Quantcast
Tor Forge

Science fiction. Fantasy. The universe. And related subjects.

Latest Posts

› archive

Latest Comments

› show all

Hot Bookmarks


Blog Archive


posted Tuesday November 17, 2009 05:41pm EST

“I am not a number! I am a free bland!”: The Prisoner

Genevieve Valentine

This weekend, AMC premiered its remake of the cult-classic sci-fi show The Prisoner. This incarnation was advertised as a bold new direction for the series, which follows a government agent trying to escape from a mysterious tormentor in an isolated village too good to be true.

Word to the wise: if you try to take this cult classic in a new direction, you might want to make sure you don’t take the Dark City exit through Pleasantville on your way to M. Night’s The Village, or else you risk coming up with AMC’s The Prisoner.

First, let’s clear up one thing: it’s useless to try to compare the two when the new one falls flat in every way, except possibly Ian McKellen as Two, only because whatever Ian McKellen does, he’s the best at it. (Once, Ian McKellen looked sideways at Vin Diesel; Vin Diesel’s grandkids will be born bruised.)

So, forgetting there was ever a series about a tenacious and resourceful government agent fighting to escape an acid-trippy village under the watchful eye of an iconically mysterious government agent, AMC produced a series about a corporate investigator who quits his job (you know he’s a rebel because he spray paints I RESIGN on the window before he leaves!), wakes up stranded in a cut-rate Boca Raton, and finds himself up against a dictator with a troubled home life who may or may not be using Six to solve his domestic problems.

...so close, and yet so far? (Maybe just “so far.”)

Of all the elements of The Prisoner remake that fall flat, and they are many, the most overwhelming is the casting of Jim Caviezel as Six. He staggers around the village with the expression of irritated confusion he wore throughout The Count of Monte Cristo, in which he was so gullible you found yourself rooting for someone, anyone, else. It works to the same effect here; he’s the sort of hero who stops sympathetic people in public to demand that they tell him their secrets, and then is surprised when those people die under mysterious circumstances. (Really, dude?)

More interesting by far is Ian McKellen as Two, who splits his time between tormenting Six and tending to a comatose wife and a son who might as well be comatose (lookin’ at you, Jamie Campbell Bower). This subplot, thanks largely to McKellen’s usual masterful acting, is so much more interesting than Six’s struggle that by the end of the second hour of the pilot I found myself hoping Six would be killed so we could figure out Two’s mysteries without Six cluttering up the works.

In fact, all the supporting characters we’ve met are interesting (much more interesting than Six!), though they seem to be introduced about forty minutes before their untimely demises, so don’t get attached. The only carryover so far is 313 (the Pretty Female Lead code number), played ably by Ruth Wilson.

The production design is similarly workmanlike; the quasi-50s vibe is nothing new, but has welcome touches of surreal humor (food in the Village is all wraps, all the time), and the desert is shot with all the menace the DP can muster, so that the glimpse of the sea in the second hour is almost as much a relief to us as to Six. Unfortunately, the show has to rely on such moments for visceral feeling, because Caviezel just can’t manage to generate enough sympathy for the audience to be on his side. The village itself is as interesting as any TV mystery (smoke monsters, huge smothering guard-balls, pick your poison), but if he were to disappear, the show could go on just as well—maybe better—without him.

Another strike against AMC is the total reversal of meta-theme to which The Prisoner has become subject. The original series was an expression of the counterculture, a call to arms against complacency. The premiere of the remake was studded with bumper hints (“See who likes wraps to get closer to the mystery!”) and riddled with plugs for the show’s "interactive website” (as opposed to...?). If this was intended as a comment on modern life, it would be a stroke genius. Unfortunately, I think it’s more likely that they missed the point; here, and everywhere.

Verdict: Ian McKellen gets time off for great acting. Everyone else: community service.


Genevieve Valentine thinks Ian McKellen is awesome. Just maybe not awesome enough for her to watch the rest of this.

ReddIt Stumble Upon del.icio.us Digg It Send via Mail
BOOKMARK
PRINT

categories: TV
tags: tv, the prisoner, adaptations we really didn't need, ian mckellen is not taking this seriously

17 comments
Mitchell Downs
1.  Beamish
VIEW ALL BY · Tuesday November 17, 2009 06:37pm EST
The first two hours really were excruciatingly dull. I am sitting here staring at the second two hours and wondering if I even want to bother.

I cannot really blame Caviezel for bad acting though. I submit the hesitance to even say McKellen was great is endemic of the fact that EVERYTHING is bad:

The writing is boring - I still have no idea what the story is really about.

