Skip to main content

By my manner, you assumed I was a guardian. By your manner, I knew you were a prisoner.

The Prisoner
9. Checkmate


We want information.

Six takes the role of the Queen’s pawn in a game of chess with human pieces. He is intrigued when a rogue Rook, who moves across the board without orders, is taken away for rehabilitation treatment. The Man with the Stick, controller of the chess game, furnishes Six with the means to tell the Village’s prisoners from its guardians. Six uses this method to win the support of the Rook. Together they assemble a team of fellow prisoners with the intention of mounting an escape bid. Meanwhile, the Queen has been hypnotised and believes that she is in love with Six. With the aid an electronic component taken from a monitoring device worn by the unsuspecting Queen, Six and his band send a distress signal to a nearby ship. The captured Two is held under guard while Six rows out to the vessel. However, on boarding Six is greeted by Two via a monitor screen. The ship belongs to the Village, and the Rook has released Two. Due to his demeanour, he though that Six was a guardian all along and that this was all a test.


So how do you like it?

Checkmate includes some of The Prisoner’s most iconic imagery, thanks to the human chess game that kicks off the proceedings. Accordingly, it’s an episode that comes prominently to mind when the series is mentioned. It is only when revisited that it fails to fully connect. The central idea is a strong one (using psychology to establish who are the prisoners and who are the masters, and develop and use that information to escape) but the result is perhaps too reined in and grounded in narrative terms. The rather literal manner in which the episode plays out is in marked contrast to both the previous Dance of the Dead and surrealism of the oversized chess match that informs events.


The reason for this is quite possibly that it was only the third episode made, following Free For All (which McGoohan poured himself into) and prior to Dance of the Dead (which all turned a bit weird). It’s been suggested that this one very much represents George Markstein’s vision for the series (Robert Fairclough in The Prisoner Official Companion); spy games seen through the eyes of a chess match. Despite the heightened touches (a familiar village bounce-through from Rover, complete with immobile villagers; this was actually to enable free Rover movement, evidencing that necessity is the mother of invention) the path of the episode is very “straight” and, if the final twist is a strong one, the sight of another escape attempt by boat brings with it the feeling of fatigue. One wonders if the “freezing” of the Villagers is involuntary (they have surrendered freewill) and only those who resist the powers-that-be (Six and the Man with the Stick) retain self-control.


Hence there is ample argument for placing this one earlier in the running order. Most of the revised lists position it third or fourth (even then, Chimes of Big Ben hot on its heels gives a successive sea escape). Six’s methodology of getting to know the difference between masters and servants might merely be seen as a consequence of his meeting the Man with the Stick (George Coulouris, Arbitan the Keeper in Doctor Who’s The Keys of Marinus; needless to say, he has nothing on the end of the stick, Vic). But it’s equally valid to subscribe to the idea that he doesn’t know this terrain because he’s new round these parts. 


He certainly seems unfamiliar with the gigantic chessboard that must have been around and about the place during the previous eight episodes (we see him playing normal sized chess in Arrival). When Six is told by a fellow piece that the Man’s ancestors (he is an ex-count) beheaded pieces as they were wiped off the board, he is told “Don’t worry. It’s not allowed here”. Conversely, at this point in the broadcast order, we have become used to Six discovering something new about his surroundings each week; there is a sense that in every installment he is a prisoner “anew”.


There is much that is familiar here. Six is still doggedly trying to establish who Number One is (“It doesn’t do to ask questions”), and is upfront about his rebellion against Two “Your troubles are only just beginning”. He is accompanied for much of the proceedings by a female prisoner for whom he has little time (the White Queen, played by Rosalie Crutchley). In this case she is hypnotised, manipulated into believing she loves Six. Different to the crazy maid revealed as a guard in Free For All, but nevertheless another constant female thorn in Six’s side.


Two: In society one must learn to conform.

We also see further evidence of interrogation techniques, but on this occasion they are inflicted on Number 58, the Rook (Ronald Radd), rather than Six. As I noted when discussing Dance of the Dead, since his Many Happyreturn to the Village Six has been subject to different approaches from the standard mind altering methods. It’s debatable whether the Rook’s “rehabilitation course” is a success. The Psychiatrist (Patricia Jessel) pronounces, “From now on, he’ll be fully co-operative”. One could certainly argue that he is, but he appears to have used the logic Six has taught him to decide heis a keeper rather than following a course of total obedience without question (his final remarks suggest self-preservation rather than subservience). 


She also comments “Interesting subject I should like to know his breaking point” of Six, who has been warned by Two “We have ways, if you drive us to them” which would appear to ignore the methods he has been subjected to in A. B. & C., The Schizoid Man and the unauthorised experiment at the beginning of Dance of the Dead (“I can imagine” Six replies to Two; he doesn’t need to). So there are a number of reasonable arguments for putting the episode earlier in the run, but they presume the need for a neat continuity between the successive wardens and scientists taking a crack at the unrecalcitrant prisoner.


Man with the Stick: Psychiatrists say it satisfies the desire for power. It’s the only opportunity one gets here.

Two informs Six that the Rook’s treatment, inducing an insatiable thirst that can only be quenched by obeying instructions, is based on Pavlov’s experiments. Much of the focus here is on psychology, and proven methods of exerting control (resonant of The Stanford Prison Experiment). The Man with the Stick is upfront about his reported motivation for playing the grand chess game.  He advises Six “Most of us have joined the enemy against ourselves” but his approach is less demonstrative than Six’s. He keeps his mind alert “just to defy them”, but proves valuable in instructing Six on how to make an impact on his fellow prisoners (“By the moves they make”). 


Six is inquisitive as to why “Everybody has a plan but they all fail”. Presumably because he wants to know how he can make good on his failures. Six has managed only four escape bids in twice the number of episodes, and one of those (Many Happy Returns) saw the gates left wide open. (The others being his helicopter departure in Arrival, his art exhibit boat in The Chimes of Big Ben, and his dash for freedom assuming his doppelganger’s identity in The Schizoid Man.


Six: Why did you run? Running is a sign of resistance.
Rook: No.
Six: The will to escape.
Rook: No.

Six’s modus operandi here is atypical. He mounts an escape bid with a collection of fellow prisoners. It just isn’t in his loner style (the closest he gets is an exhortation to rise up in Free For All). This aspect makes a sort of sense placed somewhere down the line in the running order; Six is willing to consider different approaches if there is the possibility that something outside his comfort zone can get results.


It’s unclear from the ending at what stage the Rook reported to Two; if he believed Six was a guardian he’d have no reason to do so until the point where they take Two prisoner at the end. It’s clear that the Rook had convinced the co-conspirators that this was all a test well before then (although where the Man with the Stick figures in this is never clear; he is clearly shown to be involved in the plan, but surely he is too discerning to be convinced by the Rook?), but Six’s “So he released you” suggests a conversation immediately following Two’s capture. Even the situation with the Polotza fails to clarify how aware Two was of the plot (Control appeared to genuinely think that the message sent to the vessel came from a plane; it just so happens that the ship is theirs).  


In theory then, Six’s plan’s only hole became evident right at the end, even if was doomed from the start by the Rook’s doubt. To establish such a weakness in the fabric of the Village so early (as the third or fourth episode) might have undermined it in the eyes of the viewer. If Two had not prevailed over the Rook, he would still have won but not because he’d predicted Six’s actions many moves ahead. Rather it would be because he had a piece in an all-important position he could move at the right moment (the checkmate). 


I note Wikipedia’s plot summary suggests that Six “has been a pawn all along”, supported by the butler’s placing of the pawn (Six) back on the chessboard in the final shot (like the Rook, Six has gone rogue but has been brought to heel). In which case the capture of control and Two is far less impressive, seen in the light of Village omniscience (one does wonder that Six would have believed it to be feasible anyway, without his actions being monitored). But this symbolic interpretation may take the chess analogy too far (if Six is a pawn, he cannot be captured in the checkmate of the title). Nevertheless, I think there’s sufficient latitude to leave the fineries of who told what when and to whom open to debate.


Two: When you took command of this venture, your air of authority convinced him you were one of us.

This reveal is a smart twist, one that is thematically coherent with the ideas presented. The prisoner/master interrogations, designed to assemble a group of willing escapees (given the obedience we see in other episodes, its an unlikely achievement to gather this number here), feed directly into Six’s ultimate failure; the Rook never recovers from Six taking command during their first encounter. 




On the chessboard between Six and Two, the latter may make a number of sloppy early moves (the easily discovered Queen) but he rallies with a hugely decisive mate (as noted, if he had not held sway over the Rook, the Village-owned ship would done for Six). There is also, in an episode made so early, an implication in waiting that Six is at least the equal of Two, if not One himself; his air of authority is superior to all, and he even has his own number two (the Rook), for however brief a time.

Rook: Then why the inquisition?
Six: By my manner, you assumed I was a guardian. By your manner, I knew you were a prisoner.



