Screenhead

We have a resistence to the remake. And it’s understandable, considering most of us only look forward to a remake because of the original. Yet the problem is that deep down we feel that the remake can never live up to the original, and thus nit-pick. But it’s rare to see a remake that isn’t so much an inferior rehash of the original’s premise, rather a remake whose philosophy is a complete reversal of the original, so much so that it’s a downright insult. The new miniseries remake of cult classic The Prisoner has managed to achieve that, by prioritising conformity above individualism.

The original The Prisoner was a TV anomaly. Lead actor in successful spy series Danger Man, Patrick McGoohan was tried of acting in un-enlightening adventures, and set out to make a show that appeared on the surface to be a spy show, but was actually a critique on modern society and its need to repress the rights of the individual and increases the level of governmental surveillance. And while the show is certainly a product of its time (with bright, almost garish colours, and psychadelic moments) in some ways, it was also incredibly important in the evolution of TV. For it was a show that was unafriad to make political commentary without being heavy-handed about it. Its final episodes were also left open for interpretation, another brave move by McGoohan that had members of the public in uproar at the time. One could argue that if it wasn’t for The Prisoner, we wouldn’t have Lost, Twin Peaks, or even the open ending of The Sopranos.

In this era of remakes, it was only a matter of time until they got around to The Prisoner. McGoohan wasn’t interested in being involved, having said everything he wanted to. For a while Christopher Nolan was interested in a feature film version, but that faded away. Instead, AMC and UK network ITV pooled resources to make a six-part miniseries starring Ian McKellan and Jim Caviezel.

Now, I’m all in favour of a remake of The Prisoner. Just like it dealt with social concerns of its own time, there was scope to do the very same with ours. An impressive cast also contributed to the hope that this could succeed. But oh how it didn’t.

Firstly, the direction of the series was quite poor. Even though the story is about a man (Caviezel as 6) who wakes up on the outskirts of a strange village, and attempts to escape although it seems he cannot, and is even unsure if there is anything beyond this village anymore, it went too far into the daze of hallucination. Whereas the original series often had very confusing moments, it paced itself in several grounded moments in order to keep the audience interested, and not lost in a haze of confusion. The remake, on the other hand, relished this confusion, and made it hard to us not only to follow the plot, but to care about the plight of the protagonist. There was also an overuse of reliance on 60’s pop songs to unnerve us (used ineffectively in both Lost and Vanilla Sky), and each of the six episodes contained flashes of vulgar symbolism. In an early episode 6 attempts to escape the village by entering the desert and stumbles across an anchor, yet he can’t seem to get beyond it. He’s frustrated, and we’re treated to a sequence in which he is tied to the anchor, screaming, while 2 (McKellen) appears in a flash and places a haronica, then suddenly a grenade, in his mouth. We then return to normal. These pretentious car-advert-style moments were more effective at being deliberately confusing that adding any dramatic power to the show. Elsewhere, the plot was delivered with such pace and force (in several scenes characters who are far away in a previous scene suddenly appear) that there was no time to stop, take a breath, and allow reflection for both the audience and the characters. Now this dream-like quality makes some sense in light of the show’s conclusion, but without the audience being able to get a sense of plot or character, it makes for unenjoyable viewing.

The series had some moments. The design of The Village was eerie and appropriate. There were some amusing references to the original series, and some social critiques of its own (everyone in the Village eats wraps. There is no other food available, a nod to perhaps the writer’s irritation towards this symbol of metropolitan modernity). And Ian McKellan was devilishly excellent as 2, the leader of the village. In one of the best scenes he lures a psychologist into trying to analyse him, only to counter with an assault on Freudian thought “Have you had sex with your mother? Well don’t!” Sadly, Caviezel is rather bland as 6, his presence only a fraction of Patrick McGoohan’s.

But the real problem was the political philosophy behind the programme. In the original, the village was a place that people were brought to when they had offended the powers behind the mysterious place. They were offered to conform, offer up any information they had, and they would be treated well for the rest of their lives. 6, a spy who mysteriously quit his job, refused to conform, refused to give information about why he quit, and spend his time in the Village testing its boundaries. It was a tale of a totalitarian “power” and the individual who led to its downfall. In the remake it was eventually revealed that the Village was a state of mind, a sort of layer of social consciousness that 2 and his wife created in order to mend the psychological scars of those in need. 6, who in real life works for a company that monitors (or spies) on these individuals, started asking too many questions and was whisked off to the Village. But his refusal to conform started to affect those around him, causing the village to start disintegrating. We find out that 2’s comatose wife is the “dreamer” that holds this Village together. In the end, 6 takes over as the creator of the Village, enlisting love interest 313 as the new dreamer, and they continue to build a psychic utopia.

It’s an interesting idea for a sci-fi show, but the problem is in the politics. One cannot but see the political dimension to the original series (the triumph of the individual in a society that seeks to repress such tendancies). While the remake seems to have no political ideology (despite Ian McKellen claiming it is about the “flaws of capitalism”), one cannot but look for the politics. And if you do so, the result is scary. For it seems that 6’s pursuit of individualism, of his inability to accept the routine of the Village and search for more, is what actually makes him the secret antagonist of the series, his actions damaging the psyche of those around him (the real-life 313 is actually mentally disturbed).

Writer Bill Gallagher claims that the series is about the problem of the individual. In interviews he claims that there’s too much individualism that that the series promotes the positivity of collectivism (i.e. it’s only though the harmony of a collective psychic community that emotional scars can heal). What does Gallagher mean by this? Is he criticising this generation of people who feel they need to express every thought and action through Facebook, blogs, and Twitter? If so, he is severely mistaken, because most of us still follow cultural trends (whether it’s music, film genres, fashion, or hysterially choose sides in political debates) blindly. And if one is to apply Gallagher’s logic to the series, the only conclusion is that conformity in one’s community, and willingly ignoring greater issues outside of that, is the only way to achieve contentment. And that’s a very dangerous claim to make. For humanity is naturally curious, it’s our instinct to explore, to question. Why else would we have the capacity to reflect? Also the source of conflict in society isn’t so much the individual who disrupts society, but it’s society that tries to repress our individual traits, it’s society that enforces conformity (either directly or indirectly) and generates tension when someone resists. Surely peace is in the accepting of differences?

The governing force of the village is authoritarian, scaring the members of the Village into conformity (they hush people who question things, afraid of the repercussion). Surely that is not a way to deal with a psychological scar? And how can people recover from emotional upset by covering it up? Surely its the acceptance of the problem that is the first step towards healing?

Gallagher may be criticising the world created by McKellen’s 2, that his vision of a totalitarian world didn’t work, and it was up to 6 to make a better one, but the series certainly didn’t focus enough on that. It didn’t help that 2 became the protagoist, explaining the purpose of the Village and convincing 6 to take over from him, portraying the conclusion as a victory. Rather, it seems that the message of this remake is that life is better when you’re not a real man, but instead a number.

By Eoin O’Faolain

Popularity: unranked [?]