Author Archives: the_hitcher

Not a long post, but I wanted to say that these articles were so great to read right at the end of the year. I feel like they really dismantled some of the assumed notions people have about creative authorship in television (in particular to David Simon) as well as shined a light on the transformations material takes as its moved up the production chain to television (especially when the material falls into the hands of someone who may not share the writer’s vision).

With that in mind, what kind of conflicts do you see arising for television in the future? Looking at these articles, it’s clear on a specific level the obvious issues between Simon (who comes off as pompously all-encompassing) and Wright, whose style got lost in the production process. This is only one example where, even though the issue didn’t stem from viewers in particular, their idea for what they wanted the viewer to experience differed greatly. Thoughts?

Seeing David Misch speak today was a really great treat, but the point he made about pushing the envelope with “Duckman” before shows like “South Park” and “Family Guy” got me wondering: in another class I’m taking we read an article where comedy is described as the art which frees spectators and creators alike from fear of persecution and subjection.

When shows like the ones previously mentioned push the boundaries of “political correctness”, is it a testament to that idea? That we (as spectators and creators) should not fear those who threaten to crush an artistic vision? Does dramatic programming like we’ve studied so far have any type of similar purpose? Or is it more like the creators have a personal agenda and are simply out to tear down a society’s desire to maintain a safe and placid status quo?

Personally I like to think that the creators of these shows have some sort of bigger purpose than to just lampoon for the sake of proving another purpose wrong. But I believe with some programming (to me, particularly “South Park”) the creators invest so much of their personal interests and beliefs that, even though the material remains funny, there is an air of cynicism that takes away any other message that could be derived from the show.

In Talbot’s “Stealing Life”, there is an anecdote about actor Andre Royo (Bubbles) while on set in Baltimore for “The Wire”. He was totally dressed up and ready for a scene when a guy off the street just walks up to him, passes him a small bag of heroin and says something to the effect of “You need this shit more than I do.” Later on, Royo reflected on this moment as a validation of him looking enough like an addict out of West Baltimore by calling the bag his “street Oscar”.

I remembered earlier in the semester when we talked about a similar situation on the set of “Homicide”. A criminal who had just robbed a store or bank ran away from the scene and directly into a collection of actors costumed as Baltimore cops on the set of the show. Flustered and defeated, the criminal handed over the cash and gave himself up before even realizing that the cops were fake (he was consequently turned in anyway).

Though I find both of these stories humorous, it is a little disconcerting that these incidents are mechanisms of validation for the realism present in Simon’s shows. If Simon was so intent on bringing the real Baltimore to television, I would imagine that the attitudes around these stories might be less about hilarity and perhaps a little more about the understanding of the gravity of the problems that have been plaguing West Baltimore. It’s a tricky situation to negotiate though because, ideally, one would hope that the show could be confused for real life (if that is Simon’s complete and total intention). Thoughts?

I loved reading this article. I had been wondering throughout the duration of watching the show how much the fact that two white men who had many experiences with black people were capable of writing a show that was dominated by black characters, let alone thugs. It didn’t really bother me to have that knowledge but I definitely questioned the authority with which they wrote about and for drug dealing in West Baltimore.

My favorite points George mentioned was Chris Rock’s “nigga vs. black people” categories. There is certainly a stigma about discussing these “subcultures” within race, and it’s an issue that is part of every racial category. What I find even more interesting is how “thug” subculture appears to be disparaged upon within other racial groups, while the focus on glorification of that lifestyle occurs primarily within Hispanic and Black racial groups. Is this an unfair claim about what gang members (and their portrayals) are like? Considering characters like Stringer Bell and D’Angelo Barksdale, what is The Wire trying to say about what the definition of a thug is?

Polan argues that the transient nature of The Wire allows the material of the show to transcend time and people. This is often seen as a trait of good cinema where, due to the time limitations of a full-length feature, the material must be able to cover a lot of time without leaving the audience feeling like they’d been ripped out of time or rushed through a story. I believe for The Wire to have a similar ability is a mark of David Simon’s appreciation for work that is meticulous and representative of the real world. Nonetheless, his focus on one particular part of Baltimore life through many facets (police & dealers, the media, the docks, etc.) makes The Wire seem less adaptable to other locations (though it is often attributed to being an honest representation of urban life in the US in general). It also takes away from the credibility that Simon is giving an honest and comprehensive portrait of Baltimore and its inhabitants.

Is there any place that The Wire could be transplanted to? What do you think the viewership of the show would think if suddenly white suburbia popped up in the show? Or more interestingly, more of the black middle class? Would that open up a whole other world of race issues in the show or do you think it would reiterate in some way the race and class issues already prevalent in the Baltimore of The Wire?

By now, the novelty of the gag reel on a DVD, film or television, is kind of a staple. I know that for me, it’s really hard to watch a show or movie without looking for (or viewing) the collection of flubs from behind the scenes. Though I don’t always go looking for them, my family (notoriously my brother and father) always must see them and are disappointed when they are missing from the menu.

After discussing the Kompare reading and analyzing the pros and cons of the extras on DVD box sets, what do you feel is the place of something like the gag reel? Or other features that are similar/connected? I feel like it’s truly is harder to create comedy than drama, but the gags are to me only the funny mistakes that happened on set. Viewing them before or after the programming can definitely change the perspective of how the media in interpreted.

After watching The Corner, Homicide and beginning The Wire, I had gotten used to a particular presentation of the drug dealer. Not necessarily ugly, I saw them as usually being weathered and intense in their gaze or presence (unless, like DeAndre in The Corner, they are younger and not completely accustomed to the lifestyle). This changes a bit from series to series, and there are certainly some very good-looking actors who portray dealers in the shows. But in the film adaptation of Clockers, despite Mekhi Phifer’s talent as an actor, it was hard for me to get past the fact that it was Mekhi Phifer I was watching.

Understandably, films need people with strong, handsome features to bring in audiences. I know that in 1995, Phifer was not a big name by any means (he only had one other major credit to his name and it was for a TV film). Still, his youth and attractiveness was, for me, a somewhat distracting factor in watching his portrayal of Strike. Of course, it serves as a visual reinforcement of the lack of maturity and street savvy he has in the film as opposed to the novel, but all same it caused me to take him a little less seriously in the role had they chosen a harder-looking actor. At the same token, it probably would’ve been disastrous if there had been a bigger name cast; that would be completely distracting.

After starting the book and watching 3 episodes of The Corner in a row, I couldn’t make any senses of my feelings about the meaning of the show, primarily David Simon. Clearly he invests a lot of time, consideration and respect for others in these projects he took up (that’s counting this and Homicide) but I really wondered where he was going with this particular work.

I felt that at times that, though Simon and Burns turned out phenomenal work, the authors were kind of pretentious in their writing. Going back to what we were saying in class today, I just can’t tell is there is a message to be derived, if this is just about having the knowledge that places like West Baltimore exist (though I believe that places like that are exposed so much that to see this now is less shocking than even until a couple of years ago), or if they’re just out to prove that they now have two halves of a story. Do you think that either Homicide or The Corner have anything to prove? Or is it just about knowing? And does just knowing make the audience passive, as had been earlier assumed in television studies, or because they are so immersed in this world is it too much to ask the viewer for a solution? I know that this was touched on in class but I wanna hear more answers.