Skip to main content

Sleep well, my friend, and forget us. Tomorrow you will wake up a new man.

The Prisoner
13. Do Not Forsake Me Oh My Darling


We want information.

In an effort to locate Professor Seltzman, a scientist who has perfected a means of transferring one person’s mind to another person’s body, Number Two has Number Six’s mind installed in the body of the Colonel (a loyal servant of the Powers that Be). Six was the last person to have contact with Seltzman and, if he is to stand any chance of being returned to his own body, he must find him (the Village possesses only the means to make the switch, they cannot reverse the process). Awaking in London, Six encounters old acquaintances including his fiancée and her father Sir Charles Portland (Six’s superior and shown in the teaser sequence fretting over how to find Seltzman). Six discovers Seltzman’s hideout by decoding a series of photographs, and sets off to find him in Austria. He achieves this, but both men are captured and returned to the Village. Restoring Six and the Colonel to their respective bodies, Seltzman appears to be overcome by the strain and dies. The Colonel departs in a helicopter. However, Six reveals Seltzman’s mind was deposited in the Colonel’s body and the Colonel’s mind perished with Seltzman. Seltzman is now free to continue his work in peace.


So how do you like it?

Would Do Not Forsake Me Oh My Darling be better if Patrick McGoohan played Number Six throughout? Well, it wouldn’t be Do Not Forsake Me Oh My Darling, so that’s moot. But this raises the question of whether it’s the episode, written by Vincent Tilsey (formerly of The Chimes of Big Ben) and directed by Pat Jackson, that stinks or the stiff, unpersuasive performance from Nigel Stock as Six. If the makers wanted to find an actor who was the complete opposite of McGoohan, both in temperament and charisma, they couldn’t have picked anyone better. Unfortunately, Stock completely destroys any viewer engagement. This is the really-a-bit-rubbish Prisonerepisode. It’s not awful, but it’s resolutely uninvolving.


Those who claim Do Not Forsake Me Oh My Darling was intended to kick-off an allegedly planned second season are apparently supported by the references to it being a whole year since Six went AWOL. But there’s no strong reason to see this as other than a convenient writer’s device. It’s quite clear that Six hasn’t been in the Village a mere three months (of broadcast episodes) and that there are significant gaps between events. Many Happy Returns, shot directly before Do Not Forsake Me, also emphasises the length of time since Six has been away from London. Whether or not another run was planned, it would surely have been a bum move to kick it off with a lead performance of barely suppressed tedium.


Where there’s no dispute is that Tilsey was asked to write it accommodate McGoohan’s absence from the set; he was shooting Ice Station Zebra. This was the fourteenth episode to be made, and one of the oddball later productions (Living in Harmony, The Girl Who Was Death and Fall Out being the others). Unfortunately it’s only oddball in the sense that it is atypical of The Prisoner, not in terms of it being whacky or out there or brimming with interesting ideas. It’s generally kept around this point in most re-ordering; some have it an episode or two earlier, but it makes sense that Do Not Forsake Meforms part of the gradual disintegration of the format leading the disintegration of the lead character’s identity.


Tilsey wasn’t fond of the script, nor the rewrites it received. He felt the idea was hackneyed (which it is) but couldn’t come up with anything better. What we end up with is the standard science fiction body-swap plot (the original title was Face Unknown, until the original title of Living in Harmony came to replace it; it now references Six’s fiancé, although that’s a somewhat tepid connection since there’s so little spark to the relationship). The theme of mind/body change is common to the series, although the device hasn’t been incorporated quite so broadly prior to this point; it might have been more fun if the content of the episode was as untempered as its premised. There are parallels with mind messing of A. B. and C. and the personality disorder of The Schizoid Man. This is roughly the inverse of that episode; rather than double the McGoohan we have none (or merely a sliver). The effect would be not unlike watching a Quantum Leap only to find Sam suddenly played by an exciting actor; you’d be left wondering which show you’d switched on.


Nigel Stock had previously appeared with McGoohan in Danger Man, and was most familiar with viewers up to that point for his Dr Watson in the BBC Sherlock Holmes. He’d played opposite Douglas Wilmer a few years before, and would return to the role with Peter Cushing later in 1968. As a stuffy old duffer he’s perfect casting; just look at his lead in The Pickwick Papers. Unfortunately, call on Stock to behave dynamically and you have problems. He doesn’t convince in action, in a romantic scene or as a man with keen intelligence. He’s a plodder. One might argue this disparity with McGoohan is entirely the point; an unlikely figure occupies Six’s shoes. Be that as it may, it fails dramatically and there isn’t much way round that as a criticism.


It does, I suppose, provide all the argument we need for why Six doesn’t just leg it when he has the chance. It’s not merely a philosophical argument about mind-body duality. It’s rather more basic. You wouldn’t scarper if you suddenly found yourself looking like Nigel Stock, replete with piggy eyes and doughy body. With no poise, zip or panache. You’d do everything you could to reverse the process. Six even suggests at the climax that Seltzman (mostly played by Hugo Schuster), now reconstituted in the General’s (Stock’s) body would be none too happy about such a state of affairs (even though it makes him a good decade younger); “The good doctor’s mind now inhabits a body perhaps not to his liking”.


