Sunday, February 17, 2008

The Wire Mondays: Season 5, Ep. 7, "Took"

By Andrew Johnston



“They don’t teach it in law school.”
--Pearlman
________________________


The Wire is usually pretty good about not talking down to its audience, but early in "Took" there’s a scene in which Lester Freamon goes over the whole scheme involving the tap on Marlo’s cell phone and that on the phone of the “homeless killer” in which he and McNulty are pretty much telling each other stuff they already know. It’s a little annoying, and while I’m generally a big fan of Richard Price, I think it’s a scene that other Wire writers (David Simon and Edward Burns, for example) might not have made so obvious: Price is perhaps more used to writing for a general audience than for a cadre of obsessives; here he seems to be erring on the side of safety. It’s the one scene that feels like a clunker in an otherwise fine episode that ratchets the momentum up even further, yet manages to end on one of the most peaceful and introspective moments in the series’ run.

When McNulty calls Scott Templeton to fuck with the reporter’s head, pretending to be the killer he’s invented, it seems the game may be over for a second when Homicide’s Vernon Holley intercepts the call. It’s soon clear that McNulty intended for the call to be recorded at homicide; even so, it’s the first of several moments in "Took" in which the house of cards seems about to crash down on McNulty. At the Sun, when he meets with Klebanow, Haynes and Templeton once again, McNulty is peppered with questions from Haynes that leave him scrambling for quick answers and suggest that the city editor would see right through McNulty if he wasn’t so distracted by his problems with Templeton. When McNulty and Rhonda Pearlman meet with Judge Phelan again, the jurist observes that the killings coincided with the tough-on-crime governor gearing up for a reelection campaign. “You may want to check the governor’s alibi,” Phelan says, making a wisecrack which reminds us that there are a lot of smart folks in David Simon’s Baltimore, and for every three people who accept McNulty’s scam at face value, there’s going to be at least one who can immediately tell that things don’t add up.

Clay Davis has always seemed like someone whose success is due more to his mouth than his brain, but honey-tongued loquaciousness means little without smarts to back it up. Badly hurting for cash, Davis shows his intelligence by persuading one of Baltimore’s top attorneys to represent him for well below his usual fee, pointing out that the publicity he’d get for representing Davis would be worth well more than his billable hours. Davis’s trial is one of a number of scenes in "Took" that feel like “The Wire’s greatest hits”: The limo driver’s testimony (and, to a lesser extent, that of Davis himself) echoes Omar’s moment on the stand in Season Two, one of the funniest scenes in the series’ history.

Even though Davis makes a fool of himself on camera by quoting from "Pro-mee-thus" Bound by “Uh-silly-us”, there are only 12 people he really has to impress, and they presumably lack access to TV. The limo driver mentions misdeeds of Davis’ that fall outside the purview of the trial, as the judge is quick to point out; but by keeping the case's focus ultra-tight, she makes it that much easier for Davis to work his magic on the jury (comprised of 10 African-Americans, one Asian woman and one white man). The incident garners Quote of the Week honors for Pearlman; her observation that they don’t teach this shit in law school is nothing if not an understatement.

McNulty’s success with the ruse, meanwhile, certainly seems to be going to his head, as he uses the case as an opportunity to become everybody’s new best friend, throwing handfuls of overtime at his fellow cops in a manner that recalls Clarence “Bumpy” Johnson throwing Thanksgiving turkeys to a Harlem crowd at the beginning of American Gangster. McNulty is so transparently happy to be able to play the role of OT Fairy for his fellow officers that you have to think it’s only a matter of time until they realize how suspiciously unshaken he is by the supposedly disturbing case he’s investigating.

Of course, McNulty won’t evade punishment if Bunk has anything to say about it. Everyone’s favorite Homicide curmudgeon repeatedly gets in the grills of McNulty and Freamon this week, railing harder than ever against them for diverting resources from real cases such as Kima’s triple homicide (which, via an informant’s leak, she has tied to Chris and Snoop). After Carver hauls in Michael Lee (who, in another reference to episodes past, gets to deliver McNulty’s immortal “What the fuck did I do?” line), Bunk, following up on his re-investigation of the rowhouse murders, presses Michael to give up Snoop and Chris. Later, back on the street, Michael finds himself in the middle of Omar’s latest attempt to intimidate Marlo into a public confrontation. In the eyes of most, Michael is still “just a kid”, but he knows all too well that he’s descended far enough down the dark path for Omar to have no qualms about killing him, and he thanks his lucky stars (as well he should) that he wasn’t recognized from the shoot-out at Monk’s apartment.

One might argue that the scene in which Gus Haynes gives a bunch of pointers to Sun reporter Mike Fletcher is a time-waster -- Gus’s credibility as a journalist has been long-since proven with the audience -- but it’s still nice to see evidence of how good he is at what he does. His insights into Fletcher’s story and what the younger reporter needs to do to hone his craft lend extra credence to his sincere praise for Scott Templeton last week -- as well as to his criticism of Templeton for going too far this time with his “To Walk Among Them” story, which makes the homeless sound like extraterrestrials.

Haynes’ level-headed Sun colleague Rebecca Corbett, who has also previously displayed suspicion of Templeton, again takes Haynes’ side, but that means nothing when Klebanow decides to pull rank and run Templeton’s story unchanged. While most of this week’s allusions to the past harken back to earlier seasons, this week we get parallels to scenes from just a week ago as Fletcher spends time with the homeless (and the non-homeless Bubbles) himself, in what seems like an honest, “this-is-the-right-way-to-do-it” version of Templeton’s night under the freeway. If Templeton had interacted with Bubbles, the beloved addict would surely have been reduced to a lurid stereotype in the resulting story; Fletcher, one expects, is much more likely to treat him as a human being.

