Skip to main content

THIS IS A DREAMY PARTY.


The Prisoner
3. A. B. and C.

We want information.

An under pressure Number Two orders Number Fourteen to test an experimental drug on Number Six in an attempt to extract the reason or his resignation. Two is convinced that Six was planning to sell out, and has narrowed the suspected parties down to three; “A”, “B’ and “C”. In an induced dream state, Six encounters each in turn at an extravagant party. But Six becomes increasingly aware of the artifice and manipulates the third dream to introduce “D”, revealed as Two himself. The reasons for Six’s resignation remain unrevealed, and Two must face the music.

So how do you like it?

There’s a deceptive simplicity to A. B. and C. It leaps headfirst into a science fiction plotline and refuses to get ensnared in the finer details; a Village technique allows the infiltration of dreams, and there are three chances to extract the truth from the ever-resistant Number Six. One might level the charge that three chances are two too many of padding, but with such a colourful idea and the first (as broadcast) real clash of wits between Six and a Number Two it never fails to engage. And it also provides that rare thing (in any medium); an intelligent, visual witty and wholly satisfying ending.

A. B. and C. is oft cited in the debate of the correct running order of the series. As I’ve said, I’m quite content to continue to revisit the series in broadcast order. But the placement of this one before The General has the guest Number Two against it. Colin Gordon plays Two in both episodes (and quite wonderful he is too; he proved similarly winning in Doctor Who’s The Faceless Ones about six months earlier). The problem is, Two here is nervous and clearly under pressure from his superiors. In The General he is the “new” Number Two (here he announces himself just as “Number Two”) and somewhat over-confident. Against this is that in The General he refers to himself and Six as “old friends”. A. B. and C.was filmed 10th and The General 11th so, if it was intended to be placed prior to A..., it must have been consciously retrofitted. In terms of broadcast order, I feel there’s a sufficient gap between the episodes (The Generalcomes sixth) for it not to be a too-pressing concern.


This is one of the most self-aware of episodes; the original title Play in Three Acts references both the repetitive structure and the “play” of the contest between Six and Two. It has been noted by others how we open on a stormy night, with Six on an operating table (it’s 15 minutes before we see him in his familiar habitation); director Pat Jackson (his second of four episodes) consciously references Frankenstein and his untoward experimentation. It also puts us in the realm of the altered state; this is less sci-fi than twisted fantasy. The emphasis on viewing the contents of Six’s subconscious, projected on the huge monitors in Two’s control room, makes a direct link between the viewer and Two (as, indeed, we cut from the control room view into the dream itself). Jackson takes care to foreground the physical Six with his dream form on the screen; it’s an early heads-up that this series is really all about his interior state, not the external trappings of why he resigned and who runs the Village.


The nature of Six’s lucidity or otherwise, and the control or manipulation of him in his dream state, draws attention to the nature of the storytelling of which he’s a part. This shouldn’t be over-emphasised, as I don’t necessarily think the episode is designed to be purely self-reflexive (unlike, say The Girl Who Was Death), but Jackson and writer Anthony Skene are clearly expanding on elements arising naturally from the story-within-a-story premise. When Six arrives for his third bout of partying, the camera lurches at alarming Dutch angles, before righting itself when he straightens a mirror (and thus his own perception); again, this suggests a direct line into Fall Out.


Which culminates in the final reveal (to Two and to us), where Six advises, “We mustn’t disappoint them, the people who are watching” as he unveils the identity of “D”, verbalising the meta-commentary. Most dazzling of all, Jackson works in a hint of infinite regression, as the dream Six, having unmasked “Two” as his co-conspirator, is observed walking into the control/test room, handing the envelope full of secrets (holiday brochures) to a third “Two” and then taking his place on the operating table (just as he is in the “real” world). 



The crowning moment of genius comes just before this, as Two and Fourteen actually expect dream Six to walk through the doors of the real control room.


Fourteen: He’s only doing what he would have done. I can only create the situation.

