In Jason Mittell’s article, “All in the Game,” he inserts a quote from David Simon:
The Wire has…resisted the idea that, in the post-modern America, individuals triumph over institutions. The institution is always bigger. It doesn’t tolerate that degree of individuality on any level for any length of time. These moments of epic characterization are inherently false.
The idea seems to be that if a television show chooses to posit characters as the catalytic forces rather than institutions, it is making no attempt at realism. This to me was extremely provocative, and I found myself readily in agreement. When one sees a program like Homicide or a film like Clockers, it’s difficult to mitigate the territory of who is responsible for the deterioration of individuals’ lives and entire communities. One is almost too entangled in the interpersonal relationships and minds of the characters. Yet, I find that The Wire doesn’t necessarily ask its viewers to place blame. Through shying away from an interior character focus, and instead making an attempt at presenting the nuances of the larger system, The Wire refuses to propagate the myth that any one person’s individual agency can save them.
3 responses so far ↓
heldma // 11 November 2009 at 11.43 am
I agree with Mittell and your point that The Wire lives up to its goal of portraying the individuals as units of the dominant institutions, as opposed to the individual as a singular force that can defy norms in order to “break free.” Clearly as we have seen in the case of D’Angelo in season 1, once he was arrested and initially was willing to cooperate with the police in exchange for it all (his drug life) to just “go away,” only to be guilted by his mother’s loaded appeals to his value of family. We also saw this with Wallace and his short-lived move to the eastern shore. They both had this sense that if they just left, they would be free. But they both meet hard ends.
jmikva // 11 November 2009 at 2.20 pm
Though I understand Mittell’s (and your) argument, I don’t know if I completely agree with it. Yes, in many situations, and particularly situations such as that shown in The Wire, the truth is people are by-products of where they come from, and it is often very difficult to escape that, no matter how hard someone may try. However, I think a key point to make is that this is true when that person chooses to continue to play in “the game” as both Mittell and Schwartz call it. One arguement that Schwartz makes in the end of his article, however, is that McNulty (in spite of what he may feel) is actually one of the few winners in the show, as he leaves (or is kicked out of) the game. I think this alludes to the fact that in both the show, and in real life, though it may be difficult to escape the fates within the game, it is possible to leave the game completely. (Another example of this is the kid in season 4 who leaves the city to live in the suburbs with the former chief of police).
mdobright // 21 December 2009 at 7.10 pm
I think it is more of a dialectic. Within The Wire there seems to be no instances of individuated merit, and if so it is representationally criminalized. However, what is present implicates what is absent. The absence of individual triumphs does not mean they do not occur, but they are not predominant and they are not rendered within The Wire’s construction. The Wire represents moments of systemic subjugations of constituent citizenry, which with out collective interrogation persists. Also significant is people are constitutive components of the institution. What assists in propagation of mythology are the people and the ideological framework the people employ.