In the past, there have been amusing parallels between McNulty and Kima as, once the pressure of the job ruptured her relationship with her partner Cheryl, Kima herself took to drinking and skirt-chasing. This week, Kima reenacts one of the all-time classic Wire scenes when, upon getting to spend a weekend with her son, she buys an Ikea bed and has a hell of a time trying to cobble the damn thing together while under the influence, a task that severely tried McNulty’s patience when he took a shot at it back in (I believe) Season Two. Kima’s struggle to turn a pile of particle board into something usable gives way to a wonderful final scene in which she lulls her son to sleep with a ghetto version of Goodnight Moon. It’s a peaceful, deeply moving moment—and, given the pace of events, probably one of the last tranquil moments that anyone on The Wire will experience for quite some time.

______________________

A couple of observations: Price and Simon throw a huge spanner into the works as far as continuity geeks like me are concerned by giving a cameo to none other than Richard Belzer, Detective Munch of Homicide: Life on the Street and Law & Order: SVU fame. Although Belzer identifies himself as a former bar owner—and Munch co-owned a tavern on Homicide -- I’m inclined to think he’s not reprising the role. For one thing, he shares the frame with Clark Johnson, who of course played one of Munch’s coworkers, Meldrick Lewis, on Homicide.

For another, if he playing Munch, he’d theoretically be connecting The Wire to the same continuity as a vast array of other series, few of which seem like they take place in the same world: In addition to Homicide and SVU, Munch has appeared on the original L&O, The X-Files, The Beat (UPN’s short-lived 2000 series about uniformed NYPD patrolmen, starring Mark Ruffalo), L&O Trial by Jury, Paris enquetes criminells (the French remake of L&O Criminal Intent, starring Vincent Perez as a Gallic version of Vincent D’Onofrio’s character) and even Arrested Development and Sesame Street! Through various other crossovers, these series can be linked to The Simpsons, Chicago Hope and the ultimate crossover magnet, St. Elsewhere, which, via the notorious Tommy Westphall Hypothesis, theoretically takes place in the same universe as Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Seinfeld, Walker Texas Ranger, Fresh Prince of Bel Air, I Love Lucy and Mayberry RFD. Given some contradictions between Homicide and SVU where Munch’s biography is concerned, it’s possible to argue that the Homicide Munch and the L&O Munch are different characters in different universes (even though the Homicide Munch has appeared on the L&O shows, one of whom grew up in Pikesville, MD, the other in New York. Yes, it’s enough to make your head spin, but such is the nature of obsessive TV fandom. In any event, my position is that The Wire takes place in its own universe, with no ties to Homicide or any other series.

The lawyer representing Clay Davis, Billy Murphy, is a real-life defense attorney, one of the city’s finest, as well as a member of the city’s black aristocracy (his great-grandfather founded the Baltimore Afro-American, a legendary black newspaper that’s popped up in the background on The Wire once or twice). In the biography on his website, Murphy describes a philosophy that leaves no doubt as to why he was Clay Davis’ first choice: “I look at it this way -- a trial lawyer who isn’t able to use the full spectrum of techniques has arbitrarily limited himself. If a trial judge pushes you, you’ve got to push back. I used to say that my client is a child of God and everybody else is a son of a bitch.”
______________________________________

Andrew Johnston is the television critic for Time Out New York.

61 comments:

Algernon said...

One quick correction:

"The limo driver mentions misdeeds of Davis’ that fall outside the purview of the trial, as Pearlman is quick to point out; but by keeping the case's focus ultra-tight, she makes it that much easier for Davis to work his magic on the jury."

It was the judge who pointed that out, not Pearlman. That exchange was to remind us of Bond's mistake in not taking the case federal and thinking he had enough to get Davis with the charity stuff.

Matt Zoller Seitz said...

More thoughts later, but for now, a transcribed quote from Gus advising one of his reporters to get into the shelter the next day and...

"..just be with folk. I don't even care if you file copy or not. If something presents itself as a story, great. But just spend the day being with people. I'm not interested in whether it can be quoted or counted, I'm interested in what feels true."

That's as beautiful a bit of writing as Bunny Colvin's brown paper bag speech from Season Three. Journalists who are just starting out should read it and memorize it, and carry it around in their heads as an example of the sort of environment that all reporters should work in, but very rarely do.

Andrew said...

You're kidding yourself if you think that Belzer wasn't playing Munch in that scene. You're saying that Simon would bring Belzer in just to play some random cop who used to own a bar. Let's be reasonable. It's Simon just giving quick nod to the show that got him into the TV business. The only reason he's not explicity identified is to give plausible deniability to people who believe linking The Wire to that vast universe of shows would somehow harm its credibility. It's also worth noting that the scene also features Jay Landsman, the real life basis for Munch.

Carmichael Harold said...

Since I finished watching the episode (a whole 20 minutes ago), I've been fighting with myself about the Goodnight Moon scene at the end. On one hand, it was one of the most affecting and almost perfect scenes on what is one of the most affecting and perfect shows I've ever watched.

On the other hand, it was a grace night unlike any other that I remember on the Wire, so much so that it both brought me into Kima's world and yet pulled me out of the show at large.

Part of me wishes that they had saved that scene to be the very last of the final episode of the show (after the expected montage), as it would guarantee to me that the show would go out with something less than the total heartbreak and frustration that I expect. Another part of me realizes that this scene could never have been the last scene of the final episode, because that's just not how the show is (or, perhaps was, as this season has seen a bit of an uptick in mythic elements).

