It's a psychological horror film, it's Prisoneresque. And you thought 'the Prisoner' was difficult to understand! Six, strangers awaken from their daily lives to find themselves trapped in a surreal prison - a seemingly endless maze of interlocking cubical chambers armed with lethal booby traps. None of these people knows why or how they were imprisoned, or even why.... But it soon emerges that each of them has a skill that could contribute to their escape.
Who created this diabolical maze, and why? There are unanswered questions on every side, whilst personality conflicts and struggles for power emerge as the tension rises. But one thing is crystal clear: Unless they can learn to co-operate to work out the secrets of this deadly trap, none of them has very long to live....
Be seeing you - either diced, sliced, or cubed!
You did it, at last! The movie has been one of my favourites for a couple of years in terms of "prisoneresqueness". The actual while at the same time metaphorical chessboard of the original finds its equivalent in the cubes within a cube. There is our hero No. 6. An ordinary cube has 6 sides, add the points of each opposite sides and you have 7. Here we've got 6 characters plus 1 additional alreday dead and gone almost from the start. Think about he numeral 7 being (almost) absent from the The Prisoner. A true successor in spirit and not making any attempts to copy or "re-create" The Prisoner. - BCNU!
ReplyDeleteHello Arno,
DeleteOh I've seen 'The Cube' before, and there is no disputing it's a Prisoneresque film. And quite obviously you have been thinking it out far more than myself. In that I had not associated the six sided cube with the Number 6. Nor the fact that there are six prisoners in the cube, 7 counting the poor devil at the start of the film, he came to a very nasty end.
I know the film was made on a budget, a Canadian film. And they only had one full-size cube, the colour of which they changed with different coloured slides. I'm not sure if the film was meant to be made in the spirit of 'the Prisoner,' or not, but it seems to have turned out that way. As you say, a true successor to 'the Prisoner' and not making any attenpt to copy or re-create, I'm with you on that.
I understand 'The Cube' is partly about numbers, and the mathematical calculations made to make escape from the Cube possible. Is that what the film is all about? Someone outside the Cube testing those held prisoner within, to find a mathematical genious? If so why?
Oh yes, the Cube is constructed by a variety of people making different parts for the Cube, but not one person knowing what they are all making, because they never meet, until they end up in the Cube together! 'the Cube' makes 'the Prisoner' a piece of cake to understand!
Kind regards
David
BCNU
Hi David,
ReplyDeletegreat film indeed. I loved it when it turned out who might be called the bad one.
And when the literal 7 shows up in The Prisoner it does mostly at a graveyard, too, sooner or later. Doesn't it?
Kind regards!
BCNU
Jana
Hello Jana,
DeleteI understand 'The Cube' has a large following, I wish I could understand it a bit more. Not that that spoils the enjoyment in watching the film.
I'm not sure what you mean by the "literal 7" showing up in 'the Prisoner.' The only 7 to show up in the Village cemetary was the digit 7 on Number 73's gravestone. Perhaps that is what you mean?
Kind regards
David
BCNU
The numeral 7 is almost absent in The Prisoner. Except from the 73 seen on a tombstone which I tend to think is Jana's "literal 7". Correct me in case I forgot something: Then, on the raft, No. 6 writing "day 7" into his log. There is KAR120C, a Lotus 7. And there is No. 2 quoting the "7 ages of Man".
ReplyDeleteIt is certainly up to speculation what this removal could mean but it's absence cannot be a pure coincidence. At the least it keeps people, it keeps us guessing. Quoting myself: "Quite strikingly that the number 7, on the other hand, indeed appears to be kind of an anathema; it's easy to miss and it's never ever emphasized in any way throughout the series but there isn't a 7, perhaps it almost exists only because of its absence! The following could even be indicating to the identity of Number One: The numbers 1 and 6 are true antagonists on dice, always opposite to each other. Both of them sum up to make 7 - which applies to all opposite numbers as well. The 7 as the secret code for the absent or the covert Number One...? And so on and so on.
For more we should perhaps refer to the WP article on "Kabbalah". - BCNU!
Hello Arno,
DeleteI replied to Jana's comment in regard to the number 7, I had forgoten Number 2 mentioning the "Seven ages of man," so that's another seven in 'the Prisoner.'
