The Prisoner: FAIL
See, I'd meant to watch The Prisoner for ages. But I never got around to it. Actually, scratch that. The DVDs were just too expensive. £70 for a boxed set? Do me a favour. But then I managed to get a bargain on both the DVD and a companion book. Great, I thought. Finally a chance to see a classic TV series... Except, it isn't a classic. In fact, it isn't that good.
Don't get me wrong, there are some wonderful - and frightening - images in the first few episodes of the series. The obscure, OTT environment of The Village - combined with the apparent impossibility of a successful escape - makes for an initially very edgy TV programme. The paranoia and the heightened atmosphere make it an unsettling piece. It also looks expensive, and a programme that the makers truly cared about. And finally, there are some wonderful Libertarian rants in there, none more so that the famous and effective slogan of "I am not a number! I'm a free man!"
Against that, you have two colossal flaws with the series. Namely that the protagonist is a knob, and that the production team gave up on the show and handed it over to McGoohan. Who turned it into a vanity exercise. And a shitty vanity exercise at that.
The Prisoner is a Cock
Seriously, the Prisoner is a cock. He is a massive cock. He is a wanker of the very highest order.
Take an episode of the Prisoner. It can be any episode. And watch how the Prisoner behaves. He is petulant, he is angry, he is sulky. He behaves like a grounded teenager. And when he rages, it isn't the rage of an intimidating foe. It is the raging of a silly little man who cannot help but sound constipated when he is shouting. And he does a lot of shouting.
See, he's upset. He's upset about being a Prisoner. So he refuses to participate in the community. Instead, he rallies against everyone and everything. Like a moody teenager, who believes the world is against him and the best way to deal with that is ignoring the world in the hope that it goes away. He does nothing to help himself. And his behaviour is so aloof, so patronising and so pointless that at times you want those running the Village to get out the electrodes, attached them to the Prisoner's balls and get the secret of his resignation from him that way.
But there is more to it than just that. Either the Prisoner likes the attention of the Village, or he is really dumb. Sometimes, he seems to actively flirt with the Village and their Number 2s (a title that sounds quite dodgy these days, but there we go) and their schemes. But he is also exceptionally dumb, in that he falls for just about every half-baked load of bollocks that his warders dream up to make him confess. Hell, in one episode - when he is actually set free - he is so arrogant, so obtuse and so stupid that he allows a stranger to fly him back to the Village. And guess what happens? It is obvious, to everyone bar our protagonist. The stupid, grumpy wanker that he is.
I understand he is an individual, but he is an individual who refuses to engage with anything other than his own rampant ego. As a figurehead, he is useless for just about every group in this world. He has an ironclad belief in his won brilliance, yet does nothing to illustrate why he is so great. As a Libertarian icon, he fails. Because he won't take responsibility for his own - albeit unfair - predicament.
And that is a punishing flaw for the protagonist in any TV series. He is an unlikable person who refuses to help himself. And he's supposed to be our hero.
The Decline in the Quality of the Episodes is Alarming and Disappointing
Nonetheless, a certain cocksure arrogance is no bad thing in a supposed superspy. After all, Daniel Craig's Bond has more than a little of the wanker about him, and he is the most acclaimed thing since... well, since something that was really acclaimed. And during the early episodes (ie, those filmed on location that look a bit expensive) the stories, combined with the ingenuity of the premise, make the show enjoyable despite our stilted yet raging moron of a hero.
Which means it is a real shame when the stories just become crap as well.
The show loses its way. Which is no mean feat, given there aren't even twenty episodes of the original. It ceases to be an edgy, paranoid chiller. Instead, it becomes an amateurish waste of time. A vanity exercise for the star - who also writes, produces and directs by the end of it. The departure of George Markstein was probably the death knell of quality within The Prisoner. And it is impossible to hide the fact that the last few episodes are beyond bullshit. Wanky, amateurish bullshit at that.
The final two episodes show this most clearly. They are wonderfully reviewed here and here. Once Upon A Time is painful to watch. It features two talented actors shrieking at each other in a playroom, whilst one of them pretends to be a child, whilst the other is a school teacher. If you ever wanted to watch two men shout at each other about a secret that you are never going to know the answer to inbetween them riding around on fucking go-karts, then this is the piece for you. And you also want your head fucking see to, because it is dreadful.
