Where's the Music?

Within 5 minutes of watching your first episode of the Wire you'll certainly notice one thing, the silence.  Unlike most television shows which play background music to set the tone of a scene, the Wire only plays music during the opening/closing credits.  While it might seem that this silence would take away from the drama of the episode, or make the show's direction harder to follow, the lack of music actually serves to allow the tone to reveal itself.  By removing background music from the editing process, there is a greater need for strong dialogue and good acting, so that the audience is still able to correctly interpret the episode's theme.  The characters' words, and even their most subtle actions thereby become essential to the plot.  The viewer is required to study the character more closely, and to familiarize themselves enough with the characters' personalities so that background music would be superfluous.  Obviously not all television programs could survive with such raw production, I believe that the Wire's exceptional writing/casting develops the show's plot with no sound other than that of the street.  

The Wire and the Gray Area of Police Work

In typical depictions of Police work in television and film, we as viewers are confined to a universe of black and white; good cops versus bad cops, morality versus corruption.  The ethically upright Officer risks his job and life in order to expose the misconduct of his fellow Officers in protecting the integrity of his  destined profession.  The corruption of his fellow Officers is driven by greed and societal apathy, existing as part of an underground Police conspiracy of vast economic wealth.  However, the moral vacuum of this universe neglects the realities of both law enforcement, and human nature.
 
HBO's the Wire succeeds in addressing Police and criminals as being of being on opposite sides of the law, while sharing the same pains frustrations of life.  The Police on the Wire do not fit the mold of the "cop in shining armor," as they typically commit acts of minor corruption and outright violations of the constitution in their quest for justice.  Their misconduct however, is forgiven due to their sense of duty and commitment to justice....or is it?  By showing the Police struggling with the political red tape of the legal system and increasingly menial nature of their profession, coupled with the tribulations they face in their personal lives, the audience is trained to accept this "corruption"; to view these Police as simply succumbing to their human nature.  This is not to say that every Police Officer depicted on the Wire is corrupt, but the fashion in which they are portrayed places significant emphasis on the politics and bureaucracy of law enforcement; thereby excusing misconduct by Officers as necessary to achieving their ultimate goal.      

Sherlock Holmes in the Cash Cab

One of the most interesting aspects of CSI is the consideration the writers take for their audience's ignorance.  An episode begins with the illusive crime, in which the perpetrator and motive are unknown.  Then beginning with the investigators initial tour of the crime scene and concluding in the interrogation room, they begin to reveal the what was once unknown.  Information is revealed to the audience in three ways:

First are the specifics of the crime itself.  This is typically revealed through the investigators analysis of the crime scene and the subsequent experiments on the evidence.  Through this, they reveal exactly what caused the homicide, and how it was executed.  Although in reality, their theories could be held as pure speculation subjective to further investigation, the audience is trained to accept the destectives' telepathy as fact, without further question.  However, this still leaves the audience confused, as they are still ignorant to the rationale of the investigators' theories, and the nature/identity of the criminal in question, the writers proceed with their next method of educating the viewers. 

Second is the knowledge necessary to understand the crime. As the vast majority of CSI's viewers are not trained in forensic analysis, nor are they educated in the specifics of sharks, vampirism, tea party politics, etc., the audience learns this necessary information through the characters' everyday conversation.  While it might appear that a casual conversation between the characters regarding the history of vampires, or keeping sharks in captivity is designed as simple dialogue, it actually serves a more functional purpose.  These conversations are intended to supply the audience with the necessary information to understand what the investigators are thinking, and why.  By bestowing the viewers with these tidbits of information, they are placed on an equal level of intelligence as the investigators, and are better able to follow the investigation and formulate theories.  But once again, the nature of the criminal still remains a mystery.

