196
THE RULES OF THE GAME
was my expectation: McNulty was the Percival who, however bumbling, would ultimately attain his goal, be granted a sight df the grail of perfection and heal the unhealed wound of the land. He failedspectacularly ill his role as triumphanthero just as Avon failed intheroleofvanquislhedvillain.
,Judgedby,the rules of TV crimedrama; the showwas a moI111mental failure.·. mental" being the operative term. The Wire wasonly masquerading
!;at thdifferenttendatelyturning.its. conventionsin,ide'outln1he 'e'vie •. ·
Drama was first defined in Aristotle's Poetics as the "imitation of action theform of action," ''Action'' (praxis),as Aristotle,meantit,referred1to humanlife as.it is actually lived and experienced:' reason,emotion, desire,' ,suffering. This IS where The Wife, I think, beglnsto,expand and redefine
its
genre.
As literary critic' Francis Fergusson wrote ofgreat drama 'in'
,The Idea ofa Theater, "the realm of experience 'it takes for
Its own is the contingent,fallible, changing one which isthis side
offinaltruth,andin " constant touch with common sense," Its
elements ofcomposition
world, related to each other in a vast and intricate web ofanalogies." The Wine was not interested in McNulty's ultimately futilequestso much as it was in probing the unhealed wound itself: in finge,ring thejagged grain of ,'Baltimore; beyond that, of the human suffering in America's urban core.
TV crime drama has its origins in the western, inAmerica's mYthic Wild West and the novels and movies that engendered andsustained this myth. The traditional western rests on a belief in a worldthat is in essence , innocent, albeit eternally menaced by evil: the hero plays a role in purging a speCific threat. The Wire by contrast assumes a fallen world. There is
no specific threat. Corruption is the state of things. Or rather, innocence, not evil, is the threat to the status quo, because when you set off a 'chiin of events in innocence, a nice word for "ignorance," you have no way of knowing, or even suspecting, how much damage you might cause.
Jimmy McNulty and D'Angelo Barksdale occuPY toughly the same. positions in their respective chains of command; both rage in various
ways, both suffer, against the strictures of the hierarchies in which they find themselves, but both lack any real power to effect change. They are the catalysts of the chain of events in Season One D' Angelo, through the' crime that sets the scene for the opening trial, Jimmy, through his outrage
Given the general customs of American filmed entertainment utilizing crime and criminals as its subject matter gripping narrativesthat,resolve in satisfying endings that reaffirm the audience's sense of the fundamental,'
justice of the world there is no reason for anyone to ,watchTheWire. ,We, .the audience, are warned from the first that therewill likely be no ' grand victories, no vanquished enemies, no heroes riding offinto the sunset in police-issue SUV s. There are rUles to this "game" Of'theTV ' crime drama, and TheWire flouts all ofthem,bringing us,intoa','wor1d where those charged to serve and protect are often more. concerned With' '
career advancement and bureaucratic number-crunchingthanwith any.: conventional notion of justice. Our ragtag band ofhero cops are flaw'ed far beyond the threshold of easy sympathy. The bad-guy criminalsthey , haphazardly pursue are portrayed as being so deeply, attimes Poignantl
circumscribed by the mean streets to which they themselves contribute meanness that easy hatred of them is likewise difficult. TheWireis' its own game.
I confess to a secret life as a dedicated consumer of crime drama.
From a childhood ordered by Streets of San Francisco, Hawaii Five-O, and Rockford Files, through a young adulthood Of Miami Vice, Hill Street Blues, and Homicide, to a maturity of CSI, NYPD Blue, andLaw,and Order, I have consciously, deeply, and cheerfully imbibed the rulesof the ' , genre. Throughout The Wire's Season One I kept stubbornly waitingfor drug kingpin Avon Barksdale to die: to be killed in a gruesomefashion' commensurate with the sum total of the lives his criminal activities 'had '
destroyed. I actively wanted it. Barring this, I wanted him sentenced,to life without parole in the Hole at Marion. Week byweek, The Wirekept alive these expectations; in fact, deliberately manipulated and toyed withthem; but ultimately, in the end meaning the end of Season ()ne betrayed them.
If Avon Barksdale was the villain in The Wire's first season, then it would follow that Jimmy McNulty was the hero, the knight -errant whose' self-appointed task was to set the corrupt city of Baltimore to rights. Such
at the result of this trial and "mouthing off" to the judge (who has his OWn' motives for setting the hunt for Avon in motion) but both are " horrified by, the changes they do effect, the trail of wreckage and bOdies,' they leave in their ,wake. D'Angelo is unable to look at crime
when finally in custody; Jimmy, looking back ,toward the end, says, "What
the fuck did Ido?" " '
What Jimmy did (and stubbornly did again in Season Two )wassi to shake one thread ofthe "vast and intricate web" of relationships by whIch the city generally, seamlessly, runs itself; and in so doing; to , , the invisible visible, before it inevitably settles back into place. No' one is' above or below this web, no one is immune. The Wire casts its unblinking ",
, eye on the upPerand,lower echelons of cops and criminals: each of them.,' suffers, invariousways, from the malady of the city; even Avon Barksdale is perpetually menaced by competitors and by his own crew.
" " In the beauty and fullness of the show, Wallace, a lovely boy stranded' at the bottom rung, of the drug trade, is granted his challenges and trials of , soul; the addict and informant Bubbles, motivated by love and a sense of responsibility, has moments of dignity; even Omar, the pitiless stalker of ' the pitiless, isshown to have human qualities and impulses. Every character is granted his reasons; The Wire, again to quote Fergusson, "catch[esl the creature in the very act of creating those partial rationalizations which' ' 'make the whole substance of lesser dramas." There is no abstract principle of justice operating in this world, only real people; there is no good' and evil, but there is right and wrong; actions do have consequences: lives are broken, shattered, lost, or saved, in a game that has no end.
I am, along with being a lover of crime drama, also a student of true, crime: corporate malfeasance, from John D. Rockefeller and Andrew'. Carnegie to Enron and Worldcom; political corruption, with a special: fascination for the morass of greed, brutality, and inhumanity that into the making of my home city, Chicago; police corruption, from Boston '' to New York City to Los Angeles; and drug crime, having lost relatives and childhood friends to what might be termed "the game." In none of these various permutations of crime is there ever an end to the human " cost involved; in none, given the vast interwoven chain of cause and effect" and the ultimate mystery of context or fate versus individual free will, can, the journey of one individual, one Percival, stand for or redeem the whole.
the wire that links, society, that ties us all together in this case luonzed by thepen register following the trail of money and ultimate ' ' ,esponsibility will be allowed to trace and implicate only so far. Beyond' scope, as 'theoldmaps Of the flat and undiscovered world used to
'caution,the're be IImonsters. ' ' "
This is the real the fallen world, an under-acknowledged aspect' our country, theUnited States, that The Wire so thoroughly, brutally,
compassionately portrays.'
This brings me to what I would argue is the true achievement of '
Wire: its subtle,awateness,andunderstated indictment of the larger thatoccursoff-screen. As much as I enjoy crime drama, I am always on level wary of showsthat use urban suffering as a forum for entertailnment
I am constantly searchingfor the eScape, the"letting off the hook,"that
shows' givethe 'predominantly middle-and, upper- middle-class "
, ,
the ritualpurgation ,that allows the audience 0-:: myself induded to go
, on with their' lives :While. the predominantly poor' and African body countcontinues to accrue in real projects, in Bridgeport, Camden, St. Louis, Dallas, Denver, Oakland. In The Wire, there is no grand public outrage' Or o{1tcry for the murders to be solved; these deaths have become' , so commonplace, as they have in our world, as to seem unremarkable.