The set design is like a bad High School play with a big budget.

The cinematography looks like they forgot to remove the protective plastic film from the lenses. I have not see focus this soft since Kathy Bates decided to go natural in a hot tub.

The editing, oh lord, the editing can only be the result of someone falling down the stairs with the only master print and box of open razors. I guess it is supposed to be "unsettling" and "dynamic" but all it achieves is irritation.

The only thing that made me smile was the conceit that all the food in the Village was a wrap. I bet that little joke is all that survived the original treatment for this remake because the rest of it plays like something written and directed by a committee. There is not a bit of consistent tone or narrative: just annoying cuts, crappy acting, no story and cheesecloth visuals.
harmfulguy
2.  harmfulguy
Tuesday November 17, 2009 09:12pm EST
A few days ago, I would have been willing to watch Sir Ian McKellen read the phonebook in a genial but vaguely menacing manner.

Now I feel like I already have.
Sandi Kallas
3.  Sandikal
VIEW ALL BY · Wednesday November 18, 2009 01:26am EST
I thought I was just having trouble because I wasn't paying attention. I gave up on the show pretty quickly thinking that I might do better with it on DVD so I could go back if needed. (Yeah, I know, we should have DVR.) It looks like that might not even do it for me.

I have to say that I loved the look of the show and the music is terrific, but the story just confused me. I get what it's about, but it just jumps back and forth between scenes too much. Six is on the roof with the undercover guy, then he's in the diner with a woman, then he's back on the roof with the undercover guy. Is there any sequence to what's going on?
Mike Conley
4.  NomadUK
VIEW ALL BY · Wednesday November 18, 2009 02:02am EST
Yes, Number Six needs to be recast as a 'corporate investigator', because we all know that governments and their intelligence agencies are well-behaved and to be trusted in this bright, shiny 21st century, so unlike the bad old 1960s....

I knew this was going to be utterly awful; this review confirms it, and makes me glad that, here in the UK, at least for awhile, nobody can watch the horrific thing.
harmfulguy
5.  FluffyPanda
Wednesday November 18, 2009 05:03am EST
Dear American producers,

Please stop remaking things.

-- The World.
Rick Rutherford
6.  rutherfordr
VIEW ALL BY · Wednesday November 18, 2009 10:12am EST
Dear World,

When we stop making money at it, we'll let you know.

-- American Producers
Thomas Jeffries
7.  thomstel
VIEW ALL BY · Wednesday November 18, 2009 10:17am EST
@Sandikal

*Spoiler be here*

I felt the same way, like I was missing scenes or dialogue that would in some way make the tale coherent. Except that it wasn't me that was missing them; they didn't exist.

Also, I found it totally incomprehensible why they would do all the level-of-consciousness, flash-backs/outs/etc. interspersed with stark video footage, back and forth shots within the confines of the Village and make things incredible difficult to decipher...and then slam you over the head with insipid clues (that in general weren't really important or relevant) during the commercial breaks.

There were a few moments that felt like nice nods to the original - the pennyfarthing bike in the bar, the obliviousness of the brother's family when Six tries to tell them he's dead, etc. Other than waiting for those echoes to appear, I watched and waited for it to get better. And to be honest, I thought it did get stronger as it went, but nowhere near strong enough to make me like it much.

And what's with the DVD not coming out March 2010?! Are they gonna reshoot the thing? Digitally replace new Six with old Six? ...
Mitchell Downs
8.  Beamish
VIEW ALL BY · Wednesday November 18, 2009 11:33am EST
I suffered through the third and fourth episodes and have to admit that half of the fourth episode was interesting.

I actually liked the way that they played with his emotions - as well as 313's. And finally we have a clear acknowledgment of the world outside The Village. In the original it was far more certain from the start that The Village was just a hidden place - there was none of this nonsense that it was the totality of existence. In the classic the residents simply did not bother to acknowledge the rest of the world; but in this one they supposedly believe that the borders of existence are the desert. That change is particularly irritating since it creates all kinds of logical problems the script does nothing to address.

I am still annoyed by the terrible editing and the muted and boring visuals. Yeah, I cracked a smile at the Pennyfarthing bike - but that is too little. I am now watching this purely to see if can actually get worse.
Michael Curry
9.  mcurry
VIEW ALL BY · Wednesday November 18, 2009 12:59pm EST
Thank you for once again watching these things so I don't have to! Ian McKellen being in it almost lured me in, but I managed to resist, and I'm glad I did.
Eugene Myers
10.  ecmyers
VIEW ALL BY · Wednesday November 18, 2009 01:33pm EST
Well... Maybe now I won't bother. These episodes are festering on my DVR right now. I had low expectations but high hopes that it wouldn't completely suck.