Anthony Skene wrote two other Prisoner scripts; his first was the another stand-out, Dance of the Dead, and his final one the slightly less illustrious Many Happy Returns. In some respects, this is a natural progression from Dance (where the high-strangeness there acts as a precursor to the pagan sacrifice of The Wicker Man). He sets up fairly straightforward dream logic rules; Fourteen can dictate the scenario and main players, but Six remains the unpredictable element. Additionally, Skene limits the game; three tries and they’re out of options, as a fourth attempt will kill him (it’s therefore very fortunate that there are precisely three possible co-conspirators). The “dream in a syringe” has more in common with the choice of pills in Alice in Wonderland than anything that bears analysis. And that’s as it should be; all that is necessary is the paraphernalia of science. 


There are clues from the first that Six is aware that he is being manipulated. As Fourteen prepares him (“His mind is now yours”), Six awakes and stares at her. After he engages in fisticuffs with “A”’s henchmen he adjusts his bowtie and intones “Be seeing you”, a greeting that he only learned in the Village. It isn’t explained how Six is able to martial his dreams, to the point where we see complete lucidity in the final sequence. When he is first shown dreaming he is going over his resignation in his sleep, so it appears that he does not have complete control of himself to prevent prying eyes and ears. Wouldn’t he let something slip eventually if they just kept monitoring his dream state? Presumably the answer is that time is of the essence, hence the pressure on Two and the threats he, in turn, holds over Fourteen.


Two: Yes, I realise my future’s at stake.

If the first two episodes presented a relatively at ease Number Two, albeit one who nevertheless required reassurance that his lack of results would not be a black mark against him, the third features a Two who is up against it. The ominous red phone is consistently placed in the foreground of the frame or shown in close-up, an alarm bell informing him that the clock is ticking. 



His milk drinking does not suggest a relaxed persona but a nervous one. We’re all answerable to someone, and for all his power this Two is just a cog in a wheel. We can feel his fear when he stares at the ringing phone in the last shot. This is a very significant shift in the series at an early stage, and a necessary extension of its themes. The controllers are controlled, no one is free. For all the lively bonhomie of Leo McKern’s Two, Gordon is my pick of the four we have seen so far. His desperation affords him an extra dimension to play with.


A: If you haven’t got a price, you must have a reason.

It’s interesting that Six is willing to wave in wave in Two’s face that he is onto him, displaying his needle-marked wrist and stating that Fourteen is his favourite doctor. One wonders if it is the best strategy but it certainly has the effect of further unsettling Two.


Two: If this man is damaged I shall hold you responsible.

Fourteen is the only other “real” person of note in this episode. Good as she is Sheila Allen isn’t given all that much to chew on. She’s a diligent scientist, concerned for the welfare of her patient and unwilling to push the use of an untested drug to dangerous levels.


Six: How does one talk to someone that one has met in a dream?

Even though Six contrives to meet with her in the Village, the structure of the episode ensures that she isn’t given a chance to develop self-doubt or transform into an accomplice. Perhaps the only less than satisfactory sequence is where Six tails Fourteen, gains access to her lab and dilutes the ‘C” syringe. It’s jolly convenient that the Village surveillance isn’t observing him when he’s performing such a crucial task. And how crucial was it anyway? The resistance he showed with “B” suggests he was turning the experiment his way even without that extra bit of help.


A: What are you going to do with your freedom?
Six: Go fishing.

A young and slightly chubby Peter Bowles plays “A”, and his sparring with McGoohand is elegant and witty. Bowles was a familiar face in ITC series of the  ‘60s. He also appeared in four Avengersepisodes. “A” provides a straightforward establishing scenario.


We’re introduced to the party and the middle-aged but vivacious hostess, Engadine (a vibrant and engaging Katherine Kath; McGoohan has an easy chemistry with her that further undermines all the tales of his prickliness when sharing scenes with his leading ladies, especially since Engadine is overtly mock-flirtatious).


The pragmatic “A” clearly doesn’t work for the same people as Six (“Sides don’t matter. Only success”) and fails to get him to bite, signalling the first punch-up of the episode.


Engadine: A woman’s hand. I’m jealous.

“B” looks to be the weak link of the dream scenarios, as Annette Carrell’s potential co-conspirator isn’t particularly distinctive. Until Fourteen pushes the idea of placing words in her mouth, that is.


Six: You are not who you pretend to be.