"Jimmy McNultycomes torealize that the motivations behind his quests have more to do with ambition and arrogance than they do with 'outrage,at injustice.
I admired The Wire's matter-of-fact awareness that the lives
inner-city blacks to the cops, the community, and the larger public ' are not worth a dime. But the show goes a step beyond this: it is aware
" that these lives are alsd, paradoxically, worth quite a bit. The profits of the drug and sex trades travel out from the projects to banks, corpora politicians, developers, while the unutterable suffering through which that money is made remains geographically contained. For me, the plangent ofthe show's many great lines was spoken in Season One, by the sacrificial lamb, 16-year-old Wallace: "If it ain't West Baltimore,
I don't know it."
As articulated by D'Angelo in his classic set piece on the rilles
chess, the pawns suffering on the game board don't see the larger game; to them, it is all in the game. The forces that profit from the game, allow the carnage to occur without outrage, without fear, shame or guilt include us, the audience and wider public off-screen,: with our own comfortable notions of justice, our own necessities, our own reasons and partial rationalizations for doing nothing to demand that it stop. The Wire's true greatness is its chilling awareness of this fact",
Logging in, please wait...
0 General Document comments
0 Sentence and Paragraph comments
0 Image and Video comments
Anthony Walton discusses how The Wire betrayed his expectations of the fate of characters in the First Season. He contrasts this with the typical rules of the genre of crime dramas in which heros and villians often reach their eventual success or doom. I believe the true success of the show and what makes viewers become avid fans is the fact that The Wire deliberately manipulates and toys with the common expectations of the average viewer and keeps people coming back for more. When I watched the first few episodes of The Wire, I was not convinced yet of its brilliance and complexities. After watching the first and second seasons in their entirety, it was impossible for me to not continue watching the next few seasons. Several of the deaths, such as that of D’Angelo, came to me as a complete shock and honestly played with my emotions to the point of anger. My emotions towards Ziggy changed completely throughout the second season and I felt sympathy for him after his shootings. I even came to like the notorious killer, Omar, who would never have been a character I would have felt a connection with if he had been put in any other crime drama. Therefore, nice work Ed Burns and David Simon, I have a small attention span and The Wire has been one of the only shows I have ever felt the need to watch completely through.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
I completely agree with your statement that it took close watching of first two seasons before becoming fully committed to the series’ brilliance. Because of the heavy character line-up I was having trouble relating to a specific storyline and becoming invested in all the different plot amalgamations. While Omar is considered one of the worst criminals in the series, he is almost likeable for the viewer, or at least a character the audience can sympathize with. Making connections with the criminal characters is never typically the motive of crime shows, but I believe that part of the reason The Wire has roped us in is due to the show’s ability to attain our emotional involvement. There is no one specific character that all viewers are supposed to relate to, but rather as the series progresses our opinions sway and change and our alliances are often surprising.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
I completely agree with both Hannah and Alison. When I first started watching the show, it took me a while to get as involved as I am now because I have always been used to the normal good/bad character dichotomy we find on most TV programs. As Alvarez states, though, “With the exception of saints and psychopaths, few in this world are anything but a confused and corrupted combination of personal motivations…” (p. 3). The Wire captures this in such a unique way – one that I have never before experienced with a show. While Alvarez discusses how The Wire isn’t necessarily about one specific institution or character – instead it is about “The City” – the full effect of the show and the larger picture being painted of “The City” is brought to life through the fluctuation of the audience’s feelings toward certain characters. In the end, “The City” becomes a character unto itself as well – one that we also have mixed feelings about throughout the course of The Wire’s 5 seasons.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
I have similar sentiment regarding the abysmal impression I retained after watching the first few episodes of The Wire. That being said, I have noticed this to be characteristic of each season I have watched to date. Despite the growing feelings and attachments I have developed for returning characters throughout previous seasons, I still find that I have to force myself, per se, to pay attention to the first four or five episodes when starting a new season. This is a stark contrast to the feeling I have in the final episodes of a season. The dull sense of boredom is relinquished and I find it difficult to not watch the episodes in one continuous sitting.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
I agree that one of The Wire’s greatest achievements is its ability to manipulate viewers’ expectations. Even though characters like Wallace and D’Angelo are considered “villains,” I was able to understand and even feel sympathy for them at different times. There is no cookie-cutter bad guy or good cop and some viewers may even side with certain “villains” more than they do with “heroes.” I also agree that it took me a while to finally appreciate the complexity of the show, but I think this was only due to the writers’ successful depiction of the true complexity of the hero-villain relationship that is so unique to The Wire.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
I agree with all of the previous comments. Omar, believe it or not, has come to be one of my favorite characters mainly because he wants revenge on the man who killed his lover Brandon (cheesy, I know). I find him to be complex and unpredictable, and I love when in the first season when he eerily whistles to forewarn his prey. I actually feel sympathy for what Stringer put him through, and am even slightly rooting for him against Vernon, the obnoxious, self-righteous man who thinks it’s clever to wear a bowtie in the projects. I can surely say, in my 23 years of living that I have not come across another television series that has the potential to successfully draw its viewers in. Although this is true, I do find myself agreeing with Remy Clemm, in regards to the comment about the difficulty in paying attention to the first four or five episodes, because they do move at a novelistic pace.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
This is one of the aspects of the show that I was particularly drawn to. The truth of is, in many cases of a drug dealer their lives usually end with them in a body bag or in jail. To me, having the same drug crew run inner city Baltimore for the show’s entirety would not only be unrealistic, but it would not demonstrate the evolution of the drug trafficking system that most certainly has to happen. The fact that so many lead characters are killed off only shows us how continuous the system is and to some extent how we are going about fighting it the wrong way. Although I am surprised by the low amount of police deaths in the show. While it is not a common occurrence, there are many instances of cops laying down their lives for their job.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
McNulty may not be a hero in the traditional sense (he certainly does not succeed in the task at hand), but I think he represents a type of integrity/honesty to strive for. Watching the Wire, it was apparent that McNulty was one of the few characters with a strong moral code. He is typically more concerned with solving crimes and murders than blindly attempting to advance his career in the police force. McNulty’s strong moral character and drive is something that I immediately identified as a heroic element. The article does mention that The Wire likes turn its conventions inside out to address the issue of justice in television and in the real world, but I don’t think we can discount that McNulty is one of the most sympathetic characters based on his desire to do what is right. Unlike in other shows, McNulty’s desire for justice is ultimately unfulfilled, but that does not mean we can discredit his philosophy.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
I agree with you that McNulty definitely possesses elements of a stereotypical hero. He strives to do the right thing and listens to his moral gut. Although McNulty is, like you said, one of the most sympathetic characters in The Wire, his likability makes it even more frustrating for viewers when he fails to carry out his good intentions. He can be labeled as a hero, but he rarely succeeds and viewers don’t get the happy ending. That is the whole point of the show: to illustrate that in real life, heroes with good intentions don’t always win, drug dealers who want out usually can’t get out, villains get away with corruption, and the rest of us don’t care enough to change any of it. It’s a sobering truth, and while The Wire may not have been a catalyst for actual, widespread change, at least it tells it like it is. And that at least counts for a step in the right direction in terms of bringing to the forefront what needs to change in inner-cities across the nation.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
McNulty certainly embodies several qualities typically reserved for the hero. He is a man that willingly and passionately follows his convictions, he takes his job seriously but counterbalances his professionalism with a touch of wit and ambivalence. He is, in essence, “good police.” I think what is most compelling about McNulty’s character, though, is that no matter how admirable or morally upstanding he might be, his actions are always rendered ineffectual due to the institutional framework that stacks all odds against him. In his department, chain of command proves too much of an overwhelming force to adequately finish all cases and get the results he desires; likewise, “the game” of the drug world is an intricately developed system of affairs that disallows one individual to enter and make significant change. I think it is precisely McNulty’s heroic qualities that make the show as frustrating as it is. We want to have somebody to put our faith into, we want somebody to believe in, and while McNulty is a pretty good bet based on character and detective skills alone, the institutional framework makes this altogether impossible.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
This sentence captures a goal of Simon throughout his production of The Wire; the idea that there is no purely good or purely evil character in modern society, nor has there ever. With most modern ‘cop’ shows, there is a clear protagonist and a clear antagonist, and these characters do little to diverge from the cliché attributes we assign to a generic protagonist or antagonist. This is not the case in The Wire, where the characters are developed with such complexity that it is difficult for the viewer to, in good conscience, classify McNulty as a protagonist due to his treatment of his wife, kids, and dissenting co-workers (personally or professionally). Of the same accord, it is difficult to fully characterize Avon as the antagonist due to his love and desire to provide for family as a core motivator for the actions he takes. This is confusing to the viewer, who expects to be able to easily classify TV characters as either good or evil, and makes the show so much more mentally taxing than normal television because viewers experience mixed emotions about the characters. This is all part of a larger message Simon is trying to convey in that, through roundabout logic, any character can conceivably be deemed to be taking the best possible action given their circumstances. It is often the circumstances (upbringing, etc) which shape the personality and goals of the characters in The Wire, and that begs the question: can any individual be considered purely good or purely evil given what we know of their upbringing and current circumstances?