I had a conversation with someone the other day about the fact that the original series is as relevant today as it was in the 60s, perhaps even more so, thus modernizing it is really a waste of effort--like remaking Psycho with the same shots. Hopefully this will just drive sales of the excellent DVD and BluRay sets, which was perhaps their fiendish plan all along. Had someone decided to film an adaptation of the graphic novel sequel to the series, or maybe even focused on a different number, that would have been something to see.

I look forward to your reviews of the last four episodes! Surely you can't get off that easy.
Mitchell Downs
11.  Beamish
VIEW ALL BY · Wednesday November 18, 2009 07:50pm EST
When it was over all I could think was: "I see what you did there."

Insipid.
Dave Thompson
12.  DKT
VIEW ALL BY · Wednesday November 18, 2009 11:51pm EST
He's not a government agent anymore?!?!

I mean, I can put up with new spins on cherished properties, etc., but that one leaves me with a big WTF? What is the reasoning behind that change?
Sandi Kallas
13.  Sandikal
VIEW ALL BY · Wednesday November 18, 2009 11:57pm EST
Mind you, I didn't watch all of it the first night, watched about 1/2 hour the second night and nothing the third night, so I really don't know what I'm talking about. However, did it remind anyone else of the movie "The Truman Show"?
harmfulguy
14.  Minx
Thursday November 19, 2009 01:57pm EST
The Truman Show is far better!
Mitchell Downs
15.  Beamish
VIEW ALL BY · Thursday November 19, 2009 02:44pm EST
I am going to try to spoil this and summarize the story - I say "try" because I am still not sure I understood what they were saying so:

SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS









The Village is a collective unconsciousness guided by the mind of 2's wife who discovered that she could bring people into a world where they could escape their problems and be fixed or at least at peace. She must remain sedated or else "holes" appear and people can fall out of the world.

6 - who is really Michael - was an analyst at the corporation set up by "Mr Curtis" - who is 2 - to fund and support the project. Michael was the best at finding people to pull into the Village and when he realized they were "doing something" to the people he found he resigned.

2 has him pulled into the Village but the real goal is for him to take over so 2 can pull his wife out. 6 is a "Dreamer" because he can retain a connection to the real world outside the Village. The doctor character - 313 - is also a "dreamer": someone who is strong enough to know there is world outside the Village. Since "Dreamers" are candidates to take over the guidance of the Village 2 manipulates things so she falls in love with 6 and sacrifices herself to become the guiding dreamer and 6 takes over as the new 2.

It ends with "Mr. Curtis" (2) greeting his now wakened wife in the real world. She has made wraps.

They embrace and I feel nauseous.
Rob Klingenberger
16.  rsklinge
VIEW ALL BY · Friday November 20, 2009 03:51pm EST
@Beamish

SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS









Yes.

Also: 11-12 killed his mother, 2's wife, in the Village. Yet she's fine in real life. So what does this mean about Lucy/whatever her number was in the Village/6's fiancee? She threw herself down one of those holes, but is she still alive in the real world? What about 147's daughter?

Also also: So the villagers are living real, full lives in the real world and in the Village. At the same time. And living in the Village is supposed to fix them in the real world. But the real world people don't know part of them is trapped in the Village, and the villagers don't know about the Real World, except for the dreamers that get dragged off by the Undercovers because it's wrong to be a Dreamer, except for 6 and 313 (who's also insane in the Real World, and a medical doctor in the Village.)

I guess I'm trying to say... "WHAT??" Which is what I DID say, now that I think about it...
seth johnson
17.  seth
VIEW ALL BY · Monday November 23, 2009 01:48pm EST
Thanks to everyone who has posted explanations about what this show is trying to do. It exposes ambition by the writers that hasn't come through the tv screen and gives me enough understanding to keep me watching.

I think most frustrating for me is how they portray number six as this lost lamb in danger. It drops this project into the bucket of contemporary TV where the producers believe the audience will only identify with the main character if the person responds to the situation as a fish-out-of-water victim. The original show was great for many reasons, but one of the captivating aspects was the formidable challenge number six presented to the organization. It seemed plausible that his schemes might actually unravel the entire organization if they didn't keep him under control. This new six is no threat. He's just some guy who is stuck in a situation and is struggling to figure things out. I never watched 'Lost,' but I get the sense that there were a lot of meetings where the producers of the Prisoner mentioned that show.

Seth
POST A COMMENT Name: Email Address: Comment (bbCode allowed):