Season 4 definitely started off with a bang with the killing of Marlo's man. This season has been way more explosive thus far in the first three episodes than any other season. McNulty really hasnt been seen much within the first three episodes. When he has been featured though, he appears to be an upstanding guy. Personally I don't like it, I need my alcoholic McNulty back.
One of the things that is quite interesting to see is the "grooming" of the kids in Baltimore. Im calling it grooming for lack of a better word, but in essence it somewhat is. In the first 3 episodes you see Marlo's man hand out money to the pre-teens and then to Namond's crew. Somehow I dont believe those hundred dollar bill's were actually "free" per say. Marlo seems like a man with a plan and has a lot of things figured out. On the other hand though I thought Avon had his stuff together too. How this will play out in the future should be interesting though.
To hit a little bit on the Psychopath article I wanted to talk a little bit on McNulty. Originally and naturally I though Bubbles was the most prone to being and becoming a psychopath. Escaping reality with drugs for some reason correlates itself with psychopath in my mind. Though after seeing the list for what determines a psychopath, I quickly changed my mind to McNulty. McNulty's attitudes and characteristics seemed to fall in line more so with a psychopath than anyone else in show. I suppose McNulty's spontinous and uncharacteristic behavior as a cop really plays a major part in why I believe he fits the mold of a psychopath.
Lastly, take a look at this video. Its pretty funny to see McNulty with a english accent. Quite impresssive how he can hide it so well, its quite thick.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JopucowsQPY&feature=fvsr
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Stringer: The business man
I must say Stringer's death came at somewhat of a surprise. Though I always had this feeling that Avon took D's death a little light after finding out what happened to him. It should be interesting on how the show goes on without him. He was such a huge part of the show by playing the other half of Avon. It seems as if Avon has already replaced String with the presence of Slim Charles. Slim seems to think and act more in line with Avon in these past couple of episodes. It should be interesting on how their relationship works out in the near future.
One of the most important aspects of Bandura's Moral Disengagement Theory in my opinion, is the Dehumanization aspect to it. By not viewing individuals as humans, a person is able to committ certain acts that they would not normally be able to accomplish. This results in the lack of empathy one shows to other human beings. You see this dehumanization in all three seasons of The Wire. One of the most obvious cases of this is when Stringer placed the hit on D. I believe this example shows moral disengagement on two accounts. First of all, Stringer is not the one that had to kill D. He set it up so another person would have to be the one that actually got their hands dirty. Without actually being the one that kills D, String is able to avoid the emotionally aspect of the hit. Examples of this are limitless. The second part of the moral disengagement is the dehumanization of D. String saw D as a problem, or roadblock. By viewing D as a necessary hit without any other option, he loses all emotionally tie towards D. This is a pretty extreme case of dehumanization within moral disengagement. To be able to dehumanize family of Avon's shows a real sense of lack of empathy.
Lastly Im glad Brother Mouzone and Omar are getting along so well
One of the most important aspects of Bandura's Moral Disengagement Theory in my opinion, is the Dehumanization aspect to it. By not viewing individuals as humans, a person is able to committ certain acts that they would not normally be able to accomplish. This results in the lack of empathy one shows to other human beings. You see this dehumanization in all three seasons of The Wire. One of the most obvious cases of this is when Stringer placed the hit on D. I believe this example shows moral disengagement on two accounts. First of all, Stringer is not the one that had to kill D. He set it up so another person would have to be the one that actually got their hands dirty. Without actually being the one that kills D, String is able to avoid the emotionally aspect of the hit. Examples of this are limitless. The second part of the moral disengagement is the dehumanization of D. String saw D as a problem, or roadblock. By viewing D as a necessary hit without any other option, he loses all emotionally tie towards D. This is a pretty extreme case of dehumanization within moral disengagement. To be able to dehumanize family of Avon's shows a real sense of lack of empathy.
Lastly Im glad Brother Mouzone and Omar are getting along so well
Thursday, March 17, 2011
"Its all part of the game"
First and foremost season three is starting to be my favorite season. It kind of has the best of both season imbedded within it. Even though the docks are not as evident within the season, the turmoil within the political aspect of the show has taken its place. Its nice to see Avon and Stringer not so much in control of their situation. What I mean by this is that in season 1 Avon had everything figured out. The towers were his, the product was good, and the muscle was strong. After two years in the pen, the towers were demolished, the product is weak, and they have no muscle. You also see Stringer his right hand man switch mindsets. Stringer turned from a drug man into a business man. Its almost if Stringer is looking at the big picture and Avon is looking at the small.