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
I think this is a really important point to bring up when discussing the wire. As the author mentions (and as Professor Williams has in class), there really are no “good” or “bad” guys in The Wire. I remember trying to explain this idea to my mom when I first told her I was taking this class, and she did not really understand what I meant. Her point was: isn’t there always a good guy? Zach hits on this point that most other TV shows (especially cop shows) have a clear good guy and a clear bad guy. But as the author mentions, even in Season 1 where it might seem like McNulty is good and Barksdale is bad, it just doesn’t feel that way. The circumstances that each character faces brings a certain level of ambiguity about how we should actually judge them. In my mind, this is part of why I really like this show that I am seeing for the first time. It is just so unique.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
While I have found myself sympathizing with both D’Angelo and McNulty at times throughout watching The Wire, I have never made a direct correlation between the two characters. However they parallel each other in more ways than one, and in essence are faced with the same flaws. Neither character is a hero, or takes on the heroic role, but they both try, and fail, to change the status quo of their lifestyles towards improvement. I believe that part of the reason McNulty i sometimes (rarely and subtly) sympathetic towards D’Angelo throughout the first and second seasons is because he finds he can relate to Barksdale on some unconscious level. As Alvarez notes, both characters occupy their respective chains of command, both experience rage and suffering against the hierarchy of “the game.” Most importantly, both are the catalysts for change and possess guilt and regret for the end results of what they have done. I do not feel like there is any other crime series post The Wire, where the role of cops at the bottom of the legal professional chain parallel to the lives of drug ring leaders, or other criminals.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
Under Aristotle’s definition of drama stated here, The Wire does an excellent job of separating itself from other crime shows, as listed by Walton. As we have discussed in class, one of the show’s strong suits is its ability to rationalize the antagonists, which it does by examining motivations, desires, reasons, etc… We have also discussed The Wire’s brutal honesty, contrasted by the fact that it is a fictional television series. Later, this article deals with grapples with idea that someone could watch this show and remain unaffected by these underrepresented communities. How much does The Wire use dramatization, as defined here, to make this point? Does the fact that the show is fictional “let the audience off the hook?” Should upper and middle class audiences, totally unfamiliar with the worlds depicted in the series, view the show as a fair imitation of reality, or a dramatization of reality? How does that affect the call-to-action of the show?
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
In my opinion, I think that the majority of people who watch The Wire do not reflect on if it is fact or fictional. I think that most people watch the The Wire because it is a HBO series, which usually means that it is entertaining, suspenseful, high-quality, etc. They simply are looking for entertainment so they are not worried if it is a fair imitation of reality. On the other hand, I do believe that there are some people (like our class) who understand true greatness of the show in that it represents reality, but I think that it is a small number. Like we have talked about, asking someone if they watch The Wire is somewhat of a social/intellectual status marker, so I think only a few truly understand what The Wire is about.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
I have mixed feelings when I think about the viewers who have no personal experience with the inner city struggle, yet believe they now know after watching The Wire. One side of me believes that The Wire gives a great interpretation, without victimizing and demonizing the usual suspects. The other side of me is intimidated to think about what an ignorant viewer thinks about inner city life. Does this person believe that everyone in inner city life fits in a role similar to the characters of The Wire?
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
Admittedly, I have no real experience with real urban life. But I don’t think The Wire runs the risk of stereotyping or pigeonholing, precisely because characters on the show are so diverse. Not just in gender and race and sexual orientation, but also in their distinctive personalities and backgrounds. The show goes out of its way to give each character traits that the audience can identify with.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
I think one aspect of The Wire to bear in mind is that, despite the show’s lengthier narrative pace, it is still based on action. Just as a documentary-maker would do, Simon had to create moments that formed a storyline, no matter how far it deviates from other mainstream television shows. The purpose of media is to condense an event of concept in a way that is digestible to an audience. For this reason, a certain element of dramatization is inevitable. Reality often lacks the same “ironic humor” that Vest associated with The Wire in his “Violence is Power” article. To effectively consume the wire, viewers should be aware of the motivations and processes behind its creation, while also recognizing that the ultimate goal of the show is to convey a message as opposed to document the moment-by-moment actions of the streets of Baltimore.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
Intricacy; is this what makes The Wire one of the best drama shows ever on television? It has been mentioned repeatedly that The Wire does not define the bad guy or good guy and that the show blames social structures and not individuals for the predicaments plaguing the city and the individuals of Baltimore. Where most dramas try to simplify their plot and characters for their viewers, The Wire does the complete opposite. The Wire develops its characters and plot in such a complex and intricate way that it takes on the role of a drama but defines it differently.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
I thought this comparison of the classic Western drama and The Wire was an interesting aspect of this article. Throughout the article Alvarez talks about the concept of good and evil, and how the line is very vague in The Wire. We find ourselves sympathizing with cold-blooded killers while at the simultaneously realizing that there are many flaws in our justice system. We dislike people that should be the “heroes” we end up rooting for. In contrast, the classic Western, which many genres have modeled themselves after, presents the viewer with a clear sense of what is right and what is wrong. There is a villain and a hero and we know exactly who we should cheer on. It is interesting to me that this is the prevailing model in television today when real life is more like The Wire. I would like to beg the question of why this is:
Is it because viewers have anxiety about what is right and wrong, and watching a show that is so clear-cut makes them feel better about the complicated decisions they face regularly?
Thoughts?
