![The Health Care Industry Apocalypse In "Repo Men"](http://cache-07.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/8/2010/03/126x100_repomenonthejob.jpg "The Health Care Industry Apocalypse In "Repo Men"")
Enter your username and password.
This was a travesty: an over-long, dull repudiation of everything that Patrick McGoohan tried to show us in the original series. Call it "The Anti-Prisoner," or better yet, "The Warden," and see it for what it really was: a propoganda piece of justification from the people and forces that imprison us in the first place.
The fact that some extremely capable actors tried to bring life into this zombie of a program only served to point out just how awful it truly was. By the end I found I cared not a bit whether any of the prisoners in the Village, or they real world counterparts, lived or died. Six was a pathetic, passive blowhard, all talk and no action; his little speech about how flawed he is because he's human comes across more as a 6-year old's whine than as a mature philosophical observation. 313 was just as bad, full of self-pity and cowardice.
I forced myself to watch the whole way through, hoping against hope that the end would somehow justify the work of the original series, but no, it was not to be: 6 becomes One? Becomes the god of this nightmare that imprisons the minds of others, to keep them safe? Let's his avatar in the dream become Two, and continue's Two's lies about the reality of their prison? Buys into the idea that mind control is okay because it makes it easier for people to fit in and be useful? Embraces the idea that it's okay to takes away a person's liberty because, after all, it's because we're just looking out for your wellbeing?
Nonsense.
"Do as I command and all will be well," is the kind of paternalistic argument that dictators and tyrants have been foisting on their subjects for millenia. Confronted with the choice of becoming King, Patrick McGoohan's Number 6 refused to become the very thing he'd struggled against, i.e. refused to protect people from their own choices; Jim Caviezel's 6, by contrast, takes up the mantle of King, however reluctantly, lest someone get hurt -- and undercuts everything the iconic series stood for. Reply
The fact that some extremely capable actors tried to bring life into this zombie of a program only served to point out just how awful it truly was. By the end I found I cared not a bit whether any of the prisoners in the Village, or they real world counterparts, lived or died. Six was a pathetic, passive blowhard, all talk and no action; his little speech about how flawed he is because he's human comes across more as a 6-year old's whine than as a mature philosophical observation. 313 was just as bad, full of self-pity and cowardice.
I forced myself to watch the whole way through, hoping against hope that the end would somehow justify the work of the original series, but no, it was not to be: 6 becomes One? Becomes the god of this nightmare that imprisons the minds of others, to keep them safe? Let's his avatar in the dream become Two, and continue's Two's lies about the reality of their prison? Buys into the idea that mind control is okay because it makes it easier for people to fit in and be useful? Embraces the idea that it's okay to takes away a person's liberty because, after all, it's because we're just looking out for your wellbeing?
Nonsense.
"Do as I command and all will be well," is the kind of paternalistic argument that dictators and tyrants have been foisting on their subjects for millenia. Confronted with the choice of becoming King, Patrick McGoohan's Number 6 refused to become the very thing he'd struggled against, i.e. refused to protect people from their own choices; Jim Caviezel's 6, by contrast, takes up the mantle of King, however reluctantly, lest someone get hurt -- and undercuts everything the iconic series stood for. Reply
@michaelowens: your ire is well conceived if a bit heavy on the conspiracy theories at first. i would, however, caution that just because 6 chose to become 2 and continue the work done in the village does not necessarily mean that the series as a whole endorses this move or brands it as justified. it could be interpreted that way, as you obviously have, but that interpretation is not inherent to the work itself. nor does the ending imply that 6 continues the tradition of lying to people to keep them safe, only the continuance of the village as a concept not necessarily in the same style as the previous 2's.
Reply
@tetracycloide: first let me say i find you oddly attractive.:
Needn't be a conspiracy theorist to recognize the influence that ideology can exert on creative works. Furthermore, the reading of 6's collaborationism as justified seems consonant with writer Bill Gallagher's comments in interviews on his work that he aimed for a "less individualistic," "more community-minded approach" reflected in an ending that affirmed the importance of community over the individual.
Now, it's valid to read a text against the grain of its author's stated intentions, but we should at least acknowledge a reading by those intentions.