To summarize the above quasi-coherence: I am very happy that I had a chance to watch the Goodnight Hoppers scene, though I wonder whether leaving it in was an editorial failure (to pull in a theme from this episode). Sometimes great scenes need to go if they don't fit the tone/theme/story, and I can't quite decide whether this one needed to go.

Carmichael Harold said...

On a slightly different note, can someone explain to me (apparently Richard Price didn't explicate it quite enough in the episode for my tired brain) how Homicide was up on the call that McNulty made to Templeton?

I thought they were only up on the pay phone that Templeton's original faux-call came from (as Phelan refused to put them up on Templeton's phone), and the picture came so soon after from a different location that I don't think it's plausible to say that the call was supposed to come from the pay phone.

Matt Zoller Seitz said...

Wow, there must be something in the air. I'm about to turn in for the night, and I decided to come over here and write something about that scene with Kima and her boy in the window, and how I thought it should have been the very last scene of the series. But I like it fine where it is. In a few short sing-song sentences, Kima articulates the difference between living in an ideal world and living in the world, which is the overarching theme of every episode, every season, of this series.

I think it's perfect where it is. To make it an ending, a summation, would be untrue to the series. Life goes on, and it doesn't go on the way you'd like.

MountPleasantHype said...

The "Goodnight Moon" scene was beautiful, and it shows just how melodramatic and obvious other shows are, as if they were written by Templeton. When the siren seemingly interrupted Kima's "Goodnight Moon," I expected her to fret and stress about the world's ills and how hard it will be to raise a child in this mess. How beautiful that The Wire went the other way. Instead, she didn't hide it from the kid or even get upset. Kima named everyone out there we've been watching, and who we all know have always existed "Goodnight Po-pos, goodnight hoppers, goodnight fiends, goodnight hustlers, goodnight schemers, good night everybody." So brilliant, because the fans of this overtly tragic show were just put to bed, happily and peacefully, for the time being anyway.

Dan Jardine said...

Hell, maybe the scene didn't "fit" the rest of the episode in a traditionally Aristotlean sense, but it sure did work its magic on me. It really is one of the ten most affecting scenes I have ever seen on this show, and that's saying something on a show that has had quite literally hundreds of them. And Sonja Smits sells the shit out of the moment. Great piece of acting.

Matt Zoller Seitz said...

carmichael harold: "On a slightly different note, can someone explain to me (apparently Richard Price didn't explicate it quite enough in the episode for my tired brain) how Homicide was up on the call that McNulty made to Templeton?"

I wasn't 100% sure about that one, either. But I'm about to watch the episode a second time, so if it becomes more clear I'll come back here and post something.

What I'm curious about (not having seen the ep. after this one) is how easy it is to un-distort McNulty's voice to figure out that it's McNulty.

Carmichael Harold said...

With a night's sleep behind me, I've come completely around on the Goodnight Moon scene for reasons that Matt and mountpleasanthype articulated, and because as dan jardine says its magic was just too strong.

But also because it was a note of redemption for one of the best, most complex characters that the show has (and, I think, the one character that can serve as a partial rebuttal to the "Simon & Co. can't write women" meme).

Through the previous 4 seasons, Kima has been shown as almost a junior McNulty, both with her skill as police and with the way she let the job come between her and her family. This parallel was made pretty obvious with the Ikea scene in this episode, but where McNulty would most likely have been too drunk or sneaking out with some women when his kid(s) came looking for solace, Kima was there both physically and emotionally.

I don't think many characters will have any sort of redemption this season (though I've got my fingers crossed for Bubbles), and this episode takes place in the typical "New Day" portion of the season, so any positives may be illusory. However, I'd like to think that Goodnight Moon was the show telling us that whatever else, Kima will be a good mother and will stay connected to her son (unlike, say, McNulty, as the scene two weeks ago showed).

Of course, Kima bringing the street into her moment with her child could just be another moment like McNulty's front-and-follow with his kids and Stringer; the too-work-obsessed parent's inability to keep the street from his/her parenting as portent for what the future holds in that relationship. I don't think this is the case, and I most certainly hope it isn't.

By the way, my first posted comment last night should have said "grace note, not "grace night". . . apparently the scene really did get inside my brain.


Matt, I was thinking the same thing about McNulty's voice. I mean, how many people in Baltimore can have a British English inflected Bawlmore accent?

Anonymous said...

Isn't it kind of unfair to put the blame for over-exposition on Richard Price? I mean, no matter who gets the writing credit, every script is rewritten several times by the whole staff and ultimately has to be approved by David Simon. Also, I didn't think it was nearly as bad as some of the expository scenes in episodes 1 and 2 of this season.

Andrew Johnston said...

You're kidding yourself if you think that Belzer wasn't playing Munch in that scene.

I probably should have phrased my point slightly differently--rather than saying "I don't think Belzer is playing Munch", I should probably said "I choose to believe he's not playing Munch, because I'd like The Wire to stay as far away as possible from that continuity clusterfuck".

Isn't it kind of unfair to put the blame for over-exposition on Richard Price? I mean, no matter who gets the writing credit, every script is rewritten several times by the whole staff and ultimately has to be approved by David Simon. Also, I didn't think it was nearly as bad as some of the expository scenes in episodes 1 and 2 of this season.

Point taken about assigning the blame to Price; however, the scene stuck out pretty seriously--The Wire seldom has scenes that recap the previous week's plot within an episode itself, and it felt unusual enough that ascribing it to Price, who only writes one episode a season, seemed logical. Otherwise, he did as fine a job as ever and doesn't deserve to be taken to task.

anon said...

