will not settle down, and only responding to his number when it suits him! Is that what the Prisoner is, a political subversive message, dedicated to the individual so to engage in acts of revolt? Certainly the Prisoner applauds anarchy. In the 1960's when the Prisoner was first screened in America the episode Living In Harmony was not shown amid the series, because it was seen as subversive, in showing an American who refuses to carry a gun, soemone who will not kill. And that was not what the American Congress wanted Americans to hear and see, because of the Vietnam war, and the draft that was being carried out at the time, and Uncle Sam needed brave men to go and fight Communism in Vietnam.
In it's time the Prisoner has attacked the education system - the Courts - religion - the election process - and cocked a snook at democracy, which the Village has dispenced with for it's lack of efficency. So what does the Prisoner stand for? Well basically the right of the individual to be individual. But then is society not made up of individuals, and if it were not for such individuals society would not exist!
Is No.6 some kind of role model? Should we follow in the footsteps of the Prisoner? Well to be perfectly honest, only if you are aboducted from your home and family. Abducted and taken to a place as alien as the Village. To he held there. Questioned - Interrogated - manipulated - coreced - and held Prisoner for any length of time. Because it was until his resignation and subsequent abduction to the Village, the Prisoner-No.6 was a successful, and accepted member of the establishment. He was good at his job. He had a comfortable home. He was going to marry the bosses daughter, Janet Portland. No, it was not until the Village, did the Prisoner revolt agaisnt his captivity and those who held him captive. He was even offered the chance of ultimate power, to become No.1, which the Prisoner also rejected. Which only goes to show that the revolutionary can never accept anything, otherwise he ceases to be a revolutionary! I can think of many people whom I have known in ordinary life who would like it very much to 'lord' it over others. Those who seek a position of power [wherever they can find it} just for the sake of it, just to be important, but not actually wanting to do anything.
There are many ways of looking at the Prisoner, and he can be whatever you want him to be. But basically I think the Prisoner is a great moralist, in finally rejecting either his darker self, or the offer of ultimate power, choosing not to be No.1!
BCNU
That censorship story about "Living in Harmony" was made up when the first book about The Prisoner was released, by White & Ali. It's a complete fabrication.
ReplyDeleteIf you reflect on the Troyer Interview,which took place in the same continent just three years before that book, it is never mentioned as happening. Also, if you listen to those commentaries by the American, Scott Apel, he never says this happened either.
This is just one prime example of the subversive literature that infests this whole cult of the prisoner. Be careful what you believe.
The background to how that episode came to be missing from the 1968 USA schedule is here:
http://numbersixwasinnocent.blogspot.com/2009/06/who-controls-past-controls-future-who.html
"The reason for this episode being missing from the 1968 and 1969 networking of The Prisoner in the USA is intriguing but the reasons given by the *official* books have never been backed by any facts. I like to call it The Big Lih.............. If Living in Harmony had been 'internally' censored by CBS, it would inevitably have been reported and have been news at the time. This news-clipping from 1969 indicates that not only did it not happen that way, but McGoohan was acknowledged as highly unlikely to give offence to anyone. Had one of his shows fallen foul of American sensitivities this would have been remarkable."
Sorry, got over-excited there... the White/Ali book was a decade or so after Troyer. The rest stands.
ReplyDeletebCnU
Hello Moor Larkin,
ReplyDeleteNow why would anyone make up a story about the censorship of 'Living In Harmony' I wonder? Certainly I was aware of the story long before White & Ali came along with their Companion book to 'the Prisoner,' which is riddled with errors. As for the Troyer interview with McG, I'll have to read that again, it's been many a year since I have, I have to admit. As for Scott Apel, a nice guy, but I found his commentaries a bit much, and certainly over the top at times, and at others he lost me completely!
Another story which was being banded about as to exclusion of 'Living In Harmony' in the 1968-69 American screening of 'the Prisoner,' was because of the use of drugs and conditioning treatment. But then I had to ask the question, why then was 'the Prisoner' shown at all in America, if that was the reason, because nearly all of the episodes show the use of drugs and some kind of therapy or conditioning treatment, and they were screened.
Whether or not the reason as to why 'Living In Harmony' was not shown during that first American screening of 'the Prisoner' was made up or not, the fact still remains 'Living In Harmony' was deleted from that screening!
Regards
David
BCNU
@ Certainly I was aware of the story long before White & Ali came along with their Companion book to 'the Prisoner,' which is riddled with errors @
ReplyDeleteMy supposition in my blog was probably correct then.
"The 1988 book simply made their story up.... Or did they? Where did the authors get their Information from, in the first place? They plainly did no research themselves. The only place they could have got such an arcane story from was the fan base that had been ruminating away for a decade by then."
Hello Moor Larkin,
ReplyDeleteIf memory serves, but don't quote me on this, but I have a feeling that the story about the exclusion of 'Living In Harmony' from the 1968-69 screening of 'the Prisoner' came via the fan clubs American co-ordinator, but how he would have come by the story I couldn't say.
If there are any American readers of my blog out there who can shed light on this story, I would be obliged, and I'm sure other readers would be interested to know.
Regards
David
BcNu
Hello David
ReplyDelete"The Prisoner" was shown in the Fall of 1969 and included 'Living in Harmony'(uncut) in November of that year in syndication on many of the CBS affiliates just 60 days after the CBS network broadcast. 'The Prisoner' and 'Living in Harmony' was broadcast through out the entire Vietnam period and all through the 1970's in the U.S.
By FCC standards of the day if 'Living in Harmony' had been banned or censored ( for any reason) on the network level it could not have been shown in syndication.
'Living in Harmony' was merely rescheduled for syndication due to scheduling conflicts with the Bobby Kennedy Memorial services.
The censorship of Harmony is a myth. There is absolutely no documentation at all for this claim.... none.
Sincerely
Mr. Anonymous
Hello Mister Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteI thank you for being so helpful in providing the information in your comment. You have cleared up a false belief which I have carried since being told that 'Living In Harmony' was censored in America in 1969, which did originate via the American co-ordinator of the fan club for 'the Prisoner' if I remember rightly. I was not the only one to be hoodwinked at the time, as one of the British co-ordinators of 'the Prisoner' fan club absolutely believed that the story was right. And if a co-ordinator of the fan club believed it, why not then the membership? But perhaps I can see where a mix-up might have occurred, and the mistake made by that American co-ordinator.
I am very much obliged to you for taking time to reslove, this inaccurate story which I posted. I am sure also, that many of my old friends and contacts from the fan club would also be very interested in such information.
Regards
David
BCNU