The Wire, season three.

The best thing about Season 3 is that after you’re done with it, you get to start season 4. Get ready Keith, you’re going to love the best season in American Television history (through one layman’s eyes).

Well I guess that’s why you have to watch Season 4. I didn’t like Cutty much as a character- Kind of stiff, kind of cliche’ – until my second run through the series. Season 4 is television at it’s finest. I don’t recall a lot of the forced sexuality that seemed to permeate through Season 3. It becomes more character driven again- much like my internet Postwhoring infatuation, Homicide.

I don’t know if it’s just me, but after reading the comments I feel like I’m the only person who felt that the show just went downhill after season 2. I don’t remember 4 picking it back up. After the death of Stringer, there was no sinister evil for the good guys to catch. It might just be me, but the shoe slowly dropped off after a while.

Speaking of David Simon’s view of the Iraq war, you should watch his Iraq war miniseries that was also on HBO, Generation Kill. Good series.

Keith, your review omitted one significant storyline, though maybe it’s only apparent in hindsight, so we’ll leave it at that. Enjoy Season 4, it is fantastic on many levels, enjoy.

I’m really enjoying reading all the negative views of season 3. Personally, I enjoyed this season as much as, if not more than, season 4 and really had no issues with any of the characters or storylines (except for being bummed that Stringer was no longer going to be on the show). For the first time in the series, once one episode ended I couldn’t wait to watch the next, which is pretty much the opposite of Keith.

Re: Omar and the gun, I thought it was a pretty clear double entendre. Properly dispose of the gun and the weak link.

Interesting thoughts from Keith and from others on the evaluation of the seasons. In my reading and discussion experience about the Wire, traditionally most people I have ordered the seasons from best to worst in the following way: Season 4, Season 3, Season 1, Season 5, Season 2. There is sometimes variation between 3 and 4 at the top, sometimes variation between 1 and 5 at the middle, but nearly always Season 2 at the bottom. I think of it as three tiers. I have recently noticed though, and the comments here seem to indicate this, a reevaluation of the series that amps up 1, downplays 3, and resurrects 2 from the bottom to being among the top. I wonder why that is. Perhaps it is the realities of the world around us now. I personally think the elevation of season 2 is indefensible from the perspective of the series once it concludes, but I’ll be interested to see what Keith thinks once he finishes it all.

Hi Keith,

Really enjoy your insights on The Wire. I have watched the series through three times (quite obsessive, I know) and had virtually the exact same thoughts as you after watching the first time. Additionally I found that it was hard to match S1 because the epic nature of the plot and characters (and the social commentary, of course) were unmatched in anything I had ever watched or read. Thus, subsequent seasons of the show seemingly were trying to replicate the incredible depth of the original 12 episodes.

I can’t help but think that perhaps the ending to S3 and the death of Stringer (arguably the best character) were written to coincide with possible cancellation by HBO. This is evidenced by the closing sequence (although all other seasons have a similar ending montage) depicting several characters seemingly being written out. It is no secret the show struggled with poor ratings during it’s original run.

This show is so old it feels like someone reviewing the titanic. The Wire has been analysed to death. It seems difficult for anyone to say anything original at this point. Why did it take so long to watch?

Duff, I agree with you completely re: the stringer/avon “acceleration,” and that’s actually the sole reason I came to post this morning. My initial reaction was that the friction began when Avon chastises Stringer for his allowing Wee-Bey and Little Man to take the federal money after the Orlando hit; that served as great foreshadowing of Stringer’s willingness to break the code of “the game” in an effort to make more money, and Avon’s complete unwillingness to do the same. You point out an even earlier example.

Keith, if you can find the time, which with a family and a crazy work schedule can be very difficult, I would highly, highly recommend watching the series again once you are done with it. I cannot think of a work of fiction that I have felt was more enriched by experiencing it with a viewpoint more on the side of omniscient. I think that you will view your criticisms of this season in a different light with subsequent viewings.

I am most surprised, though, by the view that the lack of a concise denouement could in any way be a negative. I think that of any victory that The Wire has won, the triumph over neatly packaged storytelling is its finest and most important.