And then we have Fall Out - an episode of The Prisoner that some seem to laud just because it was slightly unexpected. Well, it was unexpected. Mainly because it is the worst ending episode of a TV series I have ever seen. Smug, complacent, so sure of its own brilliance - it would be fine, if it wasn't such crap. It reminds me of The Trial of a Time Lord. Except it too Doctor Who 23 years to reach that big old bag of bollocks. It took The Prisoner just 17 episodes to become unwatchable tripe.
But what about that twist, I hear you ask. What about the idea that Number 1 was also Number 6? Well, smashing. But the revelation is poorly directed. It doesn't actually appear to mean anything. Yeah, yeah, I know what it is meant to mean - that we are made prisoners by society, and that we are complicit in our own imprisonment. But Jesus Christ, couldn't the production team (aka the star and no-one else) have been a little clearer with that message? Or at least give it time to sink before moving onto the sub-Monkees shenanigans that ends the series?
Just imagine, if you will, what it would be like if The Prisoner had ended with the revelation that Number 1 was also Number 6. After a bitter struggle to reach the centre of the village, you would have that final revelation that all along, Number 6 has been chasing his own tail. Then it ends. How much more effective would that have been than a final episode consisting of the "hero" sitting on a throne, then realising he is boss, before larking around with a fat man, an irritating man and a midget? Before finally going for a drive in his crappy fucking car?
The Prisoner posed many questions. In the final analysis, it failed to answer any of them convincingly. Mainly because it couldn't be arsed. It became an elongated ego trip for the star. A terrible waste of an original, interesting idea.
Here's hoping that the reboot of The Prisoner is a lot like the reboot of Battlestar Galactica. In that an over-rated, bollocks TV programme from yesteryear is turned into something gripping and actually worth watching all the way through.
Labels: Doctor Who, Reviews, The Prisoner, TV
posted by The Nameless Libertarian @ 9:25 am
11 Comments
11 Comments:
I got the first episode, and found that even that was a bit odd, to say the least. No. 6 is not, as you say, a likeably charecter.
The other other episode I watched was where no 2 (there seems to be about 10 no 2s), hell, I dunno, played dress up in an attempt to break no. 6.
It's trippy, no doubt about that, but it could have been done so much better.
Why watch it then? Take it back for a refund.
The Prisoner was first shown in 1967 / 68. Colour broadcasting started in 1967. There were three (3) TV channels. The series was seen by those whose views were shaped by what had gone before. At the time it was unquestionably groundbreaking and challenging. There have been 42 years of TV evolution since then. Your views are shaped by what has gone before in your viewing lifetime. Elements (invasive cctv or cordless phones) that shocked or intrigued contemporary audiences, are commonplace, superceded or obsolete. Others, like Rover, are for the future, or not. At the time, most people were confused or irritated by the whole thing (or more likely just one episode). That is why it is a cult classic, and not a classic. It is a minority attraction, and you are of the majority.
It was shown 12 years (9 if you haven't updated your profile) before you were born. Many groundbreaking film and TV events are celebrated by people who experienced them at the time.
As they say, you had to be there.
David
David,
I am very aware of the state of British TV when The Prisoner was first broadcast. Amongst my other vices, I am a bit of a cult TV enthusiast, and know quite a bit about the era when The Prisoner was first broadcast, and what came before and after it. Even if I didn't know about that, there is a book attached to the boxed set that explains the context of the series very well. As I actually mention in the original post.
So, bearing that it mind, I'm very aware that The Prisoner is a cult classic. Yet I'm not sure whether I'm in the majority or the minority of those with regard to liking the programme. Because, as I state in my original post, I like many of the elements of the programme that made it edgy and unsettling. What I dislike is the way McGoohan portrays the title character, and the dreadful final two episodes that are smug, stupid and to the detriment of everything that went before in the series. I guess I move from the minority who like the programme to the majority of those who don't. Mainly because McGoohan's increasing stranglehold destroyed everything that made the early episodes of the programme.
Your assertion that "you had to be there" and the implication that I don't get it because I wasn't born then is palpable nonsense and more than a little insulting. I've watched a lot of TV from that era, and much of it is far better than The Prisoner. Take an example. At the same time that The Prisoner was broadcast, Doctor Who was going through a very strong era with Patrick Troughton as the star. Despite being in black and white, and despite having a smaller budget than most episodes of The Prisoner, the Patrick Troughton era stands up to viewing today in a way that The Prisoner doesn't. Go watch some of the best stories from that era. Tomb of the Cybermen or The War Games. Challenging, interesting, well-told stories that make comments about the human condition without adopting sledgehammer tactics. If you want trippy, surreal story-telling you can watch The Mind Robber. Even at its worst - The Dominators and The Krotons, this era of Doctor Who at least has committed actors and clear, if slightly plodding, stories. Whereas the worst of The Prisoner - Once Upon A Time- consists of two would-be thespians shrieking at each other and trying to hide the fact that there is no script. Doctor Who at its worst in this era was pedestrian. The Prisoner at its nadir was just plain shit.
