Telegraph Lines

The Wire has always been deliberately dancing on the edge of commercial and aesthetic viability. One of the things that makes the show so great -- it's uncompromising approach to storytelling -- has also tended to make it difficult to secure an audience. It's not intended to be watched "like a television show" where you just tune in on any given week when you happen to be bored. You need to watch one episode after another, in sequence, and pay attention. But people (myself included) tend to like the ability to dip in and out of things as schedule allows. Still, The Wire's approach has allowed the writers to craft a much more compelling product than what you normally see on television.

But after the second episode of Season five, I'm coming to share the doubts expressed by Kay Steiger and Jesse Singal. It seems very strange to pick now -- when the show can't be renewed or cancelled no matter what happens to viewership -- to suddenly decide to incorporate way more exposition than we're accustomed to. But that seems to be what's happening. Everything in the Sun plot is being marked out like a runway. Do you think the Unscrupulous Journalist and the Douchebag Editor are going to conspire to cause the Fall of American Journalism? I think they just might!

Maybe there's some cool double-reverse in the works and this is only being done in an apparently heavy-handed manner to throw us emotionally off track. Here's hoping....

Comments

Well put -- although I did enjoy the meta aspects of the editors' meeting, what with the "Dickensian" and the argument about leaving everything in.

Posted by Charlie Murtaugh | January 14, 2008 3:40 PM

It's also totally obvious that as McNulty is an avatar for Ed Burns, only with more drinking, Clark Johnson's (Meldrick Lewis from Homicide) Grizzled Veteran First-level Editor character is an avatar for David Simon. I don't see anything wrong with adding the newspaper storyline, but it does seem to be an area with way fewer shades of gray than the rest of the world. You have Unscrupulous Careerist, Douchebag Editor, Grizzled Veteran, and Good-hearted Rookie (the young female reporter who dislikes Unscrupulous Journalist).

I don't really see any reason to be pessimistic. The newsroom will probably be the most hamhanded area, but I don't think it's predestined to be singularly awful.

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | January 14, 2008 3:50 PM

"Everything in the Sun plot is being marked out like a runway."

The reason The Wire isn't The Greatest Show in the History of Television is that it's always had a weakness for extreme didacticism.

And the overly broad exposition at The Sun has certainly been making me groan.

Don't get me wrong. I do love the show. But it's always had some pretty glaring weaknesses. And so far, this season has been straying into its weaknesses more than last season.

Posted by Petey | January 14, 2008 4:00 PM

Matt - I love your blog and I love The Wire, but I'm in France for six months and I can't watch the new episodes. Could you please put any plot discussion under a jump or spoiler tags of some sort? I'd hate to fear clicking on your blog each day.

Thanks for the consideration.

Posted by Brian O'Connor | January 14, 2008 4:01 PM

Brian O'Connor,

The Wire is Marlo's sled.

Posted by Petey | January 14, 2008 4:03 PM

Yeah, the big departure in the newsroom seems to be that there are some characters who are totally bad and others who are totally good. In the rest of the world, any given character's actions can be justified. Most of them believe they are doing the right thing, or at least the best they can. It's what has made the show great--and what is making me worry about Season 5.

Posted by Antid Oto | January 14, 2008 4:04 PM

"I did enjoy the meta aspects of the editors' meeting, what with the "Dickensian" and the argument about leaving everything in."

I actually thought that moment was the key to understanding why season 5 is likely to be a letdown - Burns and Simon have been reading their good reviews and taking them a bit too much to heart.

Posted by Petey | January 14, 2008 4:08 PM

I am most concerned about the McNulty storyline. That seems like a bad idea.

This article apparently describes the situation that Simon is basing the Unscrupulous Journalist on:

http://www.citypaper.com/news/story.asp?id=10193

Posted by lemmy caution | January 14, 2008 4:12 PM

"It's not intended to be watched "like a television show" where you just tune in on any given week when you happen to be bored. You need to watch one episode after another, in sequence, and pay attention."

The same could be said about 24, except that with 24, millions of people want to watch it.

"Do you think the Unscrupulous Journalist and the Douchebag Editor are going to conspire to cause the Fall of American Journalism? I think they just might!"

Could it be that this seems more ham-fisted to you because you are so much more familiar with the field of journalism than previous areas of focus for The Wire (e.g., police vice squads, inner-city schools, etc.)?

Posted by Fred | January 14, 2008 4:13 PM

I think Petey is exactly right on this--it's as though Simon and Burns really took that shit about the Contemporary American Urban Landscape with all its problems laid bare seriously.

The Simon character looked foolish when he basically said "you know what this newspaper should be? The Wire! And if you don't do it I'll write my own TV program, including bad guys modeled on you horrible corporate whores."

