I've been impressed by how well written and acted the smart, tight dialog is in this show and performances from the all-star cast. But for me it doesn't even come close to resembling The Wire, which used a stylistically long form visual narrative to expose the injustices and struggles among the working classes of Baltimore as they waged their daily battles against an oppressive and hopelessly corrupt system.
City on a Hill doesn't appear to set its sights that high. It doesn't aim to be an ubiquitous social and political commentary on Boston the way The Wire was with Baltimore. It doesn't deploy the type of long form exposition unique to The Wire and that worked so well for David Simon. I read Affleck quoted in the NY Times saying he plans to feature a different neighborhood of Boston with each upcoming season, which is probably what drew the immediate comparisons to The Wire. But in my opinion, it's misplaced and unfair to CoaH. The Wire had a way of conveying the gritty monotony of life among the blue collars and streets of Baltimore in a richly detailed and engrossing tapestry. City on a Hill doesn't even strive for that, it's more character driven. The show doesn't really deep dive into revealing to us the neighborhood of Boston being featured this season with the licentious reverend played by Gilliam. Sure we get some sense of the internal community politics, but we don't get a deep sense of what life's like for the average folk of the neighborhood featured each season in The Wire. I'm not even sure what that neighborhood even looks like, the shots have been sparse, maybe this is a problem from having to recreate all the sets in NY.
For me, CoaH has been worth watching because Bacon and Hodge and Tucker have been worth watching. The city of Boston and its culture have been secondary to the characters driving the show whereas Baltimore was so in-your-face in Simon's seminal feature.
reply
share