bell hooks' Interpretation of Rap Slightly Incomplete

bell hooks states that Rap is a perfect paradigm for colonialism. That is, we as white people, or the colonizers, can use the rap scene as our own little third world country to take what we want from it, whether it is sex, drugs, or just a sense of being the alpha male. And while there may be some truth to this paradigm, I find it problematic for one main reason. To make this claim, she assumes that the rap artists choose their content for the sake of appeasing the white consumers, and are only producing misogynistic and angst-filled music only to suit market demands. To say this would also suggest that rap artists do not make the music for its own sake, but to become quick millionaires. This would not only question the integrity of the artists, but the genuineness behind the movement itself.
Granted, it is difficult to find much substance in the mainstream rap she presents in her critique of rap. Most of the lyrics are about shameless hedonism, most often at the expense of others, particularly women. I am not trying to defend the themes rap artists try to convey in their music, but I am defending the artists' integrity. To suggest rap is a product of colonialism, that would suggest that it is a movement a white establishment used to reinforce its dominance over the black establishment. She rejects the possibility that the music can be authentic, due only to the fact that the record labels are owned by white males. Given the advantage of being fifteen or so years in the future, it is easier to comment on this question of authenticity. We now see rappers with their own record labels, who sign other blacks, and the output is very similar. Jay-Z is a perfect example. He owns his own record label, yet still raps about how he has 99 problems, but a "bitch ain't one". He does not work for a white record label, yet he still reinforces the same stereotypes that comes with the rap movement. If he works for himself, it must be sincere on some level, even if the standard of what is "cool" and what sells developed before him.
 It is easy for her to look only at the most mainstream rap and criticize it, because it is the most visible. But there still exists a vast number of rappers who I am certain are authentic. It is impossible to take an entire genre of music and say that it is phony just because of what the most visible artists say and do. The fact that rap exists in the mainstream suggests that at one point it did not, and the first artists had to find their style without defining themselves how the white record labels tell them to. While the corporations may have had a say in how the style was refined, they are only capitalizing on a cultural sentiment that already existed in culture. That is to say, it is not as simple as corporations forming public opinion of what should be demanded, but also the corporations respond to what the demand is that already exists in the market. They are both forming and being formed, which is not what I hear bell hooks saying. She simplifies it simply to where the corporations form demand, which reflects a colonialist sentiment. She places the blame of the debauchery seen everywhere in rap on the record labels, and excuses the black artists as only capitalists trying to make a quick buck. And while that may be the truth to an extent, it is only half of the truth.

"Undressing my Mother" Disturbing, but for Unexpected Reasons

Upon watching "Undressing my Mother", I was fully prepared to see an old overweight woman in the nude. I have, after all, seen The Shining dozens of times, and anyone who has seen it is surely desensitized to grotesque nude old women. While the context of the two images are completely different, and intended to evoke different thoughts and emotions, I do find it true that any cultured person in today's world is somewhat desensitized to the spectacle of a grotesque nude image. That being said, the image of the nude old lady alone was not enough to make me squirm.
This video was so oddly captivating for me that I felt as though I had to show a female friend of mine to see what she thought, as I thought a feminine perspective on questions of beauty and the body would be different than mine, or at least more empathetic to the old woman (not that she is ugly, but I do believe she would value the feeling of being sexy more than, say, me). I almost feel like it would be difficult to have a meaningful discussion without involving women, or at least a strong feminine presence. I am not trying to say the woman I talked to represents the entire female gender, but she did help to clarify things from a feminine point of view.
She said essentially the same things I did about it, but I think she was more put off by different things than me. For me, I was mostly put off by not the images, but her descriptions of herself, and how they contributed to her self image. Her description of her bottom, as "two cheeks with a hole in the middle" provokes an uncomfortable laugh, but the laugh for me came only from trying to shake off the awkwardness of having an old woman describe her most intimate parts. Also, she seemed so unashamed of her body, as if she were just getting out of the shower and looking at herself in the mirror as if no one were watching was off putting for me. I felt like a fly on the wall who had no business seeing what I saw.
The girl who I talked to was off put by just how undressed she was. Certainly in the literal sense, but also in the figurative sense. She was amazed that she was able to do this in front of her son more than she was amazed that she would do it in front of an audience of millions of internet users. She did naturally feel a sense of empowerment in how she defined beauty for herself, and defined her sense of sexiness by the only person whose opinion mattered to her, her husband. But at the same time, she felt the feeling she got from her husband could not be communicated without a sense of grotesque, because it came from a personal connection which no one else was a part of, and to invite anyone else in on the same appreciation would take away from the special connection she had with her husband.

C-Ville's Panopticon

Our class has recently been reading the works of Michel Foucault, specifically those that deal with prisons and the power relations therein.  Foucault was especially interested in Jeremy Bentham's concept of the Panopticon, with its radical attempt to force the prisoner to become complicit in his own self-censorship.  With this in mind, we visited the Rotary Jail Museum in Crawfordsville to apply a Foucauldian analysis to its architecture. 

