For the first time, no new characters of significance!
“Come at the king, you best not miss.” – Omar
McNulty uses his children to tail Stringer after a chance encounter in a local market. Greggs and Carver arrest a driver picking up a large amount cash from the Towers from known gang members, but are forced to return the money when the driver’s political connections to Senator Clay Davis are revealed. Daniels discusses his problems following the money trail with his wife, Marla.
Deaths:
Keisha (a stripper at Orlando’s)
Stinkum
Dangling Threads:
Clay Davis’s bundle of money
Stringer’s economics course
In this episode I really appreciated the short scene when McNulty’s kid makes the distinction between calling someone black versus calling them African-American. It just goes to show you that the police don’t really censor themselves or need to in terms of being politically correct with racial terminology. It speaks to the behavioral norms of the show, of which there are very few it what words you can and can’t say, in fact there may be none.
Another really wonderful scene in this episode was the math problem with Wallace and the other younger boy. He can’t figure it out for the life of him but when Wallace applies the problem to real life the boy solves it in an instant. He says he was able to solve this “because if the count is wrong they’ll fuck you up”. The boy is thus acknowledging the pressure and the need to perform for the drug dealers, if only he had that mentality towards education and schooling. Also this scene reminded me of the teaser in episode 6 with Wallace and all those kids. I want to find out who those kids are and why Wallace is the father figure to them. You get a sense of that when he gets out the juice boxes and the chips for all of them and hands them out. I’d also like to know why Wallace is living in such poverty stricken conditions. I mean I know his is a minor player in the huge drug dealing operations of the pit but he has to make a decent amount to be able to have modest living conditions and not the dump he currently resides in. I mean for giving that tip about Brandon he made $500, maybe the point of his living conditions is to show how Wallace doesn’t really think of in the future or about savings, he spends as he goes.
I also wonder why the writers are corrupting Bunk’s character and making him out to be a cheater. He seems like a very likeable guy perhaps that is why they do it so that you are pulled two ways about him. On the one hand he constantly looks out for his partner McNulty but on the other hand he is cheating on his wife. I guess I almost see this as unnecessary and disappointing. Although a least as a result of his cheating he ended up in that random women’s pink robe, that scene was hilarious. Also is there any significance to him wearing the pink shirt, the pink robe and then reading Laura Lippman?
I thought it was very interesting when McNulty’s kids are playing spy in the market and following Stringer. He later mentions that they are so good that he lost them. While this might not show impeccable parenting on McNulty’s part, I think that it is very telling of his commitment to his job. He takes his job home, no matter what is going on at home, and his job experience has obviously influenced how he plays and interacts with his children.
I thought the sequence with Bunk first in the bar and then at the woman’s house. It was at the same time humorous and depressing. This scene further highlights not only the bond between Bunk and McNulty as partners and friends, but also the demons they share in common. While his cheating does in some ways corrupt his morality, and our perception of him, it also shows the destructive nature of the job and the vices it drives him to. This led me to feel sorry for him rather than thinking negatively of him for his mistake.
I am also really curious to see how the relationship between D’Angelo and Shardene will develop in the future. I see them as people who are caught up in the game, but have dreams of being free of their current situations. They both have aspirations to bigger, but most importantly better (more legitimate) things. This relationship and the development he has experienced has only made me thing more highly of D’Angelo. It seems that I like him more and more every episode, despite actions like making the call to have Omar’s boyfriend killed, that should make me think less of him.
This isn’t so much a response to today’s episode as something I’ve been mulling over in my head, trying to pin down exactly what makes the Wire’s characters so compelling and realistic. I think a big part of it is loading the characters with life-like contradictions and complications; but more importantly, it’s that the writers generally don’t let those foibles alone. To steal a line from Stefan, it’s the difference between a character trait and a character.
