Recently lost health insurance because of course I can’t afford it, so medicine costs much much more now. My obvious question is “If I can’t afford healthcare, how in the hell can I afford to pay a fine BECAUSE I can’t afford healthcare?”
Unrelated to that, does anyone have any thoughts on the perceived “Right Wing” nature of “V”?
Regarding V: Bot, I caught whiffs of it, and it sure is promising. My first thought was how this thoughtcrime made it past the politburo. Then I heard they changed producers….now its a wait and see.
Healthcare for all…the TV host is a self absorbed toad (The actor modeled his character after Anderson Cooper), the Vs are all about peace and change, and they are recruiting kids to their cause. And most of all…A PRIEST as a hero? *rubs eyes*.
This can’t be true. I feel a giant, hairy calloused sucker punch coming up.
There is much reform needed in health care. Unfortunately, the House Bill does not address the problems. Employers should not be the major providers of health care and insurance companies should not be as major a buffer between patient and physician/hospital/pharmacist as is currently the case. As Veruckt excellently pointed out a month ago; compare elective procedures, not covered by insurance and their price history with those covered by insurance and medicare.
Veruckt and David Marcoe have provided proposals and links to sites with good proposals. There are a lot of good solutions out there that would make this better for most all of us, but Congress is working hard to mess it up further.
It’s too early to really tell any Right wing message in V but in any story about a totalitarian society it is inevitable that there will be shots at leftist since leftism is the incubator of totalitarianism.
Also please tell me you did not just attempt to use logic when talking about guvment legislation? Those two things cannot be in the same conversation.
Kind of on line with “V.” I find it interesting that the remake of “The Prisoner” happens to be coming out during the current administration. Have high hopes for the show – loved the original. Unfortunately, I don’t have cable – so I’ll have to wait ’til it comes out on DVD.
Interested to hear opinions of those who’ll be able to watch it.
Regarding the Prisoner. I wonder how Jim Caveziel felt working with that git, Ian McKellan. When asked if it was a pro Capitalism movie McKellan speaking like a true leftwing brownshirt replied its (Prisoner) is pro socialist. Because you know number 6 is being held prisoner by the Capitalist system. Since Mckellan is an anti Christian bigot and Caveziel is a devout Catholic…how did our Jimmy boy deal with the idiot? Prayed a lot I’d bet. And the idea that somehow Capitalism holds people prisoner leads me to the conclusion that Ian McKellan is an absolute and utter MORON! But I so can’t wait to see the Prisoner. Jim Caveziel is my new fav. actor.
If anything, the original was definitely anti-socialism. After all, you could live in the village with free health care and “work units” to purchase your non-alcoholic Vodka. All you had to do is remember the first rule of the Village – “Questions are a burden to others, answers a burden to one’s self.”
Kenn, check with Hulu.com a few days after The Prisoner airs. They’ve been playing the whole season of Mad Men on there, so I’m sure they’ll have this on there as well. This is why I’m canceling my dish service when my contract ends with them next month. Virtually everything that’s on TV can be watched online for free.
The Dems had a golden chance to truly reform health care, but instead the temptation to grab a sixth of the U.S. economy proved to be too much to resist. No one contests that reform is needed. But the Dems have forced the issue to become a referendum on economics, not health care. A damn shame.
So, all you legal eagles out there – is it possible that IF they pass this monumental piece of horse dung, that there’s the potential to have the constitutionality of the mandates tied up in court for years?
I’d say if they pass it that SCOTUS would take it up….I cannot see why not either. We have five judges who probably are like um…wait a second….hopefully they will do what they must to protect the Constitution.
I have a possible conundrum that I need wise counsel on. There is what can only be referred to as a healthcare lobby group here locally that has shown some interest in hiring me but I’m a bit hesitant in that I generally disapprove of lobyist, on the other hand it would possbily give me a much better chance at helping to steer responsible policy. The other factor I have to take into account is would “he works for a lobbyist” not be a fun thing for someone to throw at me in a campaign?
V – In my experience, there are good lobbyists as well as the stereotypical variety. As much as they get a bad rap, much of it justifiably, lobbyists also perform a valuable service. There is no way that staffers, in either party, could keep their Senators and Reps up to date on the issues without interest groups and the information they disseminate. There is pressure, of course, to simply be a shill, even when the facts don’t support your particular position, but the good ones – at least in my experience – don’t do that. If you maintain your integrity, and I’m sure that you would, I think that you could make a positive impact with regards to your particular field of expertise.