But there’s something about Checkmate as a whole that is not quite there. Don Chaffey does a good job directing (although McGoohan handled the interiors), his second of four Prisoner spots. For an episode with this title, a move and countermove structure might be expected. Instead, the plot gives way to a less than scintillating escape plan complete with code words and searchlights. The subplot concerning the Queen is blessed with a strong performance from Crutchley but the character isn’t terribly interesting. The best moment finds her appearing in Six’s house at night. He is ready for bed in his dressing gown and cleaning his teeth. She is in his kitchen, in her dressing gown making him some cocoa. It’s a surprising moment given McGoohan’s reported unease with suggestive moments involving the opposite sex. Does the Queen expect to spend the night with Six? In her deluded state, it’s quite possible.



Six: Love? You don’t even know me. You’re crazy.

McGoohan plays Six with slightly more empathy for the Queen than he sometimes shows towards his female co-stars (“I do care”). He can see that something is up, and he is reluctant to send her off the deep end. Rather than raging as he does on other occasions, he uses the subtle approach.  She asks if she can see him again and he replies, dryly, “Oh yes, I’m here all the time”. Later on the beach, he is more his usual flippant self. She comments “If I didn’t know you better, I’d think you didn’t like me anymore” and he replies “I don’t”. Once he has removed her pendant this is the last we see of her, an unusually abrupt exit.


Two: We want you to be happy.

Peter Wyngarde’s Two is something of a missed opportunity. The actor is a winning screen presence, and the sight of him dressed in a karate outfit, chopping a plank in half is most amusing. But he’s an underwritten Two and we never encounter an effective clash of wills between him and Six. 


His reign over the Village includes a few nicely placed understatements about what to do if one suffers “another attack of egotism” and there are disparaging remarks regarding the affliction of the “cult of the individual” but Wyngarde is mostly required to coast on his louche charm.


Two: I hate to disappoint you, but the Polotska’s our ship.

Six is identified as possessing “aggressive tendencies”. The word association game he submits to reveals “Some unusual associations but nothing definite so far”, but ultimately suggests, “Total disregard for personal safety and a negative reaction to pain”. He also never appears to learn from his mistakes, but on the other hand the assumption that any given bid for freedom is a trap would render him immobile. Better to have tried and failed.


Two: They’ll be back tomorrow, on the chessboard, as pawns.

The trouble with repeating such scenarios is that there are only so many ways of Two saying “Fooled you!” each week. It’s fine if there is something genuinely striking leading up to the reveal (Dance of the Dead), but upper hand tone of Two’s sign off is so familiar it might be taken as the archetypal Prisoner ending.



Perhaps I’m being a little too critical of an episode with a fine cast and a number of strong ideas and scenes. The apprehension of Two is a surprising development (depending on how legitimate one considers it to be), as is Six leading a band of escapees, but the mechanics of the escape bid and the foiling thereof aren’t quite as special its reputation suggests. Certainly nothing to validate Kelsey’s view of his script; “the craziest things you could think of”.

***1/2


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

How would Horatio Alger have handled this situation?

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998) (SPOILERS) Gilliam’s last great movie – The Zero Theorem (2013) is definitely underrated, but I don’t think it’s that underrated – Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas could easily have been too much. At times it is, but in such instances, intentionally so. The combination of a visual stylist and Hunter S Thompson’s embellished, propulsive turn of phrase turns out, for the most part, to be a cosmically aligned affair, embracing the anarchic abandon of Raoul Duke and Doctor Gonzo’s Las Vegas debauch while contriving to pull back at crucial junctures in order to engender a perspective on all this hedonism. Would Alex Cox, who exited stage left, making way for the Python, have produced something interesting? I suspect, ironically, he would have diluted Thompson in favour of whatever commentary preoccupied him at the time (indeed, Johnny Depp said as much: “ Cox had this great material to work with and he took it and he added his own stuff to it ”). Plus

No matter how innocent you are, or how hard you try, they’ll find you guilty.

The Wrong Man (1956) (SPOILERS) I hate to say it, but old Truffaut called it right on this one. More often than not showing obeisance to the might of Hitchcock during his career-spanning interview, the French critic turned director was surprisingly blunt when it came to The Wrong Man . He told Hitch “ your style, which has found its perfection in the fiction area, happens to be in total conflict with the aesthetics of the documentary and that contradiction is apparent throughout the picture ”. There’s also another, connected issue with this, one Hitch acknowledged: too much fidelity to the true story upon which the film is based.

To survive a war, you gotta become war.

Rambo: First Blood Part II (1985) (SPOILERS?) I’d like to say it’s mystifying that a film so bereft of merit as Rambo: First Blood Part II could have finished up the second biggest hit of 1985. It wouldn’t be as bad if it was, at minimum, a solid action movie, rather than an interminable bore. But the movie struck a chord somewhere, somehow. As much as the most successful picture of that year, Back to the Future , could be seen to suggest moviegoers do actually have really good taste, Rambo rather sends a message about how extensively regressive themes were embedding themselves in Reaganite, conservative ‘80s cinema (to be fair, this is something one can also read into Back to the Future ), be those ones of ill-conceived nostalgia or simple-minded jingoism, notional superiority and might. The difference between Stallone and Arnie movies starts right here; self-awareness. Audiences may have watched R ambo in the same way they would a Schwarzenegger picture, but I’m

You were a few blocks away? What’d you see it with, a telescope?

