Sorry to be a bit late in the posting; I’ve been at UT watching David Simon receive a communications/journalism award and talk about, what else, “The Wire”. It was a productive hour and a half of discussion, which is somewhat surprising, since they opened the floor to questions, which is usually an invitation for a bunch of assholes to pretend that everyone showed up to hear them talk instead of the speaker. There were a couple of people who asked questions where the question was a minor pretense for them to bloviate, but on the whole, the question askers were respectable and the questions were good. Perhaps the show functions as a bullshit filter or something. I did not ask a question, but Marc asked about the inspiration behind the character of Clay Davis, so our little corner of the world got some representation.
I almost have to wonder if Simon isn’t wearing a little false humility when he expresses surprise—as he did tonight—that a show so entrenched in the particulars of Baltimore would resonate with so many people around the country. I suppose every city is different, but the ways that we differ from each other are kind of the same—Baltimore has scrapple, but we have breakfast tacos, for instance. The crime problem in Baltimore may not resonate in a city like Austin that has so little crime you can all but walk down the street at 2AM counting a wad of cash, but most city dwellers relate to the larger themes of “The Wire”, the interconnectedness of the mini-world of a city and the problems of braindead bureaucracies. Most shows and movies nowadays take place in specific cities, and try to capture something of the local flavor in them, but very few shows really tackle the idea of the city as an entity the way “The Wire” did. It really filled a hunger that the urban dwellers of America have to see this experience of the city reflected back at them. Simon said that this idea of place above all was his motivation. That every American city has its own character and if you really dig in and get to know a place and call it home, even if it’s not exactly the greatest city in the country, you’ll love it. Since I have roots in El Paso, I can relate to the sentiment—it’s an armpit, but it’s our armpit and really, it’s not that much of an armpit once you get to know it and find out what’s to like. Of course, I don’t have to defend Austin as a loveable city with its own unique character—lately, a lot of us are wishing that was a better kept secret, especially after having to wait in line for a breakfast taco during SXSW. But I digress.
Much was discussed, especially (cringe away, people who hated the newspaper plotline) the declining state of the newspaper. If the show came off as pedantic on this issue, Simon in person came across as very sympathetic to the systematic problems that have gotten us here, from the buyout issue that reduced the value of good reporting to the very real funding issues that crop up when the things that make money (commentary, comics, sports stats, weather reports, classifieds) are being usurped by the internet, meaning that newspapers are really up against a wall. Newspapers are still necessary for actual journalism, though, and if they go away, we all lose. It’s a real conundrum, and I maintain that where the show basically failed to really tell that story as well as it tells all the others is in the loss of details. We just didn’t get too much of a view on the show of the forces that have created the problem—most of it came to us in exposition, which is something that the show rarely fell on as a crutch otherwise. (At one point, Simon literally grabbed his head and growled over the network executives pushing a flashback for exposition on him in the first season, so it’s not like he was unaware of how it’s a tawdry storytelling device.)
One story that Simon told about the awards-grubbing in journalism that clearly pisses him off really stuck out at me. Basically, it was under one of the bad guy editors that he mocks so much on “The Wire”, a guy who wanted to have a big feature of the year story to see if they could get some awards. Like the schools or the police department or something like that. And Simon pointed out that a common theme throughout so much of the problems in the city was that they go back to racism—institutional discrimination, the white flight that took the tax base from the city, etc. And that doing an in-depth series on racism was probably the best angle to take, which pissed the editor off so bad he left the room. That was the root of the “Dickensian aspects” thing on the show, but I was mostly impressed to hear him lay it out on the table like that. One of the things I’ve always found fascinating about “The Wire” is that the characters on the show talk openly about race, there’s a lot of surface level talk about the problem of racism, but there was never any exposition about the deeper, structural issues of racism that are clearly at the heart of a lot of problems in the city. Not that the show ignored the problem, but it left it up to the viewer to make the necessary inferences. There was some talk tonight about how “The Wire” is novelistic in its approach to storytelling, but I can’t help but point out that it was this that made it even more novelistic. After reading a good novel, your brain should be buzzing for an hour just thinking about the larger meanings and ideas, and trying to sort them out. And that’s the kind of mental exercise that “The Wire” provided for its viewers.
