If the Sun and Moon should doubt,
They'd immediately go out.
--William Blake


Having read Gallagher's own words on his The Prisoner, I would say DITTO to everything the wonderfully informative, insightful, and always on-the-mark Gandalfs_Beard has written.

I will not add much more right now, since I want to think over things Gallagher said before I comment more.

First off, I was definitely intrigued by his admission of the inspiration from Jung, since I had pointed out Jung twice in my posts. (The levels of meaning and interpretation in The Prisoner and "individuation," which involves the integration of what Jung called the "shadow"--and there's a whole relevance here to the Prisoner himself. Again, for now, I will resist commenting on how Gallagher's own unconscious shadow got into the series.) I have thus far avoided interjecting my favorite take on the levels of meaning in the original The Prisoner series, but since (curiously enough) Gallagher has told us that he had Jung's theories in mind, I will briefly give it now. In his quest to understand and escape from The Village, No. 6 takes a journey of self-discovery or "individuation," or what Jungian scholar Joseph Campbell calls "the Hero's journey" (which includes Plato's Myth of the Cave, Jason and the Argonauts, The Odyssey, the Buddha and Christ myths; even stories like Star Wars, etc, are similar accounts of phases in the journey of a person to self-knowledge, enlightenment, or victory over death). I will stop here for now on this, but it would be interesting to have a discussion thread on these levels of interpretation, comparing the original series with its remake.

Secondly, about Gallagher's comments on "doubt" and "evil." He seems to believe that McGoohan's No. 2 and No. 6 are equal-and -opposite personality types of the authoritarian character--the Mr. Right syndrome. McGoohan's portrayal is not, to use the most extreme example, two mutually exclusive ideologics pairing off against each other, like Hitler and Stalin, both equally Mr. Right. This is a major misunderstanding of the The Prisoner.

Neither are their "doubts" equal and opposite. If we are considering (and I don't know if Gallagher is) the philosophical (or theological) interplay of "uncertainty" and "doubt," then the Prisoner's archetype (to use a Jungian term) is fighting for the freedom of (creative) "doubt" against authoritarian "certainty." (I will have more to say about this subject of the authoritarian personality later, as I have already cited Wilhelm Reich's work. Also, I have already alluded to what happens when this "certainty" gets institutionalized into a religious dogma.) Gallagher needs to be much more discriminating in categories of "doubt."

Gallaher's sophistry here is amazing: what if No.6 begins to "doubt" the existence of another place, another world that is the real one, compared to which the one you find yourself in is a place of illusion. Does Gallagher want to tell us that the allegory of Plato's Cave is from a man who should have doubted? Indeed, prophets, seers, and visionaries of the human race have always had no "doubt" in their minds that such a place exists. (And what if they got to this fantastic (gnostic) notion by beginning to "doubt" the reality claims of this socio-political world?) And--if I can belabor the obvious--was Jesus plainly "wrong" about that other world called (metaphorically) "the Kingdom of Heaven"? Should he have "doubted" more? (See opening quote.)

Now about No 2's dilemma, as laid out by Gallagher. Let's remember the image of the master interrogator and torturer (e.g. "The Grand Inquisitor") when we hear (as we have heard about in Nazi Germany in the 30s, or Central America in the 80s, or renditions in post-2001 America). Surviving victims have reported how these types would carry out the most horrendous acts upon another human being and then go home to their wives and kids--the perfect family man. Does Gallagher's thesis take this into account when speaking of No. 2?

Since I've given a real-life example here, let me continue with a real-life example of Gallagher's No. 2: Dick Cheney, our recent No. 2 man in The Village, who also "honestly believes what he’s doing is helping these people though there’s an undercurrent of nihilism and darkness." Cheney is also a family man (complicated in his political role by a lesbian daughter). But he is evil nonetheless, and he has no "doubt" that mass murder on a global scale and state sanctioned torture in the defense of a thoroughly twisted notion of state security and American hegemony is just and right--and for our own good!

