Dark Blue: The Madness Continues
I watched episode three of TNT’s Dark Blue last night and the show continues to be driven by the absurd and reprehensible notion that the world would be a better place if there were more rogue unaccountable police units. In this episode, our heros first try to entrap an innocent man. Then when that fails, as a fallback plan they just frame him instead. And, weirdly, they refer to this framing as “entrapment” and acknowledge that it kinda sorta might involve crossing a line, as if to obscure the fact that their initial plan was also illegal. Then, using the innocent man as a confederate, they successfully infiltrate some drug organization where a dude gets arrested but the innocent man is killed.
This is all acknowledged as a harrowing weekend at the office, but nobody seems to notice that effect police work is supposed to reduce, not increase, the quantity of people killed.
Specifics of the show aside, what’s totally missing from this conception of police work is any sense that there’s an actual purpose to the enterprise. Instead, you have a certain number of criminals and you have some cops so the cops are supposed to catch criminals. But nobody says at the end of the episode “now that we’ve arrested this guy there will be no more cocaine in Los Angeles.” Because that would be stupid. But then what are they trying to accomplish? Note that it’s not impossible for drug enforcement to accomplish something worthwhile. Open air drug markets are a huge nuisance for people who live in the neighborhood, and it’s possible to shut them down for good and make everyone’s life better. Or you can target enforcement on gangs that are being violent, or employing kids. But you need some kind of coherent theory about what the problem is in your community and how it is that law enforcement activity is going to make the problem better.
34 Responses to “Dark Blue: The Madness Continues”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
July 31st, 2009 at 5:29 pm
you need some kind of coherent theory about what the problem is in your community and how it is that law enforcement activity is going to make the problem better.
The problem: there are too many uppity undesirables.
How law enforcement activity is going to make the problem better: torture and kill enough of them to make the others cower in fear.
July 31st, 2009 at 5:36 pm
That is it. There are bad people in the world and even if you have to be a little bad for a while yourself or have some innocent people die in the process, so long as in the end you have eliminated some of the bad people, you are nearer to utopia.
July 31st, 2009 at 5:40 pm
Then again, it could just be a TV show.
July 31st, 2009 at 5:42 pm
This show is dedicated to the premise that police work’s purpose is to allow Dylan McDermott to glower darkly on near-continual basis.
July 31st, 2009 at 5:47 pm
This is a ubiquitous disease of American culture. Everyone gets worked up over the racial dimensions of the Gates arrest but seemingly lost in the noise is the infuriating and wrong notion that officers can legally arrest you if you “disrespect” them. Then there’s 24 with all its ticking timebomb bullshit. There’s L.A. Confidential. There’s warrantless wiretapping and all the abuses of the Bush administration now perpetuated in disconcerting degree by the Obama administration. There’s all the frustration directed at the ACLU for defending the rights of unpopular people.
The common factor: there’s altogether too much tolerance for procedural wrongs if the outcome (at least in the case reported) seems substantively correct. But process is the foundation on which a rule of law is built, and the cases reported are reported because they are exceptional. The effect is a system calibrated to handle bizarre extremes with almost no thought to the day-to-day.
It’s inevitable, though. The media selects for extremes, and humans are really bad at dispassionate averaging; the extremes disproportionately shove our impressions of reality. A plane crashes and it’s a vivid news story, and suddenly there’s the political will to impose a jackbooted police state inside every airport. A bomb blows up or a building falls down and suddenly every political reaction seems designed as though ticking timebomb scenarios were the rule instead of the vanishingly rare exception. Until we can fix all the bugs in the human psyche, there’s nothing to be done but sigh sadly and try to think about something else.
July 31st, 2009 at 5:59 pm
torture and kill enough of them to make the others cower in fear.
Almost right from the lips of John Forsythe’s character “…In Justice For All”. I realize Marshall (#1) isn’t advocating this approach. Those that *do* miss the point that for a government to have any support from the governed at all, individuals need it to react to them in a predictable way.
Another problem with the story line, beyond the actions of the police, is that the joe q. public they entrap doesn’t elect to step out of the game. Ie. go ahead and jail me, and hope that the attorneys aren’t as twisted as these cops.
July 31st, 2009 at 5:59 pm
This show is dedicated to the premise that police work’s purpose is to allow Dylan McDermott to glower darkly on near-continual basis.
And Matt’s complaints about a TV show’s inconsistencies are besides the point, it’s just an excuse for him to post the photo in my opinon.
July 31st, 2009 at 6:01 pm
“Until we can fix all the bugs in the human psyche, there’s nothing to be done but sigh sadly and try to think about something else.”
Well, we could decide to subscribe to HBO instead of watching crappy ad supported teevee…
July 31st, 2009 at 6:07 pm
That’s true, Petey, but it won’t exempt you from the police state at the airport, or give you rights when a cop doesn’t like you, or prevent the government from illegally wiretapping you, etc.
