Interchangeable Titles
Have you observed how 3 of the 17 titles of the Prisoner are interchangeable? For example, you have ‘A Change of Mind’ which could be swapped for ‘Do Not Forsake Me Oh My Darling,’ which in turn could be exchanged for Living In Harmony, because of the song in the film High Noon ‘Do not forsake me oh my darling.’ And finally Living ‘In Harmony’ for ‘A Change of Mind.’
Have you ever known a Plan which involved No.6 to succeed?
In ‘Checkmate’ No.8 asked No.6 when he was going to try and escape, seeing as how everyone tries to escape when their spirit's broken. If it's a good plan, No.8 told No.6 that she'd help him with it, seeing as how she'd helped others with their plans. But then their plans never succeeded, which I suppose would be something of a coincidence. But then again, No.6 may have had his doubts about No.8, but his record regarding escape plans is hardly faultless. I mean, have you known a plan to succeed which involved No.6?
Why No.48?
According to the President or Judge, No.48's crime is, simply, not to conform, to dare to question and defy the trappings of authority. And according to a delegate he has unhealthy aspects of speech and dress which is not in accordance with general practice. And what's more he has refused to observe, wear or respond to his number! Well there are many in The Village who have shown defiance by not wearing their Number, and this youth has hardly shown any intention of overthrowing authority. However he is condemned. But what I find so fascinating by this irritating excuse for a youth, is what was it really that brought him to The Village in the first place? Was it really for his rebellious nature? And what were the circumstances which brought him to the same point as the Prisoner-No.6? No.6, they thought, would happier as himself, wearing his own suit of clothes, could the same be said of No.48, seeing as he's wearing his own clothes? I suppose it must.
Be seeing you
Hello David,
ReplyDeleteit's an interesting question why No48 and No2 where brought to the village, and especially what brought them to that trial in Fall Out. On the level of the spy story, if we understand the village as a prison for people who know to much, is there an explanation? Maybe Kanner was chosen because of his character... It would be very interesting to think up a Prisoner variation starring No48, wouldn't it?
And I think it's a real brain nut why No48 wears his own clothes. What makes me wonder is that he is not treated the same way as No6 is. So if he went through a similar process and passed it then why was he was put into that tube? And if he did not pass it, then how he vindicated the right to wear his own clothes? To be honest I've no idea..
But maybe No48 was put in that tube after he got to know who Number One is? Only he did not chase him away but laughed at him and sang his song of freedom? Or maybe he knocked himself out?
Kind regards,
Jana
Be seeing you
Hello Jana,
DeleteIndeed there was the idea as a sequal to 'the Prisoner,' starring Alexis Kanner, to have Number 48 on the run from forces unknown. He was to have visted many major cities of the world, along with his Butler {Angelo Muscat}. At the Tokyo Olympics a race was to have been featured with Number 48 and the Butler running at the back of the race. It was a completely stupid idea, and I'm very pleased that it never saw the light of day!
Precisely.....
"And I think it's a real brain nut why No48 wears his own clothes. What makes me wonder is that he is not treated the same way as No6 is. So if he went through a similar process and passed it then why was he was put into that tube? And if he did not pass it, then how he vindicated the right to wear his own clothes? To be honest I've no idea....."
No neither have I, and there is no-way of knowing, that is what I find fascinating about 'the Prisoner,' the things we can never know the answer to!
If Number 48 did get to meet 'his' Number 1, then he would have been faced with himself as Number 6 was. I liked your idea about him knocking himself out!
Kind regards
David
BCNU
Beside the fact that for the purpose of this highly symbolic episode PMcG had to come up with something, to flesh out the trial with living samples, the only reason I can think of as to why No. 48 and former No. 2 were brought to the Village and eventually put before this trial must be for their non-conformity, for not being according to the norm, to the rules, perhaps even breaking them albeit unwittingly. It's deviant behaviour that cannot be tolerated. In a way: for being unmutual. Thus, their cases form the backdrop against which No. 6's act of revolt is hilighted properly.
