PopSyndicate.com

Pop Syndicate begins its 3 night series of reviews of AMC’s The Prisoner with a discussion between between an old fan of the show and with someone who is relatively new to the show.

On Sunday, November 15th, AMC will begin its The Prisoner, a remake of the cult favorite 1967 British show starring Patrick McGoohan.  In this new, updated version, Jim Caviezel and Ian McKellan about a man who’s abducted and sent to live in the Village against his will.

As with any remake, they hope to capture the imagination of both old and new fans.  This week at Pop Syndicate, Scott Cederlund and David Rasmussen will be tag teaming the show.  David Rasmussen is a fan of the old show, marvelling with the adventures of PatrickMcGoohan’s No. 6.  Scott Cederlund, while familiar with the original Prisoner is coming to AMC’s remake with only a passing knowledge of the BBC’s original show. 

To kick off their series of reviews, David and Scott chatted a bit about their past with The Prisoner and what they hope this new version will have.

David: OK well since it’s the new Prisoner let’s start off with how much of the info you gleaned off of AMC? I went over read the info, watched all the bumper teasers and so forth and watch them build the Village. You?

Scott: I’ve been looking a bit at AMC’s site. I haven’t checked out many of the videos except for a 10 minute trailer that they put up on iTunes a week or two ago. It’s a typical trailer, showing a lot of cool stuff and Jim Caviezel walking around looking confused. They tried in the trailer to give you an impression of what the Village is without giving too much away. If nothing else, it showed the giant balloons trying to catch people which is always fun.

David: Rovers. They’re called Rovers.  That may be a tad bad. Why did I absorb more info and I’m most likely against the show?

Scott: Well you’re more into the original series. Let’s talk about that a bit. I’ve only ever really seen one or two episodes of the original. I’ve seen the very first episode a couple of times but, for various reasons, haven’t made it much beyond that. When did you first see them and what is it you like about them?

David: The first time I really saw The Prisoner was during it’s run on PBS (when they had the series for a time). In fact when I learned about it being on PBS I went out of my way to watch it because I was fascinated with it from what I heard from word of mouth before I first set eyes on it. I was not the slightest disappointed with the end result once I watched the series for it’s 17 week run, week after week tuning in on the same night to watch the next episode right up to the end.

The show is very stylish and smart, intelligent drama. Patrick McGoohan does a perfect job as Number Six (the skillful role he plays as the defiant No. 6 is quite riveting to watch. The series just seems to really give him a workout as an actor and he does a splendid job in it as both actor and co-writer (think he directed the series too). A true cult classic that is not often appreciated enough as it should be for it’s content and staying power past 40 years.
(not the whole series, think he directed a few episodes…)

Scott: I don’t know how but I don’t know if I had ever heard of The Prisoner before DC Comics did a 3 issue miniseries about it in the late 1980s. It was in the days after The Dark Knight Returns when everything was getting the big prestige presentation. If I’m remembering correctly, the series was actually set up as a sequel to the television show, where No. 6 was now in charge of the village as there was a new prisoner plopped down in the middle of it. It was set years after the television show so the Village was old and in disarray. It was like walking through an amusement park that had been closed for a number of years.

The mini series was just o.k. There are reasons it’s not talked about in the same breath as Watchmen or Dark Knight.

David: Yes. It featured a female Number 6 caught between the old Patrick McGoohan Number 6 and one of the old Number 2’s if I remember right… something like that. I only read the first issue then I checked out of the series right after. Didn’t see anything past that though I guess I can find it on Barnes and Noble or Amazon or Bookmooch if I look hard enough.

Anyway if I remember the series right it had no punch at all. Toothless in presentation and dialogue. Might have been better with Issue Two but I didn’t wait around to find out (so I can see why it’s not as revered as the greater series of the time).

Scott: That’s it. The premise seemed interesting but I can’t remember too much about it other than the Village and lots of old fashioned bicycles.

After that, it kind of faded from my mind until the BBC started to put them out on DVD.

