We have a winner…
“Don’t try this shit at home.” – Norman Wilson
Namond is pushed into drug dealing by his mother when they are cut off by the remnants of the Barksdale Organization (who had been supporting them). Randy reveals his involvement in the murder to his teachers and is placed under Sergeant Ellis Carver’s care. Marlo proves elusive despite Herc’s camera. Colvin’s new special class separates the worst behaved students (known as “Corner Kids”) from their peers. Carcetti wins the election despite a last minute smear campaign. Omar is arrested for the murder Marlo organized.
New Characters:
Big Guy and Donnie: Butchie’s muscle
Whether intentional or unintentional, Colvin’s involvement in the program concentrating on corner kids bears similarities to Hamsterdam. In both cases, individuals who have been identified as problematic are moved to a separate, concentrated area in order to solve the problems of the systems in which they intrude. While Hamsterdam is not initially reform or education oriented, it begins to move in that direction with the help of the church and social services. The corner kids program is designed both to study the kids and help them by moving them out of an environment where they do not recieve the attention they need and are considered problem students. Hamsterdam exhibits potential but ultimately is a failure. It will be interesting to see if the corner kids program fails or succeeds.
I would think that the writers would not be intending to use the corner kids program as a counterpart to Hampsterdam for several reasons: 1. Colvin did not come up with the idea himself, and can’t be blamed its failure. 2. The stakes are not as high for the failure of the corner kids program as for the failure of Hampsterdam. It will be a setback for the school, but it wont be a career ender like Hampsterdam turned out to be.
In response to Tom:
First I think it is great how Bunny Colvin always needs to get his hands dirty and shake up the system. He wants to make his mark on the city of Baltimore in two of its most problematic areas: its drug problem and its education problem. I think that the corner kids program is meant to be a counterpart to hamsterdam. Both are extremely controversial because it essentially recognizes the problems that no one wants to recognize. For Hampsterdam it is that people are going to deal and use drugs no matter what so we might as well separate them from the rest of society (and give them help once the aid groups come in). For the classroom it is recognizing that some kids need a different curriculum. It is partly that there are lesser expectations for the kids who can’t sit still (and no one really wants to come out and say there should be lesser expectations for some kids) and also the recognition that it is impossible to run a successful classroom with these kids in there. But fortunately, Colvin and the others believe that these kids will eventually be able to rejoin there peers once they are “cured,” just like drug addicts can receive treatment to overcome their problems. It is a controversial but potentially extremely powerful idea brought to you once again by Colvin and The Wire.
The Lord of the Ring:
One thing that I think has been great the past few episodes has been the journey of the ring up the Baltimore “food chain.” It starts on the hand of the lowly stash-house employee, where it goes on to Marlow, the big-time drug kingpin. Then comes the wild card: Omar, the stick-up man and master of the game, takes Marlow’s money and the ring. Don’t mistake Marlow for a man who repeats himself. But finally, in a sick twist of fate, the corrupt cop takes the ring from Marlow, possibly showing the power that the system has over everybody. I hope that the ring continues its journey onto some place like city hall or mordor to be destroyed.
One of the big topics of yesterdays class was the discussion of race in The Wire. After giving it some more thought, I believe that The Wire is pointing out a subtle or even sub-concsious form of racism that is still very much present in our society: the inability of whites to overcome an almost instinctual prejudice that fails to give distinction to blacks individually but instead places them as a group.
I believe that the best example of this is Carchetti trying to split the black vote. He does not believe they will vote for him, so he just tries to turn as many as possible to Tony Gray away from Royce. What happened in the end? 2 of 5 voters in Royce’s base districts voted for Carchetti (at least I think this is what Carchetti said to his wife after getting off the cell phone). There is a complete inability to recognize progress of black people (mainly those in the inner-city) and instead a grouping of them together in terms of their opinions.
Any thoughts about this?
I think that this might be a bit of a simplification. I don’t think that because politicians talk about their constituent bodies in terms of demographics makes them “racist”. If this city had a sizable hispanic population (or any other ethnic demographic) then they would be considered as geographic human real-estate as well. It is unfortunate that “race” is what people use to mark different opinions and cultural values.
“Race”—to me—is an inappropriate term used to identify the quality (or “what kind”) of person based on how they look. I think that when we talk about someone being “racist” it isn’t helpful—unless they honestly just hate someone because of the color of their skin. “Culture” is something that people actually share. I would say that there are many characters in the Wire who might be “culturally insensitive” but I wouldn’t call them “racist”.
In order to win a campaign, it is necessary to split different ideological groups: these can be people with similar social, economic, moral, and political ideas. Generally groups of people of similar cultural backgrounds have similar convictions. Generally. I would say it is “culturally insensitive” for Carchetti to group black people together as a base he can’t win—but it is not subconsciously “racist”. And, to be honest, without generalizations (perhaps based in some statistics) how could you run a campaign?
In an ideal world, politics would not have the pomp of Monday night football. In an ideal world money, class, culture, “race”, and networking would have less to do with governing than good ideas and compassion. In an ideal world politicians wouldn’t need to play the game of social backstabbing and geo-demographic chess that they do, and the pawns would all get a chance to be heard. But this is not an ideal world, and what the king says: goes.
Delanda’s character has become increasing interesting to me. In this particular episode I noticed an important parallel between Delanda and Brianna. The sequence where Delanda drives Namond to the corner reminded me of the sequence from season one when we were first introduced to Briana’s character. This was when she pulled up to The Pit in her car to bring D’Angelo lunch. Delanda represents a younger Brianna. In this scene I felt like Brianna had to make a similar transition with her son D’Angelo when he was required to enter the drug game. This was just a really striking parallel to me. Even though it was a small moment in the episode it revealed so much about how children are brought into “the game”
What’s interesting about this to me is that it is the first illustrative version of how money moves around the systems. We hear Lester talking all the time about how if you follow the money “You don’t know where you going to end up.” The connections are more immediate and interwoven than we suspect.
Randy’s character is really intriguing me this season. The Wire’s creators have made it clear that of the four school kids, he represents the capitalist entrepreneur who consistently takes up opportunities to earn some cash. Right in his first appearance, he is attempting to capture pigeons to sell to Marlo. He cuts class to sell snacks to the other school kids. He offers information about a murder in order to protect himself from criminal punishment. And finally, he accepts an offer to distribute voting materials on election day. And even though he was paid up front to distribute the flyers, he dedicates himself to completing the job.
Randy is clearly troubled by his involvement in the Lex’s murder and the rape of the 8th grade girl.
I’m interested in seeing what’s next for Randy. While he is certainly not a clean kid, his employment endeavors have been legitimate and he certainly has a developing conscience. Will his ambition take him places or stop him in his tracks?
I also find Randy’s character to be the most interesting and perhaps easiest to identify with—I hope that this doesn’t mean his will also be the most tragic. This brings up and interesting narrative question I’ve been wrestling with. These stories we’re watching are “naturalistic” but obviously not “realistic”. As someone pointed out in class, the plot lines are constructed to be interesting and interconnected, no matter how “real” they seem. My question is: are the plot-lines we’re watching bound to some similar fate? Because of the show’s nature, I can’t help but assume that all of the good intentions of the characters will end in blood and fire.
Dennis’s story is wonderful, but I can’t help but think that the only reason it is being told is to show his future descent back into the drug game. I hope I am wrong. The same with Randy’s struggle (like Wallace or D)—the struggle is more important than the outcome. I know it shows my weakness for Western story structures, but I want at least one redemptive plot-line. Dennis’s is probably the most convincing so far. As for McNulty… gah. I can’t help but feel like the purpose of his “cleaning up” is just to show how he will soon be consumed by the system he knows once again.
“Naturalistic” or “realistic”, these stories have been told both for their own sake and to show their interconnectedness revealing the systems they represent; but as we close in on the end of the series, I think it would help to focus on how the Wire develops certain plots to land a certain message. Why is Pres’s storyline important? Will he try something groundbreaking? Or is the purpose of his story to disillusion us to the education system, with the help of a familiar face?
We’ll see, we’ll see…
I don’t think there is a real, tangible parallel between Delanda and Briana. Unlike D’Angelo, Namond comes from a family that is already well-established financially. Granted, the Brice family is still dependent on the good graces of the Barksdale family, but that does not fundamentally change my argument. There was not really an option for D’Angelo. Perhaps it is more accurate to say though that we did not see D’Angelo’s moment as a young hopper. Namond seems to have luxuries that D’Angelo did not have. Now, however, the luxuries Namond has enjoyed will begin to cost him unless he makes some family-breaking decisions on his own.