What angers many of us fans of the original is that this remake is that it's such a polar opposite of the original in ideological terms. Now, perhaps a case could be made for soft totalitarianism (I disagree that political-corporate entities equate to actual community, so I wouldn't call it communitarian), and that's fine--go right ahead. But to use the Prisoner as a platform for doing that immediately brings to mind the Situationist concept of "recuperation," where revolt is recovered by and for the existing order. Such a process needn't be conscious or conspiratorial--when Beat became Beatnik it was a matter of marketing and business, not politics.
Some quotes from Gallagher:
"McGoohan's piece was based upon the assertion of the individual, and I allowed myself to look at it in the polar opposite way. What happens if the cult of the individual is allowed to run? We're all obsessed with self, we're all obsessed with more, and now, and me, and gimme... and what happens if that's affected us, and what if that kind of world, what are the consequences of that? McGoohan says, 'Look. We live in a world which is authoritarian, and we've got to break it.' What if we live in a society now that's selfish and dangerous?"
"What if the problem is mass individualism? What happens to us as a species if that becomes dangerous? If it’s so out of kilter that it begins to threaten our existence, for instance?"
"The original says we must assert our individuality: ‘I am a free man.’ But one thing that interests me is that perhaps we have become too individualistic." Reply
Needn't be a conspiracy theorist to recognize the influence that ideology can exert on creative works. Furthermore, the reading of 6's collaborationism as justified seems consonant with writer Bill Gallagher's comments in interviews on his work that he aimed for a "less individualistic," "more community-minded approach" reflected in an ending that affirmed the importance of community over the individual.
Now, it's valid to read a text against the grain of its author's stated intentions, but we should at least acknowledge a reading by those intentions.
What angers many of us fans of the original is that this remake is that it's such a polar opposite of the original in ideological terms. Now, perhaps a case could be made for soft totalitarianism (I disagree that political-corporate entities equate to actual community, so I wouldn't call it communitarian), and that's fine--go right ahead. But to use the Prisoner as a platform for doing that immediately brings to mind the Situationist concept of "recuperation," where revolt is recovered by and for the existing order. Such a process needn't be conscious or conspiratorial--when Beat became Beatnik it was a matter of marketing and business, not politics.
Some quotes from Gallagher:
"McGoohan's piece was based upon the assertion of the individual, and I allowed myself to look at it in the polar opposite way. What happens if the cult of the individual is allowed to run? We're all obsessed with self, we're all obsessed with more, and now, and me, and gimme... and what happens if that's affected us, and what if that kind of world, what are the consequences of that? McGoohan says, 'Look. We live in a world which is authoritarian, and we've got to break it.' What if we live in a society now that's selfish and dangerous?"
"What if the problem is mass individualism? What happens to us as a species if that becomes dangerous? If it’s so out of kilter that it begins to threaten our existence, for instance?"
"The original says we must assert our individuality: ‘I am a free man.’ But one thing that interests me is that perhaps we have become too individualistic." Reply
@tetracycloide:
Needn't be a conspiracy theorist to recognize the influence that ideology can exert on creative works. Furthermore, the reading of 6's collaborationism as justified seems consonant with writer Bill Gallagher's comments in interviews on his work that he aimed for a "less individualistic," "more community-minded approach" reflected in an ending that affirmed the importance of community over the individual.
Now, it's valid to read a text against the grain of its author's stated intentions, but we should at least acknowledge a reading by those intentions.
What angers many of us fans of the original is that this remake is that it's such a polar opposite of the original in ideological terms. Now, perhaps a case could be made for soft totalitarianism (I disagree that political-corporate entities equate to actual community, so I wouldn't call it communitarian), and that's fine--go right ahead. But to use the Prisoner as a platform for doing that immediately brings to mind the Situationist concept of "recuperation," where revolt is recovered by and for the existing order. Such a process needn't be conscious or conspiratorial--when Beat became Beatnik it was a matter of marketing and business, not politics.
Some quotes from Gallagher:
"McGoohan's piece was based upon the assertion of the individual, and I allowed myself to look at it in the polar opposite way. What happens if the cult of the individual is allowed to run? We're all obsessed with self, we're all obsessed with more, and now, and me, and gimme... and what happens if that's affected us, and what if that kind of world, what are the consequences of that? McGoohan says, 'Look. We live in a world which is authoritarian, and we've got to break it.' What if we live in a society now that's selfish and dangerous?"