Here’s how I see the general progression of TV characterization, from worst to best. The weakest form of characterization is using stereotypes and stock characters as crutches. These characters are completely two dimensional, and can’t really offer any compelling drama. The next step up–and I feel this is about as far as most TV shows go–is to take a stock character, and load them up with some sort of twist on their cliche. It’s not really proper characterization, but it sets a cardboard cut out from the crowd. If the Wire were to only go this far, for instance, Bubbles would just be an addict, but with a heart of gold. The writers would stop there, and that’s all Bubbles ever would be.
What sets the Wire apart, to me at least, is that the characters are constantly revealing new facets of themselves, new contradictions that flesh them out. Instead of creating a character like Bubbles, with just a single twist to distinguish him from every addict ever, new information is constantly coming to life. Yes, he has that heart of gold, but he’s also having a hard time getting away from his addiction, despite his sincere desire to live. Instead of just being pigeonholed with some character trait seen in their first appearances, the writers are actually developing their characters in ways you don’t see too much of on TV.
I think the character whose development has surprised me the most so far has been Prez. When he first showed up, he was the incompetent policeman, offering a nice bit of comic relief. Later in that episode, however, he blinds that kid, and I thought to myself, “No, wait, this guy isn’t funny, he’s an asshole.” And I was prepared to leave it at that. I just expected that that was the end of that. Prez was an asshole once, so I expected him to be one from then on. And the writer’s surprised me by doing a pretty good job of redeeming Prez in my mind. For one, he’s proved himself to be extremely useful in the investigation, and he showed some real remorse when he was confronted by the kid he assaulted. I never expected that I would like Prez, but I do now.
Which makes it kind disappointing how the show has handled Polk and Mahone. As Prez was starting to return to my good graces, I eyed the two cops there who were even more fuck ups than him, and expected great things from them. Or at least Polk, who seems like he could’ve redeemed himself once Mahone was out of the picture. (God, I hope I got their names straight.) There were a couple scenes that seemed to show great promise for his character, but now I’m worried that now that he’s off at medical, he’s pretty much written out of the show. I’m really hoping that he makes a return, because I do think there’s more of his story left to tell.
Thanks for the shout-out.
Like Antionette I really enjoyed the scene with Wallace and the math problem. I think that this scene is an excellent way of showing the viewer how Wallace’s part in Brandon’s death has affected him. The first time we see Wallace he is playing the role of parent to the gaggle of kids the he has somehow collected and taken in. Originially, Wallace is the first one up in the house and he makes sure that all of the kids are up and that they have their lunches for school – he takes the initiative, he is in charge, and he obviously cares. The next time we see Wallace with one of the kids is the scene with the math problem after Brandon has been killed. Wallace is still in bed and the kid has to come to him for help and when Wallace does help he is frustrated and impatient, especially after Poot comes in and tries to get him to go down and work at the pit. By having Wallace act so differently in similar situations the creators do a good job of showing how Brandon’s death is affecting Wallace.
I also wanted to comment on Wallace’s living conditions. I think it makes sense that Wallace lives where he does, especially if he has taken responsibility for so many young children. A few years ago I read a book called Gang Leader for a Day in which the author, Sudhir Venkatesh spends four or five years with a crack gang in chicago at the height of the crack epidemic. In his time with this gang Sudhir gains unprecedented acces to its inner workings, including its fianances. Interestingly enough, he equates the gang to working for a fast food company (think of Wallace’s chicken mcnugget conversation earlier in the season) where the people in charge are making a lot of money but the workers on the street are making just about minimum wage. When he aqctually ran the figures he found out that he was dead on and that the pawns (the position Wallace is in) only actually do make minimumn wage when it is all said and done. With that in mind it actually makes a lot of sense that Wallace lives where he does when you factor in the fact that he is caring for all of those children and that none of his money is legitimate. I think that the point of the scene may be to show how it really doesn’t pay to be a player in the drug game because you don’t make any more money than someone working the fries at mcdonald’s until you become one of the more important members of the gang which is hard to do considering that as D’angelo says “the pawns get capped quick in this game.”