Finally, I'm going to take a lesson from Gallagher's scenario of "doubt." I seriously DOUBT that Gallagher has a clue to what the original The Prisoner was trying to get across. If he actually does know, then I leave it to my fellow prisoners to speculate what his real motives for the complete inversion of the end of the original series. And, if this "doubt" of Gallagher's intentions proves true, then I submit that this in itself is enough evidence, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that not enough of us of that generation got McGoohan's message and heeded his dire warnings. It is evidence enough (along with the 100% favorable customer reviews on the iTunes sale of the new series), in other words, that the Village overlords have used The Prisoner for their own purposes.

My analysis (for what it's worth): We are now living in THE (global) VILLAGE, and our corporate entertainment, when its not distracting us to death (the fascism of endless distraction), is being used to enforce upon our passive prisoner-consciousness that . . . well, we should all happily capitulate and go to work for the Man (No. 1), since we in the 60s were plainly wrong ("what if he is wrong") in our idealistic but misguided rebellion.

So let me end with a two-fold question: If you have been convinced that there is no way out, except to join the puppet masters who run The Village, or if you don't doubt that you actually are a prisoner in The Village, thinking you are not in a prison, then . . . will you ever feel the need to escape?

I have, ever since first seeing Caviezel in a movie, been reminded of a modern-day Anthony Perkins--perfect for the Psycho role because he seemed a bit creepily twisted anyway. So I thought this cartoon apropos.

"I am squirming with delight to meet such an intellectual colossus"
—'Brother' Theodore Gottlieb

I have to bow out of this & throw in the towel. You guys see fascist co-opt lurking everywhere that I just see simple mediocrity.

In interviews, Bill Gallagher has lots of ideas, many of which are very good. In the practice of storytelling, however, he not only fails to compellingly convey a single one of his own ideas but writes something which bears only superficial resemblance to its source material. Mud with very expensive production.

He even resorts to the oldest cop-out in narrative history: "it was all just a dream." (A consensual, virtual-reality, collective-unconscious dream, but a dream nevertheless.) This is a betrayal of not only the Plato's Cave motif but the powerful hermeticism of the original and Gallagher's own credibility as a screenwriter.

Really, guys..? The AMC Prisoner remake, as propaganda, is going to corrupt young minds turning them away from the original's meditation on freedom?!? Please.

People have returned to McGoohan's Prisoner for 4 decades and will continue to. It is both beloved in popular culture and highly regarded in academia.

Gallagher's will be forgotten within months: it will be a dusty, remaindered blu-ray set and a Wikipedia footnote henceforth.


PS: Gandalf's Beard: Starship Troopers. Now *there's* enduring ideological art. Doogie Howser in an SS uniform!? I don't think Heinlein would've liked it at *any* point in his career. Alexandro Jodorowsky (who's collaboration with McGoohan on the 70s Dune project sadly never came to be,) called Starship Troopers he only thing hollywood has done right in decades.

PPS: Cyrano, get back in your Orgone box, honkey.

As I had written in post 1150, I wanted to reflect more on Gallagher's statements. Now that I have read them over a few times, I can't agree with the post that chalks it all up to his "mediocrity," though that may be part of it. (I will ignore the rest of Rodneyoscope's throwing down the gauntlet to myself (the "honkey," as he calls me) and Gandalfs_Beard, as I think we've already more than sufficiently met the challenge; I guess some people don't know when they have already been bested and are gluttons for punishment.)

For the present, I simply want to comment on what I find the most egregious passage out of the interview (thanks Tommcfearsom for posting this!) and focus on it as the most telling example of Gallagher's twisted, and completely inverted take on The Prisoner.

Gallagher:
...I thought what could be the most dramatic thing is that
Number Six inherits The Village and takes on the mantle of [Two];
everything he’s fought against, he now becomes. He says, we could do it
differently. I found it to be such a difficult and painful place to get
to and ambiguous, even. So I set out to get there and the final episode
itself did morph and change. I had other ideas in there but that place
that we finally get to, that was something I was clear about from early
on. How we get there, I had to work on. But where we got to, I always
had a sense of."

