Each day’s screening will have a post to start discussion and track the story. They’ll contain the official HBO plot summary, and will be updated to include some post-screening notes. Please use each thread as a place to engage with what you see, pose questions, offer thoughts, etc. Respect the spoiler policy by not referring explicitly to what will happen in the future.
One thing to think about is how the show manages to introduce so many characters (30 in the first episode alone!), and its tolerance for confusion – did you find yourself uncertain of what was going on? What effect did such confusion have on your? And for those of you watching it for the second (or more) time, what do you notice differently now?
“The Target”: “…when it’s not your turn.” – McNulty
Homicide detective Jimmy McNulty observes the murder trial of a mid-level drug dealer, D’Angelo Barksdale, and sees the prosecution’s star witness recant her testimony. McNulty recognizes drug kingpin Stringer Bell in the court room and believes he has manipulated the proceedings. McNulty circumvents the chain of command by talking to the judge, who then places pressure on the police department over the case. D’Angelo is acquitted and returns to work for the Barksdale drug-dealing organization—moving to the low rise projects known as “the pit.” A homeless drug addict named Bubbles acts as mentor to another addict in an ill-conceived scam with severe consequences.
Characters introduced:
The Law:
Detective Jimmy McNulty
Detective Bunk Moreland
Major William Rawls
Deputy Commissioner Ervin Burrell
Lieutenant Cedric Daniels
Detective Kima Greggs
Detective Ellis Carver
Detective Thomas “Herc” Hauk
Detective Ray Cole
Sergeant Jay Landsman
Detective Michael Santangelo
Major Raymond Foerster
Assistant State’s Attorney Rhonda Pearlman
Judge Daniel Phelan
FBI Special Agent Terrance “Fitz” Fitzhugh
Cheryl (Kima’s girlfriend)
The Street:
D’Angelo Barksdale
Stringer Bell
Avon Barksdale
Bubbles
Johnny Weeks
Preston “Bodie” Broadus
Wallace
Poot
Roland “Wee-Bey” Brice
Stinkum
Savino
Wendell “Orlando” Blocker
Shardene Innes
Attorney Maurice Levy
“The Detail”: “You cannot lose if you do not play.” – Marla Daniels
The witness who testified against D’Angelo is killed, and the Barksdale organization is suspected; a detail is formed to investigate their drug dealing activity in the low rises. The detail’s Lieutenant, Cedric Daniels, is concerned with the quality of his team, while Detective McNulty is concerned with the department’s plan for the investigation. Daniels’ protégé Kima Greggs uses Bubbles as a confidential informant to identify members of the Barksdale organization. However, Daniels’ suspicions about his other detectives prove correct when a late night foray into the West side projects by Herc, Carver and Prez goes awry.
Characters Introduced:
Detective Lester Freamon
Detective Roland “Prez” Pryzbylewski
Marla Daniels (wife of Cedric)
Detective Leander Sydnor
Detective Patrick Mahon
Detective Augustus Polk
Lieutenant Walter Cantrell
Donnette (girlfriend of D’Angelo)
Little Man
We were introduced to many characters in these first two episodes. There is definitely confusion, but I think watching this episode for a second time cleared up some of the confusion. The first time I watched it, I was confused to why there were so many police officers working this one case and what their positions were on the police force. Watching it this time, it appears that there are two divisions that are both working this case: Homicide department and the Narcotics department which are both relevant to the investigation of Avon Barksdale and his gang. In two episodes we are introduced to the personal life of some of the officers. We learn a lot about detective McNulty and some of his personality traits. He seems to undermine his superiors and upset them. We also learn that detective Greggs is a lesbian. I found I was able to follow what was going on as we learned a lot about the Barksdale gang. However, with so many characters to remember who all seem important, it will be interesting to learn more about the character personalities in the future episodes. I expect a lot less confusion in my second viewing.
In his letter to HBO, David Simon makes an excellent case for his show, trying to set it apart from past hits like The Sopranos, Sex and the City, Six Feet Under, etc. Indeed The Wire is distinctive in the way it takes one of television’s most prominent and ideological genres and turns it on it’s head to create something new and startling, but I don’t entirely buy his argument for HBO moving beyond “worlds largely inaccessible to network television.” Throughout these first two episodes I definitely felt immersed in a world at least as different as those featured on the other shows mentioned above. Just because networks have (superficially) probed the police force before in a way they hadn’t explored, say, funeral homes, doesn’t make the world of The Wire any less fascinatingly foreign to viewers (or at least to me). What I’m saying is simply that I see The Wire (so far) as less of a departure from HBO’s formula than a particularly successful execution of it. After all, the cable network’s hits continue to probe these “inaccessible worlds”—Mormon families on Big Love, celebrity/entertainment industry happenings on Entourage—largely with continued success.
