THE UNMUTUAL PRISONER ARTICLE ARCHIVE
"THE REGRETTABLE BULLET", By Peter Dunn
The historic 1989 speech by Mikhail Gorbachev to the United Nations was hailed
by some commentators as the end of the Cold War. Certainly, a nuclear holocaust
seemed less likely than at almost any time in the preceeding 40 years. The world
in 2005 is not the same - politically - as the world in which The Prisoner was
born in 1967-68. Then, the Cold War was at its height, and it had a profound
effect on the series...
As well-crafted
entertainment, "The Prisoner" truly stands the test of time, and as
a thought-provoking allegory, it continues to this day to inspire debate and
disputation. With its central theme being the nature of individual freedom,
it could hardly fail to stir continuing discussion, even after 20 years. But
the series does not exist in some timeless void, however. We would do well to
consider the historical context of "The Prisoner" and how this historical
context manifests itself. Numerous aspects of the central theme are examined
over the 17 episodes - physical freedom, psychological freedom, and even spiritual,
intellectual, political and economic freedom are considered. It should come
as no surprise that many of these issues are examined in a Sixties context,
and that the issue of the Cold War should appear as part of this context. Obviously,
the clearest comment on the Cold War comes in the conversation between Leo McKern's
No 2 and No 6 during Nadia's escape attempt in "The Chimes Of Big Ben":
No 2: It doesn't matter which side runs the Village.
No 6: It's run by one side or the other.
No 2: Both sides are becoming identical. What in fact has been created is an
internatio-nal community. A perfect blueprint for world order. When the sides
facing each other suddenly realise that they're looking into a mirror they will
see that this is the pattern for the future.
No 6: The whole world as the Village?
No 2: Yes, that's my hope. What's yours?
No 6. I'd like to be the first man on the moon.
This is an unusually clear comment for "The Prisoner". Most
comments of a similar nature are more subtle, if not downright obtuse! But we
do see a very clear description of the Cold War as it stood in 1967-68 in this
statement. Firstly, we see that the Cold War at this point is a polarised conflict
between two mutually-adversarial blocs or powers. Both are concerned firstly
with internal order and secondly with preventing the other power from advancing.
One wonders if this point is more subtly indicated by the continual contrast
of black and white in The Prisoner - on the chessboard, blazers, Fall Out masks,
Butler's umbrella etc. Could this represent good and evil, or is it East and
West? Let us simply note for now that when this contrast is used, the two colours
seem strangely dependent on each other. We shall return to this point.
McKern's No 2 also seems to be-lieve that there is little difference in the
nature of both East and West. Both are concerned with order, stability and the
maintenance of their continued existence. Should individual freedom threaten
these central interests, that freedom itself is then threatened. No 6 tries
to convince himself that only one of the two sides, the East, could sink so
low as to put order above freedom to the extent of imprisoning him in the Village.
He continues to put his faith in the West with his continued attempts to escape
to London. But even he begins to have his doubts as he asks the Colonel in "The
Chimes Of Big Ben":
I risked my life and hers to come back here. Because I thought it was different.
It is, isn't it? Isn't it different?
Of course,
the conclusion of this episode seems to prove that it isn't different. Either
that, or an awful lot of British intelligence personnel are double agents! (Considering
the post-war record of the UK's intelligence services, this may indeed be the
case!) Infringements of freedom occur much more frequently in the East (possibly
because the East has always felt more threatened by the West and thus seeks
to minimise internal dissent to a greater extent than the West). There can be
little doubt, however, that Leo McKern's No 2 had plenty of evidence to support
his assertion that East and West were equally capable of overbearing repression.
Just 15 years previously, Stalin was in the midst of his last round of purges
before his death. In roughly the same period McCarthyism was in full swing,
and both the House Committee on Un-American Activities and McCarthy's own Senate
Subcommittee on Investigations engaged in their own brand of show trials. The
difference, if any, between these two events was nominal. It is important to
note, however, that these acts of internal repression (to maintain order) often
requires a pre-text in the form of external threat to provide a rationalisation
for such drastic action. In McCarthy's case, the Alger Hiss spy case provided
the rationalisation.
It would appear that even the Village sometimes needs a pretext for repressive
action. In "It's Your Funeral", the "Jammers" are provoked
into an assassination plot which will both rid the Village of an over-powerful
No 2 and allow and excuse "reprisals" against the perpetrators. As
Steven Maher pointed out in his article "A Study in Tyranny" (issue
16 of "Number Six" magazine) the similarities between this episode
and the murder of Sergei Kirov in Russia in 1934 are striking. Kirov's popularity
was seen as a threat by Stalin and his death not only rid Stalin of this threat,
but it also provided a useful pretext for the first round of purges. Andre Van
Gyseghem's No 2 had become a threat because he had acquired too much power in
his position as the permanent No 2 (all other No 2s being referred to by him
as "acting" or "interim" No 2s during his "absence").
His death would rid No 1 of a threat and provide the pretext for persecution
of the "Jammers". The question that then arises is - why does the
Village need such a pretext? It hasn't needed one up till now to rationalise
its actions. Perhaps the plan was designed to fail. Perhaps No 1 knew that by
forcing Derren Nesbitt's No 2 to include No 6 in the plot, the plot would then
fail. But at least No 1 would then be free of three threats - namely, the far
too powerful old No 2, the cocksure ambitious young new No 2, and the unfortunate
No 100, who finds himself on the wrong side at the wrong time! The "Jammers"
could also be dealt with, although they don't pose a real threat to No 1.