In the third component of analyzing the crime, the writers must reveal the criminal.  This is done in the interrogation.  The specifics of the interrogation room are best explained in my previous blog but here are the key points.  When interrogating a suspect, the investigators/audience will either learn that they are the suspected criminal, or they will reveal information that will lead to the actual killer.  Regardless of whom the true mastermind is, their motive is revealed here.  Sometimes they narrate their intentions to the investigators, and sometimes the investigators narrate the motive to them as they exercise their 5th Amendment rights, but the interrogation room is where we meet the criminal, and we learn his/her true character.

CSI acts as both a mystery, and a trivia show.  We are invited to join in the investigation of a murder, and along the way we are provided with investigators and Discovery Channel buffs, whose function is to supply us with the information necessary for the suburban housewife and geriatric grandfather can understand the complexities of forensic analysis and crime scene investigation.

The Interrogation Room

      After watching a recent episode of CSI, it was brought to my attention how serious of a role the interrogation segments play.  Although the first half of an episode is typically devoted to the insciting incident and subsequent investigation, the investigators typically enter the interrogation room without all the pieces of the puzzle.  Naturally if they were able to completely solve the crime without interviewing suspects, there would be no need for the dramatic interrogation scene, but luckily, the characters' investigation abilities fall just short of clairvoyance to allow for that dramatic interrogation scene.  Whether the suspect being interrogated is guilt or not, they're interview is essential in order to uncover the missing piece that will resolve the episode's conflict, whether that be a literal criminal, or the equally dangerous character's inner demons.  Within the confines of the interrogation room, the jumbled story is pieced together so that the audience gains a sense of resolution; maybe the team catches a criminal, maybe a character regains their confidence, or maybe they put Justin Bieber in prison, the audience is satisfied regardless.

Go Back to Middle Earth

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/02/movies/02hobbit.html?_r=1&bl


While reading Michael Cieply's movie blog for the New York Times this weekend I came across a surprising and disturbing fact, as the blog's title said "Deal Near for ‘Hobbit’ Films in 3-D", my eyes immediately shot to my Collector's edition Lord of the Rings box set sitting on my DVD shelf, now worthless and incomplete.  I saw each of the Lord of the Rings films in trailer and found them to be stunning.  However, I have only seen each of the three films once and was not planning to watch them again for quite awhile, not because I did not enjoy them, but because the premise was difficult to remain engaged with for the very long time required to screen the whole movie.  I thought the script was excellent, the acting was top-notch, and the visualization of the classic epic to be a great tribute to J.R.R. Tolken's books.  But when discussing this famous trilogy I always come across several common frustrations among viewers:


1) The storyline for each film is essentially: walk, group divides in two, epic battle scene.  Obviously this is an oversimplification of such a film but it remains true.  While there are other elements of the plot of both drama and adventure, they exist in between these elements of the storyline.


2) The Middle-Earth accent is annoying and bothersome.  While it may not bother some, I know I have a strong group of followers who believe the worst part of the Lord of the Rings films was Elijah Wood, I don't know if its his voice or overall lack of acting ability, but I think Samuel L. Jackson could would have played a better Frodo.


3)  We're just kinda sick of Middle Earth.  No offense to Peter Jackson, for the most part I enjoyed the films and I'm sorry that King Kong flopped, but that's no reason to go running back to the same formula.


While I understand the obvious financial motivation for MGM, Warner, and New Line to pursue making the Hobbit into a film franchise, I think it stands as a testament to the current state of the film industry.  Rather than pursue new material and attempt to target a new audience with different imagination, they would rather stick to the formula and squeeze the cash cow for every last available dollar.  One of my biggest pet-peeves of the film industry is the tendency to overuse and exploit the most original, and often most successful films.  I was not a fan of the new Star Wars films, I disliked the second and third installments of the Matrix trilogy, I hated the Pirates of the Caribbean sequels, and the fact that Jason Vorhees and Freddy Kruger are still alive is just an insult to movie goers.  Nonetheless, while I'm sure the Hobbit will be a box office success and set numerous records, I'm also sure it will fall face-first in delivering the initial experience and will only serve to tarnish the audience's memories of their time in Middle Earth.