As far as impact on the campaign, you walk in with the label “part of the evil healthcare industry” already firmly stapled to your forehead. That’s your job and your opponent(s) will surely claim that it makes you a slave to corporate special interests. In that circumstance, I don’t know that “acting as a consultant” on health care issues (not “working for a lobbyist” – it’s all about the spin baby) really hurts you. You’re already in the bath, so to speak, so a little more hot water isn’t going to make much a difference.
If you do it, I would seize the high-ground. Trumpet your involvement – as a consultant – in your literature. You’re working with the industry and legislators to try to make positive changes that are good for everyone.
Very sound points indeed and I do like the idea of turning a perceived weakness into a strength. For the campaign next year I do not think it would be an issue but I have always said that if I win and am able to have a positive impact on the legislative process that I would run for higher office after 2 or 3 terms. It is in those higher office camapigns where it could get ugly because I would then be running against a Democrat, in next year’s election I am running against a Republican so I think the mud will be minimal though I do expect him to go after my youth and inexperience both of which I plan on using as a strength (my campaign signs pit me against “politics as usual”).
Seems to me the upcoming elections contain a golden opportunity for conservatives. Because now we have seen how out of touch liberalism is, as an ideology it does not truly address the needs of society, that it is usually a cloak for government interference economically and socially. If conservatives can get on with that and continually point out the disconnect of the state run media attempting to tell us what to think, and how obama and the dems are all behind this crap, then it is a strong powerful horse to ride to victory on.
Unfortunately, the RNC can’t find their butt with both hands right now.
I agree the Dems have opened the door wide, but I just don’t see how that correlates to great, Conservative Legislators coming out of the woodwork. I don’t think there are enough good politicians on any side of any aisle to fill the Congress no matter how smart the voters get.
True, this is really a frustrating time. I feel like I’m sitting in the bleachers waiting for a good game to start, and it turns out to be the B Team of the Special Olympics.
My favorite part: he addresses the lowest-ranked troops in the audience and says, “you outrank me. You outrank all the civilians back home. And we know it.” Damn straight!
I am frankly surprised that V made it on the air. (And obviously it won’t stay there long) There’s a definite sense that “Pleasant words” do not actually make a good world, or simply “Be wear of greeks bearing gifts.” It’s interesting to me that they tied it in this time with, effectively, the Illuminati paranoid conspiracy stuff, which was wholly absent in the original (That was a straightforward Nazi allegory)
The Prisoner was in no way about socialism. Or capitalism. It’s an allegory about the different kinds of rebellion in society, and when rebellion is justified and noble and when it’s base and evil. There’s also a lot of Christian stuff in it. I have a dim view of the remake, I can’t imagine it’ll be any good since the original is so quirky and unique and odd, but if anyone’s interested, when it runs we’ll be reviewing it on the ‘Bot.
Wasn’t “The Village” a very socialist environment? You were cared for, you got your own little apartment, you were awarded “work units.” You had everything THEY thought you needed – all you had to do – was do as you were told – or give them “the information.”
Even more disturbing – there was a conversation between #2 & #6 about “The Village” being a pattern for the whole world. To which #6 replied – then I’d like to be the first man on the moon. (Pre-Neil Armstrong – of course.)
“I am definitely an optimist. That’s why it doesn’t matter who Number One is, it doesn’t matter which ‘side’ runs the Village…”
“It’s run by one side or the other.”
“Oh, certainly. But both sides are becoming identical. What in fact has been created here is an international community, a perfect blueprint for world order. When the sides facing each other suddenly realize that they’re looking into a mirror, they will see that this is the pattern for the future.”
The Village was a place where they put people who knew too much, people who hadn’t neccisarily done anything that was wrong, but who couldn’t be allowed to wander around free. They were taken to one of several identical villages in different places in the world, stripped of their identity, and they lived a boring summer vacation kind of existence. It wasn’t malicious, nor was it utopian, nor was it socialist, nor capitalist. I suppose it could be argued to be a command economy, but that’s entirely irrelevant, because it’s a prison, first and foremost. It was based – loosely – on a real place the British government maintained during World War II.