ReplyDeleteIt is quite obvious in the case of the hippie (the "rebellious youth") acting extremely erratic with no apparent objective. I doubt that he ever met No. 1 or knew who he/she was. As for No. 2 it's more difficult because he was a member of the Houses of Parliament, he had held a position of some responsability, he was a member of the establishment who (how often has it been cited?) "bit the hand that fed him". But what exactly was it? We don't know. Somehow he got off course. On the telephone (episode OUAT) on his 2nd assignment as No. 2 in the Village he behaved defiantly ("either my way or nothing", don't remember the words). And it may have been his failure in breaking No. 6 which triggered the leaders behind the Village to sentence him. Signs of weakness. By then, perhaps he also knew too much.
However, some inconsistency still remain. Because we must assume the "Fall Out" trial takes place right after day 7 of "Degree Absolute" was over and after No. 2's defeat. Whereas he speaks of "a most extraordinary thing happend to me on my way, here." But perhaps only one hour earlier he was dead wasn't he?
Most likely we'll never know.
Hello Arno,
DeleteI enjoyed reading your comment, and there is much reasoning behind it. I can see why No.48 was put on trial, for being a rebellious youth, who rebels against nothing he can define. But did No.48 once "bite the hand that feeds?" For as the President said of 48 "You were with us, and then you went and gone." But why is No.48 allowed to wear his own clothes?
No.2 came to the Village as a Prisoner. He resisted for so short a time because he probably wasn't trained to resist such interrogaton techniques employed by No.2, they having found a use for such a man as No.2. He was a member of the British Establishment, and he returns to that Establishment in 'Fall Out.' I'm still uncertain which "hand that feeds" was No.2 accused of biting, that of the British Establishment, and if it was, what's that to the Village Administration? And if it was that of No.1, I don't think that No.2 standing up for himself as he does in 'Once Upon A time' "You brought me back here. I told you the last time you were using the wrong approach. I do it my way, or you get somebody else." If No.1 cannot take an argument, then certainly he might have seen No.2's action of speaking up for himself as an act of defiance. And if that is why No,2 had to die, then No.1 is indeed a vindictive figure!
Regarding No.2's "extraordinary thing happening to him on his way to Fall Out." It is possible that No.2 was killed, dead on arrival in 'Fall Out.' And so he was resuscitated by a team of medical surgeons. I used to think that No.2 was merely drugged, but that is clearly wrong judging by the medical team. It would be possible to resuscitate No.2, and if they were quick enough, then possible brain damage would be avoided, which it would seem they were. But I feel that No.2 would have to be dead only a few minutes to make resuscitation successful. But it is clearly difficult for me to say, not being a medical man.
Regards
David
BCNU
The trouble is in the case of The Prisoner we're constantly dealing on more than one level of interpretation and dissection called analysis. One is the producer's need to bring the show to a close thereby having PMcG who only reluctantly embarked on writing a "plot" for the last episode. Add that hardly anybody at that time cared for conclusivness or coherent details of any kind to fit "Fall Out" into the narrative framework of the rest of the episodes. The other one is the "internal" review of the story, the need and search for revealing and perhaps also "logical" information on how it all would have to end.
ReplyDeleteAs for the 2nd part, I always liked to think that McKern/No. 2 wasn't dead at all but left in suspended animation (if that's the correct scientific term). Given the Village powers to create a device like Rover it should not have been too difficult to drug and reanimate him some time later.
But before that there must have been something that had made him a defector from the ruling (let's call it:) ideology. He may have recognised the inhumanity of the entire project and the treatment of at least some of the prisoners in the Village, their internment as such. Hence he was in danger of becoming a prisoner himself.
So, to sum it up, No. 2 was allowed to return for a 2nd time because he convinced his superiors (not necessarily, and improbable too, No. 1) he was the best for the job. Else: they persuaded (urged?) him to resume the position - knowing/hoping they'd get rid of him...?