The prison block of the cell was not an ideal representation of Bentham's Panopticon.  It had a central tower, but this consisted of cells for prisoners, with catwalks along the column's side.  There was no guard tower surrounded by a perimeter of cells, all visible to the guard.  Because of this design, the prisoners must not have been continually visible to the officials, as Bentham dreamed would be the situation in his ideal prison.  But although the architecture of the Rotary Jail was not a perfect match of that of the Panopticon, its design still lends itself to a compelling analysis of power relations.  Because of the rotating tower and single entrance/exit, interaction between the prisoners and guards would be minimized.  This decrease of time spent under the gaze is directly contradictory to what Bentham hoped to achieve, but this theme of denial of attention is found in Foucault's work.  He speaks of the method practiced by asylum authorities in which they pointedly ignored the rants of patients under their care.  In this way, they would not legitimize the rant by attending to it, and this would force the patient to change their behavior, if they wanted any attention.  But although the same methods were practiced by the asylum authorities mentioned in Foucault's work and the Rotary Jail officials, the motivation behind them seems to have been different.  Where in Foucault, this practice was undertaken in an effort to modify the behavior of the patients, in the jail it was most likely undertaken to minimize risks to the guards.  There does not seem to be any rehabilitative aspect to it.  But in any case, the prisoners in the Rotary Jail and the asylum patients were most probably good examples of what Foucault defines as "docile bodies," bodies which have been conditioned to become passive and "useful."  The asylum patients were released once they submitted to the behavioral conditioning of the resident psychiatrists and became, in the psychiatrist's view, no longer a threat to society, if not necessarily a productive member.  And the prisoners in the jail, by their incapacitation and lack of attention, had no other choice but to submit to the power of the prison authorities, so it may be assumed that at least some of them became "docile."  

Rotary Jail and Foucault

The Crawfordsville rotary jail is the last functioning jail of its kind, though it is used for tours and does not actually detain prisoners. The concept is simple: placing prisoners in a seemingly inescapable prison where the cells rotate when put in motion by a by-standing guard. The guard has control, protected by a metal-barred door which is the only entry and exit point for the prisoners. However, although the idea seems perfect on paper, this rotary jail had issues which led to the closing of the prison. For example, the heating and cooling system was insufficient, often leading to prisoners becoming ill and sometimes turning fatal. Most of the prison was made of metal, so when it was summer the prisoners were hot and when it was winter the prisoners were cold. Also, the rotating prison caused several prisoners to lose limbs when they were caught in the metal when in rotation. The concept possessed several benefits, but also had detrimental flaws.

Some of the benefits of the rotary jail are similar to Michel Foucault's concept of "the gaze". Foucault conceptualizes a panopticon- a center tower placed in the center of the prison which allows the guard to observe any prisoner at any moment- that would place the prisoner under constant surveillance of "the gaze". The rotary jail possesses similar traits insofar as the prisoners inside the cell can be shifted at any given point to be viewed by the guard. However, the two differ because the panopticon does not allow the prisoners to know when they are being watched; whereas in the rotary jail, the prisoner is aware that they are center stage. The panopticon would, theoretically, push prisoners to discipline themselves in fear of being caught doing something wrong. The rotary jail had several cells blind to the eye of the guard which left many prisoners isolated. The prisoners in the rotary jail could know when they were being viewed and only needed to discipline themselves when under the spotlight.

Rotary Jails, Panopticons, and Observation

When reading selections from Discipline and Punish by Foucault, the central idea of the Panopticon came into play. The panopticon is the ultimate in prison security, operating on the sole idea of constant idea of observation. The prisoners sit in lit up cells with the guards in the middle; the guard being able to see any one prisoner's movements at all times. The idea is that the prisoners would never know if they were being observed, but they would know that there is always the possibility that they were, leaving them in a stasis. Unable to move due to the repercussions of misbehaving, they would simply stay in line. 

Although it would have been more beneficial to observe an actual panopticon to understand its mechanics, the accessibility of panopticon-based prisons is scarce and hard to come by. In an attempt to understand confinement and prisons as described by Foucault, our class took a trip to the local Rotary Jail museum in Crawfordsville. Before my exposure to the city, I had no idea what a rotary jail was, and, for those of you who don't, the wikipedia page about them is concise and very helpful, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotary_jail). All the rage in detention in the 19th century, Rotary jails serve the purpose of being theoretically inescapable. In the jail, only one cell has access to the door, the rest are behind immobile bars. The idea is simple, the less the access point, fewer the opportunities of exploiting a door and escaping. 

The basic idea of the Rotary jail is in complete opposition to the panopticon. In the rotary jail, the prisoners are being watched less than if they were in a standard cell block, with guards having minimal and slowed access to each individual cell, with observation only happening one at a time. It's interesting that, even though the rotary jail is in opposition to the panopticon, it seems to fall into line with the idea of guilt and isolation detailed in Madness and Civilization. Each prisoner is isolated and thrown into a complete lack of control that's unseen in other prisons; they aren't stationary, but confined. They depend on the daily movement of the gear s to get in and out of the prison, with no control of saving themselves in the event of a fire, or something of that nature. The observation wouldn't be what keeps them in line, it's knowing that they are completely without control.