One of the most fascinating elements of these episodes is the way that Simon and Burns have handled the theme of racial identity. While the Street certainly conforms to common perceptions of urban blacks, the character of Lieutenant Daniels is specifically singled out for contrast. We are informed in the first episode that Daniels has a law degree, which immediately sets him apart not only from the Street, but from most of the Law as well. In our short glimpse of Daniels’ home life, we see him living in relative affluence, listening to classical music, enjoying a fine meal with his wife. Simon and Burns are deliberately contrasting him with the inner city dealers. Likewise, they are deliberately drawing links between the Street and the white cop McNulty. Living in relative poverty, wasting away his time through alcohol abuse, and suffering through a broken marriage are far more characteristic of poor inner city blacks than the typical white protagonist of a television program. The inversion is notable, and forces the viewer to question the connection between racial identity and social status. I expect this theme to be further developed as the series progresses.
I agree with Kyle on the issue of character confusion. This was my third time watching the first episode, and my first time watching the second. The Barksdale gang structure, personalities, and dynamics have become more and more clear each time I watched “The Target”. It is also interesting to see the tension between Avon and D’Angelo Barksdale because of the mixing of gang business and family commitments. Avon gives D’Angelo preferential treatment because he is family, but seems only to do so grudgingly. It occurs to me that Avon would have handled that situation much differently if D’Angelo was not related to him.
I am very intrigued by McNulty’s personality. He is always getting in trouble for something he has done. The interesting thing about it is that unlike Detective Roland “Prez” Pryzbylewski, he isn’t really doing anything inherently wrong. He is simply doing what he thinks to be right to him at any given moment, but it seems to always go against the way that the rest of the Baltimore police force operates. His decisions and the reactions of his superiors show the dichotomy between doing what is right, and doing what is expected of him. I am very interested to see how McNulty’s character develops, and how his decisions impact the overall plot of the show.
I agree with your analysis of the contrast between Daniels and McNulty, however I think that McNulty’s life outside the precinct is indicative of a common motif in television police dramas as well. Shows like Law & Order, NYPD Blue, and others all seem to make a point of showing the toll that the job takes on the life of committed officers. Through a troubled home life, drinking problem, or mental health issues the impact of the stress of the job is shown in similar ways in many different shows. Despite this, I do see the inversion of racial stereotypes as a valid analysis, and I hope that it will be further developed in future episodes.
One of my favorite things about “The Wire” is its Shakespearean attention to language. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the beautiful filth that spews from Sergeant Jay Landsman’s mouth. “Don’t it just make your dick bust concrete?” he says in the first episode. I am similarly amazed by the show’s rendering of street slang. “Money be green,” D’Angelo tells Wallace in the low rises. I read somewhere one that there is NO improv in “The Wire;” every single word is strictly scripted. It is hard to ignore that two white men, David Simon and Ed Burns, are able to so faithfully recreate a language that is essentially not their own. Just like Shakespeare, Simon and Burns can inhabit any character regardless of race, class, age, gender, or sexual orientation. The show transcends these distinctions without ignoring them. This is the mark of truly great writing, that it hints at something universal in the way we communicate.
I didn’t mean to leave my last comment as a reply; it has nothing to do with Geoff’s comment. About confusion, though, I wanted to say that this is my third time watching the show and each time, as is the case with the greatest art, my understanding and appreciation deepens. For a show with epic scope, “The Wire” pays such scrupulous attention to character detail. Even minor players, with shorter arcs, are developed fully. And nothing is extraneous. I think that after all of the information and images of the first few episodes are digested, the confusion becomes enrichment. This time I noticed how every seemingly unimportant conversation serves to color the characters. In the second episode, Wallace’s observation that “Alexander Hamilton ain’t no president” is my favorite example of this. Depth has been added to Wallace’s character at an early juncture in the show and the question is…why?
The Wire’s saturation of social commentary struck me as the most unique and interesting facet of the series thus far. In the show’s pre-credit opening beat, the button that set the tone for not only the rest of the episode but also (presumably) the entire series was the line (in response to McNulty’s question, “why’d you let him play?”), “Got to, this is America, man.” And there it is: one line that sets an ironical tone criticizing America’s established bureaucracy. Sure enough, the rest of the first episode was filled with lines or instances that provided some sort of subtle social commentary. I particularly liked the gorgeous, futuristic FBI offices filled with hi-tech equipment and idle officers juxtaposed to Homicide and Narcotics ancient typewriters and basement dungeons. For me, it is such subtle commentary that sets the show apart from other run-of-the-mill cop shows. Also, it seemed to me that the second episode contained far fewer instances, and I hope that’s not indicative of a decreasing trend throughout the rest of the series.
That’s a valid point, although I think that given McNulty’s west side origins and his place of residence, “The Wire” makes the parallels between he and the Street a bit more obvious.
I absolutely agree. “This is American, man,” I think, is the mission statement for the series. No frills, no filters – this is America, warts and all.
