The Wire – Season 4 Finale

Season 4 of The Wire follows the stories of many different individuals that live and work in the city of Baltimore. These stories all connect in one way or another and create building blocks for the main concept of the show. In addition, the television show illustrates what life is like for these individuals who are from different parts of Baltimore. Some of these stories include dope dealers pushing drugs on the street corner, a candidate running for mayor of Baltimore, and police officers who work for the Baltimore Police Department.

After watching the season 4 finale, it is clear that The Wire is an informative television program rather than an entertaining show. This is mostly due to the seriousness of the topic and the portrayal of the different stories displayed throughout the duration of the season. The Wire seems to have been well ahead of its time in regards to the way it portrays the lives of individuals. Everything, from living in the streets like Bubbles (Andre Royo) to working as a homicide detective like Jimmy McNulty (Dominic West), gives a vivid illustration as to what life’s really like for people living in Baltimore.

In conclusion, the show’s season 4 finale helps the audience see and understand what life is like through the eyes of someone from Baltimore. Although some might say that the show is too dramatic and dull at times, it is professional in its delivery and gives vivid illustrations rather than over exaggerated acting to deliver its message. The season 4 finale is a perfect example of what makes the show critically acclaimed. Would I watch the show again? Most likely. This is mostly because of the characters, the acting, and the overall illustration of life in the city of Baltimore.

Linda Williams & The Wire

Linda Williams shares about the way The Wire depicts race differently than the media. In today’s era, the media walks a very tight rope when it comes to covering stories that involve individuals from different backgrounds. Many comments have been made towards the media when they state different instances, some in which they only depict one side of a person’s background and fail to depict a proper illustration of a person’s race or community. Aside from these comments, Williams feels that The Wire gives a different depiction of race compared to the media’s idea of race.

The scene that represents this the most is found in the third episode from season one of The Wire. In this scene, one of the individuals explains to two of his friends how to play chess. The scene starts out with D’Angelo (Lawrence Gilliard Jr.) walking up to two of his friends from the neighborhood, Wallace (Michael B. Jordan) and Bodie (J. D. Williams). He sits down with them and begins to speak to Bodie about the situations going on throughout the neighborhood. That is when he also notices Wallace making an unorthodox move on the chessboard. D’Angelo goes on to ask him why he made that move and then proceeds to explain what the purpose of that certain piece was. Wallace later tells D’Angelo that both he and Bodie were simply playing checkers, unaware of how to play chess. D’Angelo explains to Wallace and Bodie the nature of each piece and what they do in the game. In addition to explaining the pieces, he also uses them as metaphors to explain the different statuses of everyone from the king to the pawn.

This scene is the best representation of race because of the relevance it has to what Linda Williams writes. Williams is suggesting that The Wire depicts race differently than how the media portrays certain races. The scene shows a side of an ethnic background that is different from what the media shows at times. It shows an intellectual side to individuals living in tough, urban areas. Every now and again, the media portrays people living in those areas as uneducated and not intelligent enough to know a sophisticated game, such as chess. In addition, the media may link these communities to certain races or ethnicities. In conclusion, the reason this scene is important is because it illustrates exactly what Williams is stressing. The Wire shows a particular race being depicted differently from what the media portrays and gives an illustration to Linda Williams’s argument.

The Most Intriguing Character in The Wire

The character in The Wire that catches people’s attention the most is Bubbles.  Bubbles is a troubled man who faces hardships and is very affected by his addiction. The audience sees many sides of Bubbles and they desire justice for him in every episode.  During the beginning of the season, the audience sees Bubbles mentoring his young intern, Sherrod.  Sherrod is a struggling kid and Bubbles takes him under his wing, gives him a place to sleep and provides him with an opportunity to make some money. This relationship is noteworthy because Bubbles is currently troubled by his own issues and addiction. Not only does Bubbles mentor Sherrod, he also re-enrolls him back into school so that he can better his math skills in the hopes that it will make him a more effective businessman on the streets.  A man who has no reason to help a struggling teen does so and it shows great character. The audience begins to have respect for a person who, at first glance, may not have deserved it.

