paxromana
04-02-2008, 04:22 PM
After watching "The Gauntlet" and hearing Jeff's take on The Wire a strange thought came into my head, "When did Jeff start smoking crack?" This is painful because I usually agree with so much of what Jeff has to say, much more than Alex or Dan. But in his review there was a lot that seemed to me to be off-based. As opinions go you can always disagree and accept that one opinion isn't more valid than the other, so I'll limit myself to the statements and characterizations of the show that seemed to be put forward as facts.
The Wire is about "The System".
This is true. David Simon is pretty upfront about the fact that the show isn't about the characters or the minutiae of plot as would normally be the case in a television show, book, or film. This turns a lot of people off of the show. It is a pretty hard thing to accept in our post-modern (and I mean that in it's most exact meaning and not in the literary genre style) world that the conventions of character or plot may not have as great an import in the way that the world actually works as we would like it to. As dramatic device the novel, and its precursor The Stage (specifically Shakespeare), have ingrained into us as a viewing audience that characters and their choices guide the events of the world. But this isn't the only Western narrative tradition. Simon has said that he takes many of his cues from the Greek tragedies and their tradition. In that tradition Man is not the master of his destiny but the slave of Fate. As Man confronts his fate he either rebels, which leads to tragedy (e.g. Oedipus Rex), or accepts his fate and is redeemed. One cannot go against the gods, whether it is Zeus on Olympus or City Hall, or the State House, or Capital Hill. Try to fuck the gods and they will fuck you back good.
All of this is not to say that change is impossible. But the usual change that we come to expect from our stories is ridiculous. McNulty will not lock up the crime families and Stringer Bell will not reform The Game because both ideas suppose powers not left to individual men. The system is too well constructed and too inert to allow change like that. Man is left in an absurd world where his actions are ultimately futile and his choices are illusory. The only thing left for man to do, as Camus thought, is to struggle and to gain meaning from his struggle. From those small struggles small victories are possible, as Colvin was able to save Namond and Bubbles was able to save himself. You just have to accept that politicians will sell out (Carcetti) and more often than not the bad guys will get away (Levy, Marlo, The Greek).
Does The Wire accomplish its goal of showing the world is like this? Yes, I think so. Its ability to transcend the conventional narrative type is a credit to the show's writing and a testament to its importance in an increasingly bland medium. Instead of doing the easy, the melodramatic (*cough*The Shield*cough*), it attempts to transcend and does a damn good job of it. It's a small victory and I don't think that Simon thinks that this victory will be appreciated or will spur on a revolution in the genre. The Game is The Game afterall.
The Wire has two-dimensional characters.
Which characters would those be? There are literally dozens of recurring speaking roles and interconnecting story lines that are spread out over a greater five season arc. Sure, many of these characters are two-dimensional, but the scope of the show is so great how could they not be? Even though you do have many of these characters that are meant to stand-in for types that we can easily recognize to push along the story (Jen Carcetti, Levi, Monk, most of the staff of "The Sun", etc) you also have a lot of characters that are fully fleshed out and given much screen time. Let's go with just a couple of examples:
Omar - a black, homosexual thug with a code of ethics that is feared by drug dealers. Now just reading that you realize that there has never been a character like this in any TV show. Add to it that he is also funny and one of the most sympathetic characters in the show and you realize just how fleshed out he really is. I mean how easy is it really to identify with the character described in the first sentence of this paragraph? But guess what, when you watch the show you really do. That is remarkable.
Another thing. I've seen a lot of people describe Omar as a "Robin Hood character". This is kind of a funny statement. When did you ever see Omar giving money to the poor? Omar robs drug dealers because they have no recourse to the law and he can live between two systems that have no place for him. He's too much of a predator to be a citizen but he's too upstanding to be on the corner or a hitter for a crew. He's just Omar.
Bubbles - How anyone can describe Bubbles as two-dimensional is beyond me. More than any other character (except the kids in Season 4) this one will consistently break your heart. And yet we always come back for more. I don't want to give anything away but what happens at the end of Season 4 is one of the darkest, saddest, and greatest moments in all of television. And it all came from situation and character.