I wonder which technique is more effective. Rotary jails are now completely unused, and the Rotary Jail Museum in Crawfordsville is the only one accessible, legally, to the public, and panopitcons only exist now as jails that were inspired by panopticons. Both work off of Foucault's ideas, but they are in complete contrast to one another in terms of execution. If prisoners hadn't lost limbs in the Rotary Jails, and if the panopticons weren't so adventurous, perhaps they would still see usage today. 

Central Gaze in Prisons

The Crawfordsville rotary jail is the last rotary jail in the United States, although several other rotary jails still stand but are no longer functioning. While none of these jails are in still in use as prisons, they still provide an interesting idea on how to contain prisoners. The prison itself is attached to the county sheriff's house and has its own separate structure to contain the prisoners. The prison block itself is a central platform with many cells with  several levels, which can be rotated in order to access different cells because only one cell can be open to the exit on each floor at a time. This idea was thought of to keep the prisoners from being able to escape so easily. This, while being a good idea in theory, was a kind of backfire in certain instances where the prisoners would cause trouble in the cells. The guards would have to rotate the cell block all the way to the cell that required attention. Therefore, while it was an idea with good intentions, the jail itself had to eventually be closed do to the danger due to both the prisoner caused problems and the problems caused by heating and cooling the structure and limbs being lost in the rotating cell block bars.

This leads to an analysis brought forth by the French philosopher Foucault, indicating the governing presence of "the gaze" which is the governing factor in creating self-control and leads to normalization in the prison and asylum systems. In the idea Foucault view, the guards of the prison have the center gaze in the middle of the prison. With this view, they can watch all of the prisoners, and with the same system of gaze the prisoners will have increased self control, never knowing when they are being watched by those guarding them in their cells. This style of the gaze is reversed in the system used in the Montgomery County rotary jail. Since the rotated cell block structure is in the direct center of the jail, the prisoners have the centralized gaze there in the cell block. They have the ability to detect if the guards are nearby or watching them by focusing their attention outside the bars, for the guards have to walk through the echoing halls past the cells. Meanwhile, the guards themselves cannot watch all of the prisoners at once, even if some of them are causing trouble in their individual cells. This reversal of the gaze would not be acceptable in the eyes of Foucault, due to the fact that the guards meant to normalize the prisoners has been reversed. Rather than the guards having the power to normalize the prisoners in the penal system, the prisoners have a power to manipulate the guards in a small way. This reversal might cause the prisoners not to become normalized in the Foucaultian view, leading to the failure of the country penal system.

Reading Foucault in the Rotary Jail, March 22, 2012

Dividing Practices Exemplified by Counterculture Movements

Throughout the past century, there have been numerous counterculture movements. From beatniks to hippies to grunge to hipsters, underground culture has thrived for generations. Often they claim to deny societal norms, and refuse to accept mainstream means to go about life, in politics, art, music, etc. While there can be great merit in not accepting the flaws that plague humanity, they are very difficult to escape in any group, no matter how anti-establishment they are.
 Here is a video that shows that very point, chronicling a man's journey in and out of hipsterdom: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zt1Z7TYztcA. I should first point out that every counterculture movement begins very small. By the time there are established stereotypes regarding a certain countercuture, they seem to lose their integrity through the loss of their "otherness". There seems to be a quest for otherness among people who join counterculture movements too late, and instead of constructing their own uniqueness through their inward gaze, they are defined by the gaze of those already established in the counterculture.
 This phenomenon is seen in his anecdote about the record store, starting at 1:25. The image around 1:50 says it all. He feels the need to justify not owning the hip records, and fears he will be judged by the cashier, who is clearly already an established hipster. She looks down at him with a sense of indifference, also a staple of the artist's perceived hipster persona. She is neither impressed nor unimpressed by him, while he tries to prove himself as a member of the same group. In a way the indifference is a form of judgement, as it reinforces the fact that she is in, and he is out. This becomes complicated, as this places the narrator in a position where he is an 'other' in a group that celebrates 'otherness'.
The Battle of Obscurity is a perfect example of examination. It is of utmost importance to possess knowledge of the most underground bands, and have a deep and wide enough taste in the arts to truly be counterculture. The more well known a band is, the more they must relate to the mainstream, therefore the more they should not appeal to someone trying to prove their otherness. So the perfect examination for how underground he is would be knowing the most underground bands. In this section, the gaze becomes mutual among both the narrator and his opponent in the Battle of Obscurity, as they are both examining each other. They define their otherness from each other, and gain success in the examination when they know more obscure bands than the other.
So while countercultures may begin as virtuous denials of the superficial hierarchies that exist in any large group, even they are eventually subject to the same rules that other divisive groups live by. The difference is the degree by which they attempt to seek out otherness, and by who's definition they are others. Somewhat paradoxically, the only possible way to retain otherness is by one's own inward gaze, as self-perception is where otherness is often found. As soon as a person begins defining themselves by the judging gaze of those around them, otherness becomes forced, and eventually ridiculed as phony.