Another relationship that becomes toxic, but entails many respectable underlying characteristics is between Bubbles and Thomas Hauk, aka Herc.  Bubbles agrees to help locate Herc’s stolen camera and help find a witness to Fruit’s murder.  However, the audience sees the relationship unfold when Herc repeatedly lets Bubbles down by not living up to his word. Herc promises to stop the man that constantly harasses and abuses Bubbles. Unfortunately, Herc ignores Bubbles when he calls for help.  However, the worst part of the relationship is how many times Bubbles goes crawling back to Herc because of the promises bestowed upon him.  Herc manipulates Bubbles into agreeing to help him out, yet Herc never once returns the favor.  The most Herc does for Bubbles is bring him some fried chicken and soda, but only because Herc needs another favor.  Bubbles’ faith in humanity is a very respectable characteristic that should not be overlooked.  It shows how much trust he has in people and how willing he is to give someone multiple chances.  The audience sees this when Bubbles takes in Sherrod and gives him an opportunity to make something out of his life. Later, that same notion is evident when Bubbles continues to see the good that can come from trusting a police officer.  Bubbles shows that even though he has a terrible addiction and is treated poorly, he still believes in humanity and all that it may possess.

Serial: Entertaining Storytelling

     

        When it comes to entertaining the public, there is a fine line between what is appropriate and what isn’t. The entertaining storytelling of Serial steers clear from crossing that line and is deemed appropriate, despite dealing with murder. The podcast is appropriate because the contemplation of the accuracy and efficiency of America’s justice system is important and the narrator does her best to account for the entire dynamic of the case without bias. There are times when the storytelling crosses the line of inappropriateness, but it is miniscule in comparison to the bigger picture of injustice within America’s criminal justice system.

           There are so many stories of innocent people being convicted of crimes and serving a ridiculous amount of time in prison only to have their case deemed a mistrial. There is nothing in this world that could make up for the damage done to a person who has suffered from a mistrial. Serial takes the murder trial of Hae Min Lee and provokes the audience to think about conviction injustices in America. Now, some may believe that Adnan is innocent and others may believe the complete opposite. The point is not to argue for his innocence, or lack thereof. The point is to get the audience thinking about the bigger picture. The sub-point of the podcast provokes the rhetorical question, “Is America’s criminal justice system serving an ethical purpose or is it just finding a convenient solution?”.  Serial’s entertaining storytelling gets the audience thinking about this idea. This question is important because there is a fear that comes with mistrials. If there are enough instances of injustice and mistrials within our system, then who is to say that it won’t happen to you? Americans put their faith in the power of truth. They believe that truth will prevail and trump all other things, but there is no point in having that faith if the criminal justice system defaults to what is convenient. This active contemplation throughout the podcast makes the entertaining storytelling appropriate because it is highly relevant in American society.

           Serial also does its best to present all accounts of the story. Relating this back to previous assignments, Serial tells multiple accounts of the story and refrains from telling a one sided story. Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie discusses the dangers of a single story and Serial makes sure that it steers clear from this danger. This aspect makes the entertaining storytelling of Serial appropriate. Koenig and the rest of the Serial cast appropriately format their production to tell a story without overstepping their position on a murder trial that happened over 15 years ago.

Serial: Sarah Koenig & Adnan Syed

       

       This particular conversation in the Serial podcast is very interesting. The most interesting part is the end of the conversation. Adnan is upset that people keep saying that they think he is innocent because he is a nice guy. He mentions that very few people think he is innocent based on his case. His frustration is reasonable because people’s opinion of his character does not help his case much. Instead, Adnan wants people to believe his side of the story. In a trial, a case’s facts will usually triumph over a suspect’s character. If a lawyer makes a decent case against someone, then their character/personality is somewhat irrelevant. Frequently, there are cases where a nice person is convicted or a bad person is set free. Adnan wants to prove his innocence with his case rather than his character. Perhaps, Adnan is under the impression that people do not believe his case. It is reasonable to expect his supporters to mention the faults in his case if they saw potential issues with it. By people mentioning his character exclusively, maybe they do not truly think he is innocent. This idea could be an alternative root of his frustration.