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
I think it has just as much to do about the writers, the producers, and the networks as it does with the audience. I think that writing a smart, all-encompassing (or a try at it), revealing series about the intricacies of our modern society lacking clear-cut solutions or answers is a tall task. Similarly, a network knowing the typical audience demands and prefers for the kind of clear-cut fairytale type of show that you talk about also adds less incentive to take on a show like The Wire.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
I personally think that part of what makes people hesitant to watch shows as complex as the wire is is because it doesn’t hold back. Many people are stuck in their happy personal safe zone, adn do not like to branch out or have their worlds changed. When a show like the Wire comes around, people are forced to realize that their worlds, as perfect and innocent as they may seem, are actually part of the game. Many people don’t want to accept something as complex as that. realizing that “the Game” as we have discussed it is such a bigger factor in everyone’s lives is much harder to accept than the clear cut Western, adn thus people feel better about someting that doesn’t take them as far out of their comfort zones.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
If you’re examining a world that is framed as fallen, there are perhaps no clear-cut answers. Within The Wire, I do not believe right and wrong can exist on their own—- each character’s motivations depend on a great deal of circumstance, background, and personal morality. That gray area demands that the viewers examine more than only facts. Additionally, I think the lack of right and wrong moves the show’s bleak view of institutions within society. The ambiguity of right and wrong is a contributing factor to the sympathizing of drug dealers, and the corruption of the police force. Yet, The Wire’s characters are never polar. They are simply products of institutions, moved by actions that can be analyzed from many different perspectives.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
I found this paragraph interesting because it shows one of the main differences between the Wire’s plot line and ‘traditional’ plot lines. Watching the Wire, it is apparent to see, that this is not a show one can simply tune in and tune out of and remain aware of whats going on, instead its a show the requires a dedicated viewer. However, the time commitment is not the only detracting quality of the wire, its plot line is as well. Would it be feasible to recreate the story line of the wire in order for it to not be as time consuming, or is this a necessary factor in order to accurately portray the structural flaws apparent within the Wire?
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
I like the fact that this article refereed back to Western films because many of the traditional story structures we have for viewing media comes from Westerns. The idea of a clean cut hero, villain, beginning, middle, end way of make films and tv series can all trace their roots to Westerns but The Wire takes on the challenge of portraying a non perfect, undefined world, lost world. Some place where "the America left behind” is(9). Those conditioned by poverty and neglect for generations. But does that make it more authentic because it takes on that challenge or does it merely pose as just another show on tv that centers on crime and happens to have a good plot
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
The Wire attempts to give audiences an objective portrayal of urban life—no matter how bleak or unsatisfying this might be in terms of our deeply ingrained desire for poetic justice—and yet relies on constructing a web of characters with complex subjectivities in order to do so. It is important to recall that the compassion or affinity we feel for the characters does indeed affect the way we perceive “the game” and together compound to deliver a particular message, namely that in urban Baltimore, “corruption is the state of things.” While The Wire is certainly light years ahead of traditional crime dramas in analyzing the institutions that impact urban crime, police and politics, it may emulate the documentary mode, but it is still a fictionalized construction. How might the subjectivities of the various characters deter from an objective portrayal of urban life?
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
You make a good point that without the input of the individual the story is some what lacking and can seem more like a documentary than a show but I feel that The Wire does a good job acknowledging the individual’s role while staying a far distances from the story arch. with out the various individual inputs we would never be able to tell what the greater dynamic of the game was. Not just on the corner but the political side as well. Every season we are introduced to some one knew who will eventually become important, but until then are kept around. Not like a play where a new character becomes the center attention. The subjectivity in this case is what keeps the Wire from become all those other shows. Without the subjectivity we just start following story to story and everything become a matter of personal vendetta’s against other players in “the game” instead of looking at the broader picture which deepens the understanding of the audience about the subject at hand, be in politics or education, even the media.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
Wilson’s idea of innocence as a threat to the status quo within the world of The Wire is a compelling concept. Within the confines of “The Game” (however one may choose to define it), it becomes obvious that the players must constantly be on their toes, aware of the action around them. Those who are unaware of the threats that face them tend to be the ones who serve as catalysts for eventual death, damage or destruction. In season four, McNulty innocently springs Bodie from jail and takes him out to lunch, unaware that his actions would directly lead to Bodie’s death. Also in season four, Randy serves as a snitch in a seemingly innocent way, simply trying to free himself from the trouble he was to face in school. The actions of the boy lead to his removal from school, the death of Little Kevin, the burning of his foster home and the hospitalization of his foster mother. Even though Wilson states that there is no good and evil, I wonder how the actions of the supposed innocent and their effects on others would weigh on this scale. Are these individuals naively good, or inherently bad through the destructiveness of their actions?
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
This idea of innocence is exactly what I got from the Mozkos reading. When it comes to the game- be it the police force, the school system etc.- the question is not one of “how noble” one’s intentions might be, but rather one of “how long” it takes them to shed those intentions. At a certain point, everyone is going to fall into the same pattern of simply accepting that which is “normal” all around them and thus going ahead and following through by doing that which is “normal.” The only question really is how long it takes after signing up for such a profession before they go from super-stoked-I’m-going-to-make-a-difference to asking “who’s up?” when a murder call comes in.
Also I’m not even going to try to answer your last question because it uses a lot of big words, and I’m scared.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
It is evident that in The Wire, corruption is the state of things and innocence is the threat to the status quo. I had noticed this throughout watching Seasons 1-4 but the articulation of this theory in the reading has lead me to reanalyze many of the characters fates. It is not only innocence and ignorance that leads to the destruction and damage in the chain of events, yet more specifically, it is when a member of “The Game” tries to get out of the game, not necessarily through innocence, that things get messy. More specifically, which this article lacks to touch on, I have noticed many instances in The Wire where characters have tried to get out of the game or use “innocence” for personal interests. For example, I would argue that Frank Sobotka decides to confess only after reaching a deal with the police in order to get Ziggy out of jail. This situation is similar to that of Randy’s compromise. Are these examples of “innocence”?
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
I believe The Wire plays very well off the proverb “the road to hell is paved with good intentions.” In the case of McNulty, he has what are assumedly good intentions in springing Bodie and giving him the opportunity to do what he believes in the right thing, however by doing so, he is the direct cause of Bodie’s death (as is understood by Poot and the entire street). In the case of Randy, his desperate attempt to avoid punishment leads him to unwillingly (and naively) divulge details of a murder, leading to the negative consequences mentioned above. The Wire does an excellent job capturing the idea that there is a lot of grey area between right and wrong and oftentimes, innocence is either taken advantage of or punished in this grey area, begging the question of whether innocence and honesty are good attributes to have (as is presumably the case with Naymond) or can land a character in a lot of trouble (as is the case most of the time).
