It might not be today, it might not be for a few years, but I can guarantee you that someone somewhere will find a way to happily marry David Simon’s eye for the broad yet detailed world of intrigue while still finding room for character growth. It’s evolution– a natural occurrence. Anyone want to take a stab at it?

Btw Myles, if you liked Seasons 1-3, you should have a great time with 4. It’s the best yet IMO.

My overarching feeling, and I can’t entirely back it up, is that the traditional narrative is running out of gas. It’s still effective, but with issues as complex as the ones Simon is trying to tackle, is following one or two characters really enough to challenge the audience and equip them with a new understanding? Keeping them entertained is of course paramount to getting a point across, and I’m not sure that threshold has been crossed in a way that will appeal to a broad audience. But to the extent that a show can entertain AND develop empathy in its viewers for many different points of view, I think that’s the direction that television and film should be heading.

A show like The Wire has the potential to help someone who’s never done drugs or even been to a major city understand, at some level, what it’s like to be a soldier at every level of the drug game. Similarly, it can help someone who’s never been involved in law-enforcement or politics or the media or the school system understand how those institutions work, and the impact they have on our society. Most bad decisions we make come as a result of not grasping how our decisions will effect others. By showing a broad range of perspectives through a single medium, we can begin to see how we’re all connected, the impact of our decisions, and the similarities we all share.

It may be an overly intellectual pursuit at this stage, but I hope that television continues to explore this format of story-telling. And next time they do a show about the game, they should let someone’s who been in it write it instead of old, white, bald-ass David Simon.

1. There simply isn’t enough time. The ensemble is enormous and each individual character isn’t given enough face time to really make an emotional impact, in my opinion. Take Omar for instance. This dude is super compelling– anytime Omar is involved in a storyline, I’m interested. But how often do we really get to see Omar’s inner struggles? Two or three scenes over the course of an entire season? I’d say the only exception to this is McNulty, whom we do get to see a fair amount. Imagine if we got to spend just one scene every episode seeing what Bodie did at the end of the work day, or what Bunk does when he’s not drinking with McNulty. Don’t you think it would add a ton of color and emotional weight to the proceedings?

2. As you say, its all about “the game.” No matter how much emotional stuff we get, this show will always be about the system first, characters second. I think you understand this notion, as your final sentence says essentially the same thing. But you’re obviously right in saying that as the series progresses, we certainly get to learn more and more about these characters.

I guess my final point on this matter is this: The Wire is one of the biggest ensemble shows on television, if not the biggest (can you think of a bigger one?), which is clearly an enormous undertaking. So while Simon and Co. accomplish so much with the series, the size and scope of the show simply doesn’t leave enough room for the kind of character emotional development that I believe a series needs to hook more than just intellectuals and media types.

Either way, I enjoyed Generation Kill but tend to disagree with the characterization of both The Wire and this show as intellectual and not emotional. If anything, I’d argue precisely the opposite: that by humanizing and breaking down a broad concept (The Drug Trade, the Iraqi War), Simon is adept at crafting characters we can relate to.

The phenomenon you seem to be speaking of is the fact that, yes, for the most part these characters are defined by if not dominated by their role in “the game” to borrow a Wire term. We meet them as parts of a whole, and we’re usually thrust into the action so quickly that it is their position, rank, actions that define them over any character movement. And, in the premiere of this series, I’ll agree on this assessment.

But I don’t quite believe that it stays this way; with The Wire, all characters given considerable face time become far more complicated than this, and it becomes more about their emotions than their actions. I have to believe the same happens here: we’re only meeting these people, and as we see them do heroic things, or unheroic things, or anything else at all, it’s not just something to think about. Simon may be about the system first and foremost, but he certainly cares about the inner workings of his characters as well.

I agree with you completely about the characters being compelling. I think all the characters on that show are awesome– well drawn, interesting, and fun to watch. BUT, they don’t really go anywhere. Plotwise they do, sure– Jimmy gets transfered to a boat, Kima cheats on her partner, etc.– but do you really feel these people changing? Do they have character arcs? Do they grow as people?

The answer is obviously no, and this is because David Simon doesn’t care about character growth. He cares about telling his story and to do it in as much detail as he does, character development gets left by the wayside. There’s no law that says Simon can’t play it this way, but as long as he does, I’ll never be truly glued to his shows– I need to care about the people more.

As for your observations concerning war-focused media, you raise many interesting points. I’ll just jump to the question you posit in #5. I have a two part response: a. The stakes in this world have always been high. I don’t think the stakes in the world today are, at their core, any different than the stakes of the past. Everyone’s trying to make money, be happy, win wars, and not die.

b. People have been telling stories for centuries, and the fundamental assumptions of narrative have remained basically the same for all this time. Storytelling has always been about character arcs and I do not think any change in the world’s climate will have an effect on this underlying truth.

Thanks for the comments!

I’m not sure what Simon would say about the Band of Brothers, but the great war films taking place post-WWII have such a different tone from the WWII ones, don’t they? Here’s my abbreviated take (concise by my standards, at least):

1) During WWII, we begrudgingly wanted and needed to go to war, and our institutions gave us the capability to do that. In other words, they served us, and our humanity was able to shine through in spite of the great suffering that always accompanies war (at least in the fictionalized narrative).

2) Since WWII, we’ve found ourselves trapped in war after war – from communism to Iraq, terrorism to “drugs” – and no one can really explain why. It’s as if the institutions that we created to serve us became our masters. Reminds me of Wall-E actually…
3) This is what makes telling modern war stories so difficult – the hopes and ideas and feelings of the individuals participating in war are so utterly trumped by the robotic machinations of the war machine; and the fundamental iniquity of the war will always be the giant elephant in the room no matter how many charming personalities or story lines you put in there. At least if you’re going for realism. I guess that you can always just drop Arnold or Stallone in there to have fun and blow people up…

4) It’s not just in war where the institutions are trumping the individual, and this is Simon’s fundamental argument throughout The Wire. While following The Way that the narrative has always been executed is often effective – and even uplifting and inspiring of our individuality and our best natures – I think Simon would argue that it’s inappropriate, even irresponsible, when dealing with issues as immediately pressing as war or the destruction of our inner-cities.

5) As the stakes in this world continue to change and grow, will the fundamental assumptions underlying the narrative stay the same, or will they evolve?

The Jarhead comparison is perfect. And Simon is a total asshole, isn’t he? Sometimes I wish he made more of an effort to present his shows and himself in a way where he could have more impact.

I’m almost entirely with you on your critique of Generation Kill, I guess I’m just surprised that you feel similarly neutral about The Wire. That show is so sacrosanct for so many viewers that it’s a provocative position to take. You’re the most discerning TV viewer I know, and clearly not afraid to push against conventional wisdom. Come to think of it, you and Simon aren’t so different in that way. That iconoclastic spirit is what makes this blog so entertaining and interesting. So even though I’m a total Wire fanboy (if you couldn’t tell by my deep ruminations on your passing mention of it), I enjoy the criticism.

Without digressing too far into a discussion about The Wire, I thought the characters and individual story lines in that show were genuinely, even conventionally, compelling. McNulty, Omar, Stringer Bell, Pryzbylewski, Kima, Bodie, a number of the kids in season 4 – I was involved in each of their individual struggles. The strength of the story-telling almost made me forget Simon’s more grandiose intentions.

I’m not sure if I see that potential for great story-telling in Generation Kill. The Wire turned the conventional cop drama on its head, but GK, SO FAR, isn’t doing or even saying anything new.

To respond: I completely agree with just about everything you said. Based on the first episode, this show looks exactly like a “repackaging”, to borrow your term. The movie “Jarhead” captured a lot of these same emotions (war sucks, marines like to kill, etc.) with a lot of the same feel and look, now that I think of it. And plenty other films/shows/books have done the same.

Also, I of all people always appreciate shows that try to do something different than the usual crap you see on tv. As I mentioned in my post, I appreciate very much what David Simon has done with The Wire on a number of levels, and I appreciate what he’s trying to do with Generation Kill as well. However, “appreciate” infers a certain level of distance. I’m not riveting, enthralled, in love– merely intellectually impressed. And according to Simon, it would seem he doesn’t care about this lack of a connection at all. He himself calls it “prose narrative.” Who calls a teleplay a “prose narrative”? A journalist with no grasp of emotion as the essential human connection to narrative, that’s who.

Fuck the average reader. I HATE the average reader– the people who love Rules of Engagement on CBS and who think Dancing with the Stars is riveting television. But am I an average viewer? Are the people who spend their paychecks on sophisticated, groundbreaking networks like HBO average viewers? Helllll no. So what Simon is really saying is “fuck everyone who doesn’t like how I do things.” Its not that seeing a narrative through individual perspective(s) is an effective convention– it’s simply The Way to emotionally ensnare the viewer. That’s it. It’s how film and television works. Without it, you’ve got a semi-fictionalized brand of journalism a.k.a. the work of David Simon.

Write again soon!

I’ve been skeptical of Generation Kill since I first heard that it was about the Iraq War. There are, after all, a number of truly eye-opening documentaries already out there which cover nearly every aspect of the war (Iraq in Fragments, The War Tapes, Iraq for Sale, No End in Sight, HBO’s own Baghdad ER, etc.) The only reason I can see for making a “realistic” drama about real events happening now is that you have the potential to reach a wider audience; highly-produced film still retains more power over the general public’s imagination than documentary. But David Simon isn’t concerned with ratings or viewership. So what’s he doing?

The Wire consistently inspired with its unique perspective and valuable insights into the way things work (passing a shipyard takes on whole new meaning after watching Season 2). The way it brought to life and illuminated the dark side of the drug war, the ineptitude of traditional institutions, and the failure of modern capitalism to solve our most pressing problems was without precedent. But Generation Kill doesn’t tell us anything new. It just repackages everything we already know — war sucks, and this one in particular was horribly mismanaged — with Wire-esque cinematography and dialogue. You’d get a lot better feel for the war reading Tom Ricks’ Fiasco, Chris Hedges’ War is a Force that Gives Us Meaning, and watching a couple of the aforementioned docs.

I’ll keep watching though. The first few episodes of The Wire were hard to swallow, but eventually the characters and the story came into their own (despite, as you said, being overshadowed at times by the bigger picture).

The argument I think you’re making – that television/film which strives for emotional impact should show us the world primarily through the POV of a few distinct characters – is an interesting one. That’s the convention, and dramas are generally crafted that way for a reason – it’s effective. But I’m always drawn to people and shows which push against that convention and strive to show the world as it is, not how it appears through our contemporary, individualized perspectives…as quixotic as that task may be. It’s worth pointing out that the decision to focus on institutions and issues over individuals is a conscious one by Simon.

I’m on my way to the longest comment ever, so it’s time to wrap up. But your point about how Simon looks for the verisimilitude was so spot-on, and reminded me of a great interview I read with him a while back where he goes into the philosophy he brings to the shows he produces (including his reasons for highlighting institutions over individuals). Here’s a shockingly relevant quote: “My standard for verisimilitude is simple and I came to it when I started to write prose narrative: fuck the average reader.”

Hahahah, check it out: http://www.believermag.com/issues/200708/?read=interview_simon