Stringer Bell continues to fascinate me. His demeanor, his unique relationship to both Avon and the crew, and general dignity with which he carries himself set him apart. Although we haven’t yet gotten the chance to see the world through his eyes, it’s clear from what we’ve seen so far that despite his assurances to D’Angelo that the drug trade is “forever,” he is planning for the future. In “Clockers,” Strike believes that Rodney will never be able to give up the game because he’ll never find anything that let’s him have the same swagger. I believe that Stringer plans to escape for that very reason – he doesn’t need the swagger. That’s not to say that Stringer is looking to get out, but I do believe that he has taken steps to ensure that if Avon goes down, he won’t be going with him. At this point, Stringer is my favorite character.
There’s a critical theme starting to emerge – sources of power. In this episode, we saw that through Day-Day. Although Day-Day is clearly a criminal and clearly involved in Avon’s operation, he is let go because of his connections to Clay Davis. So far, violence and money have been the primary sources of power in the series, but in this episode, we see a new one – connections. That’s not to say that characters’ personal connections haven’t been important before – witness Prez – but Day-Day thus far stands as the prime example of a character engaging in illegal activity and getting away with it not because of violence or fear or money, but because of who he knows. I expect this to develop more as the series goes on.
“Get the count wrong, they fuck you up,” was terrifying.
As for Bunk, I think it goes back to the mission of the program. Bunk may have initially appeared virtuous, but he’s an aging cop in a dirty city. The cheating, while disappointing from an ethical perspective, enhances him as a character because it elevates him to a status beyond “McNulty’s partner.” Also, if we are to accept that “The Wire” is about dissecting American life at the beginning of the 21st century, then it’s important to have a character through which we can explore infidelity and, as Bunk himself said, the way being deprive of certain things (such as “pussy”) can change a man. It’s not pretty, but it is something that helps develop the program’s thesis.
Simon has said that “The Wire” is about dissent. If that’s true, then Bunk’s infidelity is a challenge against the erosion of our cultural mores. We should be disgusted with Bunk for cheating – but does that make him a bad guy?
In this episode, the viewer learns even more intriguing aspects about the characters. In this aspect, it is Stringer Bell who we learn the most about. Stringer has been a fascinating character throughout the show. While Stringer puts on a tough, thug like front, to most likely garner respect, we learn in this episode, that there is much more to him. To start, when McNulty follows Bell to his Macroeconomics class, I was taken aback. It is easy to imagine Bell wanting his business to prosper, but it was hard to imagine that he would put in that kind of effort. This effort transcends into the scene when he is in his copy store.
I really enjoyed this scene when Bell is talking to the workers at his store as he is addressing them in an adult-like manner. While I was expecting him to reprimand the workers without providing an explanation, as is often the protocol for working on the street, Bell explains to them why he wants them to work hard and how it will help the business benefit.
Another scene that i really enjoyed was the interaction between Wallace and one of his brothers when he was asking him to help him with his homework. When Wallace explains to him how to solve the problem through using drug dealing as an example, it was amazing to see that even though Wallace’s example was much more complicated than the problem in the textbook, it was that example that the little boy could answer. When Wallace asks him how he could do one problem and not the other, he responds something like, “because if you mess up the count, you get your ass beat down.” The symbolisms of the role drugs play in the lives of adolescents cannot not be overlooked here.
The scene where Stringer Bell takes a cab to pick up his red Toyota Camry parked at someone else’s house brings up an interesting parallel with Clockers. Are the owners of the house on Stringer Bell’s payroll like the elderly woman whose driveway Striker uses to park his car?