David: The Bicycle was the symbol of the Village (seen throughout and the ending credits and now only seen as vague symbols of the series nobody remembers anymore).

For instance in “Pretty Guardian Sailor Moon” Episode 9 the Village Bicycle is seen as a set piece in the Tsukino household during one scene (set in a prominent position in the camera shot) as Usagi and her mom watch the TV.

Scott: It was that kind of symbolism that that stuck with me even if I didn’t remember what it was symbolizing. Even now, when I think of The Prisoner, I remember the appearance of it; The Village and the little compartmentalized houses,the human chessboard, No 6’s car, the bicycles and the Rovers. And No. 2’s chair. Visually, those are all very cool things to me but I’ve never gotten into the story behind them.

David: The village had it’s own unique personality and style, unlike the lifeless gated community setting of the new Village (why build one of these, when you can just find a failed housing development to take over and shoot in? Lifeless dull villages like this already exist in real life and don’t need to be built!

On the cover of Men in Black 2 of course you see Tommy Lee Jones and Will Smith sitting in what looks like Number 2’s stylish chair from The Prisoner. Of course it seems to me this make sense since they’re both (2) sitting in Number 2’s chair and this is the second (2) movie of the series… maybe I’m over thinking it but it all makes sense once I thought about it.

Speaking of which what is your first impression of the new Village?

Scott: The new village looks more normal than I would have expected. When I think of the original Village, it seems small and self-contained to me. It was an artificial environment that didn’t try to be anything but that. It was a prison and still maintained some aspects of that. The new Village looks too normal to me. It looks like it’s trying to be a small town and have a relatively normal environment. From the clips I’ve seen, the new Village doesn’t feel as alien or foreign as the original feels to me.

The new Village feels like something out of The Truman Show.

David: Then that’s the first sadness of the new Prisoner. It wants to be “normal”... come on, normal is what you get when you walk out the front door. The Village of 40 years ago was a “unique” persona, almost a character unto itself with it’s quirky construct and presentation. To dumb it down now and present it as “normal” is an insult the the original series. Also a lack of imagination if they must bend to the in crowd thing of normalizing everything that American entertainment is so obsessed with of late. Taking the fantastic and making it into the infectiously mundane and ordinary. An act that should be banned if I had my way.

Scott: In one of the videos on AMC.com called The Prisoner: False Prison, it looks like a resort. In the original first episode, there’s nothing welcoming or warm about The Village. You can obviously tell its designed to disguise something else… something sinister. Outwardly, there was nothing dangerous about it but it was obviously a construct with its own flourishes and eccentricities.

It looks like it could still have some kind of character but it doesn’t look like it’s dangerous anymore. That is until you get to the desert outside of the Village.

David: But did they have to make the Village so damn dull to look at in order to pass a sense of something sinister that was portrayed just fine in the original Village the first time (while giving Number Six a tour) the Rover popped out (in the middle of the Village) and chased down the non conforming villager, upon whichMcGoohan questioned Number Two what the heck that was (or something like that) only to be told “That would be telling.” (Come on, don’t overplay the obvious, we know the Village is not what it seems you don’t need to be that way with us about it).

The desert is another thing altogether. What the hell was up with the Desert anyway! What, are they going to spend whole sections of the show wandering the desert?!? What is this, Mad Max??

Scott: It’s the way that remakes use their original elements that go a long way toward whether they succeed or fail. Battlestar Galactica made great use of the ships and Cyclons, altering them to the point where they’re recognizable but unique. If I have one quibble with what I’ve seen of the new The Prisoner so far, it’s that it’s got a far way to go to establish thealieness of the original. But I wonder how much you can do when you have Magneto from the X-Men films and Christ from The Passion as your new No. 2 and No. 6.

David: Speaking of the Desert quickly before going to your next point I do remember one possible disappointment… the female character (the love interest) in the desert facing before her (foreground) glass doors… you know what? If this whole village in the end turns out to be in a large domeala Big O I’m so going to give this whole series a Zero out of Five for the most retarded revelation in all of television history! (God dammit!)