Though others will surely correct me if I'm wrong:

Remember that McNulty has also received a call from the serial killer. I thought he claimed his call originated from a cellphone rather than a payphone, hence providing the fake cellphone number to be tapped -- this was the number associated with the phone Sydnor was carrying in the opening sequence. Lester was feeding the fake number to the monitoring system so that it would be the fake cellphone that was GPS tracked. The whole ruse at the opening was to generate an excuse to monitor the killer's phone (or possibly Templeton's -- I forget which) for image transmissions.

Andrew,

In addition to the Westphall hypothesis, we also have The Munch Paradox. We only got two out of three in the same room, though.

Anon

Darren MacLennan said...

The Goodnight Moon scene was awesome, agreed. It originally appeared in Price's "Clockers", with Rocco standing at the window with his daughter and giving pretty much the same speech. (He includes werewolves among the people that they say goodnight to.)

-Darren MacLennan

Andrew said...

It originally appeared in Price's "Clockers", with Rocco standing at the window with his daughter and giving pretty much the same speech.

Seriously? This is, by my count, the fourth scene that Price has lifted from "Clocker" and put into "The Wire". I can't decide if it's lazy or just recognizing when you already have a good applicable scene.

Anonymous said...

It is not lazy on Price's part.

The other Wire writers are natural fans of Clockers. And there have been moments, in writers' meetings, when we have specifically requested that Price utilize a specific, admired moment from that work. Being a decent, tolerant fellow, he has repeatedly obliged us.

Who with a soul would not want to see filmed the moment with the sideways ball cap, or the you-must-be-the-lovely-mrs.-big-chief confrontation? Same for Kima Greggs being granted the Goodnight Moon soliloquy.

Not writing to inhibit any critique of the show. Just writing so that Richard Price gets just credit for his generosity, rather than criticized for stealing from himself.

David Simon
Baltimore, Md.

Matt Zoller Seitz said...

Thanks, David.

Andrew said...

Just for the sake of clarification, I wasn't trying to criticize Price so much as I was trying to make a wry observation about so many Clockers scenes appearing in Price written episodes. I love all those scenes and they fit perfectly with the show. The "Goodnight" scene will probably be one of my all time favorites. That said, it is good to know that Price isn't actively trying to insert the moments into the show on his own volition.

Dan Jardine said...

For a second there I thought Simon was claiming to be a Baltimore doctor (Baltimore Md).

I'm so Canadian.

Doje said...

The anticipation before, and sheer enjoyment during, these final episodes is growing each week. And I thought I was excited for the Sopranos season finale... think how special the closing montage will be for THIS series in a few episodes? I just got goose bumps (again).

Few thoughts on 57:

*Re: Ronny's title quote... Very telling, very true to one of the show's themes: the game will always be one step ahead.

*The scene in which Gus is pleading his case not to run the, as one commenter cleverly pointed out, "extra-terrestrial" piece Templeton wrote is a nice stroke of wardrobe irony. Gus is complaining about the "purple"-ness of Scott's prose, while at the same time wearing a purple shirt and tie. Sweet touch by the writers. 'Haynes may don purple threads, but he aint no hack,' and the several other meanings one could extract.

*The look on the Sun reporter's face as Clay Davis walks up the courtroom stairs preaching 'Prometheus Bound.' Haha, priceless. (also the botched pronunciations and shiny, unread, condition of the book are spot-on.)

*The few glimpses we've seen when Clay drops his "performance" are revealing, and appreciated. From "silver-tongued" claims of persecution to a heavy-edged frown in a nano-second. Impressive. Sad.

*How about the Bubbles/Gus parallel in narration: both insisting for Fletcher to write the homeless follow-up "like it feels." A thick coat out of the Bunny Colvin paint bucket, eh?.

*Is it possible to watch the face Clay Davis makes as he pulls out his pockets and stands up while getting questioned in the court room, and not laugh uncontrollably and rewind back and watch again? (If you can, you are a better man/woman than I.)

*"Fuck! Fuck! FUCK! Piece of shit!" Kima has been flying under the radar for me this season. Great performance by her in this episode... Yep, got teary eyed during 'Goodnight Moon.'

Hope that rambling is coherent at times. I'm glad I stumbled on this site/forum. Great stuff guys!

Anonymous said...

How cruel of David Simon to stop by and not provide any insight into the question of Munch!
- m

The Markitect said...

These comments really are a breath of fresh air. Many of the loyal fans over at Heaven and Here have chastised the show as of late, and I am just not on the same page with many of them. I know their criticisms come from love of the show...but they're also so premature (not to mention mistaken). This episode is proof that the show has not abandoned the seemingly leisured yet jam packed pace with which we're all so familiar and comfortable.

At this point I'm wondering what possible outcome lies ahead for McNulty besides bracelets. This whole thing is skirting entirely out of his control. While the guy might be able to keep his own schemes under control, one that involves an entire city is sure to trip him up eventually. This murder thing won't just go away, which is a great parallel to the real vacant murders that have all but disappeared from the public's concern. My only fear is that all of our favorite characters from the show are going to go out on a rather low note.

I loved the Munch cameo. In fact, I have loved every cameo of the season so far. Some have suggested they come across forced, but I don't see them that way. The ones I'm still (eagerly) waiting for: Prez and Colvin. Anyone else left?

For the sake of discussion, does anyone have any theories on the clock codes?

Matt Zoller Seitz said...

I don't trouble myself too much with the Munch cameo, or any of the blink-and-you'll-miss-them cameos by characters from seasons past. They're either as aspect of the series' "Everything is connected" mindset or else they're little in-jokes that the creator just couldn't resist sneaking in there. I suppose seeing Belzer in the bar takes a person out of the drama for a minute, or introduces questions of continuity/connectedness to other series. But who says "The Wire" has to pretend to be a documentary every minute, and not acknowledge that people invent these scenarios and actors play them?