        The other interesting part of this conversation is when Koenig mentions that she knows Adnan. In a way, Adnan disagrees with her assessment of their relationship. It is surprising that Koenig thinks she knows Adnan. Koenig only talks to Adnan on the phone about the case. In addition, they have only talked on the phone for approximately 30 hours. Koenig makes it seem like 30 hours is plenty of time to get to know someone. This does not seem like enough time to truly get to know someone. Also, it seems like Adnan is giving extremely safe answers. When Adnan is talking about the case, it is apparent that he thinks carefully about his words. Some people might think that Koenig is getting a censored version of Adnan.

       Perhaps, Koenig realizes that she does not really know Adnan. However, she understands that this can be exploited because Adnan comes off as a nice guy. Koenig might be trying to convince the audience that Adnan is a nice guy. By portraying Adnan as a nice guy, Koenig is creating a character that people feel bad for. In any story, having a nice guy that is wrongly convicted makes for a very entertaining plot. Would the audience still be addicted to the podcast if Adnan were a bad guy? The answer is no. Koenig may or may not really know Adnan. However, she can manipulate his portrayal to create a more interesting narrative.

Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie: The Danger of a Single Story

Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie’s speech, The Danger of a Single Story, stresses Adichie’s idea of how the dangers of hearing one particular story about another person or country can create a critical misunderstanding. Adichie describes her upbringing and the situations where she receives only one story about a particular race or culture. These stories cause her to think a particular way about them. Adichie goes on to discuss how those same situations work against her favor. For instance, Adichie speaks about her American college roommate and explains how the roommate thinks Adichie is incapable of working a stove. Adichie’s speech argues that individuals should not be judgmental about a culture because they listen to only one side of a story. Humans should build apathetic ideas about other cultures and should not believe in stereotypes about one’s upbringing.

Although Adichie and I come from different walks of life, I feel that there are some similarities between us. Adichie discusses how one story can create a one-sided illustration about an individual or their culture. Throughout my life, I have had similar situations happen to me. Due to me being of Mexican descent, other students automatically assume that I come from a town where my relatives live in huts and walk on cobblestone roads. However, most people are unaware that I actually grew up in metropolitan Guadalajara and most of my family live in Mexico’s upper-middle class neighborhoods. Many people are mistaken when I show them pictures of where I typically stay when I visit and are “surprised” that I visit the “nice part of town”. I feel like this part of my life relates to Adichie’s speech because people only hear one side of the story regarding where I come from and how my family lives back home.

Cells & Serial

Rabia Chaudry’s “Lets Talk About Cells, Baby” and Stephanie Van Schilt’s “Is Serial Podcast Problematic?” both critique Sarah Koenig’s podcast, Serial. “Lets Talk About Cells, Baby” suggests that Serial doesn’t meet the expectations of an accurate and correctly investigated case. Chaudry’s blog serves as a guideline for why she believes Adnan is innocent. Rabia Chaudry utilizes data from pinpoints of cellular towers to try to prove that Jay’s testimony is inaccurate due to the towers being unreliable at certain points. She publishes a map of the cellular towers and provides information on the times that incoming/outgoing calls were connected to Jay’s phone. Chaudry also looks at the location of the towers and the distance between them. All of this shaky information is proof of potentially inaccurate evidence in the case against Adnan. Chaudry’s intent seems to be on proving the innocence of Adnan by using the information that was provided. Although Rabia Chaudry leaves the readers skeptical about the case, her opinion describing the flaws of Serial can be considered credible.

Stephanie Van Schilt’s “Is Serial Podcast Problematic?” explains why the podcast can be seen as unethical. Van Schilt suggests that the podcast makes Hae’s family insignificant. The people involved in the podcast are real, and they deal with day-to-day problems. For example, Hae’s family is probably still devastated about their loss. Schilt explains how Keonig intends to ignore the testimony of the people involved with the homicide because of the trauma that they have experienced. However, Koenig fails to be truly sympathetic towards Hae’s family. For example, Van Schilt brings up the question about how Hae’s family feels about the podcast. She also utilizes Hae’s diary to try to show the audience that she is a normal teenage girl. Koenig does this to bring a popular suspense element to the podcast. Koenig fails to grasp how significant it is to take into consideration people’s emotion and trauma after such a horrific event.