6 is different. They’re instructed *not* to damage him, so they want him to give in to the system by hook or by crook or, ideally, by free will. This is a metaphor for the role of the individual in society. They even spell this out (very obscurely) in the opening of every episode: “Who is number one?” “You are, number six.” (Note the comma.) In the end, when we meet #1, he’s Patrick McGoohan. The moral of the story is that society only has the power over us that we ALLOW it to have, that if it’s strong, it’s because we make it so, and if it’s weak, that’s our doing as well.
There’s also a lot of stuff in there about the different kinds of rebellion and whether a rebellion can be righteous or not. Ultimately, in the final episode, they conclude there’s three kinds: The rebellion of youth that rebels simply because it’s young, then there’s the person of privelege who bites the hand that feeds him, and finally there’s 6, who remanes pure, untouched, unmotivated by any concept of gain, obeying his moral code at all costs. Meeting a “Pure” rebel like this, the village turns the reigns of government over to him, and as his first act he destroys the place. One of them anyway, there were multiple villages, after all.
There’s also a lot of Christian imagery in the show (McGoohan was very, very Catholic), and I think we’re to take this to mean that Christ is the exemplar of ‘pure’ rebellion.
There’s an intersting bit in “Free for All” when they equate anyone seeking political power with the devil.
The thing I caught on to very early on in the series is that the operators of the Village don’t actually give a flying fuck why the Prisoner (I refuse to call him Number Six) resigned; their only use for the question is as a means of tormenting him. There are a few hints toward the real reason, but they’re scattered throughout the series — the Prisoner’s moral code would never have allowed him to reveal anything further than mere hints. His private reasons ought to remain private.
And that’s the whole point. Answering that question would violate Six’s moral code on the deepest possible level — and what the Village minders essentially want is to compromise the Prisoner’s morality; once that’s done, his individuality (messy, dangerous, and anti-utopian thing that it is) would be the next thing to slip away from him.
In the episodes where the Prisoner gains his greatest and most humiliating victories over the latest No.2, you see a look of deep chagrin crossing his face at the moment of triumph… because it’s never really a triumph. He is winning the game, yes, but only because he has learned to play by the Village’s rules, and because he’s under the impression that he can’t simply quit (he tries and fails to “quit” the Village multiple times), and therefore might as well play to win.
One is reminded of the Right’s recent successful uses of Alinskyite tactics against the Left. It’s good to see them put in their place, of course — but my God, who knew we could lower ourselves to this, however necessary it is?
P.S.- seem to remember reading McGoohan was in the seminary. Also seem to remember #6 was never seen “fooling around.” perhaps another Christ-like attribute.
That goes all the way back to when he was playing John “Danger Man” Drake. He was a fan of the ‘realistic’ spy thrillers by LeCarre et al. and he always insisted that if he was to play a spy, there were to be no guns and no girls. Notwithstanding theme songs performed by Johnny Rivers, espionage is not a glamorous job — McGoohan liked the idea of being the anti-Bond.
McGoohan was actually the second man offered the role of Bond. Cary Grant was first, and wanted nothing to do with it. McGoohan was second, and rejected it for pretty much the same reasons as Grant: Bond isn’t a hero, or even much of a spy, he’s just an oversexed, amoral thug. They asked him if he knew anyone he could see in the role, and McGoohan suggested Sean Connery. Allegedly they offered it to him again when Connerly left the role, but he turned them down again.
McGoohan was very Catholic, but never attented a seminary.
Jake, you’re right: they already know why he resigned. You see him handing them a fat envelope with “My resignation” in the opening of nearly every episode. He explained why he was going. They’re just trying to find out if he was lying or not, which is another neat aspect of the show: Even if you give them what they want, they won’t believe you. And, as the McKern #2 says, all they need to do is get him to crack on this one tiny thing, and he’ll completely shatter and be their toy again.
Kenn, there were some girls in the show. Not a lot, nothing steamy of course, but there’s a spark of interest here and there, and of course we find out that 6 had a fiance back in England. Certainly he’d never cheat on her.
Point of order: the letter he delivers is marked “PRIVATE AND PERSONAL // BY HAND” (in Patrick McGoohan’s handwriting, no less).
That plus the soundless scene following where he rants in the face of his immediate superior — and bangs his fist on the table hard enough to shatter the man’s teacup and saucer — makes it clear that the reason for his resignation was, at least, not a secret to his boss. It’s never clear whether the man’s a mole for the Village himself, although one of the early episodes makes it blatantly obvious that the Village has infiltrated MI-5; nevertheless, the Village minders are capable of guessing the truth — but they want to hear it from the horse’s mouth. If they can get that out of him, they can get anything.
(His boss, incidentally, is played in the opening credits by co-producer George Markstein. Markstein’s novel THE COOLER was a direct inspiration for the Village; he co-wrote the pilot and worked as a producer and script editor, but left when McGoohan made it clear he wanted to push the series even further in an allegorical direction. Markstein always saw THE PRISONER as just a surreal take on a John Le Carre plot — he jumped ship when it got too weird for him.)
I’d forgotten what the envelope said, but that’s consistent with my overall point: they already know the reason. It’s all just a pissing contest to make him tell them again so they can control him.
Print
Digg
StumbleUpon
del.icio.us
Facebook
Yahoo! Buzz
Twitter
Google Bookmarks
Google Buzz
LinkedIn
MSN Reporter
MySpace
Orkut
Ping.fm
Reddit
RSS
Slashdot
Technorati
Tumblr
Webnews.de
In a Violent Femmes mood of late, so seems about the right time to say, we got Obama trouble … up the asssssssssssss.
Recently lost health insurance because of course I can’t afford it, so medicine costs much much more now. My obvious question is “If I can’t afford healthcare, how in the hell can I afford to pay a fine BECAUSE I can’t afford healthcare?”
Unrelated to that, does anyone have any thoughts on the perceived “Right Wing” nature of “V”?
Regarding V: Bot, I caught whiffs of it, and it sure is promising. My first thought was how this thoughtcrime made it past the politburo. Then I heard they changed producers….now its a wait and see.
Healthcare for all…the TV host is a self absorbed toad (The actor modeled his character after Anderson Cooper), the Vs are all about peace and change, and they are recruiting kids to their cause. And most of all…A PRIEST as a hero? *rubs eyes*.
This can’t be true. I feel a giant, hairy calloused sucker punch coming up.
Republibot 3.0,
There is much reform needed in health care. Unfortunately, the House Bill does not address the problems. Employers should not be the major providers of health care and insurance companies should not be as major a buffer between patient and physician/hospital/pharmacist as is currently the case. As Veruckt excellently pointed out a month ago; compare elective procedures, not covered by insurance and their price history with those covered by insurance and medicare.
Veruckt and David Marcoe have provided proposals and links to sites with good proposals. There are a lot of good solutions out there that would make this better for most all of us, but Congress is working hard to mess it up further.
Andrew Price at Commentarama has a lot of good ideas on health reform, too.
Nurse Nancy:”Floyd? Hi,come this way…”
Continue the dialogue,folks
He he
“According to our eMed files, you are due, at no charge, a DNC colonoscopy.”
Bot,
It’s too early to really tell any Right wing message in V but in any story about a totalitarian society it is inevitable that there will be shots at leftist since leftism is the incubator of totalitarianism.
Also please tell me you did not just attempt to use logic when talking about guvment legislation? Those two things cannot be in the same conversation.
Kind of on line with “V.” I find it interesting that the remake of “The Prisoner” happens to be coming out during the current administration. Have high hopes for the show – loved the original. Unfortunately, I don’t have cable – so I’ll have to wait ’til it comes out on DVD.
Interested to hear opinions of those who’ll be able to watch it.
Regarding the Prisoner. I wonder how Jim Caveziel felt working with that git, Ian McKellan. When asked if it was a pro Capitalism movie McKellan speaking like a true leftwing brownshirt replied its (Prisoner) is pro socialist. Because you know number 6 is being held prisoner by the Capitalist system. Since Mckellan is an anti Christian bigot and Caveziel is a devout Catholic…how did our Jimmy boy deal with the idiot? Prayed a lot I’d bet. And the idea that somehow Capitalism holds people prisoner leads me to the conclusion that Ian McKellan is an absolute and utter MORON! But I so can’t wait to see the Prisoner. Jim Caveziel is my new fav. actor.
If anything, the original was definitely anti-socialism. After all, you could live in the village with free health care and “work units” to purchase your non-alcoholic Vodka. All you had to do is remember the first rule of the Village – “Questions are a burden to others, answers a burden to one’s self.”
Number Six was the hero Ayn Rand only wished she could write.
If you hear it’s good, you can watch it by buying it on I-Tunes. That’s how I’m watching “V” and “South Park” over here in the “box”.
