« Senator Webb | Main | Pre-emptive Strikes »

Wire Season Four Wrapup

05 Dec 2006 10:55 am

My crew cheated a bit and watched the final episode of season four last night, letting me sum things up below the fold.

One point I guess I'd like to emphasize a bit against the current critical trends is that the "realist" reading of The Wire really doesn't capture all that's going on here, as we can see in the incredibly improbable course that one ring took over the course of the fourth season.

The most interesting thing, in the big picture sense, is the way that as time goes on the show has managed to maintain its widening gyre of pessimism while also showing a great many things go right. One of the major trends of season four was for great advances to be made in the realm of police work. Despite the end of Hamsterdam, the Western District police -- in the able hands of Major Daniels and Sergent Carver and with Office McNulty walking the beat -- are much more functional than they were in season one or at the beginning of season three. Carcetti wins the election, and immediately really does set about making good on his promises to get more serious about police work. Rawls and Burrell are both somewhat befuddled by this new era but are, in practice, happy to go along if that's what the mayor wants. Daniels is promoted to colonel. Major Crimes is going to be reconstituted, and McNulty's going to rejoin the team. By the conclusion of season four, people are finally ready to roll up their sleeves and do the sort of police work the show's hero -- McNulty -- has been pushing for since the beginning.

But times have changed. McNulty isn't the hero of the show anymore; he's more like a bit player. What's more, while in an earlier moment we might primarily worry about major crimes getting double-crossed or re-disbanded, now our pessimism runs deeper.

What good would building a case against Marlo Stanfield possibly do in a world where kids are "educated" in a way that will offer up an endless supply of new players? Even more depressing, it's not that the kids "can't be reached." If that were the problem, we might think that someone down the line could reach them if they tried harder or got smarter. This, no doubt, is where Colvin is left off. Believing his program was working and could have worked had only they gotten more support from the Hall.

But Colvin's perspective is limited. He hasn't been following the whole picture. He doesn't quite see that if you do reach the kids, you ruin them -- Bodie, Randy, and Namond weren't saved from the game, they were simply ruined as players, rendered unsuitable for the life they're fated to live. Namond, of course, may be saved in the end but the measures required -- adoption by Colvin -- are too extreme to work systemically. Carver, by playing by the rules, puts himself in a position where he no longer can save Randy, he has to abandon him to the logic of the system. Even more cutting is the advice Prez gets from the Assistant Principal -- he can't put all his energies into saving Dukie because a whole new class of kids is going to come up behind him. Nor, needless to say, can Colvin simply adopt every kid from his special class.

Meanwhile, the unexpected reappearance of Spiros Vondas reminds us that the Major Crimes crew isn't necessarily as clever as they like to think. They think of themselves as having made progress over the past several seasons. Getting Major Crimes established as a permanent division. Finally nailing the Barskdales. Triumphing over the ineptitude of Lieutenant Marimon. Getting back to work on the case against Marlo's crew. But they lost track of the Greek way back when. They know that, but they don't realize how relevant the Greek remains, that he's still the ultimate source of the dope in Charm City. Nor does it even seem to have occurred to them over the past two seasons to wonder about this question.

They were onto Prop Joe briefly at the beginning of season three, but dropped that investigation in part because they never grasped Joe's significance. They thought of him, potentially, as a way to get closer to the Barksdales. But the Barksdales -- like Marlo -- are down the chain from Joe. And Joe, in turn, is down the chain from the Greek. The very same Greek who they once were close to and who, thanks to his friend in the FBI, seems to be untouchable.

Meanwhile, on the crime front it looks like Carcetti may get to have his cake and eat it too. He's resolved to lower the murder rate dramatically, and also resolved to stop playing games with the stats. Luckily for him, the discovery of the bodies in the vacant buildings means that the world itself is conveniently playing games with the stats on his behalf. This huge spike will go down on Royce's final year, and if the case is solved the clearances will come on Carcetti's watch and it seems likely that the murder rate will, in fact, go down. His first year in office will be a "success" and he'll be positioned to make his run at Annapolis. All without anything really changing in Baltimore.