July 31st, 2009 at 6:08 pm
I’ve often thought about this phenomenon, which is not new. If you ever watched “French Connection” or the other police dramas from the late ’60s and early ’70s, they were full of this vigilante/rogue cop stuff. I love one scene where Gene Hackman and his partner walk up to some black guy for questioning, and when he demurs they just start beating the crap out of him.
Wonder what parallels between that time and ours are significant?
July 31st, 2009 at 6:12 pm
At least that’s just ordinary crap on a low rent channel, just stop watching it. But they’re pikers I think, a real piece of “I’d like to do experiments on whoever thinks this is ‘deep’ to find out how they got this way” crap like the movie ‘American Beauty’ winning an Oscar, that’s something.
July 31st, 2009 at 6:14 pm
“That’s true, Petey, but it won’t exempt you from the police state at the airport, or give you rights when a cop doesn’t like you, or prevent the government from illegally wiretapping you, etc.”
God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change , the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.
July 31st, 2009 at 6:24 pm
ROYAL PAINS
Never watched Dark Blue, but ROYAL PAINS, that is a Royal Pain in the Backside, same plot, same place, same actors, in the Hamptons, change the patient symptoms, and its Dr. Who Cares on Steroids.
(BBC) The British Broadcasting Company has far more interesting programing, across the board Dr. Who, Torchwood, Prime Evil, and Almost Human.
Canadan Made (SYFY): Burn Notice, Leverage, Warehouse 13, Eurika.
Worse Channel on Television: (ABC) All Barrack Channel, for its one side Democratic Position, if they would say NO! Not unless you give the others Channels the opportunity to interview you, to all Democratics. The other half of the (DC/544) Criminals will say Fox, but they do give equal attack time to both sides. Best Channel for Independents (BBC) The British Broadcasting Company, they have no dog in this fight.
July 31st, 2009 at 6:38 pm
Go TRIATHLON Go!
I enjoy TNT as an “about to fall asleep, let me flip on TNT…” channel, but I prefer their “chick” crime shows (even though I don’t have any Apple products besides IPod).
July 31st, 2009 at 6:46 pm
“But you need some kind of coherent theory about what the problem is in your community and how it is that law enforcement activity is going to make the problem better.”
But that’s some extremely high-grade thinking that very few people can actually do. It’s so difficult that highly paid and at least superficially educated Hollywood scriptwriters are regularly unable to perform at that level of thinking.
Yes, Fritz Lang is able to do this in “M” and “The Testament of Dr. Mabuse”; Phil Karlson is able to do this in “The Phenix City Story” and David Simon was able to do this in “The Wire” but these are extremely rare exceptions.
July 31st, 2009 at 6:51 pm
reprehensible notion that the world would be a better place if there were more rogue unaccountable police units.
….as Minneapolis has learned recently.
July 31st, 2009 at 8:12 pm
If they really wanted to do a show on rogue cops, they should do it in Bangkok. They’d have to tone down the reality a little bit to make the TV show believable, but that’s doable. Not only are the Bangkok police force the most likely people to arrest you for drugs, they control the entire drug market as well. It isn’t an issue of eradicating the drug market, it’s about eliminating the competition. What to hire someone for a clean hit? Hire a Bangkok cop. He’ll push some guy off the top of a parking garage, and the he’ll be the first cop on the scene to untie the guy’s hands and rule it a suicide. That pretty much eliminates any legal risks. So how well does the rogue cop method of policing work? Well, there isn’t a city in America as dangerous as Bangkok. So, probably not so well. But in Bangkok, at least the crime is well organized. Stay away from smuggling drugs, arms, people, gems, antiquities, or money. Do that, and you won’t step on anyone’s toes. Step on a toe however, and things go really bad really quick.
July 31st, 2009 at 8:26 pm
What #3 & #4 said.
Dude, it’s just a TV shows pitched and made in the Land-That-Originality-Forgot, aka Hollywood.
But that’s some extremely high-grade thinking that very few people can actually do. It’s so difficult that highly paid and at least superficially educated Hollywood scriptwriters are regularly unable to perform at that level of thinking.
Being once an aspiring but “superficially educated Hollywood scriptwriter” who now practices Federal Appellate Law full-time (not bad for being superficially educated), I do feel obliged at times as to how Hollywood works.
First and foremost Hollywood is a business not unlike a commodities futures exchange, but much less ability to hedge. Therefore executives, who are keen on keeping their jobs, tend to be very conservative in producing a product whose success is entirely driven on the ever-changing whims of fashion and popular taste. So they look to the recent past as to what is sucessful and they ask writers, many of whom graduated from the same august institution of higher learning that Matt graduated from and could recite entire pages from Proust, word for word, to produce a show that they believe will work based upon past performance. Said writers might even pitch a Wire type drama, but said executives, being cautious, will say:
“I know The Wire is considered a ‘great show’ by critics and egghead types, but did you know that HBO lost money on it? I need shows that make money. How about a ‘dark’, edgy police procedural, kinda like “The Shield”, but don’t make it too dark, because The City of LA and the LAPD and Police Protective League were not that happy with The Shield, and we need to make this show in L.A., and it needs to be a hit off the bat (you have one, maybe two weeks to show adeqaute numbers, or else we are not renewing you), so lets start big with the action and not be so judgmental of the Police, then, in season two or three, if you are lucky, you can start getting all ethical and stuff, because the City will be so happy that production is staying in the Coty and the LAPD and the PPL will have other things to worry about.”