However all this does not quite fit together. Many inconsistencies remain as I wrote. Of course No. 2 must have been confused from the heavy drugs he was treated to, so that "extraordinary thing" he tells us about in "Fall Out" in reality happened over one week ago. - BCNU!
Add: Elsewhere we discussed aspects of "Fall Out" if you remember. And I mentioned the theatrical or theatre-style approach to that episode particularly the assembly and "trial" part of it. It's as if the "Epic Theatre" method as developed by German theatre director and playwright Bert Brecht were applied.
DeleteLook at the scene where No. 2 is recovered from the cage and what happens next. The President turns to the video screen where the dead No. 2 is seen.
President: Resuscitate!
"Once Upon A Time" footage is screend backwards, thus Number Two coming to life again.
President: Revolution!
Smiling.
The President (to my memory) here turns to the TV viewer directly. For me this portion is prove of the "alienating" and therefore distancing effect as described by Brecht. Distancing from too much a theatre of illusions. Where actors are advised to "step back" from their roles. Just another thought. - BCNU!
Hello Arno,
DeleteYou are right of course. No-one can pin 'the Prisoner' down, because we are constantly dealing with the series on more than one level of interpretation and dissection.
Before 'Fall Out' in 1968, we all expected McGoohan to give us anwers in 'Fall Out, to explain it all. But he didn't, he only muddied the waters even more. I suppose with hindsight it was niaive to think that McGooahn would simply come along and answer all our questions. And if he had, I wouldn't be in a position to be writing my 'Prisoner' blog, and thereby not having made many friends and acquaintences along the way.
I suppose it's all a question of interpretation, for myself I always thought No.2 in 'Once Upon A Time' had simply been drugged. But then I had to realise that if 'Once Upon A time' had not been used as a prequal to 'Fall out,' No.2 would have remained dead. I don't think No.2 was put in a state of suspended animation, there was not time, and besides his body had been sealed...in the cage.....to become a criogentic chamber for suspending human life, that could work.
Rememeber it was No.1 who had No.2 brought back to the Village, which indicates he didn't come voluntarily. I don't think No.2 had any say in the matter of being brought back to the Village, he certainly didn't seem that pleased about it! But seeing as he had bee brought back, No.2 had decided that he was going to do it his way, or they could get somebody else! If they had got somebody else, that's when No.2's fate would have been sealed, as a prisoner!
They couldn't even let No.2 rest in peace! I never did understand the reason, or need, to resuscitate No.2. Was it simply so they could put the man on trial? Was their need to do so desperate? Or was it simply to bring back a potent actor for the final episode, the final ordeal of the Prisoner!
Kind regards
David
BCNU
"Or was it simply to bring back a potent actor..." Exactly. This is where we need to jump out of the "internal" view of the context of action because no other explanation is at hand.
ReplyDeleteNo. 2 would have remained dead, most probably. If they hadn't made "Fall Out". It was written that PMcG wanted Leo McKern to resume his former character und return for this episode. Consequently he had to be brought back to life and the continuity had to be adjusted, to some degree.
And, again, what I find amazing about all this is how the graphic depiction as seen in OUAT, No. 2 apparently dying, was effected presumably with no intention of becoming ambivalent but we are nevertheless left with a degree of uncertainty as to the question "was he really dead?" or "how did they do it?" or the notion of the Village as omnipotent. Something running throughout the series as a whole. - BCNU!
Hello Arno,
DeleteYes, Leo had to undergo a transformation because before his appearence in 'Fall Out' Leo himself had changed his appearance, and had no intention of growing a beard again. Well several months had passed by between his working on 'Once Upon A Time' and 'Fall Out.'
The President seemed sure that No.2 had died, as he refers to him as a "late" No.2, meaning dead! I always saw No.2 as simply been drugged, but now I'm not so sure. But dead or drugged, I cannot see how anyone but the Butler could have done it! But as you say, it's the degree of uncertainty that is the primary motivation. If 'the Prisoner' demonstrates anything, it is that we can be sure of nothing!
Kind regards
David
BCNU