A second bout of fisticuffs subsides into a standoff; a gun is held at “B”’s head and she asks for the reason for Six’s resignation. As with the most satisfying Prisoner episodes (from Six’s perspective), his ability to discern the lie makes him a refreshing hero; it’s his shrewdness and intelligence that gives him the edge, not brawn. He’s unmoved by the plight of a damsel in distress, and leaves her to her fate. Again, the implacability of Six marks him out as different; whether or not that’s a consequence of McGoohan and his take on female characters, it’s always interesting. He can’t be swayed by appeals to his sentimental side. This may just be a dream, but it differs significantly from his plea for mercy for Eight in the previous episode.


Six: Terrible? It’s dreamy! THIS IS A DREAMY PARTY.

Albert Elms’s scoring for the ker-azee psychedelic third dream is one of the very best pieces of incidental music in the series; it’s very, very groovy and informs the tone of the dream and reflects backwards on the episode as a whole; The Prisoner is out there, man (this may be why Roger Avary rather clumsily tries to Tarantino-ise the episode by referencing it in Killing Zoe)!


There’s something joyous about seeing McGoohan in a “with it” setting. The same is true of the conscious referencing of the prevailing youth movement in Fall Out. McGoohan, particularly with his distinctive wardrobe and considered posturing in The Prisoner, is an instantly iconic presence. He exudes a sense of cool that allows him to engage with the cultural landscape of those two decades younger than him. We don’t respond to his “tripping-out” in this section with the embarrassment of seeing an old man attempting to be hip (as, surely, a 20 year-old would regard most 40-year olds) because McGoohan has fashioned his own sense of self-significance, unreliant on the overt approval of his peers or a younger generation. It’s one of the reasons the series retains it’s unique timelessness, in spite of being readily identifiable with the era that birthed it.


Two: We’re bringing her to the Village.

“C” sets up a mystery, as there is no photo of this potential colluder. As a result, we first assume it must be Georgina Cookson’s unnamed blonde woman. Cookson also plays Mrs. Butterworth in Many Happy Returns. There appears to be no intention to suggest these two characters are the same person (even if A. B. and C. was ordered later, it wouldn’t explain why Butterworth would be a part of the dream scenario). Then again, it’s not clear at what stage Six exerts control of his final dream (when he pulls the mirror to? This seems most likely). If she is his own invention, then he might just be rifling through his memories and picking the new resident of his London address.


The blonde is revealed as the go-between with “C”, as she gives Six a diamond which is then exchanged for a key; “C” (Engadine) proffers an identical key. It’s a neat bit of writing on Skene’s past, as it works both in terms of dream logic and as spy trade.


Two: This is what I’ve been waiting for…

By this point the role reversal is complete; the manipulator has become the manipulated. Two cannot disguise his excitement over the news that Six is going to meet “D”; the reason he wasn’t on Two’s radar is readily apparent when he is revealed as Two himself. We’re gifted a perfectly formed resolution; it doesn’t really need to stand up to logical analysis (as in, how precisely did Six control his own dreams so skillfully?) because it satisfies intellectually (the quest for answers is turned back on the inquisitor in the most comprehensive manner) and emotionally (Six may remain in the Village, but he has decisively triumphed over his keeper).

Six: I wasn’t selling out. That wasn’t the reason I resigned.


A. B. and C. is a permanent fixture in my Top Five episodes of the series. Perfectly structured and complemented by direction that brings out the best in the material, it is also blessed with some of Elms best incidental music for the show. It’s really dreamy!











Comments

Popular posts from this blog

We live in a twilight world.

Tenet (2020)
(SPOILERS) I’ve endured a fair few confusingly-executed action sequences in movies – more than enough, actually – but I don’t think I’ve previously had the odd experience of being on the edge of my seat during one while simultaneously failing to understand its objectives and how those objectives are being attempted. Which happened a few times during Tenet. If I stroll over to the Wiki page and read the plot synopsis, it is fairly explicable (fairly) but as a first dive into this Christopher Nolan film, I frequently found it, if not impenetrable, then most definitely opaque.

She was addicted to Tums for a while.