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
I also thought the idea of innocence was an interesting topic in this article. When watching The Wire, one of the main things I notice is that in order to survive in The Game it is necessary for one to give up his innocence, and if he fails to do so he will ultimately be destroyed. We see this when Bodie kills Wallace in order to save himself, and with the character of D’Angelo. D’Angelo’s ultimate downfall is the remaining innocence and compassion that he has. He ends up going to jail for a very long time because he blindly put his faith in his uncle.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
Alvarez explains that innocence is a threat to the status quo. This notion is demonstrated in the confines of the Baltimore Police Department. Corruption in the department is accepted as the inherent nature of the system. Officers look for scapegoats, try to maneuver around difficult cases, and protect high clearance rates. McNaulty has the potential to challenge corruption. He can make a difference and so can other detectives, if they took notes from him. The absence of heroes in The Wire forces the audience to accept the tragic fates of main characters. As we learned in the Mokos reading, the audience is learning how noble a character is based on how they react to good and evil in the game. The audience learns about characters based on how long it takes them to challenge the status quo and in what ways, if ever.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
Rather than an absence of heroes, it seems The Wire purposefully shoots down heroes. The overarching theme of season two seemed to be that no matter how good your intentions are you cannot be a hero. Rather than an absence, it is an intentional elimination of the traditional hero figure. People cannot play “the game” and be heroic. Those paths do not exist in tandem.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
I think it is an interesting observation that McNulty and D’Angelo occupy similar ranks in their respective organizations. However, I feel the nature of each organization changes how the two characters are able to act within the confines of the systems they exist in. McNulty chooses to forgo personal career advancement in order to chase after a case he believes in. D’Angelo doesn’t have the ability to make that sort of sacrifice. The police department operates in such a way that McNulty will be reassigned to somewhere he’d rather not be, whereas D’Angelo, if he followed a similar path to McNulty, would be killed or exiled from the organization and the family.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
You make a good point, but I believe the article wants us to recognize both McNulty and D’Angelo as threats to the status quo (corruption, as mentioned in the article). They occupy the same position in the sense that they can’t change the way things work, but they can certainly shake them up. D’Angelo and McNulty personify the innocence discussed in the article. They may not be “good” characters (they both have their flaws), but they certainly have a sense for what is right. Often what is right threatens the status quo and leads these characters to trouble. While the consequences may be different (reassignment v. death), the idea of their rejection from the system remains.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
I agree wholeheartedly that both characters have the ability to shake things up. But ultimately, Deangelo chooses not to. Instead of cooperating with the police, he opts to sit in jail. He refuses to upset the balance of the game because he has more to lose than McNulty. Deangelo is persuaded not to talk out of loyalty to his family, something McNulty lacks. McNulty’s lack of personal commitments means that he can afford to pursue what he thinks is right, often at the cost of those around him
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
The McNulty and D’Angelo parallel is an observation that I had failed to recognize in watching the first two seasons of The Wire. Thoughts on whether these character parallels continue throughout future seasons?
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
I failed as well drawing a parallel between McNulty and D’Angelo. However after reading the essay and reflecting on the seasons I have watched thus far, I feel many parallels can be drawn. Although, McNulty and D’Angelo are on the opposite spectrum of “the game”. Both individuals seek to make their own rules and go against the status quo. Even their motives for what they do can be seen, although both men have complicated family lives, their families seem to play a key role into the decisions they make. Especially when examining McNulty in Season 2 when his motives for investigating the Jane Doe is a picture and noting how she is a part of someone’s family.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
In the paragraph following this, Alvarez discusses how in shaking one thread, the web of vast and intricate relationships makes the usually invisible, visible before being set back in place. What I find interesting to this is that he comments that no one is immune, above, or below this web. In the Wire, we don’t just see corruption, stealing, and laundering going on with the drug dealers and corner boys, but in the Police Department, the Political System, and education system. This corruption or “bad behavior” does not just pertain to the bottom of society, but affects all institutions at all levels of society which is not something that I have seen within the same series before. Again, this points to The Wire’s unique ability to not criticize the people themselves, but rather the institutions they are part of and how it is far-reaching throughout society, rather than just the perceived bottom. However, his comment that the visible inevitably settles back into place speaks to the politics of institutions and the vicious cycle that seems to reproduce itself across institutions, seen even within just the five seasons of The Wire.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
Expanding on Alvarez’s explanation, I think this web of intricate relationships is something that sets The Wire apart from other crime/cop dramas. When watching shows like CSI and Law & Order, each episode is self-contained for the most part – seasoned viewers might gain certain insights by having watched the seasons in their entireties, but someone just flipping through the TV channels could watch an episode with fairly good understanding. This is not the case in The Wire, which not only serve to make it a more engaging show for those who do watch from beginning to end, but also better mirrors the way these institutions play out in real life. Politics and education and the economy and the drug trade are not things that can be isolated from one another. Because it is easier to do so, we often choose to ignore the chains that link each of these institutions together, and this is what The Wire makes visible.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
The problem for me with this sentence is how McNulty and D’Angelo are so similar in their roles for their institutions – yet D’Angelo is killed for his change of heart while McNulty is still allowed to fight for his cause in a “Jimmy against the world” type of relationship. We see McNulty fail and have all of these shortcomings, yet he is allowed to stay. Does race play a role in this decision? Why is it that despite the similar roles they play the two characters have such drastic impact on the show?
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
The use of the term catalyst here is very interesting – someone who sparks the chain but may or may not be part of the actual process by which the events come to fruition. The chain of events started by a catalyst, in the ways I’ve seen it used, is also usually a change of some sort. What changes do we see (in season one or any other season) as a result of McNulty and D’Angelo’s decisions? If these men are the catalysts to set change into motion, who are the agents of this change?
On the flip side – what is the message of The Wire in terms of the efforts needed to engender true change? As the Vest reading mentioned, the closing montages of each season seem to suggest that despite everyone’s best efforts, the overarching powers of corruption and inequality still persist. Even if an individual is a catalyst for a chain of events, does The Wire suggest that it’s possible for that chain to bring change?
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
The Wire shows the audience that society cannot entirely rely on governmental institutions to enact change in the Game; that seems to be the premise of the series. Before watching The Wire, I would have thought that police departments and Police Commissioners had the power, will, and responsibility to terminate drug trade businesses. Throughout Season One and Two, we see that it is not always in an officer’s interest to arrest every individual suspected of selling or using drugs.
McNaulty and D’Angelo have been catalysts in the show. While watching the show, I have wondered if agents of change will emerge and enact lasting change. Kima Greggs tries to enact change by accompanying Orlando on a deal, but she is taken out of action when she is shot. It seems that these characters who are passionate, willing, and maybe even “good,” are somehow (temporarily) eliminated when they try to change the system or the game. D’Angelo is another great example of this.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
Today, there are many TV shows which deal with cops and criminals. A few are Law and Order, NCIS, The Shield, and many more. However, the Wire is a cop show that is unlike many of the other shows on TV that deal with the same aspects. There is no good and evil and many times, you associate yourself with the characters and try to understand why they live the way they do. I like to think that the wire took a different approach to this series opposed to traditional cop shows to educate people on what is going through these characters minds and the reasons they have for committing criminal acts. they show the badly beaten down culture of Baltimore which makes pursing a legitimate life very difficult. Why do you think American entertainment has shifted to these types of films and how the Wire differs from traditional cop shows.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
Many of the current police shows on TV demonize criminals and only present issues as right or wrong. I think that they do so for two reasons. First, many TV viewers want to see their current beliefs and morals reinforced. Therefore, there is really no room for trying to rationalize crime or present a counterexample of why crime is occurring. Second, unlike the Wire these shows operate on a “reset” principle; that is, the episodes are not part of a continuous story but similar to a series of short stories about police work. The Wire breaks both of these molds. It does not do so to present examples of why these crimes are committed but more to show how they occur. It is not as much about understanding why individuals commit the crimes they do but how these individuals come to commit the crimes they do. This is why the Wire analyses various aspects of the city and how they play into the larger picture.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
Obviously The Wire is very different in that in provides us with different viewpoints, i.e. we see that the drug dealers aren’t necessarily all “bad people” and the cops aren’t all “good people” in the way the terms have traditionally been defined by TV and Film. However, I think an even more important distinction is that characters that could be seen as “bad” often times come away from a situation victorious while the “good” people end up getting jailed, demoted, or killed. I feel like this is a better representation of a world which is not quite black and white, and points out how bureaucracy or relationships can end up getting in the way of doing the right thing.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
The Wire is an HBO original television series, which means the show is backed by Time Warner. Although Time Warner is a very profitable conglomerate, The Wire as a product gets sold through its storyline. I find this very intriguing because i’m sure the show’s success as a series is not outstandingly profitable. Instead The Wire has a cultural impact, and this cultural impact serves as a form of promotion and advertisement. It seems a bit elitist now that I think of it. People may say, “Have you seen The Wire?”, as an attempt to fit in socially or outcast others who have not seen the show. We have even devoted a college course at the University of Virginia to discussion and analyzation. I’m not sure if the aftermath and impact of The Wire has lived up to David Simon’s expectations. Overall i’m impressed with the vision, and the impact of The Wire: elitist or not.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
I agree with O’Shea, the vision of the Wire is remarkable because it has made something that was invisible to most people, a visible and overarching subject. The argument that institutions are to blame for drug violence, gangs, and inability to achieve the American Dream is eye opening and makes people think twice. Although the Wire is not directly combating the problems it portrays on the show, it has led its viewers to think about the structural flaws that are apparent in America. This, in itself, is an impressive act because viewers are questioning American institutions. A questioning society is powerful because it has learned not to accept the current situation, but instead provoked to seek change and reform.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
While I agree that it is important that The Wire provokes these conversations, I still agree with O’Shea that The Wire is elitist. I wonder how much impact the show loses when it only reaches a certain audience that is likely to be aware of these institutional failures already. While we do take the time to study it at the University, we are a self selective group that most likely has confronted these issues before in other classes or through other venues. While the show is thought provoking, I worry that its limited audience somewhat silences the powerful message that it sends.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
The author states that he kept expecting a certain sort of justice to be played out at the end in The Wire. Did you have similar expectations when you began watching the show? Do you think this is caused solely by the narrative structure of the majority of entertainment television, or do you think there are other factors? How do you think these preconceptions influence the way we frame events in our day-to-day lives?
