The Sopranos Vs. The Wire

in every case you know something about their personality and their goals

like I said already, I have no clue about McNulty's personality and goals, beyond I R HARDASS COP

even his relationship w/his children and ex-wife is portrayed in those terms

he's a townie fuckup bro with a hair more smarts and observation skills than his peers and huge chip on his shoulder that sometimes serves as a motivation to work shit really hard

i mean yeah he's the easy-on-the-eyes white dude cop show guy. deadwood had a sheriff, too. it's still TV after all.

xp Shakey: SRY U LAK CLUE

haha well yes, I think that is part of his self-image! I mean, functionally speaking, his deal is to be the guy who wants to do "real police work" and pisses off or screws over everyone he encounters by refusing to acknowledge that it doesn't really work that way -- roll with it for a few seasons and this will get progressively more interesting and complicated, even during the seasons when he's not around much

put it this way: McNulty is basically a troll, and he trolls the police department

haha

i really began to love the mcnutty character (and all the cops, really) for embodying a conception of cop-life as a working-class intellectual curiosity, which, lo these many trillions of hours of cop show, hadn't been brought to life that way. they aren't geniuses or heroes or angels, they just Want To Know.

"i really don't think david chase was trying to go for a karma thing in the sopranos."

what's with the tony in therapy moaning "why is this bad stuff happening to me" then?

in the wire, the bad stuff is the game.
in the sopranos, there's some moral judgment component to the bad stuff.
if it's not karma, maybe it's catholic or something.

the point is tony is self-pitying and self-deluded, not that he's being punished.

i mean come on, this guy has it better than pretty much anyone else on the show, you don't see a little irony in him kvetching about that?

that is some serious point-missing - Tony is totally manipulative of Melfi in therapy

melfi's pretty all up with the righteous indignation -- supposed to represent viewer right? be all shocked at tony's bad behavior but complicit in it too?

haha tony is chase, manipulating us viewers.

^^^yeah that's one of the ways I see it

i always thought the show had a sorta catholic point to make w/r/t melfi: she's too locked into a secular/medical view of tony to realize that his problems are moral. it's not his screwy psychology that causes him to do bad things, it's his sins that make him miserable.

I don't agree with this at all, actually!

This obv not clear cos you really should! The plot, the energy of the show is at the social level, the characters exist independent from that, but they're there because of their roles&their staying power is dependent on them. The drama comes from characters differing abilities to work the gap between where they are and who they are, manipulating their circumstances w/various degrees of skill to further their goals or get along. Professional, social stuff, wins out over personal relationships a lot in the Wire, w/characters turning on each other when prudent, home life suffering&c, a lot of the extra-professional loyalty ends up tragic. Characters are very vulnerable when their role is at threat or they're not 100% in it. The characters who do well manage their own shit very cautiously re:outside forces or put it away completely, there's a lot put on codes of conduct, even by the most free&powerful characters like Omar&Marlo. I think individual fragility is one of the main themes.

by the end of the sopranos I'd say the message is: tony is evil and there's nothing you can do about it

thinking of the sopranos as a morality play where everybody gets their just desserts, that seems way off base to me

^^^yep. its Faust thing. and Tony is the devil.

its A Faust thing

melfi breaks the cardinal rule, you can't psychoanalyze a sociopath

what was great about the sopranos was how ruthless it was in exposing its characters delusions

it didn't always rub their noses in it, but it sure rubbed ours

is there a character in the sopranos who isn't wildly deluded about themselves and their life?

one legged Russian girl!

^^^seriously one of my all-time favorite characters

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_OiP3Y2_p3k8/R8VoYc8JnnI/AAAAAAAAAZ8/Qw81OrcRmxA/s400/svetlana.jpg

haha you got me

and yes she is hall of fame fictional character

She and the duck from the wire should do spinoff series.

(the duck being the equivalent character from the wire)

but yeah I agree that Sopranos is basically one loooong parade of delusion, obfuscation, and lies - and half the fun in the series is picking up on what is REALLY going on underneath all that.

x-posts

i always thought the show had a sorta catholic point to make w/r/t melfi: she's too locked into a secular/medical view of tony to realize that his problems are moral. it's not his screwy psychology that causes him to do bad things, it's his sins that make him miserable.

― Swat Valley High (goole), Friday, May 15, 2009 3:52 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark

not to repeat myself, but whether you judge her on catholic or secular/medical grounds, she's just as deluded about tony as he is about himself. true, if tony is the devil she can't exorcise him, but he's not; he's a sociopath, and she will never cure him. and being religious (e.g. carlita) doesn't make you any more well equipped to deal with tony. he's beyond redemption, beyond comeuppance.

They lead their lives and are generally punished for their lifestyle than any particular misdeed.
The rule is opposite for civilians on the show -- they make a stupid misstep and get pretty much immediate retribution, and we are meant to take delight in some of them,
like seeing Ben Kingsley cowed and frightened.