Marriage Story (2019)
(SPOILERS) I don’t tend to fall heavily for Noah Baumbach fare. He’s undoubtedly a distinctive voice – even if his collaborations with Wes Anderson are the least of that director’s efforts – but his devotion to an exclusive, rarefied New York bubble becomes ever more off-putting with each new project. And ever more identifiable as being a lesser chronicler of the city’s privileged quirks than his now disinherited forbear Woody Allen, who at his peak mastered a balancing act between the insightful, hilarious and self-effacing. Marriage Story finds Baumbach going yet again where Woody went before, this time brushing up against the director’s Ingmar Bergman fixation.

You can’t climb a ladder, no. But you can skip like a goat into a bar.

Juno and the Paycock (1930)
(SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s second sound feature. Such was the lustre of this technological advance that a wordy play was picked. By Sean O’Casey, upon whom Hitchcock based the prophet of doom at the end of The Birds. Juno and the Paycock, set in 1922 during the Irish Civil War, begins as a broad comedy of domestic manners, but by the end has descended into full-blown Greek (or Catholic) tragedy. As such, it’s an uneven but still watchable affair, even if Hitch does nothing to disguise its stage origins.

Anything can happen in Little Storping. Anything at all.

The Avengers 2.22: Murdersville
Brian Clemens' witty take on village life gone bad is one of the highlights of the fifth season. Inspired by Bad Day at Black Rock, one wonders how much Murdersville's premise of unsettling impulses lurking beneath an idyllic surface were set to influence both Straw Dogs and The Wicker Mana few years later (one could also suggest it premeditates the brand of backwoods horrors soon to be found in American cinema from the likes of Wes Craven and Tobe Hooper).

The protocol actually says that most Tersies will say this has to be a dream.

Jupiter Ascending (2015)
(SPOILERS) The Wachowski siblings’ wildly patchy career continues apace. They bespoiled a great thing with The Matrix sequels (I liked the first, not the second), misfired with Speed Racer (bubble-gum visuals aside, hijinks and comedy ain’t their forte) and recently delivered the Marmite Sense8 for Netflix (I was somewhere in between on it). Their only slam-dunk since The Matrix put them on the movie map is Cloud Atlas, and even that’s a case of rising above its limitations (mostly prosthetic-based). Jupiter Ascending, their latest cinema outing and first stab at space opera, elevates their lesser works by default, however. It manages to be tone deaf in all the areas that count, and sadly fetches up at the bottom of their filmography pile.

This is a case where the roundly damning verdicts have sadly been largely on the ball. What’s most baffling about the picture is that, after a reasonably engaging set-up, it determinedly bores the pants off you. I haven’t enco…

James Bond. You appear with the tedious inevitability of an unloved season.

Moonraker (1979)
Depending upon your disposition, and quite possibly age, Moonraker is either the Bond film that finally jumped the shark or the one that is most gloriously redolent of Roger Moore’s knowing take on the character. Many Bond aficionados will no doubt utter its name with thinly disguised contempt, just as they will extol with gravity how Timothy Dalton represented a masterful return to the core values of the series. If you regard For Your Eyes Only as a refreshing return to basics after the excesses of the previous two entries, and particularly the space opera grandstanding of this one, it’s probably fair to say you don’t much like Roger Moore’s take on Bond.

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
(1982)
(SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek, but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991)
(SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.

My dear, sweet brother Numsie!

The Golden Child (1986)
Post-Beverly Hills Cop, Eddie Murphy could have filmed himself washing the dishes and it would have been a huge hit. Which might not have been a bad idea, since he chose to make this misconceived stinker.

When I barked, I was enormous.

Dean Spanley (2008)
(SPOILERS) There is such a profusion of average, respectable – but immaculately made – British period drama held up for instant adulation, it’s hardly surprising that, when something truly worthy of acclaim comes along, it should be singularly ignored. To be fair, Dean Spanleywas well liked by critics upon its release, but its subsequent impact has proved disappointingly slight. Based on Lord Dunsany’s 1939 novella, My Talks with Dean Spanley, our narrator relates how the titular Dean’s imbibification of a moderate quantity of Imperial Tokay (“too syrupy”, is the conclusion reached by both members of the Fisk family regarding this Hungarian wine) precludes his recollection of a past life as a dog. 

Inevitably, reviews pounced on the chance to reference Dean Spanley as a literal shaggy dog story, so I shall get that out of the way now. While the phrase is more than fitting, it serves to underrepresent how affecting the picture is when it has cause to be, as does any re…