Toward a Moral Life

One of my strongest TV memories from childhood was a British drama called The Prisoner.

Star and creator Patrick McGoohan portrayed a British intelligence agent who suddenly resigns from his post, and is then kidnapped and taken to a lovely Mediterranean-style resort, from which he cannot escape until he tells the powers-that-be why he resigned.

The 17 episodes were shown over the summer of 1968, and it immediately grabbed my attention. Like much British television of the era, it contained such richness of detail and nuance that viewers had to pay attention to most everything they saw and heard in order to follow the story–which of course meant that American viewers did not care for it.

I loved it. I waited eagerly for and watched every episode in that first summer (save “Living in Harmony”, which wasn’t shown in the U.S. that year due to its anti-war overtones).

Here’s the opening sequence, which gives a flavor of the show’s tone and its obvious ’60s sensibilities:

This year, cable station AMC hosted a six-episode relaunch of The Prisoner. My family and I eagerly anticipated its arrival.

I watched episodes 1, 2, and part of 3 before I gave up.

(No spoilers) What I liked best about the new series:

1. The location shooting was superbly chosen. The original Village, located in Portmeirion, Penrhyndeudraeth, North Wales, lent a sense of unreality to a story that used that sense superbly. The remake was shot in Namibia’s Swakopmund, a tropical resort in Namibia. The Mediterranean flavor of the first series, and the German colonial look of the second, make for very striking scenic shots and lent a visceral sense of unreality.

What did I not like?

1. The remake is sloooooooow. Not “they’re not revealing plot details quickly” slow, but acting and camera pace slow. There are just so many shots of desert dunes you care to see before you want something that gets a whole lot closer to “interesting”. There were attempts to pad out 30 minutes of content into an hour-long show–a common problem in screenwriting these days.

2. Jim Caviezel is no Sir Ian McKellan. He’s no Patrick McGoohan. He’s not even William Shatner. His acting is uninspired, his vocal work flat, and he looks a WHOLE lot better than he sounds (a common problem with actors in film and TV these days).

3. There was a brief moment in episode 2 where we got some interesting, unexplained plot details that made me think, “Hey. Maybe this might be good after all.” Alas, hopes were dashed. The original The Prisoner revealed layers upon layers of plot complexity in the first episode, and rarely let up as the series progressed; the remake didn’t even come close. Obfuscation for the sake of obfuscation leads nowhere in story telling. Or in film and TV.

4. Both series takes a critical eye toward individualism vs. collectivism. The first series succeeded entertainingly; the second series failed miserably, at least as far as episodes 1-3 are concerned. McKellen and Caviezel play cat-and-mouse games, but they played the same note over and over. Boring.

Go out and get the remastered originals (now available in the U.S. and Europe) and enjoy 17 strong doses of paranoia, intelligent writing, and sublime acting. Don’t give AMC any more rating points.