"What if the problem is mass individualism? What happens to us as a species if that becomes dangerous? If it’s so out of kilter that it begins to threaten our existence, for instance?"
"The original says we must assert our individuality: ‘I am a free man.’ But one thing that interests me is that perhaps we have become too individualistic." Reply
Needn't be a conspiracy theorist to recognize the influence that ideology can exert on creative works. Furthermore, the reading of 6's collaborationism as justified seems consonant with writer Bill Gallagher's comments in interviews on his work that he aimed for a "less individualistic," "more community-minded approach" reflected in an ending that affirmed the importance of community over the individual.
Now, it's valid to read a text against the grain of its author's stated intentions, but we should at least acknowledge a reading by those intentions.
What angers many of us fans of the original is that this remake is that it's such a polar opposite of the original in ideological terms. Now, perhaps a case could be made for soft totalitarianism (I disagree that political-corporate entities equate to actual community, so I wouldn't call it communitarian), and that's fine--go right ahead. But to use the Prisoner as a platform for doing that immediately brings to mind the Situationist concept of "recuperation," where revolt is recovered by and for the existing order. Such a process needn't be conscious or conspiratorial--when Beat became Beatnik it was a matter of marketing and business, not politics.
Some quotes from Gallagher:
"McGoohan's piece was based upon the assertion of the individual, and I allowed myself to look at it in the polar opposite way. What happens if the cult of the individual is allowed to run? We're all obsessed with self, we're all obsessed with more, and now, and me, and gimme... and what happens if that's affected us, and what if that kind of world, what are the consequences of that? McGoohan says, 'Look. We live in a world which is authoritarian, and we've got to break it.' What if we live in a society now that's selfish and dangerous?"
"What if the problem is mass individualism? What happens to us as a species if that becomes dangerous? If it’s so out of kilter that it begins to threaten our existence, for instance?"
"The original says we must assert our individuality: ‘I am a free man.’ But one thing that interests me is that perhaps we have become too individualistic." Reply
@tetracycloide: I will agree with you that one could interpret the series as a tragedy, showing us how the prisoner is trapped, and eventually made into his own jailer by the powers of society. There are two problems with this, however. The first is that even this twist is too "on-the-nose". They already hit us with the use of terror and the fear of terrorism as a method of social control when they blew up the diner. Then to have our protagonist become the leader of the forces of oppression completes the cycle in the most obvious way possible.
Secondly, in order to create a good tragedy, you have to get the audience to care about the characters and the choices they make. And frankly, I didn't. I couldn't. I actively started to despise them. They made stupid choices, and were easily manipulated. And the prisoner himself was the worst case. If I'm actively rooting against the protagonist, it's very difficult to feel the pathos of tragedy.
And finally, there is the problem that the anti-establishment argument they made was at best a juvenile one. Hell, they didn't even seem to touch on the question of who was the one deciding what "better" was, and if they had the right to decide that. Reply
Secondly, in order to create a good tragedy, you have to get the audience to care about the characters and the choices they make. And frankly, I didn't. I couldn't. I actively started to despise them. They made stupid choices, and were easily manipulated. And the prisoner himself was the worst case. If I'm actively rooting against the protagonist, it's very difficult to feel the pathos of tragedy.
And finally, there is the problem that the anti-establishment argument they made was at best a juvenile one. Hell, they didn't even seem to touch on the question of who was the one deciding what "better" was, and if they had the right to decide that. Reply
@Gene Mayes: i generally found this iteration of the prisoner to be enjoyable but i hadn't really looked into anything the author has said about it until now. having the author's position revealed thus i cannot help but feel that if that were his intent he did a pisspoor job of translating it to screen.
if the intent was to endorse a close-knit community with strong bonds to one another why is the object held up to represent that a totalitarian society where every inhabitant lives in fear of when they will be disciplined for reasons they do not even fully understand? the series doesn't contrast hyper individuallism with communitarianism because neither the village at the start nor the village by the end falls into either group.
