"The Wire" on HBO

man season five is some bullshit
― =皿= (dyao), Sunday, December 27, 2009 5:14 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark

Not going to say this is wrong, because everyone has their own take on each of the seasons but I have to admit that I was far more engaged in season 5 than I was in 3 or 4 (despite them being very very good) because of my work in print. I knew exactly where Simon was coming from in that season though I can understand why most people wouldn't find it as interesting.

My problem with the newsroom element of S5 was not that it wasn't interesting. It's that it was heavy-handed, among other things. No problem with newsroom drama, or even stuff about the business/politics of publishing, in principle.

That's exactly it. I'm a media advisor, and most of my friend are reporters, but Season Five is the very definition of heavy-handed.

Rewatching season 5, I, much of the time, didn't feel much other than aggravation, especially already knowing that Scott is an asshole, etc.

I said waaaay upthread that David Simon's cynicism had started to curdle his sensibilities; the last few episodes are one long, attenuated take on that Simpsons thing about an old man shouting at a cloud.

yeah i probably said this somewhere upthread, but as soon as they introduced the fabricating-reporter angle it was eyerolling time. not that that doesn't happen, obviously it does, but of the many problems with american journalism that one ranks pretty low. it mostly doesn't happen, and when it does, it mostly is not in any particularly important way. (even something like the jayson blair case didn't really have much substantive impact, he didn't affect the outcome or general perception of any major issue.) that combined with mcnulty's loopy fake-serial-killer thing just made the whole season a lot less sophisticated than, say, the take on the school system in season 4.

i loved season 5--none of it feels cynical or heavy handed to me.

it mostly doesn't happen, and when it does, it mostly is not in any particularly important way.

you really think newspapers publishing lies isn't important?

if it's making up stuff about local events (as opposed to like, wmds) it's not that important imo
season 5 was stupid

you're stupid

;)

: D

if it's making up stuff about local events (as opposed to like, wmds) it's not that important imo

otm. it was just a cheap plot device, and one that didn't have much to do with the actual problems of american journalism. the equivalent would be if season 4 had had some big plot line about sex between a student and a teacher.

the whole show was about Baltimore, though, and if had been a fake story about a larger, national issue, I think it would come off as cheap. faking stories, no matter what level they are on, is an Actual Problem of American Journalism

it did come off as cheap! the baltimore sun *is* a terrible paper though, so in that respect i thought it was realistic

you're cheap

:)

i didnt read it as a "faking stories" thing anyway--it was more about the way the editorial heavies leaned on the newsroom to produce 'dickensian' content, bait the pulitzer, & so forth

yup

faking stories, no matter what level they are on, is an Actual Problem of American Journalism

it isn't, really. i mean, it just doesn't happen enough to waste a lot of time worrying about. there are much bigger, more important structural problems and biases, including the kind of corporate dickishness max is talking about and that was well represented in the season. but adding the fabricating-reporter angle (and especially giving him a pulitzer) was just hollywood-level clunky, in a series that was mostly distinguished by avoiding that kind of obviousness.

it might not happen "a lot" but the fact that it happens at all is pretty fucked up

I fabricate my posts on ilx all the time

xpost sure, but it's kind of like acting as if drug-addicted doctors were a major factor in the problems of the american health care industry. everybody knows there are drug addicted doctors and ok that's a problem, but it's really sort of irrelevant to the big picture of american health care.

and david simon knows better, is the point. he knows enough to have done a much more sophisticated critique, and he took an easy route. (i did like other parts of the newsroom stuff, especially gus and the way he was treated by his horrible bosses. that felt pretty true to life.)

just finished it. lol at gov carcetti. I wonder how many standins Simon has in the series upon a rewatch; gus seemed like one to me

leaving season 5 aside, it seemed like simon identified with mcnulty but had some kind of aspirational relationship with omar.

season 5 was pretty bad imo. it's the only season i didn't buy, and i probably won't ever bother buying it. very much agree with you, tipsy, about the drug-addicted doctor analogy. it's like, obviously this is a bad thing, but it isn't like it is so widespread that our system is broken because of it. there are built in checks and balances, which the show demonstrates.

i would have preferred to see a corporate 'conflict of interest' angle, or maybe a political press corp toady-who-doesn't-want-to-lose-access angle, but i guess it would have been tough to cram into a show about Baltimore cops.

Obviously S5 was a bit heavy-handed on the topic of journalism, sure...won't deny that at all...but despite that I still can't condemn it like some of you seem to want to. Maybe some of the heavy-handedness on this was because Simon was too close to the topic? Either way I'd rather have a heavy-handed take on this and be sure that the message got out than having it appear as a more nuanced thing and have some people miss the real point of it. Maybe there was a better balance that would have kept everyone happy though.

