The Butler
It could be that the Butler
The one time No.48 was dropped off somewhere along the A20, but could not decide upon the direction to go, trying to thumb a lift on both sides of the duel carriageway. The ex-number 2 made straight for his old place of employment - the House of Lords in the Palace of Westminster
As for the Butler, well he knew his place you see, and was prepared to accept his working for a new master, the way Butlers, personal valets, and gentlemen’s gentlemen do from time to time. In accepting a new position. The door opened automatically for him and he stepped inside his, brief, new home of No1 Buckingham Place.
Once inside he attended to his business, that of packing two suitcases ready for his new master's return, by which time theButler
Once inside he attended to his business, that of packing two suitcases ready for his new master's return, by which time the
Packing It In!
Much of the Prisoner series is still shrouded in mystery - the prisoner's name for one thing. Then there is the job from which he resigned - top secret and highly confidential, although the Prisoenr did say that he resigned for peace of mind, becasue too mnay peopel know too much.
It has become blatantly obvious to me that whatever the Prisoner's reasons for resigning from his highly confidential, top secret job, it was not a spur of the moment thing. He must have been thinking about taking such action for some time, seeing as he had a pair of suitcases ready packed for his departure, packed by the Butler
So why the sudden rush? Okay, he's resigned from his top secret and highly confidential job, and now the Prisoner cannot get away fast enough, seeing as his suitcases are already packed for a speedy departure! Ah, is that the nub of the matter? Did the Prisoner know that "they" would be coming for him, that he knew what would happen to him, and that if he didn't get away in time it would be too late - which indeed it was - we witness that much during the opening sequence of the Prisoner.
I bet the Prisoner didn't tell his fianceé Janet - Do Not Forsake Me Oh My Darling - that he was going to resign, and I'm pretty sure he wasn't taking Janet with him. I mean she would have held him up, wanting a full explanation, and probably try to talk him out of it in the first place and probably would have been abducted with him to the village in the second place, if she had been in the house with him at the time. Now there's a thought to conjure with!
So whatever the reason, his resignation, or perhaps it was a case of the Prisoner getting out before he was pushed! Whatever it was, the Prisoner was definitely doing a "runner," but was he running from his previous employers, or the knowledge that he would be destined for the village if he did not get away in time? Certainly the Prisoner was giving up a lot, taking with him only two suitcases and his Lotus 7, his high position of secrecy and confidentiality, his Georgian home in Westminster, his fianceé Janet Portland. Well not so much to give up when you come to think of it, not when were dealing with such high stakes!
I'll be seeing you .................if I don't chuck it all in first!
[quote] It has become blatantly obvious to me that whatever the Prisoner's reasons for resigning from his highly confidential, top secret job, it was not a spur of the moment thing [/quote]
ReplyDeleteWasn't that blatantly obvious from Episode 2? When he started saying, "For a very long time....... "
Sometimes there is no need for us to think, but merely pay attention.
Hello Moor,
ReplyDeleteI always pay attention. In fact No.6 actually started saying "I resigned....because.....for a very long time......" Because for a very long time what.......I'd become disillusioned with my job.....I'd grown to hate the kind of work I had been doing......I couldn't stand my job any more....what? Just because No.6 stated to say "I resigned because for a very long time....." doesn't mean he had planned his resignation for a very long time, he was merely going to explain his reason for resigning to the Colonel in 'Chimes.'. I'm sure when it came to it the decision to resign did come very quickly, as such things usually do. My point was that he hadn't woken up that moring hastily written a letter of resignation and handed it in. He had actually planned his departure, hence the airline ticket with his passport at the ready.
Regards
David
BCNU
I take your point... up to a point, and in some ways perhaps we are both wrong, because as you say, any decision is really only a moment in time.
ReplyDeleteHe may have been planning a holiday - I think that is suggested in A,B&C ? - and so his decision to resign at that moment could simply have been on the basis that he realised suddenly that this way he would not have to WORK any notice in a job that for some time he had felt.......... Equally however he would feel his honour was served in that he would not be leaving his old employer in the lurch, because they must have had plans in place to cover his absence anyway, which merely needed to be now extended.
So in that way it seems to make more and moor sense that it was spontaneous and sudden. It would also explain how he appeared to have left his fiancee so pre-emptively and uninformed. Holidaying alone (for whatever reason), he hadn't expected her to miss him immediately had he, so there seemed no urgency to tell her of his career change until afterwards. As he worked for her dad, she would inevitably have been in an awkward position so it makes sense that he would not leave her alone to face the muisic in that way, but broach the subject on his return from Portofino.