it would have made far more sense for 6 to wake up in a village where everyone is obsessed with being different from everyone else to the point where, should 6 do anything anyone else is doing, they react erratically and even violently until the authorities appear to cart him off for failing to make his own path. it could then have proceeded in much the same way that it did, with the village gradually transitioning from one 2 to the next 2 both literally and ideologically.
instead we go from hard totalitarian to soft totalitarian and, assuming the work was intended to be interpreted as a comedy and not a tragedy, we're left with the message that controlling people against their will is ok as long as you do it the right way and with good intentions. that the ends justify the means. which, as many have already pointed out, is pretty dangerous thinking when who gets to decide what 'the right way' means is just one man. Reply
if the intent was to endorse a close-knit community with strong bonds to one another why is the object held up to represent that a totalitarian society where every inhabitant lives in fear of when they will be disciplined for reasons they do not even fully understand? the series doesn't contrast hyper individuallism with communitarianism because neither the village at the start nor the village by the end falls into either group.
it would have made far more sense for 6 to wake up in a village where everyone is obsessed with being different from everyone else to the point where, should 6 do anything anyone else is doing, they react erratically and even violently until the authorities appear to cart him off for failing to make his own path. it could then have proceeded in much the same way that it did, with the village gradually transitioning from one 2 to the next 2 both literally and ideologically.
instead we go from hard totalitarian to soft totalitarian and, assuming the work was intended to be interpreted as a comedy and not a tragedy, we're left with the message that controlling people against their will is ok as long as you do it the right way and with good intentions. that the ends justify the means. which, as many have already pointed out, is pretty dangerous thinking when who gets to decide what 'the right way' means is just one man. Reply
@Briareosdx: don't forget they blew up the apartment in the real world too. the dinner is forgivable, in my eyes, because death in the village doesn't really mean anything in the real world. the apartment in the real world is a different matter entirely. one could assume 6 learns from this mistake and transforms the village from an involuntary prison of control to a voluntary program of healing, and honestly the only real change that would need to be made to do that was incorporating consent into their recruitment methods. this is, however, a rather liberal interpretation of 6's final monologue.
Reply
@tetracycloide:
Blowing up the diner is actually the less forgivable of the two incidents, if you look at it from a writer's point of view. Blowing up his apartment was an attempt to either kill him or drive him forward, and bears little other weight, save in retrospect if you're looking for something to match the diner in the show's "real world".
However, in the aftermath of the diner explosion, we are expressly told by 313 that these sorts of things just "happen sometimes", and that they then "Try to forget about it" and "Get on with their lives". All while she's showing her fear very obviously. The concept of terrorism as a means of social control is blatant, and without even a trace of subtlety, but at least sort of works. Now, combine that with the capitulationist ending, where the prisoner now joins the oppressors, and the intended commentary become so obvious that it's insulting.
It even contravenes the show's internal logic, such as it was, because we see the Village use all sorts of other means at their disposal to make troublesome people disappear without so vulgar a display. Reply
Blowing up the diner is actually the less forgivable of the two incidents, if you look at it from a writer's point of view. Blowing up his apartment was an attempt to either kill him or drive him forward, and bears little other weight, save in retrospect if you're looking for something to match the diner in the show's "real world".
However, in the aftermath of the diner explosion, we are expressly told by 313 that these sorts of things just "happen sometimes", and that they then "Try to forget about it" and "Get on with their lives". All while she's showing her fear very obviously. The concept of terrorism as a means of social control is blatant, and without even a trace of subtlety, but at least sort of works. Now, combine that with the capitulationist ending, where the prisoner now joins the oppressors, and the intended commentary become so obvious that it's insulting.
It even contravenes the show's internal logic, such as it was, because we see the Village use all sorts of other means at their disposal to make troublesome people disappear without so vulgar a display. Reply
@tetracycloide: The thought never occurred to me that anyone could interpret the ending as "a comedy and not a tragedy", they pretty much telegraphed the fact that it was supposed to be interpreted as tragic by showing the tears running down the face of the now-zombified 313. Do you really think that the creators intended us to think that 6's intentionally sacrificing the sanity of a woman who loved him for the sake of some "greater good" was supposed to be a happy ending? To me it was clear the idea was that 6 had been co-opted by his own misguided belief that he could make a "better" version of the Village...
Reply
@Briareosdx: i dont know. for some reason i feel it's a much bigger deal that they killed a woman in the real world than attempted to control a very very tiny subsection of a couple dozen people's minds through fear in a completely contrived, totally made up world where there are far fewer consequences to their actions. if we're supposed to agree with 6's decisions at the shows end then i think we're also supposed to belive he'd cut that terrorism shit out, that he's taking the opportunity to lead the village because he's methods will be better than the last 2's.
@Hypnosifl: it didn't occur to me either until i looked into what gallagher had to say about the series. his quotes certianly endores the position that his intent was to make a comedy (in the classical sense, not the ha ha funny sense), that the ending was nobel and not tragic, that it was better that 2 won. several of the quotes are listed above in gene mayes' post. Reply
@Hypnosifl: it didn't occur to me either until i looked into what gallagher had to say about the series. his quotes certianly endores the position that his intent was to make a comedy (in the classical sense, not the ha ha funny sense), that the ending was nobel and not tragic, that it was better that 2 won. several of the quotes are listed above in gene mayes' post. Reply
@tetracycloide: I don't see how the quotes say anything about the ending being a happy one, it just says that part of the overall concept for the new series was to attack excessive selfishness/egoism as well as excessive deference to authority. It's not like you have to choose one or the other, there's a middle ground between the two. Admittedly it's hard for me to think of where, specifically, the series was actually attacking selfishness in this way...
Reply
@tetracycloide: Hmm. Upon rereading what I wrote, I can see how the first paragraph could lead one to the idea that I see a conspiracy behind the show, but that's not what I meant. I'm using "propoganda" in the sense of "underhanded advocacy" -- not necessarily consciously or deliberately done.
Also, you're right that I shouldn't assume that the new Two would perpetuate the policy of keeping the prisoners ignorant of the "other place." On the other hand, it could make their imprisonment worse because they would know of a place they could live free from the restraints of the Village, so the new Two might feel compelled to continue or reinstate the policy to keep the prisoners from feeling bad or worse about their situation.
I'd also argue that whether the people who created this show endorse Six's final choice or not isn't the question. The story itself implicitly accepts and endorses Two's actions and justifications for same by having Six -- the protagonist -- choose to become Two -- the antagonist. While it could be argued that Six chose the lesser of two evils -- life as prisoners vs. destruction of the Village -- it still was evil (as the sleeping 313's tears indicated).
Imagine a different ending, where all the prisoners are gathered at one of the oblivion pits. Imagine Six telling them, "You're all fragments of people living in the other place, sent to this dream world; but this world is dying because it no longer has a dreamer. You can choose to leave this world or stay, but for anyone to stay, one of you must become the new dreamer -- here are the pills. Those who stay will remain prisoners of this world, subject to the rules of the dreamer. Some of you want me to be the one to save you; I say, choose for yourself your own salvation. I choose to leave." And jumps down into the pit -- leaving the prisoners (and the audience) to decide for themselves what choice to make.
Now THAT would have been an ending. Reply
Also, you're right that I shouldn't assume that the new Two would perpetuate the policy of keeping the prisoners ignorant of the "other place." On the other hand, it could make their imprisonment worse because they would know of a place they could live free from the restraints of the Village, so the new Two might feel compelled to continue or reinstate the policy to keep the prisoners from feeling bad or worse about their situation.
I'd also argue that whether the people who created this show endorse Six's final choice or not isn't the question. The story itself implicitly accepts and endorses Two's actions and justifications for same by having Six -- the protagonist -- choose to become Two -- the antagonist. While it could be argued that Six chose the lesser of two evils -- life as prisoners vs. destruction of the Village -- it still was evil (as the sleeping 313's tears indicated).
Imagine a different ending, where all the prisoners are gathered at one of the oblivion pits. Imagine Six telling them, "You're all fragments of people living in the other place, sent to this dream world; but this world is dying because it no longer has a dreamer. You can choose to leave this world or stay, but for anyone to stay, one of you must become the new dreamer -- here are the pills. Those who stay will remain prisoners of this world, subject to the rules of the dreamer. Some of you want me to be the one to save you; I say, choose for yourself your own salvation. I choose to leave." And jumps down into the pit -- leaving the prisoners (and the audience) to decide for themselves what choice to make.
Now THAT would have been an ending. Reply