Kenn, check with Hulu.com a few days after The Prisoner airs. They’ve been playing the whole season of Mad Men on there, so I’m sure they’ll have this on there as well. This is why I’m canceling my dish service when my contract ends with them next month. Virtually everything that’s on TV can be watched online for free.
Will definitely check out hulu. Thanks, Matt.
The Dems had a golden chance to truly reform health care, but instead the temptation to grab a sixth of the U.S. economy proved to be too much to resist. No one contests that reform is needed. But the Dems have forced the issue to become a referendum on economics, not health care. A damn shame.
So, all you legal eagles out there – is it possible that IF they pass this monumental piece of horse dung, that there’s the potential to have the constitutionality of the mandates tied up in court for years?
I’d say if they pass it that SCOTUS would take it up….I cannot see why not either. We have five judges who probably are like um…wait a second….hopefully they will do what they must to protect the Constitution.
I have a possible conundrum that I need wise counsel on. There is what can only be referred to as a healthcare lobby group here locally that has shown some interest in hiring me but I’m a bit hesitant in that I generally disapprove of lobyist, on the other hand it would possbily give me a much better chance at helping to steer responsible policy. The other factor I have to take into account is would “he works for a lobbyist” not be a fun thing for someone to throw at me in a campaign?
V – In my experience, there are good lobbyists as well as the stereotypical variety. As much as they get a bad rap, much of it justifiably, lobbyists also perform a valuable service. There is no way that staffers, in either party, could keep their Senators and Reps up to date on the issues without interest groups and the information they disseminate. There is pressure, of course, to simply be a shill, even when the facts don’t support your particular position, but the good ones – at least in my experience – don’t do that. If you maintain your integrity, and I’m sure that you would, I think that you could make a positive impact with regards to your particular field of expertise.
As far as impact on the campaign, you walk in with the label “part of the evil healthcare industry” already firmly stapled to your forehead. That’s your job and your opponent(s) will surely claim that it makes you a slave to corporate special interests. In that circumstance, I don’t know that “acting as a consultant” on health care issues (not “working for a lobbyist” – it’s all about the spin baby) really hurts you. You’re already in the bath, so to speak, so a little more hot water isn’t going to make much a difference.
If you do it, I would seize the high-ground. Trumpet your involvement – as a consultant – in your literature. You’re working with the industry and legislators to try to make positive changes that are good for everyone.
That’s my take anyway. Hope it helps!
Trzupr,
Very sound points indeed and I do like the idea of turning a perceived weakness into a strength. For the campaign next year I do not think it would be an issue but I have always said that if I win and am able to have a positive impact on the legislative process that I would run for higher office after 2 or 3 terms. It is in those higher office camapigns where it could get ugly because I would then be running against a Democrat, in next year’s election I am running against a Republican so I think the mud will be minimal though I do expect him to go after my youth and inexperience both of which I plan on using as a strength (my campaign signs pit me against “politics as usual”).
“I do like the idea of turning a perceived weakness into a strength” Rich has done that with his extra chromosome and look how far he’s gotten!
Rich has an extra chromosome? That would explain this article in the Telegraph:
I can’t believe that typo got by the Telegraph’s proofing department. It’s supposed to read, “devolve.”
And I’ve heard Rufus can dance really well on those little tiny feet of his.
Seems to me the upcoming elections contain a golden opportunity for conservatives. Because now we have seen how out of touch liberalism is, as an ideology it does not truly address the needs of society, that it is usually a cloak for government interference economically and socially. If conservatives can get on with that and continually point out the disconnect of the state run media attempting to tell us what to think, and how obama and the dems are all behind this crap, then it is a strong powerful horse to ride to victory on.
Unfortunately, the RNC can’t find their butt with both hands right now.
>>Unfortunately, the RNC can’t find their butt with both hands right now.>>
Fortunately, we’ve got no problem helping them with our collective boot to it.
LOL and keep kicking till its up around their ears.
Mr. Sideous,
I agree the Dems have opened the door wide, but I just don’t see how that correlates to great, Conservative Legislators coming out of the woodwork. I don’t think there are enough good politicians on any side of any aisle to fill the Congress no matter how smart the voters get.
True, this is really a frustrating time. I feel like I’m sitting in the bleachers waiting for a good game to start, and it turns out to be the B Team of the Special Olympics.
I have been at our lakehouse sick with bronchitis. Mostly alone (I amm 20-turned Sunday).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6UJZtCz1-c
Dancing in your underwear. Fabulous.