Share This

Comments (39)

(Big, big spoilers below. You have been warned)

An excellent read on the politics of the show, Matt.

But The Wire is ultimately a story, and I'm surprised to see nothing about the emotional impact the events of episode 50 had. Watching Chris kill Bodie is an image that has stuck with me, even though I saw it nearly a month ago (thanks, BitTorrent!), as is McNulty's revelation that Bodie's death is, in part, his fault. I'm going to miss Bodie, in the way that only happens when a character in a story is so well written and acted.

Oddly, a month after watching, I find that I honestly can't remember the fate of Bubbles. The image of him hanging from the ceiling is still with me, and I know that didn't kill him. But did he die later in the ep? I'm surprised at myself that his resolution didn't stick with me, overshadowed at the shock of seeing Bodie die.

It's gonna be a long, long wait for Season 5!

Watching Chris kill Bodie

Chris was the decoy, another member of the Stanfield crew shot Bodie.

That scene was a gut-punch. I've liked Bodie ever since he and Poot ran into Carver and Herc at the movies; he was just damn charming. Pretty amazing that we could be so upset by his death, when he was the same guy who led the beatdown of Bubbles's boy Johnny, and also the guy who shot Wallace.

Michael killed Bodie.

The scene was more sad, slow headshake than gut-check. You know it's bad as soon as Bodie's spotted with McNulty, but then you know he's dead when (in The Wire's inimitable use of the internal rhyme) Bodie complains that "it ain't right," just as D'Angelo did.

One thing that's starting to boher me about the wire is its unrelenting pessimism. Am I being incredibly naive or does systematic change for the better sometimes occur. It just seems like Simon et al. are afraid to wax optimistic about any policy measure because if it doesn't pan out in the real world they will appear less sophisticated. But sometimes leaders do get things right, and stuff does get better. Right?

It was not Michael, you may recall Chris saying that he wouldn't have Michael do it because he knew Bodie. It was the kid that called Cutty "Montel" in ep 49.

Bubbles ends up in detox ward, cleaned up, but shattered. Andre Royo's portrayal this season and especially in this finale broke my heart.

I thought Bodie was never strong or devious enough to be a real player, like he said he never did anything that he wasn't told to do and he was destined to be a pawn. Although I sympathized with him as a person, recalling his vicious killing of Wallace I tried not to feel sad at his loss.

I was suprised to see Spiros, I figured after he'd been made and absconded with the greek, they would send a replacement for him. It should be interesting when Marlo tries to fuck with him and Joe next season.

Marlo needs to go down!

Michael did not kill Bodie, it was another random guy from Marlo's crew, Chris told Marlo that Michael's first kill shouldn't be someone he knows so Michael ends up killing the guy near the end of the show.

I like that Namond started the season a corner kid and ended up a stoop kid. Bunny can't change the system but he did help change and save Namond.

It looks like we are going to see some controversy over Carcetti not taking the education funding, and hopefully we see Lester not get too distracted by the murders and keep chasing the money.

It is going to be interesting watching Marlo make a run at taking out Prop Joe while being chased by the major crimes unit. Does anyone doubt that Marlo will be looking to become head of the co-op and work directly with Spiros and the Greek? And like others have said I wouldn't mind checking in on Nick Sabotka.

see some controversy over Carcetti not taking the education funding

I took this to be Carcetti's fall from grace--until now, he's been ambitious but managed to do the right thing. But this time he wasn't willing to pay the political price personally to do something that would benefit the city.

Marlo needs to go down!

Only to be replaced by someone else, of course. Maybe Michael, eventually.

It was not Michael, you may recall Chris saying that he wouldn't have Michael do it because he knew Bodie. It was the kid that called Cutty "Montel" in ep 49.

I stand corrected.

What did I tell you?

I think Daniels gets the job and fails.

This making the futility point.

Just as the schools will fail.

This is a very very pessimistic series.

Last season all the good folks were being stymied by hacks.

This year the good guys get the run of the place - and fail just as much.

