Of course it is much more than a cop show; it digs much deeper into the societal aspect of both the cops and the crooks. After trashing that very notion above in regards to The Sopranos, I say that advisedly. The last thing The Wire is is a clichéd recitation of some New York Times op-ed or political activist harangue. Life is never cut and dried or anything less than complicated beyond understanding. The Wire does not gloss, and it does not condescend. Problems are rarely solved. Some people progress, some regress. In the end, the only thing that counts is enduring.
Dramatically, The Wire violates many standard principles of television. According to creator David Simon, each season is conceived as a single novel instead of a group of short stories. There need be no individual hour long story arcs. A given episode may not contain a resolution even for the smallest subplot. The result is that The Wire can seem slow, especially during the beginning episodes of a season. Tension builds throughout the season and the payoff doesn’t really come until the last three or so episodes. More importantly, it also means that each season is conceived as a whole, with a coherent and known ending. There are common characters from year to year, but the show is not about them other than peripherally. The second season was about economic upheaval that has hit certain industries. The third season was about the war on drugs. The upcoming season will be about education. Simon clearly has opinions about these issues but he never proselytizes. All sides of the story are fully human; peopled by folks reacting to the world from different directions and in ways that put them in conflict.
The Wire has never been a ratings success. In fact, their renewal for a fourth season was in jeopardy for quite some time. It would be a surprise if it was popular. The casual viewer would see it as plodding. And you can’t pop in half through the season or catch a random episode now and then and have it make any sense. But if the notion of conceiving a TV show as a limited piece of work with a defined end point will become an accepted practice The Wire will have been the pioneer.
.jpg?t=20130517094513)
Article comments
1 - Aaman
Very very good - thank you for your reasoned thoughts. I would agree with most of your comments.
I deplore recent attempts at reality/pseudo-reality shows on HBO, however. The Comeback, Family Bonds, Entourage, although they have their moments, do not work as effectively and dramatically as the ones cited.
I'm currently going through a (leisurely) Wire marathon - I can attest that it only gets better and better
2 - Morgan
Interesting points. However, I would suggest that you do your homework before you make a statement such as the following:
"I’m giving short shrift to Carnivale because I don’t see it in the same dramatic class as the others. It’s decent entertainment, as far as it goes, but it increasingly seems like it’s just another Lost or Twin Peaks -- week after week of making stuff up as you go along. The show needs some clarity of purpose or it will end up as nothing more than another curious late night rerun on A&E."
You began your article by saying:
"One fundamental difference between TV and film is that in TV there is, theoretically, no end. A film is conceived with a beginning, middle and end...In a TV series, each episode has a beginning, middle and end, but the story is not over until advertisers no longer want to buy time."
Since you seem to be ignorant of how Carnivale was structured - I will enlighten you. I believe what you say to be true for MOST television...have a broad idea of what you want to happen, but basically see where the show takes you from season to season for as long as the interest lasts. Carnivale was a very unique exception to this rule. The creator of Carnivale, Daniel Knauf, mapped out the story of Carnivale IN IT'S ENTIRETY before the show began. His plan was to tell this story in three "books," with 2 seasons completing one book a piece for a total of 6. He had his beginning, middle and end figured out even before he started shooting the first episode.
Season 1 was a bit slow (for some people) because it was meant to be a broad introduction of sorts to the general story, the characters and the relationships between them, and finally to gradually ease the audience into this mystical world that operates by a completely different set of rules. This was certainly a smart move from a creative standpoint, unfortunately, the majority of the modern day audience has the attention span of a house fly.
In Season 2, the story picked up considerably, answered a ton of questions raised in Season 1 and ended with an enormous cliffhanger that gave rise to endless new questions that made a perfect grand slam ending to Book 1 and set the audience up for the new excitement of Book 2.
Perhaps attempting to conceive something this well-thought-out and complex was just too creative and original for most people, HBO included. This was a show that required the audience to actually THINK. It was nearly impossible to jump into the show mid-way through and understand what was going on because the story was so intricate. This wasn't dumbed-down televison, nor was it in any way simplistic which is why it may have not jived with the masses. So, of course, it was cancelled. Perhaps the only program in the history of television that actually attempted to tell a COMPLETE story, with a fully conceived beginning, middle and end, and now the story will be left untold.
You might try revisiting the Carnivale, Mr. Mazzotta. You might just be surprised at what you find. Pay a bit more attention this time, and maybe you'll even understand what all the fuss is about and join the movement to bring this astounding and innovative show back.
3 - david mazzotta
I hesitate to reply to anyone who uses terms like "I would suggest that you do your homework..." and "Since you seem to be ignorant..." If I wanted to interact with someone like that I'd go to Slashdot.
Carnivale was beautifully shot and visually striking, but Knauf just used the weirdness as a Deus Ex Machina. Whenever he needed to move the plot in a certain direction he just pulled some contrived connection out of his head and off they went.
It is entirely possible that if he got to finish it, there may have been some overall coherence, but like most fanstastic fiction, it fell into the trap of using the supernatural to propel the story instead of taking the more difficult road of using the characters.
Which is why I put it in a different class than the other shows. That's not to say I wouldn't watch it. I watched both seasons of Carnivale and would likely watch another. Like I said, it was good entertainment.
I wish you good luck in your Save Carnivale efforts. (http://www.savecarnivale.org/)
4 - Morgan
I appreciate your opinion and understand that Carnivale isn't for everyone. But if it's just too weird for you and not your cup of tea, simply say that rather than insinuating that Knauf is "making it up as he goes along" or pulling a "contrived connection out of his head" when it simply isn't true.
I apologize if some of my wording was too harsh...but I didn't appreciate the apparent brush off of the show based on the reasoning you gave which was inaccurate and seemingly uninformed.
5 - david mazzotta
"it's just too weird for you and not your cup of tea, simply say that"
If that was the case I would have said it. It's not. It is case that I think Knauf was making stuff up as he goes. That's why I said it. Are you so incapable of dealing with that opinion that you have to assign ulterior movtives to me?
You obviously think he's not. Fine. That's what we call a difference of opinion. If you choose to go through life maintaining that people who disagree with you are ignorant, lazy, or dishonest in their beliefs, you're in for an unhappy future.
Especially if you do it over something as trivial as Carnivale.
6 - Morgan
I am ONLY posting again to extend my deepest apologies to David Mazzotta and anyone else I may have offended or upset by what I said. The language I used, the accusations I made, and the manner in which I chose to counter argue Mr. Mazzotta's comments was uncalled for and simply poor judgement on my part and I am sorry for that. And now, because I chose to approach my initial comments the way I did, the TRUE intent of my post was completely lost as well as any opportunity for a possibly engaging discussion. I am sorry for that as well.
It was NEVER my intention to attack anyone's *opinions*. Based on Mr. Mazzotta's comments about Carnivale, he *seemed* to be uninformed and my TRUE intent was to provide information that he didn't seem to be aware of. I now realize that what Mr. Mazzotta said WAS his opinion only and *not* a statement made without checking up on the facts first - which was my initial impression.
I'm really not an ogre, and do not make a habit of "flaming" other people's opinions. I apologize for letting my overly sensitive emotions on the subject get the better of me in this instance.
7 - Melissa
Hi David. I'm thoroughly amused by the exchange here, mostly that you took such great offense at what appears to be a comment that tamely disagrees with your assessment of Carnivale. Maybe you didn't take offense, and Morgan's mea culpa came from somewhere deep inside him, or her.
Regardless, I happen to agree with him. And to disagree with the logic of your opening salvo (how can "fundamental differences" be "theoretical"?). The idea that the quality of a show suffers because of the number that must be produced is problematic. Shows have an entirely different narrative scope than movies, not to mention different objectives, a flexible cast, teams of writers, and "visiting" directors. By your logic, narrative commercials (Luhrmann's Chanel spot, for one), for their relative production ease, should be paragons of quality. This contrast, surely, will rouse you to consider the many differences between television shows and movies, not just the most obvious.
I would expect someone who glosses over such considerations to similarly overlook the differences in scope (as relates to plot) between Carnivale and Seinfeld, or, more fairly, Carnivale and Six Feet Under (loved your ideas about that series, though). Why does a family (using the term loosely here) drama like Six Feet warrant a close analysis of how it both fails and succeeds on its own terms, but Carnivale is categorically dismissed as a "supernatural" effort, like Lost? If you have watched the show, and I'm sure you have, why not identify what it's striving to be and then assess how well it reaches that goal?
And I too blanch at the idea that Knauf "makes stuff up as he goes along", a claim for which you provide no support, other than invoking the idea that it's generally supernatural (as if that alone or at all clears it up). Lucas' movies are "fantastical" and "supernatural", no?
In fact, Carnivale's themes would be mundanities to turn-of-the-century Americans, perfectly obvious and perfectly relevant. If we were better educated, more mindful of our own mythology, and less impressed by cop shows, Carnivale's supernatural patina wouldn't seem so darn messy. But if we care to look carefully (which we usually don't) there's a universe (more Magical Realist than merely supernatural) there obeying specific laws that have been revealed to us. That's order and logic.
8 - David Mazzotta
I have to confess that the last response I thought this article would generate was a defense of Carnivale.
I wouldn't characterize myself as taking offense at Morgan's comments. I thought the first was antagonistically worded. I thought the second mischaracterized my comments. As I re-read it, we did seem to be pushing each other’s buttons.
In any artistic endeavor there are no hard and fast rules, the only things that truly counts is what works. Unlike science there are things that may work in a small number of circumstances that do not in others. To paraphrase Captain Jack Sparrow, the rules are really more like guidelines. So it would be silly for me to say shorter is always better in every circumstance.
Having a team of writers/directors and so forth is probably only of marginal help. You do get the benefit of the potential for extra ideas, but you also get the downsides of too-many-cooks or the potential for art by committee, neither of which will slow down the generation of scripts, but they will adversely affect quality. It is *extremely* rare for any individual or any team to produce extended years of consistently exceptional TV. There are the ones I mentioned. There are more that put together a great season of two. There are yet more that managed great episodes sporadically through a multi-year run. That suggests a relationship between quantity and quality (that relationship exists in an overwhelming number of things in the world and I see no evidence to suggest TV is different). Do some shows manage it? Of course -- not rules, just guidelines. But instead of developing TV like every team of writers is expected to be on the high end of the bell curve, why not acknowledge that a closed plot, fully conceived story, and a limited run would allow a lot more discretion in regards to what constitutes "good enough to air"?
This is irrelevant with respect to Carnivale, since they were under the reduced HBO schedule anyway.
I’ll try to be more exact in criticism of Carnivale since both Morgan and you have misunderstood me. I did not dismiss it as a "supernatural effort." The fact that it was supernatural offered the opportunity to move the plot forward by outside forces, rather than through character development. Need for the carnies to go to this place or encounter that person? Just have Management tell them to. Or have Ben have a terrible nightmare that he just knows was real. Or have someone see a ghost. That got the job done, but in the best dramas the plot moves because of a change in the character’s motivations, not because someone had a vision.
Is it possible that Knauf and the writers had something up their sleeves to make all this clear at the end? Maybe. My *opinion* is that they sat around the table, knowing where they needed to go and not how to get there and so fell back on the supernatural. Since I"m guessing neither of us was privy to those meetings, opinion is all we have.
It is not only supernatural shows that fall into this trap (if you recognize the line "Is it because I am a lesbian?" you know what I mean), but the tendency is much greater because it's just so easy. Have the other HBO dramas done this? Sure, from time to time, but not to the extent of Carnivale where it became one of the premises of the show.
Doesn't mean Carnivale was bad -- it was good. I liked it. I watched it. I wish it hadn't been cancelled. But it keeps it out of the class of the other shows.
You are right that if I was a turn-of-the-century magic realist it might have made more sense. But then I wouldn't have had HBO to begin with.
9 - Rodney
Great show analysis...it is always refreshing to find someone who recognizes the brilliance of The Wire. That said, I think I disagree with you about the end necessarily being near for Deadwood.
As you mentioned, the reduced presence of Ian McShane as Al Swearengen was an unfortunate turn of events. However, I think that Garret Dillahunt's return to the series as Wolcott nicely filled the void that created. In addition, the death of Bullock's son, and the subsequent banning together of the camp to pay its respects, served as a nice bookend/mirror to the beginning of the first season where the camp rallied together for the purpose of saving the life of Sophia. More importantly, it served as a metaphor for the end of the current way of life in the camp being brought on by its impending annexation to Dakota Territory. The wedding of Alma Garret similarly reflects this event: she is forced by circumstances into the union of marriage just as Deadwood is forced into its union with Dakota.
I think that you have somewhat mischaracterized the concept of the show. It is indeed an examination of the process by which an outlaw camp enters civilization. I think, however, that more key to the show is a reflection on the institutions that truly give rise to order. While joining the US, with the formal rule of law that it brings, will certainly create order, the show clearly wants to show that most order in a civilization does not necessarily arise from formal governmental institutions. The next season or seasons will allow for an examination of the ways in which the formal rule of law (i.e. government) adds to order as well as all the undesirable aspects of bureaucracy. (As a side note, it will also be interesting to see how the characters adapt to this return to lawfulness.)
10 - Melissa
Now that's more like it. I'm not sure why, exactly, (as I wouldn't characterize myself to be fanatically bound to Carnivale) certain shows elicit a kind of loyalty, but they do. And when I was reading your remarks on the other HBO series, I looked forward to what you might have to say about Carnivale, expecting something as critically astute. I don't know Morgan from Adam, but I'm guessing he anticipated the same thing. So thanks for giving it some further attention.
As to an audience of magical realists, I'd only suggest that I'm not gifted with Yodic powers, nor am I communicating by telegraph for the first time, but "Star Wars" and "Deadwood" are still explicable and relevant to me. And Carnivale, for all of its (to me) beautiful mistakes and mighty ambitions, is still a lesson in character development, among other things.
11 - David Mazzotta
I hope you're right about next season, Rodney.
I know you're right about Garret Dillahunt. He played Wolcott so well that I didn't even realize he was the same actor that portrayed Jack McCall in the previous season until somebody pointed it out to me.
Dude has some serious range.