I wonder why it is that Roland Walter Dutton was surprised to see his ex-colleague? "You, of all people!" Dutton said at meeting No.6 on the beach outside the cave in 'Dance of the Dead.' Perhaps Dutton thought that No.6 was the one person he wouldn't meet in The Village, being clever enough to out manoeuvre them to see himself brought to The Village.
Or perhaps it is more likely that Dutton thought No.6 had killed the man on the beach, and is working for The Village, "You of all people!" said Dutton,
BCNU
Hello David,
ReplyDeleteI thought that it was because Number Six once was known to be utterly devoted and loyal.. So Dutton might be surprised to find him there, in a place where people turn up, people who have resigned from a certain sort of job, have defected or have been extracted.
On the other hand it really could be the point that Dutton thought he was a murderer. Recently I've read that some lines of the original script were deleted, which would have indicated that the Prisoner feared that Dutton could consider him a murderer.
Kind regards,
Jana
BCNU
Hello Jana,
DeleteIt could be either, that Dutton thought that No.6 was too clever to find himself in such a place as the Village. Or that he could kill a man, then use the body to send a message to the outside world. But the amended body carrying the amended wallet, so that it's No.6 who has died in an accident at sea, never made it to the outside world. Because Janet certainly doesn't know her fiance is supposed to be dead, and neither would it appear does Sir Charles Portland. In fact No.6's apparent death at sea appears to have been completely forgotten about by the time of 'Do Not forsake Me Oh My Darling.'
Kind regards
David
BCNU
Hello David,
ReplyDeleteyou're right! It could be that Dutton thought No6 to be too clever. This would suggest that No6 was aware of the village when he first resigned. Well, according to Fall Out he might!
Regarding the body: perhaps No1 intervened, not wanting his alter ego to be declared dead...? And perhaps this is why this No2 had to go..
Kind regards,
Jana
BCNU
Hello Yana,
DeleteYes, It might have been No.1 intervening, not wanting his alter ego to be declared dead. But more likely the body was either eaten by sharks, or chopped up by the propeller of a passing ship, or carried away in a totally different direction by the tides and currents, to be lost forever.
Have you observed that when No.6 casts the dead body adrift the sea, the tide is actually coming in, and not going out!
Kind regards
David
Be seeing you
Hello David,
ReplyDeleteno, I've never recognized this! It's iteresting.. Poor No6, that he did not notice it ;).
I've wondered whether the body had been the former No34, who has died. But I think mentioning the death of No34 was just another trick in favor of the viewers to suggest that the body was not washed ashore. Recently I've read that Skene himself thought about both possibilities, that the body was put there by the authorities, or that it was washed ashore.
But if the village right from the start had planned to use the body to show the world that the man now known as No6 died in an accident at sea, why did they want No6 to find the body first? And if the body was No34, why did he own a radio? I guess they only wanted him to find and take the radio. But then why the body, why not only put a radio on the shore? Circular thoughts, again...
Best wishes
Jana
Be seeing you
Hello Jana,
DeleteI have always taken it that the body No.6 found on the shore, is the dead body of No.34. The reason for my believing this is in the dead mans wallet. There is a picture of the dead man with a young woman sitting together by the pool and fountain in the Village. Also the dead man is wearing Village attire.
I think No.6 coming across the body in the water was accidental. Regarding No.2's idea to amend the body so it looks like No.6, this idea did not occur until long after No.6 had discovered the body in the water.
Under normal circumstances I would enjoy talking further about the dead body being No.34, and why he was in posession of a radio. However I am very much restricted in regard to this subject, as there is the strong possibility that I would begin to give away content on this very subject which is noted in my manuscript about 'the Prisoner.' such as what caused the mans death? How he had a radio, and why? And as I'm sure you can appreciate, it is very undesirable for me to give away any content of my manuscript.
Very Kind regards
David
BCNU
Hello David,
Deleteoh yes, thats quite understandable...
Kind regards, enjoy the day!
Jana
BCNU