As I said to Jana, here in Great Britain the Number 7 is considered to be a lucky number, as the number 13 is unlucky. And according to 'Prisoner' legend McGoohan had the number 7 removed from the Village on that basis. But I've just remebered something, on the control button of the 'Free Information' board there is no 73, yet in 'Hammer Into Anvil' Number 73 is a patient at the hospital who commits suicide. It seems to be forgotten by the time of that episode, that even the digit 7 has been obliterated from the face of the Village!
Kind regards
David
BCNU
Yes, you are both right, that 7 on the tombstone after Number 73 jumped out of the window was the one I had in mind ("literal" should have been "digit"). And I am wondering if there was another 7 on yet another grave? I'm not quite sure.
ReplyDeleteI also wondered wether there could be a religious background: The seventh day as the day when everything was perfect at last, or when one should rest, whatever you want. And it is the sum of 6 and 1.
By the way, just mentioned that no inmate with the digit 7 in his/her name could ever find his appartment at the "free information"-board. Thats discriminating ;).
Kind regards! BCNU
Jana
Hi Jana,
DeleteHere in Great Britain the number 7 is considered to be a lucky number, and as 'Prisoner' legend has it, it is for that reason that the number 7 is not used in 'the Prisoner' series, McGoohan himself choosing not to have the number in the series. Save for the digit 7 of 73, and the Lotus 7.
Also if one studies the button panel of the 'Free Information' board, you will see that any number containing the digit 7 has been replaced with another number. For example instead of the number 27 there is 1. 37 has been substituted with 8c. Instead of 47 there is 51, which means there are two 51's on the button panel 6h instead of 67. And from 70 to 79, these numbers have been substituted with single digit numbers, 5c, 3f, 2d, 2b, 4d, 6, 3e, 5, 9d, 8r, . There are also 2 Number 6 buttons and two Number 1's.
I do not attribute any great significance to there being two of any of the same button, unless they are two locations in the Village for the same person. The television viewer does not get time to study the panel, this can only be done via DVD, or in a book as I have just been doing.
Enjoy the weekend.
Kind regards
David
BCNU
A code-name for Number Six is also ZM-73.
ReplyDeleteI think the viewer was certainly intended to notice the absence of the numeral 7 on the Information Board. Even on a black and white TV in 1967 it was obvious enough to be noticeable.
I've always taken it to be McGoohan's personal schtick associated with his then oft-stated dismissal of 007 as a moral hero. It's a bit obtuse but it might even have made moor sense to viewers back then, who knew full well McGoohan's frequent public criticisms of the Bond films.
It was McGoohan's way of saying that Bond is not allowed in HIS village... ;-D
Hello Moor,
DeleteAh ZM73, I had forgotten that code name. As for your comment, that's an interesting train of thought. No 7, no 007, as Patrick McGoohan had originally turned down the role of James Bond. It makes you think, doesn't it.
Kind regards
David
BCNU
McGoohan was constantly having interviews where he would be asked questions based around the supposed "competition" between Drake and Bond, and he would make answers such as, "Would you like your son to grow up to be like James Bond?". He seemed to object to the amoral nihilism of the Bond "hero".
ReplyDeleteHello Moor,
DeleteYes, I know McGoohan turned down the role of James Bond when it was originally offered to him, this on the grounds of morality. But I don't know why he should be otheriwse bothered by a fictional character he has absolutely nothing to do with.
Regards
David
BCNU
Years later said he mainly turned it down because there was someone he didn't want to work with. I think that must have been Terence Young, who he knew from Zarak.
DeleteAt the time though, he made much of the moral nature of Bond, but this was really because Drake and Bond were being compared to one another back then. That a TV show should capture the imagination to make it even comparable with the character in a big budget movie seems quite remarkable. Anyhow, he kept talking about it because he kept being asked about it. Maybe he learned a lesson from that time and this is why he chose to largely keep his mouth shut when people kept asking for his opinions about The Prisoner.....
Questions are a burden and answers a prison for oneself..... ;-D
Hello Moor,
DeleteI think if McGoohan had accepted the role of James Bond, he would still have appeared to be Drake, or at the very least have compared McGoohan's Drake to his Bond.
Sometimes I think McGoohan went on to play the role of John Drake for too long, but having said that, it was 'Danger Man's' John Drake that made Patrick McGoohan a household name.