Happy Birthday!
I should’ve clarified, it was Last Sunday.
But thanks.
happy pre-emptive birthday Kit!
Bill Whittle goes to Guantanamo Bay and delivers an awesome Veteran’s Day speech: http://www.pjtv.com/?cmd=video&video-id=2704
My favorite part: he addresses the lowest-ranked troops in the audience and says, “you outrank me. You outrank all the civilians back home. And we know it.” Damn straight!
Happy B-day Kit. Sheesh. 20 years old, ah misty water memories.
I am frankly surprised that V made it on the air. (And obviously it won’t stay there long) There’s a definite sense that “Pleasant words” do not actually make a good world, or simply “Be wear of greeks bearing gifts.” It’s interesting to me that they tied it in this time with, effectively, the Illuminati paranoid conspiracy stuff, which was wholly absent in the original (That was a straightforward Nazi allegory)
The Prisoner was in no way about socialism. Or capitalism. It’s an allegory about the different kinds of rebellion in society, and when rebellion is justified and noble and when it’s base and evil. There’s also a lot of Christian stuff in it. I have a dim view of the remake, I can’t imagine it’ll be any good since the original is so quirky and unique and odd, but if anyone’s interested, when it runs we’ll be reviewing it on the ‘Bot.
Wasn’t “The Village” a very socialist environment? You were cared for, you got your own little apartment, you were awarded “work units.” You had everything THEY thought you needed – all you had to do – was do as you were told – or give them “the information.”
I agree, Kenn. I’m not sure what that guy is talking about but there was certainly nothing “free” about it, market or otherwise.
Even more disturbing – there was a conversation between #2 & #6 about “The Village” being a pattern for the whole world. To which #6 replied – then I’d like to be the first man on the moon. (Pre-Neil Armstrong – of course.)
“I am definitely an optimist. That’s why it doesn’t matter who Number One is, it doesn’t matter which ‘side’ runs the Village…”
“It’s run by one side or the other.”
“Oh, certainly. But both sides are becoming identical. What in fact has been created here is an international community, a perfect blueprint for world order. When the sides facing each other suddenly realize that they’re looking into a mirror, they will see that this is the pattern for the future.”
“The whole Earth, as the Village is…”
“That is my hope.”
And that was BEFORE Michael Savage.
Jake I am pretty sure number 6 is rebelling against what 2 is so hopeful about.
I am Not a Number, I am a FREE MAN!
Jim Caveziel MMMMM MMMMM MMMMM
The Village was a place where they put people who knew too much, people who hadn’t neccisarily done anything that was wrong, but who couldn’t be allowed to wander around free. They were taken to one of several identical villages in different places in the world, stripped of their identity, and they lived a boring summer vacation kind of existence. It wasn’t malicious, nor was it utopian, nor was it socialist, nor capitalist. I suppose it could be argued to be a command economy, but that’s entirely irrelevant, because it’s a prison, first and foremost. It was based – loosely – on a real place the British government maintained during World War II.
6 is different. They’re instructed *not* to damage him, so they want him to give in to the system by hook or by crook or, ideally, by free will. This is a metaphor for the role of the individual in society. They even spell this out (very obscurely) in the opening of every episode: “Who is number one?” “You are, number six.” (Note the comma.) In the end, when we meet #1, he’s Patrick McGoohan. The moral of the story is that society only has the power over us that we ALLOW it to have, that if it’s strong, it’s because we make it so, and if it’s weak, that’s our doing as well.
“He can make even the act of putting on his dressing gown appear as an act of defiance.”
“There are methods we haven’t used yet…”
“No. I want him with a whole heart; body and soul.”
“He’ll crack.”
“Perhaps. One tiny piece at a time. I don’t want a man of fragments!”
“…He doesn’t even bend a little.”
“That’s why he’ll break. It only needs one small thing. If he will answer one simple question, the rest will follow: Why did he resign?”
There’s also a lot of stuff in there about the different kinds of rebellion and whether a rebellion can be righteous or not. Ultimately, in the final episode, they conclude there’s three kinds: The rebellion of youth that rebels simply because it’s young, then there’s the person of privelege who bites the hand that feeds him, and finally there’s 6, who remanes pure, untouched, unmotivated by any concept of gain, obeying his moral code at all costs. Meeting a “Pure” rebel like this, the village turns the reigns of government over to him, and as his first act he destroys the place. One of them anyway, there were multiple villages, after all.