This *sudden* determination would also far better explain his explosive behaviour. The teacup could be split and he was not crying over any milk that might be spilt over that bald bureaucrat behind that way-out door.
Hello Moor,
ReplyDeleteIt may very well be that he was heading for Paris, as suggested in 'A B and C', certainly the Prisoner had his passport and airline ticket at the ready. And I think he was in something of a hurry, trying to get away before they came for him, was he expecting them? Had the Prisoner become suspect? After all we learn during the Prisoner's de-briefing with No.2 in 'Arrival' that the Prisoner was under close surveillance, the camera behind the mirror for one.
Was that it then? The Prisoner had become suspect for whatever reason, and upon realising that he was under surveillance decided that it was time to get out quick? But the Prisoner wasn't quick enough, they came for him before he had been expecting them. And instead of going on holiday, as suggested by the holiday brochures in the Prisoner's envelope in 'A B and C,' he ended up in the Village instead!
The thing is we don't know what kind of job the Prisoner did. I've always thought of him being a field agent working for British Intelligence, or somewhere in the Civil service. But either way we learn in 'Once Upon A time' that he had a top secret, confidential job of the highest order. So much so that he took himself and his work to be above the law. So I doubt very much that the Prisoner's resignation would have been accepted. They wouldn't let a man like the Prisoner run loose for too long, another reason for putting him in the Village. As for thinking of working off his notice, I think that was the last thing on the Prisoner's mind, he was in too much of a hurry to get away for that to bother him.....he was running!
As for his fiancee, I feel I cannot comment, because at the time of 'Arrival' and the Prisoner's resignation in the opening sequence, Janet Portland didn't actually exist, having not been written into the series until 'Do Not Forsake Me Oh My Darling.' I'm not so sure about Sir Charles Portland either. Because in previous times the Prisoner has always gone back to the Colonel for help, only in 'Do Not Forsake Me Oh My Darling' did he go running to Sir Charles Portland. But fictional wise lets say the Prisoner did have a fiancee, that he didn't inform her that he was resigning his job and going away. When the Prisoner finally returned to London in 'Many Happy Returns,' he failed to contact her even then. If you ask me Janet Portland got the dirty end of the stick from her fiance!
Wahtever it was that 'stirred' up the Prisoner so much, certainly made him angry and he expressed that anger forcibly with that fist. But that petty bureaucrat took it very well, he was completely unshaken by the Prisoner's outburst of explosive behaviour. If only we could lip read what the Prisoner was saying....we need one of those thought reading gizzmos mentioned in the news recently. It's a pity No.2 messed about so much with the Prisoner in Paris, in attending one of Madame Engadines celebrated parties. No.2 should have taken No.6 back to the morning he handed in his resignation. Using the drug and machine as they did in 'A B and C' No.2 would have heard every word the Prisoner shouted at the bureaucrat sat behind the desk.
Enjoy the weekend that is to come.
Regards
David
Be seeing you
Janet not extant? I think you might be wrong there. I think the notion of a fiancee was present throughout. The other script written by Tilsley even has an oblique reference to a fiancee, when Nadia is aking if No6 has a wife, he says firmly "NO". When she asks if he has a fiance, No6 tells her firmly to go to sleep. He plainly did not want to confirm nor deny, or give any clue whatsoever.
ReplyDeleteContrary to the tall tales peddled by the fan-club, Tilsley was commissioned to write "Face Unknown" almost immediately (his words) after Chimes of Big Ben. In this way, I think the notion of a fiancee is reasonably seen to be present from as early a stage as anything else.
The existence of a fiancee also makes much more sense of why a good-looking man like No6 was determined to rebuff most feminine attempts to charm him. He obviously would not have talked about having a fiancee because he was always unsure WHO was in charge of the Village and would not have wanted to alert an *enemy* to the one person who might have been used to *break* him.
The existence of a fiancee is almost essential to understanding why No6 behaved the way he did sometimes. This is the joy of paying attention to the show. The answers are all there.
