Rachel Mercer

(This is my weekly TV piece written for Input/Outcast, the original can be found here)

As someone who had never before experienced the original iteration of the Prisoner, I was incredibly intrigued by the prospect of the remake. With the knowledge that the newer version was coming around the corner, I decided to avoid the original and experience the re-imagining for what it was (much like how I’m in the midst of consuming Battlestar Galactica right now). It seems that this has been very much a mistake — for it seems from all of the reviews that I am now looking at, that the original was a far more comprehensive and interesting experience.

So, now you know. My analysis of this piece will simply be an observation of the work as a standalone piece, and not in a comparison to the original. Frankly, all I have to say is that I’m disappointed. I am the kind of person who is drawn to shows (such as Dollhouse, Fringe and V) because I believe that they are based on strong concepts, ideas that are not only appealing but in some ways compelling — and I thought that the Prisoner would touch on those things. With the idea that a man has been taken from himself, and been suddenly placed in a Dystopian (or Utopian, depending on how you view it) environment, where everything seems just slightly off. One would think that this would provide the opportunity to not only construct a solid storyline, much like how JJ Abrams does in many of his works — I think he is one director who has managed to at once confuse and thrill the viewer, while in the end neatly packaging it up into one little mystery box.

This rendition, however, does no such things. Yes, it is beautifully art directed — akin in terms of quality to AMC’s other hit series Mad Men. But in many ways it lacks one of the qualities that makes Mad Men so great, the art of storytelling. The miniseries throws you in in a no-holds-barred fashion, thrusting you suddenly into a confusing world where you feel just as lost as the main character, perhaps this is to better relate to him, or perhaps they’re trying to revolutionize the narrative — but in either case it seems to fail. My confusion remained all the way up until the 6th and final episode, where it seems to all come together and make sense. But really it doesn’t.

If one were to wake up in the middle of the desert, in an oasis utopian society where everyone’s names are numbers — and you were simultaneously aware of the modern world — wouldn’t a series of logical questions come to your mind? For me, there were many.

1. If everyone’s names are numbers, how do you quantify anything?
2. How are goods manufactured? Wouldn’t there be some sort of outside supply — especially considering that there is no arable land around?
3. How are jobs assigned? What even resembles the economy here? (I saw nothing resembling transactions of any kind).
4. How did we get here, if there’s no way out? People have to come from somewhere.

This is just the tip of the giant iceberg of questions that no character really chooses to explore. In this, I think that the writers of the Prisoner failed to connect with their audience. To be honest, after watching the first two episodes I had no further incentive to explore the show, except for the hopes that somewhere along the way it would either decide to start making sense, or actually bring substantial plotpoints forward. It does neither of these, though the final episode reveals all — the return was not any greater than the 8 hours I feel that I wasted on this. Especially when the big “twist” at the end hardly proves to fill any of the giant questions left in the viewer’s mind, or even address some of these key questions.

In the end, it seems that the core value comes of this piece comes from the wonderful acting brought forward by the ever-amazing Ian McKellen and (my 10th grade crush) Jim Caviezel. McKellen manages to outshine every other character, in part due to the incredible depth of his acting abilities, and also due to the writing of the show. In the end, my assessment is that each episode serves as a major point attempting to link a plotline, but as a whole it fails. It fails to be entertaining, engaging, or even thrilling. I recommend that others out there who though that the concept was amazing (those like myself) turn to the original instead should they want to consume their media wisely. One good thing I do have to say overall, is that AMC launched a very interesting Online Graphic Novel, which is far more in depth and portrays a completely different storyline — should you have the time, browsing through that would prove a treat — perhaps Alex and I will talk about it in future episodes because it may very well be the future of how we consume comics.