It would seem, then, that No 2's comments in "The Chimes Of Big Ben"
are correct. Both sides, East and West, seem identical at least in their willingness
to restrain and undermine individual freedom. The State, and/or the system,
does seem to come before the individual. But is there any evidence in reality
of his claim that both will eventually join together? We must remember that
The Prisoner was created at a very interesing period of the Cold War. 1968 was
to see the beginning of detente, a period of limited Superpower co-operation.
Anyone looking at world affairs in 1967 would have had much to fear. China was
emerging as a threat to both Superpowers, war was raging in IndoChina, both
East and West were developing anti-ballistic systems which destabilised the
concept of deterrence, and the Middle East was exploding. Either the powers
came together to manage the system, or we could all go down the tubes. The Superpowers
did come together to stave off disaster, in much the same way as Gorbachev and
Reagan did in the wake of the Iran-Iraq war, Afghanistan, Angola and Star Wars.
Perhaps Leo McKern's No 2 (and, more importantly, scriptwriter Vincent Tilsley)
mistook the need for mutual policing of the world's trouble spots for what he
saw as the certainty of future unity of purpose and being by the two blocs.
The Superpowers can never unify without destroying the current purpose of their
existence. They exist to sustain their particular ideologies. They maintain
internal discipline, and thus sustain the ideology, by using the threat - real
or imagined - of the other ideology. Their grip on their allies is also maintained
by the use of external threat (NATO was formed to secure Western Europe from
Communism, the Warsaw Pact to secure the East from capitalism). Each needed
the other as an adversary. The only way they could sustain internal discipline
in a unified system would be to find and consistently persecute some internal
enemy, real or imagined. Such a role is played by the "Jammers" in
the Village. Perhaps McKern's No 2 was right in a sense. The whole world can
become like the Village. All it needs in an internal threat to be created.
But let us look back to the world's position in 1967. Remember this was just
five years after President Kennedy threatened nuclear war over Cuba. The world
was still looking over the edge of the atomic abyss. Either the Superpowers
came together to manage the world, or they would very soon destroy it. We have
seen how The Prisoner explores the first option. Let us now examine the second...
If we take it that "The Prisoner"'s allegorical representation of
the Bomb is the gun, some interesting, if not disturbing, points emerge. Two
episodes deal with firearms and both episodes have a similar pattern. In "Living
In Harmony", we have a figure of authority - a sherriff - who refuses to
deal with his town's problems by using a gun. Eventually, even though he is
morally repelled by fire-arms, he is forced by circumstance to take and use
these firearms to kill his opponent, the "Kid". But he is killed himself
in the aftermath. If we see the gun as representing the Bomb, we can then note
a clear parallel between this and the nuclear deterrence doctrine of MAD - mutually-assured
destruction. In other words, any user of nuclear weapons assures both the destruction
of both his op-ponent and himself.
A clearer coverage of the Cold War concept comes in "Fall Out". The
very title of this eposode evokes the atmosphere of atomic doom and gloom following
the Cuban missle crisis. It is quite clear that the gun is meant to represent
the Bomb in this episode as the President points to the revolving machine guns
and says:
" We draw your attention to the regrettable
bullet... The community is at stake and we have the means to protect it".
Substitute
the word "Bomb" for "bullet" and you have a rather succinct
comment on the theory of nuclear deterrence. "Fall Out" goes further
than this, however, in that it also shows the inevitability of atomic apocalypse,
given the inherent evil of man and his nuclear creation, and the continuing
possibility of breakdown in Super-power world management. For the first time,
the Village guardians are forced to use their ultimate deterrent, the gun (note
there are no Rovers in the throne room!), in response to the almost manic use
of such weapons by No 6, No 2, No 48 and the Butler. Here we have the spectacle
of a character who spent almost the whole of one episode, "Living In Harmony",
refusing all pressure to use a gun now gleefully mowing down people with a machine
gun. Clearly this scene is, in part at least, meant to represent the chaotic
final apocalypse which would follow a collapse of deterrence. Just in case we
still haven't got the message, we see the take-off from the Village of a rocket.
But it isn't just any old rocket. It is in fact, Blue Streak, the proposed British
nuclear deterrent of the early 60s.
When this rocket is launched, we see the Village evacuate. Why is this? After
all, the rocket seems to do no damage. Is it perhaps because this launch has
triggered off a reciprocal launch from an "opposing" Village and that
both Villages would be destroyed? How better could No 6 fulfil his pledge in
"The Chimes Of Big Ben" to "eradicate this place from the face
of the earth - and you with it"? (He doesn't even have to come back after
escaping, although he does seem to have spared Leo McKern's No 2 after all!)
We must also acknowledge at this point the comment of the Rook in "Checkmate",
who revealed that he had invented "an electronic defence system",
and was brought to the Village because of his view that it should be shared
with all nations. Here we see shades of SDI (Star Wars). Most analysts (especially
Soviet ones!) agree that any system which makes nuclear war "winnable"
destablises the deterrence doctrine of mutually assured destruction and thus
brings the prospect of nuclear war closer.
This was the view taken by the West of the East's attempts to develop an anti-ballistic
missile system in the 60s. The threat such a system posed for deterrence resulted
in the ABM test-ban treaty of 1972. Clearly, the Village was not so keen to
maintain the nuclear balance. Perhaps this was part of its downfall (pardon
the pun) in "Fall Out". There is much else one could say about "The
Prisoner"'s view of the Cold War, and there are many other equally valid
meanings to some of the aspects of the series outlined here. But I think we
have sufficient evidence that "The Prisoner" had (and still has) something
to say about the Cold War. It should be no surprise that a series designed to
inspire discussion and debate should include the precarious state of the world's
atomic balance as one of its major topics.