Alfred Hitchcock had a cameo in almost every film he ever made, and some of them were pretty ostentatious, but we all seem to be able to accept them as the winks that they are, and enjoy the drama for what it is.

Matt Zoller Seitz said...

Regarding the clock codes: no fucking clue.

Patrick said...

I'd argue Clay is intentionally mispronouncing 'Prom-eethus Bound' as part of his "I'm from the people, unlike 'O-Bond-a' over here" campaign. I love the moment where Clay turns away from the cameras and we catch a glimpse of the real man, scowling and out of character.

I reviewed the episode over at my blog, lot of stuff to say about this one. This one definitely made me feel better about the direction of the season, and kicked up the momentum enough that I can see a satisfying ending three episodes down the line.

Simon Hsu said...

I was pacing myself perfectly until this post showed up. Now I need tips on how to survive 2 weeks without new Wire instead of the usual 1.

Dan Jardine: And Sonja Smits sells the shit out of the moment.

Credits police! It's Sonja Sohn, not Smits. Normally I'd let you off with a warning but I noticed you made the same err over at Alan Sepinwall's ;) (for what it's worth, your doctor comment triggered a hearty laugh)

MZS: Alfred Hitchcock had a cameo in almost every film he ever made, and some of them were pretty ostentatious

I literally watched Lifeboat just two nights ago and was wondering during the first few minutes how the hell Hitchcock was going to make an appearance. I half-expected a manatee suit, and got something that induced just as heavy an eye roll.

Regarding the clocks, I have a theory that they're read similarly to the Barksdales' phone code in S1: the numbers that matter are opposite the ones the hands point to. But do they point to a time? location? It's anyone's guess.

My favorite single moment of this episode (aside from that perfect, perfect ending) has to be McNulty's reaction when Crutchfield calls him "Boss".

Matt Zoller Seitz said...

My favorite "Wire" moment this episode is Templeton, freaked out as hell, saying the killer called him -- then pausing for a horrible second and adding, "again."

Also: Interesting article on the show by one of my favorite bloggers, Brandon Soderberg, who's mostly positive on the series but has some sharply critical things to say.

Nomi Lubin said...

Ha. Am I the only one who doesn't mind the rare moments of exposition on "The Wire?" (Talking here only about plot re-cap, not those scenes earlier in the season which I felt were heavy-handed and message-y.)

Anonymous said...

Matt, I think your friend Brandon kind of buries the lede with the fifth paragraph admission that "Before this season, I never got through an entire episode. I’ve seen bits and pieces of plenty of episodes, but the show would always annoy or bore me and I’d turn it off." He sure has a lot to say, though!
- m

brandon said...

Matt-
Thank you very much for the link!!

Yeah...I mean I haven't seen episodes before this season; I could've not admitted it and the article could read the same...it certainly messes-up my objectivity though.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, but thanks for the full disclosure anyway. Now I know that I don't have to take the piece too seriously.

Miguel Cairo said...

On a slightly different note, can someone explain to me (apparently Richard Price didn't explicate it quite enough in the episode for my tired brain) how Homicide was up on the call that McNulty made to Templeton?

I thought they were only up on the pay phone that Templeton's original faux-call came from (as Phelan refused to put them up on Templeton's phone), and the picture came so soon after from a different location that I don't think it's plausible to say that the call was supposed to come from the pay phone.


As I understand it, homicide never thought they were up on a payphone, but on the serial killer's cellphone. McNulty never divulged that Templeton was called via a payphone. The warrant thinks it's a cellphone.

I'm not actually sure how this misunderstanding came about:

When McNulty calls Scott Templeton to fuck with the reporter’s head, pretending to be the killer he’s invented, it seems the game may be over for a second when Homicide’s Vernon Holley intercepts the call. It’s soon clear that McNulty intended for the call to be recorded at homicide

Well, yeah, that's the whole point of the scheme.

1. Templeton calls his cellphone from a payphone.

2. McNulty is told this, says to himself, "That's great, I can use this to get a wire up. I'll tell the paper that they absolutely cannot write about where the calls are coming from or how they're being made, and then I'll tell the judge that the call was made from a cellphone, and then we'll sub in Marlo's phone number and we'll be up on the wire."

3. Freamon does all his Chloe technobabble shit to make sure only he's up on Marlo's phone, while homicide -- unbenownst to them -- isn't up on anything because the cable's not plugged in.

4. Freamon deduces that Marlo's using the cameraphone function, so they need a new warrant to get the computers up to be able to intercept the photo files.

5. McNulty comes up with his newest crazy scheme with the homeless guy to do this. So he has to send a picture, Freamon hooks up the cables at homicide and does some technobabble shit to clone Marlo's number or whatever (this is what the whole opening explanation was about, not old stuff), they make the call. BAM, revised warrant, and their up on Marlo's cameraphone.

ben livant said...