BTW, strenuously disagree with the talk above that it doesn't matter as much when it's fabricating stories on local issues. Local issues are often the ones that really screw the most disaffected members of our society right where they live, which is pretty damned important. But ultimately the point is that all "news" should be held to the same standard if people are going to be expected to trust any of it, either local or national, especially when national outlets often rely on local outlets for coverage around the country.

(FWIW don't take my defense of Season 5 to mean it's my fave - it's not, but people dismissing it outright is pretty baffling to me.)

no you're right it's definitely bad when they make up local stuff, but it's not as much of a systemic problem as the totally inept or nonexistent reporting of local issues you see in the irl baltimore sun, for example. which is way worse.

found out that omar's jump is based on a real event. now got a bit more respect for season 5.

also bought The Corner in the sales.

Donnie's jump was even from 2 floors higher.

I think that a lot of the more interesting issues at hand about newspapers - the sharp decline the industry has taken in the 21st century, resulting in a decline of the integrity of journalism, whether it's the quality of what's written/published or of writing/editorial practices - is there but is pushed behind the whole Scott and evil bosses story. The backdrop is more interesting than what's going on in the foreground.

I think the real story of Season 5 is that the Sun didn't post one story about anything that actually mattered in the entire season! They looked out the window and saw that the ghetto was on fire; they didn't know who Prop Joe was; etc.

I think the reason that Season 5 feels the weakest - and this is tied in to what others have said - is that it violates the ethos of the rest of the series. It's less about damage done by heavy blows and more about that done by "a thousand tiny cuts." It's the apathy, the bureaucracy, the mediocrity, conventions and routines - rather than gross incompetence or neglicence - the incompetence and neglicence are all routine and seen as "part of the game."

man marlo's flatness is almost made up for by that final shot standing on the corner in his gold suit, bleeding from his cut

I also love the way he goes 'yeah' under his breath like he's convincing himself that he's the best

I called it the last word on the '00s, which I don't think is pushing it:

http://www.vita.mn/story.php?id=80419047

IRL Wire-type shit:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126213528444809699.html?mod=article-outset-box

(lol @ the ridiculously outdated photos)

One Los Angeles-area Latino gang, Barrio Hawaiian Gardens

lol, scary sounding

feel like a lame for catching onto this so late, but season one was fucking mindblowing, wow. just went out and bought the next two today, and judging from the poll results everyone pretty much agrees the nest three seasons are better? what???? really looking forward to watching

also SPOILER and i'm sure everyone feels the same way but wallace getting shot really fucked me up, that shit is giving me nightmares

Sometimes I actually say to myself "Wallace didn't really die! He's an actor!"

yeah when I first saw it I was like "no way, there's no way they're gonna kill him"

helps prepare you for the rest of the deaths in the show, though

yeah really, i mean i cried like a bitch when it happened but it makes me sad just to think about it

i saw it like 3 days ago tho, i'll get over it

The realism thing is a bit of a red herring, yeah. The characters and institutions generally behave in realistic (or at least convincing) ways, but the dialogue and acting is definitely stylised. It's not a Ken Loach film.

― Communi-Bear Silo State (chap), Monday, December 28, 2009 2:48 PM (1 week ago) Bookmark

yes, ken loach's films are so much more realistic. ahahaha.

love this show and all that, but one scene that people seem to really love is omar in court, where he grandstands and says he's basically the same as the lawyer. the line is something like "i have a gun, you have a briefcase."

why do people like this, or agree with it? it would make a bit of sense if omar knew that levy was involved in killing people (which he is iirc? he not-so-tacitly recommends a murder?) but he doesn't know that, does he? levy's a lawyer who acts for criminals.

any road, despite the fact that the writers saw what was happening with the omar cult and had bunk call him on his shit, this scene bugs me.

he's talking about robbing drug dealers. they both leech off them.

bit of a difference between being paid by drug dealers to represent them in court, and robbing drug dealers at gunpoint.

maybeit would be a better dramatic conflict if the dealer had a court-appointed lawyer (im unfamiliar with the US legal system but i guess you have these?).

if he had a court-appointed lawyer it would make less sense, they don't get money from the defendants. i think you're just taking his zing too literally :/. i mean if they really were the same it wouldn't be that shocking for him to say that.

its implied that he at least knows levy is on the take from that crew. levys not helping him out of the good of his heart. of course there's a difference but theres also a similarity in that they both leech off of them.

helping them

and the scene is pretty hamfisted in the way its written, i'll give u that