Posted by Marshall | January 14, 2008 4:16 PM

My friends who teach in inner-city schools all love The Wire.

Posted by Antid Oto | January 14, 2008 4:16 PM

My friends serving life sentences for multiple drug-related executions all love The Wire too.

Posted by Marshall | January 14, 2008 4:18 PM

"It's not intended to be watched "like a television show" where you just tune in on any given week when you happen to be bored. You need to watch one episode after another, in sequence, and pay attention."

The same could be said about 24, except that with 24, millions of people want to watch it.

Actually 24 is the "anti-wire". Watch an individual episode and you get some cracking good over-the-top spy action. Mission impossible only with more torture.

But if you watch an entire season as a whole, you come to realize how ridiculous (and repetitive) it all is.

Posted by WillieStyle | January 14, 2008 4:20 PM

Blame the accelerated season. I imagine having their original plan for 13 episodes cut down to 10 has forced them to make more explicit what they originally intended to be implicit.

Posted by Jeff | January 14, 2008 4:24 PM

I'm not actually seeing more exposition in these episodes than in previous seasons. I think Ogged was right a week or two ago - the inevitable Wire backlash is starting up, and the usual cool kids are sensing the need to pounce on this.

Posted by Christmas | January 14, 2008 4:31 PM

I think this may also be a little bit of conditioning, both in terms of the Wire-verse, (hope for the best, but strongly expect the worst) and our (the blog collective's) familiarity with the lazy bullshit journalism narrative.

I'm much more concerned with the McNulty story line. Ok sure, he's a trainwreck waiting to happen, but don't we have more important things to do than witness him turn into Bubbles?

Posted by Pooh | January 14, 2008 4:43 PM

Maybe there's some cool double-reverse in the works and this is only being done in an apparently heavy-handed manner to throw us emotionally off track.

I wouldn't discount this possibility at all. Just last season Namond looked like he was headed toward a life in the drug trade, and by the end of the season he was in the most stable position of the four boys. Simon and Co. aren't beyond switching things up a little bit to throw people off at the beginning of the season.

Also, I do think it's important for journalists to remember that if the Sun stuff feels cliched, it's because most of us have studied these types of anecdotes extensively. Of course they're going to feel more explicit.

That said, I agree with the consensus after last night's episode. At the very least, I was incredibly unnerved.

Posted by eabrenna | January 14, 2008 4:55 PM

I'm in agreement with Fred and Christmas. I've read a ton of the advance coverage for this season and it feels like, since this season is taking place in the media's backyard, there's a rush to pile on and make sure that everyone knows that it's all so much more complicated than that and that the characters are obvious, etc., etc. I know nothing more about inner workings of a newspaper than I do about the inner workings of the docks or the drug trade and I'm learning it as I go. In the same way that Frank from Season 2 or D'Angelo from Season 1 slowly showed their colors and were asked to compromise more and more, I can see the seeds in Gus. It's like now that the show has arrived in the press' backyard, they feel the need to defend it, rather than simply taking it at face value: it's a system with good people, bad people and, at worst, (at least in the world of David Simon and Ed Burns) indifferent people. We've all heard the backstory and the sniping and the defense of good people in bad situations and somehow no one is looking at the actual show in that context.

Posted by J. | January 14, 2008 5:06 PM

The reason The Wire isn't The Greatest Show in the History of Television is that it's always had a weakness for extreme didacticism.

What I find really weird about all this hand-wringing is that people act as though this is all a new development. It's always been this way. When you have characters as compelling, acting as great, and storylines as intricate as this, it's easy to get away with a little ham-handedness. When the boxing coach went to get his permits, that wasn't heavy-handed? The top brass at the police department has ever been anything other than politics-obsessed impediments to real police work? It's always been this way. I think people are just less compelled by this season for plain old drama and storytelling reasons, and so the show isn't getting a pass on the obvious plot arcs and characters-as-archetypes.

Posted by Freddie | January 14, 2008 5:28 PM

"I'm not actually seeing more exposition in these episodes than in previous seasons. I think Ogged was right a week or two ago - the inevitable Wire backlash is starting up, and the usual cool kids are sensing the need to pounce on this."

I was sensing a backlash already in season 4, but that year kicked ass, so it didn't coalesce.

-----

The show has made an "interesting" dramatic decision in moving to the newsroom for the final season.

It's as if they've decided to introduce a Greek chorus for the epilogue - a crew that is above the game - and decided to spend the first half of the epilogue introducing us to the members of the Greek chorus.

These guys are mediocre storytellers telling a great story. The show has its ups and downs, consequently.

Posted by Petey | January 14, 2008 5:29 PM

I was really disappointed by the cheap plot device of Rawls and Burrell shutting the investigation down in Episode 1. You never would have seen that in previous seasons.

