The Palace of Fun
Although marked on Your Map of the Village, it is a building not employed in the actual series of the Prisoner. The idea behind it was to keep the inmates or rather the citizens entertained. With amateur dramatics, music concerts. Exhibitions of mime, Village Festivals, Arts and Crafts Exhibitions. There was to have been a Casino where citizens could gamble their credit units away. Of course much of the listed activities either take place in the Town Hall, as in the Ball on the evening of Dance of the Dead, and the Arts and Crafts Exhibition which takes place in the Recreation Hall. Somehow I think the Palace of Fun
The Irony In Fall Out
Yes there is the song ‘All you need is love’ playing while guns blaze. It was during ‘The Chimes of Big Ben,’ No.6 told No.2 that he was Going to escape, escape and come back. Come back, wipe this place off the face of the Earth, obliterate it, and you with it! So how ironic it it, that it is that same No.2 who assists No.6 in carrying out the prisoner's threat during the violent, and bloody revolution of ‘Fall Out.’ Well No.2 did agree with No.6, that he was just as much a prisoner, as No.6!
Number 6 Or Number 1 - Its All McGoohan!
With the Prisoner, in the later-made episodes, you are not watching an actor playing the role of No.6, you are seeing McGoohan playing himself!
Patrick McGoohan was never very forthcoming about what the Prisoner was all about. I often wondered if he actually knew, or whether he was just making it up as he went along. When asked a straightforward question, McGoohan was hardly ever known to give a straightforward answer. He described the series as "the battle between the good and evil in onself." But the series certainly never started out like that. More of a superior spy thriller, which is how story editor George Markstein saw the Prisoner.
For the late Patrick McGoohan, the Prisoner became an obsession. He's not the only one, is he readers.............
I'll be seeing you
* the series certainly never started out like that. More of a superior spy thriller, which is how story editor George Markstein saw the Prisoner. *
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure how "Free for All" fits in with such a view, and that was probably the first episode to be written. The claims made by Markstein were his attempt to "dumb down" the show many years later. His claim simply does not stack up if you consider the episodes made first, "Dance of the Dead" came long before the more straightforward episodes such as A,B&C.
This strange fan idea about the show morphing as production continued seems to go back to the days when they had no understanding that the episodes were not made in the same order as they were shown. Thus, Once Upon A Time was the sixth script available. How that fits any description of a simplistic "spy thriller" is beyond me.
I think McGoohan hated talking about it, because the very act of doing so demeaned the ability of 1,000 people to see 1,000 different things. There could always be the cry, "But McGoohan said..." if he had done so. Nevertheless he was tempted more than once, most notably for that Six-Into-One documentary, where he then, on-camera clearly regrets "explaining" it and says something about how he should not be doing this, but it was too late by then as they had the film... :-))
Hello Moor,
ReplyDeleteNo, 'Free For All' doesn't quite fit in with the view expressed by Markstein, and there are others which do not either. But 'A B and C' that does contain a spy element. I mean both 'A' and 'B' are spies. The Prisoner and 'A' had once been friends, working for the same side until 'A' defected to the other side!
I have never held that Six-Into-One documentary in high regard. In fact when I originally watched it I was left feeling very disappointed by it. I thought I was going to learn something. But in the end Six-Into-One is a lot of palaver with very little result!
Regards
David
BCNU
There is certainly a "spy element" in the series. Despite various fan prevarications over the years that fact is undeniable within the series, and was readily admitted by McGoohan in 1967, when he commented that he'd have been crazy to have abandoned the audience he had built up - meaning his TV following from Danger Man.
ReplyDeleteMarkstein's rather stupid claim that the show started out as only a sequel to Danger Man begs the question about why none of the initial script writers knew what they were writing about exactly. One of them claimed the show as initially presented to him was "a cosmic void". Markstein even realised his story made no sense because he then started mumbling about conspiracies involving Royalties and Ralph Smart. Lew Grade would have been only too happy to pay Ralph some money and keep John Drake on the masthead. And Patrick McGoohan would certainly not have made Ralph's sister the very first character No6 gets to speak to if the idea was planned as a Drake sequel but to just not name the character Drake.
None of that means he was not happy for his audience to initially immerse themselves into the story by imagining it was John Drake. But as we know, over the years McGoohan loved to play around with this secret agent persona he had created, whether it be as Jones, Brenner or even (vaguely) Connor - the man who was licensed to kill.
Hello Moor,
DeleteWhether or not one believes the Prisoner is John Drake is entirely up to the individual. But even if he isn't, there is no reason why the Prisoner could not have been a spy, or agent of any other name, Peter Smith perhaps. Certainly the Prisoner had a job of a top secret confidential nature, which he saw as being above the law. He said as much in 'Once Upon A Time.' And as you stated in your excellent comment, McGoohan loved to play around with the secret agent persona. Drake, the Prisoner. Jones, Brenner. working for NATO Security - M9 - The British Intelligence Service {MI9}, and the CIA!
I know he wasn't, but in 'Ice Station Zebra' I couldn't help but think McGoohan's character of David Jones is John Drake. Yes I know he isn't, I suppose it's because McGoohan played the character of John Drake for such a long time. It might have been the same had Mchoohan accepted the role of James Bond when it was offered to him.
As ever
David
Be seeing you
McGoohan always wanted to keep Drake enigmatic... no real back story to him, so the viewer could always imagine whatever they liked about who he REALLY was. Within the fiction there is nothing to stop No6 having been Drake, but then there is nothing to stop No6 and Drake being almost anyone (who happened also to possess the skils we expected in those days of any secret agent). I feel fairly confident that if McGoohan had gained the sevices of Robert Vaughn to play No6 in exactly the way McGoohan did ( a feat vaughn would have been capable of I am sure), there would be nobody claiming that No6 was really John Drake, but I daresay quite a few would insist he was Napoleon Solo.
ReplyDeleteHello Moor,
DeleteYou are of course absolutely correct, and I can find nothing to comment against within your comment. Save for the fact that I've always thought the Prisoner is John Drake because as a boy it seemed a natural progession. As well as the fact that I'd known Patrick McGoohan to be John Drake for a long time, so it made for an easy association made between the two.
Thinking outside the box for a second, and purely in a fictional tone. I think IIIya Kuryakin would have devised some cunning plans to escape the Village. While Napoleon Solo would have been too busy fraternising with some willing female.
Kind regards
David
Be seeing you
Except Illya WAS No2.... :-D
Deletehttp://numbersixwasinnocent.blogspot.co.uk/search?q=waverley
Although both the schizoid agents would have known exactly who No1 was: Mr. Waverley....... ;-D