Contact
Subscribe


Who Is Number One?

Nov 15, 2009
By .
Television

prisoner-number-six-patrick-mcgoohan

You are Number Six.

Who are you?

james_caviezel_prisoner

Not the new Number Two.  Nor for that matter, the new Number Six.

The producers of AMC/ITV's renewal of The Prisoner had a tall order to fill: to reimagine and remake a television show so perfect in its strange mix of whimsy, paranoia, conspiracy, and adventure that over forty years after its debut, it is still ahead not just ahead of its time, but of our time.

Even shows like Twin Peaks, Lost, and Life On Mars, the programs that most nearly approach The Prisoner as ongoing mysteries meant to keep the audience guessing, didn't quite hit the mark of Patrick McGoohan's masterpiece.  As for the producers of this "remake," well, they tried.  And on the evidence of one episode, they've failed.

Utterly.

This is a Prisoner written by committee, full of pretty people and long stretches of … futility.  Oh they've taken the cosmetics, the plot, and the ideas behind the original.  They've sounded the notes, but they're not getting the music.  Where the original show featured a parade of memorable character actors such as the wonderful Leo McKern, and a star who could have worked for Hitchcock, this version gives us a cast that could have come straight out of a toothpaste commercial, and a star memorable only for his ordinariness.  James Caviezel, while certainly good looking enough, just isn't a big enough man to play the part of someone so extraordinary that a separate world would be set up to extract information from him, and to drive him insane.

If THEY wanted to get information from James Caviezel, they'd just have him mugged in some dark alley.

Even Ian McKellen, gamely trying his best to carry our interest as Number Two, can't carry the show on his back.

I feel like I'm watiching The Truman Show rather than The Prisoner.  I suppose this cast and these writers might have made a … decent program given the freedom to make something their own, but the problem with reimagining perfection is that you've got to do it perfectly.

Not recommended.

Update: For our friends Eddie and Ella:

I get more from the first minute of the first episode of the original than I got from last night's slogging abomination.

Last 5 posts by Patrick

15 Comments
Tags

15 Comments

  1. eddie  •  Nov 15, 2009 @7:40 pm

    I'm still going to watch it. Tivo is watching it for me now, but I'll watch it soon. And afterwards, I'll come back here and let you know whether you're right or not.

    Also, as wonderful as the original series is, I somehow think you're being willfully blind to its obvious faults, perhaps due to nostalgia. If it were released brand-new today we'd probably consider it clumsy, amateurish, and outright laughable in spots, albeit a good effort.

  2. Patrick  •  Nov 15, 2009 @8:20 pm

    You mistake atavism for nostalgia eddie.

  3. Ella  •  Nov 15, 2009 @9:34 pm

    I agree with Eddie. I couldn't get through the original; this one seems decent enough to watch in the absence of Mad Men.

  4. TomH  •  Nov 16, 2009 @7:52 am

    FYI, if you have Verizon Fios, you can get 1967 Prisoner episodes on demand.

  5. Chris  •  Nov 16, 2009 @7:55 am

    I watched the original Prisoner episdoes for the first time (having never previously heard of it – no nostalgia for me!) in the mid-90s, and they were fantastic. I doubt the last 10-15 years have made it less relevant or interesting for new viewers.

  6. Talisker  •  Nov 16, 2009 @8:30 am

    AMC has the full original series up on their site.

    As for the new version, I enjoyed it enough that I'll watch the full six episode run, even if it is a pale shadow of the original.

  7. mojo  •  Nov 16, 2009 @9:29 am

    The whole point of the series is right there in the opening:
    "I am not a number, I am a FREE MAN!"
    "BWAHAHahahahahahaha…"

  8. eddie  •  Nov 16, 2009 @10:18 am

    Just to be clear: I, unlike Ella, not only got through the original but loved (loved!) it. There mere existence of Living In Harmony signals the show's outstanding and excellent nature (to take but a single example).

    But even so it has its share of rough spots.

    One of the things I like about modern remakes is that they can fix the original's flaws and avoid the original's mistakes, while (alas) making entirely new and different ones. Case in point: BSG. Thus, I have good – but guarded – hopes for the Prisoner a-la-AMC.

  9. Patrick  •  Nov 16, 2009 @10:24 am

    You enjoyed the original Battlestar Galactica?

    What the frack?

  10. Chris  •  Nov 16, 2009 @12:21 pm

    The new V's kind of fun.

  11. eddie  •  Nov 16, 2009 @12:39 pm

    I was ten.

  12. SPQR  •  Nov 16, 2009 @3:34 pm

    The biggest problem is as mentioned above, Caviezel has no presence in this show. McGoohan dominated the screen, looking like someone who was always thinking at 100% and was constantly working to not merely resist but turn the tables. Caviezel here wanders through the two hours I saw seeming like the older brother of the star of the reality show Joe Shmoe.

  13. Chris  •  Nov 16, 2009 @3:45 pm

    In my ideal geek world where the laws of space and time do not apply, I get to see a young McGoohan do the Rorschach-in-prison scenes from Watchmen.

  14. Mike D  •  Nov 16, 2009 @6:56 pm

    I loved the original BSG, too. I could have loved the new one if they writers had had a frakking clue about how to write a decent story arc (and what to do with the Cylons). I don't have any interest in this Prisoner remake, tho.

  15. Jdog  •  Nov 17, 2009 @11:03 am

    I like the original BSG, too. Didn't think it was good, but it was fun.

    I very much liked the (original) Prisoner while they were able to maintain the subtext that there was some sensible reason for all the goings-on going on. As usually seems to be the case, when the Great Big Secret is revealed (or revealed not to be there), it was a disappointment — cue the later Fred Pohl Heechee books, say, or Riverworld, or the ending of the new BSG.