There were several scenes in this episode where we see another side of Stringer’s life, where he’s very much removed from the drug world. In the opening scene before the credits, he’s buying vegetables in the same market that McNulty and his children are in. McNulty later follows Stringer to Baltimore City Community College where we see the number two man in Barksdale’s operation taking an Intro to Microeconomics class. Later on, we see Stringer in his copy store, using the principle of elastic goods to explain why the business needs to be run seriously. Though Stringer is not the only character whose life outside the drug organisation is made known to viewers, it certainly seems the most ordinary. While D’angelo is worrying to his girlfriend about the insecurity of the drug life, Stringer is calm and collected, raising his hand to answer a question correctly in his community college class. Perhaps the equivalent of this among the police is the different home lives of McNulty and Daniels. Daniels likes to enjoy dinner and a glass of wine with his wife while McNulty finds himself struggling to build IKEA furniture and rescuing bunk from a drunken stupor.
For me, Bunk’s infidelity is another way for The Wire to blur the line between our traditional perceptions of good and evil. We routinely see instances in which the “bad” guys perform kind acts (Wallace raising those boys, Omar rocking the baby) and the “good” guys disappoint us. In this vein, I thought it was particularly interesting how our class more or less unanimously agreed Major Rawls constitutes the worst or most despicable character we’ve seen thus far. In the past eight episodes we’ve met drug dealers, addicts, thieves, murderers, and adulterers, ALL of whom we like more than Rawls. As far as I can tell, the man has committed no crime, yet D’Angelo, murders and all, gets more love. Why? This might be a stretch, but at this point in the series, Rawls seems to me to be the manifestation of the “institutionalized” America The Wire rebels against. Rawls, with his desire to pad his stats, appears as a poster-child for the bureaucratic nightmare that hinders any actual change or accomplishment. For better or worse, both Daniels’ and Barksdale’s crews are full of active characters, and thus they receive greater amounts of our love and respect. What do you guys think?
I replied to this when it was posted somewhere else on the site, but it seems to have disappeared.
There is an interesting chapter in the book “Freakonomics” called “Why Do Drug Dealers Still Live With Their Moms,” which explains the mechanics of an unrewarding drug economy. Steven Levitt, co-author of “Freakonomics,” is also the co-auther with Sudhir Venkatesh of the sociological study that was the reason forthe “Gang Leader for a Day” experiment.
Here is a clip of a talk by Stephen Levitt. It’s very interesting and he speaks in detail about Sudhir’s experience and about the economics of “the game.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/4686579/Six-year-old-spotted-by-football-talent-scouts-is-new-Zinedine-Zidane.html
As we get more insight on Wallace, I think its incredibly relevant that, as we said, people don’t choose to be part of the game. They don’t come from the outside and DECIDE to become drug dealers. They are born into the drug economy and they really don’t have many, if any, other options. Wallace, for example, is an incredibly bright young person. Unfortunately, he was born into a lifestyle that’s almost impossible to get out of. Even if he wanted to get out, he is oddly responsible for all the kids in the house and could not leave them behind. He almost serves as a father figure for them, getting them up and out to school, giving them snacks, and helping them with their homework. Wallace seems to understand his own situation. He recognizes that he is a pawn, working in the basement of McDonald’s while someone at the top makes all the money and gets all the credit.
It is interesting to compare Wallace’s methods of teaching with McNulty’s parenting style. We see how people’s roles within the game (both gangster and cop) play out in their actions in other parts of their lives. Wallace is able to explain the math problem to his younger brother by relating it to keeping the count. “Count be off they fuck you up.” He uses an example from the street to make the book problem more relevant. On the other hand, McNulty teaches his kids front and follow as a game. They get to play spy and he gets to relate to them through that. Bunk can’t believe that McNulty’s kids know front and follow, “The fucking family McNulty, Jesus!”
I was thinking about the discussion we had in class about Avon and Stringer and their money. They make a lot of money illegally (probably millions of dollars) and that’s why they have these legitimate businesses like Orlando’s nightclub. They are so careful about everything that Avon’s brother cannot even get treatment in a good hospital. They do not get to spend a lot of the money that the make. My question is regarding their lawyer. It seems like their Lawyer represents all of them and is there to help them every time that someone screws up. He represented Bodie in a case and represented Deangelo as well. It seems like this lawyer should be payed a lot of money. How can this lawyer represent the gang so often without anyone getting suspicious? He seems like a great lawyer at a prestigious law firm. I remember that the prosecution lawyer in Bodie’s case asked how Bodie could afford two lawyers from their law firm and the lawyer told him that the firm was trying to help urban youths or something. Is that a believable cover? Why is there no investigation into how they can afford these lawyers every time they screw up?
One interesting difference between the law enforcement side and the gang side is how players on each side view their own progession through the game. One the hand, cops like Daniels and Santangelo are very career oriented to the point where their careers matter much more than their daily police work. On the other hand, the scene with D’Angelo and Chardine discussing a future non-criminal respectable life is very telling of how those on the gang side view their life. Because their very survival is constantly in question they are forced to life each moment and each day. D’Angelo’s comment “Yeah, but you pretty now,” shows the power of momentary pleasures and rewards to many members of the Barksdale crew.
I enjoyed the development of Stringer’s character in this episode. There is a juxtaposition between Stringer sitting in Introduction to Economics class and then in the next scene Herc and Carver sit unable to focus through an exam they’ve hardly studied for.
In this episode, we realize the depth and the lengths to which corruption and money launderings runs in the Baltimore drug game. A limo driver is seen picking up money from a place that the police were informed was the location of a drug pickup. The man is pulled over and in the car is 20,000 dollars. The driver is revealed to be that of Senator Davis. Quickly, Commissioner Burrell tells his force to return the money, and worries that the Barksdale investigation may take his men places he doesn’t want them to go. What this proves is how complicated and suprisingly deep the drug web can run in cities such as Baltimore. Corruption can occur in many ways, and this exempified that there may be ties between Barksdale’s crew, the money they make, and members of the state and federal government. It will be interesting to see what becomes of this revealed reality, and how much we as the audience will come to find out as we dive deep into the inside of Baltimore city.
No doubt, I’m enjoying The Wire more and more with each episode I watch. I can’t help but think about the many parallels with The Sopranos, both in terms of my personal relationship to the series and the actual traits of the narrative and characters. With The Sopranos as well, it took some time (i.e. more or less half of the first season) for me to really appreciate and enjoy the series, and this appreciation was borne out of the depth and complexity with which the characters were treated.
Same thing with The Wire: it is the depth and individuality of its characters that draws me in, and keeps my interest, and makes me think. I love the fact that Omar is gay. I love the new NA subplot with Bubbles. I love the conversations of the trio in The Pit, and I’m excited by the new focus on the self-destruction of Wallace. I also reaaaaally love that Stringer goes to college for Macroeconomics. This definitely casts a new light onto the “bad guys” – although they had always been portrayed as extremely smart and resourceful individuals, their cleverness was a more street-smart kind of cleverness, so the fact that the No.2 man in the game goes to college and talks about elastic and inelastic demand and supply, definitely adds an interesting layer. But in general, I’ve noticed that their intelligence and resourcefulness is heavily emphasized in the script, and it is an easy way for them to garner the viewer’s respect, much like Tony Soprano did in his series. One particular instance that comes to mind, for example, is when Avon was paranoid about the existence of a snitch in D’Angelo’s crew and orders D. to stop paying his boys because “the ones who don’t ask for an advance when their money runs out obviously have another source of income, and those are your snitches.” Brilliant.
Obviously, there are also thematic or situational parallels to The Sopranos as well, because, for one, they are both part of the crime genre and thus share a lot of the characteristics we talked about in class, but also because they are both HBO shows – something that is not insignificant, since it means they do share the same standards of quality and boldness in content and approach. I find myself comparing the family tie between Avon and D’Angelo with that of Tony and his nephew Christopher; both the Soprano and the Barksdale gangs hang out in a strip club, and have “official” front businesses, like the garbage disposal company and, respectively, the paper supply company. A lot of the themes are there too, like the theme of police informants, the temptation of drugs, ethics versus violence, social inclusion and ethnic profiling, etc.