What a bunch of starved sentimentalists y'll are. I liked the closing scene well enough. But here's the thing, and it's not that Price (whoever he is) borrowed his own affecting scene from Clockers (whatever that is). [Alright, I Googled him and it. Missed that Spike Lee joint back in 95.] The thing is, when you make a direct allusion to something as culturally resonant as "Goodnight Moon," a work so well known and truly beloved; get real, you're gonna send your dart to the heart. All that remains is to avoid a hack Disney treatment, be tasteful and given whatever happens to be your cultural universe, adapt accordingly. The closing scene of episode seven is lovely. It is tasteful and the allusion is appropriately adapted. But give it up folks - especially every one of you daddies (any mommies wired on The Wire?) who ever read the book to your own little kids - the real power is coming from the book itself. And by the way, speaking of tapping some of the greatness of an established literary masterpiece, I agree with Patrick contra Andrew Johnston that Clay Davis intentionally mispronounced "Prometheus Bound" and "Aeschylus" as part of his performance to work the jury and public opinion. They don't teach it in law school. Damn straight. Shee-it! By the time Clay was done on the stand, I myself believed him to be a man of the people; Al Capone giving out turkeys at Christmas, a Columbian drug lord pouring a concrete foundation for a school house. That he is nothing of the sort, that he is FROM the people but no longer OF the people, well, that's what makes Clay Davis such a realistic character. That motherfucker is one entertaining class traitor.

Millar said...

A couple of thoughts:

1. I don't think that McNulty's success is going to his head. If anything he seems to understand that things are getting out of control. While he was happy to give out the first OT to Det. Christianson the later requests seemed more of a burden than a blessing, especially since they diverted resources away from Freamon. I think the happiness displayed by McNulty is more of him being a smart ass to Bunk. Bunk's complaint was that McNulty was preventing detectives from solving real murders, now thanks to McNulty the detectives are able to and McNulty wants to rub it in.

2. The newspaper story line has not caught on with me at all. I think part of it is because it comes off as too personal. Simon's personal beliefs (and cheapshots) are too evident. Throughout the series I have always respected or atleast understood basically all the main characters. Even those I initially disliked (Boadie, Clay Davis) have turned into some of my favorites. This has not happened at all for the newspaper "bad guys." Scott is too slimy and unlikable while the editors seem like card board cutouts who are incapable of ever right thing. I have no understanding of those characters or empathy for them. Maybe the problem is they have only been around for half a season. However, this was never the case in season 4. Right away I was invested in the lives of the corner boys. Nothing at the paper has really interested me.

Ben Livant said...

I agree with Millar about McNulty and I would add that he has already expressed to Lester that he is getting nervous. He's eager to end the charade, get Marlow and get out. I also would have agreed with Millar about the newspaper storyline until Scott so seriously crossed the line. Now I find it interesting indeed.

Then - Ben

Chicken Pizza? said...

The hat is back!

Bubbles putting his hat back on was the scene that got me. For the first time in a while, he's useful again: breaking down the homeless scene for the newspaper guy the way he used to break down the drug game for Kima & friends.

Maybe next week he'll bust out the red hat to show the reporter who to talk to. My bet is that Johnny Fifty gets the red hat.

A. McCann said...

“The newspaper story line has not caught on with me at all.”

Same with me Millar. I believe the weakness of the “Sun” story line is collateral damage of the shortened season, and it’s angle has been kind of force-fed to us with clear cut, black and white character definitions. Gus, good. Scott, bad. Sprinkled with a few scenes highlighting commentaries from Simon on what it takes to be a good, successful reporter (i.e. the earlier scene with Twigg’s mental dossier on Daniels, and this week’s entry: Gus’ report to young Mike Fletcher on how to get a “feel” for a story) and a few scenes showing the paper’s link to the rest of the Wire tapestry (Hayne’s repertoire with Norman/Landsman), and that’s about it.

Every other season after S1 added a writer with a clear cut expertise on the main theme of that given season: Docks, Alvarez; Politics/Reform, Zorzi; Education, Burns’ second specialty. This season was supposed to be Simon’s wheel house and I feel like he’s spent over half of it painting his old profession in such broad strokes. I wish he would’ve stretched it out a bit, and provided a little more gray area like he did with other seasons. Maybe there’s still time.

A. McCann said...

Since there is a lot of talk about continuity here, I have a few questions for you fellow-obsessed fans.

1. Do the creators forget that Kima was shot through the neck? In season two, I believe she had a visible scar. Recently, no such scar is visible.
2. With all the talk about “Clockers” in this entry – whose most horrifying images are the opening sequencing showing the severe damage of guns – a similar question arises about Omar’s wound from S1. Isn’t it just a bit implausible that Omar would be able to fully recover from a gunshot wound through the shoulder (especially with his personal makeshift medical care) to continuously yield a high powered shotgun?
3. Would Nick Sobotka really be making a spectacle with his dock buddies if he were a protected witness? I’m assuming were supposed to take the fact that he has already testified, but wouldn’t Vondas – who had to flee given Nick’s ability to give him up to the detail/feds – now back in town look immediately at the docks to locate and “silence” Niko?

Nomi Lubin said...

I know that Matt and a few other people with experience have said that the newspaper vibe feels right to them. I take their word for it, especially as far as certain particular moments that Matt pointed out a few weeks ago.

But, for me, Millar and A. McCann articulate exactly why The Sun scenes so often fall flat and lack the fantastic delicacy that we've been treated to in almost all the other institutions depicted on the show.

Ben Livant said...

Simon Hsu, I have never seen Hitchcock's Lifeboat - and this is a spoiler alert to anyone else who hasn't - so please tell me: Doesn't Hitch get himself into the picture by way of photographs in a newspaper, before and after shots in a weight-loss advertisement? Please confirm. And if this is the pre-post-modern self-referential standard, I reckon Richard Belzer appearing in yet another scene brought into being by David Simon only proves the two of them have enjoyed a beer together off the set.

Then - Ben

Matt Zoller Seitz said...

Hey, Ben--Matt here (SPOILER ALERT FOR THOSE WHO HAVEN'T SEEN "LIFEBOAT"). Yep, that's exactly it. If you want to see a screenshot, click here and scroll down.