Not saying that this conversation when down like this, but that’s how things get made in Hollywood. There are so amny extraneous factors to consider, and so much institutional inertia, think of it as like passing comprehensive health care reform. It’s a miracle anything gets made.
** And although I have not seen the show, for what I’ve read about it in the comments, it looks like it’s setting itself up for a The Shield-like ethical twist.
July 31st, 2009 at 8:41 pm
This is a poorly written, trite and for me unwatchable show…
July 31st, 2009 at 9:02 pm
Answer:
Kill Your Television
July 31st, 2009 at 10:11 pm
Re: The problem: there are too many uppity undesirables.
Yes, Marshall, I happen to think that pimps, drug dealers, and gangs are undesirable in a civilized society, and the duty of the police is to try and suppress them. Evidently the postmodernist Yglesian nihilists feel differently. In their world it’s all ‘free to be you and me, man’, and a cocaine dealer is no different in moral merit than a potato farmer.
July 31st, 2009 at 10:18 pm
geez, matt, i’d hate to hear what you think about psych.
July 31st, 2009 at 10:27 pm
If Mr. Yglesias ever writes a crime drama, the police will probably end crime by sitting down and singing Kum-Ba-Yah with the rapists and drug dealers.
I’d hate to hear what Yglesias thinks of the Boondock Saints.
July 31st, 2009 at 10:49 pm
You can move open air drug markets, but not really shut them down. As soon as you shut it down in one area, it reopens in another. In my neighborhood, you do your time, bitch to the police, call 911 each time you hear gunshots, and then the cops take action, and the dealers move to a different intersection. You declare victory, and hope they’re gone for at least a decade.
July 31st, 2009 at 10:58 pm
FYI: There was a really interesting article on the type of approach to crime mentioned by Yglesias in the 6/22 issue of the New Yorker: DON’T SHOOT by John Seabrook. It’s focus was on how such an approach has apparently worked quite well in Cincinnati (and elsewhere). I can’t find an ungated version online but check it out if you can.
August 1st, 2009 at 12:46 am
How about the Dirty Harry movies?
August 1st, 2009 at 12:54 am
Hector Says:
July 31st, 2009 at 10:27 pm
I’d hate to hear what Yglesias thinks of the Boondock Saints.
I would guess that it is kind of a neat idea and there are some cool parts, but for the most part the execution is goofy and the dialogue is ridiculous.
I want to see a movie or a show about the bystanders in these movies who get shot by all the gunfire or get their cars and apartments destroyed during car chases. It could be a procedural court room show too, just with the people suing the city or whatever.
August 1st, 2009 at 1:38 am
It’s like The Shield as rewritten by Sean Hannity.
August 1st, 2009 at 2:01 am
Pender – how do you interpret L.A Confidential as anything other than an operating indictment of police corruption?
August 1st, 2009 at 2:01 am
* operatic.
August 1st, 2009 at 3:05 am
Some people believe any sympathetic depiction of bad people is an endorsement for their bad acts. The “good” guys in LA Confidential do some awful things. The bad guys are just worse. Some people don’t distinguish between flawed characters and evil ones. The flawed characters are warped or manipulated by the pervasive corruption, but manage to redeem themselves somewhat.
The thing is, everybody is flawed. Put anyone in a situation of pervasive violence and corruption, and they will do awful things. A lot of people like to think they wouldn’t. I suppose a few would be right, but not many.
August 1st, 2009 at 8:56 am
Whats new? In Europe we have been getting episodes of “The Unit” in which the President of the US runs a counter-terrorism group completely outside the chain of command, and not answerable to any other authority but his.
Of course, the script shows the members of the Unit are always right in shoving aside due process, while their loyal (well, almost all the time) wives wait dewy-eyed for them at home.
One can see a regrettable, fascistic link to shows like this one.
August 1st, 2009 at 9:08 am
I really would be curious to see if someone could air a show which would incorporate all of Hector’s tics.
A time-traveling 14th century Crusader who finds himself battling sinister Hipsters yet who takes the time to teach sweet, sweet discipline to local families?
August 1st, 2009 at 10:47 am
Hector is way off base here.
Curbing open-air drug markets is about pragmatic policing; it has virtually relationship to Hectors “hipster” bogeyman.
Further, a standard I’d hold Hector to in particular, the ethics of cocaine and the ethics of alcohol are pretty well indistinguishable. The “hipster” call to legalize is at least as ethical as the current criminalization. Most of the social cost springs from that criminalization.