And let's see how The Prisoner matches up to another cult classic from that era that is also seen as ground-breaking and challenging. Let's take Year of the Sex Olympics. Just as The Prisoner predicted such things as 24/7 surveillance of people, so Nigel Kneale's classic predicted the phenomenon of Reality TV. Whilst Kneale's work is far from flawless, it does treat its audience with respect and not only answers the questions it poses, but it also shows the consequences of the actions taken within the film. By contrast, The Prisoner simply poses a load of questions and then fails to answer them. The Prisoner is a little like Agatha Christie giving up on a mystery novel 20 pages before the end, and instead sticking in a song and a bit of a runaround to wrap things up.
My disdain for The Prisoner has nothing, nothing to do with my age or not being there at the time when it was first broadcast. It is down to the way the show ended up - a mindless farce, and ego trip for its star. The Prisoner doesn't stand up to other cult classics that went before or that came after. Partly because of the central performance, but mainly because the last few episodes were below par, and the last two episodes were simply dreadful.
TNL
TNL
I understand that when Patrick McGoohan discussed the series with Lew Grade the standard series was 26 episodes, which is what Grade wanted to make it saleable in the States, while McGoohan wanted fewer episodes. The final total of 17 was padded out beyond McGoohan's original idea of about 7 or 8. I recall reading a quote from McGoohan where he listed the episodes he considered worthwhile and said 'you can throw the rest away'. Production stopped at 17 allegedly because of cost - at some £100,000 in 1967 pounds per episode it was the most expensive TV produced at the time (add a zero and then some to get it into our debased currency).
Your critique is an intellectual analysis of programming which we ab initio consumers lapped up with the voracity of the starving. The Prisoner was first shown in black and white - colour did not come to ITV until 1969. I watched the first episode of Dr Who when it was first broadcast. I watched the Daleks from behind the sofa. Did you? I was barely 17 when The Prisoner was first broadcast. Your analysis of all the programmes is distanced by time and age. You were almost twice my age when you first saw The Prisoner. You saw it in colour. You had your honed critical faculties switched on. You read the book. I did none of these - I was an avid and relatively uncritical consumer of offerings from the box in the corner of the room. In my universe The Prisoner was and still is the best TV series ever produced, simply because I lived through it and it gripped my imagination.
As for insulting - for that to occur there have to be two parties, the insultor and the insultee. If the party of the first part doesn't exist, then the party of the second part becomes an imaginary insultee and cannot be satisfied. 'You had to be there' was a frequent quip uttered by an acquaintance from many years ago and the source of much amusement at the time. And it is also true.
David
David,
The fact that McGoohan had to produce more episodes than he intended should not make a massive difference to the quality of the programme. The history of television is literally littered with examples of programmes that ran for far longer than was intended. The production teams tend to get around that by employing writers and producers with new ideas to expand and develop the series. That is what McGoohan should have done. Rather than turning the series into a massage for his ego.
Of course I didn't watch the first episode of Doctor Who when it was first broadcast! What an idiotic thing to say given you know how old I am! I did watch Doctor Who as a kid, and thought it was marvellous. Now, looking back on it, the era I watched as a child - starring Colin Baker - was not the best era of Doctor Who. And rather than looking at it with rose-tinted spectacles, I accept it for what it is.
Whereas your argument seems to be that The Prisoner is good because you happened to see it when you were young with limited critical faculties is arrant, arrogant nonsense. The Prisoner is not good, in relative or absolute terms, and if you got a grip and instead looked at the programme objectively, you would see that my criticisms are valid.
And, to slam the final nail into your argument's coffins, there's the statement from McGoohan that you cite - that one could bin some of the episodes of The Prisoner. So the best thing on TV for you both then and now is a series that the star, writer and producer of the programme would bin whole episodes of. Illustrates your mindless hero worship of this programme perfectly.
Oh, and in your little "insult equation" you're the insultor and I'm the insultee. I would have thought that would be obvious. You may not have intended an insult, but you were insulting and patronising. And an insult can be taken, even if none where intended. This is how people can be racist, sexist and ageist without realising it. I might, for example, call you a moron. I might mean it as purely a factual statement, meant to describe you. However, it would become an insult if you took it to mean that I was devaluing you and/or what you say, See how this works?
