The Wire and Ghost Dog both offer depictions of racial ideologies in urban settings. However, The Wire seems to achieve this via a linear narrative, whereas Ghost Dog uses a much more nuanced avenue through which the audience arrives (or tries to) at the bigger picture.
The Wire's narrative is basic, even somewhat predictable. Although it can be read allegorically, its polyphonic nature doesn't allow for the audience to really connect or identify with any of the characters. (Granted, it is a series and not a movie, and I'm sure the audience engages more with the characters throughout the series.) I found its depiction of people living in lower socioeconomic conditions to be borderline stereotypical. And again, I understand how it can be perceived allegorically, but I have to admit that I was underwhelmed and felt it didn't reveal anything about our country or society from a perspective I haven't already entertained. I feel like this show attracts a general audience, and probably mostly people who will only take the show at face value and not appreciate its commentaries on the state of our country as a whole.
On the other hand, Ghost Dog's post-modern take on race and ideology was poetic. Through a more complex, albeit confusing at times, narrative structure, the audience is forced to engage with the film on the many layers it offers. We experience estrangement in the sense that we don't truly know the protagonist, his past, or his motivations. The culture he commits himself to is alienated, distant, and the gangsters' culture has the same "this doesn't fit here" vibe. It seems like all the characters miscommunicate on several levels: language, age difference, codes of honor, etc. The use of symbolism through animals, choice in music, and the inclusion of literature gives this film a texture that The Wire simply lacks. Ghost Dog caters to a more creative, artistic, and probably intellectual, audience who could ascertain the deeply symbolic messages of the film. There was an inherent "us" and "them" in the film. The gangsters felt that anyone who wasn't white was all the same. The "us" and "them" theme here is interesting because the audience is put into the position of the "them." We are curious about Ghost Dog and his complexities, but we are hesitant to trust him because of his profession and overall hazy aloofness. Normally the audience easily identifies with the protagonist, but in this film I hesitated. Why? Is this what the director wanted?
I also liked that this narrative focused on one very isolated, particular sequence to express a deeper meaning, a universal loneliness and isolation that could only be conveyed through the salient details.
I agree with your thoughts on the postmodern genre of Ghost Dog and your hesitancy to identify with the main protagonist. The alienation of him from the formal elements of the plot that you are talking about stands out to me as a feature that really forces the audience to think about what the movie is trying to 'say' about its culture. When you are talking about how The Wire doesn't entertain any new ideas about society aside from what you have already seen in other films, I wondered if this is maybe an issue of context as The Wire would have been fitting with its time and providing a reaction to the events that were happening alongside its production.
ReplyDeleteI think you put forward a really challenging point when you call the representations of the Wire "borderline stereotypical." The Wire self-consciously understands itself as a work of social criticism and advocacy for those it represents. It tries to both represent institutional failure in Baltimore and make these problems stand for larger "American" failings. This, of course, does not mean that it actually functions in this way. It may be a voyeuristic fantasy of violence, based on a stereotypical idea of "keeping it real," and given a moralistic or intellectual legitimation through it's pretense to social commentary. The idea of "realism" might be important to how we interpret the Wire in this sense: how comfortable or confident are we in the directors, writers, actors ability to show us what is "really" going on? What gives them the authority to comment? Is this authority earned? Do we trust their narration? (You do mention that seeing more of series might help here - I agree - I think part of what is difficult to convey about this series is the way the narrative transcends the police-gangster story through it's narrative arc. This doesn't mean that it ever gets beyond the problems that you note in this pilot.)
ReplyDelete