A. McCann: I'd say all of the examples you cite indicate one of two things: (1) the creators of "The Wire" are more dogged about continuity than most TV drama producers, but they do let things slip through the net, or (2) it's fiction, and since the show needed Kima to be a fully-functioning, very physical cop, and Omar to be a super-badass, they decided they were "healed" and proceeded from there.

Either of these scenarios might seem a betrayal, coming from a show that's otherwise rooted in plausibility and gritty detail. But compared to the way they did things on "The Sopranos" -- where spectacular murders sometimes drew no press attention at all, and murderous Russians simply vanished into thin air -- it seems the height of documentary realism.

I'm willing to overlook Nick Sobotka's very public reappearance on grounds that, as Simon said to Alan Sepinwall, he is one of those guys who couldn't hack witness protection and had to go back to his old world -- and also, the guy struck me as not terribly sensible anyway.

Ben Livant said...

Matt, you are truly a wonderful host. Thank you for the link. I think Hitchcock is all form and no content, but damn if he wasn't a sharp tack. What a great gimmick. Cheers.

Then - Ben

Dan Jardine said...

Hitchcock had a LOT of form, judging from that profile.

Thank you thank you, I'm here all week. Try the veal, I hear it is excellent.

Simon Hsu said...

Thanks Matt. You saved me from having to grab a screenshot.

Ben,

It's amazing how much you can know about a movie before you see it isn't it?

Just for clarity, my "eye roll" comment above was meant as praise. I love Hitchcock to death, fat or slim, veal or ham, I do love him, Sam-I-am.

Anonymous said...

No talk about Omar's ruse - playing the "gimpy" Omar when he confronts Michael's crew versus the slightly more agile Omar who takes out Marlo's muscle (can't remember the name).

Matt Zoller Seitz said...

Hmmm...While watching the episode I didn't think that Omar was exaggerating his impaired mobility all that much in the scene you cite. And in any event, everyone knows Omar jumped off a balcony and must have sustained some injuries, and he is in fact injured.

I'm not sure what Omar would gain, then, by conspicuously appearing in public hobbling around on his homemade crutch. Anyone who came after him on the basis of "Omar can barely walk" wouldn't be operating on false information, since in fact, Omar can barely walk.

To me that scene -- combined with Omar's cursing and him wantonly killing one of Marlo's underlings -- shows that Omar is a man so obsessed with killing the guy who killed his friend that he's not thinking as tactically as he normally does. It's straight-up, chest-puffing machismo: tell that pussy Marlo to come out and face me like a man.

Seems to me Omar would have been better off continuing to harass and intimidate people under cover of night, sneaking up on them, doing damage, sending a message and slipping away. His daylight appearance was scary to his enemies in that it showed his obsessive fury for all to see. But I think it hurt him because it removed a bit of his mystery. If he was playing up his injuries, he wasn't playing them up that much; now the word on the street is that Omar's in bad shape, and since that impression is true, it's bad for Omar.

Matt Zoller Seitz said...

Ben Livant: "But give it up folks - especially every one of you daddies (any mommies wired on The Wire?) who ever read the book to your own little kids - the real power is coming from the book itself."

Right on.

I have a similar reaction when a movie or TV character quotes a poem or sings a song that I happen to adore. The thing being quoted is doing much of the emotional heavy lifting. Not that there's anything wrong with that -- being able to identify common pop culture touchstones that really matter to people is an art in itself.

itzik basman said...

A few mostly incidental comments on the main synopsis:

1. I don’t have any problem with the opening scene reprising the technology. It’s brief; it’s not talking down to anyone; and I a luddite of the first order, still don’t understand what technically they are doing except that they can catch images, and somehow can call Templeton in a way that lets the police listen in. If somebody took a couple of minutes to explain what they are doing so that a 4 year old could understand it, that would be ok with me.


2. I don’t see any evidence for the claim that “for every three people who accept McNulty’s scam at face value, there’s going to be at least one who can immediately tell that things don’t add up.”
Phelan’s wisecrack about the governor needing an alibi does not, to me, support that claim or "remind" me of it.



3. Isn’t Davis by mispronouncing "Pro-mee-thus" and “Uh-silly-us”, trying to maintain his image as a man of his people, and someone not too hoity toity. I thought that the reason the judge was tough on the ambit of allowable questioning in the trial was Bond’s decision to try the case under state law for his own glory and advancement rather than let the feds have it. Isn’t that the reason the case was “ultra-tight” ?


4.I saw no sign that McNulty might arouse suspicion by not appearing troubled by the case he’s supposedly investigating. And he seems paradoxically happy that he is able to throw good resources at the investigations of real cases while troubled that things might unravel out of control. But I got a sense of foreboding at to that unravelling in his cocky assurance to Lester that they would not get caught and that no one would complain. His power to dole out police resources does indeed seem to go to his head.

5. I think a tension is building as to whether Bunk, who is now quite alienated from McNulty, will in some sense rat him out, or continue to keep quiet keep in frustrated loyalty. But it is not clear to me that Bunk is intent on McNulty getting punished for his scam.

6. Really small point, I missed where Kima was “under the influence” when trying to assemble the furniture. I saw no sign of hr drinking anything.

7. The last scene was beautiful and moving and thematically resonant. At the same time as you say good night to the moon and the stars and to all a good night, you will in The Wire's world being saying good night to the hoopers and scammers and hustlers and the popo. I saw Clockers a long time ago and did not remember a similar scene in it. Here, I say, the scene gets its power from itself in the context of the epsiode and the the entire series, and not from external referents.

Generally, thanks for the helpful synopsis

Itzik Basman

Anonymous said...