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
The questions you raised are really important, I think, to address when watching The Wire. Most television shows introduce problems to their characters that are solved throughout a season’s arc, in the following season, or by the series finale – a nice way to tie everything together and end a show. However, The Wire fights against this not deliberately to do something different but to show the audience something real. I think your question about the narrative structure of entertainment television is so crucial to understand because The Wire forces us to leave behind our ideas of karma, “you’ll get what’s coming to you”, and, in the end, the idea that everything ends up happily ever after. People tend to turn to certain types of television as an escape from reality; however, The Wire doesn’t give us that luxury.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
I wasn’t entirely sure what to believe would happen as I had been told beforehand to not expect a cut and dry cop drama. I think what makes The Wire so different from other shows is they don’t really give the audience any reason to expect it when something major is about to happen. There are several instances where characters are seemingly about to meet a just demise and escape and there are several other instances where a character is about to make a break through that we should be rooting for and it very quickly and unceremoniously comes to an end. Part of what makes the show so different is that it isn’t afraid to point out the somewhat random nature of killings in urban environments (case in point, Fruit in season 4).
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
As mentioned before in class and comments, The Wire moves beyond its individual characters to focus on the institutions that shape these characters. What this article adds to that framework is the idea that the individuals within the institutions and systems can make decisions that reverberate through, not only their own systems, but through others as well. These unintended consequences and “shaking one thread of the vast and intricate web of relationships by which the city… runs itself” makes The Wire so interesting. This instability, caused by the actions of one or a few individuals, affects people of all classes that are touched by the institutions around them, and these different groups of people all “suffer in various ways from the malady of the city”. This is what makes The Wire so unique. The fact that the focus of the show is not on the problems of an individual in conflict with other individuals, but, instead, the issues raised are from institutions coming into conflict with one another due to simply the actions of the people within them. It is a story of how these institutions are constantly in contact, but when the status quo shifts, as when Jimmy is wondering what he has done, these institutions must figure out how to settle back in place. The Wire succeeds in accomplishing a realistic portrayal of this through implementing the idea that “no on is above or below the web, no one is immune”.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
I think one of the things that is so interesting about The Wire is that it refuses to make the courtroom the impartial arbiter of justice. Other cop shows often end in a court scene and with some sense of conclusion, sometimes even a dramatic confession. Instead, the courthouse and jail are just more frustrating institutions on The Wire. Avon is able to manipulate them and get out of jail the first time in a fraction of his jail term. The “justice” dispensed by these institutions is no more final than the justice dispensed on the street.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
What makes The Wire so compelling yet so frustrating at the same time is the fact that it shows the back story and heart of every character. It not only shows McNulty’s vulnerabilities and desires, it also illustrates, for example, how Wallace struggles for a better life while taking care of his younger siblings. D’Angelo is not just a hardened drug dealer, he’s a father with a conscience. Every character is treated with respect in that they are explained beyond surface-level assumptions. The Wire shows us that people are people. Because characters are humanized in this way, viewers have an easier time developing compassion for not just McNulty, but also for D’Angelo, Omar, Wallace, and others.
The Wire does elicit compassion form viewers towards people regardless of race, class, occupation, gender, and even sexuality. But it does so in a way that isn’t “preachy.” It allows viewers to come to their own conclusions, thereby strengthening the feelings of compassion viewers have towards these different characters. We are not told to have compassion, we are simply guided to come to that conclusion ourselves. That is what I think is one of the show’s main strengths.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
I take issue with Wilson’s statement that there is a concept of right and wrong in The Wire. I understand that what he is arguing is that there are ideas of right and wrong since actions do have consequences, but when examining the individual actions of characters through out the series, is there really a clear right and wrong answer- especially when assessed from the viewpoint of the individual?
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
I agree that right and wrong are, at best, nebulous in the many situations in which morality plays a significant part in the series. In fact, I think this is one of the most important messages of the series as a whole – that empathy is necessary to understand the motivations of individuals, who often make decisions based on their external circumstances. These circumstances, characterized as the “rules of the game” and the way individuals understand their place in institutions (as discussed in class), are often the most important factor when characters make ethically questionable decisions (i.e. Bubbles stealing from an ambulance, McNulty circumventing chain of command). Understanding this allows us to empathize with these characters, when otherwise we might dismiss them as simply “bad” or corrupt people.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
I agree that we can empathize with characters who are clearly in difficult situations, but there are examples in the show where people choose to leave “the game” because they are tired of the morally questionable decisions they are required to make on a day to day basis. The best example, in my opinion, is Cutty from season three. He gets out of prison and after trying to work legitimately, gets back into “the game”. Eventually, he realizes he no longer has the edge required to play, and leaves completely. This shows that is possible to leave the system you are stuck in, even if the decision is more difficult than the status quo.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
The driving idea behind The Wire is that institutions constrain the choices of people, and I think that we see this play out through the arcs of numerous characters throughout the show. To give a couple of examples, Wallace has an alcoholic/drug addicted mother and numerous younger siblings to care for. As sick as “the game” makes him, he has few alternatives to working in The Pit if he wants to ensure his own survival and the survival of his younger siblings. Namond has a mother who demands that he enter the drug trade if he wants to continue living under her roof, and without Colvin stepping in to save him it seems unlikely he would survive past his teen years. The primary issue with the poorer residents of Baltimore is that they are in a vicious cycle of poverty, from which it is very difficult to escape. Their lack of money means that the quality of the schools are terrible. The terrible schools mean that the residents are not educated enough for most careers, and as a result can either choose a life of minimum wage menial labor, or break the law in order to pursue a better life for themselves. Choices are possible, but when characters make morally questionable decisions in The Wire 9 times out of 10 it is due to the institutions which have put them in that situation, rather than a reflection of who they are as people.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
I think this is a difficult issue to tackle. On the one hand, I agree with the statement that from the individual level of the characters there is a notion of right and wrong. This is reflected through the shooting on a Sunday scene. The huge uproar that resulted from trying to gun down Omar when he was taking his grand mother to church was representative of the black and white notion of right and wrong. However, these rules and this application of right and wrong can only be applied to the rules of the game and the system these individuals are operating in. When it comes to deciding whether “the game” is right or wrong, this issue becomes more difficult to address. It is easier to empathize with the characters involved because within the game there are many conflicting truths that are working to blur the boundaries between right and wrong. An example from the series that shows this brilliantly is from Season 1 Episode 1 where McNulty and the witness to a shooting are talking about who killed Snot. The viewer then begins to identify with Snot and his constant robberies. Why? Because Snot was creating opportunity in a system that would have otherwise lacked opportunity if not for these robberies. In the other article we read for class, Vest claims that “…America is (or should be) a place of inclusion, even for a back-alley thief who creates opportunity where none exists.” This is where the viewer and ALL individuals throughout the series (McNulty in particular in this scene) struggle with the distinction between right and wrong.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
One of the things I love most about The Wire is that there are consequences, but these consequences are rarely neat and clean. They are often unexpected and frequently spiral out of control. Seasons tie up most loose ends, but often in a way that’s unexpected. Brianna Barksdale’s continuing questions about her son’s death are a great example. Deangelo’s murder might have provided a sense of conclusion, but it really opened a new narrative line with consequences that continued to reverberate into later seasons of the show.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
In my mind, Walton’s statement in this sentence raises further questions regarding a potential solution to certain crime issues. If Anthony Walton is accurate is his assessment of “the game” and its infinite human cost, then what are the policy implications to deal with drug dealing, for instance? How does one go about exposing/remedying political corruption – if it can even be done? What does this limitless cost as indicated by Walton say about the decision of the police department (Season 3) to focus their resources on lowering the number of murders? In my opinion, Walton implies that this focus is futile.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