You’re both right – McNulty is both a stereotype of the broken-down white cop, and a parallel to the African-American underclass seen throughout the series. Also the show makes it clear that McNulty is not just white, but also Irish-American – ethnicity in The Wire is a multifaceted affair. Much more to come…
One key structural element of the series is that each season starts with a “teaser” scene that lays out the themes of that season (and beyond). The story of Snot Boogie (based on a true story) definitely sets the stage for what’s to come…
I suppose being someone who has never watched the Wire before nor taken any class on television, I am coming at the show from a much different perspective. However, based on these two episodes there are a couple of insights I can bring based on my own experiences.
First, as a joint chinese-geography major I am happy to see the painstaking amount of attention paid to sense of place. There is a clear dichotomy between “outside and inside.” By that I mean the two settings are incredibly distinct. This is something that is even more apparent in “Clockers,” where the two worlds of Rocco and Strike, at least at the very beginning, don’t feel the same. There is an incredible interplay going on between characters and their settings. With “Clockers” the influence is almost mutual, because as much as these places are changing their characters, so are the characters’ perspective affecting the way that we, as the audience, see and analyze their environment.
However putting this interplay aside, the creation of “the street” as a place is really fantastic. I may be guessing here, but I get the sense that by the end “the street” will almost be its own character; one that lives, breathes, emotes and interacts like anyone else. In most scenes where action returns to the street, there is always a sequence of shots depicting everyday activity on the street. I think this is deliberate, especially read within the context of the interplay between environment and character.
I’m hoping that as the semester continues I can flesh some of this stuff out and contribute some urban geography perspective. At the very least, it might be good to invite Professor Pete Nelson to come in and talk about geographic/spatial overtones in the Wire.
What struck me about the first two episodes is that the confusion that arises from them is multifacted. As a first time viewer of The Wire, the most confusing aspect was obviously the introduction of so many characters all at once. While it was virtually impossible to keep track of everyone’s names, I found that names weren’t necessary to understand the storyline. It was easy to identify the characters based on their personalities and backgrounds, which are developed in great detail: For example, Lieutenant Daniels was easy to identify because of his middle class home life and his law degree, D’angelo because of his demotion from the Towers to the low-rises, and the new cops on Daniels team because of their unimpressive previous police work. It will be interesting to see at what point in the show I am able to identify even the minor characters by name.
A second facet of the confusion that arose from the first two episodes was the humor. It seemed that many humorous segues were built on confusion, whether on the part of the audience or the part of the actors. During D’angelo’s interrogation, I had no idea where the detectives obtained the information on the dead witness’s life until the whole interrogation was revealed as a farce. Likewise, D’angelo’s quip, “Ain’t no dead white guy got hisself on money ‘cept he was president” during the discussion of fake money reveals the dealers’ confusion about historical figures and makes the segue even more humourous.
I really like the money quote because I love the way the portrayal of some of the younger dealers is of intelligent and thoughtful kids. Here you have guys with not much schooling who are fully aware of historical figures or ponder things like who invented the chicken nugget. Even after they get put down for thinking about these things, the line “at least he had the idea though,” is incredibly telling about the intelligence of these kids, as well as perhaps the tragedy of The Wire. It doesn’t matter who came up with the idea because he’s still in the basement thinking about how to make the fries taste better. Essentially, the society that we have in place isn’t recognizing the people who deserve it. Some people are born into a place where the best life, even for the smartest, is one that involves dealing drugs.
It’s interesting that both the teaser scenes so far have started with images of dead bodies. Obviously this is tonally and thematically relevant, establishing right off the bat the brutality of the street and the relatively low value of human life in the drug game. It also helps identify McNulty as something of a protagonist by bringing the viewer into the world of the show through the homicide department, so the other departments initially feel somewhat peripheral. There are too many compelling characters to decisively call McNulty the protagonist, and there’s no clear antagonist to define against, but I still found myself relating most to McNulty through the first two episodes. He’s sort of an underdog in the way he gets into tough situations by basically doing the right thing, and he has a good sense of humor, so it’s hard not to like him.
I think there is a deliberate and constant parallel drawn in “The Wire” is between the drug game in the street and police work in the office specifically in order to illustrate Sam’s point. “The Wire” uses the dramatic technique of doubling in order to show that there is no inherent difference between the dealers and the cops; their divergent situations are the result of nurture and not nature. For example, in the first two episodes, we were introduced to D’Angelo Barksdale and Roland Pryzbylewski. Both are inept in their jobs and are only sustained by their family ties. Furthermore, we see “rough ’em up” mentalities in both the low-rise crew, Bodie, Poot, and Wallace, and the police detail of Herc, Carver, and Prez. Cruelty exists everywhere. And let’s not forget the image of Stringer Bell in court with glasses and a legal pad, looking more scholarly than thuggish. Couldn’t he have been a lawyer, if circumstances were different? Simon and Burns deliberately confuse our expectations of the characters in order to show the similarities within the spectrum of human experience. Following the intricate doubling of characters is one of the deep and abiding pleasures in watching “The Wire.”