The trouble was that after 'the Prisoner' that's all anyone wanted to ask McGoohan about. It's no wonder he became fed up with it all, and perhaps why he could never give straightforward answers a straightforward question. I think he was playing mind games with people. Years ago someone asked me what I would say to Patrick McGoohan if I'd had the chance to meet him. I said I'd no idea, but I certainly wouldn't mention 'the Prisoner' to him!
Kind regards
David
Be seeing you
He was noted, back in his earlier days for responding to journalist's questions with a question of his own to them so his resistance to letting them empty his mind was there long before. I think his problem with the media was that he never developed the ability to give silly answers to silly questions.
DeleteI was reading just yesterday that Roger Moore was asked by a fan if it was true he was given £1M up-front by Lew Grade to do The Persuaders. Roger apparently replied, "Unfortunately not"... Then after a pause, he added, "It was only £998,000". Cue huge laughter.
I fancy that if asked a similar silly question, Patrick would have squirmed in his seat and muttered some dark words about "newspaper talk" and scowled at the fan....... :-D
Hello Moor,
DeleteI recall one interview he gave in 1990 to the Radio 1 presenter Simon Bates, that he would only give the interview if he and Bates were alone together in his hotel room! McGoohan was as enigmatic with Simon Bates as ever he was with anyone else in the media in the past.
McGoohan didn't have that much truck with fans, he didn't care for "cults," as he said they can be a little bothersome!
Kind regards
David
BCNU
Well, it's a bit difficult keeping up to date with all the blog entries here and there...
ReplyDeleteZM-73, it never occurred to me, too. Thanks for reminding us! The 007 thing, quite possible. But how plausible is it? As for McG, Drake and Bond: When was McG offered the JB role? It must have been before 1962, the year DR. NO was released. Did he get upset about the Bond character who then was in existence only on paper? I've never read one of the novels, I admit. Can you brief us on the differences between the novel and the movie Bond? I'd assume there's much more irony to the cinematic Bond than to his novel counterpart. Perhaps with the exception of DR. NO which is clearly rather straight forward action whereas the later ones are more tongue-in-cheek. So, if there is flesh to the 007 antipathy I wonder which of the two Bonds McG's opinion was possibly based upon. - BCNU!
Hello Arno,
DeleteThat is an extremely interesting and valid comment about when McGoohan was actually offered the role of James Bond. I have never read any of Ian Flemmings James Bond books, so I am not at liberty to comapre the novel character to the screen character. Perhaps someone who has seen the films and read the novels can elucidate on the difference between the two, if there is indeed a diference.
Kind regards
David
BCNU
Quite right, David! So am I. Until now I took for granted that McG was approached to take the JB role before the first movie, DR. NO, started. This I think would only be logical. But not necessarily so. Which of the "two Bonds" did he refer to, which Bond charcter wasn't tolerable for him? Not a very unimportant question in any respect. In 1962 the first DANGER MAN season(s) had already been on TV and McG was, as is told, very popular for this reason. Hence it would seem reasonable that he was asked to do it by that time. Perhaps for the first time then. After NR. NO the subsequent FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE displayed a differnt JB style and tone although played again by Sean Connery. But i cannot go any further into this matter because there's a lack of information on my side. -- BCNU!
ReplyDeleteHello Arno,
DeleteThe same with me, I too lack sufficiant information on this topic. But one thing I do know about McGoohan having been offered the role of James Bond, it was certainly offered to him before Sean Connery, and that's before the production of 'Dr.No.'
It is said that McGoohan suggested Sean Connery, but I've no idea if this is true or not.
Kind regards
David
Be seeing you
McGoohan said he was *offered* the role of Bond twice. Once was evidently when the first movie versions were mooted. It is unclear what film this might have been however, as there were projects afoot for both Casino Royale and Dr.No. The second time he was asked, was after Connery relinquished the role. By the second time, McGoohan claimed he declined the offer because he felt he was too old - a qualm not felt by Roger Moor evidently..... :-D
ReplyDeleteMcGoohan's 'arguments' about the morality of the Bond character were really all made later, and plainly were about how that figure "turned out" in the movies. He said he was familiar with the books so seemed to have no beef about the fictional character per-se.
Hello Moor,
DeleteMcGoohan was offered the role twice, I didn't know that. But then again there's no reason I should, as I've never been a fan of Patrick McGoohan as such, only of his two television characters John Drake and the Prisoner.
Regards
David
BCNU