(1) technically speaking, I fail to see how "the most dramatic thing" he could do with the plot is to have No. 6 take over No. 2's mantle and become "everything that he's fought against." (2) I fail to see that this dramatic decision was a "difficult and painful place to get to"--and "ambiguous, even"

Allow me to deconstruct this. The entire spirit of the original was that No. 6 would never "want to do it differently," but, in fact destroy The Village. (I've already mentioned the episode where McGoohan's No. 6 tries this "do it differently" when he is goaded into running for office in The Village. I would now mention the time he temporarily escaped and went looking for it in order to destroy it.)

So, no, this is definitely not "the most dramatic" way to do it, nor is there anything "ambiguous" about it! I submit, what is ambiguous about (to use a metaphor from Star Wars) going over to the dark side? Gallagher's No. 6 has opted out to join the puppet masters of The Village. If he wanted real ambiguity, he should have done something dramatically on the order of McGoohan's No. 6 when he pulls off No. 1's mask and it's his own face staring back at him! (I have mentioned the meaning of this ambiguity in a previous post.) And why he thinks it was a "difficult and painful place to get to" for him is curious. But if he really felt that way, he should be a real Prisoner fan watching this perversion of "everything [McGoohan's Prisoner] fought against" and stood for--it is truly "difficult and painful" to witness!

But Gallagher's final sentence is most revealing and gives evidence to the fact that he's doing something more than being mediocre: "I had other ideas in there but that place that we finally get to, that was something I was clear about from early on. How we get there, I had to work on. But where we got to, I always had a sense of." So Gallagher planned this all along, from the start (with no ambiguity of how he was going to end it). I only wish the interviewer had asked him exactly why he had this agenda going from the start. But I "doubt" we will ever know if it was an ideological decision to end the remake series this way.

PS: About my last post on Gallagher's supposed admiration for "doubt." It's always been curious to me that Gallagher, like the rest of those (unconscious?) apologist lackey's for the power-structure of The Village, tout the need for the powerless, who finally rebel against their tyranny, to become less certain, more "doubtful" of their (arrogant) certainty that they are doing the right thing, but (even if they pay lip service to the equal doubting of their own power) they will never have a singe "doubt" as the reality of their right to rule. And at the end of the day--no matter how much discussion they are willing to entertain about theoretical doubts as to their powerful positions--they are going to be in power and you will obey!


Be seeing you . . .

Rodneyoscopy wrote:

I have to bow out of this & throw in the towel. You guys see fascist co-opt lurking everywhere that I just see simple mediocrity.




I must say that I have to agree with Rodneyoscopy on this. Some of you out there I fear are reading far too much into Gallaghers motives.

I will agree that this interesting but ultimately forgettable ‘reimagining’ of The Prisoner lacks all the wit, style, and imagination of the original. The pace is far too rushed (though what can I expect from a six episode series?), the themes not explored in any depth(ditto), and the so-called hero of the piece a traitor to himself and all the others held prisoner in Mrs. 2s skull, not to mention a complete wet-end.

Yes, compared to the original this remake is weak but really, wasn’t that inevitable. Did anyone out there really believe that this was going to match or surpass McGoohans masterpiece?

Despite all of the above, I still managed to get some enjoyment out of Gallaghers show. I went in with abysmally low expectations, and I can say that they were surpassed. It certainly seems to be of a higher quality than 90% of the other excremental rubbish on the television anymore. I did enjoy the nods and references to the original series, but as a whole I was only able to really enjoy it when I stopped thinking of it as a “Prisoner” remake and started thinking of it as its own show. It is nothing to write home about, surely, but is it really that bad?...

But I am drifting from my intent, this is not supposed to be a review of the show. Gallagher had an impossible task, he made a respectable effort, but predictable he failed to make a series that lived up to the original. I had no doubt that this forum would light up with negative criticism; but the paranoia!? I quote below some of my fellow forum dwellers:

“So let me say it again so there's no doubt to my view of the new remake of the Prisoner--a subversion and a travesty of the entire spirit of McGoohan's Prisoner.”-CYRANO6

“That explains why the new series has a "Fascists are our Friends" angle. Hooboy, no wonder they waited until after McGoohan died to release it.”