Hello Moor,
ReplyDeleteI think it is quite obvious that Janet Portland is the creation of Vincent Tilsley, and not Patrick McGoohan. Fictionally speaking Janet Portland could have been present throughout the series. Yet in truth the character of Janet was not there until Vincent Tilsley wrote her into the series with 'Do Not Forsake Me Oh My Darling.' During 'The Chimes of Big Ben' Nadia asked No.6 if he is is engaged to someone, to which No.6 tells her to go to sleep. Either No.6 wasn't engaged at the time, or he didn't want to talk of Janet. But if No.6 wasn't engaged at the time of 'The Chimes of Big Ben,' which he wasn't becasue Vincent Tilsley hadn't written the character into the series at that time, then why bother to give the Prisoner a fiancee at all? Because I've been thinking....... both the characters of Janet Portland and her father Sir Charles are superfluous to the series. Previously in the series, when the Prisoner has managed to, or thought to have escaped the confines of the Village, he has always gone running back to the Colonel, so why not in 'Do Not Forsake Me Oh My Darling?' And the receipt for the film transparencies, that could have been kept secure along with the Dollar bills in the safe behind the television set!
Okay, if the Prisoner was engaged all the time, I think you are kidding yourself to think that the Village adminstration didn't know about the Prisoner having a fiancee. If 'they' didn't know before, 'they' certainly knew after that episode of 'Do Not Foresake Me Oh My Darling.' Janet Portland could have been brought to the Village at any time after that, and used as a threat against him. Mind you, if they had brought Janet to the Village, she might have been some comfort to No.6.
If the Prisoner was supposed to have been engaged to Janet all the time, I think he treated her abominably. He had resigned. He was clearinmg out without telling her. He arrived back in London in 'Many Happy Returns' and never ocne tried to get in touch with her, when the Prisoner could so easily have telephoned her from Mrs Butterworth's home, and then gone on to see Sir Charles Portland instead of Thorpe and the Colonel. That's my own personal view, for what it's worth.
Regards
David
BCNU
I fully agree that it was Tilsley who must have introduced the notion of a fiancee, but McGoohan obviously was quite happy with the idea. This was how he worked - he left them alone to write and then chose what he liked and threw out what he didn't like. The notion of a fiancee gave his character a reason to be standoffish with women (Nadia) right from the start. Once No6 had a little experience of the village he did not need that motivation anymore because most of the women turned out to be directed at him by the No2's, only to try to deceive him, but the fiancee was a useful notion to start things off and make sense of some of the behaviours of the man who was Six.
ReplyDeleteI thought our discussion above had clarified the way No6 appeared not have kept his fiancee *in the loop*. No6 planned a holiday alone but perhaps that would not be so unusual in 1967 since he was not yet married and to take his fiancee away unchaeproned would have been socially unacceptable. When he resigned in a fit of decision he was not to know he was going to be kidnapped was he? So if his fiancee already expected him not to be around for a couple of weeks, there was no reason to tell her he had resigned was there, and so put her in an awkward position with her father.
The father is key to this of course because we eventually realised that the British were as implicated in the village as the Russians or anyone else. Sir Charles naturally protected his daughter from being taken to the village forthwith and used to make No6 tell why he resigned. The elegance of making No6's fiancee the daughter of the head honcho of British Intelligence is incredible. It was really the only way to plug the otherwise gaping plot-hole of why the torture of the fiancee was not used to make No6 spill his secrets.
In the story however No6 does not KNOW all this does he. However quickly (in Chimes), his suspicions are aroused because clearly SOME Britishers are involved in this scheme he does not know who runs the village and is clearly still wishing to believe the British generally do NOT know and that it must be some ENEMY/TRAITORS only. This naturally explains that when No6 gets back in "Returns" he makes no move to seek Janet out. He does not know if he is being watched by his enemy does he? He would lead them straight to her? He is not so silly. She was safe, so long as he kept away. Clearly his enemy seemed not to know about her because otherwise he knows she would likely have been kidnapped too by now.
By the time of "Forsake" he really is confronted with the reality that his own side are up to their necks in the village because Thorpe came to run the blessed place and that made No6 especially angry!! BUT even in "Forsake" he only meets Janet by accident when she arrives at the house and he makes sure she does not know it is him, however much it hurts him. When he does kiss her at the party, he does it only in a situation where he thinks he is completely unobservable and even then she is not told, but he is a man in love and human enough to have to kiss his Love. If she found out all that was going on, she would go apeshit wouldn't she, and then perhaps her own father would look to save his own bacon and kill two birds with one stone by condemning her to be used to break No6, and also silence her for ever. Portland is obviously a scumbag and would stop at nothing if compelled to save himself, but No6 will not provoke such a disaster for Janet.