Posted by Barbar | January 14, 2008 5:31 PM

These guys are mediocre storytellers telling a great story.

That is a truly bizarre distinction, especially in this case.

Posted by Antid Oto | January 14, 2008 5:33 PM

These guys are really ambitious storytellers; the ambition lets them get away with occasionally being a bit ham-fisted.

Posted by Barbar | January 14, 2008 5:36 PM

"That is a truly bizarre distinction, especially in this case."

Why? It's always seemed the heart of the matter about The Wire to me.

Posted by Petey | January 14, 2008 5:38 PM

Also, I have no idea what Petey means by referring to the newsroom as being above the game -- they are clearly *part* of the game, especially the political game, which in turn will affect the police game and the drugs game.

Posted by Barbar | January 14, 2008 5:39 PM

" ... the inevitable Wire backlash is starting up, and the usual cool kids are sensing the need to pounce on this."

Seriously.

Besides, why wouldn't a newsroom plotline develop more in an argumentative, direct, talky fashion. Ever been in a newsroom? In an editorial meeting? Seems to me it's how they work, like it or not.

Do you really think the U Md law school story kill was unrealistic? That the hotshot reporter making bones for NYT or WaPo by making stuff up isn't based on reality?

C'mon, you think the Snot Boogie thing that started episode 1 was any less didactic in its own way?

I think this is 90% too cool for school backlash.

Posted by drinkof | January 14, 2008 5:41 PM

"These guys are really ambitious storytellers; the ambition lets them get away with occasionally being a bit ham-fisted."

That's part of it. It's also that they've got some great stories stored up from their histories and also from having good ears.

Posted by Petey | January 14, 2008 5:41 PM

I think this is 90% too cool for school backlash.

Ah. And the original, over the top, super-hyperbole praising it got was also the product of the cool kids, then. Or do you want to have it both ways?

Posted by Freddie | January 14, 2008 5:45 PM

But, the newsroom personalities think of themselves as part of the game.

Or rather, Grizzled Veteran First-level editor and presumably Earnest Female Rookie understand that they're part of the game, not dispassionate observers looking for pre-arranged narratives whose actions have no consequences. Meanwhile it's not clear whether Unscrupulous Careerist and Douchebag editor are bad or indifferent.

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | January 14, 2008 5:48 PM

C'mon, Douchebag Editor who looks for pre-arranged narratives must also surely be aware he is part of the larger game (you think he's just motivated by particular aesthetic preferences?) And although Unscrupulous Careerist may not be too aware of the big picture, he's already obviously portrayed as being very sensitive to internal newsroom politics.

Posted by Barbar | January 14, 2008 5:54 PM

I think it's pointless to make any attempt to forecast the path of a season of The Wire based on the first two episodes. The series demands attention, and that doesn't just mean paying attention to the small details of particular episodes, it means allowing the story time to grow and develop across the season. I don't know that any season would fare too well if you based your judgments on its first two episodes. Or if you judged Omar based on his first appearance.

Posted by mpb | January 14, 2008 5:58 PM

"Ah. And the original, over the top, super-hyperbole praising it got was also the product of the cool kids, then. Or do you want to have it both ways?"

Not entirely, maybe not even mainly. Whether the early praise was a product of real enthusiasm, too coolness, or what used to be called 'policy wonkism' is fundamentally unrelated to whether the backlash is based on too coolism. You can have one without the other.

Posted by drinkof | January 14, 2008 6:23 PM

These guys are mediocre storytellers telling a great story.

This is very well put.

For the record, The Wire has always had a fair amount of didacticism, hammy dialogue, and poor directing, but it's still a great show in spite of those things.

Posted by Toadmonster | January 14, 2008 8:37 PM

None of you has any idea how to talk about art.

Posted by M | January 15, 2008 2:57 PM

I think Jeff has it right. The season is shortened by a good two to three hours. Simon wanted thirteen episodes and HBO gave him ten. That's a large decrease and a strange one considering that Simon consistently came in under budget, but hey, at least we got ten episodes. A producer noted that the season would feel rushed and greater exposition and less character development seems to fit that definition. Plus, we're two episodes in, so let's see what the overarching story is before we lambast the newsroom angle too badly.

Posted by Childermass | January 15, 2008 11:58 PM

Seems to me that everyone's missing the point. Who cares whether Simon's got a bone to pick with his former editors. This is the first thing on TV that has bothered to show anything about the incredible destruction of America's newspapers -- the cutbacks, the reduced page size, the reduced number of pages, etc. -- over the last 10-15 years. The arc of the story clearly is on how newspapers have lost their way. Great. About time someone said it in a format that maybe a few can understand.

Posted by gwhiz | January 23, 2008 4:29 PM