Dominic West talks about directing "Took" here: http://www.tvguide.com/news/wire-dominic-west/080215-05

Matt Zoller Seitz said...

That Dominic West interview in clickable form.

Matt Zoller Seitz said...

Interesting that West says the encounter between Omar and the corner kids was supposed to be shot at night but got shifted to daylight due to scheduling issues. If it were set at night, Omar would seem more menacing, less vulnerable, even with the crutch.

Andrew said...

Yeah, this seems like one of those happy accidents. If it were set at night, it still would've conveyed Omar's wounded, desperate state. He certainly didn't come off as calm and controlled in his previous encounters with Rick, the SUV folk, and Savino. But setting it in the day time makes the escalation of succeeding encounter more clear. He goes from threatening someone to wounding someone to killing someone to threatening kids in broad daylight.

It's also interesting that West confirms that Omar was just using the crutch to make him look more diminutive so that the kids wouldn't notice him until he was close.

itzik basman said...

"But setting it in the day time makes the escalation of succeeding encounter more clear. He goes from threatening someone to wounding someone to killing someone to threatening kids in broad daylight."

Did he threaten the kids?

And even if he did, is this escalation--killing to threatening?

Anonymous said...

I thought West's take on the scene was really interesting and clashed with my gut reaction to it. I felt when I saw it that it was, in a way, escalation of Omar's increasingly desperate situation. I thought that the scene was a really, really painful way of showing us how far Omar continues to fall. His dependence on the crutch seemed real, and I thought it was an indication that his untreated leg injury was getting worse. And he did threaten the kids, but what truly 'escalated' the scene for me was Omar's not-so-subtle lecherous attitude towards Mike. In fact, as he looked at Mike when they were sitting down I thought for one horrible moment that he was going to do more than just call him 'sweet thing' (or something like that, I can't remember exactly what he said).
So anyway, its just interesting that I thought that everything in the scene was carefully done to show us how far down Omar's obsession with Marlo had taken him. But it turns out, according to West, shooting during the day was done out of necessity and the crutch was a bit of a prop. Go figure.

itzik basman said...

Anonymous said... 2/16/2008 12:47 PM:

Really astute post that helps me see that secne in a more layered way. I completely over looked the homeoerotic angle, but which seems there for sure now that you mention it.

I'll have to look at it again because I still I canot recall any ostensible threat, though there is great (after the fact) tension in Michaels' realization of how proximate to danger he is. To me Omar was just conveying a message to Marlo through the corner kids, and to go from killing Savino (sp?) to that does not seem like escalation to me.

My original thought was that the crutch--which he did not use when he killed Savino--was just to relay to Marlo by word of mouth that he is worse off than he really is. But the homeless disguise thing West mentions makes sense, of course.

Anonymous said...

"1. I don’t have any problem with the opening scene reprising the technology. It’s brief; it’s not talking down to anyone; and I a luddite of the first order, still don’t understand what technically they are doing except that they can catch images, and somehow can call Templeton in a way that lets the police listen in. If somebody took a couple of minutes to explain what they are doing so that a 4 year old could understand it, that would be ok with me."

That first scene didn't reprise anything; it offered something new and additional.

In the earlier expository scene, Freamon explains how they will use a "false" wiretap of a serial killers cellphone (they will twist the newspaper's account of the call coming from a payphone, using instead, marlo's cell number, in the court paperwork) to obtain a real wiretap on marlo's cell.

In the scene at the beginning of the current episode, Freamon is explaining to McNulty how they will use electronic "spoofing" technology so that Marlo's cellphone number falsely shows up on the wiretap monitoring equipment in front of Det. Holley -- even though they are not making the call from Marlo's cellphone, but from the utility closet in the homicide unit. And Sydnor is down at the harborfront with a cellphone -- any cellphone -- that they have "spoofed" to resemble the same digital configuration as the supposed serial killer's cellphone. (Because cellphones, with batteries on or uninhibited by metallic wrappers or such can be monitored by GPS, which would quickly bring the police.)

It's complicated, I know. No wonder it makes McNulty's head hurt.

itzik basman said...

Anonymous said... 2/16/2008 1:43 PM

Thanks anonymous, that helps some. But I have to take a nap now, I have such a headache.

itzik basman said...

True story: circumstances have me baby sitting my brilliant 3 year old grand son tonight, who is sleeping over. So I tried the "good night moon..." thing with him, just for fun. But "popo" too quickly became "poo poo" and all was, alas, lost in a mass of giggling by both us.

Nomi Lubin said...

A small thing, but it strikes me as just too clever and convoluted for Clay Davis to purposely be mispronouncing Prometheus and Aeschylus. Doesn't quite make sense; his intended audience presumably would be unlikely too know the names anyway, so who would he be mispronouncing them for? Am I missing something?

barbara74 said...

For the mommy/daddy comment: Yes sir, there are women watching The Wire, who have seen every episode at least twice, who spend the time between episodes on numerous blogs dissecting what we just saw, and who are sad that it is all coming to an end in just a few weeks.

Simon Crowe said...

In the scene in which Davis protrays himself as an urban Robin Hood on the stand, couldn't the prosecutors have come back with some evidence to challenge what he was doing with the money in question? Not having the evidence is one thing, not being prepared is another. I'm thinking something along the lines of "How can you afford to do X when you only make X as a Senator?" The celebratory reaction of the racially diverse crowd felt dated (and a little condescending) by 10 or 15 years to me. We're a lot more savvy about public corruption than we used to be.

The reason that the newspaper scenes don't quite come off is that budget cuts and media conglomeration don't have anything to do with a reporter who makes up stories. Would Scott behave any differently if he worked for the NY Times?