Watch.
Posted by: Big Tent Democrat on October 30, 2006 03:53 PM

Bodie's turnaround from shooting Wallace to kicking out the windows of a cop car over the bodies in vacants is quite a feat of writing.

One of the most crushing things about that relentlessly depressing finale was at the end when we find that Carcetti has opted to forego the money from the state to bail out the schools.

And how about Dukie on the corner? That completely caught me off guard.

Yes, Dukie's fate suprised and saddened me almost as much as anything, although it seemed that he may have been destined for worse. Randy on the other hand, with such a positive homelife, seemed to be headed for a bright future and his suddenly bleak fate as an orphaned, beaten-down pariah was utterly heartbreaking.

How about Bodie's restatement of the drug-dealers-as-pawns idea, originally spoken by D'Angelo in Season One? Amazing writing.

It was the kid that called Cutty "Montel" in ep 49.

Monk, IIRC...

Oh yeah, and screw all of you for the spoilers. (Actually, screw HBO for letting this thing out like this. And myself for being weak-willed)

Aw, we're just kidding you, Pooh. Bodie totally kills Marlo. With a nuclear bullet.

Michael with frickin laser beams...

WillieStyle:

Re: One thing that's starting to boher me about the wire is its unrelenting pessimism. Am I being incredibly naive or does systematic change for the better sometimes occur

Check out Harlem, transformation nearly complete, or the South Bronx, in the process, or many other infamous areas now changed by current smart urban planning principles based on home ownership. Once you have an investment in a community by long-disenfranchised low-income people that actually already live there, the police cease to be the occuying enemy, "informing" is not being a traitor, the new children born have hope and are taught a different ethos and parents get involved in schools because (sadly) there's not just their children as an incentive but also their property wealth.

It helps enormously to have tax incentives for major corporate retailers (both equal-opporunity employers and purveyors of necessary goods like diapers and fresh produce at discount prices rather than bodega "retail plus markup for security"--and don't forget "Mom and Pop" bodegas are discriminatory hirers) to move into the area at the same time as the development of owner-ask Charles Rangel.

It also helps if the new proven rules of "community policing" theory are instituted at the same time. This is finally starting to happen in L.A., "South Central" is not the place it once was.

It's actually been happening around the country. Why do you think high-crime "ghetto" areas are so fewer in number than they used to be? Places like the Baltimore of "The Wire" and Camden, NJ are increasingly the exception and not the rule. Really, if you are into hope, look at some of the current urban planning theory about home ownership, tax incentives to businesses, and the folly of the idea of the 60's idea of low-income subsidized "projects." It works. Even the most amoral profit-minded real estate developer will tell you they've been convinced that it works.

P.S. Pre-emptive: I agree that one must not underestimate the devastation of the crack epidemic as to the horrors of the 80's in this regard. Hence, police theory, rightly or wrongly, is often still pointed heavily on drugs.

I thought it WAS Michael who killed Bodie. However, I dl'd the show when it became available on the internets and many things could have been changed from that moment. For example, in the online version, Bubs does not burn his shirt with while ironing.

The last three or four episodes put me in such depression that I could not bear to watch it again when they came out on HBO.

brooklyn,

Depression? I was mind numbingly happy to finally watch a show that represented reality in ways close to how complex it actually is. Kudos to the writers, actors, directors and crew that make this work of art possible. Truly you guys and gals elevate so much in society through your work, not to mention make possible practical discussion of what would otherwise be alien/taboo topics to most people.

I too saw the early season set via bit torrent and so am not sure of the cut/re-cuts that were broadcast or will be broadcast. Though it was Michael who did Bodie in the widely distributed internet version.

My only gripe was that the season ended with 13 episodes, musical montage to attempt to tie down dangling plot arcs? This is really only half a season and the plot arcs really could have been sustained to 26 or 39. Personally I think the Wire is shackled by the Time-Warner HBO system in which it is just a small line item in a much larger budget. Any product that has 2-4 million consumers should be able to self fund. And as many of us have already experienced it, the show could easily be the first weekly Internet television show. Season 5 is already funded but I would be looking to push the wire beyond the subscription pay wall of HBO, and out onto the net for season 6.