All of this made me want to watch it all over again. Maybe in a year’s time, when they’ve probably released the Grand Poobah DVD Box Set or whatever. As an added bonus, I feel duty bound to point out that the writers on “The Wire” don’t get points on the DVD (I think that’s the phrasing) and therefore are neutral on the subject of bitorrent. That said, it’s still probably worth paying for DVDs of really great TV shows to show HBO and whoever is watching that there’s money in continuing to greenlight intelligent, socially aware, artfully crafted TV.
One thing that occurred to me after a question asker talked about how the show really highlighted the underutilized skills of many black actors, though unfortunately, due to the premise, a lot of them were still playing criminals and drug dealers, albeit in a less glamorized fashion than usual, and balanced with portrayals of black people working straight jobs and professional jobs. Simon praised the acting on the show, and noted that it hasn’t received the Emmy attention it really deserves for the outstanding work. Which makes me wonder: Is it racism? Is it that there’s so many characters played so well by so many actors that it’s hard to really single out someone for an award? Is it a combination of these factors?
21 Responses to “Awards: A good excuse for fan wanking disguised as academic inquiry”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
This is a lame thread jacking, but I’m watching the series from the start and I guess I missed something; why was everyone demoted in the season one finalie/season two premiere? The show could be kind of hard to follow, esp. when watching on my computer
No one got demoted by McNulty, and that’s because he kept fucking Rawls by going behind his back to the judge to get him to force the issue of pursuing the Barksdale organization. It was just petty vindictive shit.
I think those actors (Michael K Williams, etc) get ignored because the judges/panelists/academy members/whoever believe that they’re not actually acting that much. The subconscious thought is, “Oh, they’re black, so this West Side world must be so familiar to them that it isn’t much of an acting challenge.”
As Haynes says, “That’s some shameful shit right there.”
Well, there is a grain of truth to the above some cases — not the “it isn’t much of an acting challenge” part, obviously, nor the exclusion from recognition on that basis, but the “familiarity” part. (Felicia “Snoop” Pearson being the most obvious and notably example.)
But Idris Elba is from London, fercrissakes. And his Stringer Bell is one of the most complex and compelling characters in TV history, so it’s hard to think of anyone else who is more deserving of an Emmy than Idris in Season 3.
There are a few other factors which contribute to the lack of awards for The Wire’s cast, though. One is that it is an ensemble piece, lacking a single iconic central character like Tony Soprano. And everyone is so fucking good that vote-splitting is pretty much inevitable. The other is that its audience was always very small, even by HBO standards, so even if you could have persuaded all the Wire-loving Emmy voters to line up behind Idirs, that’s still probably a very small number of votes.
I remember reading years ago that the way the Emmys work is that they focus on a moment or two of performance, as opposed to a year’s worth of work–a single episode, or even a handful of cuts from an episode. It makes sense in a way–there’s an awful lot of television to get through if you’re judging, even if you eliminate 90% of it as unwatchable crap. But that style, assuming it’s still in play, would really hurt a show like The Wire, because you have to watch the show for the whole season to really get what’s going on sometimes. There are a paucity of really emotive moments–they’re a lot more subtle than that.
About demotions: At the beginning of Season 2, McNulty’s on the boat because he pissed off Rawls, Daniels is in Evidence Control because he pissed off Burrell (Daniels kept trying to prolong the investigation and Burrell didn’t want anyone to follow the money), and Kima is at an indoors job because she pissed off her girlfriend Cheryl (by getting herself shot). Lester actually fell upward, to Homicide.
Amanda, you’re right that the theme of racism on the Wire is so interesting because of its subtlety. The victims on the Wire are “dead where it doesn’t count,” and it’s left to the viewer to figure out why they don’t count, and why their suffering doesn’t bother most of America.
Season 5 explores this a lot, but again through subtext. (Spoilers:) I think Simon uses the homeless in this season as a metaphorical stand-in for the citizens of West Baltimore or any forgotten group that America doesn’t care about. In the finale, the big lie is kept alive because of the last-minute introduction of a mentally ill homeless character that the viewer doesn’t care about. The crimes are pinned on him and he’s locked up and quickly forgotten, and his victims are forgotten too, so the characters we know can keep a lie alive. Seems similar to how America is fine with the war on drugs destroying poor black communities, and forgetting about those victims, because it doesn’t affect the people we know. This season is very meta and I don’t think even the best critics have come close to exploring everything it has to offer.