One phrase that is being thrown around in season 3 is, "the game has changed". From my recollection they really never define what the game is. We all have made our own definitions to what this phrase means by the context it is used in within the series. In my opinion this is a highly subjective term thrown around in The Wire. Stringer has his own definition and Avon has his. Now you are starting to see how this phrase is starting to cause a problem within Avon's gang. Stringer believes they should be worried about the real-estate. Avon believes they should be worried about their image.
Husak defines decriminalization by saying that the use of a drug carries no criminal charge. In essence you see the decriminalization of drugs in The Wire season 3. Colvin makes it a point to satisfy the boss's ,and decrease crime rates. He does this by allowing dealers to sell in certain areas that he has sectioned off. As long as they don't fight, the cops will turn a blind eye to the selling. One of the most prominent examples of this is when Herc and Carver tell off McNulty from arresting a man with a package. In some sense decriminalization of drugs manipulates the law around the problem. Does it solve the problem? Or does it just hide it?
One phrase that is being thrown around in season 3 is, "the game has changed". From my recollection they really never define what the game is. We all have made our own definitions to what this phrase means by the context it is used in within the series. In my opinion this is a highly subjective term thrown around in The Wire. Stringer has his own definition and Avon has his. Now you are starting to see how this phrase is starting to cause a problem within Avon's gang. Stringer believes they should be worried about the real-estate. Avon believes they should be worried about their image.
Husak defines decriminalization by saying that the use of a drug carries no criminal charge. In essence you see the decriminalization of drugs in The Wire season 3. Colvin makes it a point to satisfy the boss's ,and decrease crime rates. He does this by allowing dealers to sell in certain areas that he has sectioned off. As long as they don't fight, the cops will turn a blind eye to the selling. One of the most prominent examples of this is when Herc and Carver tell off McNulty from arresting a man with a package. In some sense decriminalization of drugs manipulates the law around the problem. Does it solve the problem? Or does it just hide it?
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Season 3
Season 3 really starts off with a bang opposed to season 2. People are getting arrested, dogs are getting shot, people are getting shot, affairs are in the process, and Bunk is still getting hammered. All in all I must say it has the ingredients to make an entertaining season once again. Hands down one of the best scenes in the first 3 episodes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tt0e5zNRhSo
One of the most interesting things said in my opinion was the reference made in episode 2 about drinking on the corner. How people were able to manipulate and interpret the law for its exact meaning. By inserting their beverage of choice in a paper bag the police officer isn't able to prove what the individual is drink just by sight. With no blatant reason to look in the bag means no problems. And in essence this helps both sides of the party. Cops don't have to deal with misdemeanors all day, and the alcoholics get to further their addiction. Its interesting to think about how imperfect our system is, yet it is the most perfect imperfect system we can come up with. It is impossible to cover every little nook and cranny amongst the realm of law for the protection of the criminal and officer.
While writing this I was trying to think of another example like the plastic bag with the alcohol. I almost feel like this type of situation happens all the time in the police context of the show. It seems as if there are always things being swayed or manipulated a certain way in order to prove a certain point. One of the most obvious and brutal are the police brutality instances in the show. Any others that come to mind from the other side?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tt0e5zNRhSo
One of the most interesting things said in my opinion was the reference made in episode 2 about drinking on the corner. How people were able to manipulate and interpret the law for its exact meaning. By inserting their beverage of choice in a paper bag the police officer isn't able to prove what the individual is drink just by sight. With no blatant reason to look in the bag means no problems. And in essence this helps both sides of the party. Cops don't have to deal with misdemeanors all day, and the alcoholics get to further their addiction. Its interesting to think about how imperfect our system is, yet it is the most perfect imperfect system we can come up with. It is impossible to cover every little nook and cranny amongst the realm of law for the protection of the criminal and officer.
While writing this I was trying to think of another example like the plastic bag with the alcohol. I almost feel like this type of situation happens all the time in the police context of the show. It seems as if there are always things being swayed or manipulated a certain way in order to prove a certain point. One of the most obvious and brutal are the police brutality instances in the show. Any others that come to mind from the other side?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)