Thinking about “The Wire”

Adhip Amin
Jul 23, 2017 · 5 min read

I have been watching “The Wire” very closely over the past few week. I have just finished watching the fourth season, and I do not think I will watch the 5th until next month, not because I am not looking forward to it — you bet I am, but because I need to absorb what I have watched till now, what I have learnt; I need to internalise the characters and the context. Writing this piece now is an exercise which will help me do exactly that. So this is for me as much as it to motivate you to watch the show — nay — to study the show. I am also putting it off because I have to finish my thesis within the month. Just adding that there as an afterthought.

I will try not to ruin your experience by mentioning any spoilers — the most I will do here is to unpack some themes which struck me, something which you might you as a guide to watch the show. Instruments for reflection, if you will.

First let me start off by talking about characters. Whenever I watch a show, more than the background story, it is the biography of the characters that catches my mind’s eye — I try to see the world through their eyes. To reiterate: the story is just the background, their biography is what strikes me. At least this is how I watched this particular show.

Whilst watching the show I was constantly asking myself whether a particular character was good or bad, was virtuous or not, whether they were moral or immoral. I began to realise that doing so was frustrating my understanding of the key players. Most folks in “The Wire” escape the simple logic of good and bad; virtuous or not virtuous. The question you really need to ask yourself when you’re trying to understand a character is: how grown up are they? Have they got their shit together? But most importantly, do they know what they want — from life, from their job.

It will become clear to you that McNulty and Kima are not very mature, very much unlike Daniels or Freamon. The former two are, to the most part, unable to put their life together; they are unable to see what they do into a coherent whole. McNulty and Kima are unable to stitch different aspects of their life together. Freamon looks into McNulty’s eyes and tells him that the job isn’t going to save him, that police work is not going to fill him up. McNulty eventually realises this, of course, and says memorably: whatever made him fit to be an overworked and angry detective, made him wrong for everything else. Perhaps there is a lesson here for all of us: it’s not about the job in the end of the day, it’s how we look at out job, how we understand it — do we use it to fill us up, do we ever ask ourselves whether the way we do our job makes us good for the loved ones in our life.

The next character I would like to talk about is Bodie. One of the most heart wrenching moments for me in the show is when Bodie is lamenting deeply about how he played by the rules, how he respected those who needed to be respected, how he was disciplined — how he never cheated. But even then, after walking the right path, he was not rewarded, nothing ever came by playing by a code. Who is Bodie you might ask? ‘His questions are so familiar’, you may tell yourself. Bodie is a drug dealer down by the street corner. When he complains to his friend Poot about the injustice of the world, about how cold people are, Poot characteristically replied that the world is going one way (referencing global warming) , and the people, another.

I have left out a few other characters, most especially Omar. I cannot do justice to him, the man is beautiful. Watch him closely, study him.

Now let me move-on to some abstract themes.

Let’s look at translation here. Specifically, translation rules. The kids in the show — in the street and in the classroom, sometimes struggle to solve a math question, or an issue involving logic. The only way they can solve it is if somebody translates the problem in terms they can understand. The translation rules is essentially contextual information — knowledge that these kids have mastered in the street. The contextual information, that is to say, the translation rules, either need to be framed in terms of drug talk or money. When a child is unable to calculate the radius from a diameter — the teacher has to convert into a money problem, for the kid to then solve in a heartbeat. Once you give them context, they understand the logic — no problem. As Mr. Colvin says, these kids do not understand our world, but they sure as hell understand theirs. The study or test material in schools do not speak to their world. In one degree or another, most of us have experienced this.

I would next like to look at the role of institutions. Let’s draw a parallel between the police and the school. Both seek to “juke the stats” because it looks good politically. As Mr. Prez said: when you juke the stats, majors become colonels. The conservatism of these institutions stifles those who are different. The detectives who are better than their superiors, who are more serious, get the kick. The students who are different, feel cloistered. With the students the effect the institution has on them is very visceral to the viewer. The ‘corner boys’ — those student, boys and girls, who run corners for drug dealers, who will all most likely be dead in 10 to 15 years, those kids who come from extremely troubled families, are the most difficult to manage. As Mr. Colvin observes: the corner kids, they behave as if the teachers are the cops. For them coming to school is training for the streets. They exhibit the behaviour that would help them deal with the police and the criminal justice system. That will help them survive in the street. Who ever said the corner kids do not go to school to learn?