But one thing that The Sopranos does not offer, and that makes The Wire so unique, is the attention given to both sides of the law. Regarding the portrayal of the workings of the police department, I’ve really enjoyed seeing all the intricacies of the procedures, and I feel I am learning a lot about the legal system in general – and it’s strange, because I trust the earnestness of this series so much, that I feel I wouldn’t really take these legal details as necessarily true on a show like Law and Order or even CSI, but in The Wire, I don’t doubt the veracity of the legal or procedural aspects for a second. For instance, I really enjoyed the conversation the detectives had about the guidelines for phone surveillance, and how they have to see a suspect actually using the payphones before they can listen to the conversation, since everything they listen to must legally be relevant to their investigation. However, sometimes I wonder if the bureaucratic details aren’t a little exaggerated sometimes. For instance, in this episode I found it really hard to believe that they would let the senator’s driver walk right out of the police station with all his money returned to him, after they had a recorded conversation over the wire linking him to the drug exchange. Maybe if it was the Senator himself, but for a mere driver that used to work for him in the past? It’s not something you’d expect to happen at an American police station, but then again, my vision of a typical American police station has been irreparably shaped by Walker Texas Ranger in Romanian syndication, so what do I really know? 🙂
We have now seen that the drug game is not only the economic lifeblood of the inner city; it is also integral to the functionality of mainstream power structures. This implicates not only the criminals themselves, but those who profit indirectly from drugs and violence such as Maurice Levy and Clay Davis (and even, perhaps, Lieutenant Daniels, whose one-hundred-thousand dollar nest egg is still inexplicable. Plus more fuzzy financing to come…).
More disturbing perhaps than the drug game is the game “follow the money.” Play that game, Simon says, and discover that the world is hopelessly corrupt. Truly nobody is immune to criticism in “The Wire;” Simon is not shy with his pointing-finger. But it is up to the audience, now trained in the art of dissent, to think critically about the institutions and entrenched bureaucracies that aren’t covered in the show.
I read the scene with the word problem a little differently. Yes it exemplifies the high stakes of the drug business- a sad thought when you realize the kid cannot be more than 9 but it is also about educational context. This kid is more than capable of doing the math but he cannot conceptualize it in terms of the bus word problem. This is an issue of life experience and goes both ways. I for one could not follow what Wallace was saying when he reframed the question in terms of drugs but this little kid had no problem. For me the bottom line is that mainstream education is geared towards a “mainstream” (white middle class) audience and thus favors this group. The disadvantaging of minority groups is even more clear in standardized tests. I know we will be studying the school as an institution in the season that addresses schools but in a small way this scene shows that schools or perhaps text books do not serve everyone equally.
I had the same reaction to the Barksdale lawyer after the first couple of episodes. Levy is not just a lawyer at a prestigious firm I’m pretty sure he owns the firm. In the scene with Bodie the judge comments that he is surprised that Bodie has two lawyers from Mr. Levy’s firm. This disbelief is clear and Levy’s cover is transparent. In the end even criminals have the right to representation and I am sure that a well educated and powerful lawyer like Levy would know exactly how to cover the money trail from Barksdale to protect his firm. There are clearly some ethical issues here. For example, does Levy know that he is winning cases because witnesses are being paid off or threatened? He definitely knows that he is lying when it comes to Bodie.
In the end I think its about money. We know Levy is wealthy- he speaks of the “Levy Compound” when he is dragged away from shabbat dinner to bail D out of the police station (who was in the process writing the apology note) in episode 2. In this scene Levy shouts a D to “shut up” and complains that “I tell you people the same fucking thing”- this lets us know that he 1. does this a lot and 2. does not want his clients telling the truth.