The fact that McNulty is not the ultimate hero who cleans up the city or Carcetti is the ‘savior’ of the corrupted city of Baltimore makes The Wire stay true to the history of the city and allows it to be called a show more than merely a ‘crime drama’. But with a complicated cause and effect of every part of the society intertwined in the show, it makes me wonder whether there is an end to the game at all. I think the fourth season was trying to portray what kind of radical changes the city of Baltimore would need to start fixing the problems from the top to the bottom of the hierarchy. First of all, new mayor has to be elected, and the school curriculums have to change, then the police enforcement will have to be turned upside down, etc. Even through all these changes, kids like Michael will be missed from getting special attention and officers like Burrell will get through with their original plans in the game. In addition, even after destroying one dominating gang, Barksdale’s in the first few seasons, a new and even worst gang, led by Marlo, then dominates the west side in the fourth and the fifth season. Although Baltimore is cleaning up and ‘getting better’ over the years, in this ‘fallen society’ could there be an end to the game?
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
“In none of these various permutations of crime is there ever an end to the human cost involved…”
Part of the shock favor – and thus maybe even appeal – in The Wire is the fact that nobody is safe. In essence, every character has something to gain and lose in most situations, and the prices and stakes are always high. From Greggs being shot in season one to McNulty’s banishment to the docks in season two to Randy in season four facing death threats and bullying, characters in The Wire must evaluate seriously the pros and cons of many of their choices to simply “get by” in the world and sometimes even stay alive.
With that in mind, how do these extreme scenarios and choices translate into terms we can understand? Can a viewer relate well to someone like Randy in the 4th season as he is shuffled from foster to group home? Or is identifying with these characters difficult because of their unique circumstances? What do we learn from these characters as well as the resulting outcomes and costs of their hard decisions?
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
I feel like this brings up a very interesting an intriguing view point about all of the characters in the Wire and the social structure. Most of the police officers are devoted to reaching higher ranks within the police department, earning pension and getting out of the job on top before the stress and nature of the police lifestyle destroy their careers. While they all want to clean up the city, many of them seem more intent on saving face. THe homicide department seems more interested in the % number of their clearance rate than the actual number of dead bodies out there. They don’t really seem to want to solve the crime to apprehend a criminal, but to get their clearance rate up or to make a big arrest that can shoot them up the career ladder. I think that this is somewhat unavoidable in a large social structure such as a police department, but in some ways it is concerning. If you are in an emergency and need a police officer’s help, are you going to get their best effort if it doesn’t involve helping their career? You just have to hope that your emergency is worth their time, because they seem driven solely by the numbers and clearance rates adn social status than the actual emergency.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
One of the teachers at my predominantly-white, middle class preparatory high school used to make fun of us for living inside of a bubble. He didn’t simply mean that we were living a cushy life in comparison to those in lower socio-economic classes; he literally meant that we never leave a certain geographic area. He would say- as he waved his arms mockingly and started out, “God forbid!”- that certain streets might as well be walls because his students were never crossing those boundaries. It was hilarious. It was also incredibly true. The idea of social mobility is also somewhat funny then because when you move across class structures, the lines on a map showing where you spend your time also shift. Just as Walton recounts Wallace’s “if it ain’t West Baltimore” line, the fact of the matter is those of us from the comfortable backgrounds kind of live- in a geographic sense- the same way. Well that is, of course, until we go on our family vacations. Which is what, as Walter shows, The Wire provides as value added: it forces the middle class to see this game in action without some redeeming heroism at the end allowing us to forget any accumulated guilt.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
Richard, I definitely agree with you that the idea of boundaries imposed by the middle/upper-class bubble can be compared to the geographic boundaries of those like Wallace in West Baltimore. However, I disagree with the comment made by Walton that law enforcement officials and communities within The Wire see the lives of inner-city blacks as being “not worth a dime.” In my opinion, the experiment undertaken by Bunny Colvin in Season 3 illustrates an opposite sentiment. By confining the drug trade in his district to certain areas and allowing public health workers to reach those in greatest need, Colvin has both improved the lives of those in the surrounding community as well as brought drug/sex abusers into contact with the appropriate health personnel. If Colvin viewed the lives of inner city blacks as “not worth a dime” then he would have had little incentive to allow health personnel in Hamsterdam. Furthermore, the community members of his district would have not wasted their time complaining at local meetings about individuals of little value or importance to them.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
I had the same idea when I was reading the quote from Wallace. As much as Wallace, Bodie, and even Michael in Season 4 are all trying to climb the social/economic ladder in their world in order to survive and thrive in their environment, we are doing the same in our own circumstances. They go from slinging to being responsible for a corner, and we go through each levels of our education to climb the social ladder that is defined in our world. We try to make sense of the world within our own ‘bubbles’ and we don’t understand the bigger picture. I think a good example of it is in season 4, when the academics are starting their projects in the middle school, they have no idea about how much the kids are jaded by the street. It makes me wonder how much we can read and watch about the street life, but will never be able to understand fully. So I think the more realistic lesson from the show maybe that regardless of whether we understand their lives better or not, we have to be conscious of the fact that we are part of the game, and whatever decisions that we make may effect the lives of kids like Wallace and Michael.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
In The Wire, D’Angelo’s chess analogy, as Alvarez points out goes beyond just the rules of the drug game. The chess analogy is something that is carried on throughout all seasons of the show and within so many of the institutions beyond the world of drug trade. There is this “chilling awareness” that the audience has when watching The Wire that our comfortable sense of justice and equality is so far from what is reality. I think that this is part of the show’s numerical failure (how few people watched it consistently) because it shatters all of the perceptions that make the audience content by showing new levels of corruption and breaking the mold of every other TV show in so many ways. The rules of the game, as laid out by D’Angelo in the chess metaphor, show the terrifying aspect of human nature where so many immoral things can to happen to the “pawns” that don’t seem to matter. In a way, so many of us are pawns in our own realities (especially at this age and time in our lives), so watching this metaphor be played out in so many different institutions to so many different “pawns” is a reminder that no one is immune from these same rules of the game.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
For me, the scene where D’Angelo Barksdale shares his chess metaphor is one of the most intriguing scenes of the series that I have seen so far. Why is this so? As the author indicates, the scene really frames the game in a way that causes the audience to really think. I enjoy playing chess from time to time and D’Angelo’s metaphor about the role of pawns is strikingly accurate. When I am playing chess, I often think of the pawns as somewhat disposable and just tiny parts of my larger strategy. Much like this, pawns in “the game” are often considered disposable. They might seem important on the surface, but ultimately, they are easily replacable because they “don’t see the larger game.” It certainly is not an easy concept to understand, which is part of why I find watching The Wire so enjoyable: it makes you think.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
I think the real problem which our society faces in relation to the issues brought up in The Wire isn’t that they’re unsolvable, it’s that they’re not even being discussed. Because the poverty in this nation is isolated in certain geographic areas, it is easy for everyone else to turn a blind eye to these issues, if they even know they exist at all. The poor citizens of Baltimore and all the other cities in the U.S. have almost no political influence, and have problems that largely do not effect others. It is very easy to ignore these issues, or prioritize them on the bottom of the agenda below other issues such as: healthcare, defense, gun control, foreign policy, etc.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
Walton claims that The Wire’s greatness rests in the fact that it makes us question our attitudes towards problems many justify through assumptions of what we think we know of urban life. The show, he says, illuminates that good and evil aren’t black and white, which is proven as we cheer for both McNulty and Avon Barksdale to come through. It proves that the individuals aren’t always responsible for things like drug rings, questionable policing, and being forced out of work. The Wire points to the bigger picture and asks the audience to question what they hold as truths, making it a truly impressive feat for television. In its effort to show the “larger game” and call to attention how people are affected by institutions, does it leave out any other important elements? After watching it, did it succeed in asking you to question your stance on these issues?