Think about it 15 million USD, which is the funding for Season 5, is about 1 mill and episode. If we can work out a way to pay 1 million via the net The Wire could be a continuously running show. New episodes weekly maybe even. And this would also be a big win for Baltimore, sort of the beginning of Hollywood East...

artappraiser, I hate to be argumentative with you twice in a single day especially because in this case you probably know much more than I do about the subject at hand, but wouldn't the big criticism of that strategy be gentrification-- that you're not fixing the neighborhood, you're just displacing it with a new neighborhood of homeowners, with the old renters being priced out and living elsewhere? That's certainly the outsider's stereotype of NYC's fall in crime--crime fell because criminals can't afford to live there anymore.

A meme is born. There's no difference between the "internet" version and what aired on HBO. There's only one version. David Simon writes,

The season was in the can when we sent the full screeners to critics, so reshoots were never in the cards.

The guy who shot Bodie looked like Michael (I replayed it about five times before I was sure), but it wasn't. And this,

The Wire could be a continuously running show

is wrong: Simon et. al., have been very clear that they had a five season story to tell--they're the ones pulling the plug.

And as long as I'm disagreeing, this

plot arcs really could have been sustained to 26 or 39

also seems misguided. The "narrative compression" of the show--every moment is important and communicates many things at different levels--is part of its signature.

I believe the guy who shot Bodie is this kid pictured between Snoop and Cheese.

Like ogged, I'm getting to be a bit of a trekkie about this show and I highly doubt this scene was ever re-written or re-shot.

I too wish there were more episodes, but at the same time you have to wonder if the writers could sustain such a high quality level if they had to write twice as much.

Simon was very clear in his interview on Slate that 5 seasons is it. If they did a 6th season it would be about the growth of a Hispanic minority in Baltimore which is a new phenomena. But the big issue would be in order to maintain the quality level they have established they would need to do intensive research which would push things out at least another year, so it isn't realistic.

I just got into the Wire this season. Bodie is the spitting image of my brother, from his squinting attentiveness, his truncated speaking style, and his instinctual dignity. When he was shot, I couldn't hear or pay attention to the show for the next several minutes. Any rooting for the bad guys Chris, Snoop, and Marlo was vaporized by that scene.

Consumatopia:

programs like the kind I was talking about are not the same as gentrification, the emphasis is on low-income housing, nothing that yuppies would be dying to live in, there's an effort not to displace but to change the type of living spaces from incestuous towering "communities" of people piled upon one another to something with just a bit more ability to "just say no" to the predominant culture. (You know the white picket fenced cottage of song? There's always been dinky little townhouses with garages in front on the ground level and a postage stamp yard, perhaps a mother-in-law apartment for income, for the white working class folks in places like the Bronx that no yuppie would have great desires to live in, but they were a place in a safer neighborhood where indigenous native kids could be raised to "move on up," if the public schools were no good, you could afford a parochial one. Yes, of course, eventually what happens according to the history of the last 1/2 century is that such neighborhoods, if close to a locale that already has seen great price appreciation, will eventually experience the spillover and become "gentrified." (The spouse and I are betting on it in the Bronx, as a matter of fact. But if it don't happen, and it stays working class/immigrant, there's no down side, because prices are low enough that the payment is the same as the rent, and you get to live in a decent neighborhood with little crime. Though there are lots of recent immigrant neighbors, the ones on either side been here at least 40 years, and that's the same allover.)

do you really think it was Charles Rangel's goal to turn Harlem into a "rich only" white neighborhood?

In any case, yes, gentrification is eventually a threat if you've got great old mansions or interesting old buildings that could make lofts or some such or large lots, but otherwise, build middle class housing, it's never going to be cool.