There’s also a lot of Christian imagery in the show (McGoohan was very, very Catholic), and I think we’re to take this to mean that Christ is the exemplar of ‘pure’ rebellion.
There’s an intersting bit in “Free for All” when they equate anyone seeking political power with the devil.
The thing I caught on to very early on in the series is that the operators of the Village don’t actually give a flying fuck why the Prisoner (I refuse to call him Number Six) resigned; their only use for the question is as a means of tormenting him. There are a few hints toward the real reason, but they’re scattered throughout the series — the Prisoner’s moral code would never have allowed him to reveal anything further than mere hints. His private reasons ought to remain private.
And that’s the whole point. Answering that question would violate Six’s moral code on the deepest possible level — and what the Village minders essentially want is to compromise the Prisoner’s morality; once that’s done, his individuality (messy, dangerous, and anti-utopian thing that it is) would be the next thing to slip away from him.
In the episodes where the Prisoner gains his greatest and most humiliating victories over the latest No.2, you see a look of deep chagrin crossing his face at the moment of triumph… because it’s never really a triumph. He is winning the game, yes, but only because he has learned to play by the Village’s rules, and because he’s under the impression that he can’t simply quit (he tries and fails to “quit” the Village multiple times), and therefore might as well play to win.
One is reminded of the Right’s recent successful uses of Alinskyite tactics against the Left. It’s good to see them put in their place, of course — but my God, who knew we could lower ourselves to this, however necessary it is?
Admittedly, it’s been a while since I’ve seen the show – hoping to remedy that with the new Blue-Ray release.
P.S.- seem to remember reading McGoohan was in the seminary. Also seem to remember #6 was never seen “fooling around.” perhaps another Christ-like attribute.
That goes all the way back to when he was playing John “Danger Man” Drake. He was a fan of the ‘realistic’ spy thrillers by LeCarre et al. and he always insisted that if he was to play a spy, there were to be no guns and no girls. Notwithstanding theme songs performed by Johnny Rivers, espionage is not a glamorous job — McGoohan liked the idea of being the anti-Bond.
McGoohan was actually the second man offered the role of Bond. Cary Grant was first, and wanted nothing to do with it. McGoohan was second, and rejected it for pretty much the same reasons as Grant: Bond isn’t a hero, or even much of a spy, he’s just an oversexed, amoral thug. They asked him if he knew anyone he could see in the role, and McGoohan suggested Sean Connery. Allegedly they offered it to him again when Connerly left the role, but he turned them down again.
McGoohan was very Catholic, but never attented a seminary.
Jake, you’re right: they already know why he resigned. You see him handing them a fat envelope with “My resignation” in the opening of nearly every episode. He explained why he was going. They’re just trying to find out if he was lying or not, which is another neat aspect of the show: Even if you give them what they want, they won’t believe you. And, as the McKern #2 says, all they need to do is get him to crack on this one tiny thing, and he’ll completely shatter and be their toy again.
Kenn, there were some girls in the show. Not a lot, nothing steamy of course, but there’s a spark of interest here and there, and of course we find out that 6 had a fiance back in England. Certainly he’d never cheat on her.
Point of order: the letter he delivers is marked “PRIVATE AND PERSONAL // BY HAND” (in Patrick McGoohan’s handwriting, no less).
That plus the soundless scene following where he rants in the face of his immediate superior — and bangs his fist on the table hard enough to shatter the man’s teacup and saucer — makes it clear that the reason for his resignation was, at least, not a secret to his boss. It’s never clear whether the man’s a mole for the Village himself, although one of the early episodes makes it blatantly obvious that the Village has infiltrated MI-5; nevertheless, the Village minders are capable of guessing the truth — but they want to hear it from the horse’s mouth. If they can get that out of him, they can get anything.
(His boss, incidentally, is played in the opening credits by co-producer George Markstein. Markstein’s novel THE COOLER was a direct inspiration for the Village; he co-wrote the pilot and worked as a producer and script editor, but left when McGoohan made it clear he wanted to push the series even further in an allegorical direction. Markstein always saw THE PRISONER as just a surreal take on a John Le Carre plot — he jumped ship when it got too weird for him.)
I’d forgotten what the envelope said, but that’s consistent with my overall point: they already know the reason. It’s all just a pissing contest to make him tell them again so they can control him.