From: briano@microsoft.com (Brian Overland)
Subject: Re: Fall Out
Date: 28 Jan 93 21:17:27 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.

Warning. SPOILER on "Hammer into Anvil," "Change of Mind."
















 

In article <6m32XB6w165w@noncomf.tdkcs.waterloo.on.ca> pmarlowe@noncomf.tdkcs.waterloo.on.ca wrote:

> 4. RE: the butler
> 
>  Good question. The butler seems to be some kind of symbol of power -- 
> until "Once Upon A Time" (the second-last episode), he served the various 
> No. 2's, until, after No. 6's psychological victory. That was the point 
> of No. 6's change in status, from angry noncomformist to active agent.

Marlow is right, but I would add this. Note that EVEN BEFORE "Once Upon A
Time," there are hints that the butler's association with #2 is weakening.
Most obviously, in "Hammer Into Anvil." Note that in one of the last scenes,
#2 screams at the Butler, "you're in this conspiracy, too! You're in with
#6!" or words to that effect. He screams this at the Butler even though the
Butler has done absolutely NOTHING. #2 has simply grown so paranoid he
suspects ANYONE. In the next scene we see the Butler sadly packing his
bags and leaving. He no longer follows #2...the fact that #2 has instigated
the separation from the Butler doesn't not change the basic fact. The point
remains the Butler cannot and will not follow #2 any longer.

A much much more subtle hint is in "Change of Mind," another episode that 
occurs quite late in the series. In the final scene, when #2 is being chased by
the Villagers, the Butler walks off ALONE. I may be reading too much into
this, but if he continued to work for the old #2, I think the Butler would
have sneaked back into #2's house or even tried to catch up with his Master.
But I think the implication is that #2 is exposed in all his shame, so now
the Butler knows this and will no longer follow that #2, any more than the
rest of the Village will. As I said, it is a subtle suggestion.

But remember that, even as a kind of symbol of power, the Butler is really just
the Common Man. He follows whoever is obviously in power (first, #2, later #6)
because that is all he can do. Notice he never really commits any act of
violence against #6 or even really conspires against #6. He just does his daily
chores. #6 seems to despise the Butler throughout much of the series, simply
because the Butler is yet another reminder of the fact #2 is in charge.


SPOILER: "FallOut"



















Marlow has said that #1 is just the "dark side" of #6. After going back and
reading some interviews, I am reminded that this is in fact the "correct"
view in some sense, for McGoohan has stated it. Of course, though McGoohan
said it, I don't think he ever reconciled it with the rest of the series--at
least certainly not so that it works on a LITERAL level, as Marlow observed.

But what does it even mean to say that #1 is the dark side of #6? What sense
does this make on any level? I think what it can only boil down to is this:
it must mean that mankind (as represented by #6) traps itself...mankind, as
a whole, is the only force responsible for giving up its own freedom, by
creating Villages. After all, #6 sees HIMSELF behind the mask, not God or
destiny, or some force outside himself imposing slavery upon him.

I would extrapolate on that interpretation, then, by saying that this at least
implies the potential for mankind to stop enslaving itself and let people live
freely. After all, this DID happen, if only for a brief moment, in "Change of
Mind." At the same time, this potential for freedom may be extremely latent, and
the prospects for lasting freedom relatively small.

(Yet I still think that with all the little victories #6 achieves, "The Prisoner"
is ultimately much more optimistic than, say, "1984," regardless of McG's intent.)

The monkey/ape behind the mask is meaningful, I think, particularly in light of
McGoohan's admission that he was in fact thinking of Darwinian implications. It
seems reasonable to suggest, as I have heard some people do in general conversation,
that our own animalistic heritage gets in the way of our functioning as truly
free, rational beings. The Village, after all, is something of a zoo. They think
they can condition and train you just like they can an animal. As the series
progresses, we see even if you set yourself up in charge (as #2), you're ultimately
a caged animal too. And every one is ultimately at the mercy of our darker,
animalistic instincts (that is to say, #1, on a symbolic level). Only rarely does
some one rise above this conditioning, and then maybe, as McGoohan has suggested,
it is unclear whether he can permanently escape it. "The Prisoner," if anything,
is ambiguous at the very end.