That reminds me, I think I read the last few months that this indeed is going on in Baltimore, I remember reading (or maybe even seeing a TV segment on) one developer in particular putting up large quantities of subsidized townhouse rows specifically for low income purchase, some rehabbed, some new.

p.s. to last, I cut myself off before I finished, hit submit too fast:

You are not talking about heirloom quality here, you are talking about "starter" homes just like the ones that got the "Greatest Generation" started upon return from WWII.

As to an end game of gentrification, where communities shift around, well not 100% of the population in the U.S. would make a fine neighbor. There are such things as low-life criminals of every color. The point is: why are decent poor minority folks with potential to be good citizens being forced to live in close proximity with them while most poor whites are not? You are always going to have a few "bad neighborhoods" in the country simply because there are criminals. But you can help those that don't want them chase them elsewhere, and yes, that does threaten eventual rise in property values, threatening gentrification decades later. So? The alternative is? A decent working class neighborhood in no way guarantees crime or a bad place to raise children nor gentrification.

I know, I grew up in such a neighborhood in a Midwestern city, was all-white, a block of like 60 identical two-family two-story buildings, all rentals except for one building, with the highest population of children on a block in the entire city. I would say approx. 1/3 of the families received welfare, quite a few divorcees with lots of kids and without much support. No crime, except the occasional domestic abuse behind doors, of course, besides their unforunate family (Frank McCourt style) situations, was actually a rather idyllic place to grow up for kids, we "ran free" without any danger, the schools were good though overcrowded. I'm pretty damn sure most of my childhood "olly olly oxen free" mates are middle class now. And the old neighborhood buildings still exist as for lower/working class, but they are owners now, the yards are tidier, they all have siding or recent paint jobs. Is that gentrification? I wouldn't call tidiness and fixing broken windows gentrification.

I do appreciate the detailed reply--if my impressions are totally wrong I guess I'll just have to accept it--my environs are pretty rural, and my naivete extends accordingly.

There is one apparent irony. The reform trend you note seems to be of lower density, or at least fewer stories, in residences, but further concentration and centralization in commerce. And both trends seem to have sensible reasons behind them, but those reasons seem to conflict. The family has greater control over their own home, and the community benefits from the greater efficiency and uniformity of the corporate retailers. But wouldn't incestuous towers and their corresponding high density also offer efficiency benefits--in heating and transportation? And wouldn't the shopowner have greater autonomy within their store than a retail worker in a chain store? It just seems to be part of a greater trend in which our hours of consumption and child-rearing, though somewhat fewer in number, are filled with more opportunities, but our working hours are filled with central direction and economics of scale.

I felt that the fourth season was a bit of a cheat. It's primary purpose, story-wise, was to set us up for Season Five.

It did a very good job of that, and I am really looking forward to Five. But this entire season never had an overwhelming plot thread to push it along from moment to moment, and instead mostly had to rely on the formidable talents of the cast, writers, and crew to carry it from scene to scene. The talent was sufficient to make that work most of the time, but it didn't work as well as when the same talent worked in the context of an overall plot driving most of the show's events.

Several of the disparate plot threads carried in Season Four carried enough individual weight to create dramatic impact, to be sure, and enough of those threads progressed into crisis to make the last three episodes as compelling as some of the good episodes of the first three seasons, if not quite up there with the very best (e.g., Avon and Stringer telling each other goodbye in thinly-veiled code, or Frank Sobotka walking to a meet with the Greek that the audience knew would be his death). But I felt kind of cheated when I realized, with about 15 minutes left in the final episode, that nothing was really wrapped up and that the season's main plot arc, at least in terms of the overall story that has lasted throughout the four years of the shows, was the dissolution and recomposition of Major Crimes. That was the story that got wrapped up neatly in the last minutes of the last episode, and I couldn't help but recall that, in each of the first three seasons, the composition of Major Crimes for purposes of the season's story was always a sub-plot that got handled in the first few episodes and then got out of the way of the main story.

Cheaters!

So, not only do I have to wait until Sunday to see the episode, this discussion thread will be all old and smelly by the time Monday rolls around. Bummer X 2.

(I closed my eyes in order to scroll down and leave a comment. No spoilers for me, thanks.)