The Crawfordsville Rotary Jail and the Panopticon

Visiting the Rotary Jail Museum for class was a refreshing change of pace for class. I probably never would have checked the museum out if it were not for this class, and I learned a lot about something I do not usually put a lot of thought into. While there are similarities between the rotary design and Foucault's "Panopticon", the goals of the design of each jail is different. Despite the fact that it is round, and there is a level of uncertainty among the prisoners when regarding they will be observed, the goal of the rotary system has less to do with observation than making it difficult to escape structurally. At any point in time, the guard can rotate the jail with the turn of a lever. He can see anything that is in front of him, and the other cells are out of sight. The inmates will always know if they are being observed by the guard though, because they can see him. He is not placed at the center, like the panopticon, but on the outside looking in. The reason for this is with only one exit, it would be in theory very difficult to escape. It may limit the guard's ability to monitor the prisoner's actions, but it also reduces the possibilities for the prisoners' escape routes. It clearly did not work perfectly, as the tour guide said once a guard was not paying close attention as he opened the gate, which resulted in him getting hit in the head and the escape of two prisoners. This would not be possible if it were more like the panopticon, where the prisoners would not know if they were being monitored, but because they could see how the guard went about his duties, they were able to formulate a successful escape plan. So, the main difference is, the gaze is not as simple as the guard's upon the unaware prisoners, but rather they are free to gaze at each other when the rotor is facing the proper direction. Each has the freedom to watch the other, and each is subject to punishment if they fail to operate as they are supposed to. 

Power of Money and the McNugget in "The Wire"

In the first season of "The Wire," one scene I enjoyed was the McNugget scene, a short conversation between D'Angelo, Wallace, and Poot. Wallace makes a comment about how the inventor of the McNugget must be a very wealthy individual. D'Angelo finds this comment comical and naive, because he says that just because this person thought of the McNugget does not mean he got credit for it. D' says the nugget inventor is still probably in the basement working for minimum wage. Poot and Wallace do not understand how this could be, and D' replies that it's all about money. Ronald McDonald isn't going to give more of his money away to the true inventor of the McNugget, so he will take credit for the chicken marvel. This can be paralleled to society, because money truly does overpower and rule. People will do almost anything for the right price. "It's all in the game."

The Theme of "Freedom" in The Wire

First of all, I want to start out by saying that I don't see why this is considered the best TV series of all time. I can certainly see how someone could claim that the writing stands out among competition in its genre, like Law and Order or CSI: Miami, but it lacks a sense of subtlety. The writers seem to magnify all the themes they want to have the viewer think about by using somewhat hackneyed characters and images. For instance, the alcoholic, lonely rogue detective, the standard tough lesbian cop, the ever-angry boss, etc. In short, I don't think its all that original, and whoever said it is the best have clearly only watched shows about cops.
So now I would like to explore a somewhat underappreciated theme, that of freedom. Ever since the first scene in the show, I have seen everything as basically a quest to seek or maintain freedom among each character and character group. The man McNulty talks to about the murder does not tell him much, but he reveals an important aspect of what values rule behavior in the streets. When McNulty asks him why they kept letting the man come to the games to take the money time after time, he says that basically, to deny him the privilege to come would be to deny his sense of basic American freedom. The fact that this is the first scene gives a basic framework for the rest of the show, and every character relationship. Certain things constrain them, and other things allow them to express their freedom. What complicates this are the things that make the characters compromise their freedom against their will, and accepting the fact that on either side of the law, there are no truly free people.
For those on the cop side, the complex web of power makes it impossible for the detectives to do what they want. Everyone obviously wants to do what they want, and that is where the dysfunction comes in. McNulty is the most obvious case, as his higher-ups are always calling him "insubordinate" and threatening to fire him due to his independent ways. The fact that he is right about whatever the issue is rarely becomes a factor, and the chain of power and influence deters him from doing his job how he thinks is best. McNulty is one of the most rich characters regarding this theme, which is also evident in his love life. He slept around on his wife, and ended up a lonely alcoholic. This is a perfect example of why the desire to be free to do whatever you want requires checks, and is an inherently complicated relationship between allowing yourself to conform to certain restraints, and doing what you think is right.
On the criminal side, the desire to maintain freedom is perhaps more obvious. They are trying not to become imprisoned by the cops. They do everything covertly in order to remain free to do their trade, which is somewhat dualistic. It is a game of getting away with the most drug sales and the most hits without getting caught, in order to remain free to perform their trade. Much of D'Angelo's guilt comes from his questioning if his ability to perform an act morally rationalizes it. When he is being guilted in to writing an apology note to his witness's "kids", he says that the killing of the witness wasn't necassary, and he felt as if the victim had the same right to life that he had, and should be free to tell the truth without fearing death. Of course, it is impossible for everyone to get what they want no matter how free they are to do so, because one person's fulfilled wish is another's tragedy.