Scott: That’s what also makes me think of The Truman Show, a sealed and controlled environment with a magic control booth hidden in the moon.

David:Now onto your last point…

Battlestar Galactica doesn’t count because at least Battlestar Galactica didn’t try to systematically bore it’s audience to death with it’s visual presentation (ala the Village). Even though the new Galactica for my taste was too… wow… it was just too much but I know why it was so popular. Just was more of a Dr. Who fan than aBG fan so I watched that more than BG on Sci-Fi.

Scott: That’s my problem with the new V. I know the story and this looks like a characterless retelling of it.

David: Lots of the new reboots past Galactica seem to lack any of the vibrancy of Galactica’s reboot. They want to ride Galactica’s coattails and be the next Galactica in terms of fan popularity, sure, but they’re just not doing it right it seems.

Let’s talk about the new Number 2 and 6… what you think of them? Think they’ll work out? And what about the supposed “romance” in the story? What you think of the “love story” angle that definitely wasn’t in the first one (past incidental episodic plot devices)?

Scott: I like both Ian McKellan and Jim Caviezel but, in my mind right now, they both carry a lot of baggage with them. Like I said, it’s Magneto vs. Christ, in a battle to the end. Either that or it’sGandalf versus Dennis Quaid’s son from Frequency. (What else has Caviezel been in?)

Caviezel doesn’t carry the weight or gravitas that Patrick McGoohan did.

David: I don’t know. This is the first time I even heard of Caviezel actually though now that you bring up Passion I know kinda remember him. But I didn’t think that he would be able to live up toMcGoohan’s tour de force performance… but realistically if we want him to be great as Number Six he has to be his own man and deliver a performance worthy of his talents, and not try to live up to be likeMcGoohan (which would be a losing battle if my opinion).

The minute he tries to be McGoohan he becomes a pale imitation, and loses credibility as Number Six.

McKellan worries me though. Aren’t we supposed to have rotating Number Twos throughout the run? Why a single nemesis in McKellan?

So, what, is this a new thing? A single nemesis in McKellan instead of C’s character fighting the role of Number Two and it’s oppression against him (no matter who is Number Two at the time)?

Scott: I forgot about the ever-changing No. 2. It looks like here they’re trying to give him some kind of story with a wife and son.

David: Too much back story to go through. The original at least you were given an enigma played masterfully by McGoohan and had to speculate about what kind of man he was and why he left the Agency (Her Majesty’s Secret Service perhaps?) as he did. This one it seems they’re trying to fill in the blanks, almost too forcefully maybe… but that makes no sense because if he has (or HAD a wife I take it) then where does this romance with the other “Prisoner” come into play?

So does that mean Number Six is, in fact 006?

Scott:  So how much room does this re-imagination of The Prisoner have? On one hand, the Village isn’t the same so that’s a bad thing but on the other,Caviezel has to be his own man and can’t be the old No. 2. As a fan of the old Prisoner series, what does this one have to do to succeed? What chance does it have?

David: Too much room? Enough to drive over a cliff room? Who can say until we review it. For one thing the whole thing is a paradox. It supposedly wants to be it’s own Prisoner (with it’s own village and it’s own Number Six… but then again it’s still trying to ride on theoriginal’s coattails by having the Village, Number Two and Six and their battle of wills, even the episode titles are lifts of original episode names from the first series! Past episode 1 & 6 “Arrival” and “Checkmate” we haveEp2 “Harmony” (Living in Harmony - Ep14), “Anvil” (ep.10 Hammer into Anvil), Darling (ep. 13 Do Not Forsake Me Oh My Darling) and Ep. 5 Schizoid (which is, oddly enough, Ep. 5 The Schizoid Man). Then there’s little quirks like the change of vehicles and stuff but then also I saw one character wearing a classic Prisoner dress suit (the black one from the original) and then there’s the Rovers as well. So, does this series want to be a new Prisoner for the 21st Century or appeal to the old fans of the original 60’s version? Make up your mind series!