“I don't know if that necessarily makes him an authoritarian propagandist, but consider this: Gallagher may or may not have "conspired" with others to concoct what we all agree is a travesty. But regardless, his "self" is not operating in a political vacuum. When he decided to go off half-cocked and intentionally subvert the original message (again, as he boldly states in that quote of his), he was necessarily drawing from concepts that are promulgated by Authoritarian Ideologists. That makes him an "Authoritarian Propagandist" however you slice the Cherry Cake.”-GANDALFS_BEARD

These are just three examples from this thread only.

I do not agree that the remake was a subversion of the entire spirit of the original; nor would I consider the writer an Authoritarian Propagandist. I think it is ridiculous and paranoid to think that Gallagher was endorsing the Village of the remake, or authoritarian rule of any kind, simply because 6 ends up selling out and remaining with Summakor / the Village. The fact that the fascists won within the context of this fantasy is not meant to support authoritarianism. I am baffled by this argument. Just because Gallagher depicted a situation (that in many respects seemed very similar in intent (if not in execution) to the original - at least until episode 5) in which the protagonist fails to best his malevolent (despite their self-delusions of helping mankind) oppressors, that is hardly advocating the methods or ideologies of those oppressors.

Was George Orwell endorsing the society depicted in “1984” when he penned the conclusion of his novel (which is an obvious ancestor of the original series)? Winston Smith is awakened to his condition, attempted to rebel, and failed.

What of Yevgeny Zamyatin who wrote “We” (probably the finest anti-utopian novel EVER)? Was he preaching totalitarianism when D-503, after questioning its benevolence and attempting to resist the will of The Benefactor, is surgically altered to embrace the One State once again?

My viewing of the remake was in the spirit of these and other dystopian works in which the ‘hero’ has to fail in order for the underlying philosophy of the story to be accentuated. Like “We” and “1984” and other works, the remake acts as a warning against such a society. 6, like Winston Smith and D-503, is manipulated and ultimately crushed by the Evil society in which he is held prisoner. It is warning us not only of evil of the society, but its manipulative and seductive manner of tricking us into thinking that it is not evil…that it is for the good of all.

Hell, even in the original series it is suggested that perhaps #6 doesn’t “really” escape, although he never stops fighting (unlike the new 6, who finally conforms). That, I think, is possibly the biggest weakness of the new series…6. This is not merely the result of Jim Caveziels wooden performance. The character is not the type who leads a rebellion of prisoners to freedom. His captors are far more dynamic and it comes as no surprise when 6 is duped into becoming “the new number 2” (so the 2s do still change…interesting…)

In fact, it just occurred to me while writing this that perhaps the real Prisoner referred to in the title is not 6 but 2. His characters journey throughout the series is far more interesting than that of 6. He begins the series believing whole-heartedly (if selfishly) in the ideology of the Village, and is slowly awakened to the fact that perhaps it (and by extension he) is the wrong way. In the end he manages to escape, though his is not the noble escape of McGoohans #6 but a slimy and manipulative escape plan that sacrifices others.

So, even the co-creator of this psychic dictatorship comes to realize that Fascism is NOT our friend. How can this be conformist propaganda?

One final note to consider before I escape:

Look at 6 and 313 in the final scene when the beautifully used “I Know Theres An Answer” is playing (the alternate “Hang On To Your Ego” would have been just as apt). 6 with his euphoric delusions of ‘he can make it work’ and 313 looking like a suffering imbecile. This is obviously meant to be a tragic moment; whatever nobility is in 6 has been compromised. It should be clear to any intelligent audience that 6 has made the wrong decision and that he has lost. Classic dytopian storytelling.

cyrano6 wrote:


PS: I would like to say that I do not "assume" he (patrick mcgoohan)worked from a kind of atheistic anarcho-libertarian position--I know he did.

This is a bold statement. Can you support it in any way?