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
General Document Comments 0
Personally, I feel the article addressed many of the questions those that do not understand the complexity or even the purpose of The Wire. In simplest terms The Wire captures this sentiment: “We understood that throughout our national culture, there was a growing inability to recognize our problems, much less deal honestly with them.” The Wire for me never was just a TV or sheer entertainment about our nation’s urban population (considered a subculture), it was a metaphor for so many existing problems within our nation. America has a problem dealing with it’s own realities, instead offering a very one-sided depiction of issues to the public. For me, it seems that there is a preoccupation in news media to make very complex issues seem like they have simpler solutions than they really do in an effort to protect our political figures and institutions that may somehow be involved in the criminality. The Wire holds no punches; it’s brutally honest and I think it causes it’s audience to question what part do we play in this?
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
I completely agree. The Wire is much deeper than just a drugs, cops, and politics. If one were to really analyze the shows and see what is much deeper, the show can mean so much more to a person. The audience is constantly torn between the characters who are suppose to be bad and are shed in a positive light, and the reverse. The Wire has so much to offer and that is what makes it such a great show.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
I agree that this article addresses some of complexity and purpose of The Wire. The show deals with the institutional issues that face urban landscapes in America, but it also addresses the way that these issues reach the entirety of the nation. At the end of the article, Wilson argues that the audience and the off-screen public are included in the “forces that profit from the game,” and that we allow these cringe-worthy actions and events to occur. Growing up in a rural/suburban area outside of Baltimore, I felt a great sense of distance from the drug-related news stories I saw or the action depicted on screen during The Wire. However, I do believe that we are all connected within “the game.” The institutions that The Wire addresses serve to connect all individuals within an area, and allow even those who feel that they are off-screen outsiders to play a role in the struggles of the inner city.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
I agree with Amber’s assessment with how people do not understand the complexity or even the purpose of The Wire. What I have gathered from our readings and from watching the series how seriously damaged some of the cities in the US are and how they have become ignored. By watching the Wire you see people doing criminal things trying to make money because unemployment and education are sparse. Nick and Ziggy seem to be the most notable for me when it comes to this. In the end, their lives are completely ruined. You would think these men were bad criminals, however, the wire seems to shine them in a different light, making them more appealing to audience by making trying to get them to understand where they came from.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
The “America we left behind” is the lower class that is no longer meaningful value in our service economy. As human beings they are worth intrinsically less because they contribute little to the economy. Part of the reason they are “left behind” are because otherwise good people just follow the “rules of the game,” often leading poor people to dire situations where they are screwes by institutions. Do we, as middle class Americans, have a moral and/or ethical obligation to help these people, if indeed we too are part of the game, as discussed in class?
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
I have mulled over this very point a lot since Professor Williams touched on it in class. Although I personally have always thought people in the middle and upper class should extend help to those who need it, watching The Wire has really engrained that notion in me even more.
The common response and critique to that kind of logic is that you should “help those who help themselves.” However, as we see in The Wire, especially with children in season four, people are often born into problems and situations from which they cannot easily escape. To tell someone to help himself when he doesn’t know how to is a waste of breath, time, and energy.
On that note, though, I think the reason so many people do not make efforts to help this group is that even capable people simply do not know how. Someone can volunteer at a soup kitchen to feed the hungry and poor for example, but this is a more retroactive approach to assistance as opposed to creating a system or solution that would eradicate the need for soup kitchens altogether. Really getting at the heart of many of the problems that exist in urban America, that we see in The Wire, is no simple or easy fix that can be resolved solely with money or policy-making.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
I completely agree with this comment. I don’t think the “America we left behind” doesn’t want to help themselves. As seen in the first season of the wire, characters like Wallace are born into the “game.” He has no real parent figures and must enter the drug game to provide for his brothers and sisters. How does one help a person like Wallace without ripping him apart from all of his siblings? Drugs were the most sensible outlet for him given his situation. I wish more children could see Wallace’s story and learn about the risks associated with the game.
Even characters like D’Angelo were born into the game. His whole life has been centered around the drug game. How do we help someone who has no outside figures to guide him towards a different path? Reaching out to people in these difficult situations is a problem in itself.
I don’t know the best way to implement this idea, but I believe education is the key to help out people born into tough situations. The game is the easy outlet for a number of reasons. But if more people knew the risks and the alternatives maybe we can make a difference.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
The Wire displays the actions of drug dealers and police officers in a different light than its crime show predecessors. Before watching “The Wire” critically, I was not too familiar with the inner-workings of the police or drug dealing. However, I feel “The Wire” does an excellent job of showing how the two interact as well as how institutions continue the enabling of lower income communities. I have not finished the series yet, but I do wonder how “the game” will be presented in later seasons as well as what other institutions play a role in “the game”.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
In the prologue, David Simon states that it’s unfair to categorize The Wire as a show that was “written and produced by people who were intent on writing and producing television.” Its intent was not to win awards and gain high ratings but to provide an honest, unique sociological view of “forgotten rust-belt America.” Simon makes it clear that The Wire is a world apart from any other crime show; it’s so different that it never would have survived on a non-subscription channel. While I appreciate Simon’s vision and definitely think he delivered it successfully, I’m not sure I would have set it SO far apart from other crime shows if I were not enrolled in this course. We read these articles and discuss the show’s complexity in order to understand the show at a level deeper than just “good TV.” The average viewer does not have this experience. The Wire was not an incredibly successful show, but I don’t think its writers ever expected it to be. It takes time for viewers to appreciate the show’s complexity for more than what it appears to be on the surface, further setting it apart from classic TV crime shows. If The Wire was meant to be more artistic than purely entertainment, and most viewers probably don’t even understand the art, I wonder why Simon considered television drama to be the most appropriate way of manifesting his vision.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment