Just
read an interesting article by Rolling Stones writer Chuck Klosterman in which
he stepped out on a limb and chose his favourite television program from the
big four. The big four is the agreed upon most popular television series
from the last ten years with two HBO series: “The Wire” and “The Sopranos” and
two AMC: “Mad Men” and “Breaking Bad” being named. The winner in Chuck’s eyes –
drum roll please... - “Breaking Bad.” A worthy show, but the best of the
bunch?... I don’t think so.
As AMC
and HBO each had two shows in some ways this debate comes down to a comparison
of the networks themselves. HBO goes, with some notable exceptions – think
“True Blood”, for realism. They do this on a scale that has never been seen before on
television. AMC on the other hand creates stylized entertainment for adults,
not to say there isn’t realism... but more television “realism” with
cliff-hangers, sometimes even cliff-hangers at commercial breaks. Placing
your allegiance to one of the networks begs the question – is your core
interest in watching television/films to escape reality, or learn more about
it? If you answer is to escape it – AMC is your best bet, if you want to learn
more about it HBO would be your choice. Me – I’ve always wanted to learn more about
reality from the media I consume. So with that in mind, there is no show that
delves deeper into the murk of life quite like “The Wire” my choice for the
best of the four series. Morality and reality becomes skewed when it’s
presented through a single character exclusively - really how many
things can happen to one person? I’ve used this thought before to criticize
shows, but there is an inventive way around this problem a tactic “The Wire”
used brilliantly! More on that in a little bit.
First, I
want to take a quick look at the protagonist of each of the big four.
“Breaking
Bad” is about Walter White an underemployed, underappreciated, and
underachieving Chemistry PHD who becomes a meth cook. A common direction for
brilliant under achievers to go right...? Walter’s rationale for this seemingly
irredeemable choice is that after finding out he is terminally ill he wants to
look after his family financially when he is gone. What is intriguing
about the show is that what starts out as a fish out of water, quasi comedy
morphs to something much more sinister. This change of tone and pathos in the
show is something I really like about it. Eventually the question is begged, as
Walter’s health scare is averted, does he really want to stop what he is doing,
or is he starting to like the power and respect he is getting from doing it?
As Chuck brought up in his article, the question being asked is whether
someone fundamentally is good or bad, or does each of us using our free will decide
in any given moment to do good or bad things?
Extorting,
robbing and killing... all in a day’s work for the Soprano crew. “The Sopranos”
was an amazing show that revolutionized the gangster genre... humanized it.
Tony Soprano is the patriarch of his own family and the crime family he
runs. At turns he is ruthless and others enduring - he confesses his inner
feelings to a psychiatrist for god sakes! He does horrible things, but shows
such affection at other times and genuinely cares about his family. Still though
is there a tipping point on some cosmic scale where the sheer horror and volume
of evil you have done nullifies all good you do as well?
Definitely
the most stylish series of the litter “Mad Men” looks at Madison Avenue
advertising executive Donald Draper as he boozes, womanizes, and creates
brilliant advertising in 1960’s New York City. This is an era drama where men
were men and women were – well... under the men. These boys drink at lunch, and
any other time they feel like it, objectify their secretaries and enjoy self
indulgence as their simple right. In terms of the morality of the characters,
especially Don, they get a pass because the show seems to imply that this is
just how it was back then. For this reason, and the simplicity of that explanation, Mad Men is my least favourite of the big four. Still a great show though just has the least depth of the bunch.
“The
Wire” is a Dickensian morality tale based in crime infested Baltimore.
What sets “The Wire” apart from the other worthy shows is that rather than
centering on one lead character, the lead character is the city itself. This is what I aluded to earlier, an entire city can never run out of intriguing, plausible story lines unlike a single character. Each of
the five planned seasons, focuses on another of Baltimore’s civil institutions
giving a kaleidoscopic view of the city from its lowliest heroin addicts right up to its
mayor. Jean Jacques Rousseau's philosophy is on parade as the show implies that immorality is derived most from the dysfunctions of society as opposed to the
dysfunctions of human nature. “The Wire” doesn’t make it that easy there is
good in drug dealers and bad in police men. What is shown are the infinite
shades of grey that define real life. Unlike Walter White we don’t choose to
go from black or white; or Tony Soprano choose black for everyone else and
white for our family; or Donald Draper get a pass because of the era were from;
rather as the Wire shows we all are in a grey world of nihilistic morals that in reality
is less definite then we comfortably would like to believe.
All these
shows are brilliant, and if you have the chance please watch them. “Breaking Bad”
is in its final season right now and its exciting watching week to week. “Mad Men”
was renewed for another season and a great watch. Still though, “The Wire” is
finished and as one lover of film I say – it stands as a finished product to me as the greatest piece
of visual media, film or television, ever created. There is enough character,
narrative, and social philosophy ramped into this show for unlimited viewing. I
have gone through the series twice already and I say to anyone out there to
meet me half way... you won’t regret it. Apologies to Chuck, but “The Wire” has
my vote as king of the big four. What do you think?