McNulty - A drunk Irish cop who's a bit of a prick and doesn't mind bending the rules. Yes this is a caricature that we all recognize. But McNulty is also so much more. What's really funny is that McNulty is smarter than most of the people he's surrounded by and has to answer to and that makes exactly zero difference. McNulty knows the score and knows what he has to do to get the job done and sometimes he's willing to do things that are immoral to do them. But before we get all Vic Mackey up in here let's take a breather. Whenever McNulty does something noble or immoral more often than not his actions only have the effect of pissing off his bosses. (I can't think of a greater image of the contempt many bosses have for their subordinates, especially obstinate ones, than Rawls saying "I'm listening" while giving McNulty the double birds at the end of Season 1.) McNulty is tragic not because he is self-destructive or is a failure, most of the characters in the show are self-destructive. He's tragic because he really thinks that he can do some good. He isn't jaded enough to realize that no matter what he does, nothing is ever going to change. When the Barksdales are finally taken down they're replaced by someone worse - Marlo. When he throws the rule book completely out to get Marlo he is left busted down, his victory all but reversed.
Even though the focus of the show isn't its characters (except, maybe, Baltimore itself) there are still many great ones in there. I mean, come on. Stringer Bell, Dookie, Pryzblyewski, Bodie, Daniels, Bunk, Slim Charles, Snoop, Chris Partlow, Prop Joe, Michael, Wee-Bay, D'Angelo, Carver, Kima Greggs, Mayor Royce!, Carcetti, Randy, Namond, Cheese, Sobatka!, Freamon!, Herc, Clay "SHEEEEEEEIIIT" Davis, and on. The Wire doesn't have three-dimensional characters? As Clay Davis would say, "Sheeeeeeeit. You better come with some stronger shit than that."
What I think may be the problem is that most of these characters are just allowed to be themselves. There aren't contrived "character" moments thrown out every episode to say, HEY THIS GUY, YOU SEE HIM, YEAH HIM, BALDIE, HE'S A CONFLICTED GUY! How often do those moments happen in real life? To be sure, The Wire does have them but more often than not they are passed over without comment. Just as they would be in real life.
The Wire is about "The System".
This is true. David Simon is pretty upfront about the fact that the show isn't about the characters or the minutiae of plot as would normally be the case in a television show, book, or film. This turns a lot of people off of the show. It is a pretty hard thing to accept in our post-modern (and I mean that in it's most exact meaning and not in the literary genre style) world that the conventions of character or plot may not have as great an import in the way that the world actually works as we would like it to. As dramatic device the novel, and its precursor The Stage (specifically Shakespeare), have ingrained into us as a viewing audience that characters and their choices guide the events of the world. But this isn't the only Western narrative tradition. Simon has said that he takes many of his cues from the Greek tragedies and their tradition. In that tradition Man is not the master of his destiny but the slave of Fate. As Man confronts his fate he either rebels, which leads to tragedy (e.g. Oedipus Rex), or accepts his fate and is redeemed. One cannot go against the gods, whether it is Zeus on Olympus or City Hall, or the State House, or Capital Hill. Try to fuck the gods and they will fuck you back good.
All of this is not to say that change is impossible. But the usual change that we come to expect from our stories is ridiculous. McNulty will not lock up the crime families and Stringer Bell will not reform The Game because both ideas suppose powers not left to individual men. The system is too well constructed and too inert to allow change like that. Man is left in an absurd world where his actions are ultimately futile and his choices are illusory. The only thing left for man to do, as Camus thought, is to struggle and to gain meaning from his struggle. From those small struggles small victories are possible, as Colvin was able to save Namond and Bubbles was able to save himself. You just have to accept that politicians will sell out (Carcetti) and more often than not the bad guys will get away (Levy, Marlo, The Greek).