The purpose of the season was to highlight the schools. Simon and Burns et al did a 30 minute promo, aired on On Demand, where they explained their focus on the stories of the 4--Dukie, Randy, Michael and Namond. We may see them in Year 5, but clearly the focus was on that Junior High and Prez's and Colvin's little victories and big defeats in explaining to the audience just how the players manuever between home, school and the streets in their early years in becoming players. The city, Major Crimes, the rise of Daniels, the ebb and flow of McNulty, Bump, Kiya, Carver,Herc,the head of homicide, Carcetti/Royce/Rawls/Burrell were all advanced, but the stories of the corner-stoop kids was the focus of Season Four.

Focus and plot are two different things.

I advanced this "Season Four = no clear plot" idea about mid-season and got a lot of pushback, and I really don't understand why. It seems pretty clear to me that this season was much less tightly plotted, much less cohesive, than the first three.

If you're interested in solving inner city blight, then maybe Season Four was the Best TV Ever. But if you just like good stories and well-put-together TV shows, this season ticked downward a bit. As I said originally, I think it's primary function in the overall narrative was to set up Season Five, which truly should be a butt-stomper.

"much less tightly plotted" I'd agree with, "much less cohesive" I wouldn't. I thought in many ways season three was a set up for this one, although it did have a more definitive conclusion. Season one and two had the clearest arc and conclusion of them. This season seemed more like a semester in the life of west-baltimore adolescents, with the less definitive conclusion being the paths they are on at the end of it. I still thought with that lack of plot it was incredibly cohesive and moving.

Too many plotlines, too many characters, not enough interconnections. The whole Bubbles plotline, for example: how exactly was it related to the rest of the story? Suppose you hadn't seen seasons one through three and didn't know Bubbles--how much would that plotline do for you?

How 'bout Carcetti? Sure, some of his decisions affected matters at the PD, but was it necessary to get to know the mayor so well to understand how those effects would play out?

Each of the first through third seasons could be viewed as a unit, a story. It was richer if you watched them all the way through from 1 of 1 through 13(?) of 3, but you could start with the first episode of season two or three, watch that season without any preceding context, and enjoy it very much and understand almost everything. I don't think you can say any of that for season four.

As I've said, I do think it set us up very well for a magnificent season five, but an entire season as set-up was a bit of a let-down for me.

Or at least it fells that way at the moment. OTOH, Season Five will advance to the plate with the sacks jammed. If it hits a tape-measure job, I can always change my opinion.

Matt,

Now that the season-ender has been broadcast, can you promote this back up from archives to your main page--please?

"Too many plotlines, too many characters, not enough interconnections. The whole Bubbles plotline, for example: how exactly was it related to the rest of the story?"

I agree with this, to an extent: Bubbles and Cutty in particular seemed a bit disconnected from the show this season; it seemed like the writers gave them a few minutes per episode just to keep the characters around. Bubble's season plot could have been taken care of in one episode, and the Cutty-as-player drama seems unnecessary. They should have been treated more like Pearlman, or even McNulty, neither of whom had much to do this season and were mostly used as background.

But the above is the closest thing I have to a criticism of the show: the Season 4 finale is certainly the best Wire finale yet--Bubble's breakdown at the end was worth his overdone plotline (BTW--am I alone in thinking that Kima's plotline this year was to hint at her becoming soft and institutionalized,like Landsman?); Bodie's death was as disturbing as D'Angelo's; the greeks are back; Prop Joe seems to be a bit off his game (prediction for season 5: Cheese changes over to Marlo's crew and becomes a thorn in Joe's side...) Carcetti's plot, I thought, was well done: the final shot of him, at his desk in a dark room, embodied his short mayoral reign; his disconnection from the education plot--represented in the finale by his failure to meet with Colvin--is actually quite crucial--education suffers because it takes a back seat to crime...

The season did have a strong narrative arc--Prez and his students--that was satisfactorily--and unexpectedly--completed (I did not see Ducquan's ending coming; Randy's last scene was as difficult to watch as Bodie's.) This is the best show on television, no doubt.