Because you insist on rejecting the "Forsake" episode you blind yourself to the simplicity of all of this, and the cogent genius of the story-tellers. It is like you are reading a book and then refusing to read some of the chapters.
The clarity is also upset if the "Forsake" episode is moved too far back, as happened in the USA schedule. The balance of Time/Knowledge versus Janet is one of the reasons I think the British order can be the only true one.
Be seeing you.
Hello Moor,
ReplyDeleteMy word! You have certainly put some time and thought into that response.
But I have to say that you are one of the very few people who I have come across who have actually had a good word to say about Janet. Most people just find her an irritating irrelevance to the series, which would not have been altered one iota had she never exisited within the series.
I do not reject 'Do Not Forsake Me Oh My Darling' I simply question Janet's importance, and the way the Prisoner dismisses her. The Prisoner only goes to Janet when he knows she can be of help to him. When they were having a romantic embrace at her birthday party, did the Prisoner then tell Janet everything that had happened to him since his disappearence.......I wonder? If he did, then Janet would probably go running to tell her father, and then the cat, as they say, would be out of the bag.
The Prisoner may know that his old colleagues have betrayed him, the Colonel, Fotheringay, Thorpe, but he still goes running back to them, even in 'Do Not Forsake Me Oh My Darling.'
As for Sir Charles Portland, I think he knows nothing of the Village. After all No.2 told Fotheringay, during 'The Chimes of Big Ben,' to get back to London before any embarassing questions are asked, which suggests to me that the Village is run by a different department to the one for which Fotheringay works, and that of Sir Charles Portland for that matter.
The Prisoner might have been thinking of going on holiday, packing holiday brochures in his suitcase, but an ordinary person who had just resigned his job, would simply go home and stay there. The Prisoner had two suitcases packed, his passport and airline ticket at the ready......he was running! Yes, he packed two hoiday brochures, and went to Paris as suggested in 'A B and C', and it was there that he was considering where to go on holiday.
Regards
David
BCNU
Thanks for the compliment, but the only thought applied was my observation of the show, and my willingness to listen to it, rather than the Committee-speak fan-babble that infects most people's perception of this series.
ReplyDeleteI found the conversation between Janet and her father was enough to convince me that he knew exactly what was going on. She suspected her father had sent No6 on a mission and then not told her and allowed her to worry all that time. The fact that she imagined THAT, shows even his daughter had an inkling of how ruthless Sir Charles could be. He of course persuaded her that he had no idea where her fiancee had gone and she eventually believed him. This saved her life, If No6 HAD told her all that had happened as you seem to think he should have done, then she would certainly have been disposed of. By the time of *Forsake* No6 knew exactly what he was up against and that the only way he could save Janet was to keep her in the dark. What love that man had for her, that he could sacrifice himself even unto her, in order to save her life. Nobility and Will indeed. My admiration for him was high, but seeing how he behaved in this episode just makes him the truest sort of hero.
People ignore/dismiss this episode because it does not suit their faux-fan-intellectualism and so we end up with stupid notions of No6 being a misogynist or even a closet gay man. This is the problem when you ignore a story that has been so carefully crafted and yet remains so minimalist in it's *explanations*. Remarkably, when the Canadian fans first looked at the series, they found the "Forsake" episode to be "the richest, most complexly rewarding program in the series."
That was the opinion expressed in the viewing notes published to accompany the Ontario Educational Communications Authority study of the show in 1976 – a College/Open Learning course, which involved the series being re-broadcast and this exercise culminated in the well-known Troyer Interview with McGoohan in 1977.
http://numbersixwasinnocent.blogspot.com/2010/11/mcgoohan-in-his-own-words-i-question.html
The British fans seem to have degraded the show so much over the years, as they dissected it, leaving entrails stinking in jars as they went along; ending up with a rotting pile of guts and no idea anymore of what a beautiful creature it used to be, before they got their obsessive hands upon it.
The cure is available however, thank God.
Watch the Show!!!!!!!!
.......with the goddam episodes in the proper Order!!!
I'm Obliged,
Moor.
Hello Moor,
ReplyDeleteI thought we were having a true and frank discussion with regard to this blog entry. But I have to say that I find your recent comment rather offensive, not just to me, for for fans of 'the Prisoner' in general, and I feel I have to speak out.
