An Indicative Scene?

So, while watching A Serious Man, for some reason a scene from the Wire popped into my head. It was the one in which Marlo steals a lollipop or some crap from a corner store when he knows the security guard is watching, and then when confronted outside says to the guy, "You want it to be one way. But it's the other way." I've been trying to clarify what he is saying. It's important that he says the other way, not an other way. There are, in his view, two possible ways the world can be. One is the way the security guard wants to see it. The first way, the one in which, when he goes outside to talk to Marlo, the security guard engages in a conversation based on mutual respect that ends with Marlo acknowledging that though the law abiding life is not the one he has chosen, it is a valid one. It is a way that, despite the reality of drugs and violence, is based on principles and a kind of moral code. But for Marlo, principle takes second seat to his ego, to his attachment to his "name."
I found the clip on youtube,


and there were some insightful comments following the clip. There were several that caught my attention. The first was about Marlo's obsession with power, which I think is supported very well by the lollitheft. Marlo has no reason not to pay for it, and he makes sure the guard sees him and realizes he can do nothing. The second comment noted the difference between Marlo and most of the other players. Stringer, Avon, Omar, even Prop Joe etc. These men have very different goals from Marlo, and, despite often producing the same results, different ways of operating. I think the closest anyone comes of the four is Stringer, when he mutilates Brandon. I think that "other way" as Marlo expresses it, is the way in which it is whether you win or lose, not how you play the game.
There are many examples of criminals, though breaking the law, following specific rules. The Sunday truce for example, or basically anything Omar does (that guys a walking code of honour). Can you picture Avon stealing that candy, or Stringer. Definitely not Omar, remember the time he robs the stash in that store and then pays for cigarettes?
I think David Simon is demonstrating more than just the differences between these characters. I think that when Stanfield says "it's the other way," he's speaking to us as viewers as well. Most of the characters in The Wire, despite being involved in the drug trade, or crooked police, or part of the structure perpetuating suffering, are sympathetic. We like Avon, we like Omar, we like Brother Muzone. Stringer, maybe not so much, but he is closer morally to Marlo than the others. Marlo is reminding us of the reality. The "game" we see on the Wire, the one Bodie talks about when he is reminiscing about the days before Marlo, is idealized, romanticized, just like what we're watching. The unprincipled reality that we see briefly through Marlo is probably much closer to the real thing than the rest of the show.
Despite the tragedy of the cycle apparent in The Wire, we see Marlo getting "justice" at the end of the series (and here I am deriving from another YouTube comment), through the ruin of his name. This, with the cast of likeable drug dealers and crooked cops, serves to remind us that although this series is closer to reality than the vast majority of crap on TV, we're still watching extremely well written and socially important television. It's still entertainment, and we are seeing it one way, but it's probably the other way.

Now That's Police

In my most recent viewing I caught a few good references. First, Omar and his new boy are sitting in their place when the surviving of the two girls they have been working with walk in. She is distraught about bunk getting to the dead girls family, BUT, what are Omar and his boy watching on TV? OZ I don't know which episode, but it is something heartfelt between Beacher and Keller.
Second, and I think you may have brought this up before. Mrs.Carcetti is listening to Billy Bragg and Wilco - Mermaid Avenue Vol.1 - Hoodoo Voodoo.
I also noticed that Nike Under Armor must be one of the selected wardrobe designers because everyone is wearing it.

For the last 3 weeks I have been one of a team of bitches for a construction site foreman. My job involves a great deal of lifting broken up by some sweeping. BUT, next week I am starting as a "carpenter's aid", or at least that's what the ad claimed.

A Slight Drought

It's actually been a week or more since I've seen any of McNutty and the gang. Working sucks and I am plotting a scheme to make it so I never have to do it again. When I get something assembled I will be sure to post it...first thing. Going to bed at like 11 really puts a damper on watching The Wire. I have been coming home to eat, try and keep track of some investments, and hopefully watch hockey while listening to Black Sabbath.
BTW Colvin's "Hamsterdam" comes to light some time halfway through the third Season. I like the way you see the idea develop with his character and the epiphany which starts his reveolution. I also like that his character gives the viewer some history with McNulty or "bushy top".

Got to man, this's America...

So, I was thinking about the over-arching themes of the whole series, and I remembered the first scene, first episode, before the opening credits. In it, McNulty talks to some thug at sitting on the stoop, and asks why, if Snot always snagged the cash from the game, they kept letting him play. His answer, of course, is "Got [...] America. Well, this statement is logically questionable in the scenario laid out, but it does point nicely to some of the American ideal that the creators of the series are questioning throughout. Specifically, I'm thinking of the meritorious and equal opportunity aspects of the ideal American state. That is, by working hard and being good at ones job, one will advance to the position one deserves. Ideally, merit is the driver of the system of advancement. What I think is interesting is that in the series, the of the two systems we are presented with (criminal organizations vis a vis the three arms of the law judicial/executive/legislative), one seems to embody that ideal in much more closely than the other.
I refer specifically to the way that the slingers and hoppers etc move upward in their respective organizations, and even the way their leader replace and succeed one another. It seems to me that the most common way is by being good at what they do. Prop Joe, Slim Charles, Marlo, Barksdale, Bell, etc. all got to where they were by being shrewd and careful. Cheese, on the other hand, is a bit of an idiot and thinks in a very limited way about his business future. And he's capped pretty quickly.
On the other hand, the cops, media, lawyers, and politicians that move upward successfully seem to be largely good at something other than their jobs. This is not to say they are categorically bad at them, but along with being at least mildly competent, they all possess a conniving, selfish drive to move upward at almost any cost. I realize that on both sides there are exceptions to this rule, but the overall feeling I got was that, in the sense of America as a Meritorious, rather than Elitist State, the street seemed to embody in a much clearer way the sentiment expressed in that first episode.
Part of this may be due to the fact that many of the politicians etc were either born into money of some fashion, or into political connection etc. This is definitely conducive to the propagation of an elitist system. However, if we look at the best cops, Kema, McNulty, Lester, Bunk,etc, it seems that the ones that are actually good at their jobs are not moving vertically in the system, rather their unwillingness to play the game seems to get them moved laterally or downward. What does this say about the effects of large scale government on a supposedly meritorious system? To what extent can politicians actually represent the people, and does the best man for the job ever get elected, or is it the best looking, most connected man for the job. The answers are probably pretty depressing, even in places where the effects are far less severe than West Baltimore.

H B crOssover

So, anyone who's watched any more than one HBO show probably realizes that there is a lot of actor sharing going on. What I just discovered, though, is that one of the most interesting and thought provoking plot lines in The Wire was first used in the Oz series. I'm speaking of the Hamsterdam experiment Bunny Colvin implements in Season 5? of the wire. The precursor is in Season 5? of Oz, when Tim is fired and Querns (played by the same guy who does Carcetti's advisor in the Wire) decides to try ignoring drugs and sex etc. as long as there is no violence. Are the violence and suffering that accompany the drug trade the real thing that provokes "The War on Drugs," or is it the drugs themselves? Which, morally, should we object to, and why? The drugs or the social effects, some if which can be attributed to the enforcement of drug law and not the sale of narcotics per se.