For awards, what you said and what Incertus Brian said. Another explanation often offered is that the show films in Baltimore and is therefore disconnected from the insular Hollywood “community” that picks out the Emmys.
Brian - yes, and The Wire doesn’t really do what shows like ‘ER’ or whatever do, and have ‘McNulty’s Episode’ or ‘Kima’s Episode’. Everybody’s storyline is unfolding pretty much at the same speed.
And, yes, I do think racism plays a big part in it also. Man, thinking about this makes me remember how amazing the acting was. I can’t believe this show is over.
NPR’s On the Media had a piece about Season 5 this week. Simon talked about how he knew that a lot of people thought that the newspaper plot was thin, but that only a couple of writers had picked up on the real critique of it. Namely, all of the crap that had been shown in the first four seasons? None of it was making it into the paper. The paper had a vision of the world that didn’t correspond to reality, and that was part of the declining circulation numbers — the paper wasn’t providing news to its readers.
The podcast is available for free, should you wish to listen. It’s on in the last ten minutes or so.
>None of it was making it into the paper. The paper had a vision of the world that didn’t correspond to reality, and that was part of the declining circulation numbers — the paper wasn’t providing news to its readers.
There two problems with that. One is that we only saw this in small bits here and there with Omar and Prop Joe’s deaths not being realized as significant by the paper. Instead we had the Stephen Glass plot. And the second problem is that someone or something not doing something isn’t a story. Season One is about McNulty and then gradually other people’s attempts to get the Barksdale case through the bureaucracy. If it was done like the newspaper plot, the focus would be on Herc.
And racism definitely plays a part in the Wire’s lack of recognition, but it’s also that they don’t work of LA or New York. (Friday Night Lights also gets hosed.)
I remember Dennis Franz winning lots of accolades and, IIRC, Emmys while Andre Braugher was putting in the best performances on tv back when Homicide was on, too. That’s the way it works. My guess is that Simon would say that the Emmys=The Pulitzer Prize, and focusing on them is a guaranteed way to ruin your work.
The New Yorker article about The Wire from last fall told a story about Andre Royo (Bubbles) waiting around during a shoot in West Baltimore, and an actual junkie walking up and giving him some drugs because “you need it more than I do”. Royo called it his “street Emmy”.
“Austin […] has so little crime you can all but walk down the street at 2AM counting a wad of cash”
Was the person you saw doing this naked? Because that was me!
Was the person you saw doing this naked? Because that was me!
With all the blah-blah about this show, I got curious. Not having cable, I went to the DVD store to buy season 1, and Not A Copy In Sight - not one box of any season. Oh well. It’s waiting in line after all those other shows I never saw - Battle Star Galactica. Truly, I inhabit a parallel universe without cable and without decent reception of 2 of 5 local stations.
I do have the public library a block away, probably the reason I have never gotten all that interested in cable TV.
I’ve been re-watching the series from the beginning for the past two weeks (with a few recently converted friends) and it’s a seriously awesome experience. Just started season 3 today and I’m already pumped as hell for Hamsterdam. Definitely worth the cash/dl time/toll on your Netflix queue.
I completely understand NancyP.
We have cable, but only basic. So I get the four networks, PBS, CNN, Food Network, Comedy Central, Discovery Channel, and the usual kids’ channels, basically. There are a few others too, mainly shopping and sports, so I don’t really see any of the new cable shows either and I never know what’s going on in these threads.
I can imagine myself standing in line for a breakfast burrito.
Scrapple, not so much.
but it’s also that they don’t work of LA or New York. (Friday Night Lights also gets hosed.)
Yeah, but you know, they filmed The Sopranos in Jersey.
It’s always hard for the individual actors in an ensemble piece to get awards.
Hey Amanda,
Your post title and the observation about the uselessness of most Q & As is dead on. It really made me laugh. Even more so, because I drew this cartoon during the same Q & A:
Good stuff. Thanks.
whoops…my link got lost:
http://www.austinkleon.com/2008/03/19/dickensian-children-and-pulitzer-sniffs-writer-david-simon-ut/#comments
i think racism plays a big role in it also.
i think its also about racism