Hunter's Display

One of the most gruesome scenes in the wire is the scene where Omar's partner is strung out over the hood of a car like a dead dear on display.  This is some of the best symbolism in The Wire.  One ever present themes in the series is "the game" and the struggle for control of the streets.  In this struggle there are hunters and the hunted; however the roles change constantly.  As a part of Omar's crew, his partner is one of the players in the dangerous "game".  After stealing the stash as one of the hunters, the partner as well as the rest of the crew became marked men.  They became the hunted.  As violence and one's capability of committing violence plays such an important role in determining who gains control of the street, mistakes are costly.  Omar's partner having dropped his name at the heist of the stash, painted a target on his back as well as Omar's.  With prices on their heads, this mistake proved costly.  After Wallace and  Bodie see Omar's partner enjoying his favorite game of pinball, the hit is made and the body is put on display for all to recognize as a sign of who owns the streets of West Baltimore.  The partner became a trophy, a symbol of how violent and hard "the game" is played.  At any time the hunters may become the hunted and the volatile streets of West Baltimore, the hunting grounds of fiends and predators are in constant turmoil because one encroachment always provokes reaction.  

Omar Little, The Series Personified

              With the introduction of Omar Little, the series was thrown into a new direction with a truly unique character. He is a third party, a neutral ground between the police and the drug dealers, as a Robin Hood character of sorts. He steals from the drug dealers, which is a horribly dangerous profession as it is, and he loses a loved one as a result. He testifies against the drug dealers in order to get revenge, showing that he is a vigilante, with the ability to play on the side of the law or against it. Also, he’s gay, which, without that characteristic, would have made him a controversial character as is, but, with his homosexuality, he is raised from an exemplary character to the series personified.

Throughout the first season, The Wire deals on a spectrum, with very little falling in black or white. Neither group, the drug dealers or the cops are completely in the moral right with any actions. The cops never know if their order handed down from the corrupt higher ups are just or tainted, and the D’angelo and his crew in the pit realize that their way of life destroys others lives, but it’s the only way they can etch out a living. To that end, Omar Little is the personification of that sentiment; he is a character of pure polarities.

                He is, first, a vigilante of sorts. Although his stated reasons for stealing from the drug dealers is ambiguous, saying that it’s “all for the game”, the motivation behind such crimes is easier to see. One with such skill wouldn’t take the horrible risk to steal from drug dealers for just the money, he could easily get away with more money if he held up businesses; rather, he steals from them for the greater good; he’s trying to topple them. This is seen through his character’s dislike for swearing. In a show that’s mostly swear words and eye movement, he’s the character that takes an active stance against it. He’s the iconoclast in this sense, and it shows his decency. He’s a moral character that does unmoral things for the greater good, like most of the other characters.

Second, he’s a terrifying gay man. The archetypal gay man is far from terrifying, he’s soft and feminine, and all things Omar is not. He scares small children by simply walking down the street and whistling, he is fear personified for some of these people. Fear like this is not usually associated with a gay man who’s in a loving relationship until his untimely death. His character itself is a dichotomy, making him a personification of the show.

                The show deals with these dichotomies, with morality that’s a subtle shade of grey, no one party is ever completely right, unlike the archetypal cop show. The cops are good, the robbers are the bad guys, and the cops always win, the end. In the wire, the cops are run by corrupt establishments, but the foot soldiers are good people, and in the drug world, the overlords are corrupt, D’angelo knows that, but he knows he can’t just walk away. Omar is neither one thing or the other, but he is both. He’s a gay man who kills people and is terrifying. He’s a thief that steals from the corruptors, the pushers, the thieves of lives. He is simply The Wire.

Subtle Movements; the Chess Scene in the First Season of the Wire

               For The Wire, it’s easy to understand why it’s considered by many to be the greatest show of all time. It’s an intricate dance of corruption, race and gender relations wrapped in a cop show, showing depth that hasn’t been seen by any drama before or since, for the most part. It’s easy to say that the first few episodes of the first season are weak. They were the exposition of a very ambitious series and they needed to introduce a multitude of characters. The first two episodes especially are, mostly, unwatchable if you don’t like cop shows. Once the season picks up, it starts to get too interesting and unique to not watch, except for one part, the pivotal Chess Scene in the Third episode, “The Buys”.

                The scene can be seen here for those who haven’t seen it before, (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whwawZ1YoOc). In the scene, D’Angelo, the focal character on the drug side of the show, finds Wallace and Bodie, two guys that work for him in the pit, playing checkers with chess pieces instead of just playing chess. Amused, he teaches them how to play chess, with; you guessed it, a large metaphor using the drug world to explain how the game works. For a show that deals mostly in subtlety, this scene decides to completely toss this out and just spoon feed the explanation to the audience. He starts talking about pieces, and when mentioning the queen, Bodie mentions that that pieces “sounds like Stringer”. It really devolves the whole idea of subtlety that the series was based on.