TNL
TNL said:-
"At the same time that The Prisoner was broadcast, Doctor Who was going through a very strong era with Patrick Troughton as the star. Despite being in black and white, and despite having a smaller budget than most episodes of The Prisoner, the Patrick Troughton era stands up to viewing today in a way that The Prisoner doesn't. Go watch some of the best stories from that era. Tomb of the Cybermen or The War Games. Challenging, interesting, well-told stories that make comments about the human condition without adopting sledgehammer tactics."
Tomb of the Cybermen is shockingly inept. I really can't see how anyone could find it “challenging, interesting” or “well-told.” As for “The War Games,” its central premise is ludicrous, it's at least six episodes too long, and the entire shambolic enterprise is finally wrapped up with a deus ex machina ending that's so abysmally contrived, even Russell T. Davies would strain to do worse. Indeed, the entire era appears to have been thrown together with such indifference it borders on disdain, so it's no surprise at all that Troughton was so desperate to leave, or that the BBC had burnt two thirds of the series by 1974.
As for the Troughton era making “comments about the human condition,” what does this even mean? The only comments this era appeared to be making were, a) “don't trust anyone who is black, or has a funny accent,” b) “the best way to resolve a dispute is by killing the other party,” and finally, c) “if you fancy the Doctor's assistant, then just squeeze her boobs and stick your hand up her skirt. Don't worry about the cameras.”
Attack The Prisoner all you want, but don't use the Troughton era as a stick to beat it with. That's like slapping a rhinoceros with a wet sock.
Anonymong,
You offer no evidence for what you assert - it is just pure opinion making it very difficult to respond to other than to say "you're wrong" and "have you actually seen what you're criticising?"
As for the human condition, you can probably work it out for yourself, but just in case you can't, it is about what fundamentally makes us human. Not complicated really.
TNL
I have recently watched the whole of the Patrick Troughton era (where an episode or story was missing, I made do with the telesnap reconstructions), and I have to say that the underlying themes of the series appear to involve a rather unhealthy preoccupation with male impotence, syphilis, pubic lice, the army being infiltrated by homosexuals, gigantic dildos, the female orgasm, and finally, the inability of the British male to sexually satisfy emotionally cold, over educated women, whose vaginas have been blown-out by sadomasochistic bi-sexual black leather/rubber fetishists.
Here are just a few examples:
“The Macra Terror” - A holiday camp is suddenly struck down by an infestation of crabs.
“The Web of Fear” - The British army is attacked by an army of Gay Bears, who want to advance up their tunnels and spray them with a sticky white substance.
“The Invasion” - Zoe and Isabel have their vaginas blown-out by Packer and his army of sadomasochistic bi-sexual leather men. Can these girls ever be sexually satisfied again? UNIT offer help, but then turn out to be gay, with Zoe, Isabel and Jamie all being taken up the sewer by Corporal Benton. Next it's the regular army's turn, but even with their multiple rockets, they only get the job half done, finally it take a massive bang with a giant red dildo, imported all the way from Russia, to get these girls off.
“The Seeds of Death” - The Doctor and Jamie take Zoe to see Professor Eldred's collection of rockets. However, none of them are big enough for Zoe, and as for Professor Eldred himself, he's impotent. Then the cold and over educated Miss Kelly turns up. She has spotted a giant dildo in Professor Eldred's back garden, and she wants to borrow it...
Then again, I suppose, it was the Sixties.
Think you might need to get out more...
Doctor Who is far too clean these days. Back in the 60s and 70s we had girls dressing as boys (The Crusade, The Abominable Snowmen, The Space Pirates, The War Games, Colony in Space, Carnival of Monsters, Frontier in Space, Planet of the Daleks, The Time Warrior, Invasion of the Dinosaurs, The Monster of Peladon, Planet of the Spiders, The Brain of Morbius, The Horns of Nimon), men dressed as women (The Underwater Menace, everything that Jamie appeared in, The Green Death, Terror of the Zygons), and aliens dressed in rubber (The Keys of Marinus,The Wheel in Space, The Invasion, The Seeds of Death, The War Games, Curse of Peladon, The Claws of Axos, The Monster of Peladon, Revenge of the Cybermen, The Seeds of Doom). Now it's all about married couples and gay best friends. If Doctor Who is ever to achieve the massive viewing figures of yesteryear, then it needs to get back in touch with its kinky side.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home