Persuasion and The Wire

                Persuasion is a tool utilized by David Simon’s The Wire in many intriguing, dark, and inspiring ways. This aspect of Michael Lee’s life is one that is quite subtle, yet extremely powerful at the same time.  Michael’s character has a major plotline in the spider web of storylines shown throughout The Wire.  Lee’s story contains drug addicted parents who have no real connection to neither him, nor his younger brother, Bug.  However, the audience sees the strength of Lee’s character by the way he takes care of his brother.  For instance, Michael and Bug come home from school, passing their drugged out mother and her boyfriend.  The audience sees that Michael sits Bug down, gets him a snack, and encourages him.  Michael encourages Bug by suggesting that he start his math homework because it is his favorite.  Simon’s goal is not only to create the character of Michael, but to show his desire for a better life for himself and his brother.  Most people can relate to this on many different scales.

        The persuasion that The Wire uses helps the audience relate to the character of Michael Lee.  This type of persuasion is seen as a good thing because it begins to develop empathy toward his character.  This influences the audience to realize that there are a lot of bad things that go on in The Wire, but there are still silver linings.  Michael Lee still interacts with his buddies who, in one way or another, are involved in risky behavior.  Lee’s character is by no means a saint, and he is not intended to be.  However, the audience is compelled to believe in this character’s ability to avoid being sucked into the world of drugs and corruption.  Michael’s character strives to maintain his morals and work toward a better future; all while still acting immature and irrational with his friends.  The Wire persuades the audience to believe in certain characters and to create an emotional attachment to the story.  Lee’s character is a strong representation of this.

Bruce Alexander

      

            Bruce Alexander’s findings on drug addiction are startling and are taken with
skepticism because society is deeply rooted in the belief that drugs are the cause for addiction. Humans are told that no other factors are significant enough to debunk this belief. A brief summary of the drug experiment suggests that when in an isolated area, rats were more likely to become addicted to drugs. On the other hand, rats that were in a “rat-park” had the freedom to roam around. The interesting part is that these rats stayed away from drug-treated water. The environment played a huge role on which water the rat was drawn towards. The hypothesis of the findings state that drugs do not start nor intensify the addiction. Instead, addiction to drugs can be attributed to the environment, rather than the drug itself.

               The findings show that an individual’s environment is a factor when it comes to drug use and addiction. The environment should not be disregarded when analyzing drug addiction. People never take it into serious consideration because of what they have been told their entire lives; drugs cause addiction. When told this particular belief as kids, no one has the audacity to challenge the mainstream belief. The Wire supports this observation and the findings of Bruce Alexander. Although The Wire is a fictitious TV show, it brings light to a part of America that has been in the shadows and it tries to portray life as close to reality as possible. Environment plays a huge role in the way the characters see themselves. Middle school kids selling drugs is the norm because their environment forces them into these roles. This life is all that they know. This is similar to the rats that were isolated in cages. They had nothing to do in isolation and the experiment gave them two options: drink untreated water or drink water laced with drugs. Sure enough, the rats who lived in an environment that mocked a more natural setting were so distracted with their normal living patterns that they showed no interest in the laced water. Both The Wire and the rat experiment reveal that an environment limits the amount of knowledge one has of life and life outside of that knowledge does not exist because it is not their reality.

               After analyzing this information and tying it to The Wire, humans have to ask themselves: are individuals being pacified by the nation’s elites? Are people told to believe certain ideas in order to place them into roles that enhance some sort of untold caste system? How much of what humans believe in today is actually rooted in the truth? Are the lives that people live limited by the cages that society has set up? The answers to these questions are not simple and most likely will never be answered with 100% certainty. What is learned is that individuals should be active critics of the surrounding world and cannot limit themselves to the dictations of their environment.