FrancisBorchardt, I’d agree with those rankings being the consensus at the time the Wire aired, but I feel like by now most people have swapped S2 and S5 on the list. In addition to people not really understanding the importance of season 2 to the rest of the show until the series was finished, I feel like the reason people didn’t rank S5 last at the time is that “Clarifications” and especially, “Late Editions” are two of the best episodes the show ever did.
But the rest of S5 was not nearly to the class of the first four seasons, even if two of the main critiques being “David Simon was just airing his grievances with his bosses” and “the (REDACTED) storyline was way too far fetched” both rang hollow to me. To the first point, I don’t see how Klebanow and Whiting are any more one dimensional villains than Clay Davis, Stan Valchek, Maury Levy, and a man Keith will hopefully grow to know and loathe by the time he gets done with S4 and S5, Michael Steintorf. To the second, is that storyline any less realistic than the entire idea of Hamsterdam?

“After the death of Stringer, there was no sinister evil for the good guys to catch.”
If you saw Stringer, Avon, or Marlo as the ‘evil’ within the Wire, I’m afraid you’re doing it wrong. While art is certainly open to interpretation, I think it’s pretty clear who Simon saw as the villains of The Wire, and I just mentioned them in the previous paragraph.
And even still, I’d argue that while Marlo was not nearly as charismatic as Stringer or Avon, Chris and Snoop had charisma for days, and the whole point of Marlo was a meditation on what the end product of the street culture creates. A man so obsessed with nothing other than wearing the crown, no outside interests in applying business acumen to the drug game like Stringer or love of family like Avon, just strictly being at the top for the sake of being at the top.

Toph, I agree basically. It’s what I wrote above. Though season 2 as far as I recall, was nearly always last for people. Here’s another one to throw out there that has always had me puzzled: On the BS Report (Bill Simmons podcast) a couple years ago Chuck Klosterman mentioned that he thought you had to have a certain political point of view, which he never described, in order to be a fan of and fully appreciate the Wire. Does anyone agree? I don’t see this show espousing any particular political point of view. The statement has me puzzled to the extent that I don’t even know what he could mean, even if it were a statement I disagree with. I mean, I am a libertarian, and there are some libertarianish fantasies in the show: Hamsterdam, the inevitable corruption of politicians because the system does not allow for political AND moral success, the spirit of self-preservation underlying unions, the futility of the drug war, etc. However, I know for a fact most people in America, and most people I know of who watch the show are not libertarians. I think progressives and conservatives have just as many other parts of what is depicted to hang their hats on. Does anyone have any idea what Klosterman could have meant or been implying when stating that full enjoyment required adoption of a specific political point of view?

Well, Klosterman also briefly mentioned that in his piece on Grantland a couple months back arguing in defense of Breaking Bad vs. The Wire. Basically the way I read his argument there is that because The Wire is more of a political show than a philosophical show (ala Breaking Bad) you have the sympathize with David Simon’s worldview to get the full experience of the Wire. I don’t think he was breaking it down based on any silly liberal-conservative divide (that in my own political view, isn’t nearly as stark as the cable news networks and politicians that want to make money/get elected make it out to be), the great thing about the Wire is that most people that watch and understand can in some way agree with the political viewpoint because of the universality of the message. If you’re Republican/Libertarian, you can take Simon’s loathing for institutions as confirming your worldview that government doesn’t work and governmental institutions breed corruption and waste that would not exist in the private sector. If you’re a Democrat, you can take that same message but look at it through the prism of the corruption of the American dream for those not in the power elite (like that wonderful and gut-wrenching scene of the politicians breaking ground on that new waterfront property development while Nick Sobotka and a couple other dockworkers raise hell in the background and Andy Krawczyk replies with the heartless, “That’s nobody, Mr. Mayor. Nobody at all.”)

I think the inter-play between Avon and Stringer that had been building up since Season 1 and peaked in Season 3 is what made this season my favorite. People talk about Season 4 being the best, but without Avon and Stringer, the show wasn’t quite as good for me (though it was still amazing).

I think something that deserves mention but I’ve never seen discussed is how much more respected Avon was than Stringer by everyone from the “Streets” side of the game. This clearly bothered Stringer, but I don’t think he realized that the lack of respect he earned actually hurt his businessman plans as well. He saw himself as the much smarter guy, but no matter what he did, he couldn’t get anyone to take his side against Avon in the whole “Product vs. Territory” philosphical battle. Look at a guy like Slim Charles, who didn’t know Avon at all until he got out of jail, and he was immediately his right hand man.