If you had ever been to a 'Prisoner Convention,' you would realise that fans come from all walks of life. There are children, teenagers, extremely well educated and highly intelligent people. There are people with learning difficulties, those with profound problems, both physically and emotionally, the lonely and isolated. Yet 'the Prisoner' speaks to them all in their own way, and for many has given a purpose in life. Who are you to be so insulting as to call them 'faux' fans, and make reference to jars of entrails simply because 'the Prisoner' doesn't speak to them in the exact same way as you? After all patrick McGoohan himself said you could put 1,000 people in the same room, ask them what 'the Prisoner' means to them, and you would get 1,000 different answers and they would all be right.
As for myself, I have never, and I mean never gone in for 'Committee-speak-fan-babble.' Yes, I was for 15 years a proud member of Six of One: The prisoner appreciation Society, a society which in the past has done much good for 'the Prisoner.' Indeed if it were not for the actions of that society, and certain individual members much of the material which fans today have access to, would have been lost totally!
The thoughts which I have expressed in this particular blog are my own, and not the cause of any committee-fan-babble. I look, and listen, but at the same time I am free to express my free thought, as I allow others to express theirs. There is has been no degrading of the series by British fans who hold the series dear to their hearts.
You wrote of the story being so carefully crafted, by that I imagine you mean 'Do Not Forsake Me Oh My Darling.' Yes, Vincet Tilsley did carefully write the script, but afterwards that script was dramatically edited, and much of it was re-written without the aid of Vincent. So much so that Vincent Tilsley said of his script that they had turned a bad script into an incomperhensible bad script.
I cannot be held responsible for what others may think of 'Do Not Forsake Me Oh My Darling,'or in what regard they hold the episode, but please allow me to have my own views and opinions. I hope you were not painting me with the same brush as you paint 'faux-fans' your term, not mine.
I was in two minds whether or not to delete your comment. But if I had done so I would have denied myself the pleasure of responding, nor would I wish to stem the train of free thought. However my blog is not the place for insults, whether to myself or any other person, or fans who enjoy reading my blog, of which there are many around the world
If I have caused offence to you by this comment, then I appologise. Because I should hate to set myself so high above other fans of 'the Prisoner' as you have clearly done of yourself.
David
No offence taken. I am also a fan of free thought and opinion too, and my comments are my own, only. I also accept your right at any time to delete them. That is the risk I take when I express them. It is the risk we all [should] have to take.
ReplyDeleteI fully agree that there can be 1,000 *interpretations* but as you said yourself, I am the first you have heard complimenting this episode/Janet. This suggests to me that perhaps the variety of responses has become somewhat limited over the years and a dull consensus taken over.
You yourself have often commented how you find many fans over-intellectualise analysis of the show. Changing the order of the episodes is a horrid symptom of that, especially when it is compounded by [some] fans claiming that the broadcast order was incorrect. Watching the show in different orders can be fun, but to completely restructure it and then claim this is MORE correct than the one used by the Producers themselves, speaks moor to me of an overweening arrogance. Beside this opinion, there is nothing wrong whatsoever with the Order as it was. Every objection I have ever come across to it, because of some quote within an episode is just as easily rebutted by another quote from the self-same episode!! On the internet it is all too common to come across the most ill-informed comments about this sort of matter, and it is plain people have cribbed all these opinions from books/internet pages [which in turn have stemmed from just one or three *influential* people], rather than carefully watching the show for themselves.
Anyhow, that is just my comment.
Many Thanks.
Moor.
Moor,
ReplyDeleteOf course there is nothing wrong with the screening order as it is, as a fan I have lived with it for years, and years and have accepted it. It is what it is and no-one can alter that. However, there are certain aspects of the episodes which allow one to wonder about the screening order. Certain dates like the Prisoner's date of birth March 19th 1928, and the fact that Mrs Butterworth promised to bake No.6 a cake, must mean that at least part of 'Many Happy Returns was in March. And Feb 10th means that 'The Schizoid Man' was partly set in February, but this is not in conflict with 'A B & C' as The Tally Ho read by No.14 also shows the date of Feb 10th, as the newspaper was used for both episodes, but for two different reasons, the headline 'Is No.2 fit For Further Term?' for 'A B and C' and the date for 'The Schizoid Man.' To make nothing of the seasons of the year. When you get facts like those, fans are bound to wonder. It doesn't alter the fact of the screening order, but sometimes when you alter it slightly, as I have done, it helps put some chronological order to 'the Prisoner' for me.
Anyway that's my comment for what it's worth. I don't expect you to see what I mean, or what I'm driving at.
Thanks
David