BTW, I take it Dominic West is back full-time for season 5? (I thought it was his choice to be background this season?)

Thanks for the episode post-motems, Matt--they were much better then the clowns on Slate (can they please hire people who watch the show to comment on it?!?)

i agree that this season probably wasn't as tightly plotted, because there was so much going on. i don't think this was because of bubbles or cutty; i think it had more to do with the politics, specifically from the first half of the season. simon envisioned a spin-off series about the election and carcetti's reign; obviously they didn't get that, and had to combine those plot aspects with the wire proper. the political drama of the campaign was fascinating, but i felt that it's presence was distracting. once the election was over, the mayoral politics were much more relevant because they related to the policies enacted in the schools and the police dept., those being the focal points for the show.

i got the sense that bodie was in trouble ever since he got upset about little kevin's death and poot compared it to their handling of wallace. in bodie and wallace's case, there was no direct evidence of snitching, but the perpetrators of their deaths were "vindicated" in their decision by the fact that it had occurred. bodie was a great character, but the point has been made that as he described himself, he was destined to be a pawn (that "internal rhyme" was great, and i felt also pointed to bodie's somewhat pronounced echo of d'angelo in his development).

bubbles i felt represented how people of value can be lost by the system; now that kima doesn't need him, she doesn't support him, and obviously herc offers no support. and i fully agree with b.vickers about kima being institutionalized; her response to when lester asked her how she was liking homicide (while she was doing nothing and talking on the phone) keyed me into that, and then again at the end when she wouldn't talk to bubbles.

the cutty issue is also relevant, but i think his player problem might be an attempt to illustrate all of the complex ways that barriers can develop between these youth and authority figures. and his interactions with michael provided some amazing insights in michael's psyche, so i don't think he was extrantaneous at all this season.

has anyone noticed that cheese and randy have the same last name? is wagstaff in any way common? i doubt it, so i wonder in an effort to get randy out of the group home they hunt for a relative and find cheese. and it seems that cheese is joe's nephew, so that might connect randy and joe (and definitely does not lend itself to a scenario where cheese breaks with joe, given the familial relation).

someone has mentioned this, and as we all know the show is deeply pessimistic, but i think a major point is that now with a bunch of real police running things, efforts at change will still be futile, whether because of political machinations or systemic issues. ultimately, the question almost is: where and how can we make progress? i don't feel the show is intended to provide answers.

I agree that Season Four was in many ways a set-up for Season Five, but I also see it as valuable and compelling.

I have not seen the interviews, etc., with the show's creators and writers, so I am not basing my comments on what they have said, just what I've seen in the series.

This show has always expanded its focus as the episodes and seasons progress. Beginning with cops and drug dealers, they then added the ports and the unions, and they then added city hall and a fantasized look at legal drugs, and now we have even more city hall and the heartbreaking look at kids and the schools and growing up in and around "the game." (Not a complete list, just a top-of-my-head overview.)

Season Four did not have any kind of big resolution, or resolutions. But apart from the characters who get killed, what resolutions are there on this show?

Avon got arrested and locked up in Season One, but he was back on the streets in Season Three. He got locked up again, and Marlo and the co-op step up to supply the drugs and sell on the corners. You can say that Avon's part was resolved, but the show is saying - so what? Someone will replace him.

This season was about the kids and the system and "the game." On those terms, this season was still excellent.

We have to wait for next season for the Major Crimes investigation to move forward, but I doubt that anything will really be resolved. If Marlo gets killed, or locked up, or takes over the business - what has really changed?

The answer to Colvin's question about "when does it change?" is, according to the show, "never."

bodie can't be dead....he survives only to come back stronger and bring down marlo and his crew.....to take all of the corners back...the bullets miss his brain within inches....its not over by a long shot....bodie did not die .........I HOPE!!!

Did anyone notice when Carcetti and Wilson go to Annapolis the first time to ask governor for money, he briefly talks to a security guard downstairs, I think guard is played by the real governor of Maryland - Ehrlich.


Comments closed December 19, 2006.

Copyright © 2007 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.