David: As for what one has to do to succeed? How about not suck? That’s be nice. But past that…

Hmm… first off the series can be it’s own series just fine, but how about be a GOOD series? From the moment I tune into the start of Episode 1 to the end of Episode 6 I should be riveted to the TV watching every moment! Being your own village is fine but be interesting too! Don’t make me regret for a minute I’m watching aretread of The Prisoner.

The cast should work with their own strengths and not try to be pale imitations of their counterparts from the 60’s series. That would be folly if they tried that. Also whileI’m not expecting Ultraman Mebius level fan service I would like tributes to the original series along with my new Prisoner.

Overall the first point is the most important. Everything (from music scoring to casting to acting to storytelling to how it’s all put together) shouldcaptivate , and make me want to watch from beginning of opening credits to end of final episode. If I lose interest in the show during my watching then to me it is nothing less than Epic Fail.

What about you? What do you expect from this show? Any high expectations for it on your end?

Scott: I’ve got high expectations for it just because I want it to be good. Like you, I want to be riveted from the opening shot until the end of the 6th episode. Unlike a lot of remakes, I’ve got nothing to compare this to but the expectations are still high. I want to see No. 2 and No. 6 sparring. I want to see the Rovers and the bicycles. I want to see that human chess game. My fear is that they won’t go far enough with the series. From what I know of the original and where I’ve seen it referenced (from Grant Morrison’s TheInvisibles to an episode of The Simpsons,) I want it to mess with my mind. I want it to leave me questioning what I just saw.

David: BTW do you know what the musical scoring for it sounds like yet? I don’t think I heard peep one of the music for this show yet.

Scott: My two biggest fears are that this is just a 6 hour pilot for an eventual regular series. That wouldn’t be bad but I want a story in what I watch next week. My other fear is that this will be too neat and clean. That they’ll have a tidy ending by the end of the sixth episode and we’ll know all of the secrets of The Village. I don’t want to know everything. Give me a story but leave parts of it to my imagination.

David: The original Prisoner was also a possible gateway for an ongoing series (where McGoohan’s character would leave the village on missions across the world with a sense of freedom, yet ultimately still being a “prisoner” to the village… but that of course never came to be. Also there were more episodes that were never made so the series might have been 20+ episodes instead of 17. But as for this being a regular series… again short of them trying to follow the original premise I laid out above from the first series I don’t see how it can become a regular series.

Scott: Looking at IMDB, I’m not familiar with anyone working on the music.

David: As for whether or not the ending will be neat and tidy? Considering we never really found out about the Village (until interviews were done years later and we still never got the full answer) I doubt they’re going to be as rude to do that to us now.That would be too unsporting of them I take it… too stupid too. Anyway I’d like to think AMC is happy enough with Mad Men to want to force us to watch The Prisoner The Ongoing Series.

Scott: They could have this planned that there could be a series and I have no problem with that. I just don’t want this to end on the note where there has to be a series for us to get a complete story.

David: That’s bad. The music scoring of The Prisoner was as distinct a persona of the series as the Village itself (especially the trademark opening musical score).

Ok. So in closing can you give us a hint as to how you might score the first night’s episodes out? Any preconceived notions as to your review when you watch the first two episodes?

Scott: I’m trying not to read too many reviews which are already starting to pop up but two television critics I like both sum up their feelings as “too weird.” Honestly, that’s what I want. I want weirdness. I want not to know what’s going on but to be still thrilled by it. Seeing it reviewed as “too weird” actually has me even a bit more excited about it.

I’m all for weirdness. That’s never turned me away from anything as long as it embraces it.  You?

David: Well, at least I know I can now review in peace since you will probably fall into the light side and me the dark side. As for me I don’t mind weirdness as long as it’s good weirdness (I watchedKuuga and 555 and Hibiki so I’m getting used to weirdness). Right now though I’d rather not think how I’d score… I might prejudice myself.

Be sure to stop by Pop Syndicate all this week for our reviews of AMC’s The Prisoner.

0