                To be fair, the series is trying to establish that D’Angelo isn’t the average drug dealer. The idea of chess sets him aside as a more intellectual character, as chess is a thinker’s game. That’s fair, but the whole presentation is cliché for one, and completely straightforward. In the first episode, when Wallace finds the guy who was scamming them with fake money, Tommy, they ask him what he wanted to do with him, D’angelo takes the small amount of money he has, and waits. The acting is in his eyes here as he hesitates. He knows that not beating this guy is the wrong choice, but he also knows it’s wrong to beat this junkie down, considering that they caused the problem with their smack. He ends up walking away, leaving the beat down to his cronies, all the while, his eyes tell the story of a tortured man, unable to reconcile his morality with his work. That’s subtle, that’s good character development, this isn’t. It’s so painfully clear that D’angelo is the thinking thug that it may as well be written on his shirt. And to top it all off, the idea of explaining how the world works through chess is so incredibly cliché that everyone has a chess scene. Anime’s like Naruto and Bleach, children’s shows, have chess scene to explain why the pawns are dying. It’s a cop out in a show that’s better than that.

                The real problem is that this scene assumes that the audience is stupid. It’s easy to see that D’angleo and McNulty are both trying to reconcile that they work for corrupt systems by their interactions with their superiors by looking at their eye movements alone. The show stopped trusting that the audience could pick up on that fact and they spoon fed an old, tired cliché to get the point across. I’m not angry at you, The Wire, I’m just disappointed. I thought we had come to an agreement. You would continue to be smart and compelling and I would keep up with all the characters, details and relations. The trust is broken! 

Omar Little

Omar Little from The Wire  is as controversial as a character can get.  As a gangster, Omar is at home in the streets and a big player in "the game".  The best thing that defines Omar is perhaps the thing that defines him the least, and that is his ability to transcend social parameters.  As a homosexual male, Omar has already bent the rules on what can be tough in the city of Baltimore.  His partner was killed by Avon Barksdale's goon squad and laid out for all to see which sparked a fire in Omar fueling a rampage and providing a magnetic attraction drawing Omar closer towards Lt. Daniels unit.  Another characteristic of note which helps to define Omar is his, almost chivalrous code of honor or street ethics which are inherently different that others who run the same streets.  Omar speaks on this when he says that he never pointed a gun at someone who was not in the game.  This combination of sexual transcendence and moral code which Omar follows, separates Omar from all other characters in the series.  He goes from hardened gangster, to lover, to a grieving partner, to an informant; things which all work together to help to define Omar Little.  Not one of these things could define him alone nor if one were missing as Omar develops into his full character.  The fact that Omar develops so drastically over time makes him hard to define.  I think that this makes him an ever changing character.  He transforms so violently that no one scene in The Wire can define Omar.  However, there are several instances where Omar could be understood.  When he says, "Oh, Indeed,", or "It's all in the game,", or my personal favorite "Ayo, lesson here, Bey. You come at the King, you best not Miss".  By looking at these quotes in context we begin to see into the character of Omar Little.

Checkers

There seems to me a disconnect in the writing and cinematography of The Wire. At some points the dialogue and staging seem so perfect that I remember my love for the show and why it was called "the best television program ever made".

Other times, it seems that either the writers and director are either phoning it in or working so hard to make their metaphors understood that they stoop to the level of cliche. Case in point: the chess scene.

The scene begins with Wallace and Bodie complaining about the drug game, juxtaposed with the shot of a chessboard between them. This already would've sufficed for a compelling metaphor. Maybe if they would've just shown that shot, perhaps a few moves, and had Bodie realize at the end of the game, as he does anyway, that "Pawns get fucked" the scene could have been saved.

Unfortunately for we gentle viewers, the dead horse of cliche was beaten further as D begins to explain the game's mechanics to Wallace and Bodie. Even this push for the veiwer to realize the obvious metaphor was tolerable, until, that is, names were brought in. After that point (1:18 in the video link) I personally felt played to. This is HBO. Do viewers need to be condescended to on this level? I think a touch of subtlety here could've helped a lot. Everything from Bodie's ambition (as he constantly references making it "to the end" and "having the power") to D'Angelo's softer side are announced through the thinly veiled metaphor of the chess game.

Omar Little Breaking the Mold

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Corner Boy Masculinity

In one of the last episodes of Season 1 of "The Wire," Stringer Bell, the second-in-command in Avon Barksdale's drug gang, orders a hit on Wallace, a young dealer who he fears will deliver them to police.  To carry this order out, he enlists Bodie Broadus, Wallace's friend but also a violent young dealer who is determined to do whatever he can to rise in the ranks of the gang.  Upon receiving his task, Bodie is willing and eager to carry it out, and convinces his and Wallace's friend Poot to help him out.  Before the murder takes place, the three boys go out to eat at a fast food restaurant.  Bodie rudely questions Wallace's manliness, and Wallace replies that Bodie doesn't need to always act so tough.  But Wallace eventually replies to Bodie's prodding by saying "I'm a man."  When the three boys go back to the towers, Poot and Bodie corner Wallace in a room, and Bodie pulls a gun on him.  Wallace begins to cry and appeal to his friends to have mercy, but Bodie is disgusted, calling him "weak."  He hesitates to shoot, however, until Poot finally tells him to get it over with.  But after shooting Wallace once, Bodie finds himself unable to finish him off when he survives it.  Poot then steps in to put his friend out of his misery. 



These two scenes, in the restaurant and in the towers, serve to illustrate the masculine ethic of the street.  The ability and willingness to do violence is prized above all, and any showing of mercy is seen as contemptible weakness.  This theme is reinforced by a scene earlier in the season, where Stringer upbraids DeAngelo Barksdale, a drug lieutenant in the gang and nephew to Avon, for showing leniency to a dope fiend that attempted to cheat them out of money.  Furthermore, those individuals who are most ruthless and merciless find themselves at the top of totem pole on the street, as Avon and Stringer command through fear of their reputation, fear earned by their willingness to commit violence and eliminate threats. 

Omar Little - A Street Anomaly

Season One of HBO’s drama series “The Wire” shows Baltimore police officials trying to take down a very well-run drug gang ran by Avon Barksdale (played by Wood Harris). The show utilizes dynamic and complex characters. One of the most complex characters is Omar Little (played by Michael Williams). Omar shatters the typical idea of a street stick-up artist: while ruthless when it comes to payback, Omar goes by a strict moral code that keeps him from harming anyone outside of “The Game.” Omar is also a homosexual, which challenges the idea that someone so well-respected and feared on the streets has to be a macho-man. Omar’s character is very smart and observant. We first see Omar staking out the Pit, looking for the stash house and the weaknesses of the group. Omar calls the operation “very sloppy” while lighting a cigarette at 22:33 minutes into “The Buys.” This scene demonstrates his knowledge and confidence when it comes to robbing drug-dealers. We also see Omar’s strict moral code when we see him in action for the first time. While robbing the Pit stash house, Omar shoots one of Barksdale’s pawns in the leg with his sawed-off shotgun. Omar could have killed the boy, but instead chose to shoot him in the leg (44:04 into “The Buys”). This scene is also important when juxtaposing it with the police raid that follows it. The police turn up empty handed after their raid because they lack the instinct to find the stash house despite constant surveillance. The stealing of the stash by Omar and his crew shows that he is well ahead of the police because they don’t know where the stash house is on their raid. While certainly not the main character of the show, Omar Little proves to be important. The street-smart stick-up man will later aid the police in advancing their case against Avon Barksdale and his crew.

Do We Belong Here?

“Boy don’t no one care about you or your story”

                In season one of The Wire ‘D’ takes his baby mama out to the nice side of town for dinner and a walk around the harbor, “ya know, acting like we belong here.”  Leading to the question of whether or not they actually belong here. This whole exchange was prompted by D asking “you think they know what I’m about?” Obviously feeling his economic background more than usual ever since they walked in the door D was uncomfortable.  It started by not showing up with a reservation on a Friday night and the only table they could get was right by the kitchen door.  As the evening goes on there are numerous scenes where the waiters treat D like he is new to the fine dining world. For example, the waiter scrapes the crumbs off of the table cloth with his edge and then looks and D saying “For the crumbs sir.” It is an unfamiliar situation for D, he is treated with little respect and he shows signs of becoming flustered. 

                When the couple first sat down in the back corner D asks to be put at one of the tables in the middle of the restaurant but is denied.  Forced to stay in the back by the kitchen, which is normally reserved for families with noisy kids or people that the restaurant doesn’t want in plain sight because they might scare away other customers.  To which his baby mama replies “you should pushed him D” immediately after she says that a waiter walks out of the kitchen bumping D’s elbow.

                Later in this scene D’s baby mama says “Boy no one care about you or your story, your money good right?” Thinking that money can change everything she assumes that because they have the money to eat at that restaurant they belong there like everyone else.  D isn’t on board with this idea; he feels more and more out of place with each exchange with the waiters.  the final exchange proving that he didn’t truly belong there was when the waiter brought out the dessert tray.  D immediately grabs one and hands it to the girl in frustration.  Only to have the waiter response “I’m sorry sir but those are the samples.”  What we see in this scene is the idea that you can take a boy out of the ghetto but you can’t take the ghetto out of the boy. Which is even said by the character Poot later in the series. No matter what D tries in this series he will ultimately be known as the gangsta who grew up on the West side of Baltimore. 