Part of the reason for the respect was probably due to Avon’s adherence to “the game”, along with his knowledge that he was only as powerful as his name. When he was in jail, his name still rung out, both in and out of jail. Blind Butchie didn’t want to give up Tilghman in season 2 even when String said he’d make the money right. But as soon as String mentioned Avon’s name, it was a done deal. There are numerous cases like this. No matter how much Stringer thought he was the brains behind the operation, the brains couldn’t survive without Avon’s name to back it up. Stringer saw himself as a businessman, but didn’t realize that the respect that Avon had was part of the business in the longterm. Even in the end, the reason Avon had to reluctantly give Stringer up was because he couldn’t afford to lose his reputation with Brother Mouzone (and therefore the streets).

By the way, as a last aside, one of my favorite scenes in the entire series is when Cutty goes to Avon to ask him for money for the gym. Showed a human side to Avon that I don’t think we ever see from Marlo or even Stringer.

I’ll give my $.02 on the quality of The Wire seasons. Personally, my ranking goes 1/4, 3, 2, 5. Season 4 might be artistically better, and has a higher quality, as it spins more arcs than maybe any season the show has done before, but to me, nothing topped Season 1 in terms of pure enjoyment. I’m also someone who felt the show was missing something without Stringer and Avon. The Barksdale crew (including Wee-Bey, Stinkum and the rest from S1 – D, Poot, Wallace) seemed much more human, much more open as characters to observe than the Stanfield organization.

What Season 4 had going for it was it was probably the best season if you just look at the plots that weren’t about ‘The Game.’ Everything about the school was so well done (I guess, part of that is its relation to ‘The Game’). The political arcs were great. What happens to MCU was captivating. I just felt that Marlo and his group is just nowhere near as enjoyable as the Barksdale gang was.

To piggyback off what Mike mentioned, S2 was not necessarily a broader look at the War on Drugs (though it was): It was a broader look at the institutional failure to contributes to a city’s demise.

Sepinwall’s blog proved you can appreciate the art and the artist without subscribing to the politics — not because Alan didn’t subscribe to the politics, but because he led a spirited discussion in which political commentary was not allowed. S3 does have some of the most obvious parallels, though. Beyond the War on Drugs, it had many metaphors for the War on Terror.

Briks:

I agree with your thought that Stringer viewed himself as the brains of the operation and that Avon was viewed as the “heart,” or mucle.

However, the reality is the exact opposite. Avon was the smarter of the two and Stringer had more heart. Avon was able to decipher how Stringer got himself into the situation with Brother almost immediately. Avon was the one who knew enough to keep out of the Clay Davis scam. Avon was the one who knew well enough to harbor plenty of supply; for example, when Roberto shut them off from New York, he had people in Atlanta. When the Co-Op shut Stringer out, he had nowhere else to turn other than to do what he did–do you think Avon would have been similarly situated?

However, by any interpretation of the code of The Game, D’Angelo had to go. We can be heartbroken it at all we want, but D’Angelo’s fate was exactly what had to happen for the Barksdale crew as a whole, and even he knew that way back in the last quarter of S1. Stringer stepped up and did that work. Avon could not and would not have ever done that. Stringer stepped up on Wallace. Stringer led the way on Brandon. He had heart in a way that Avon never showed; even if that heart is what made him a monster, he had more of it than Avon ever did.

Graham,

Those are some great points that I never really considered, but I disagree slightly with your assessment of those decisions Stringer made being heart. They were definitely for the better of the organization and Stringer stepped up there, but the Deangelo situation is the only one where Avon couldn’t make the proper call because it was family. I took the Wallace and Brandon situations more to be String just delivering Avons orders.

However, I was more talking about the almost universal respect Avon received from anyone in the streets. His name clearly rang out in a way Strings never could, based on an implied war won to take the towers where Avon was a soldier. Do you think Poot says “does the chair know we are gonna look like some punk ass botches?” to Avon in a million years? No way. Avons name, respect, and street smarts drove the business, not Stringers book smarts.