I’ve seen parts of several seasons of The Wire and I’ve noticed that the show portrays humans as inherently good and driven to be good people. Simon and Burns have subtle ways of showing that no matter how vile or ruthless the actions of a character may be, that character is always has another side. This struck me when D’Angelo Barksdale was writing his apology letter. His handwriting, which was visible briefly when he picked up the letter, was impecable. If I saw correctly it was perfect cursive. This is an example of the show’s ability to keep you guessing and unable to really nail down or predict any character’s actions.
This may be a stretch, but one possible theme I noticed was the presence of “the towers.” Simon and Burns do an incredible job of showing the size and intimidation the towers have, especially in the scene where Carver, Herc, and Pryzbylewski park beneath the towers and are attacked from all sides. The towers are a symbol of power and evidence that this is by no means a one sided war with law enforcement having any sort of an upper hand. I also noticed at one point one detective, I’m not sure what his name is, said something along the lines of “since the towers fell.” This was a reference to 9/11, but it continues this idea of the power in towers. Writtin soon after 9/11, Simon and Burns have tapped a symbol to which many people have become hyper-sensitive. The two towers symbolism carries more weight for all viewers now than it every would have ten years ago.
One other theme that I look forward to following is the presence or lack there of any solid family life for many of the characters. In these first episodes it’s already clear that family is paramount on the drug side and non-existant on the law enforcement side. Simon and Burns make this parralel through Pryzbylewski and D’Angelo Barksdale. Both are taken care of despite of these inadequacies, but in different ways. D’Angelo is physically and emotionally guarded by his family, whereas Pryzbylewski is protected only professionally.
I think the intro “teaser” part was my favorite scene in the two episodes that we watched. It is a really powerful scene with obvious philosophical undertones and the dialogue seems like a model scene we’d study in Screenwriting. Also, never having seen the show before, you can understand how impressive this scene was for me – as my very first encounter with the series, it totally blew my mind. I was also thinking how utterly innovative this scene seems, especially in the context of a police drama: you get the two sides of the law (plus the white/black duality) sitting together having an amicable – almost affectionate – conversation about SNOT, of all things! I loved how humor was used in just the right proportions, and I noticed this is something typical for the series, I think; I hope they manage to maintain that fine balance between humor and drama throughout the series, because for me, it was one of the chief appeals of these two episodes.
I also heard that there is no improv in the script, which is certainly a credit to the writing of Simon and Burns. But they were also very shrewd in choosing actors for their various roles. Besides some of the more familiar faces of characters, others actually experienced situations similar to those they portray in the show. For instance, Michael K. Williams, who plays Omar (whom we should be meeting soon) was homeless for a period of his life and also got the prominent scar on his face during a bar fight in Boston. Certainly the writing is quality, but actors who have lived similar situations have the ability to recite them with a unique weight and understanding.
What I found interesting here was the extreme contrast between “The Wire” and other so-called “cop shows.” As we were watching, I found myself comparing the show to “CSI.” Simon touches upon this contrast in his Letter to HBO. He says, “Suddenly, the police bureaucracy is amoral, dysfunctional, and criminality, in the form of drug culture, is just as suddenly a bureaucracy. Scene by scene, viewers find their carefully formed presumptions about cops and robbers undercut by alternative realities. Real police work endangers people who attempt it. Things that work in network cop shows fall flat.” Shows like “CSI” maintain the underlying assumption that the investigators WANT to find the murderer. They are not looking for an easy answer – they are looking for the right answer – no matter what it takes. This is how we would like to think that law enforcement works.
However, “The Wire,” turns this basic assumption on its head, instead showing a police force in which the officers look down on McNulty because his idealism gives them extra work. Bunk comments, “There you go…Giving a fuck when it ain’t your turn to give a fuck.” Rather than pursuing the truth, “The Wire” portrays the majority of Baltimore’s law enforcement as committed to striking a balance with, rather than fighting in, the war on drugs. This is emphasized with the lack of materials, inferior officers, and basement “office” set aside for the case.
On the other hand, Avon Barksdale and his gang are willing to do whatever it takes to maintain the chain of command on the street. When D’Angelo is arrested on charges of murder, Avon bribes the main witness to change her testimony. Later, the other witness is found murdered. These actions show the gang’s commitment to their actions and to each other. In this way, “The Wire” develops the characters of even the “menial criminals,” who are usually ignored in network cop shows. We see that the criminals are actually more committed AND more intelligent than the majority of the law enforcement officers assigned to their case, as evidenced in many others’ comments on the conversations about chicken nuggets and money in “the pit.”
As we continue to watch, I am excited to see how Lieutenant Daniels’ team shapes up and how committed they and the law enforcement bureaucracy become or fail to become.
Indeed, McNulty has his own set of flaws, and we will continue to learn about them as the season continues, but what is most admirable about him is that he flouts the rules of the department to carry out the right thing in the long run (this theme, also, continues throughout). His ignorance of chain-of-command, something that means little to us as outsiders of the BPD, eventually leads to the creation of a detail to investigate these “ghetto murders that nobody gives a shit about”. Certainly his flouting of the rules gets him in trouble, but it is for this same reason that the audience loves him and hopes he succeeds.
Regarding David Simon’s letter, I very much agree with his general analysis of HBO series and of the HBO modus operandi: I also think that they have built their success on exposing worlds that are intrinsically fascinating (Mormon polygamous families, Mob families, a family business of undertakers etc) but in the same time I think it’s the candidness and the daringness with which these worlds are presented that really makes them stand out. I wouldn’t be surprised, actually, to see a series about the Italian-American mafia on ABC or NBC, but the way they would tackle it would be fundamentally different. Therefore, I think that it is the seriousness with which HBO series treat their characters and milieus that makes it stand apart from regular network series – and yes, being able to show sex and violence without the restrictions that networks have to adhere to is significant, but in the end, I don’t think it’s that relative freedom from censorship that makes the difference. Rather, it’s the depth and the humanity of the characters that makes these series extraordinary, and since that character depth will automatically spill into social/ethnic/racial/gender roles, the series are bound to have – as they indeed do – the social relevance that has been one of their staples.
Oh yes, and I think David Simon is definitely playing with the acceptable limits of arrogance in this letter, but damn, he does have a reason to be proud of himself.
In terms of the confusion many people have mentioned in their posts, it wasn’t something that I really felt while watching these first two episodes. Even though I had had no previous contact with the series, I didn’t think it was overwhelmingly confusing at all. And the reason for this, I suppose, is the fact that I am so accustomed to the cop show genre – even though The Wire is indeed very different from your average police show, it portrays the same situations and plays with the same power relations, so by being able to resort to these paradigms I managed to understand a lot more than what was actually presented onscreen.
One way in which it is completely distinct from your average CSI fare is, of course, the racial diversity that my classmates have discussed so well in their posts, and the profundity with which these characters are depicted. To have the obvious contrast between Daniels and the gang, to have a black policewoman who is a lesbian, to have the adolescent drug dealers discussing the tragic fate of the guy who invented McNuggets: these are all undeniable little victories for television’s social role as a forum of cultural representations.
But furthermore, a really distinctive facet of The Wire – as much as I could tell from just these two episodes – is its highly efficient and balanced use of humor, as I mentioned in my other post. I also like that humor is not reserved only for specific characters (you know, the comic relief character in each serious series – that idiot Masuka on Dexter is the first that comes to mind), but rather, it emerges out of dialogue and character interactions and exchanges that are not typical for cop shows. For instance, the jokes in the conversation about Snot Boogie in the teaser – McNulty’s theorizing the origin of his name, the situation of the card game etc – seem like jokes that could very well appear on CSI, but would be awkward and unsuccessful (like the typical CSI joke, pseudowitty, delivered with a straight face and punctuated by a sound effect or scene change).
I can’t wait to see more of this show. It’s gripping and poignant and so enjoyable that I’ve even dreamt about it on Tuesday night (yes, I was on the other side of the law in my dream, but I swear I was intimidating.)
As you mention, Professor Mittell, what is striking about the first few episodes is how many characters we, as the audience meet, and how intriguing, deep and integral they are as individuals and in regards regards to the show’s plot. I have seen the show once, and watching it again, I feel I am still interested and fascinated by the depth of all of these characters. In the first two episodes, the audience is introduced to a total of 30 characters, and all showed themselves to be unique. While Detective Mcnulty would be considered the most featured character, each person we meet resonated in one way or another with me. This helps to make the show so special in that I feel attached to all of the characters, from those on the street to the detectives and the politicians. Everyone is shown as a person, and with their own traits. It isn’t as if they show one side of the spectrum in the social web of the Baltimore Drug secne. Instead, you see all sides of the spectrum, are taken inside to the interactions, and ways of life, and we as the audience are able to get a feel for how everything operates in this connected social web.
I picked up on the depth they gave Wallace too, especially when he did his Hamilton history lesson as you mentioned. They continue to give more insight to his intelligence in the second episode when they have the humorous conversation about the inventor of the chicken nuggets. Wallace and his friend are talking all about what the experience of the inventor must be like rolling in the money and what not. But D’Angelo gets fed up and tries to cut down their aggrandizement of the inventor of chicken nugget and paints the inventor’s life more grimily, that he is poor and in the basement of McDonalds. Still Wallace refuses to let D’Angelo spoil his image of the inventor and comes back at him with “he still had the idea though” which I thought again spoke to his depth and intelligence, that it wasn’t necessarily about the money but it was about the fact that he had invented something as wonderful as the chicken nugget which had made the chicken eating experience all the better. I just really appreciated that interaction.
There are a couple things that I found to be interesting after watching the first two episodes. After the first episode, I picked up on the theme of war in America. The show highlights that we are at war both foreign and domestically and want to show this issue to us in a very blunt manner. The show does this by showing the not so perfect police system that we have been brainwashed to assume is so by other depictions of cops in shows on other networks. I have to say that the first episode alone did not attract me to the show, but after the second I can understand why new series have a two hour premiere. After the first show I was left with such questions as why it was such a big deal that McNulty was talking to the judge? I also felt as though nothing was really resolved at the end of the first episode. Even though these shows are supposed to lead to the next, they should still resolve something in the end. Instead I felt as though a problem was presented (a witness being killed) but I had no idea why this would be a big deal or why I should care enough to keep watching. Simply enough, I thought this was used to connect the first and second episodes and to provide a problem to be solved in the second episode. I thought that the reason why the second episode made me want to keep watching is because I wanted to see what the repercussions for the blinding of the 14 year old boy would be for the Detectives and whether they would actually still get away with it. Desires that I was not left with after the first episode.
I also really enjoy the theme of these gangsters having arguments about presidents and inventions. I think that they hit just the right beats when they have Barksdale chime in to shut down all aspirations or ideas that these young gangsters might have. It really shows just how these individuals are kept in a particular mindset that puts them on track to being just like Barksdale and furthermore continuing this drug war. This could be suggesting that knowledge and education may be a way to stop this violence. If these young individual learn that there is another way of life and have people outside of their gang to support them, maybe this domestic war can come to an end.
It may be due to my lack of exposure to the world of HBO (the exception for me being Sex and the City) but I guess I wasn’t accustomed to the ability of the show to explore so candidly whatever it pleases, violence I thought would be dealt with obviously since it is a cop show (and so much more) but what struck me the most was the depiction of drug use. Watching Bubbles and his friend take the drugs and then watch them completely strung out was eye opening to me. It was almost uncomfortable to be privy to that way of life and watch what kind of desperation and sadness it ultimately leads to.
I think the storylines in the first two episodes as I am sure the rest of the series will continue to makes us more aware of the whole process of drug dealing and those involved, from the ring leaders of the dealers, to the little guys on the street, to the junkies who buy from them and eventually enjoy the product (this is also depicted well in Clockers, just how many people are involved in the drug scene). Then you have the peripheral players, the BPD trying to do something about the situation whether it is solve the problem or make it more tolerable, it is hard to tell if they are earnestly trying to fight it. I’d say they are making a half assed attempt and McNulty as many others have said is the real deal in being an idealist and trying to really make important strides towards ending the violence and drug problem.
But overall I just appreciate the openness the show has in dealing with the really ugly issues that face our society today, especially emphasizing what communities it affects the most and how devastating it can be. If you read statistics on incarceration and drug use it is incredibly depressing as the African American community it hit the hardest. I hope that this show opens are eyes to some potential solutions so that people, namely African Americans have a fighting chance to escape the downward spiral of falling to drugs.
I also must say that I am not really impressed with the female representation on the show yet. Of the 30 characters introduced in these episodes I think that it was only 4 of them that were female. Not to mention that the main female character is Greggs who is portrayed as pretty manly, no makeup, foul language and surrounded by all men and so she acts accordingly pretty de-feminized, not to say that she isn’t breaking some glass ceilings by being a female African American cop but I guess I just wanted more women in the show. I am sure it will change, at least I hope so.
I was also struck by the prominence of the theme of war in the first episode. The “war” on drugs is clearly a joke. In the first episode we see the black officer under Greggs ( I will figure out the names at some point) makes the astute observation that this can’t possibly be called a war because “wars end”. Then, the when McNulty is with the FBI officer one of them remarks sarcastically- “We just don’t have enough love in our hearts for two wars”- the second war being the war on terror. Other war on terror references come when the FBI agent specifically says “since the towers fell we just don’t have the manpower” and when D’Angelo is in the strip joint (shortly after turning down the hooker) there is a flash of the television he is watching and it is surprise surprise coverage of the war- Afghanistan or Iraq I’m not sure. Just another example of the way that every moment of this show has meaning.
Ben’s point about Stringer is a good one. I was confused as to who he was the first time he is shown in the courtroom. I assumed he was one of the “good guys” because McNulty and he seemed to recognize each other until he flashes the “fuck you detective” sketch (which is really well done) on his legal pad at McNulty. For me the even more intriguing character that no one has touched upon yet is that of Avon Barksdale. The police are starting to see him as a criminal mastermind and we know that he can be brutal to keep control- look to the killed witness- but is he really that bad? In the snippets that we get of Avon in these first two episodes we see him as a family man. First reassuring D that “its always love” because “you family” as he kisses his head and then in a chef’s hat and apron cooking at what looks like a church or community center. He seems far more loving, family-oriented and intelligent than many of the cops introduced in these episodes. Though the way he references D’s infant son (who knew he had a kid by the way) as “my solider” was disconcerting. As always- every character is nuanced.
It is interesting to note that the HBO mini-series “Generation Kill,” which is about marines in the Iraq War, was adapted for television by David Simon and Ed Burns.
We see this multifaceted ethnic representation as well as stereotyping in the Barksdale’s Jewish lawyer- Maurice Levy. As someone interested in law I always wonder who represents the criminal- our answer is a wealthy Jewish professional. His Jewish identity is made clear when he takes ages to get to the police station because he is pulled away from Shabbat dinner and his wife’s brisket at the “Levy compound” (outside of the city in a rich suburb maybe?). We then gets some racially charged comments from Levy as he drags D out of the interviewing room. After insisting “just don’t say anything” he laments “I tell you people the same fucking thing and you never listen.” It is hard to miss his use of “you people” and you can’t help but wonder if he knows he is winning cases because his clients are paying off/threatening witnesses. It will be interesting to see his role develop.
Ioana: If you think David Simon is arrogant in his letter to HBO, you should watch the DVD commentary on “The Wire.”
He is a confident, confident man…
Just to expand on your comment about depictions of drug use. I think that is interesting that when Daniels was requesting the last officer that joined the task force [I forget what his name was], one of the reasons he gave was that he needed a black guy to go undercover buying drugs. While this is obviously a reality of police work, it is also indicative of the devastation of drug abuse in Urban black communities.
That is interesting, I didn’t know that. It makes perfect sense though: the GIs and NCOs are written just like the philosophical yet uneducated drug dealers, “Captain America” is the bumbling character like Pryzbylewski, and “Godfather” is the lieutenant. Not particularly relevant to the Wire, but still kind of interesting.
Quite true. Let’s just say that there are certain character flaws in McNulty that seem quite close to Simon’s persona! But there’s a thin line between unearned arrogance and earned confidence…
I think this overarching theme of a perpetual and unstoppable war on drugs, evident in both “The Wire,” and “Clockers,” is a very interesting and relevant issue to discuss. The scene that Julia mentions, when Carver slyly remarks, “wars end,” highlights the complaisance and pessimism pervasive in the realm of law enforcement in urban America. The narcs in “The Wire,” are self-proclaimed deterrents of illegal activity, but in now way do they expect to resolve the larger, ubiquitous issues. We see this in Lt. Daniels’ lack of commitment to the Barksdale detail. He is reluctant to become involved and instead expresses apathy towards rooting out the deep causes. He, much like Mazilli of “Clockers,” is content with the swiftest mode of action, whether through a “buy and bust” method as employed in “The Wire,” or through the acceptance of a porous confession by Victor Dunham in “Clockers.”
These agents are so used to a perpetual problem, that they find solace is small victories, even if the arrests or convictions don’t penetrate the surface to affect the real problem. In both stories, “The Wire” and “Clockers,” many of the law enforcement characters are portrayed as simply going through the motions. An interesting parallel emerges between McNulty and Rocco Klein, who are unusually morally connected to each of their respective cases. Both characters are represented as pariahs within each environment, as Klein is constantly ridiculed by Mazilli for not accepting Victor’s confession, much how McNulty finds resistance from Daniels when he tries to dig deeper into the Barksdale story. It is interesting to see how each story has a conflicted hero whose strong personal convictions make each man an outcast. How influential can one personality be in a segment of society that is drowning in crime? Is it possible to interrupt this vicious cycle permanently, or will each case be an isolated incident that is soon forgotten? We shall see.
I’ll admit right now that I can already foresee difficulties in remembering all of the shows characters. Even having seen Season 1 before, I can remember all of the faces but the names and nicknames are overwhelming. I had the same problem with the first chapter or two of Clockers. Not know what the hell a clocker or a knocko was was one things, but the combination of street names like Andre the Giant, Thumber and Big Chief as well as the proper legal names really threw me for a loop. It was almost off-putting. Naturally I assumed it would become more clear and halfway through the book now I have no problem with it. But both Clockers and The Wire threw me into a world so dissimilar from my own so quickly that the confusion is a part of the rush and appeal of the show; the thirst for knowledge and understanding of this world is important for my interest of the show. Naturally with a serial narrative this is even more heightened. Introducing something like thirty characters in the first two episodes, the narrative is obviously just beginning. The focus is on exposition rather than resolution and the introduction to a world of street crime as well as the inner workings of the police/justice system are dichotomous yet almost indistinguishable.
Reading Price’s Clockers while watching this first season is really fun. I have a hard time not putting D’Angelo’s face onto Strike and mixing the developing plots of each story-world. Naturally David Simon’s creation is different enough from the novel but the fictional worlds are so vivid in real in both instances that they blend together easily. The research and knowledge that went into both is obvious and for me it is the appeal. I find the Strike chapters (and the Barksdale scenes) more enjoyable because they are more removed. When talking about The Wire, everybody always mentions how “cool” the show is because of how it deals with the criminal side of the drama instead of just the legal side. Since there are so many police and legal dramas already on network and cable tv this is an obvious appeal, especially in the way that HBO can represent it in such a crude and uncensored manner. “It’s not TV” right? But even in Price’s novel I’m drawn to Strike’s character much more than Rocco’s. Price paints them as equally complex and internally conflicted people but for whatever reason the cop/investigation drama is played out for me. Since I haven’t read any novels about crack dealing drama it’s just easier to get drawn up in that. Having said that, I understand the cop (Rocco/McNulty) plot as a necessary part of the dichotomy and dual-story that is essential to the complexity and resulting success of the narratives.
I do agree here that the show, at least in the first season, does not allow the viewer to categorize virtually any character to one extreme or another. We see McNulty and Bunk as two hard working cops, but they are both alcoholics and drive drunk even on the job. As for the other partners, Carver and Herc; from the beginning these two are shown as not entirely competent, as they missed the gun in the car shakedown and also bicker at each other about their duties. They also made a poor decision after drinking to rough up the towers where Pryzbywleski blinded the 14-year-old. But still, I agree that each character has inherent good but within the systems that the show depict, their negative characteristics are sometimes forced to the surface to be dealt with. McNulty’s Subordination was not intentionally detrimental, but his focus on his police work had blurred his sense of procedure and consideration, therefore rendering him at fault.
One more thing that I noticed as a them both in “The Wire” and in “Clockers” is the way that the law is depicted in perspective the the systems of drug criminality. In both venues, the police think of themselves not as a cure to the problems at hand, but rather as a means to slow the system to a manageable level. In “The Wire”, carver half jokingly and questionably titles himself and the police force and ‘effective deterrents’ in the war on drugs. The same phrase is used in “Clockers”, I believe it is Thumper who asks Strike if he thinks he is an ‘effective deterrent’ in the war on drugs, of course to no answer.
Carver, in his clever little rant, finishes up with the wisdom on the war on drugs; that it really is no war at all, because “war’s end”. I believe that is from where the notion of a deterrent stems. It is relatively the same thing with the war on terror. There is no consistent embodiment of an enemy to counter, only sets of systems to break down. The hard thing in both cases is that there is not enough money or manpower to truly put a choke-hold on these systems, because there are no headquarters, or bases…it is the street, whether in the middle east or baltimore. The street is self-sustaining and entirely flexible to the needs of those trying to exploit it.
I have watched season one at least twice, although never with a pen and paper in front of me. It seemed that watching it in our “lean-forward” context transformed the way in which I digested it. For one thing, metaphors and allegories are dropped left and right in the Wire. Some are overt: “Fallen isn’t just a judge, he is a political entity,” while others are much more subtle. It became apparent after the first scene that attention given to understanding Simon’s many allegories would translate into understanding what he might be trying to say to us through The Wire. Here’s one that I caught:
McNulty is talking to a guy whose friend ‘snot’ just got dropped in a back alley. This guy tells McNulty that every Friday ‘Snot’ plays dice with them and every Friday he tries to steal the pot.
McNulty: appears dumbstruck and asks the witness “Why did you let him keep playing?”
Witness: “You got to, this is America man.”
Because this is the first dialog in the whole show and it uses “The Game” metaphor, I think that we should put some effort into fleshing out just what could have been its deeper meaning. Here is one idea that I had immediately after seeing the scene:
Why let someone or even “a people” take part in the “American dream” if they are perceived to be attempting to exploit it at every turn? To take this further, should we even be asking this question? Or, would we just be “Giving a fuck, when it ain’t [our] turn to give a fuck?” Finally, how, when, and by what institutions/institutional norms is it decided that it is “our turn?”
on 11 Feb 2009 at 10:33 pm12Benjamin Thorndike
As you mention, Professor Mittell, what is striking about the first few episodes is how many characters we, as the audience meet, and how intriguing, deep and integral they are as individuals and in regards regards to the show’s plot. I have seen the show once, and watching it again, I feel I am still interested and fascinated by the depth of all of these characters. In the first two episodes, the audience is introduced to a total of 30 characters, and all showed themselves to be unique. While Detective Mcnulty would be considered the most featured character, each person we meet resonated in one way or another with me. This helps to make the show so special in that I feel attached to all of the characters, from those on the street to the detectives and the politicians. Everyone is shown as a person, and with their own traits. It isn’t as if they show one side of the spectrum in the social web of the Baltimore Drug secne. Instead, you see all sides of the spectrum, are taken inside to the interactions, and ways of life, and we as the audience are able to get a feel for how everything operates in this connected social web.