Omar Dont Scare

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Drugs as a Chess Game

In episode three: "The Buys" of the first season of "The Wire," the drug dealer nicknamed "Dee" takes his time to teach a couple members of his drug dealing crew how to play chess because "You can't play no checkers with a chess set." In teaching them to play the game, Dee teaches the two of them the names of the pieces and how they move in a specific way. All of these descriptions are linked to their lives, allowing for an interpretation of their own lives as drug dealers. Starting with the king piece, which he names "the kingpin," and that "the king stays the king". "Everything stays who he is...except for the pawns." Then he proceeds in describing how the pawns can go on to become the queen, which is the most powerful piece in the game. Therefore, if the pawns are smart and do not get killed in the game, they have the ability to become the "top dog" in the game. Once Dee makes this point, one of his crew assumes that once your pawn become this "top dog" that the game ends. Dee makes it clear that the game will continue until the "kingpin" is taken out of the game. This can be compared to their lives. Even if they are "smart ass pawns," the lower dealers can become the top man in the gang next to the leader if they are not killed first. This, however, does not mean the game is over. The dangerous game they play with their lives will continue to be a danger and will continue on until the "kingpin" of the game falls from the game first.

Omar Hood

Omar "the terror" appears mysteriously for the first few appearances in "The Wire," before he is even named formally. When he is named, Omar appears to be more of a neutral entity in the drug war. Like a certain English hero, this man attacks and robs the drug dealers and brings it back to his home. While a normal, everyday thief might keep the stolen money and drugs to himself, Omar instead appears to be spreading some of the money to neighbors, for instance the neighbor woman coming in for help, who appear to need it more. This action of stealing from "the rich" crime lords to give it to the poor and needy offers a great link to Robin Hood, the English hero, but Omar offers more comparisons to this end as well. Omar also indicates a close comradeship with his gang of "merry men," which is a stark contrast to the rigid hierarchical system he is up against, one which places a large bounty on his head in order to remove him from the picture. This offers a more similar story between the two "heroes of the common people." The large "empire" with an "evil" leader that offers a large reward for the capture or death of the one who steals from them to give to the poor, common people. This provides even more detail in the comparison between the medieval hero Robin Hood and the modern hero Omar.

DeAngelo's fatherly relationship with his crew

The season begins with DeAngelo being acquitted for a murder he committed in front of and eye-witness. Avon is critical of DeAngelo's negligence regarding the hit and demotes DeAngelo back to leading a crew in the low-rises. DeAngelo begins to manage the crew half-heatedly but then takes Bodie, Poot, and Wallace under his wing. An iconic scene in the season happens in the low-rises while DeAngelo and the boys wait for the next shipment of drugs to come in. The boys are playing checkers on a chess board which bothers DeAngelo because chess fascinates him. However, the boys claim they don't know how to play (often the case in lower-class urban environments). DeAngelo teaches the boys by using their crew as a metaphor (Avon is the King, Stringer is the Queen, the stash as the Rook, the boys as the pawns). DeAngelo knows that boys are expendable like the pawns, but Bodie takes an optimistic approach noting that a smart pawn can become a Queen. DeAngelo knows chess and the drug-dealing game better than the boys and implements authority over them. However, he relates closest with Wallace, who is at a crossroads with what he wants to do with his life. Wallace reaches out to DeAngelo for advice and DeAngelo gives his advice as a father, rather than a boss. DeAngelo notices Wallace's intelligence and believes he can turn his life around while he is still young. However, when Wallace leaves the crew, Avon becomes suspicious of him and orders Poot and Bodie to take him out. When DeAngelo hears of this, he is noticeably upset with Avon and contemplates taking vengeance upon him through snitching to the police. If DeAngelo had not been as close with his crew, Wallace in particular, then Wallaces' death would have been irrelevant to him. However, DeAngelo does not believe Wallaces' life was expendable like a pawns, and, instead, was hurt like his own son had just died.

Omar's Wisdom of Bailtimore

At first glace, Omar seems to fit the role of another ignorant thug trying to survive in the streets of Baltimore. However, as the season develops, this insight is proven false for Omar is wise in regards to street life. Omar knows the city' like the back of his hand; he knows specific corners the dealers sell on and where they rank on the hierarchy of their crew. Omar is a nightmare for dealers like Avon and Stringer because he knows their system through and through and is not afraid robbing their drugs and money. After Omar's boyfriend and partner-in-crime, Brandon, is tortured and killed, Omar is not hesitant to take vengeance upon Avon. He begins to cooperate with the police and help further build their case against Avon. McNulty believes he has convinced Omar to take Avon down through the confines of the law, however Omar knows the corruption of Baltimore will get in the way of this and takes matters into his own hands by attempting to kill Avon in a set up. Ultimately, the set up fails and Omar is shot by Wee-bey as Avon flees the scene. Omar possesses the courage to fight for something that is wrong, even if he conducts himself  immorally to do so. Avon and Stringer's business runs flawlessly only if the Baltimore citizens remain fearful of their crew's power. Thus, Omar's rebellion against the Barksdale crew serves as the stone that breaks the steel chain.