Colonel: The mind of one man into another? Impossible, I don’t believe it.
Two: Imagine the power we could have if the spy we returned had the mind of our choosing. We could break the security of any nation.

The feasibility of Seltzman’s process is done few favours by the references to studying an advanced yogi who could go into suspended animation for months, leading the Doctor to discover how to “transmit the psyche of one person into another”. Of course. Generally, there’s something a bit confused about the ethics in this episode. The Village, and Six’s superiors, want to locate Seltzman to make use of this process. Although, they don’t really need him to effect their plans do they? The Village has a working machine; it’s just that anyone being transferred with have to lump it as far as getting their old body back. But, given how unscrupulous the Village is, I don’t see that as being much of a problem. Seltzman is seen as a good, gentle scientist with moral qualms (“Rutherford, for example. How he must regret having split the atom”) but Two straight out accuses him of an invention as bad as the creation of the nuclear bomb (“Almost as bad as splitting the identity of two human beings”).


At a stretch, one might argue that Seltzman’s action in taking the Colonel’s body is justified by the harm it would do if he were forced to work for those who would put his creation to Machiavellian purposes. But he could simply have offed his mind along with his body if he was so principled. The Colonel hasn’t done anything evil that we know; he was merely following orders (“You assured me that he was in good health. You must contact Number One and tell him I did my duty”).  The twist itself is a good one and probably the most arresting part of the episode, but Six’s parting shot (“He is now free to continue his experiments in peace”) has connotations of unwholesome activities and unchecked experiments of Nazi scientists absconded to Argentina.


Six: The man who’s just flying out of here… Is not who you thought it was.
Two: I don’t believe it.
Six: He can and did change three minds at the same time.

In the Village we see that not only is there a functioning Seltzman machine (while the red and blue lighting affects for transference are quite groovy, this episode is generally lacking on the arresting visuals front, immersed as it is in “real world” spy fare), but there’s also the Amnesia Room. Of which we learn that subjects cooperate very quickly; in three days they can get what they need with “hardly any persuasion”. Of course, we’ve seen Six subjected to localised amnesia techniques before (in The Schizoid Man).


Two, played by Clifford Evans, might be the least memorable of Village subordinates. True, he’s not involved for much of the proceedings, but there’s little to distinguish him in terms of personality when he is.


Seltzman: Do you think your people have done this to you?
Six: No, I’m sure.

The main question Do Not Forsake Me raises is whether the Village operatives and Six’s superiors are one and the same. This idea is also broached in Many Happy Returns, which, as noted, directly preceded Do Not Forsake Me in production order. It was clearly something on the minds of the makers  (and Thorpe in Many Happy Returns may or may not be the new Number Two in Hammer Into Anvil). Here, Six’s boss Sir Charles Portland, also his prospective father-in-law, may or may not be directly involved with the Village’s activities. In an earlier draft of Tilsey’s script he clearly was, but it’s difficult not to deduce, despite Six’s baffling dismissal of the idea (except that duffer Stock Six says it, so we can believe he’s a bit bumbling and dim), that his superiors are at least in cahoots with the Village. How else to explain the coincidence that suddenly, a year after Six’s incarceration and just when Sir Charles and his colleagues are trying to crack Seltzman’s code, Six should have his essence transposed into the Colonel and be sent to find him?


If this fairly significant confirmation fails to muster much impact, it’s because the episode as a whole fails to compel. It isn’t just the controllers of the Village; there are whole raft of revelations about Six that provoke little more than a shrug. So we discover that Six is engaged to Janet Portland (Zena Walker), that he last saw her a year and a day ago and she wore a dress of yellow silk. And… Isn’t it all rather bland? Would there be more spark to the dutiful daughter if she was sharing her scenes with McGoohan? Well no doubt one of the least steamy kisses committed to celluloid wouldn’t have occurred (given the actor’s non-intimacy rep). Given the title is overtly referencing Janet’s wait for her beloved to return, it’s all a bit of a damp squib.


Two: Sleep well, my friend, and forget us. Tomorrow you will wake up a new man. 

Any reminder of McGoohan in the episode only serves to highlight what we’re missing; the montage of Six resisting, the Danger Man photo. When the actor voices Stock Six’s inner thought processes it feels awkward and out of synch. We can’t really buy into the idea that real Six is in there, and it means Stock’s performance is something of a failure. There are other, lesser titbits of information about Six. His code name in England is ZM73, in France is Duvall, and in Germany is Schmidt. He likes jugged hare.  His handwriting stays the same even when his body doesn’t. He also has at least three scenes where he is attempting to convince someone of his true identity, which is two too many.


As far as the eternal background hum of the identity of Number One is concerned, McGoohand drops in a nugget as the transference process begins. Two instructs Six, “Take it easy, take it easy. It will all be one in the end”.


