Never mind where the rocket goes after it has been launched by No.6, what is it doing in the Village in the first place?
As to what happens to the rocket, well it would attain a low Earth orbit before re-entering the planet's atmosphere, to either burn up, or come crashing somewhere to the ground, or in the sea somewhere. Either way, No.1, who was sealed inside the rockets nose cone, so too would be his fate! BCNU
>>No.1, who was sealed inside the rockets nose cone, so too would be his fate!<< - ...and, BANG! there he went!? How can you be sure, David? Was IT really vaporised? Only thing we got to see was No. 1 (or rather: 6' other self) slip through a hatch and out of sight. It would seen too simple an explanation having THE OTHER, the flipside, the undesirable etc. just expelled that way so to get rid of it. - BCNU!
ReplyDeleteHello Arno,
ReplyDeleteNice to hear from you. Well of course I cannot be sure, it's just the way I read the situation regarding the rocket. Its possible that No.1 did release himself from the nose cone of the rocket to the Control Room below. But even then, where could the rocket have gone? It was a simple one stage rocket, there was no indication of a capsule, or landing gear. And having attained Earth Orbit, what then? A possible docking with an alien space craft, the Moon?
But why the rocket in the first place? I fully admit that the rocket was there for a purpose, and if the rocket had not been launched before its time, with no evacuation of the Village, there would have been at least three people onboard that rocket - No.48, the 'late' No.2, No.6 perhaps, and maybe No.1. Now that does put a whole new meaning to the rocket, and the question of where was it's intended destination, and why was it to take its passengers there? Of course there is no-way of knowing now, I'm not sure even Patrick McGoohan could have told you. So we have to deal with what we have. I am quite sure that a dozen fans could come up with a dozen reasons as what happened to that rocket and No.1. But for me, well I like my way of thinking, it may not be your cup of tea, or anyone elses, as it may not be right. But it works for me, and I think that is as much as any fan can say.
As ever
David
BCNU
If a rocket had really been lauched the alert systems of the powers of the West and the East would surely have taken notice of it and something, any kind of re-/action would have been the consequence: for the Village, for those who set it up, let's suppose it's been a British installation.
ReplyDeleteThe rocket, to me, makes sense only in an allegorical way, not practical. Even so I can hardly see a "reason" for it being around at all. At the utmost it definitely catapults the viewer out of the spy-abduction-man-in-captivity narrative. Most probably it's a albeit blurred cypher, a sign of the times, the 60s, the Moon race, the nuclear threat, and PMcG saying "I want to be the first man on the Moon".
But as you say: it may not be your cup of tea, or anyone elses. That's for sure. - BCNU!
Hello Arno,
ReplyDeleteWell if the Village isn't a British installation, the administration was able to get their hands on a British rocket!
Ah, so it's an allegorical rocket, well that word has never been my 'cup of tea,' not since I heard McGoohan using it when he was explaining 'Fall Out.' The trouble for me is, that using the term allegorical it makes something out to be anything you want it to be, larger than it actually is, and by chance that is just how one would explain the interior and exterior of that rocket. However, as you say, the rocket itself is certainly a sign of the times, the Cold War and the threat of total anihilation. Man reaching towards the Moon. I would say the rocket is symbolic of the time, rather than allegorical. But then that is merely a matter of opinion. And that's the thing about 'the Prisoner,' I could be right. You could be right. Or we could both be right, and wrong!
Regards
David
BCNU
I wouldn't insist in the term allegorical at any cost in this particular instance. The whole series is an allegory, I think you'd agree. But I'm certain "Fall Out" must not be taken for plain fact. It has been said that everything that happened was in The Prisoner's mind only. Could be. Then, maybe it's in the mind of the audience, too. What about the fierce gun fight? Is it supposed to be taken seriously? Not in my view. There's no blood whatsoever. Alright! Consider the production costs for bloody screen mayhem FX for a TV show in those days when such things had just come up in mainstream cinema (Bonny And Clyde, 1967). Quote from my website: Almost the entire "Fall Out" episode eventually is less cinematic than stage-looking in its congruence of action, time and setting; and the appearance of its backdrop-like sets, the dialogues being elocutionary, the theatre-stage acting. It's - a play. Brecht is on dis-play here, the alienation-effect. Whether McGoohan was aware of it or not. He could have been.
ReplyDeleteHello Arno,
ReplyDeleteThe whole of 'the Prisoner' an allegory, a fable, a myth, parable, a symbolism, a story, now I can agree with, it being a story. In truth I have never liked that word 'allegory,' because once Patrick McGoohan had used that word in order to describe 'Fall Out,' the vast majority of fans jumped on the word and used it all too frequently. I think when Patrick McGoohan used the word allegory to describe 'Fall out' it was something of a cop out, as McGoohan could not explain the reasoning behind 'Fall Out' so he called it an allegory, which explained nothing.
The one thing McGoohan did say about 'Fall Out' was that he didn't want a James Bond style of ending to 'the Prisoner' series, but in my opinion, that is just what we did get. There is a good deal which still remains unexplained about 'Fall out,' The fierce fire-fight which takes place in the episode is inexplicable. As you say there is no blood, but perhaps even more importantly, it is only the armed security guards who end up dead! No-one else in that mad mayhem is killed or even injured as bullets were flying everywhere!
You are quite right, 'Fall Out' is a stage setting, there is nothing cinematic about it, and as you say it is a play. It could have been performed before a live audience in a theatre.
It is near the end of 'Fall Out' that the Prisoner sets off to resign his job. I am of the theories that 'the Prisoner' is nothing more than a vicious cirlce from which there is no escape. That in it's end is its beginning, and possibly the events of 'Fall Out' are possibly the cause of the Prisoner's resignation!
Regards
David
BCNU
The aspect of circularity has often been mentioned and the fact that The Prisoner can be read on multiple narrative levels is applicable to "Fall Out" in the first place: We have the continuation (of sorts) of the "basic" story of the man in captivity trying to cope with his situation and with his adversaries. But then a "meta story" displays, or: is raised, to confront the audience with what is a comment on the spy-genre as such (TV and theatrical movies) and, most important, with its own anticipation, the way plotlines of such shows should have to be solved etc. Another is the philosophical and also psychological level ("dispositive"), the human self and the dark side of it. No need to discuss this here. I wouldn't say "Fall Out" is an overall magnificent and successful episode to end The Prisoner as a TV series. But it's unlike anything TV had seen before. That's what must be acknowledged. BCNU
ReplyDeleteHello Arno,
ReplyDeleteAn interesting comment indeed. Of 'Fall Out' I have come to think of it as a logical ending to 'the Prisoner' series, if in some respects, not a successful one . Yet as you say, its unlike anything TV had seen before. And I do, and have in the past, acknowledged that fact.
Regards
David
BCNU