Does The Wire accomplish its goal of showing the world is like this? Yes, I think so. Its ability to transcend the conventional narrative type is a credit to the show's writing and a testament to its importance in an increasingly bland medium. Instead of doing the easy, the melodramatic (*cough*The Shield*cough*), it attempts to transcend and does a damn good job of it. It's a small victory and I don't think that Simon thinks that this victory will be appreciated or will spur on a revolution in the genre. The Game is The Game afterall.
The Wire has two-dimensional characters.
Which characters would those be? There are literally dozens of recurring speaking roles and interconnecting story lines that are spread out over a greater five season arc. Sure, many of these characters are two-dimensional, but the scope of the show is so great how could they not be? Even though you do have many of these characters that are meant to stand-in for types that we can easily recognize to push along the story (Jen Carcetti, Levi, Monk, most of the staff of "The Sun", etc) you also have a lot of characters that are fully fleshed out and given much screen time. Let's go with just a couple of examples:
Omar - a black, homosexual thug with a code of ethics that is feared by drug dealers. Now just reading that you realize that there has never been a character like this in any TV show. Add to it that he is also funny and one of the most sympathetic characters in the show and you realize just how fleshed out he really is. I mean how easy is it really to identify with the character described in the first sentence of this paragraph? But guess what, when you watch the show you really do. That is remarkable.
Another thing. I've seen a lot of people describe Omar as a "Robin Hood character". This is kind of a funny statement. When did you ever see Omar giving money to the poor? Omar robs drug dealers because they have no recourse to the law and he can live between two systems that have no place for him. He's too much of a predator to be a citizen but he's too upstanding to be on the corner or a hitter for a crew. He's just Omar.
Bubbles - How anyone can describe Bubbles as two-dimensional is beyond me. More than any other character (except the kids in Season 4) this one will consistently break your heart. And yet we always come back for more. I don't want to give anything away but what happens at the end of Season 4 is one of the darkest, saddest, and greatest moments in all of television. And it all came from situation and character.
McNulty - A drunk Irish cop who's a bit of a prick and doesn't mind bending the rules. Yes this is a caricature that we all recognize. But McNulty is also so much more. What's really funny is that McNulty is smarter than most of the people he's surrounded by and has to answer to and that makes exactly zero difference. McNulty knows the score and knows what he has to do to get the job done and sometimes he's willing to do things that are immoral to do them. But before we get all Vic Mackey up in here let's take a breather. Whenever McNulty does something noble or immoral more often than not his actions only have the effect of pissing off his bosses. (I can't think of a greater image of the contempt many bosses have for their subordinates, especially obstinate ones, than Rawls saying "I'm listening" while giving McNulty the double birds at the end of Season 1.) McNulty is tragic not because he is self-destructive or is a failure, most of the characters in the show are self-destructive. He's tragic because he really thinks that he can do some good. He isn't jaded enough to realize that no matter what he does, nothing is ever going to change. When the Barksdales are finally taken down they're replaced by someone worse - Marlo. When he throws the rule book completely out to get Marlo he is left busted down, his victory all but reversed.
Even though the focus of the show isn't its characters (except, maybe, Baltimore itself) there are still many great ones in there. I mean, come on. Stringer Bell, Dookie, Pryzblyewski, Bodie, Daniels, Bunk, Slim Charles, Snoop, Chris Partlow, Prop Joe, Michael, Wee-Bay, D'Angelo, Carver, Kima Greggs, Mayor Royce!, Carcetti, Randy, Namond, Cheese, Sobatka!, Freamon!, Herc, Clay "SHEEEEEEEIIIT" Davis, and on. The Wire doesn't have three-dimensional characters? As Clay Davis would say, "Sheeeeeeeit. You better come with some stronger shit than that."
What I think may be the problem is that most of these characters are just allowed to be themselves. There aren't contrived "character" moments thrown out every episode to say, HEY THIS GUY, YOU SEE HIM, YEAH HIM, BALDIE, HE'S A CONFLICTED GUY! How often do those moments happen in real life? To be sure, The Wire does have them but more often than not they are passed over without comment. Just as they would be in real life.