Leaving aside the lack of grip exerted by Stock, we’re already familiar with idea of Six back in London attempting to convince others of his claims (The Chimes of Big Ben, Many Happy Returns). This element is even less fresh here. The code-breaking scene is quite good, however, in that we are easily able to follow Six’s methodology. Although, given it is so elementary you’d have thought experienced code-breakers could have come up with a result. The travelogue transitions from France to Austria are about what you’d expect, but there’s a neat line from a waiter when Six arrives in Kandersfeld; “Oh, welcome to the village sir. What would you like to order?


If the mind transfer twist is a good one, the means by which Six convinces Seltzman of his identity is lacking. “No two handwritings can be the same”, we are told. Er… how about forgery? Is Saltzman some kind of expert? It’s the sort of thing that, even though this is standard spy fare, comes across more like sub-standard spy fare.


So, no Village. No McGoohan. What are you left with? Well, there’s a pre-titles teaser, and a different Village introductory sequence, neither of which make a virtue of breaking with the norm. Other episodes do something interesting when freed from the shackles of the Village. Not this one. And Nigel Stock succeeds in sucking all the air out of the show. What are you left with? Something slightly forsaken.


**



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

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're not only wrong. You're wrong at the top of your voice.

Bad Day at Black Rock (1955)
I’ve seen comments suggesting that John Sturges’ thriller hasn’t aged well, which I find rather mystifying. Sure, some of the characterisations border on the cardboard, but the director imbues the story with a taut, economical backbone. 

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.

To defeat the darkness out there, you must defeat the darkness inside yourself.

The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader (2010)
Easily the best of the Narnia films, which is maybe damning it with faint praise. 

Michael Apted does a competent job directing (certainly compared to his Bond film - maybe he talked to his second unit this time), Dante Spinotti's cinematography is stunning and the CGI mostly well-integrated with the action. 

Performance-wise, Will Poulter is a stand-out as a tremendously obnoxious little toff, so charismatic you're almost rooting for him. Simon Pegg replaces Eddie Izzard as the voice of Reepicheep and delivers a touching performance.
***

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…

Hello Johnny, how are you today?

Twin Peaks 3.10: Laura is the one.
(SPOILERS) I’ve a theory that all it takes to tip a solid episode of Twin Peaks (in any season) into a great one are three or four slices of sublime strangeness. The rest can hum along amiably, in contrast to that electricity the Log Lady has something to say about, but it’s those scenes that define the overall shape and energy. Laura is the one has a good three or four, and maybe the funniest sustained Lynchian visual gag so far.

That comes in the form of the Mitchum brothers, or to be more precise Robert Knepper’s Rodney. He’s aided and abetted by Candie (Amy Shiels), part airhead, part fruit bat, attempting to swat a fly while Rodney examines casino surveillance logs. And like most of the director’s comic gold, this goes on and on and on, and you absolutely know it will end with Rodney getting clobbered. I wasn’t expecting it to be with the TV remote, though.

I’m not certain Candie’s mental state, sustained though it is, is going to be about anyth…

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…

That Freud stuff’s a bunch of hooey.

Spellbound (1945)
Spellbound is something of a stumbling follow-up to Rebecca, producer David O Selznick’s previous collaboration with Hitchcock. Selznick was a devotee of psychoanalysis, and the idea of basing a film on the subject was already in the mind of the director. To that end, the producer’s own therapist, May Romm, was brought in as a technical advisor (resulting in Hitchcock’s famous response when she pointed out an inaccuracy, “My dear, it’s only a movie”).

I’ve had enough of this 2012 Alamo bullshit.

13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi (2016)
(SPOILERS) Not The Secret Private Military Contractors of Benghazi, as that might sound dubious in some way, and we wouldn’t anything to undermine their straight-shooting heroism. That, and interrogating the politics of the US presence in Libya, official and unofficial, and involvement in the downfall of Gaddafi (Adam Curtis provides some solid nuggets in his rather sprawling HyperNormalisation), is the furthest thing from Michael Bay’s mind. Indeed, it’s a shame 13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi bears the burden of being a tale based on (murky and disputed) facts, as it’s Bay’s most proficient piece of filmmaking in some time.

So, you’re not going to find out what the CIA was actually up to in their Benghazi base (most likely, the dodgiest conclusion you can reach will be the right one). You’ll only be informed that a brave team of ex-military types were there to protect them, and stepped up to the plate, just as soon as they got …

I just hope my death makes more cents than my life.

Joker (2019)
(SPOILERS) So the murder sprees didn’t happen, and a thousand puff pieces desperate to fan the flames of such events and then told-ya-so have fallen flat on their faces. The biggest takeaway from Joker is not that the movie is an event, when once that seemed plausible but not a given, but that any mainstream press perspective on the picture appears unable to divorce its quality from its alleged or actual politics. Joker may be zeitgeisty, but isn’t another Taxi Driver in terms of cultural import, in the sense that Taxi Driver didn’t have a Taxi Driver in mind when Paul Schrader wrote it. It is, if you like, faux-incendiary, and can only ever play out on that level. It might be more accurately described as a grubbier, grimier (but still polished and glossy) The Talented Ripley, the tale of developing psychopathy, only tailored for a cinemagoing audience with few options left outside of comic book fare.