― Philip Nunez, Friday, May 15, 2009 3:12 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark

don't really agree with this - there is a capriciousness to the violence. some people last an episode, some seasons, before they meet their fate. some survive. but you never know when they're gonna get taken out, and nobody's safe.

if this was really some kind of catholic morality play, then tony's family would pay for his sins. in fact, I was certain when I started watching that it would end up there. how better to open tony's eyes to the suffering he's caused in the world? but no, the family ends in the same moral vacuum as in the beginning - worse in fact, because the only one with any moral judgment, meadow, ends the show just as blindly complicit as the rest of the family. it's cold-blooded and not exactly an object lesson in karma.

ok I'm gonna stop board lawyering the sopranos now

In the wire, the comeuppances feel like they are deterministic cause and effect/consequences. X mouthed off and got shot. Y drank too much and woke up in his own sick.
In the sopranos, the comeuppances feel like they have a guiding hand (a "heavy" hand). X succumbing to actual senility after faking senility. Y finding out he's an actual bastard.
If there isn't a heavy sense of morality behind these, there's at least a sense of irony.

nick sobotka's gf's boobs

^^ get a lot of attention for their brief time on screen, up there with Rawls at gay bar.

well everyone you mention them to, regardless of sex or orientation, goes "oh yeah, I remember those" -- apparently there was something magically captivating about them

I agree about Wire "comeuppances" being deterministic, though the whole joy is in how non-simple they are; pretty much everything that happens to people, good or bad, starts to feel like the inevitable tragic result of a whole network of political pressures, competing agendas, and -- maybe most strikingly, sometimes -- the personalities and mindsets of other people. (I guess the ultimate example of that being Randy and Herc.) What always impressed me was that this was never in some kind of "butterfly flapped its wings, leading to XYZ" way, it was always concrete pressures and decisions leading to interesting or unexpected consequences.

xp nabisco: Well, only some of the consequences are unexpected. A lot of them are very expected based on the logic of the institutions that the characters inhabit. One of the things that impresses me is that the characters know this, they are aware of these expectations, yet most of them continue on their tragic paths, aware of the probable consequences of their actions. There are definitely characters that "don't have a choice," (or have very limited options) but there are others that do, and their internal circumscription of their choices is part of the tragedy.

The whole deterministic aspect is played up by the wire, though. It's all about the eternal return that they've all been condemned to on account of the social structure their in, and the failure on part of social institutions or individuals to remove or change it; as Stringer says this right here is forever. Much more than just narrative movement, it's where much of the social critique is articulated, as the Sisyphean determinism is such a big part of the issue at hand.

Am re-watching it on TV at the mo, but one of the things that struck me was the first time was that the inevitability of it all, certain individuals are caught at the wrong place/time, there is a big room for CHANCE here.

Often think the characters are unaware of both that element (not that they could an awful lot about it anyway), but I am also unsure as to how aware they are of even probable consequences -- its all about staying in the system that pays your wages day in and out; the system is so large that potential trickle down effects get lost when making not only crucial, but any, kinds of decisions.

McNulty is the one guy that reminds of cops of TV series past, although he has way more motivation than Columbo or Inspector Morse (esp Morse, I mean why did he ever bother with being a cop in the first place? I can't imagine a young PC Morse). With Columbo you enjoy watching the chase and get easily lost in the chase, so I am not that bothered, and when he would only order but almost never finish his chilli because he got a breakthrough that was all well and good.

I was thinking about starting a thread about people who are OMG FRONTING with the Wire

― @kanyewest (Whiney G. Weingarten), Friday, May 15, 2009 12:35 PM (4 days ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

whiney come on. this is worse than u in the adventureland thread

Why do you assume The Wire is "accurate"?

― @kanyewest (Whiney G. Weingarten), Friday, May 15, 2009 12:57 PM (4 days ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

i mean this from a dude who is constantly talking about what REAL people are into & concerned w/ shattering our illusions about how popular x y or z is ... & you dont think alex can make some arguments about the show's verisimilitude? i mean thats one of the key things folks talking about the show discuss, & a large part of the show's power is derived from the way it resonates as an extremely accurate & nuanced examination of a particularly place & time

is there something about the Wire's didacticism that's more appealling to ILE than the Sopranos psychodrama...? Halfway through Season 2 of the Wire and I'm struck by how much of its weight feels like it comes from this sledgehammer "YOU ARE LEARNING HARD TRUTHS BY WATCHING THIS SHOW" kind of presentation. The acting isn't as good as the Sopranos. The direction/cinematography aren't anywhere close. The writing and dialogue are much more surface-level, not as nuanced - there are scenes I don't even need to watch with the sound on, they're so repetitive and predictable in "character A presents position A, character B counters with position B" way (for ex. every single scene with Daniels and his wife, or every single scene with McNulty and his wife, or every single scene with Bubbles and the cops - play out the same exact way and convey the same exact information). I am enjoying the Wire for what it is but I still am completely failing to understand ILE's lopsided response here....

Maybe its the appeal of this sprawling, manichean narrative - it doesn't really take much to understand what's going on, there's no subtext to unravel, no complicated characters to to ponder over - its just like watching a really complicated puzzle being assembled. This piece goes here, this piece goes here = ta-da CRIME DRAMA. (Sopranos is more like, I dunno, watching a painter at work...? Apologies for poor hastily assembled analogies)

what on earth is manichean about the wire?

The direction/cinematography aren't anywhere close.

well, one is pointedly cinematic, and one is pointedly not. what's the point of acting as if one wins and one loses because of that?

what on earth is manichean about the wire?

um, detectives good, drug lords bad (to state the most obvious example?)

all u mean by 'cinematic' is, like, 'good', 'uses the moving image in an expressive and interesting way'.

or lolz individuals good, institutions bad!

xpost