The Eyes of Laura Mars (1978) (SPOILERS) John Carpenter’s first serial-killer screenplay to get made, The Eyes of Laura Mars came out nearly three months before Halloween. You know, the movie that made the director’s name. And then some. He wasn’t best pleased with the results of The Eyes of Laura Mars, which ended up co-credited to David Zelag Goodman ( Straw Dogs , Logan’s Run ) as part of an attempt by producer Jon Peters to manufacture a star vehicle for then-belle Barbra Streisand: “ The original script was very good, I thought. But it got shat upon ”. Which isn’t sour grapes on Carpenter’s part. The finished movie bears ready evidence of such tampering, not least in the reveal of the killer (different in Carpenter’s conception). Its best features are the so-uncleanly-you-can-taste-it 70s New York milieu and the guest cast, but even as an early example of the sub-genre, it’s burdened by all the failings inherit with this kind of fare.

He’s so persistent! He always gets his man.

Speed (1994) (SPOILERS) It must have been a couple of decades since I last viewed Speed all the way through, so it’s pleasing to confirm that it holds up. Sure, Jan de Bont’s debut as a director can’t compete with the work of John McTiernan, for whom he acted as cinematographer and who recommended de Bont when he passed on the picture, but he nevertheless does a more than competent work. Which makes his later turkeys all the more tragic. And Keanu and Sandra Bullock display the kind of effortless chemistry you can’t put a price tag on. And then there’s Dennis Hopper, having a great old sober-but-still-looning time.

But everything is wonderful. We are in Paris.

Cold War (2018) (SPOILERS) Pawel Pawlikowski’s elliptical tale – you can’t discuss Cold War without saying “elliptical” at least once – of frustrated love charts a course that almost seems to be a caricature of a certain brand of self-congratulatorily tragic European cinema. It was, it seems “ loosely inspired ” by his parents (I suspect I see where the looseness comes in), but there’s a sense of calculation to the progression of this love story against an inescapable political backdrop that rather diminishes it.

What do they do, sing madrigals?

The Singing Detective (2003) Icon’s remake of the 1986 BBC serial, from a screenplay by Dennis Potter himself. The Singing Detective fares less well than Icon’s later adaptation of Edge of Darkness , even though it’s probably more faithful to Potter’s original. Perhaps the fault lies in the compression of six episodes into a feature running a quarter of that time, but the noir fantasy and childhood flashbacks fail to engage, and if the hospital reality scans better, it too suffers eventually.

The game is rigged, and it does not reward people who play by the rules.

Hustlers (2019) (SPOILERS) Sold as a female Goodfellas – to the extent that the producers had Scorsese in mind – this strippers-and-crime tale is actually a big, glossy puff piece, closer to Todd Phillips as fashioned by Lorene Scarfia. There are some attractive performances in Hustlers, notably from Constance Wu, but for all its “progressive” women work male objectification to their advantage posturing, it’s incredibly traditional and conservative deep down.

One final thing I have to do, and then I’ll be free of the past.

Vertigo (1958) (SPOILERS) I’ll readily admit my Hitchcock tastes broadly tend to reflect the “consensus”, but Vertigo is one where I break ranks. To a degree. Not that I think it’s in any way a bad film, but I respect it rather than truly rate it. Certainly, I can’t get on board with Sight & Sound enthroning it as the best film ever made (in its 2012’s critics poll). That said, from a technical point of view, it is probably Hitch’s peak moment. And in that regard, certainly counts as one of his few colour pictures that can be placed alongside his black and white ones. It’s also clearly a personal undertaking, a medley of his voyeuristic obsessions (based on D’entre les morts by Pierre Boileau and Thomas Narcejac).

You don’t know anything about this man, and he knows everything about you.

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s two-decades-later remake of his British original. It’s undoubtedly the better-known version, but as I noted in my review of the 1934 film, it is very far from the “ far superior ” production Truffaut tried to sell the director on during their interviews. Hitchcock would only be drawn – in typically quotable style – that “ the first version is the work of a talented amateur and the second was made by a professional ”. For which, read a young, creatively fired director versus one clinically going through the motions, occasionally inspired by a shot or sequence but mostly lacking the will or drive that made the first The Man Who Knew Too Much such a pleasure from beginning to end.